CAR_Public/080820.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 20, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 165

                            Headlines

ARKANSAS BEST: LTL Shipment Fuel Surcharges Suit Still Pending
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Class Status Denied in Biotech Rice Lawsuit
BLUE CROSS: N.C. Policyholders' Lawsuit Wins Class Action Status
CAMDEN COUNTY: Charges Prisoners Illegal Fees, N.J. Suit Claims
CEPHALON INC: Wants PROVIGIL Patent Deal Suits Dismissed

CEPHALON INC: Still Faces Several Suits Over "Actiq" Cancer Drug
CHARLES SCHWAB: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in Calif. Suit
CONMED CORP: Aug. 26 Hearing Set for N.Y. Labor Lawsuit Motions
GLOBAL CASH: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
HUTCHINSON TECH: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal

HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Sept. 11 Hearing for Minn. Suit Agreement
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: California Securities Suit Moves Forward
IPEX USA: Faces Nevada Suit Over Defective Kitec Pipes in Homes
IWI HOLDING: Plaintiffs' Counsel Yet to Respond to "Rosen" Deal
LAWNMOWER MANUFACTURERS: Sued Over Wrongful Horsepower Valuation

LOWE'S COS: Discriminates Against Old Managers, Idaho Suit Says
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Class Status Denial in "Williams" Appealed
MOTIVE: Class/Derivative Suits Settlement Appeal Period Expires
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Working to Resolve Ill. Mortgage Servicing MDL
PALAMA HOLDINGS: Recalls Possibly Contaminated Pork Products

PENN NATIONAL: Faces Md. Lawsuit Over Terminated $5.82BB Merger
PENNSYLVANIA: Riverwalk Fire Victims File Suit in Montgomery
PHILADELPHIA CONSOLIDATED: Still Faces LASIC Policyholders' Suit
PURDUE PHARMA: Lawsuit Over OxyContin Drug Demands $31 Million
RED ROBIN: Scheduling Order on Huggett Suit Appeal Yet to be Set

RED ROBIN: Court Gives Final OK to "Hill" Wage & Hour Suit Deal
RENNA'S MEAT: Recalls Possibly Contaminated Beef Products
SCANA ENERGY: Ga. Court Dismisses Natural Gas Overcharging Suit
SIX FLAGS: Reaches Settlement in California Labor-Related Suit
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Rights-of-Way Lawsuit Still Pending

STATE FARM: Settles Mississippi Breach of Contract Lawsuit
SUNRISE PROPANE: Hundreds Join Suit Over Aug. 10 Toronto Blast
TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Chiropractor's Breach Suit
UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 46: Minority Rights Lawsuit Gets Certified
WACHOVIA CORP: Klafter Olsen Hired to Commence Securities Suit

YTB INT'L: Faces Purported Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FEDERAL HOME: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
GT SOLAR: Named Defendant by Weiss & Lurie in New Hampshire Suit
REDDY ICE: Izard Nobel Files Michigan Securities Fraud Lawsuit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ARKANSAS BEST: LTL Shipment Fuel Surcharges Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Best Corp. and other less-than-truckload carriers are
facing a consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia accusing them of
conspiring throughout four years or more to fix fuel surcharges
on LTL shipments.

On July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. (doing
business as Water Tech) and C.B.J.T. (doing business as
Agricultural Supply), on behalf of themselves and other
plaintiffs, filed the putative class action lawsuit against
Arkansas Best and other companies engaged in the LTL trucking
business in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2008).

The other named defendants in the complaint are:

       -- Arkansas Best Corp.,
       -- Averitt Express,
       -- Con-Way, Inc.,
       -- Fedex Corp.,
       -- Jevic Transportation, Inc.,
       -- Sun Capital Partners IV, LLC,
       -- New England Motor Freight, Inc.,
       -- R+L Carriers, Inc.,
       -- Saia, Inc.,
       -- United Parcel Service, Inc.,
       -- YRC Worldwide Inc., and
       -- Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc.

Farm Water and its subsidiary, C.B.J.T. contend that the
practice dates back to 2003.  They assert that the carriers
agreed to impose identical or nearly identical surcharges by
linking them to diesel fuel prices published by the U.S.
Department of Energy and by listing surcharges on their websites
to communicate pricing.

The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchase LTL service directly to defendants or
their unnamed co-conspirators from July 30, 2003, through the
conclusion of the trial in this matter.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed
         for LTL services sold in the United States;

     (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this
         complaint and the nature and character of the acts
         performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in
         furtherance of the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the
         Sherman Act;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused
         injury to the business and property plaintiffs and
         other members of the classes;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         LTL services sold in the United States during the class
         period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and other members of the damages class.

The plaintiffs pray that:

     -- the court determines that this action may be maintained
        as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure;

     -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts
        done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co-
        conspirators, b adjudged to have been in violation of
        Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of the
        damages class against defendants for three times the
        amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the
        damages class as allowed by law, together with the costs
        of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- defendants and their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to ac on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner:

         (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract,
             combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging
             in any other contract, combination or conspiracy
             having a similar purpose or effect, and from
             adopting or following any practice, plan, program
             or device having a similar purpose or effect; and

        (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
             other person engaged in the manufacture,
             distribution or sale of any product except to the
             extent necessary in connection with a bona fide
             sales transaction between the parties to such
             communications; and

     -- plaintiffs and members of the class have such other,
        further and different relief as the case may require and
        the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

Subsequent to this original complaint, similar complaints have
been filed against the defendants and other LTL motor carriers,
each with the same allegation of conspiracy to fix fuel
surcharge rates.

On Dec. 20, 2007, these cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and are now
in the process of being transferred to that court.

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 30, 2008.

Arkansas Best Corp. -- http://www.arkbest.com/-- is a holding
company, which through its subsidiaries, is engaged in motor
carrier transportation operations.  Its principal subsidiary is
ABF Freight System, Inc.  ABF offers national, inter-regional
and regional transportation of general commodities through
standard, expedited and guaranteed less-than-truckload services.
General commodities include all freight except hazardous waste,
dangerous explosives, commodities of exceptionally high value
and commodities in bulk.  ABF accounted for 96.4% of the
company's consolidated revenues for 2007.  The company's LTL
motor carrier operations are conducted through ABF, ABF Freight
System Ltd., ABF Freight System Canada, Ltd., ABF Cartage, Inc.
and Land-Marine Cargo, Inc.  On June 15, 2006, the company sold
its wholly owned subsidiary, Clipper Exxpress Co., to a division
of Wheels Group. With this sale, the company exited the
intermodal transportation business.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Class Status Denied in Biotech Rice Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry ruled last week that
hundreds of farmers will not be able to consolidate their
lawsuits against Bayer CropScience AG over the accidental
release of experimental genetically engineered rice into the
food supply, Forbes reports.

According to Forbes, Judge Perry denied a motion to certify the
farmers' claims into one class-action suit, saying they were too
different from one another to be lumped into a single case.

If the case had been certified, attorneys say thousands of
farmers in rice-producing states like Missouri and Arkansas
could have joined the action, the report relates.

The complaints were based on damages farmers sustained resulting
from the contamination of the U.S. rice supply with unapproved,
genetically modified rice seed traits developed and tested by
Bayer CropScience and related entities (Class Action Reporter,
May 10, 2007).

According to a report by the Class Action Reporter on May 26,
2008, the contamination of the U.S. rice supply -- with not less
than two distinct genetically modified rice traits, LLRICE601
and LLRICE 604 -- has caused significant economic damages to
U.S. rice producers and has substantially diminished their
ability to cultivate, market, or otherwise distribute their rice
crops.

The suits, the CAR report stated, were brought on behalf of rice
farmers based upon these economic damages.  Discovery of the
contamination in the farmers' rice supply had led to a dramatic
drop in U.S. rice prices.

The suits seek to hold the Germany-based agriculture company
accountable for the market losses and other economic and related
damages they have caused U.S. rice producers.

Forbes notes that Judge Perry said in her recent ruling that
even if Bayer CropScience was to blame for the drop in prices,
farmers in different states suffered damage that was too
different to be tried in one class-action suit.

"Some plaintiffs allege that as a result of this ban, they were
forced to plant alternate, lower-yield seed varieties, thereby
reducing the size of their harvests," the judge wrote.  "Other
plaintiffs allege that they were unable to obtain any rice seed
because of the ban, and had to plant different crops
altogether."

Bayer CropScience said in a statement that it "welcomed" the
ruling.  "We believe we have acted responsibly and have complied
with all relevant regulations and guidelines in our biotech rice
development activities," General Counsel Bruce Mackintosh said
in the statement.

Mr. Mackintosh also stated that the company is prepared to
litigate any further cases that might arise out of the court's
recent decision.

The ruling doesn't mean farmers will stop their litigation, Don
Downing, Esq., of Gray Ritter and Graham in St. Louis, who
represents farmers in the case, told Forbes.  He said his
clients are considering an appeal of Judge Perry's order.

Mr. Downing also contended that all the lawsuits would not have
to be tried independently, even if they were not granted class-
action status.  For example, farmers might choose to litigate a
handful of "test cases," and then try to settle based on the
verdicts in those cases.

The Liberty Link strain of rice was not considered harmful to
humans, but it was not approved for human consumption by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the report points out.  The
department determined the rice likely escaped from a corporate-
funded test plot at Louisiana State University, where it was
grown alongside commercial varieties.

The suit is "In re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, Master
Docket No. 4:06MD1811 CDP," pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq. (levitt@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC
          Phone: 312-984-0000
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/

               - and -

          Don Downing, Esq.
          Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1826
          Phone: 800-451-2950 (Toll Free)
                 314-241-5620
          Fax: 314-241-4140
          Web site: http://www.grayrittergraham.com/

Representing the defendants is:

          Mark E. Ferguson, Esq.
          (mark.ferguson@bartlit-beck.com)
          Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott
          Courthouse Place
          54 West Hubbard Street
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Phone: 312-494-4404
          Fax: 312-494-4440


BLUE CROSS: N.C. Policyholders' Lawsuit Wins Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit that accuses Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North
Carolina of wrongfully allowing policyholders to be charged
higher rates for medical services after they received their
maximum benefits has recently won class action status, TMCnet
reports.

According to TMCnet, Special Superior Court Judge John R. Jolly
Jr., on Aug. 5, 2008, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the
nearly three-year-old suit.  The plaintiffs' attorneys said that
the recent court decision paves the way for thousands of
policyholders to seek claims against Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

"We're very pleased on behalf of the policyholders involved,"
said Raleigh lawyer Donald Beskind, Esq., of Twiggs, Beskind,
Strickland & Rabenau.  "It's an important first step to getting
them the recovery they deserve."

The report relates that the lawsuit also accuses Blue Cross of
breach of contract, breach of good faith, and unfair and
deceptive trade practices.  The suit seeks triple damages.

Specifically, at issue is the amount policyholders are charged
for services provided by in-network providers after the
policyholders have received the maximum amount of benefits
covered by their insurance policies.  In-network providers are
those that have a contract with Blue Cross to provide health
care at a discounted rate.  That discount can be as high as 50%,
Mr. Beskind explained.

The named plaintiff in the case is Macy M. Hamm, a Wake County
resident whose now five-year-old son, who suffers from cerebral
palsy, is covered under her Blue Advantage health insurance
plan.  The suit says that after reaching the maximum physical
therapy and speech therapy benefits from in-network providers,
Ms. Hamm was charged higher amounts for services than Blue Cross
paid when it was footing the bill.

The lawsuit contends Blue Cross promises in its contract that if
policyholders obtain services from an in-network provider, they
will never pay more than the discounted rate.

Mr. Beskind and his co-counsel, J. Martin Futrell, Esq., of
Philadelphia's Martin & Auerbach, clarified that they have no
beef with the in-network providers themselves, because the
amounts they charge are consistent.

However, TMCnet notes, Blue Cross pays a discounted rate that
may not be available to policyholders once they reach the
maximum amount of services covered by their policy and begin
paying 100% out of their own pocket.  That can occur when, for
example, the policyholder exceeds the maximum benefits for the
period of time covered by the policy.

"It is Blue Cross . . . that processes the bills between members
and their preferred provider," even after the policyholders have
reached their maximum benefits, Mr. Futrell said.

The report says that potential class members are policyholders
covered since November 2002 by "preferred provider
organization," or PPO, plans purchased individually or obtained
through a nonbusiness employer, such as a government or
nonprofit agency. Class members also must have exceeded their
maximum benefits and must have subsequently been charged higher
rates by in-network providers.

As a result of the court's ruling, policyholders who meet these
requirements will be notified by mail.

The state Department of Insurance is not aware of any consumer
complaints related to the issues raised in the lawsuit, said
spokeswoman Kristin Milam.

Blue Cross, however, denies the suit's allegations.

Many of Blue Cross' filings have been sealed from the public by
court order, TMCnet points out.  But in documents that are
available, Blue Cross argued the suit has no merit because,
among other things, providers -- not Blue Cross -- charge
policyholders for health care services.  The insurer also argued
Ms. Hamm isn't a party to the contracts between Blue Cross and
providers.

Judge Jolly noted in his recent order that Blue Cross contends
its policies only pertains to "covered services," and that
services provided after the maximum number of visits allowed are
no longer covered.  The judge also noted that Blue Cross
acknowledged it allowed policyholders to pay higher rates after
they reached the maximum number of visits, but not after they
reached the maximum amount of dollars, covered by their
policies.  The plaintiff argues that nothing in Blue Cross'
contract distinguishes between the two types of maximums.

According to TMCnet, the next step in the case is a hearing on
the plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment ruling on whether
Blue Cross is permitted, under its contracts, to allow in-
network providers to charger higher rates after policyholders
receive their maximum benefits.  That hearing has not yet been
scheduled.


CAMDEN COUNTY: Charges Prisoners Illegal Fees, N.J. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleges that Camden County charges
prisoners a "user fee" that is not authorized by the State of
New Jersey, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all individuals
who have been incarcerated in the Camden County Jail who were
charged and paid the user fee from Sept. 28, 1995, through the
date of class certification.

The plaintiff requests that the court certify a class pursuant
to Rule 23 and award:

     -- actual, special and general damages according to proof;

     -- statutory damages and penalties;

     -- restitution and disgorgement according to proof;

     -- injunctive relief against defendant to ensure uniform
        standards of conduct towards all class members and to
        prevent future wrongful conduct;

     -- prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate;

     -- declaratory judgment as necessary to correct the wrongs
        inflicted on them;

     -- litigation expenses and costs of the proceedings;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- all such further relief as the court deems just.

The suit is "Michael D. Barney, et al. v. Camden County Board of
Chosen Freeholders, et al., Case 1:33-av-00001," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
          26 Newton Avenue
          Woodbury, NJ 08096
          Phone: 856-845-1968


CEPHALON INC: Wants PROVIGIL Patent Deal Suits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc.; Barr Laboratories Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA; and Ranbaxy Laboratories
Ltd. are seeking the dismissal of lawsuits filed over their
PROVIGIL patent case settlements.

Initially, certain private parties brought a number of civil
antitrust complaints, purportedly filed as class-action suits
against the defendants.  The suits claim, among other things,
that the patent litigation settlements concerning PROVIGIL
violate the antitrust laws of the U.S. and certain state laws.

The suits have been recently consolidated into one complaint on
behalf of a class of direct purchasers of PROVIGIL and a
separate complaint on behalf of a class of consumers and other
indirect purchasers of PROVIGIL.

A separate complaint filed by an indirect purchaser of PROVIGIL
was filed in September 2007.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions are seeking monetary
damages and equitable relief.

The company moved to dismiss the class action complaints in
November 2006 and those motions are still pending.

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 30, 2008.

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is an
international biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and marketing of products to treat human
diseases.  The company's focuses its efforts in four core
therapeutic areas: central nervous system disorders, pain,
cancer and addiction.  In addition to conducting an active
research and development program, it markets six products in the
U.S. and number of products in countries throughout Europe.


CEPHALON INC: Still Faces Several Suits Over "Actiq" Cancer Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., continues to face several class-action
complaints over its ACTIQ cancer drug.

The company markets and sells ACTIQ, the only appropriate
medical use of which is the management of breakthrough cancer in
patients with malignancies who are already receiving and who are
tolerant to opoid therapy for their underlying persistent cancer
pain (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2007).

In other words, the FDA approved ACTIQ for a narrow class of
patients: cancer patients whose pain could not be managed with
other narcotic based drugs.

In late 2007, the company was served with a series of putative
class-action complaints filed on behalf of entities that claim
to have purchased ACTIQ for uses outside of the product's
approved label in non-cancer patients.

The complaints allege violations of various state consumer
protection laws, as well as the violation of the common law of
unjust enrichment, and seek an unspecified amount of money in
actual, punitive and treble damages, with interest, and
disgorgement of profits.

In May 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint that also allege violations of RICO and conspiracy to
violate RICO.

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 30, 2008.

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is an
international biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and marketing of products to treat human
diseases.  The company's focuses its efforts in four core
therapeutic areas: central nervous system disorders, pain,
cancer and addiction.  In addition to conducting an active
research and development program, it markets six products in the
U.S. and number of products in countries throughout Europe.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge William Alsup appointed Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro as lead counsel in the class-action lawsuit
against Charles Schwab Corporation (Nasdaq: SCHW - News)
involving Schwab YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares (SWYSX) and
Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select Shares (SWYPX).

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed the first class-action suit
against Charles Schwab on March 18, 2008, alleging that Schwab
deceived investors about the underlying risk in the funds.  The
funds were marketed as cash alternative when, in fact, the funds
were highly speculative including risky mortgage-related
structured debt, the suit contends.

After Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed the first suit, many
other proposed class actions were filed and subsequently
consolidated by the federal courts in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On July 3, 2008, Judge Alsup appointed five members of the
YieldPlus Investor Group as the lead plaintiffs and instructed
them to interview and choose counsel.

On August 14, 2008, the YieldPlus Investor Group submitted to
the court their decision to retain Hagens Berman.  On Aug. 18,
the Court approved that decision.

"We are pleased that the YieldPlus Investor Group selected our
firm as the lead counsel for the class action, and that the
court approved that decision," said Reed Kathrein, Esq., a
partner at Hagens Berman. "The court's ratification of the
group's selection means investors and witnesses now know where
to get information about the suit, and to whom they should
provide vital information that will allow this suit to be
prosecuted effectively."

Steve Berman, Esq., managing partner of the firm, said the firm
has heard from thousands of investors, some of which lost large
portions of their retirement savings.  "Hagens Berman has been
in close contact with many of the investors, and we know first-
hand how devastating Schwab's actions have been for them.  We
look forward to vigorously representing their interests in
court."

For more information, contact:

          Mark Firmani, Esq. (Mark@firmani.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          2505 2nd Avenue, Suite 700
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Phone: +1-206-443-9357, ext. 220


CONMED CORP: Aug. 26 Hearing Set for N.Y. Labor Lawsuit Motions
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 26, 2008 hearing is slated for various motions in a
purported class-action suit filed by a group of former sales
representatives of CONMED Corp.'s operating unit, CONMED
Linvatec, 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 April 7, 2006, CONMED received a copy of a complaint filed
before the U.S. District for the Northern District of New York
on behalf of a purported class of former CONMED Linvatec sales
representatives.

The suit seeks to certify a class of all former sales
representatives terminated in March 2003 who did not receive
severance from the company

The complaint alleges that the former sales representatives were
entitled to, but did not receive, severance in 2003 when CONMED
Linvatec restructured its distribution channels.

The company believes that the maximum exposure related to this
complaint is $2.5 million to $3.0 million, not including any
interest, fees or costs that might be awarded if the five named
plaintiffs were to prevail on their own behalf as well as on
behalf of all members of the purported class.

The company said CONMED Linvatec did not generally pay severance
during the 2003 restructuring because the former sales
representatives were offered sales positions with CONMED
Linvatec's new manufacturer's representatives.

Other than three of the five named plaintiffs in the class-
action suit, nearly all of CONMED Linvatec's former sales
representatives accepted such positions.

Four of the named plaintiffs submitted formal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act claims for severance, and said
claims were forwarded to the Plan Administrator for review and
action.

By letters dated June 9, 2006, the Plan Administrator denied the
claims.  Although the four named plaintiffs were able to appeal
the initial decision of the Plan Administrator, none of the
plaintiffs submitted appeals.

On June 5, 2006, CONMED filed a motion to dismiss certain counts
of the complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
certify a class of all former sales representatives terminated
in March 2003 who did not receive severance.

The company's motions to dismiss the case and for summary
judgment were denied by the court.

The District Court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of former CONMED Linvatec sales representatives
whose employment with CONMED Linvatec was involuntarily
terminated in 2003 and who did not receive severance benefits.

With discovery essentially completed, on July 21, 2008, the
company filed motions seeking summary judgment and to decertify
the class.  In addition, on July 21, 2008, the plaintiffs filed
a motion seeking summary judgment.  These motions are scheduled
to be heard on Aug. 26, 2008.

The suit is "Thompson, et al. v. Linvatec Corp., et al., Case
No. 6:06-cv-00404-NPM-GJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York, Judge Neal P. McCurn,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq.
          (tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com)
          Ian O'Neil Smith Moukawsher, Esq.
          (ismith@mwlawgroup.com)
          Walsh Law Firm
          21 Oak Street, Suite 209
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Phone: 860-278-7003
                 860-278-7005
          Fax: 860-548-1740


GLOBAL CASH: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., is facing a consolidated
class-action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging violation of Sections
11, 12(a) 2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1934.

Initially, a lawsuit entitled "Lowinger et al. v. Global Cash
Access Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 08-cv-03516," was filed
on April 11, 2008, by a stockholder against the company, certain
of its current and former directors, M&C International, Summit
Partners L.P., Goldman Sachs & Co. Inc., and J.P. Morgan
Securities, Inc.  The suit includes claims for, among other
things, damages and rescission.

On June 6, 2008, the company and certain other defendants moved
to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, where a related derivative litigation is
pending.  The motion has been fully briefed, and a decision is
still pending.

On June 10, 2008, an additional class action, entitled "City of
Richmond Retirement System v. Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc.
et al., Case No. 08-cv-05317," was filed by a separate
stockholder before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company, its wholly owned
subsidiary, certain of its former directors, its former chief
executive officer, its former chief financial officer, and
certain other parties.

That suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Exchange Act, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act.  The action includes claims for, among other
things, damages.

On June 26, 2008, the foregoing actions were consolidated, and
the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, according
to the company's Aug. 15, 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: Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-03516-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

               - and -

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. (jeisenhofer@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 646-722-8512
          Fax: 646-722-8501

Representing the defendants are:

          Joel Charles Haims, Esq. (jhaims@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Phone: 212-468-8000
          Fax: 212-468-7900

               - and -

          James L. Hallowell, Esq. (jhallowell@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: 212-351-3804
          Fax: 212-351-5266


HUTCHINSON TECH: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit
filed against Hutchinson Technology, 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 29, 2008.

The company and six of its present executive officers, two of
which are directors, were named as defendants in a consolidated
complaint filed by several investors on May 1, 2006, before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of all persons, except the defendants, who purchased
company stock in the open market between Oct. 4, 2004, and
Aug. 29, 2005.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements about the company, and the business
and prospects, in press releases and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings during the class period, and that
the market price of the company's stock was artificially
inflated as a result.

Additionally, the consolidated complaint also alleges claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

The suit seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged
class in an unspecified amount, interest, an award of attorneys'
fees and costs of litigation, and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief.

By Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on June 4, 2007, the
District Court granted the defendants' request and dismissed the
consolidated complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  On Aug. 5, 2008, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court in favor of
the defendants.

The suit is "In re Hutchinson Technologies Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-02095-PJS-JJG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Patrick J.
Schiltz, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 S. Service Rd., Ste. 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-454-7722

         Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. (gmfishbein@locklaw.com)
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP
         100 Washington Ave., S. Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981

              - and -

         Sharon M. Lee, Esq. (slee@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         275 Battery St., Ste. 3000
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-956-1000

Representing the defendants is:

         Ahna M. Thoresen, Esq. (athoresen@faegre.com)
         Faegre & Benson, LLP
         90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
         Phone: 612-766-7000
         Fax: 612-766-1600


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Sept. 11 Hearing for Minn. Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota set a
Sept. 11, 2008 hearing for the proposed settlement in a
purported class-action suit against Hutchinson Technology, Inc.,
alleging violations of labor law by the company.

Originally, Hutchinson Technology was named as defendant in a
complaint brought before the district court in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, by two current and three former employees and served
on the company on Aug. 28, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13,
2007).

The complaint asserts claims based on the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, several statutes and regulations dealing with
topics related to wages and breaks, and common law theories.  It
also alleges that the company fails to pay its production
workers for the time they spend changing into and out of
protective clothing and that the company does not provide
employees the breaks allegedly required by Minnesota law or
promised by company policy.

The complaint seeks pay for the allegedly unpaid time, an equal
amount of liquidated damages, other damages, penalties,
attorneys fees and interest.

The company has subsequently reached a tentative settlement with
the plaintiffs.  By order dated April 24, 2008, the District
Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and set a
final approval hearing for Sept. 11, 2008, 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 29, 2008.

Hutchinson Technology Inc. -- http://www.htch.com/-- operates
in  two segments: the Disk Drive Components Division and the
BioMeasurement Division.  The Disk Drive Components Division is
a supplier of suspension assemblies for disk drives.  Suspension
assemblies are precise electro-mechanical components that hold a
disk drive's recording head at microscopic distances above the
drive's disks.  The BioMeasurement Division is filling an
information gap in the monitoring of trauma patients with the
introduction of the InSpectra StO2 Tissue Oxygenation Monitor.
Launched in October 2006, the device gives hospital trauma teams
the ability to non-invasively and continuously measure tissue
oxygen saturation (St02) and monitor it during resuscitation.


INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: California Securities Suit Moves Forward
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied dynamic random access memory maker
Infineon Technologies AG's motion for summary judgment in a
consolidated shareholder class action suit alleging that the
company executives' engagement in a price-fixing scheme led to
significant shareholder losses, the Standford Law School
Securities class Action ClearingHouse reports.

Between September and November 2004, seven securities class
action complaints were filed against the company and its current
or former officers before various U.S. federal district courts,
on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of their publicly
traded securities who purchased them during the period from
March 2000 to July 2004.  These actions were later consolidated
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of the
U.S. securities laws and asserts that the defendants made
materially false and misleading public statements about the
company's historical and projected financial results and
competitive position because they did not disclose its alleged
participation in DRAM price-fixing activities and that, by
fixing the price of DRAM, defendants manipulated the price of
their securities, thereby injuring its shareholders.

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

In September 2006, the court dismissed the complaint with leave
to amend.  In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint.

In March 2007, pursuant to a stipulation agreed with the
defendants, the plaintiffs withdrew the second amended complaint
and were granted a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in July 2007
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14, 2008).

In February, the court finally upheld the complaint filed by
about 50,000 plaintiffs against the German chip manufacturer
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2008).  The plaintiffs
anticipate that the company would have to pay damages of more
than $500 million.

Recently, Judge Ware denied Infineon's motion for summary
judgment, after finding that certain information needed to
allege securities fraud was not available for general investors
until after September 2002, the cut-off for statute of
limitation purposes.

Therefore, the plaintiffs could not have effectively filed a
complaint before then.  "In sum, the court finds that the
information defendants proffer as being available to the
investing public prior to September 30, 2002 . . . was
insufficient to place plaintiffs on inquiry notice under the
inquiry-plus-reasonable-diligence test," Judge Ware concluded.

The suit is "In Re:Infineon Technologies AG Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-04156-JW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge James Ware, with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.
          New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          Fax: 212-682-1892
          e-mail: email@murrayfrank.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark R.S. Foster, Esq. (mfoster@mofo.com)
          Mia A. Mazza, Esq. (mmazza@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-268-6335
                 415-268-7000
          Fax: 415-268-7522


IPEX USA: Faces Nevada Suit Over Defective Kitec Pipes in Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ipex USA and three plumbing companies are facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court in Clark County,
Nevada, over allegations they damage homes with defective Kitec
pipes, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action suit for damages that the plaintiffs have
incurred as a result of owning homes in Clark County with Kitec
plumbing system or Kitec fittings on their plumbing pipes.

This matter is complex under Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure
(NRCP) 16.1(f) and the potential class members and unnamed
claimants include all owners of homes in Clark County wherein
Kitec plumbing systems and Kitec plumbing fittings were
installed.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- for general damages far in excess of $10,000 including
        all damages provided for under Chapter 40 of the Nevada
        Revised Statutes;

     -- for special damages far in excess of $10,000;

     -- for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- for costs of suit; and

     -- for any such further relief the court deems appropriate.

The suit is "Sandra Benavides, et al. v. IPEX USA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. A569659," filed in the U.S. District Court in Clark
County, Nevada.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Terry L. Wike, Esq.
          William R. Killip, Jr.
          Wike Killip Law Offices
          9500 W. Flamingo Rd., Suite 108
          Las Vegas, NV 89147


IWI HOLDING: Plaintiffs' Counsel Yet to Respond to "Rosen" Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' counsel in a purported class-action suit against
IWI Holding, Ltd., have yet to respond to a settlement proposed
in the matter, which was filed in connection with the company's
initial public offering on Dec. 16, 1994, and the dissemination
of financial data thereafter, according to the company's
Aug. 15, 2008 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In September 1996, Robert J. Rosen filed a class-action suit in
the Supreme Court in the state of New York alleging claims of
fraudulent misrepresentations by IWI Holding Ltd. and some
company officers, accountants and lawyers in connection with the
company’s initial public offering.

The plaintiff claims damages on behalf of the class in excess of
$11,000,000, which allegedly resulted from a decline of the
market value of the company's common stock after the initial
public offering.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
claim for a significantly lesser amount, which was accrued as of
Dec. 31, 1999.  The settlement agreement is subject to court
approval and the company may decline to proceed with the
agreement if a significant number of class members "opt out" of
the settlement.

As of April 30, 2007, there has been no response from counsel
for the class-action suit or from the lead counsel.

IWI Holding, Ltd., is engaged in the design, assembly,
merchandising and wholesale distribution of jewelry through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Imperial World, Inc.  The company
provides a range of fashionable jewelry targeted at consumers
who seek fine jewelry at moderate prices for every day wear.
These customers are likely to purchase jewelry at frequent
intervals as fashions and styles change.  The majority of the
company's U.S. sales are under the trade name of World Pacific
Jewelry.  Its customers are principally large retail
establishments with jewelry departments and mass media
marketers.  IWI Holding derived approximately 32%, 11% and 10%
of its net sales from three customers during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.


LAWNMOWER MANUFACTURERS: Sued Over Wrongful Horsepower Valuation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was recently filed in New Jersey charging
that manufacturers of lawnmowers have purposely misstated
horsepower valuations on their products in order to justify
higher prices, Newsinferno.com reports.

According to Newsinferno.com, the lawnmower horsepower fraud
class action lawsuit alleges that the major retailers and
manufacturers of lawnmowers have conspired for the past decade
to mislead consumers.

Defendants in the lawsuit include:

   -- Sears & Roebuck Co.,
   -- Briggs & Stratton,
   -- Deere & Co.,
   -- Tecumseh Products Co.,
   -- Briggs & Stratton Corp.,
   -- Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA.,
   -- MTD Products,
   -- The Toro Co.,
   -- American Honda Motor Co.,
   -- Electrolux Home Products,
   -- The Kohler Co.,
   -- Platinum Equity LLC, and
   -- Husqvarna Outdoor Products.

The lawnmower horsepower fraud class action lawsuit contends
that the defendants were all members of a 'Power Labeling Task
Force,' which met sometime in 2001 and discussed various means
by which to conceal horsepower fraud and misrepresent horsepower
to the consuming public.  One of the suggestions made by this
group was to include a misleading 'disclaimer' on the Outdoor
Power Equipment Institute Web site.  The disclaimer was titled
'Understanding Horsepower' and included misleading information
on horsepower issues.

The lawsuit also alleges that the defendants created a labeling
standard called 'SAE J1940' to conceal horsepower fraud.  This
labeling standard was an attempt to justify the labeling of
lawnmower engines with a false horsepower value.  According to
the lawsuit, the SAE standard "allowed for a 'fudge factor' of
up to 15% to be added to horsepower labels."

In addition, the lawsuit claims that the defendants also adopted
'gross horsepower' standard -- SAE J1995 -- which has no real-
world relevance in order to deceive consumers about the true
horsepower of their lawnmowers.  According to the complaint, the
SAE J1995 uses "the theoretical horsepower that an engine could
achieve under ideal laboratory conditions with all of the
legally required accessories removed from the engine -- such as
the air filter and exhaust mechanism."


LOWE'S COS: Discriminates Against Old Managers, Idaho Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lowe's Companies Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho alleging it
discriminates against older managers, demotes them, forces them
to quit and fires them, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges that Lowe's has engaged in an interwoven
set of personnel actions and practices designed to remove older
employees from Lowe's employment and to elevate younger
employees to fill managerial positions filled by older
employees.

Lowe's has effectuated this strategy through its performance
appraisal system and ratings, its policy and practice of
selection for management training, and its promotion, pay and
termination policies, practices and decisions, the suit
contends.

As a result, the suit relates, Lowe's has directly discriminated
against the plaintiffs and has engaged in a pattern or practice
of discriminating against employees over the age of 40,
including the plaintiffs, by assigning them lower performance
ratings, favoring younger persons for training opportunities,
denying older employees promotions, demoting them in attempts to
force them to quit, retaliating against those employees who
complain about such discriminatory treatment, and terminating
them for pretextual reasons.

The plaintiffs request:

     1. that this case be maintained as a class action on behalf
        of the proposed class and any appropriate subclasses;
        that plaintiffs be designated as representatives of the
        class and any subclasses, and that their counsel be
        designated as Class Counsel;

     2. that Lowe's policies and practices complained of herein
        be determined and adjudged to be in violation of the
        rights of the plaintiffs and the class members under the
        Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Idaho Human
        Rights Act;

     3. that a permanent prohibitory injunction be issued
        ordering Lowe's and its officers, agents, employees, and
        successors to cease and desist from the unfair
        discriminatory employment policies and practices
        complained of;

     4. that a permanent mandatory injunction be issued
        requiring Lowe's to take affirmative action as will
        effectuate the purposes of ADEA and IHRA, including
        adopting employment practices in accord with ADEA's and
        IHRA's requirements;

     5. that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and
        the class set forth in the suit and against Lowe's for
        reasonable monetary damages, including back pay (plus
        interest or an appropriate inflation factor and an
        enhancement to offset any adverse tax consequences
        associated with lump sum receipt of back pay), front
        pay, benefits, and all other damages owed to plaintiffs
        and the class members, in an amount to be proven at
        trial;

     6. that the plaintiffs and class members be awarded
        liquidated damages;

     7. that the plaintiffs and class members be awarded costs
        including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, experts'
        fees and other costs and expenses of this litigation;

     8. that the Court retain jurisdiction over this action
        until such time as it is satisfied that Lowe's has
        remedied the practices complained of and is determined
        to be in full compliance with the law; and

     9. that the plaintiffs and class members be awarded other
        and further legal and equitable relief as may be found
        appropriate and as the Court may deem just or equitable.

The suit is "James McReynolds, et al. v. Lowe's Companies,
Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          William H. Thomas, Esq. (wmthomas@twplegal.com)
          Daniel E. Williams, Esq. (danw@twplegal.com)
          Thomas, Williams & Park, LLP
          121 N. 9 St., Ste. 300
          P.O. Box 1776
          Boise, ID 83701- 1776
          Phone: 208-345-7800
          Fax: 208-345-7894


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Class Status Denial in "Williams" Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk
Industries, Inc. Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," are appealing to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit a ruling by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia that
denied their motion for class certification.

Four plaintiffs filed the suit in January 2004.  The case
purports that the plaintiffs are former and current employees of
the company and that the actions and conduct of the company,
including the employment of persons who are not permitted to
work in the U.S., have damaged them and the other members of the
purported class by suppressing the wages of the company's hourly
employees in Georgia (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2008).

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including:

      -- treble damages;
      -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and
      -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

According to the original complaint, the company sent its
employees "to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville,
Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the
U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North
Georgia.

The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters
provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them
jobs with the company.  It even charges that although some of
the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped
others evade detection.

Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired
several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work
force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under
different names.  It claims that the company destroyed documents
in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal
workers.

One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to
inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers,
thereby depressing wages.  Another was to reduce the number and
expense of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal
employees are unlikely to file," the suit states.

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was denied by the District Court in April 2004.
Following appellate review, the case was returned to the
District Court and discovery began.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the company opposed.

On March 3, 2008, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
class certification motion.  The plaintiffs then appealed the
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on
March 17, 2008.  Discovery has been stayed at the District Court
while the appeal is pending.

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 28, 2008.

The suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Case No.
4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Georgia, Judge Harold L. Murphy, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bobby Lee Cook, Esq. (LisaDodd@alltel.net)
         Cook & Connelly
         P.O. Box 370
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370
         Phone: 706-857-3421

              - and -

         Ronan P. Doherty, Esq. (doherty@bmelaw.com)
         John Earl Floyd, Esq. (floyd@bmelaw.com)
         Nicole G. Iannarone, Esq. (iannarone@bmelaw.com)
         Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq. (thorpe@bmelaw.com)
         Bondurant Mixson & Elmore
         1201 West Peachtree St., N.W.
         3900 One Atlantic Ctr.
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
         Phone: 404-881-4100

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Thomas Cottreau, Esq. (scottreau@sidley.com)
         Juan P. Morillo, Esq. (jmorillo@sidley.com)
         Virginia A. Seitz, Esq. (vseitz@sidley.com)
         Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
         1501 K. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-736-8000

              - and -

         R. Carl Cannon, Esq. (ccannon@constangy.com)
         Rosemary C. Lumpkins, Esq. (rlumpkins@constangy.com)
         Constangy Brooks & Smith
         230 Peachtree St., N.W.
         2400 Peachtree Center Tower
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1557
         Phone: 404-525-8622


MOTIVE: Class/Derivative Suits Settlement Appeal Period Expires
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motive, Inc., a leading provider of service management software
for broadband and mobile data services, announced that, in
connection with the agreement and plan of merger, dated June 16,
2008, between the company and Alcatel-Lucent (through its wholly
owned subsidiaries Lucent Technologies Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Magic Acquisition Subsidiary Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Lucent
Technologies, Inc.), the company has satisfied the closing
condition related to the final non-appealable settlements of the
company's previously announced class action and derivative
lawsuits.

On July 14, 2008, the court entered its final approval of the
class action lawsuit settlement, and as no appeal was filed by
August 13, 2008, such settlement became final and non-appealable
on that date.

On July 15, 2008, the court entered its final approval of the
derivative lawsuit settlement, and as no appeal was filed by
August 14, 2008, such settlement became final and nonappealable
on that date.

Also in connection with the Merger Agreement, the closing
condition related to the termination or expiration of the
waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvements Act of 1976 was satisfied on August 15, 2008, when
the waiting period terminated.

"We are pleased to have put these two conditions behind us and
remain on schedule with consummating the agreement with Alcatel-
Lucent," said Alfred Mockett, Chairman and CEO of Motive.

As indicated in a press release issued by Alcatel-Lucent on
August 13, 2008, the tender offer has been extended until 12:00
midnight, New York City time, at the end of Wednesday,
September 10, 2008.

Based in Austin, Texas, Motive, Inc. -- http://www.motive.com/
-- has pioneered a unique approach to designing management
services into Internet-era networks, systems and applications.
Founded in 1997, Motive's software makes complex products and
services self-managing, reducing overhead costs and optimizing
customers' return on investment.  With offices in Europe and
Asia, companies worldwide have relied on Motive's software to
provide a range of problem remediation and configuration
management tasks for more than 45 million endpoints.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Working to Resolve Ill. Mortgage Servicing MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corp. and Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, along with
several other defendants in the case entitled "In re Ocwen
Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL-1604, Master
Docket No. 04cv2714," are engaging in settlement discussions in
a bid to resolve the matter.

On April 13, 2004, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation granted Ocwen Financial's petition to transfer and
consolidate a number of lawsuits against itself, Ocwen Federal
Bank FSB, and various third parties arising out of the servicing
of the plaintiffs' mortgage loans into a single case to proceed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Currently, there are approximately 63 lawsuits against the Bank
and OCN consolidated in the MDL Proceeding involving 91 mortgage
loans that the company currently services or previously
serviced.  Additional similar lawsuits have been brought in
other courts, some of which may be transferred to and
consolidated in the MDL Proceeding.

The borrowers in many of these lawsuits seek class action
certification.  Others have brought individual actions.

No class has been certified in the MDL Proceeding or any related
lawsuits.

On May 19, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint containing various claims under federal
statutes, including the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and bankruptcy laws, state
deceptive trade practices statutes and common law.

The claims are generally based on allegations of improper loan
servicing practices, including:

       -- charging borrowers allegedly improper or unnecessary
          fees such as breach letter fees, hazard insurance
          premiums, foreclosure-related fees, late fees,
          property inspection fees and bankruptcy-related fees;

       -- untimely posting and misapplication of borrower
          payments; and

       -- improperly treating borrowers as in default on their
          loans.

While the Amended Complaint does not set forth any specific
amounts of claimed damages, the plaintiffs are not precluded
from requesting leave to amend further their pleadings or
otherwise seek damages should the matter proceed to trial.

On April 25, 2005, the trial court entered an Opinion and Order
granting the Bank partial summary judgment finding that, as a
matter of law, the mortgage loan contracts signed by plaintiffs
authorize the imposition of breach letter fees, foreclosure-
related fees and other legitimate default-related fees.

The trial court explained that its ruling was in favor of the
defendants to the specific and limited extent that plaintiffs'
claims challenge the propriety of the above-mentioned fees.

On May 16, 2006, after having denied a motion to dismiss based
on federal preemption, the trial court granted the company's
motion to take an interlocutory appeal on the issue.

On July 29, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit granted the company's request to hear the appeal.  On
June 22, 2007, the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion holding
that many of the claims were preempted or failed to satisfy the
pleading requirements of the applicable rules of procedure and
directing the trial judge to seek clarification from the
plaintiffs regarding various aspects of the Amended Complaint so
as to properly determine which particular claims are to be
dismissed.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, which contains servicing practices allegations
similar to those set forth in the first amended complaint.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on the
grounds that the claims are preempted and are deficient as a
matter of law.

On March 17, 2008, upon the parties' stipulation, the trial
court entered an order permitting Ocwen to withdraw its motion
to dismiss without prejudice to facilitate settlement
discussions, which are ongoing, 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 Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing
Litigation, MDL-1604, Master Docket No. 04cv2714," filed in the
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr., presiding.


PALAMA HOLDINGS: Recalls Possibly Contaminated Pork Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Palama Holdings, LLC, a Kapolei, Hawaii, establishment, is
recalling approximately 4,535 pounds of fully cooked pork
products because they may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service announced.

The following product is subject to recall: [View Label]

     * 16-oz. bags of "MAY'S HAWAII KALUA BRAND PORK (WITH UP TO
       TWELVE PERCENT SOLUTION ADDED), FULLY COOKED, SMOKE
       FLAVOR ADDED."  Each bag bears the establishment number
       "EST. 11077" inside the USDA mark of inspection, as well
       as a freeze-by date of "9/17/08" or "9/20/08."  These 16-
       oz. bags available for retail purchase are distributed in
       packages of three, which are shipped in cases of 15
       packages each.  Each case is labeled "MAY'S KALUA BRAND
       PORK, 15 PACKAGES/3 LB EACH" and bears the case code
       "325466."

     * 10-pound cases of "MAY'S KALUA BRAND PORK." Each case
       bears the establishment number "EST. 11077" inside the
       USDA mark of inspection as well as a date code "21708"
       and a case code "325469."  Each case contains two 5-pound
       packages intended for food service use.

The pork products were produced on Aug. 4 and Aug. 7, 2008, and
were distributed to food service and retail establishments in
Hawaii to the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Maui and Oahu.

The problem was discovered by FSIS routine microbiological
testing.  FSIS has received no reports of illness associated
with consumption of this product.  Anyone with signs or symptoms
of foodborne illness should consult a medical professional.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis.  However,
listeriosis can cause miscarriages and stillbirths, and can also
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weak
immune systems, such as infants, the elderly, and persons with
HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy.  Infection can spread
to the nervous system, resulting in high fever, severe headache,
neck stiffness, nausea, confusion and convulsions.

Media with questions about the recall should call company Chief
Executive Officer Bill Loose at 808-682-8362.  Consumers with
questions about the recall should call company Vice President of
Sales Lionel Yokoyama at 808-682-8368.


PENN NATIONAL: Faces Md. Lawsuit Over Terminated $5.82BB Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
behalf of common stock purchasers from April 1, 2008, through
July 3, 2008, against Penn National Gaming, Inc. (NASDAQ: PENN)
over a terminated merger, PR-Inside.com reports.

The complaint specifically alleges that upon Penn National
Gaming's merger and target date announcement and aforesaid
representations, the company's stock, which had been trading in
the mid to low 50s, jumped to over $63 per share.

According to the complaint on July 3, 2008, shares of Penn
National fell to a new low, after the company abruptly announced
that its planned $5.82 billion takeover by Fortress Investment
Group and Centerbridge Partners, L.P., has been terminated.  The
complaint alleges that upon information and belief, sometime
after Penn National's merger announcement, while the company's
stock was on the rise, the company's family members and close
associates began rapidly selling PNG's stock.

Consequently, the price of Penn National's stock began to
deteriorate.  The complaint accuses that in April, May, and
June 2008, Penn National failed to disclose that it was
negotiating the termination of the merger agreement and that the
company's omission or failure to disclose concerned one or more
material facts.

The plaintiff alleges that Penn National made the omission
knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth thereof, and
with the intent to deceive or defraud.

Penn National owns and operates gaming and racing facilities.
The company presently operates 19 facilities in 15
jurisdictions, including Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ontario.  Net
revenues for the 12-month period ended March 31, 2008, were
about $2.5 billion.


PENNSYLVANIA: Riverwalk Fire Victims File Suit in Montgomery
------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint was filed in Montgomery County Court of
Common Pleas alleging that negligence on the part of the
developer, building and management contractors of the Millennium
apartment complex here contributed to the catastrophic losses
suffered by hundreds of residents as a result of last Thursday's
eight-alarm fire, Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq., of the
Philadelphia firm of Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky,
P.C., who is the attorney for the plaintiffs, said after the
filing in Norristown.

Mr. Mongeluzzi said the Millennium residents, including the
named plaintiffs on behalf of the class, recognized that only
through litigation would they be able to determine the full
extent of negligent conduct that led to the tragedy and fully
recover their losses.

"We are underway in our investigative process and the filing of
the class- action complaint (#08-23265, Montgomery county, PA
Court of Common Pleas) is a crucial phase in the litigation,"
explained Mr. Mongeluzzi.  "We have assembled a team that
includes leading construction and fire prevention system
engineers, and we will get to the bottom of this and obtain
justice for the victims."

The attorney said initial reports are deeply troubling as to
what may have caused the fire at the Stables apartment building
under construction, and regarding the fire suppression systems
at the adjacent Riverwalk buildings.  According to the
complaint, the Stables project was wood-frame construction
without fire protection measures, including a functioning
automatic sprinkler system.

"It is clear that neither the project under construction, nor
the Riverwalk complex that was occupied, were built and managed
to avoid a foreseeable catastrophic fire," Larry Bendesky, Esq.,
an SMBB partner and co-counsel to the plaintiff-displaced
residents said.  "As we have observed in similar disasters, this
represents a complete failure to prevent an easily preventable
calamity."

Mr. Mongeluzzi added, "The welder's torch was apparently only
one error in a series of contributing errors.  We also intend to
focus on the relationship between the developer, O'Neill
Properties, and the general contractor, Merion Construction.  It
is the role of the GC to act independently to ensure the safety
of the construction site.  However, in this case Merion is a
wholly owned subsidiary of O'Neill Properties."

The defendants named in the complaint are Pennsylvania
businesses, O'Neill Properties Group, King of Prussia; Merion
Construction, Inc., King of Prussia; L21 Construction Managers,
Leesport; and Bozutto Corporation, of Greenbelt, Maryland.

The SMBB counsel team also includes Michael F. Barrett, Esq.,
David J. Cohen, Esq., Patrick Howard, Esq., and Brian D. Kent,
Esq.

For more information, contact:

         Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.
         52nd Floor, One Liberty Place
         Center City Philadelphia, PA
         Phone: 215-96-8282
         Web site: http://www.smbb.com/


PHILADELPHIA CONSOLIDATED: Still Faces LASIC Policyholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. continues to face a
purported class action suit in Florida over insurance policies
issued by Liberty American Select Insurance Co.

On Feb. 26, 2008, the company received a complaint filed before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by
seven individuals.  These individuals purported to act on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons who had been issued
insurance policies by Liberty American Select Insurance Co.,
formerly known as Mobile USA Insurance Co.

The complaint, which is alleged to be a "class action
complaint," was filed against Philadelphia Insurance and its
subsidiaries, LASIC, Liberty American Insurance Co., and Liberty
American Insurance Group, Inc.

The complaint requests an unspecified amount of damages "in
excess of $5,000,000," and equitable relief to prevent the
defendants from committing what are alleged to be unfair
business practices.

The plaintiffs allege that from the period from at least as
early as Sept. 1, 2003, through Dec. 31, 2006, they and other
policyholders sustained property damage covered under policies
issued by LASIC, and that LASIC improperly denied or paid only a
portion of the policyholders' claims for which they were
entitled to be reimbursed.

The company reported no development in the matter on its 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 "Appel et al. v. Liberty American Insurance Co., et
al., Case No. 1:08-cv-20385-DLG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Donald L.
Graham, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. (ta@aronovitzlaw.com)
          Aronovitz Jaffe
          150 W. Flagler Street
          Suite 2700 Museum Tower
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-372-2772
          Fax: 305-375-0243

              - and -

          Michael H. Lax, Esq. (mhlax@laxpa.com)
          Michael H. Lax, P.A.
          18001 Old Cutler Road, Suite 409
          Miami, FL 33157
          Phone: 305-256-5529
          Fax: 305-256-5597


PURDUE PHARMA: Lawsuit Over OxyContin Drug Demands $31 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in Calgary claims that the
addictive powers of OxyContin have left a central Alberta man in
a "state of despair," Canoe.ca reports.

The court action says Lindsay Black has not been able to
overcome his addiction to the prescription drug, which was
marketed as safer than other medicinal narcotics.  Mr. Black's
lawsuit, filed by Calgary lawyer Clint Docken, Esq., seeks
compensation for all Albertans who have been prescribed the
drug, which is sold under the trade name "OxyContin" by Purdue
Pharma and its sister companies.

Specifically, according to the report, the lawsuit seeks
$31-million in damages.

"Mr. Black feels trapped by OxyContin in part because he sees no
way out of the box the drug has put him in," the claim states.
"Mr. Black suffers from upset and depression over his inability
to return to work."

Moreover, the suit relates, Mr. Black's Class 1 driver's license
was not renewed by his doctor after he developed his addiction.
It says that Mr. Black "suffers from depression over his
knowledge of his addiction to OxyContin" and "suffers from
depression over the loss of his social life."

According to Canoe.ca, Mr. Black was first prescribed the drug
in 2002 for a work-related injury.  His lawsuit alleges that the
manufacturers of the prescription painkiller were negligent in
selling it to Albertans.

"The defendants knew or ought to have known that OxyContin had
addictive properties and could cause damage to those who took
the drug," the suit says.  The claim also notes that the Purdue
group of companies has acknowledged wrongful marketing in the
U.S.

The suit relates that in May 2007, Purdue Pharma agreed to pay
$19.5 million to 26 states and the District of Columbia to
settle complaints that it encouraged doctors to over-prescribe
the medication.  Purdue Frederick Company Inc. also pleaded
guilty in U.S. Federal Court to criminal charges relating to
"misbranding" and paid $600 million in fines and other payments,
while three executives of Purdue Pharma LP agreed to pay
$34.5 million.

Canoe.ca says that the defendants have not yet filed statements
of defense in response to the suit's unproven allegations.


RED ROBIN: Scheduling Order on Huggett Suit Appeal Yet to be Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to set a
scheduling order for an appeal in a consolidated lawsuit against
Robin International, Inc., according to Red Robin Gourmet
Burgers, Inc.'s Aug. 15, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 13, 2008.

In January 2006, the company was served with a purported class-
action suit, entitled "Matthew Huggett v. Red Robin
International, Inc.," filed before the Superior Court of the
State of California and subsequently removed to federal district
court in Orange County, California.

The Huggett lawsuit alleged failure to comply with California
wage and hour regulations, including those governing meal and
rest periods, payment of wages upon termination and provision of
itemized statements to employees, as well as unlawful business
practices and unfair competition.

In December 2006, the company was served with an additional
purported class-action suit, alleging violations of California's
wage and hour laws.

The suit is captioned, "William Harper v. Red Robin
International, Inc.," which alleged failure by the company to
provide meal and rest breaks in compliance with California wage
and hour regulations.

The company has entered into settlement agreements in the Harper
matter to settle all pending claims, including an extended class
period to include putative class members in the Huggett matter.

The plaintiff in the Huggett case joined in the Harper
settlement with no additional money being added to the
settlement.

The Harper and Huggett cases were consolidated and, on Oct. 22,
2007, the court granted preliminary approval of the
Harper/Huggett settlement.

The class has begun to receive notice of the settlement, and
claims are currently being processed.  A hearing on the final
settlement approval was set for March 10, 2008.

However, on Feb. 12, 2008, former legal counsel for "Huggett"
filed a motion to intervene in the settlement.  Thus, the final
approval and fairness hearing in connection with the deal and
the hearing on the former counsel's objection was held on
May 19, 2008.

Following oral argument, the court took all matters under
advisement for ruling at a later date.  Final approval and
dismissal with prejudice was granted on June 30, 2008.  The
court denied all objections.

The court further granted $500,000 in attorneys' fees to class
counsel and none to Mr. Huggett's former counsel.

On July 28, 2008, Mr. Huggett's former counsel filed an appeal
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth
Circuit has not issued a scheduling order for the appeal to
date.

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. -- http://www.redrobin.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, is a casual dining restaurant
chain focused on serving gourmet burgers.  As of Dec. 30, 2007,
the company owned and operated, or franchised 384 restaurants,
of which 249 were company-owned, 135 were operated under
franchise agreements including one restaurant that was managed
by the company under a management agreement with the franchisee.
As of Dec. 30, 2007, there were Red Robin restaurants in 40
states and two Canadian provinces.  The company's menu features
its signature product, the gourmet burger, made from beef,
chicken, veggie patties, pork, fish or turkey and serve in a
variety of recipes.  Red Robin offers a selection of toppings
for gourmet burgers, including fresh guacamole, barbeque sauce,
grilled pineapple, crispy onion straws, sauteed mushrooms, a
choice of seven different cheeses and even a fried egg.


RED ROBIN: Court Gives Final OK to "Hill" Wage & Hour Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has granted final approval to the proposed
settlement in the matter "Marie Hill vs. Red Robin
International, Inc.," according to Red Robin Gourmet Burgers,
Inc.'s Aug. 15, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 13, 2008.

The suit was filed in December 2006, alleging violations of
California's wage and hour laws.  Specifically, the suit alleged
failure to pay overtime, misclassification of managers, and
failure to pay for or provide meal and rest breaks.

The company entered into a settlement agreement in the Hill
matter, which was preliminarily approved on Nov. 19, 2007.  The
class has received notice of the settlement, and claims are
currently being processed.  The court granted final settlement
approval on April 14, 2008.

Once the claimants have been paid, this matter will be closed,
the company said in its regulatory filing.

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. -- http://www.redrobin.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, is a casual dining restaurant
chain focused on serving gourmet burgers.  As of Dec. 30, 2007,
the company owned and operated, or franchised 384 restaurants,
of which 249 were company-owned, 135 were operated under
franchise agreements including one restaurant that was managed
by the company under a management agreement with the franchisee.
As of Dec. 30, 2007, there were Red Robin restaurants in 40
states and two Canadian provinces.  The company's menu features
its signature product, the gourmet burger, made from beef,
chicken, veggie patties, pork, fish or turkey and serve in a
variety of recipes.  Red Robin offers a selection of toppings
for gourmet burgers, including fresh guacamole, barbeque sauce,
grilled pineapple, crispy onion straws, sauteed mushrooms, a
choice of seven different cheeses and even a fried egg.


RENNA'S MEAT: Recalls Possibly Contaminated Beef Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Renna's Meat Market, a Fresno, California firm is recalling
approximately 780 pounds of ground beef products that may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

     * Various sizes of ground beef products bearing the
       establishment number "EST. 27365" inside the USDA mark of
       inspection.  These food service products were intended
       for restaurant use.

     * Various sizes of custom ground beef products wrapped in
       unmarked butcher paper with no label.  The products were
       custom orders from the establishment's retail operation
       and do not bear the establishment number or USDA mark of
       inspection.

These ground beef products were distributed to restaurants and
sold to consumers in the Fresno, Calif., area.  The recalled
products were packaged from Aug. 1, 2008, through Aug. 8, 2008,
and consumers may have purchased these ground beef products
between Aug. 5, 2008, and Aug. 9, 2008.

The problem was discovered by FSIS routine microbiological
testing. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated
with consumption of this product.  Anyone with signs or symptoms
of foodborne illness should consult a medical professional.

Consumers are urged to check their refrigerators and freezers
and discard the product or return the ground beef products for a
refund.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases,
kidney failure.  The very young, seniors and persons with weak
immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, and only consume ground beef or ground beef patties
that have been cooked temperature of 160° F.  The only way to be
sure ground beef is cooked to a high enough temperature to kill
harmful bacteria is to use a thermometer to measure the internal
temperature.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should
contact company owner Joe Renna at 559-304-2852.


SCANA ENERGY: Ga. Court Dismisses Natural Gas Overcharging Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
dismissed a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 26, 2008,
against SCANA Energy Marketing, Inc., over allegations that the
company overcharged for natural gas and customer service in
Georgia since March 2007, according to South Carolina Electric &
Gas Co.'s Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of all individuals
or entities who, during the period from march 2007 to the
present, were Georgia residents and Legacy SCANA Customers who
were charged by SCANA a price for natural gas and customer
service charges that exceeded SCANA's published price effective
at the beginning of their monthly billing cycles (Class Action
Reporter, March 3, 2008).

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether SCANA unlawfully charged Legacy SCANA Customers
         prices for natural gas and customer service charges
         that exceeded SCANA's published price in effect at the
         beginning of such consumers' billing cycles in
         violation of OCGA Section 46-4-160(h) and Commission
         Rule 515-7-6-02(a)(5);

     (b) whether SCANA modified the methodology used to compute
         the price Legacy SCANA Customers paid for a natural gas
         that resulted in excessive payments by Legacy SCANA
         Customers;

     (c) whether SCANA failed to provide at least 25 days notice
         to Legacy SCANA Customers prior to the implementation
         of the new methodology in violation of Commission Rule
         515-7-6-01(a)(9);

     (d) whether the activities of SCANA served or could serve
         to mislead, deceive, or work a fraud upon plaintiffs
         and the class members in violation of OCGA Section 46-
         4-153(e);

     (e) whether SCANA violated plaintiffs and class members
         rights pursuant to the Consumers' Bill of Rights set
         forth in OCGA Section 46-4-151(b)(9)(A)-(I); and

     (f) whether plaintiffs and members of the class are
         entitled to an award of damages against SCANA, and, if
         so, in what amount.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:

     -- determining that the action is a proper class action and
        certifying an appropriate plaintiff class pursuant to
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- awarding all actual damages, exemplary damages, treble
        damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs against
        SCANA in an amount to be determined at trial; and

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

On June 13, 2008, the court dismissed the suit with prejudice.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration,
which the court denied.

The suit is "David K. Weiskircher et al. v. SCANA Energy
Marketing, Inc., Case No. 1:08-CV-0640," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jason R. Doss, Esq.
          Samuel T. Brannan, Esq.
          Page Perry, LLC
          1040 Crown Pointe Parkway, Suite 1050
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone : 770-673-0047
          Fax: 770-673-0120


SIX FLAGS: Reaches Settlement in California Labor-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags, Inc., settled a purported class-action suit filed in
California, alleging labor-related violations, 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.

Certain plaintiffs filed the complaint on Nov. 7, 2005, on
behalf of a purported class of current and former employees
against the company in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege 10 causes of action for,
among others, unpaid wages and related penalties, and violations
of California law governing employee meal and rest breaks with
respect to Six Flags Magic Mountain, Six Flags Hurricane Harbor
Los Angeles, Six Flags Discovery Kingdom (formerly Six Flags
Marine World), Waterworld USA/Concord and Waterworld
USA/Sacramento.

On April 5, 2006, the company moved for summary judgment with
respect to some of the plaintiffs' purported claims and to
dismiss all claims against those parks and individuals who were
improperly named in the complaint.

Since that time, the plaintiffs have amended their complaint to
include several additional purported class members.  Discovery
is proceeding with respect to the company's summary judgment
motion and the class certification issue.

An agreement was reached to settle the case.  Under the
settlement, which covers the period from November 2001 to
Dec. 18, 2007, the company expressly denies any violation of
California law governing employee meal and rest breaks or other
wrongdoing.

In 2007, the company deposited into escrow $9,225,000 to be
applied to the initial settlement fund which has been recorded
in other expense.

In each of March 2009 and March 2010, the company is required to
pay up to a maximum of $2,500,000 into the settlement fund based
on its meeting certain performance criteria in 2008 and 2009,
respectively.

Six Flags, Inc. -- http://www.sixflags.com/-- is engaged in
operating regional theme parks.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, the company operated 20 parks.  In April 2007, the company
sold seven parks.  The theme parks offer thrill rides, water
attractions, themed areas, concerts and shows, restaurants, game
venues and retail outlets.  In 2007, the theme parks offered
more than 840 rides, including over 130 roller coasters.


SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Rights-of-Way Lawsuit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (SCE&G), SCANA Corp., and
SCANA Communications, Inc. (SCI), continue to face a rights-of-
way lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the
Ninth Judicial Circuit.

In May 2004, SCANA and SCE&G were served with a purported class
action suit filed by Douglas E. Gressette, individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated against the
companies.  The case was filed in South Carolina's Circuit Court
of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

The plaintiff alleges that SCANA and SCE&G made improper use of
certain easements and rights-of-way by allowing fiber optic
communication lines and wireless communication equipment to
transmit communications other than SCANA's and SCE&G's
electricity-related internal communications.

The plaintiff asserted causes of action for unjust enrichment,
trespass, injunction and declaratory judgment.   The plaintiff
did not assert a specific dollar amount for the claims.

SCANA and SCE&G believe their actions are consistent with
governing law and the applicable documents granting easements
and rights-of-way.

The Circuit Court granted SCANA's and SCE&G's motions to dismiss
and issued an order nixing the case in June 2005.

The plaintiff appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.  The
Supreme Court overruled the Circuit Court in October 2006 and
returned the case for further consideration.

In July 2007, the Circuit Court issued a ruling that limits the
plaintiff's purported class to owners of easements situated in
Charleston County, South Carolina.

The plaintiff appealed this ruling to the South Carolina Court
of Appeals.  The court has dismissed the appeal, determining
that the Circuit Court ruling is not immediately appealable.

On Feb. 27, 2008, the Circuit Court issued an order to
conditionally certify the class, which remains limited to
easements in Charleston County.

The plaintiff has moved to add SCANA Communications, Inc., to
the lawsuit as an additional defendant.  This motion was granted
by the Court and SCI was served with the complaint on July 14,
2008, according to South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.'s Aug. 5,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. -- http://www.sceg.com/--
generates and sells electricity to retail and wholesale
customers, and purchases, sells and transports natural gas to
retail customers.


STATE FARM: Settles Mississippi Breach of Contract Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Biloxi, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood announced the
settlement of the state's breach of contract lawsuit against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Jackson Free
Press reports.

The report recounts that the state's lawsuit was filed after
State Farm refused to comply with a January 2007 Hinds County
Chancery Court settlement.

Jackson Free Press also relates that as a result of the
settlement, State Farm will send out new notices to the
remaining 148 slab and pier only policyholders, who have not yet
sued, settled or already participated in the reevaluation
process.

The Hinds County Chancery Court settlement required that State
Farm establish an administrative procedure to be approved by the
Federal Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to
reevaluate claims of its policyholders in Hancock, Harrison, and
Jackson counties and make new offers to its policyholders for no
less than 50% of Coverage A limits to slab or pier only claims,
subject to policy limits and prior payments.

The report explains that the controversy leading to the breach
of contract suit resulted when State Farm refused to comply with
the requirements set forth by Federal District Court Judge
Senter in order to obtain his approval of the class action
settlement submitted to the Court by State Farm and the class
plaintiffs.

State Farm instead set up the process with the Mississippi
Department of Insurance to reevaluate these claims.  After the
Attorney General's Office reviewed a sampling of the settlements
reached in this program, it appears that State Farm has complied
with making the minimum 50% offers.

As a result of the Attorney General's original state court
settlement with State Farm, the company has paid at least an
additional $74 million to coast policy holders.  In addition,
Nationwide Insurance has paid out an additional $40 million to
its policy holders.

Attorney General Hood stated, "Under the terms of the original
settlement, which required supervision of the federal district
court, a lot more money would have been paid out, because the
panel of arbiters would have been chosen evenly by the
plaintiffs and State Farm.  Under the Mississippi Insurance
Department reevaluation program, there were no arbiters.  When
we entered into the original agreement, our Office estimated
that the arbiters would make State Farm pay between the minimum
of $50 million and $400 million.  Nevertheless, the additional
$74 million paid by State Farm pursuant to the Mississippi
Department of Insurance reevaluation program apparently meets
the minimum payments required under our original state court
settlement agreement."

This settlement agreement includes additional benefits for the
remaining slab or pier only policyholders, who were eligible to
have their claims reevaluated, but have not done so.  State Farm
has agreed to send these 148 policyholders new notices that will
inform them how they can still participate in the reevaluation
process, if the policyholder submits the enclosed reevaluation
form postmarked by August 29, 2008.  In accordance with the
Attorney General's original agreement with State Farm, these
offers are guaranteed to total no less than 50% of Coverage A
limits, subject to policy limits and prior payments.

Eligible policyholders who complete their reevaluation forms by
August 29, 2008, will receive an offer from State Farm.  Those
policyholders will have 21 days from the date the offer is
mailed to accept the offer, or it will be deemed rejected by the
policyholder.  The policyholder will still have 30 days from the
date of actual or deemed rejection to pursue legal action, if
desired.

The Attorney General encourages any eligible policyholder who
receives a letter from State Farm to consider all available
options.  All policyholders, even those not covered by this
agreement, may desire to seek individual legal assistance to
ensure that their rights are asserted in a timely manner.


SUNRISE PROPANE: Hundreds Join Suit Over Aug. 10 Toronto Blast
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of Toronto residents have joined a multimillion-dollar
class-action lawsuit against Sunrise Propane, the city and the
province 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, The Sault
Star reports.

The lawsuit is filed on behalf of Toronto residents who were
injured, evacuated and whose homes were destroyed or damaged,
allege that their damage was caused by the negligence of the
defendants (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008).

According to the report, residents of the affected neighborhood
fear that the blast drove down the resale values of their homes
by 20%.  More than 1,000 people are expected to join the
lawsuit.

Lawyer Richard Bogoroch, who heads a personal injury firm, said
it is too soon to put a price tag on the suit.

Mr. Bogoroch says environmental consultants need to do tests and
real estate assessors must determine the impact the blast will
have on property values.

To contact Mr. Bogoroch:

          Richard M. Bogoroch
          Bogoroch & Associates
          Sun Life Financial Tower, Suite 1707
          150 King Street West
          Toronto, Ontario M5H 1J9
          Phone: +416-599-1700
          Toll Free: 1-866-599-1700
          Fax: +416-599-1800


TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Chiropractor's Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Phil Gilbert has dismissed a lawsuit
that chiropractor Kathleen Roche of Belleville proposed as a
class action against Travelers Insurance, Steve Korris writes
for St. Clair Record.

According to the report, Judge Gilbert recently ruled that
Travelers did not breach a contract or commit fraud.

        Dismissal May Affect Madison and St. Clair Cases

The report relates that Judge Gilbert's ruling casts a cloud of
uncertainty over similar suits filed in Madison and St. Clair
counties.

Judge Gilbert stressed that he based his order on Illinois law,
obligating Madison and St. Clair judges to agree or reason why
similar suits against insurer Country Mutual should go forward.

As reporter in the Class Action Reporter on May 3, 2007, Country
Mutual Insurance Co. -- also known as County Casualty Insurance
Co. and doing business as Country Cos. -- is facing a class
action in the Circuit Court, 20th Judicial Circuit in St. Clair
County, Illinois, over an alleged "silent PPO" scheme to save
millions in payouts to medical providers.  A Preferred Provider
Organization (PPO) is a managed care technique in the healthcare
industry that involves a tripartite relationship between:

     (1) a group of health care providers (i.e. preferred or in-
         network providers);

     (2) payors (such as insurance companies) who pay for the
         services provided to the insured persons or
         beneficiaries (i.e. patients); and

     (3) a network administrator who establishes this PPO
         arrangement.

Under this arrangement, the CAR report explained, healthcare
providers are organized by a network administrator to offer
their medical services at discounted rates to entities
responsible for paying the medical expenses, in exchange for
those payors "preferring" the providers to their insured or
beneficiaries through incentives provided to the insured or
beneficiary to use the services of the preferred providers.

According to the St. Clair Suit, a "Silent PPO" is the
illegitimate appropriation of discounted reimbursement amounts
by insurers, such as an automobile insurer like Country, who do
not offer preferred provider policy to insured persons and
beneficiaries, and who do not offer any financial incentive
mechanism (e.g. reduced co-payments, reduced deductible or
reduced premiums) to direct, steer, or channel insured persons
or beneficiaries to designated providers for receipt of medical
services.

In 2003, the lead plaintiff in the St. Clair Suit, Ms. Roche,
entered into a Preferred Provider Agreement with Corvel Corp.,
wherein Ms. Roche was to become a member in a PPO known as
CORCARE PPO administered by Corvel.  Ms. Roche claims Country
Mutual improperly got access to Corvel's provider discount
database and processed its Illinois medical expense claims
through Corvel's automated PPO re-pricing and discounts.  Ms.
Roche claims the discounts were applied even though Country
Mutual had no preferred provider policy and its beneficiaries
are not encouraged to get treatment from network providers.  She
also claims Country Mutual paid Corvel a fee for access to its
database, scamming Illinois health-care providers out of
millions of dollars in services.

St. Clair Record notes that Judge Gilbert delved into reports
from Congress and national associations of doctors and hospitals
to such a degree that he may understand them better than
attorneys on either side.

Kevin Hoerner, Esq., of Belleville, who represents Ms. Roche in
at least four lawsuits, has already urged St. Clair County
Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson to ignore Judge Gilbert.

The report says that at an Aug. 6 hearing in a class action that
Ms. Roche proposes against insurer Country Mutual, Mr. Hoerner
told Judge Gleeson that Judge Gilbert's order was not
precedential.  He said Judge Gilbert was not an appellate court
and the order was "persuasive at best."

"It has no impact on your decision in this case," Mr. Hoerner
said.  Judge Gleeson said he would read it.


UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 46: Minority Rights Lawsuit Gets Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has granted class-action status to a long-
running lawsuit that accuses Elgin schools of violating the
rights of minority students by forcing them to attend older and
more crowded schools and to ride buses farther than white
students, Mary Ann Fergus writes for Chicago Tribune.

According to the report, the recent ruling, entered by Judge
Robert Gettleman of the U.S. District Court in Chicago, greatly
increases the number of African-American and Hispanic students
with potential claims against Elgin-based Unit School District
46.  Also as a result of the ruling, District U-46 could be
forced to implement district-wide remedies -- which could affect
17,000 African-American and Hispanic students instead of just
the 14 plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- if the allegations are
proved.

Chicago Tribune recounts that the suit was filed in February
2005 on behalf of five families with 18 students in the
district.  Four have since graduated from high school and are no
longer a part of the suit, which seeks changes in how the
state's second largest school district treats minority students.

The suit alleges that the district redrew its boundaries to
segregate minority students and that the district inadequately
serves students with limited English proficiency.

In 2006, the report recounts, Judge rejected an earlier request
for class-action certification.  However, in a recent ruling,
Judge Gettleman wrote that any deficiencies in the request for
class-action status have been rectified.

"Specifically, the claims of the named plaintiffs are now
tightly aligned with claims of the two defined classes; each
claim is now matched to at least one named plaintiff," Judge
Gettleman wrote in the ruling, dated August 8, 2008.  He also
noted that legal obstacles to class-action were eliminated by
the addition of three new families as plaintiffs.

The judge further noted that the plaintiffs already had
identified district policies and practices that could support
allegations of harm to two classes of students, minorities and
those with limited English proficiency.

Carol Ashley, Esq., of the Futterman and Howard law firm, one of
the lawyers who filed the suit on behalf of the minority
families, said her clients "have been extremely committed to
making sure the community understands that they believe their
children have not been provided equal access to district
facilities."  Ms. Ashley said her clients will surely "feel
gratified that the court has recognized the scope of the
problem."

Attorneys for the school district told Chicago Tribune that they
were still analyzing the judge's order.

"We're disappointed with the ruling," said Patricia Whitten,
Esq., of the law firm Franczek Sullivan.  "We obviously disagree
with it.  We didn't think they strongly plead claims for
individuals, much less an entire class."

According to the report, U-46 serves more than 41,000 students
from pre-kindergarten through high school in 11 suburbs in Kane
and DuPage Counties and northwest Cook County.


WACHOVIA CORP: Klafter Olsen Hired to Commence Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP has been retained to commence a
securities class action suit against Wachovia Corporation (NYSE:
WB), Evergreen Fixed Income Trust, Evergreen Investment
Management Company, LLC ("Evergreen Investment") and others in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of investors in all classes of shares of the Evergreen
Ultra Short Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: EUBAX, EUBBX, EUBCX,
EUBIX) who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Fund
between October 28, 2005, and June 18, 2008, inclusive, and who
have suffered losses on their investment.

The Fund was managed by Evergreen Investment, which is the name
under which Wachovia Corporation operates its investment
management business.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 by publicly disseminating materially false and
misleading information in the Registration Statements filed by
Evergreen Fixed Income Trust on behalf of the Funds on Oct. 28,
2005, Oct. 26, 2006, and Oct. 26, 2007.

The complaint charges that the defendants solicited investors to
purchase shares of the Fund by stating that the Fund's
investment objective was to "provide current income consistent
with preservation of capital and low principal fluctuation."

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because the fund employed an undisclosed
high-risk strategy that ultimately led to the demise of the
Fund.  As a result, the defendants are alleged to have violated
the Securities Act of 1933.

The law generally imposes strict liability on the issuer
responsible for a materially false and misleading Registration
Statement, meaning that no fraud need be proved for shareholders
to recover.

Beginning on or about June 9, 2008, the Fund's per share net
asset values declined precipitously across all share classes.
On June 19, 2008, the Fund reported that it was liquidating, and
that its net assets were only $403 million, far lower than the
$731.4 million net asset value reported by the Fund on March 31,
2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 22,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Kurt B. Olsen, Esq.
          Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP
          1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: +1-202-261-3553
          Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.com/


YTB INT'L: Faces Purported Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
YTB International, Inc., three company subsidiaries, and certain
executive officers are facing a purported class action lawsuit
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois, according to the company's Aug. 15, 2008 Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Aug. 14, 2008.

The suit, "Hartman et al. v. YTB International, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:08-cv-00579-MJR-CJP," which is seeking to be
certified as a class-action, was filed on Aug. 14, 2008.  It
alleges that the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The suit is "Hartman et al. v. YTB International, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:08-cv-00579-MJR-CJP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Judge Michael J.
Reagan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John J. Carey, Esq. (jcarey@careydanis.com)
          Carey & Danis, L.L.C.
          Generally Admitted
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-725-7700
          Fax: 314-721-0905


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FEDERAL HOME: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates filed a class action alleging violations
of the federal securities law against the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation and certain of its officers and directors
on behalf of purchasers of Freddie Mac securities from Nov. 21,
2007, through Aug. 5, 2008.

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

In addition, the firm continues its investigation of claims with
respect to the Company's public offering of $6 billion of
preferred shares on or about Nov. 29, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that the Company misled investors as to
the soundness of the Company's mortgage portfolio, its
underwriting standards and the adequacy of its capital.  It took
on massive exposure to subprime and other non-traditional risky
loans and under-reserved for bad loans and sub-prime investments
leading to delayed asset write-downs.

Freddie Mac common shares which traded in the $30 range in late
2007 have been decimated by the subsequent revelations of the
Company's losses and write-downs, so that Freddie Mac common
shares are now trading below $6, wiping out hundreds of millions
of dollars in shareholder value.  Due to the continuing
deteriorating situation, there have been suggestions that a
government bail-out might be necessary.

On or about November 29, 2007, the Company sold $6 billion in
Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Shares
which trade under the symbol FRE-PZ.  The Preferred Shares,
which were offered at $25 per share, have lost over 40% of their
value.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Oct. 17,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490
          Web site: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com/


GT SOLAR: Named Defendant by Weiss & Lurie in New Hampshire Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Lurie filed a class action lawsuit
against GT Solar in the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire on behalf all persons who purchased
common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the company's
July 24, 2008 initial public offering.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint alleges that the Class
was damaged by defendants' false and misleading Registration
Statement for its IPO.

This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of defrauded
investors who purchased GT Solar securities.

Parties who purchased GT Solar securities pursuant or traceable
to the Registration Statement issued in connection with its IPO,
may move the court no later than Sept. 30, 2008, for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


REDDY ICE: Izard Nobel Files Michigan Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, commenced a lawsuit seeking class action
status before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on behalf of those who purchased the common
stock of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. between Aug. 10, 2005, and
March 6, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Reddy Ice and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false statements concerning the Company's financial
performance and prospects.  Specifically, it is alleged that
Reddy Ice failed to disclose that:

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

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

On March 6, 2008, Reddy Ice issued a press release announcing
that "federal officials executed a search warrant at the
Company's corporate office in Dallas on March 5, 2008."  On this
news, shares of the Company's stock fell $7.73 per share to
close at $15.38 per share.

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

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 800-797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *