CAR_Public/080819.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 19, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 164

                             Headlines

AEROSMITH: Suit Over Canceled Hawaii Gig Granted Class Status
ARVINMERITOR INC: Unit Faces Conn. Suit Over Automotive Filters
AXIS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims in RICO Suit
BIOGEN IDEC: 1st Circuit Upholds Mass. Securities Suit Dismissal
BIOVAIL CORP: Court Approves $138MM Deal in N.Y. Securities Suit

CITY OF FARGO: Court Gives Traffic Fines Lawsuit Go Signal
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dismissed From "Lawrence" Lawsuit in Alabama
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Chronister" Matter
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Seeks Ill. Supreme Court Review of "Rix" Case
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Oklahoma

DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces California Lawsuit Over Insurance Rates
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Directors Face Lawsuit Over Brocade Proposal
GENENTECH INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Roche's Unsolicited Proposal
HERBALIFE INT'L: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Minton" Case
INDIANA: State Employees' Equal Pay Suit to Go to Trial Aug. 19

KELLY SERVICES: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
MGM MIRAGE: Preys Upon Alcoholics, California Lawsuit Claims
PAGEANTRY HOMES: Faces Nevada Suit Over Sale of Defective Homes
PAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Payout Is No Siren Call to Mount Class Suit
SOURCEFIRE: Oct. 17 Mediation Set for Md. Securities Fraud Suit

TELLABS: Appeals Court Remands Securities Suit to District Court
TELLABS INC: Oct. 20 Trial Scheduled for "Brieger" Lawsuit
TIME WARNER: Kansas City Resident Alleges Antitrust Violations
TRIARC COS: Dropped in Ohio Suit Over Wendy's Merger Agreement
TRIARC COS: Faces Suit in New York Over Wendy's Merger Agreement

UNICO INC: Krause Kalfayan Files Derivative Suit in California
VS HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Store Managers' Suit in Calif.
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Hip and Knee Replacements

* Video Guide on Resolving Disputes in Employment Cases Offered


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CIT GROUP: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
HUNTSMAN CORP: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Utah
KKR FINANCIAL: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
REDDY ICE: Brualdi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in New York



                            *********


AEROSMITH: Suit Over Canceled Hawaii Gig Granted Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court in Hawaii rules that a lawsuit filed
over the last-minute cancellation of an Aerosmith concert in
Maui can move ahead as a class action case, Alfred Branch Jr.
writes for Ticket News.

Brandee Faria, Esq., who is representing the concertgoers who
were denied a chance to see the band, told Ticket News that the
court agreed with her assessment that "it would be best for all
8,700-plus class members' claims to be resolved in one lawsuit,
thus it means that the case will either be resolved by trial or
settlement with compensation for all 8,700-plus class members."

The report recounts that Aerosmith had a concert scheduled for
September 26, 2007, in Maui, but canceled it allegedly to play a
more lucrative show in Chicago that same month.  The group
claimed that following the Chicago show it could not fly its
equipment to Maui in time for that show, but a few days later,
the group played a private show in Hawaii for employees of
Toyota, for which the band was reportedly paid about $1 million.
The band never rescheduled the canceled Maui show, and fans who
made travel and hotel arrangements on the island were out of
luck, which prompted the lawsuit.

Aerosmith opposed the plaintiffs' request for class action
status, which could make any amount in damages they would have
to pay if the case were ruled against them more significant, the
report points out.  The plaintiffs are seeking well in excess of
$1 million in damages.

"As for Plaintiffs' suggestion that greed led defendants to drop
Maui in lieu of Chicago, that is not an allegation of fact, it
is a conclusion," Aerosmith's lawyers wrote.  "More important,
it is a conclusion that has no legal significance because it is
economically irrational.  Plaintiffs allege the Moving
Defendants [Aerosmith] originally had three concerts scheduled
-- Chicago, Maui and the Toyota event in Oahu -- and then,
purportedly out of greed, eliminated Maui and performed two
concerts.  That makes no sense.  If Plaintiffs' allegations of
motive are correct, the only rational thing for the Moving
Defendants to have done would be to play all three concerts, not
reduce their revenues by playing just two."

According to Ticket News, the court later this month will set a
date for trial, and Ms. Faria will contact ticket buyers who
notified them that they can opt out of the class action lawsuit
if they so choose.

"The Defendants tried a typical defense tactic of trying to 'buy
out' the four named reps in order to make the case disappear,"
Ms. Faria told Ticket News, but did not elaborate on how much
the band offered.  "They all rejected the offer because it was
only made to them and not the rest of the class."


ARVINMERITOR INC: Unit Faces Conn. Suit Over Automotive Filters
---------------------------------------------------------------
A prior subsidiary of ArvinMeritor, Inc., is facing an antitrust
lawsuit in Connecticut over after-market automotive filters,
according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed the suit before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, on
March 31, 2008, alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including
a previous subsidiary of ArvinMeritor, engaged in a conspiracy
to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers for after-
market automotive filters.

This suit is a purported class action on behalf of the direct
purchasers of the defendants' filters.  Several parallel
purported class action suits, including those filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other
plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada.

The suit is "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc. v. Champion
Labortories, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00475," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet
Bond Arterton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Kerry R. Callahan, Esq. (krcallahan@uks.com)
           Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
           One State St., Po Box 231277
           Hartford, CT 06123-1277
           Phone: 860-548-2600


AXIS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims in RICO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit entitled "In
re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," which is pending
with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
which names U.S. insurance companies, including AXIS Capital
Holdings Ltd., as defendants, are appealing the dismissal of
certain claims in the case.

Filed on Aug. 1, 2005, the suit includes as defendants numerous
insurance brokers and insurance companies.  It generally alleges
antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
violation in connection with the payment of contingent
commissions and manipulation of insurance bids.  The suit seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the District Court granted, in part,
defendants' motions to dismiss the case and ordered the
plaintiffs to file supplemental pleadings setting forth
sufficient facts to allege their antitrust and RICO claims.
After the plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings, the
defendants renewed their dismissal motions.

On April 15, 2007, the District Court dismissed without
prejudice the plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, and granted
them 30 days to file another amended complaint and revised RICO
Statement and Statements of Particularity.

Thus, in May 2007, the plaintiffs filed:

        -- a Second Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action
           complaint,

        -- a Revised Particularized Statement Describing the
           Horizontal Conspiracies Alleged in the Second
           Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action
           Complaint, and

        -- a Third Amended Commercial Insurance Plaintiffs? RICO
           Case Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(B)(4).

On June 21, 2007, the defendants filed renewed motions to
dismiss.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the District Court dismissed with prejudice
the plaintiffs' antitrust and RICO claims and declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining state
law claims.

The plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, where their appeal is currently
pending, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1663," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Judge Faith S. Hochberg, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Thomas M. Louis, Esq. (tlouis@wellsmar.com)
          Wells Marble & Hurst, PLLC
          P.O. BOX 131
          JACKSON, MS 39205-0131
          Phone: 601-355-8321

          H. Alan Mccall, Esq.
          Stockwell Sievert
          P.O. Box 2900
          Lake Charles, LA 70601
          Phone: 337-436-9491

               - and -

          Ellen Meriwether, Esq. (emeriwether@millerfaucher.com)
          Miller Faucher & Cafferty, LLP
          One Logan Square, Suite 1700, 18TH & Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-864-2800

Representing the company is:

          William F. Clarke, Esq. (wclarke@skadden.com)
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meahter & Flom, LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6522
          Phone: 212-735-3000


BIOGEN IDEC: 1st Circuit Upholds Mass. Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has upheld the
dismissal of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit that
was filed against Biogen Idec Inc. over the 2005 stock drop that
resulted when the drugmaker temporarily yanked its multiple
sclerosis treatment from the market, the Standford Law School
Securities Class Action ClearingHouse reports.

On March 2, 2005, the company, former Executive Chairman William
H. Rastetter, and Chief Executive Officer James C. Mullen, were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit captioned
"Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's publicly traded securities between Feb. 18, 2004,
and Feb. 25, 2005.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the potentially serious side
effects of its product TYSABRI in order to gain accelerated
approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the
product's distribution and sale.  They assert that these
materially false and misleading statements harmed the purported
class by artificially inflating the company's stock price during
the purported class period and that company insiders benefited
personally from the inflated price by selling the company's
stock.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, as well as interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

Two similar suits were also filed subsequently:

      -- "Grill v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al." and
      -- "Lobel v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al."

The other purported class representatives brought these
additional suits on March 10, 2005, and April 21, 2005,
respectively, in the same court.  These suits have been
consolidated with the Brown case.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which, among other amendments to the allegations,
adds as defendants:

      -- Peter N. Kellogg, chief financial officer;

      -- William R. Rohn, former chief operating officer;

      -- Burt A. Adelman, executive vice president of Portfolio
         Strategy; and

      -- Thomas J. Bucknum, former general counsel.

On Sept. 14, 2007, the District Court entered an order allowing
the defendants' motions to dismiss the case.  On Sept. 28, 2007,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification of the Court's
order, in which they seek leave to amend their complaint.

In October 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  The plaintiffs
then filed their principal brief on appeal on Feb. 6, 2008
(Class Action Reporter, July 29, 2008).

Recently, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit denied the plaintiffs' appeal, finding they
had failed to show how company executives would have known about
the risks associated with the drug Tysabri well before
disclosing them to the public in February 2005.

"Defendants may have based their optimistic financial
projections on a broader market that includes Tysabri being used
with Avonex," Chief Judge Sandra Lynch wrote.  "But plaintiffs
have not raised a plausible inference that defendants knew at
the time these projections were made that Tysabri used with
Avonex was unsafe.  As a result, we cannot say that either
defendants' representations about Tysabri as a combination
therapy or the ensuing forecasts about market share were
misleading at the time they were made," the judge wrote.

The suit is "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-10400-RCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, Judge Reginald C. Lindsay, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. (shopkins@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 646-733-5768
          Fax: 212-273-4445

               - and -

          David Pastor, Esq. (dpastor@gilmanpastor.com)
          Gilman and Pastor, LLP
          60 State Street, 37th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-742-9700
          Fax: 617-742-9701

Representing the company is:

          James R. Carroll, Esq. (jcarroll@skadden.com)
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
          One Beacon Street, 31st Floor
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-573-4800
          Fax: 617-573-4822


BIOVAIL CORP: Court Approves $138MM Deal in N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerard E. Lynch of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved a $138-million settlement
in a securities class action lawsuit brought against Biovail
Corp. and awarded more than $22 million in attorneys' fees plus
almost $3 million for expenses, Standford Law School Securities
Class Action ClearingHouse reports.

The settlement is in connection with the consolidated case
captioned "In re Biovail Corporation Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 03-CV-8917 (GEL)," filed before the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The classes include all persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of Biovail Corporation on the New York Stock
Exchange or other U.S. stock exchanges or the Toronto Stock
Exchange or other Canadian stock exchanges during the period
from February 7, 2003, through and including March 2, 2004.

In May, Bernstein Litowitz and Milberg LLP announced the
proposed $138-million settlement of the securities class action
(Class Action Reporter, May 20, 2008).

"The settlement is approved as fair, reasonable and adequate,
and the class members and the parties are directed to consummate
the settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions of
the stipulation," Judge Lynch wrote in his judgment approving
the settlement.

In a separate order regarding the attorney's fees, Judge Lynch
wrote "plaintiffs' counsel are hereby awarded 16.0145% of the
gross settlement fund [$138 million], which sum the court finds
to be fair and reasonable, and $2,986,098.14 in reimbursement of
expenses."  Steven Singer, Esq., of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, lead counsel in the case, noted that the fees
were far less than the value of billable time.

In his order, Judge Lynch wrote "plaintiffs' counsel have
devoted over 94,000 hours, with a lodestar value of more than
$33.8 million."  The fees awarded -- $22.1 million plus expenses
-- are "less than plaintiffs' counsel's straight lodestar,"
according to the judge.

"The fees were very fair and actually low given the work done on
the case," Mr. Singer said Monday. "It's far less than our time
in the case, as the judge noted."

The fees will be shared by various firms who worked on the class
action including Milberg LLP, Labaton Sucharow LLP and others.

Deadline to file claims is on September 8, 2008.

More details regarding the Biovail Securities Suit Settlement
can be obtained from:

    http://www.BiovailSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com/

For more information, contact:

           In re Biovail Securities Litigation
           c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
           Claims  Administrator
           Post Office Box 24640
           West Palm Beach, FL 33416
           Phone: 877-465-5582


CITY OF FARGO: Court Gives Traffic Fines Lawsuit Go Signal
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Rodney Webb says a West Fargo woman can
continue her lawsuit against the city of Fargo over traffic
fines, Dickinson Press reports.

According to Dickinson Press, plaintiff Stephanie Sauby accused
the city of violating her rights by assessing higher traffic
fines than state law allows.

The city argued that the fines were not unconstitutional, and
asked Judge Webb to dismiss Ms. Sauby's lawsuit.

The report notes that in his recent ruling, Judge Webb dismissed
one of the counts against the city, but found enough evidence to
continue the case on two other counts.  Specifically, Judge Webb
threw out Ms. Sauby's claim of excessive fines but said she "has
successfully raised equal protection and due process claims."

Judge Webb, however, has not yet decided whether to grant Ms.
Sauby's case class action status, Dickinson Press relates.

According to the report, the city's lawyer, Stacy Tjon-Bossart,
Esq., did not return a phone message asking for comment.  Ms.
Sauby's attorney, Timothy Purdon, Esq., likewise has no comment.

The suit is "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-
RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
North Dakota, Judge Rodney S. Webb, presiding, with referral to
Judge Karen K. Klein.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dismissed From "Lawrence" Lawsuit in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc., was dismissed from the class-
action suit filed by uninsured individuals before the Circuit
Court of Barbour County, Alabama, Eufaula Division.

The suit was filed by Arleana Lawrence and Lisa Nichols against
Eufaula Community Hospital, Community Health Systems Inc., South
Baldwin Regional Medical Center, and Community Health Systems
Professional Services Corp.

The class action suit, captioned, "Arleana Lawrence and Robert
Hollins v. Lakeview Community Hospital and Community Health
Systems, Inc.," was brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Lakeview
Hospital or any of the company's other Alabama hospitals.

The plaintiffs allege that uninsured patients who do not qualify
for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably
high rates for services and materials and that the company use
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  They seek restitution
of overpayment, compensatory and other allowable damages and
injunctive relief.

In October 2005, the complaint was amended to eliminate one of
the named plaintiffs and to add Community Health's management
company subsidiary as a defendant.

In November 2005, the complaint was again amended to add another
plaintiff, Lisa Nichols and another defendant, the company's
hospital in Foley, Alabama -- South Baldwin Regional Medical
Center.

After a hearing held on June 13, 2007, the Circuit Court ruled
in favor of the plaintiffs' class action certification request.

On summary judgment, the Circuit Court dismissed the case
against Community Health Systems, Inc. only.  All other parties
remain, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- through
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Chronister" Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the purported class action lawsuit
"Chronister, et al. v. Granite City Illinois Hospital Company,
LLC d/b/aGateway Regional Medical Center," which was filed
before the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, and names
Community Health Systems, Inc., as a defendant.

The complaint, which was served against the company on April 8,
2005, seeks class-action status on behalf of the uninsured
patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center and alleges
statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the manner in which
the hospital bills and collects for the services rendered to
uninsured patients.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The company's motion to dismiss the case has been granted in
part and denied in part and discovery has commenced.

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

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- through
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Seeks Ill. Supreme Court Review of "Rix" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc., is asking the Illinois Supreme
Court to review certain rulings issued in the lawsuit captioned
"Sheri Rix v. Heartland Regional Medical Center and Health Care
Systems, Inc."

The suit names Community Health Systems and certain of its
subsidiaries as defendants.  It was served against the company
on March 3, 2005, and was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of
herself and as the representative of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's
Heartland Regional Medical Center.

The plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify
for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably
high rates for services and materials and that the company uses
unconscionable methods to collect bills.

The suit seeks recovery for breach of contract and the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution of
overpayment, and for unjust enrichment.  The complaint also
seeks compensatory and other damages and equitable relief.

The court recently granted the company's motion to dismiss this
case, but allowed the plaintiff to re-plead her case.

The plaintiff elected to appeal the court's decision in lieu of
amending her case.  Oral argument was heard on this case on
Jan. 9, 2008.

On June 16, 2008, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of
the consumer fraud claim, but reversed dismissal of the contract
claim.

The company is preparing a petition for leave of appeal to the
Illinois Supreme Court, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- through
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is facing a purported
class-action suit alleging violations of the Oklahoma Consumer
Protection Act.

The purported nationwide class action was filed against the
company on May 23, 2008, in the District Court of Tulsa County,
Oklahoma, by Lynda Steinbeck.

This lawsuit is an action claiming that the fee imposed when a
vehicle is returned after the original due date is a violation
of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, according to the
company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the business
of daily rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers
through company-owned stores.  The company has two rental car
brands, Dollar and Thrifty, both of which operate through a
network of company-owned stores and franchisees.  DTG also
leases vehicles to franchisees for use in the daily vehicle
rental business, sells vehicle rental franchises worldwide, and
provides sales and marketing, reservations, data processing
systems, insurance and other services to franchisees.  DTG's
principal operating subsidiaries include DTG Operations, Inc.,
Dollar Rent A Car, Inc., Thrifty, Inc., Rental Car Finance
Corp., and Dollar Thrifty Funding Corp.  As of Dec. 31, 2007,
Dollar and Thrifty had 831 locations in the U.S. and Canada of
which 466 were Company-owned stores and 365 were locations
operated by franchisees.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces California Lawsuit Over Insurance Rates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is facing a purported
class-action suit in California over insurance rates, according
to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The class-action suit was filed against the company on June 12,
2008, by Zack Miller and unnamed members of the plaintiff class,
before the U.S. District Court for the Central District Court of
California.

This lawsuit is an action claiming a violation of California
statute, including selling, soliciting, negotiating, brokering,
and effecting insurance contracts without first seeking or
obtaining approval of the California Insurance Commissioner for
the insurance rates charged, and charging rates which exceed
those approved by the California Insurance Commission.

The suit is "Zack Miller v. DTG Operations, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:08-cv-03875-AHM-VBK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District Court of California, Judge A. Howard Matz,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Mike M. Arias, Esq. (marias@aogllp.com)
           Arias Ozzello and Gignac
           6701 Center Drive West Suite 1400
           Los Angeles, CA 90045
           Phone: 310-670-1600
           Fax: 310-670-1231

           Howard Andrew Goldstein, Esq.
           Howard A. Goldstein Law Offices
           14545 Victory Boulevard Suite 500
           Van Nuys, CA 91411
           Phone: 818-779-1750
           Fax: 818-779-1850
           e-mail: cyberesqlaw@sbcglobal.net

                - and -

           David Greifinger, Esq.
           David Greifinger Law Offices
           1801 Ocean Park Boulevard Suite 201
           Santa Monica, CA 90405
           Phone: 310-452-7923
           Fax: 310-450-4715
           e-mail: tracklaw@verizon.net


FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Directors Face Lawsuit Over Brocade Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The board of directors of Foundry Networks, Inc., is facing a
purported class action lawsuit in California over the proposed
acquisition of the company by Brocade Communications Systems,
Inc., according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The action, entitled "Doug Edrington v. Bobby R. Johnson, Jr.,
et al., Case No. 1:08-CV-118013," was filed on July 23, 2008,
against the members of Foundry's  board of directors before the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Clara.

The suit asserts claims on behalf of the company's stockholders
who are similarly situated as the named plaintiff.  Among other
things, the complaint alleges that the members of the company's
board of directors have breached their fiduciary duties to the
company's stockholders in connection with the proposed
acquisition of the company by Brocade Communications Systems,
Inc., and engaged in self-dealing in connection with approval of
the Merger, allegedly resulting in an unfair process and unfair
price to the company's stockholders.

The complaint seeks class certification and certain forms of
equitable relief, including enjoining the consummation of the
proposed merger.

Foundry Networks, Inc. -- http://www.foundrynetworks.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures, markets and sells switching and
routing solutions designed for wired and wireless local area
networks, metropolitan area networks, wide area networks, in
addition to other infrastructure products for both enterprise
networks and the Internet.  The company sells a range of fixed
configuration switches and modular platforms, referred to as
chassis.  Its platforms are designed to operate within Layer 2-7
of the open system interconnect model for data networking.
Foundry's enterprise products are designed for wireless access,
wiring closet, voice-over Internet protocol, data center, WAN
access and campus solutions.


GENENTECH INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Roche's Unsolicited Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genentech, Inc., is facing several lawsuits over an unsolicited
proposal from Roche Holdings, Inc., to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the company's stock, according to the
company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On July 21, 2008, the company announced that it received an
unsolicited proposal from Roche Holdings to acquire at a price
of $89.00 in cash per share all of the outstanding shares of its
stock not already owned by Roche.

Subsequently, 26 shareholder lawsuits have been filed against
Genentech and the members of its board of directors, and various
Roche entities, including Roche Holdings, Roche Holding AG and
Roche Holding Ltd.

The lawsuits are currently pending in various state courts,
including the Delaware Court of Chancery, San Francisco County
Superior Court, and San Mateo County Superior Court, as well as
one lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The lawsuits generally assert class action claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty based in part on allegations that, in connection with
Roche's offer to purchase the remaining shares, some or all of
the defendants have failed to properly value Genentech, have
failed to solicit other potential acquirers and are engaged in
improper self-dealing.

Two of the lawsuits allege derivative claims alleging breaches
of fiduciary duty by the defendants in connection with adoption
of the July 1999 Affiliation Agreement with Roche Holdings, and
those two and one other of the lawsuits seek the invalidation,
in whole or in part, of the Affiliation Agreement.

One of the lawsuits seeks an order deeming Articles 8 and 9 of
the company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
inapplicable or invalid to a potential transaction with Roche.

Genentech, Inc. -- http://www.gene.com/-- is a biotechnology
company that discovers, develops, manufactures and
commercializes pharmaceutical products to treat patients with
unmet medical needs.  It commercializes multiple biotechnology
products and also receives royalties from companies that are
licensed to market products based on the company's technology.
Genentech commercializes various products in the U.S., including
Avastin, Rituxan, Herceptin, Lucentis, Xolair, Tarceva,
Nutropin, Activase, TNKase, Cathflo Activase, Pulmozyme and
Raptiva. The Company?s licensed products include Trastuzumab,
Rituximab, Bevacizumab, Dornase alfa, recombinant, Alteplase and
Tenecteplase, Somatropin, Daclizumab, Ranibizumab, Etanercept,
Adalimumab and Infliximab.


HERBALIFE INT'L: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Minton" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California partially
granted class-action status to a lawsuit against Herbalife
International, Inc., and certain of its independent
distributors.

The suit, "Minton v. Herbalife International, et al.," was filed
on Feb. 17, 2005, before the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco.  The suit was served on the company on
March 14, 2005.  The company then moved to transfer the case to
the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The suit challenges the marketing practices of certain Herbalife
International independent distributors and the company under
various state laws prohibiting "endless chain schemes,"
insufficient disclosure in assisted marketing plans, unfair and
deceptive business practices, and fraud and deceit.

The plaintiff alleges that the Freedom Group system operated by
certain independent distributors of Herbalife International
products places too much emphasis on recruiting and encourages
excessively large purchases of product and promotional materials
by distributors.  The plaintiff also alleges that Freedom Group
pressured distributors to disseminate misleading promotional
materials.

The plaintiff seeks to hold Herbalife International vicariously
liable for the actions of its independent distributors and is
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On Jan. 24, 2007, the Superior Court denied class certification
of all claims, except for the claim under California law
prohibiting "endless chain schemes."  That claim was granted
California-only class certification, provided that class counsel
is able to substitute in as a plaintiff a California resident
with claims typical of the class.

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

Herbalife International, Inc. -- http://www.herbalife.com/-- is
known for its weight loss products.  Herbalife also makes
dietary supplements as well as skin and hair care products.  Its
weight management products include dietary shakes, protein
snacks, energy enhancers, appetite suppressants, and digestive
supplements.  The company also offers a variety of supplements
that target men's and women's health, reduce stress, and support
immune system function.  Herbalife sells its plethora of
products through a network of more than 1 million independent
distributors located in more than 60 countries.


INDIANA: State Employees' Equal Pay Suit to Go to Trial Aug. 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit brought by Indiana state employees who worked longer
hours than comparable employees without additional pay is
scheduled to go to trial today, August 19, in Marion Superior
Court.

The $42-million class action suit "Paula Brattain et al. v.
Richmond State Hospital et al., Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309,"
represents an estimated 15,000 state employees at state
institutions and offices who were required to work a 40-hour
week while employees in similar positions at other state
institutions and offices were receiving comparable pay for a
37.5-hour week.

Since at least 1973, some state employees were working 40-hour
weeks while others in comparable positions received the same pay
for 37.5-hour weeks.  In 1987, the State Personnel Director
mandated that all employees at certain state institutions were
to work 40 hours per week, and as a result many employees were
required to work an extra 2.5 hours weekly with no increase in
pay.  At the same time, full-time employees in comparable jobs
at other state locations continued to work 37.5 hours per week.
Employees affected by the change had to either cut their lunch
hours or extend their work day to meet the directive.

The State of Indiana corrected the pay disparity in 1993 after
an appeals court ruled in favor of 35 employees that challenged
the State's policy.  Following that decision, a new state
directive based all salaries for full-time employees on a 37.5-
hour week.  This class action suit followed.  But the State has
long resisted compensating employees who worked for years at an
effective hourly rate lower than that earned by other state
employees in comparable positions.

John F. Kautzman, Esq., of Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis
and Hasbrook, an attorney for the employees, said, "For two
decades the State of Indiana failed to meet the most basic
standard of fairness -- equal pay for equal work -- and short-
changed thousands of employees.  Now the State continues to
fight tooth and nail to avoid compensating employees who worked
for years at a lower rate than peers with the same job
description and pay grade.  If the State won't rectify this
plain injustice, we're confident that the Court will."

Class member Dave Larson, Executive Director of the Indiana
State Employees Association who worked as a prison guard for the
State, said, "While working for the State, I was told by
different officers that they only worked 7.5 hours a day.  When
I found they were being paid the same as I was, I had a hard
time believing the State would treat employees unfairly.  Even
more incredibly, the State has resisted and spent countless
hours and tax dollars over the course of fifteen years to avoid
fulfilling its contractual and moral responsibility to thousands
of employees."

For more information, contact:

           Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis & Hasbrook
           107 N Pennsylvania St
           Indianapolis, IN 46204 valid
           Phone: 317-686-4865


KELLY SERVICES: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging it pays less than minimum wage and stiffs workers for
expenses, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit alleges that the defendant failed to pay these workers
for all hours worked, and failed to reimburse them necessary
expenditures incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of
their duties in violation of California Labor Code Section 1194
and 2802.

According to the complaint, California law, as set forth in
Labor Code Section 1194, states that any employee receiving less
than the legal minimum wage is entitled to recover in a civil
action the unpaid balance of the full amount of his or her
minimum wage compensation.

California law, as set forth in Labor Code Section 2802,
requires an employer to reimburse an employee for all necessary
expenditures incurred by the employee in direct consequence of
the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience
to the directions of the employer.

The plaintiff seeks all available remedies for violations of
Labor Code Sections 203, 1194, and 2802 and to the extent
allowable by law, restitution and disgorgement in connection
with the defendant's violation of California's Unfair
Competition law.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of these classes:

      Section 1194 class: all temporary staffing employees of
                          defendant in California, who, during
                          the four years prior to the original
                          filing of this action through the date
                          this action is resolved, were not
                          compensated for time spent preparing
                          for and going on interviews with
                          defendant's customers and potential
                          customers.

      Section 2802 class: all temporary staffing employees of
                          defendant in California who, during the
                          four years prior to the original filing
                          of this action through the date this
                          action is resolved, were not reimbursed
                          necessary expenditures incurred in
                          direct consequence of the discharge of
                          their duties in connection with
                          attending interviews with defendants'
                          customers and potential customers.

The plaintiff therefore asks:

      -- that this action be certified as a class action;

      -- that plaintiff be appointed as the representative of the
         alleged classes;

      -- that counsel for plaintiff be appointed as class
         counsel;

      -- for all wages due to plaintiff and Section 1194 class
         members in an amount according to proof, with interest
         thereon from the date such wages were due;

      -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs allowed by law
         and according to proof;

      -- for restitution and disgorgment of profits as allowed
         by law and according to proof;

      -- for injunctive relief;

      -- for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Civ.
         Proc. Code Section 1021.5;

      -- for compensatory damages in an amount, according to
         proof at time of trial, owed to plaintiff and Section
         2802 class members representing the amount of unpaid
         reimbursements for the expenditures and losses incurred
         in the direct discharge of their respective duties for
         the applicable limitations period preceding the filing
         of this complaint, up to and including the present;

      -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs allowed by law
         and according to proof;

      -- for statutory interest; and

      -- for the maximum amounts provided by Labor Code Section
         226(e) for the violations of defendant of Labor Code
         Section 226(a) owed to plaintiff and Section 1194 class
         members for the three years preceding the filing of the
         original complaint and continuing therefrom.

The suit is "Catherine Sullivan et al. v. Kelly Services, Inc.,
Case No. CV 08 3893," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

           Eric A. Grover, Esq. (eagrover@kellergrover.com)
           Valerie L. Sharpe, Esq. (vsharpe@kellergrover.com)
           Denise L. Diaz, Esq. (ddiaz@kellergrover.com)
           Keller Grover LLP
           425 Second St., Suite 500
           San Francisco, CA 94107
           Phone: 415-543-1305
           Fax: 415-543-7861


MGM MIRAGE: Preys Upon Alcoholics, California Lawsuit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MGM Mirage Casino is facing a class-action complaint before the
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, over an
allegation that it preys upon alcoholics for hundreds of
thousands of dollars by sending a corporate plane to fly
gamblers to Las Vegas, where MGM "comps" them for booze, meals
and shows so long as they drink alcohol, CourtHouse New Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Donald Hopp -- who says he lost $420,000 this
way -- says MGM changes the deal if the suckers stopped
drinking.

Mr. Hopp claims he lost more than $420,000 after MGM solicited
him through phone calls and sent a corporate airplane to pick
him up in Palm Springs.

Mr. Hopp further claims MGM Mirage fraudulently claims to have a
policy to "back players off the game if employees observe a
customer that is incapacitated."

Mr. Hopp says MGM Mirage preys upon alcoholics and that he lost
$320,000 in this fashion in February 2007, and "hundreds of
thousands of dollars" more in May that year.

The complaint adds "In February 2008, after plaintiff stopped
losing hundreds of thousands of dollars because he was
incapacitated by complimentary alcohol served him by defendants,
and each of them, because he stopped drinking, defendants, and
each of them, without prior notice, retroactively changed the
terms and conditions under which plaintiff and defendants, and
each of them, transacted business."

Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section
17203, Mr. Hopp seeks an order enjoining the defendants from
engaging in such acts and practices as alleged, and ordering
that they disgorge all ill-gotten gains and provide appropriate
restitution to plaintiff and members of the general public.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

      -- injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of
         ill-gotten gains;

      -- pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by
         law;

      -- an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
         incurred in the investigation, filing, and prosecution
         of this action; and

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

The suit is "Donald Hopp, et al. v. MGM Mirage, et al., Case No.
INC079188," filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Riverside.

Representing the plaintiff is:

           Clark Garen, Esq.
           Law Offices of  Clark Garen
           1801 California Avenue,
           Riverside, CA 92504
           Phone: 909-898-4400
           Fax: 909-898-4397


PAGEANTRY HOMES: Faces Nevada Suit Over Sale of Defective Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pageantry Homes of Nevada is facing a class-action complaint
before the U.S. District Court in Clark County, Nevada, alleging
it sold 175 defective homes in the Montesol at La Entrada
development, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes 40.600 through 40.695, the
plaintiffs seek recovery for damages suffered by each unit owner
as to their separate interests delineated by law.

The suit is brought on behalf of all owners of one or more
single family homes at the subject property in Clark County,
Nevada.

The plaintiffs asks the court for:

      -- general and special damages in excess of $10,000
         including but not limited to, costs of repair, loss of
         market value, loss of use, loss of financing, loss of
         investment and out-of-pocket expenses to be determined
         at time of trial;

      -- damages in an amount according to proof;

      -- reasonable attorneys fees and costs according to
         proof;

      -- prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all sums
         awarded, according to proof at the maximum legal rate;

      -- all damages pursuant to NRS 40.600 through 40.695l;
         in particular 40.650 and 40.655;

      -- costs of suit incurred; and

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

The suit is "Stephen E. Sessums, et al. v. Pageantry Homes of
Nevada, Inc., et al., Case No. A569526," filed in the U.S.
District Court in Clark County, Nevada.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Duane E. Shinnick, Esq.
           Megan M. Chodzko, Esq.
           Eric Ransavage, Esq.
           Shinnick Law Firm, PC
           2881 Business Park Court, Suite 210
           Las Vegas, NV 89128


PAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Payout Is No Siren Call to Mount Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Government reached a AU$55-million settlement
with Jim Selim, founder of the collapsed Pan Pharmaceuticals, on
August 15, 2008.

Despite the record payout, lawyers do not think parties who lost
money due to the collapse have much chance of bringing a class
action, as the Government did not make any admissions.

Mr. Selim claimed his company was subject to a "vendetta" by the
Therapeutic Goods Administration.  He said the agency knew that
a product recall it issued in 2003 would cause Pan to fail.

Pan Pharmaceuticals is now the fifth or sixth largest contract
pharmaceutical manufacturer in the world, claims Jim Salim, who
established the firm in Sydney, Australia, in 1974.


SOURCEFIRE: Oct. 17 Mediation Set for Md. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative Oct. 17, 2008 mediation is scheduled for the
consolidated securities fraud class action suit pending with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against
Sourcefire, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the
company and certain of its officers and directors.  The suit is
captioned, "Howard Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01210-WMN."

Since then, two other putative class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland against the company
and certain of its officers and directors and other parties
making similar allegations.  These two additional suits are:

        1. "Mark Reaves v. Sourcefire, Inc.. et al., Case No.
           1:07-cv-01351-JFM," and

        2. "Joan Raveill v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No.
           1:07-cv-01425-WMN."

In addition, a fourth putative class action suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of its officers and directors
and other parties making similar allegations.  The fourth suit
is captioned, "Barry Pincus v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-04720-RJH."

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and in an order entered
on June 29, 2007, by the U.S,. District Court of the Southern
District of New York, the Pincus case was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The actions claim to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the company's initial public offering.

The lawsuits allege violations of Section 11, Section 12 and
Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in
connection with allegedly material misleading statements and
omissions contained in the registration statement and
prospectus.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a determination of
class action status, compensatory and rescission damages, a
rescission of the initial public offering, as well as fees and
costs on behalf of a putative class.

On July 13, 2007, Sandra Amrhein filed a motion to consolidate
the four cases, to appoint her as lead plaintiff, and to approve
her choice of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel, and
Tydings & Rosenberg LLP as liaison counsel.  The court granted
Ms. Amrhein's request.

On Oct. 4, 2007, Ms. Amrheim filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint asserting legal claims that previously had been
asserted in one or more of the four original actions.

On Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint, which motion was granted in part and
denied in part.

In May 2008, the defendants filed an answer denying all
liability, and later, the court entered a scheduling order.

On or about June 18, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, for the appointment of class representative
and for the appointment of class counsel and liaison counsel for
the class.  The defendants' opposition to that motion is due on
or before Nov. 19, 2008, and any replies are due on or before
Jan. 9, 2009.

On July 16, 2008, the court granted the parties' motion to amend
the prior scheduling order to provide the parties with an
opportunity to conduct a mediation.  Thus, mediation is
tentatively scheduled to take place on Oct. 17, 2008.

The suit is "Howard Katz, et al. v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
           805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
           New York, NY, 10022
           Phone: 212-687-1980
           Fax: 212-687-7714
           e-mail: info@kaplanfox.com

                - and -

           Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
           100 East Pratt Street
           Baltimore, MD, 21202
           Phone: 410-752-9700
           Fax: 410-757-5460
           e-mail: webmaster@tydingslaw.com


TELLABS: Appeals Court Remands Securities Suit to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit remanded the
securities fraud case entitled "Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc.,
et al., f/k/a/ Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc.,
Case No. 1:02-cv-04356," back to a federal court for further
proceedings.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Directors
Tellabs) and Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and
Director of Tellabs).

Eight similar complaints were subsequently filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on
Dec. 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain
other of the company's current or former officers and directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (Dec. 11, 2000-June 19, 2001), the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly
providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading,
misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting
overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in its financial
statements.

Furthermore, certain of the individual defendants were alleged
to have violated the federal securities laws by trading the
company's securities while allegedly in possession of material,
non-public information about the company pertaining to these
matters.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
restitution, damages and other relief.

On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.

On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the company's motion and
dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended complaint,
while affording the plaintiffs an opportunity to replead.

On July 11, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck
and Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other
previously named individual defendants, realleging claims
similar to those contained in the previously dismissed
consolidated amended class action complaint.

The company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case on
Aug. 22, 2003.  On Feb. 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, appealing the
dismissal.  The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was
heard on Jan. 21, 2005.

On Jan. 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion
affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the
district court, and remanding the case for further proceedings.

On Feb. 8, 2006, the defendants filed in the Seventh Circuit a
petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc.
On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion, and remanded
the case to the district court.

On Sept. 22, 2006, the defendants filed a motion with the
district court to dismiss some, but not all, of the remaining
claims.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed before the U.S. Supreme
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the
Seventh Circuit's decision.  On Jan. 5, 2007, the defendants'
petition was granted.  The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral
arguments on March 28, 2007.

On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Seventh
Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  On Nov. 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral
arguments for the remanded case.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion adhering
to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of the
district court, and remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2008.

The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc, et al., f/k/a/
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., Case No. 1:02-cv-
04356," filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
District of Illinois, Judge Amy J. St. Eve, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Richard H. Weiss, Esq. (rweiss@milbergweiss.com)
           Milberg Weiss LLP
           One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
           New York, NY 10119-0165
           Phone: 212-946-9304
           Fax: 212-273-4401

Representing the defendants is:

           David F. Graham, Esq. (dgraham@sidley.com)
           Sidley Austin LLP
           One South Dearborn Street
           Chicago, IL 60603
           Phone: 312-853-7000


TELLABS INC: Oct. 20 Trial Scheduled for "Brieger" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 20, 2008 trial is scheduled for a consolidated lawsuit,
entitled "Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01882," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs, Inc.

On April 5, 2006, a class-action complaint was filed against:

      -- Tellabs;

      -- Michael Birck and Richard Notebaert, the company's
         former chief executive officer and president; and

      -- current or former Tellabs employees who, during the
         alleged class period of Dec. 11, 2000, to July 1,
         2003, participated on the Tellabs Investment and
         Administrative Committees of the Tellabs, Inc., Profit
         Sharing and Savings Plan.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  Thereafter, two similar complaints were
filed in the same court.

The complaints allege that during the alleged class period, the
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The defendants, according to the lawsuits, violated ERISA by
among other things, continuing to offer Tellabs common stock as
a Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so and
allegedly misrepresenting and failing to disclose material
information necessary for Plan participants to make informed
decisions concerning the Plan.

Further, certain of the defendants allegedly failed to monitor
the fiduciary activities of the fiduciaries they appointed and
certain of the defendants allegedly breached their duty of
loyalty by trading Tellabs stock, while taking no protective
action on behalf of Plan participants.

The complaints seek restitution, damages and other relief.

On June 28, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions, and
on Aug. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action complaint.

On Sept. 15, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative, for summary judgment seeking the dismissal
with prejudice of all claims in the consolidated amended class
action complaint.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion.
Based on the court's decision, the defendants have requested
that the court certify an issue for interlocutory appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit.  The court denied
the defendants' request.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class, discovery was conducted
to determine the propriety of class certification, and Tellabs
opposed class certification.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify a class.

Merits discovery is now proceeding, and a trial is currently
scheduled for Oct. 20, 2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2008.

The suit is "Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01882," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Norman Rifkind, Esq. (rifkind@laskyrifkind.com)
          Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
          350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Phone: 312-634-0057
          Fax: 312-634-0059

Representing the defendant is:

          Charles Clark Jackson, Esq.
          (charles.jackson@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-324- 1000


TIME WARNER: Kansas City Resident Alleges Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Another Time Warner Cable subscriber, this one in Missouri, has
sued the company for antitrust violations, claiming it required
him to rent a cable box to get premium cable channels.

The would-be class action suit was filed by Kansas City resident
Jason Dalen in federal court in Kansas City and comes just a
couple of days after a Fairway resident filed an identical
action in federal court in Kansas City, Kan.

Both suits allege that, by linking the provision of premium
cable services to rental of the cable box, Time Warner has
established an illegal tying arrangement.

Damon Porter, a spokesman for Time Warner, said that leasing the
boxes was common in the industry and ensured that customers "get
the latest technology as well as tremendous value and
convenience."

"Customers have the option of selecting a standard digital box,
digital video recorder (DVR) box, high-definition (HD) or HD-DVR
box," Mr. Porter wrote in an e-mail message.  "No matter which
box they choose, they have access to our advanced fiber network,
free lifetime maintenance on the box and the latest innovations
such as Movies On Demand and coming soon, Start Over."

Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) (formerly Warner Cable
Communications) is an American national cable television company
that operates in 27 states and has 31 operating divisions.  Its
corporate headquarters are located in Stamford, Connecticut, and
has other corporate offices in Charlotte, North Carolina;
Herndon, Virginia; and Denver, Colorado.


TRIARC COS: Dropped in Ohio Suit Over Wendy's Merger Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triarc Cos., Inc., was not named as a defendant in the amended
complaint of a purported class-action suit in Ohio over a
definitive merger agreement that Triarc signed with Wendy's
International, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 5, 2008.

On April 25, 2008, a putative class-action complaint was filed
by Ethel Guiseppone, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, against Wendy's, its directors, Triarc and Trian
Partners in Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties arising out of
a definitive merger agreement that Triarc signed with Wendy's on
April 24, 2008.  That agreement called for an all-stock
transaction in which Wendy's shareholders would receive a fixed
ratio of 4.25 shares of Triarc's Class A Common Stock for each
share of Wendy's common stock they own and in which Wendy's
would become a wholly owned subsidiary of Triarc.

The complaint seeks certification of the proceeding as a class
action, preliminary and permanent injunctions against
disenfranchising the purported class and consummating the
Merger, other equitable relief, attorneys fees and other relief
as the court deems proper and just.

On July 15, 2008, the plaintiffs amended the complaint and
Triarc and Trian Partners are no longer named as defendants.

Triarc Cos., Inc. -- http://www.triarc.com/-- is a holding
company and, through its subsidiary Arby's Restaurant Group,
Inc., is the franchisor of the Arby's restaurant system. The
Arby's restaurant system comprises approximately 3,700
restaurants, of which, as of Dec. 30, 2007, 1,106 were owned and
operated by the Company's subsidiaries.  In addition to various
slow-roasted roast beef sandwiches, Arby's offers a menu of
chicken, turkey and ham sandwiches, snack items and salads.  The
Arby's Market Fresh line includes fresh salads made with
ingredients, such as fresh apples, dried cranberries, corn salsa
and black beans.  Arby's also offers Market Fresh wrap
sandwiches with the same ingredients as its Market Fresh
sandwiches inside a tortilla wrap.


TRIARC COS: Faces Suit in New York Over Wendy's Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triarc Cos., Inc., is facing a purported class-action suit in
New York over a definitive merger agreement that Triarc signed
with Wendy's International, Inc., according to Triarc's Aug. 5,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 5, 2008.

On June 13, 2008, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Peter D. Ravanis and Dorothea Ravanis, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against Wendy's, its
directors and Triarc in the Supreme Court of New York, New York
County.

The complaint, amended on June 20, 2008, alleges that Wendy's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
approval of the merger agreement on April 23, 2008, and that
the company aided and abetted such breach.  It alleges also that
the documents issued in connection with seeking shareholder
approval of the merger agreement are false and misleading.

The complaint seeks certification of the proceeding as a class
action, preliminary and permanent injunctions against
shareholder votes on the proposed merger, rescission of the
merger if consummated, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
other relief as the court deems proper and just.

The parties have agreed to stay this action pending developments
in similar actions in Ohio against Wendy's and its directors.

Triarc Cos., Inc. -- http://www.triarc.com/-- is a holding
company and, through its subsidiary Arby's Restaurant Group,
Inc., is the franchisor of the Arby's restaurant system. The
Arby's restaurant system comprises approximately 3,700
restaurants, of which, as of Dec. 30, 2007, 1,106 were owned and
operated by the Company's subsidiaries.  In addition to various
slow-roasted roast beef sandwiches, Arby's offers a menu of
chicken, turkey and ham sandwiches, snack items and salads.  The
Arby's Market Fresh line includes fresh salads made with
ingredients, such as fresh apples, dried cranberries, corn salsa
and black beans.  Arby's also offers Market Fresh wrap
sandwiches with the same ingredients as its Market Fresh
sandwiches inside a tortilla wrap.


UNICO INC: Krause Kalfayan Files Derivative Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, LLP, filed a derivative
lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court on behalf of Unico, Inc.
shareholders charging the company's officers and directors with
gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with
dozens of cookie-cutter settlements with Unico creditors that
caused significant harm to Unico.

The lawsuit alleges that under the leadership of Unico's
Chairman of the Board, Ray Brown, CEO Mark Lopez, and CFO Ken
Wiedrich, Unico issued 72 convertible debentures to third
parties, primarily located offshore in the Turks and Caicos,
during the past four years.  Although the debentures were
convertible to common shares at a share price of 50% of the
prior day's closing price, Unico entered into settlement
agreements with the creditors which required it to issue shares
at conversion prices of 8% to 20% instead.

According to the lawsuit, the settlements were not products of
arms-length negotiations.  Instead, defendants colluded with the
creditors utilizing court-approved settlements as cover to issue
hundreds of millions of freely-trading and cheaply-obtained
shares to the creditors under a securities registration
exemption, Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933.
Section 3(a)(10) provides that securities issued in exchange for
bona fide claims where the terms are approved by a Court, need
not be registered for offer or sale with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit points out that all of the settlements were approved
by a state court in Sarasota, Florida, a jurisdiction with no
connection to any of the parties and without notice to Unico's
shareholders.  The attorney representing Unico in the Sarasota
actions and the attorney for the third-party creditors share the
same office space in Sarasota.

Also named in the lawsuit was Shane Traveller, who is Ken
Wiedrich's son-in-law and Traveller's company, Javelin Advisory
Group, Inc., a consultant to Unico.

Traveller was recently named as a defendant in an SEC civil
action and has been a principal of other publicly-traded small-
cap companies.

The suit seeks not less than $20 million.

Unico, Inc. -- http://www.unicomining.com/-- is a publicly-
traded company in the precious metals mining business with
offices at 8880 Rio San Diego Drive, 8th Floor, San Diego, CA
92108.

For more information, contact:

           Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, LLP
           625 Broadway, Suite 635
           San Diego, CA, 92101
           Phone: 619-232-0331
           Fax: 619-232-4019
           Web site: http://www.kkbs-law.com/


VS HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Store Managers' Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
VS Holdings, Inc. (doing business as The Vitamin Shoppe) is
facing a consolidated class-action suit in California that was
filed by the company's store managers, 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 28, 2008.

The company opened its first store in California in December
2002, and the company reclassified its California store managers
as non-exempt employees in January 2004.

On Feb. 25, 2005, plaintiff Dwight Thompson, a former store
manager, filed suit on behalf of himself and other "similarly
situated" current and former California store managers and
assistant store managers in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange, alleging causes of action
for:

        -- failure to pay overtime wages;

        -- unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
           Sections 17000 et seq.;

        -- conversion;

        -- failure to provide rest and meal periods; and

        -- unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
           Section 17200 et seq.

On Sept. 2, 2005, Mr. Thompson amended his complaint to include
a representative claim for civil penalties under the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act, Cal. Labor Code Sections 2698 et
seq. (PAGA), also known as the California "bounty hunter"
statute, which may permit Mr. Thompson to collect civil
penalties on behalf of all other allegedly aggrieved employees
for violations of the Labor Code and attorneys' fees if he
prevails.

Almost one year later, on July 7, 2006, the same group of
plaintiffs' attorneys who were representing Mr. Thompson filed
another wage and hour lawsuit against The Vitamin Shoppe based
on substantively identical allegations in the Orange County
Superior Court.

The suit is entitled, "Estel v. The Vitamin Shoppe Industries
Inc., Case No. 06CC07852."  The plaintiffs in the Estel Action
were nine individuals -- all of whom were already class members
in the Thompson Action.

The parties engaged in some preliminary pre-trial discovery,
until the court stayed the Thompson and Estel Actions pending
court approval of the settlement in a separate, but similar
litigation.

In December 2007, the Court lifted the stay of the Thompson and
Estel Actions and in January 2008, the Court consolidated the
two suits.

In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs assert nine claims
for relief against the company:

        -- failure to pay overtime wages;

        -- unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. &
           Prof. Code Sections 17000 et seq.;

        -- conversion;

        -- failure to provide meal periods;

        -- failure to provide rest periods;

        -- unfair competition under the UCL;

        -- failure to provide itemized wage statements;

        -- failure to provide wages and accrued vacation upon
           termination; and

        -- recovery of civil penalties under PAGA.

The plaintiffs purport to bring their UCL and PAGA claims as
representative actions and the remaining claims on behalf of a
class composed of all current and former assistant managers and
managers of the company who were employed on or after April 14,
2006.

VS Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.vitaminshoppe.com/-- is a
specialty retailer and direct marketer of vitamins, minerals,
herbs, supplements, sports nutrition, and other health and
wellness products.  It offers a variety of products with over
8,500 stock keeping units offered in its stores with an
additional 11,500 SKUs available for its direct sales orders.
As of Dec. 29, 2007, the company operated 341 stores located in
31 states and the District of Columbia and sells direct to
consumers through its catalog and its Web site --
http://www.vitaminshoppe.com/-- as well as
http://www.BodyTech.com/which offers primarily sports nutrition
and weight management products.  Within its selection of over
20,000 SKUs, the company offers over 400 national brands, as
well as its Vitamin Shoppe, BodyTech, MD Select and VS Basics
brands.  The Company sells its products through two business
segments: retail, which is its retail store format, and direct,
which consists of its catalog and Internet formats.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Hip and Knee Replacements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc., and two subsidiaries are facing a
purported class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, in connection with hip and
knee replacements.

The complaint was filed on April 24, 2008, before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled
"Thorpe v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:2008cv03888," naming
the company and two of its subsidiaries as defendants.

The complaint relates to a putative class action suit on behalf
of certain residents of New York who had hip or knee implant
surgery involving Zimmer products during an unspecified period.

The complaint alleges that the company's relationships with
orthopaedic surgeons and others violated the New York deceptive
practices statute and unjustly enriched the company.

The plaintiff requests actual damages or $50.00, whichever is
greater, on behalf of each class member, a permanent injunction
from the company engaging in allegedly improper practices in the
future and restitution in an unspecified amount, according to
the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Thorpe et al. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al., Case Number:
1:2008cv03888," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Colleen McMahon, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Andres F. Alonso, Esq. (aalonso@yourlawyer.com)
           Parker Waichman & Alonso, LLP
           111 Great Neck Road
           Great Neck, NY 11021
           Phone: 516-466-6500
           Fax: 516-466-6665

           Stuart George Gross, Esq. (sgross@shearman.com)
           Shearman & Sterling LLP
           599 Lexington Avenue
           New York, NY 10022
           Phone: 212-848-4527
           Fax: 646-848-4527

           Steven N. Williams, Esq. (swilliams@cpmlegal.com)
           Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy
           840 Malcolm Road
           Burlingame, CA 94010
           Phone: 650-697-6997
           Fax: 650-697-0577

Representing the defendant is:

           Theodore Grossman, Esq. (tgrossman@jonesday.com)
           Jones Day
           North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue
           Cleveland, OH 44114
           Phone: 216-586-7268
           Fax: 216-579-0212


* Video Guide on Resolving Disputes in Employment Cases Offered
---------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Markets --
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/6a2dd9/settlements_negot--
disclosed the addition of the "Settlements, Negotiations &
Resolving Disputes in Employment Cases: Video Leadership Seminar
with David Hoffman of Boston Law Collaborative (DVD)" report to
their offering.

This 85-minute video is led by David Hoffman of Boston Law
Collaborative and can be downloaded to your computer or iPod,
and is sent to you on DVD.  This seminar is guaranteed to
enhance your current strategies with new ideas and key points
that will have an immediate impact on your client strategies
that you can begin using right away in your practice.

The video seminar focuses on:

      * A detailed look at the most up-to-date and successful
        employment law best practices and client strategies

      * What clients look for when hiring a lawyer/firm for such
        situations

      * New strategies being used to evaluate legal exposure and
        new ways to proceed

      * Analyzing the latest changes in applicable laws and how
        to capitalize on them

      * Case studies and what they mean for current clients

Personalize the insights of the keynote speaker in this video to
enhance your own best practices, develop ideas for landing more
clients, and stay up to date on the latest thought leadership.

ReedLogic videos are:

      1. faster to watch than reading a printed book;

      2. interactive and prompt you with questions to spur your
         own ideas

      3. more convenient than traveling to a seminar and can be
         viewed on-demand

      4. perfect for downtime in your office, on a business trip,
         while traveling or even at the gym.

Representative cases:

     -- has served as chair of three-person arbitration panel in
        Hancock-CNA Reinsurance dispute that resulted in post-
        hearing settlement of $250 million.

     -- has served as mediator and arbitrator in ore than one
        thousand commercial, employment, construction, personal
        injury, insurance, and other business cases.

     -- has served as settlement counsel for officers and
        management-level employees seeking severance from Fortune
        500 companies.

     -- serves as Collaborative Law counsel for individuals
        seeking amicable divorce and amicable resolution of other
        legal matters.

     -- mediates separations and divorces, in cases involving
        complex financial issues, high-conflict family issues,
        and other family matters.

     -- represents individuals in drafting prenuptial and post-
        nuptial agreements.

     -- serves as "settlement counsel" in business and employment
        cases - i.e., representing the client solely for purposes
        of negotiation.

     -- served as arbitrator in 180 Dalkon Shield class-action
        cases.

     -- represented large non-profit in design of dispute
        resolution system for managing 210 claims asserted
        against the organization.

For more information, contact:

           Laura Wood
           Senior Manager
           Research and Markets
           Fax from USA: 646-607-1907
           Fax from rest of the world: +353-1-481-1716
           e-mail: press@researchandmarkets.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CIT GROUP: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against CIT Group Inc. and certain of its executives and
directors that alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased CIT-Z preferred stock pursuant and traceable to the
Company's registration statement and prospectus filed pursuant
to Rule 424(b)(3) with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 17, 2007 (collectively, the "Prospectus")
through March 5, 2008.

The Complaint alleges that on October 17, 2007, CIT issued
24,000,000 CIT-Z preferred shares at $25 per unit pursuant to
the Prospectus and that the Prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose the following:

      (a) CIT, through its subsidiary Student Loan Xpress
          ("SLX"), served as the preferred student loan lender of
          Silver State Helicopter and Silver State was SLX's
          largest private student loan customer;

      (b) approximately $196 million of CIT's $364.6 million
          private student loan portfolio (as of June 30, 2007)
          was comprised of student loans given to students of
          Silver State;

      (c) SLX had materially defective underwriting guidelines
          and approved virtually all the student loan
          applications submitted, often requiring little or no
          evidence of the borrowers' ability to pay the loan and
          approved loans without requiring documentation;

      (d) that given the alleged material adverse conditions,
          Silver State students were unlikely to graduate, which
          materially increased the likelihood that students would
          not repay their loans; and

      (e) given the conditions set forth above, Silver State
          should have begun writing off its Silver State student
          loans beginning in the quarter ended June 30, 2007 and
          failure to do so materially overstated CIT's income in
          violation of generally accepted accounting principles.

It is further alleged that on March 6, 2008, an analyst issued a
report stating that CIT would have to write-off the entire
Silver State student loan portfolio.

On this news, the price of CIT-Z preferred stock declined $3.30
per share from a closing price on March 5, 2008 of $16.30 per
share to close at $13.00 per share, a decline of approximately
20%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 23,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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

                - or -

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


HUNTSMAN CORP: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of purchasers
of Huntsman Corporation common stock during the period between
June 26, 2007 - June 18, 2008, for violations of the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that on July 12, 2007, the Company
announced that it has agreed to be acquired by Hexion Specialty
Chemicals, Inc., for $28.00 per share.  In the weeks and months
following Huntsman's announcement that it had signed a
definitive Merger Agreement with Hexion, and with the Company's
securities trading at artificially inflated prices, Company
insiders sold 57,082,420 shares of the Company's stock for gross
proceeds of over $1.3 billion.

Then on June 19, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that Hexion had filed a lawsuit against Huntsman
seeking to terminate the Merger Agreement.  The suit filed by
Hexion revealed that three of Huntsman's five business segments
had significantly underperformed relative to expectations,
estimations and projections.  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:

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


KKR FINANCIAL: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of KKR Financial Holdings, LLC, pursuant or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with its May 4, 2007 merger and share
issuance for violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


REDDY ICE: Brualdi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., disclosed that a lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Reddy Ice
Holdings, Inc. common stock during the period between August 10,
2005 - March 6, 2008, for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

           Sue Lee, Esq.
           The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
           29 Broadway, Suite 2400
           New York, NY 10006
           Phone: 212-952-0602
                  877-495-1187
           e-mail: slee@brualdilawfirm.com





                             *********

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

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

                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *