CAR_Public/080827.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 27, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 170

                            Headlines

ADVANCED MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Withdraw Calif. Securities Lawsuit
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Several Suits Over MoisturePlus Recall
CARIBOU COFFEE: Will Pay $2.7M to Settle FLSA Suit in Minnesota
CARROLS: Court Denies "Seever" Certification & Dismisses Claims
CENTRO PROPERTIES: Preliminary Hearing for Opt In Claim Underway

CHASE MANHATTAN: Hurricane Victims Sue Over Settlements Interest
CIB MARINE: Holding Company & Insurer Agree to Pay $4.7 Million
CLIMATE MASTER: Still Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Worker Stealing Personal Files
COWEN GROUP: N.Y. Court Allows WorldSpace IPO Lawsuit to Proceed

EXTENDICARE HOMES: Sued for Poor-Quality Care in Nursing Homes
FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Calif. Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Oct. 24 Hearing Set for "Wright" Settlement
HOSPIRA INC: Court Denies Summary Judgment in "Nauman"
KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Class Certification in Calif. Labor Suit

KOPIN CORP: Parties Agree to Dismiss Mass. Shareholders' Lawsuit
MARICOPA COUNTY: Suit Accuses Unconstitutional Strip Searches
MCCORMICK & SCHMICKS: Calif. Court Approves "Wynne" Settlement
MERCEDES-BENZ: California Lawsuit Claims Lemon Laws Violations
MITSUBISHI DIGITAL: Faces Lawsuit Over 1080 Pixel Display TVs

MRV COMMS: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Sept. 8
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Remaining Iowa Lawsuit
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Iowa
SAINT JOSEPH'S: Sued Over Patient Admission and Billing Scheme
SOUTHERN CO: Claims Dismissal in Mirant IPO Suit Under Appeal

TRIPLE-S INC: Wants P.R. Suit of Shareholder's Heirs Dismissed
TRIPLE-S INC: Certain Physicians Appeal "Thomas" Suit Settlement
UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 46: Appeals Bias Suit Class Certification
VERIZON WIRELESS: Oct. 21 Hearing Set for $21M ETF Settlement
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Wash. Suit Over Steered Investments

XETHANOL: N.Y. Court Approves $2.8MM Deal in Securities Lawsuit
YRC WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Fuel Surcharges Complaint


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

COMPUCREDIT CORP: Chitwood Harley Files Georgia Securities Suit
INYX INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
PERINI CORP: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Massachusetts
REDDY ICE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Michigan Securities Lawsuit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********



ADVANCED MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Withdraw Calif. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
against Advanced Medical Optics, Inc., have voluntarily
dismissed their case.

On Aug. 24, 2007, and Sept. 13, 2007, two purported class-action
complaints were filed by Scott Kairalla and Barry Galison,
respectively against Advanced Medical.  Both suits were filed
before the U.S. District Court of the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities
between Jan. 4 and May 25, 2007.

The suits were joined together and an amended consolidated
complaint was filed on Jan. 18, 2008.

The consolidated complaint alleged claims under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the company, and certain
of its officers and directors.  It also alleged that the company
made material misrepresentations concerning its Complete
MoisturePlus product.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on Feb. 29, 2008, on behalf of all defendants.  On June 6, 2008,
the court granted the dismissal motion, dismissed the
consolidated complaint without prejudice, and granted plaintiffs
leave to amend on or before July 7, 2008.

Rather than file an amended complaint, the plaintiffs agreed to
voluntarily dismiss the consolidated complaint and the case was
dismissed with prejudice on July 11, 2008, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2008.

Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. -- http://www.amo-inc.com/site/--
is engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of
medical devices for the eye.


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Several Suits Over MoisturePlus Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Medical Optics, Inc., is facing several lawsuits,
including some purported class-action suits, in relation to the
May 25, 2007 recall of its Complete MoisturePlus Multi-Purpose
Solution.

As of March 28, 2008, the company has been served or are aware
that it has been named as a defendant in approximately 116
product liability lawsuits pending in various state and federal
courts in relation to the recall.

These suits involve allegations of personal injury to 148
consumers.  Specifically, of these 116 cases, 101 have been
filed in various U.S. courts, 12 in Canada and three in
jurisdictions outside North America.

None of the U.S. personal injury actions have been filed as
purported class actions.  However, nine of the Canadian personal
injury matters seek class action status.

In addition to personal injury suits, three U.S. and four
Canadian matters have been filed as purported class actions by
uninjured consumers seeking reimbursement for discarded product
pursuant to various consumer protection statutes.

These cases involve complex medical and scientific issues
relating to both liability and damages and are currently at an
early stage.  Moreover, most of the plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages.

The company reported no further details regarding the cases in
its Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2008.

Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. -- http://www.amo-inc.com/site/--
is engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of
medical devices for the eye.


CARIBOU COFFEE: Will Pay $2.7M to Settle FLSA Suit in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caribou Coffee Co. Inc. agreed to pay over $2.7 million to
settle a class action lawsuit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota and filed by former and
current employees over allegations that the company violated the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal FLSA, and state
common law.

On May 25, 2005, the company received notice of a complaint
commenced by three of its former employees before the State of
Minnesota District Court for Hennepin County.  The suit seeks
monetary and equitable relief from the company under the
Minnesota FLSA, the Federal FLSA, and state common law.

The suit primarily alleges that the company misclassified its
retail store managers and managers in training as exempt from
the overtime provisions of the Minnesota FLSA and the FLSA and
that these managers and mangers in training are therefore
entitled to overtime compensation for each week in which they
worked more than 40 hours from May 2002 to the present with
respect to the claims under the FLSA and for weeks in which they
worked more than 48 hours from May 2003 to the present with
respect to the claims under the Minnesota FLSA.

The plaintiffs sought payment of an unspecified amount of
allegedly owed and unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties under the
Minnesota FLSA, an accounting of the amount allegedly owed to
the putative class, temporary and injunctive relief, attorney's
fees and costs.

Since commencement, the company has removed the matter to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The plaintiffs have also brought a motion to have the suit
conditionally certified as a class action on behalf of the
relevant class.  This motion for conditional certification was
granted by the court, and, as a result, notices were sent to
potential class members giving them the option to opt in to the
litigation.

At this date, the opt-in period has expired and 295 of the over
900 potential class members opted in to the litigation.

Subsequently, however, the company and the plaintiffs underwent
mediation and, on Feb. 1, 2008, entered into an agreement to
settle the suit.

The Stipulation of Settlement, which was contingent upon court
approval, provides for a gross settlement payment of
$2.7 million, plus the employer's share of payroll taxes.

The settlement payments will be made as follows:

       -- $1.75 million on the later of the date of District
          Court final approval of the settlement or March 15,
          2008; and

       -- $950,000 on the later of Dec. 29, 2008, or 30 days
          after the date of final District Court approval
          of the settlement, along with interest on this
          installment from the date of the initial installment
          payment at 6% simple interest.

Settlement payments will be made to all participating class
members and all attorneys' fees for plaintiffs' counsel will be
paid from the $2.7 million, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

The suit is "Nerland et al. v. Caribou Coffee Co., Inc., Case
No. 05-cv-01847-PJS-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. (jonc@cuneolaw.com)
         Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
         507 C. St., NE
         Washington, DC 20002
         Phone: 202-789-3960

         Clayton D. Halunen, Esq. (halunen@halunenlaw.com)
         Halunen & Associates
         220 South 6th Street, Ste. 2000
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-605-4098
         Fax: 612-605-4099

              - and -

         Charles N. Nauen, Esq. (cnnauen@locklaw.com)
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981

Representing defendants are:

         Peter N. Hall, Esq. (phall@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding, LLP
         191 Peachtree St.
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
         Phone: 404-572-4698

              - and -

         Joseph M. Sokolowski, Esq. (jsokolowski@parlaw.com)
         Parsinen Kaplan Rosberg & Gotlieb
         100 S. 5th St., Ste. 1100
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1298
         Phone: 612-333-2111
         Fax: 612-333-6798


CARROLS: Court Denies "Seever" Certification & Dismisses Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
denied a motion that sought class certification of a purported
class-action suit against Carrols Corp., 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.

On Nov. 30, 2002, four former hourly employees of the company
commenced a lawsuit, captioned "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols
Corp., Case No. 6:02-cv-06580-DGL-MWP."

The lawsuit alleges, in substance, that Carrols violated certain
minimum wage laws under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
related state laws by requiring employees to work without
recording their time and by retaliating against those who
complained.

The plaintiffs seek damages, costs and injunctive relief.  They
also seek to notify, and eventually certify, a class consisting
of current and former employees who, since 1998, have worked, or
are working, for Carrols.

As a result of the July 21, 2005 status conference, the parties
agreed to withdraw the plaintiffs' requests for certification
and national discovery, as well as the defendant's motion to
disqualify counsel and related motions, in order to allow both
sides limited additional discovery.

Carrols has since filed a motion for summary judgment as to the
existing plaintiffs that the court has under consideration.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed their certification
and national discovery requests, which Carrols opposed.

Carrols also moved to disqualify the plaintiffs from
representing the class and to strike the purported evidence
presented in support of their certification motion.

On Dec. 17, 2007, the court issued a decision and order denying
the plaintiffs' motion for notice and class certification and
granting the company's motion to dismiss all of the claims of
the plaintiffs, other than certain nominal claims relating to
orientation and managers' meetings.

The court instructed the parties to confer, in good faith, and
settle those nominal claims.  Subject to settlement of the
amounts for orientation and managers' meetings and possible
appeal by the plaintiffs, the case is concluded.

The suit is "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp., Case No.
6:02-cv-06580-DGL-MWP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York, Judge David G. Larimer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick J. Solomon, Esq.
         (psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com)
         Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP
         693 East Avenue
         Rochester, NY 14607
         Phone: 585-272-0540
         Fax: 585-272-0574

Representing the defendants is:

         Helen N. Baker, Esq. (hbaker@freebornpeters.com)
         Freeborn & Peters
         311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-360-6256
         Fax: 312-360-6995


CENTRO PROPERTIES: Preliminary Hearing for Opt In Claim Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centro Properties Group executives appeared at a Melbourne
Federal Court directions hearing on Aug. 25, 2008.  Preliminary
hearings for Maurice Blackburn's "opt in" claim and Slater &
Gordon's traditional claim will be heard before Justice Ray
Finkelstein as part of a billion-dollar-plus joint class action
suit.

Investors represented by Slater & Gordon and Maurice Blackburn
have accused Centro of being involved in misleading and
deceptive conduct, failing to adhere to accounting standards,
breaching continuous disclosure obligations and deliberately
misclassifying its debt position.

The law firm Slate & Gordon lodged a class action suit in the
Federal Court in Melbourne specifically against:

     -- Centro Properties Ltd,

     -- CPT Manager Ltd, the responsible entity for Centro
        Property Trust,

     -- Centro Retail Ltd, and

     -- Centro MCS Manager Ltd, the responsible entity for the
        Centro Retail Trust

on behalf of Nicholas Vlachos, Monatex Pty Ltd and Ramon Franco
(Class Action Reporter, May 27, 2008).

The applicants are representative parties for persons who were
not group members in the class action claim commenced against
Centro Properties Ltd and CPT Manager Ltd by Maurice Blackburn
on May 9, 2008, also in the Federal Court in Melbourne.

Maurice Blackburn filed a shareholder class action suit against
the property fund, with a claim value of at least
AUD100 million, on behalf of litigation funder IMF Australia Ltd
(Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2008).

According to IMF, the claims relate to alleged misleading and
deceptive conduct and breaches by Centro of its continuous
disclosure obligations between August 9, 2007, and February 15,
2008.

Maurice Blackburn's shareholder claim seek compensation over the
price paid for securities inflated by Centro's alleged failure
to properly disclose its circumstances.

Centro Properties Group -- http://www.centro.com.au/--  is a
retail investment organisation specialising in the ownership,
management and development of retail shopping centres.  Centro
manages both listed and unlisted retail property and has an
extensive portfolio of shopping centres across Australia, New
Zealand and the United States.  Centro has funds under
management of $24.9 billion.


CHASE MANHATTAN: Hurricane Victims Sue Over Settlements Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
New Orleans alleging it cheated homeowners of interest on
settlements for property damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This class action arises from the direct violation of Louisian
revised Statutes (La. RS) 6:337 and La. RS 10:9-211 and from the
unjust enrichment and conversion that occurred by the
defendants' failure to pay the class the interest generated by
the insurance settlement proceeds paid jointly to the plaintiffs
and the defendants as a result of the damage to immovable
properties from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

According to the report, after the hurricanes, the plaintiffs
received settlement checks for property damages, written jointly
to them and to their mortgage lenders, Chase Manhattan or Chase
Home Finance.

The plaintiffs endorsed the checks and sent them on to Chase.
They say that Chase "did not place any portion of the settlement
proceeds drafts in an interest bearing account," and that Chase
has not "ever paid to plaintiffs the interest generated by the
settlement proceeds", in violation of Louisiana law.

Instead, Chase Manhattan "converted and otherwise
misappropriated the settlement proceeds for their own use and
for their own benefit," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs file this suit on behalf of all persons who
received a payment of insurance settlement proceeds that were
made payable jointly to them and Chase Home Finance, LLC and
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation as a result of damage to
immovable property by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita who endorsed
and forwarded the settlement proceeds to Chase Manhattan
Mortgage Corporation, and Chase Home Finance, LLC, its agent or
servicer, and who were not paid the interest, in accordance with
Louisiana law, that was generated by the settlement proceeds
that were then held by Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation and
Chase Home Finance, LLC its agent or servicer.

The plaintiffs ask the court to:

     -- certify this case as a class action;

     -- award money damages against all defendants, jointly and
        severally, for all losses and damages suffered as a
        result of the acts and transactions complained of,
        together with prejudgment interest, crafted in a fashion
        to ensure defendants do not participate therein or
        benefit thereby;

     -- direct defendants to account for all damages caused by
        them and all profits converted funds, and unjust
        enrichment they have obtained as a result of their
        unlawful conduct;

     -- direct defendants to take all necessary actions to
        comply with La. RS 6:337, its predecessor La. RS 10:9-
        211, and all applicable Louisiana statutes and
        jurisprudence, including but not limited to Louisiana's
        laws prohibiting unjust enrichment and conversion;

     -- award costs and disbursements of this action, including
        reasonable attorney's, accountant's and expert's fees;
        and

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

The suit is "Henry W. Holzenthal, et al. v. Chase Manhattan
Mortgage Corp., et al., Case No. 08-8711," filed in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of New Orleans.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq.
          Kevin Oufnac, Esq.
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-455-1400
          Fax: 504-455-1498


CIB MARINE: Holding Company & Insurer Agree to Pay $4.7 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parent company of Central Illinois Bank and that company's
insurer have agreed to pay a total of $4.7 million to settle two
lawsuits brought by shareholders and a former employee.

CIB Marine Bancshares, based in Pewaukee, Wis., disclosed this
week it reached a tentative settlement in a federal class-action
suit brought by disgruntled shareholders and a state suit
brought by former employee John Ruedi.  Both suits have been
pending since 2005.

The shareholders' suit alleged that CIB Marine Bancshares
engaged in securities fraud in connection with the sale of stock
between Jan. 21, 2000, and April 14, 2004.  Mr. Ruedi's suit
accused CIB Marine of fraudulent and negligent concealment and
intentional interference with a business relationship.

Both suits claimed the company concealed information about
financial problems, with the plaintiffs contending they were
hurt by not having that information.

Under terms of the settlement, the bank holding company would
pay $3.4 million $3 million of which has already been set aside
and its insurer would pay an additional $1.3 million.

Before becoming final, the settlement needs to be approved by
the Federal Reserve and by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who
has been hearing the federal case in Milwaukee.  CIB Marine
Bancshares said it believes the cases can be settled during the
fourth quarter of this year.

CIB Marine Bancshares, which is trying to pay off debt and is
facing deadlines early next year, has put together a capital
plan to cover those obligations.  But regulators haven't agreed
to allow the company's banks to transfer capital to the holding
company, so CIB is considering a range of options, including a
possible sale or merger.

On Friday, the company's president and chief executive officer,
John P. Hickey Jr., said the settlement "takes the uncertainty
out" for shareholders, regulators and "other folks we're talking
to." Hickey said CIB's banks, Champaign-based Central Illinois
Bank and Wisconsin-based Marine Bank, "operate well and are
still well-capitalized."  But he said the settlement will spare
the company continuing legal expenses, and that will be superior
"to having a cloud over us."

Joseph Phebus and Daniel Pope of the Urbana law firm of Phebus &
Koester served as lead counsels for the shareholders. Pope said
Friday he and Phebus were pleased with the settlement.

"While we believe the actual loss suffered by class members is
much higher than the $4.7 million settlement, it was the
consensus of all the experienced plaintiffs' counsels, and was
encouraged by the judge, to accept the amount offered in light
of the bank's . . . financial condition," Pope said.

Mr. Pope said CIB's insurance policy had been depleted by
defense costs and "what was described as the insurance company's
decision to deny coverage and payment of any future defense
costs."  "In light of those factors, we think the settlement was
as fair a settlement as we could get under the circumstances,"
he said.

Mr. Pope said the settlement agreement applies to all
shareholders who bought stock in CIB Marine Bancshares during
the four-year time frame, and not just plaintiffs named in the
federal suit.

He said he couldn't estimate what each shareholder would
receive, partly because he doesn't know how many shareholders
are eligible.  Advertisements notifying shareholders of the
class-action suit settlement will appear in newspapers, he
added.

Of the $4.7 million settlement, $282,000 was set aside to cover
the Ruedi suit, Mr. Pope said.

In the same Securities & Exchange Commission filing in which CIB
announced the settlement, the company disclosed that Illinois
bank regulators have informed the company they intend to deny
Central Illinois Bank's request to reduce its permanent capital
and transfer cash to the holding company.

Wisconsin regulators recently denied a similar request by the
company's Wisconsin banking subsidiary.

Central Illinois Bank originated in Champaign County, but its
holding company grew to include banks in several states.  The
company's troubles began surfacing in 2002 and deepened in 2004,
when J. Michael Straka stepped down as chief executive officer
and the company sold its Chicago banking subsidiary.

Since then, CIB Marine Bancshares has been working to restate
earnings, gain efficiencies and restore profitability.  However,
it's not out of the woods yet.  Last week the company reported a
$14-million loss on continuing operations for the quarter that
ended June 30.


CLIMATE MASTER: Still Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Master, Inc., a unit of LSB Industries, Inc., continues
to face a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that certain
evaporator coils sold by Climate Master in Illinois from 1990 to
approximately 2003 were defective.

The complaint requests certification as a class action for the
State of Illinois, which request has not yet been heard by the
court.  It was filed in the Illinois state district court on
September 2007.

The plaintiff asserts claims based upon negligence, strict
liability, breach of implied warranties, and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Climate Master has timely filed its pleadings to remove this
action to federal court.  It has also filed its answer denying
the plaintiff's claims and asserting several affirmative
defenses.

LSB reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 6, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 18, 2008.

LSB Industries, Inc. -- http://www.lsb-okc.com/-- is a
diversified holding company, which operates through its wholly
owned subsidiary, ThermaClime, Inc., and its subsidiaries.  The
Company operates in two segments: Climate Control and Chemical.
Climate Control business is engaged in the manufacturing and
selling of a range of heating, ventilation and air conditioning
products for use in commercial and residential new building
construction, renovation of existing buildings and replacement
of existing systems.  Chemical business is engaged in the
manufacturing and selling of chemical products produced from
plants in Texas, Arkansas and Alabama for the industrial, mining
and agricultural markets.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Worker Stealing Personal Files
---------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Financial Corp. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida alleging it allowed an employee to steal 2 million
customers' personal financial information and sell it illegally
to third parties, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a consumer class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all
persons throughout Florida whose identities were intentionally
and illegally sold by a representative of defendants in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC Section 1681
et seq. (FCRA).

The complaint alleges that the defendants deliberately and
recklessly did not maintain reasonable procedures designed to
limit the furnishing of private, personal information for the
permissible purposes outlined under FCRA.

Citing an Aug. 1 press release by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the complaint states that the FBI arrested a
former "senior financial advisor" for Countrywide and charged
him with "stealing and selling its customers identities,
including full Social Security numbers, to third parties."

Rene L. Rebolla Jr. worked in Countrywide's subprime mortgage
division, "and every weekend for the last two years downloaded
20,000 customers' personal information on a flash drive. The
information was then unlawfully sold to Wahid Siddiqi who would
in turn sold (sic) the sensitive information to other
companies," the complaint states.  "Altogether, approximately 2
million consumers had their personal and financial information
sold to third parties without plaintiffs or class members'
permission or for any permissible purpose under the law."

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants' employee sold Consumer Reports
         within the meaning of 15 USC Section 1681a(d)(1)
         without the class' authorization;

     (b) whether defendants' agent had a permissible purpose
         under FCRA to sell Consumer Reports within the meaning
         of 15 USC Section 1681a(d)(1);

     (c) whether defendants are a consumer reporting agency as
         defined by 15 USC Section 1681a(f);

     (d) whether defendants violated FCRA by failing to properly
         maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the
         furnishing of Consumer Reports to the permissible
         purposes outlined under FCRA;

     (e) whether defendants violated FCRA when they allowed
         their employees access to the class' Consumer Reports;

     (f) whether defendants violated FCRA when their employee
         sold Consumer Reports to third parties in violation of
         FCRA;

     (g) whether defendants' conduct was intentional;

     (h) whether defendants' conduct was reckless;

     (i) whether defendants' conduct constitutes an unfair
         and deceptive trade practice;

     (j) whether defendants were negligent in collecting and
         storing personal and financial information of their
         customers;

     (k) whether defendants took reasonable measures to
         safeguard the personal and financial information of
         their customers;

     (l) whether defendants owed a duty to the class to protect
         the personal and financial information of defendants'
         customers;

     (m) whether defendants breached their duty to exercise
         reasonable care in storing their customers' personal
         and financial information by storing that information
         on their computer systems and in their physical
         possession;

     (n) whether defendants breached a duty by failing to keep
         the class' personal and financial information secure;

     (o) whether defendants were negligent in failing to keep
         the class' personal and financial information secure;

     (p) whether the class have sustained damages, and if so,
         what is the proper measure of those damages;

     (q) whether statutory damages are proper in this matter;

     (r) whether injunctive relief is appropriate in this
         matter; and

     (s) whether defendants failed to properly give notice
         pursuant to Florida Statute Section 817.5681.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:

      -- certifying this matter as a class action with
         plaintiffs as class representatives and designating
         plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;

      -- finding that defendants violated the FCRA due to their
         failure to maintain reasonable procedures designed to
         limit the furnishing of reports to the permissible
         purposes outlined under FCRA;

      -- finding that defendants are responsible for their
         employee's actions as an agent of the defendants;

      -- requiring defendants to pay actual damages sustained;

      -- enjoining defendants from actions which place consumers
         at a risk of future security breaches;

      -- requiring defendants to pay the class reasonable
         attorneys' fees and costs of litigation; and

      -- providing for such other legal and equitable relief
         as justice requires.

The suit is "Richard Goldman, et al. v. CountryWide Financial
Corporation, et al., Case 0:08-cv-61349-MGC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Harke & Clasby, LLP
          155 South Miami Ave., Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-536-8220
          Fax: 305-536-8229


COWEN GROUP: N.Y. Court Allows WorldSpace IPO Lawsuit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied a motion that sought the dismissal of the consolidated
amended complaint in a class action lawsuit that names Cowen
Group, Inc., as a defendant.

In all of the cases brought to date, the plaintiffs seek to
recover losses allegedly caused by misrepresentations and
omissions in connection with the Aug. 4, 2005 initial public
offering by WorldSpace, Inc., a satellite-radio provider.

The complaints, which were later consolidated, allege that the
subscriber count in the WorldSpace prospectus improperly
included subscribers who had purchased a three-month, pre-paid
subscription pursuant to a promotional offer but who declined to
continue to pay for a subscription following the end of the
promotional period.

On July 21, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Cowen Group, Inc. -- http://www.cowen.com/-- is an investment
bank that provides research, sales and trading, and investment
banking services to companies and institutional investor clients
in the healthcare, technology, media and telecommunications,
alternative energy and consumer sectors.


EXTENDICARE HOMES: Sued for Poor-Quality Care in Nursing Homes
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed against Extendicare Homes Inc.
over the poor-quality care it provides through 15 state nursing
homes that it owns, Diane Urbani de la Paz writes for Peninsula
Daily News.

According to the report, the suit was filed on August 21 in King
County Superior Court on behalf of the late Lee Ann Steele and
some 3,000 patients who have lived in Extendicare's Washington
state facilities over the last year.

Peninsula Daily cites the plaintiffs' attorney, Stephen Garcia,
Esq., of Long Beach, Calif., as saying that the Extendicare
homes "have a long record of excessive and repeated citations by
the Washington Department of Social and Health Services for
providing substandard care and care that violates the rights of
residents."

Jared Elliott, Extendicare's vice president of western
operations, said in a statement on Friday that the company has
not had time to evaluate the suit.  But he added that because of
state regulations, "there are approximately 189 requirements
that each facility must meet . . . These deficiencies are
typically isolated to just a few residents and do not impact
most residents in the facility."

The Extendicare nursing homes named in the lawsuit include:

   * Crestwood Convalescent Center;

   * Port Angeles Care Center, which has been closed;

   * Bremerton Convalescent & Rehabilitation Center;

   * North Auburn Rehabilitation & Health Center;

   * Evergreen Nursing & Rehabilitation Center;

   * Puget Sound Healthcare Center in Olympia;

   * Fir Lane Health & Rehabilitation Center in Shelton;

   * Franklin Hills Health & Rehabilitation Center in Spokane;
     and

   * The Aldercrest Health & Rehabilitation Center in Edmonds.


FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
against Foxhollow Technologies, Inc. -- a subsidiary of ev3,
Inc. -- are appealing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit the earlier dismissal of their case by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Initially, three shareholder class-action complaints were filed
separately in July 2006, August 2006 and February 2007, against
the company and two of its officers.  These cases were
subsequently consolidated into a single matter.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of
FoxHollow's common stock from May 13, 2005, to Jan. 26, 2006.

The complaints generally allege that false or misleading
statements were made concerning FoxHollow's management and seek
unspecified monetary damages.

A motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend on Sept. 5,
2007, and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 19,
2007.

On May 27, 2008, the court dismissed the case without leave to
amend the complaint and judgment was enforced that day against
the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 20, 2008,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 29, 2008.

The first identified complaint is "Margaret Kovarik, et al. v.
FoxHollow Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-04595,"
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brower Piven
         The World Trade Center-Baltimore
         401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
         Baltimore, MD
         Phone: 410-986-0036

         Cotchett Pitre Simon & McCarthy
         San Francisco Airport Office Center
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Phone: 650-697-6000
         Fax: 650-697-0577
         e-mail: info@cpsmlaw.com

         Federman & Sherwood
         120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         e-mail: wfederman@aol.com

         Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
         330 Main Street
         Hartford, CT 06106
         Phone: 800-797-5499
         Fax: 860-493-6290
         e-mail: sn06106@AOL.com

              - and -

         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         3 Bala Plaza E
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         e-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Oct. 24 Hearing Set for "Wright" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 24, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., to
consider final approval of the proposed settlement in the matter
"Wright v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. C06-04368."

The hearing will be held before Judge Jeremy Fogel at Courtroom
3 of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, in 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before Sept. 18, 2008.  Deadline for the submission
for a claim form is on Oct. 17, 2008.

The suit, filed by plaintiff Edwin Wright, alleged that during
the class period (July 12, 2002 to the present), defendant
Hewlett-Packard sold configured-to-order HP Pavilion Home PCs to
consumers by promising its customers free "technical phone
assistance to diagnose potential hardware issues. . . as long as
YOU (the original owner) own the PC," but that HP failed to
provide consumers with the promised free technical support.

The parties subsequently reached a tentative settlement for the
matter.  In accordance with the proposed settlement, HP has
agreed to:

        * entry of an injunction ordering HP to provide free
          technical phone assistance to the Settlement Class to
          diagnose potential hardware issues for as long as the
          Settlement Class Members continue to own their PCs;
          and

        * establishment of a Settlement Fund consisting of
          $500,000 that will be distributed to the
          Settlement Class members in this manner:

             -- an award of $40 will be paid to all
                Settlement Class Members who were charged by
                HP for the provision of technical phone
                assistance to diagnose potential hardware
                issues during the Class Period for each
                charge imposed upon them by HP; and

             -- an award of $20 per person will be paid to
                each Settlement Class Member who was denied
                technical phone assistance to diagnose
                potential hardware issues during the Class
                Period, but who did not pay HP to receive
                technical support.

All persons who purchased for their own use (and not for resale)
any of the following models of HP Pavilion Home PC configured-
to-order computer whose warranty promised technical phone
assistance to diagnose potential hardware issues for as long as
the original owner owned the PC are covered by the settlement:

   7800          7900          7905          7910
   8720          9800          9900          9905
   9910           513           522           523
    533           542           543           552
    562           563           573          554e
   554y          555e          555y          774e
   774y          775e          775y           700
    701           710           743           750
    751           752           753           760
    761           762           763           772
    782           783           792           793
    900           901           950           951
    980

For more details, contact:

          Wright v Hewlett-Packard Settlement Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 1944
          Faribault, MN 55021-7199
          Phone: 1-866-403-1831
          Web site: http://hpwarrantysettlement.com/

               - and -

          Miranda P. Kolbe, Esq. (mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com)
          Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe & Kralowec LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-788-4220
          Fax: 415-788-0161
          Web site: http://www.schubertlawfirm.com/


HOSPIRA INC: Court Denies Summary Judgment in "Nauman"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denied Hospira, Inc.'s summary judgment motion in connection
with a class-action lawsuit filed against the company over
allegations that the spin-off of the company from Abbott
Laboratories adversely affected employee benefits in violation
of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned,
"Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott
Laboratories and Hospira, Inc."

On Nov. 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an
additional claim against Abbott and the company for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA.  The company has moved to dismiss
the new claim.

By order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class-action
status to the lawsuit.  The new claim in the amended complaint
is not subject to the class certification ruling.

As to the sole claim against the company in the original
complaint, the court certified a class defined as:

     "all employees of Abbott who were participants in the
     Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with Abbott
     was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30,
     2004, as a result of the spin-off of the HPD/creation of
     Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003, and who
     were eligible for retirement under the Abbott Benefit
     Plans on the date of their terminations."

In July, 2008, the court denied a motion by the defendants
seeking summary judgment, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,"
filed in ith the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Paul William Mollica, Esq.
         Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica
         208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-263-0272


Representing the company is:
         James F. Hurst, Esq. (jhurst@winston.com)
         Winston & Strawn LLP
         35 West Wacker Drive
         41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-558-5230


KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Class Certification in Calif. Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc., is appealing a ruling that granted class-
action status to a lawsuit brought on behalf of the company's
employees working in the State of California.

The claims in the lawsuit relate to alleged misclassification of
personal attendants as exempt and entitled to overtime under
state law and alleged technical violations of a state law
pertaining to information furnished on employee pay stubs.

On April 30, 2007, the trial court certified two sub-classes
that correspond to the claims in the case.

The company is currently preparing motions for summary judgment
on both certified claims.

Kelly Services reported no further development in the matter in
its Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a
global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and
territories throughout the world.


KOPIN CORP: Parties Agree to Dismiss Mass. Shareholders' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in purported class-action suit against Kopin Corp.
have filed a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice, according
to Kopin's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 28, 2008.

On Sept. 6, 2007, a complaint was filed against the company and
certain of its directors and officers in Superior Court, Bristol
County, Massachusetts purportedly on behalf of a class of
shareholders who held Kopin stock on Sept. 6, 2007.

The plaintiffs in this action assert claims arising under
Delaware General Corporations Law Section 211(c), alleging that
the company failed to hold an annual shareholder meeting within
the past 13 months.

After the company held a shareholder meeting on May 20, 2008,
the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims.  The parties
filed a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice on July 25,
2008.

Kopin Corp. -- http://www.kopin.com/-- is a developer and
manufacturer of III-V products and miniature flat panel
displays.  The company uses its semiconductor material
technology to design, manufacture and market its III-V and
display products.  The company products enable its customers to
develop and market a generation of products for applications in
wireless and consumer electronic products.  It commercially
develops and manufactures Gallium Arsenide-based heterojunction
bipolar transistor wafers (HBT transistor wafers) and other
commercial semiconductor products that use Gallium Nitride and
Gallium Arsenide-based substrates.


MARICOPA COUNTY: Suit Accuses Unconstitutional Strip Searches
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona alleges that Maricopa County, through
its Sheriff's Office, unconstitutionally strip searches everyone
it arrests, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit is "Ekweani, et al. v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
et al, Case Number: 2:2008cv01551," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Judge Frederick J. Martone,
presiding.


MCCORMICK & SCHMICKS: Calif. Court Approves "Wynne" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
approved a tentative settlement reached in a class-action
complaint against McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants,
Inc., regarding employment practices.

The suit, entitled, "Wynne, et al. v. McCormick & Schmick's
Seafood Restaurants, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:2006-cv-03153,"
was filed in May 11, 2006.  The company had contested the
claims, but it eventually negotiated with the plaintiffs to
reach a settlement.

On Feb. 28, 2008, the company negotiated a resolution of the
claims, and the parties submitted the settlement to the Court
for approval.

The negotiated settlement includes a monetary settlement and
some changes to the company's hiring and employment practices.

The settlement was approved by the court, and the settlement
amount was paid, in April 2008, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

Oregon-based McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc. --
http://www.mccormickandschmicks.com/-- is a national seafood
restaurant operator.  As of Dec. 29, 2007, the Company owned and
operated 82 restaurants, including 76 restaurants in 24 states
throughout the U.S., including one pursuant to a management
agreement and six restaurants under The Boathouse name in the
greater Vancouver, British Columbia area.  The company's
signature Fresh List features 30 to 40 varieties of fresh
seafood.  It also offers alternatives to seafood, including
beef, salads and fresh pasta dishes.


MERCEDES-BENZ: California Lawsuit Claims Lemon Laws Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz USA is facing a class-action complaint filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court claiming it violates state lemon
laws, Karina Brown writes for the CourtHouse News Service.

The complaint claims that in violation of state lemon laws,
Mercedes-Benz leased used cars without telling customers the
original owners had returned them for warranty-related problems.

The report recounts that California's Automotive Consumer
Notification Act requires car manufacturers to retitle with a
"Lemon Law Buyback" inscription the cars they repurchase from
consumers, affix a lemon law buyback decal to the vehicle, and
get a written acknowledgement from the new buyer, showing the
buyer is aware of the car's history.

Lead plaintiff Henry Unger says he knew that the luxury car he
leased was used, but had no idea that it had defects.  Mr. Unger
says Mercedes claimed that the car would run "properly,
reliably, and safely."

However, Mr. Unger relates that his car regularly malfunctioned.
The keyless start system repeatedly failed to fire, the tire
pressure warning came on for no reason, and the navigation
system acted up.  He says he asked a Mercedes mechanic if the
car qualified as a lemon, but the mechanic denied it, saying the
problems were not safety-related.

Mr. Unger says he found out about his car's history when he
traded it in for a new Mercedes.  According to him, he then
found records showing that Mercedes had spent 30 days trying to
repair the old car before buying it back from its original
owner.

Mr. Unger demands damages, interest, statutory penalties and
punitive damages.

Representing Mr. Unger is:

          Jennifer L. Connor, Esq.
          Westrup Klick, LLP
          444 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 1614
          Long Beach, CA 90802-4524
          Phone: 866-782-4863
          Fax: 562-435-4856
          Web site: http://www.westrupklick.com/


MITSUBISHI DIGITAL: Faces Lawsuit Over 1080 Pixel Display TVs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc., is facing a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California alleging it cheated customers by
selling TVs with 1080 pixel display that cannot accept 1080
pixel signals from any available source, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Vincent Garcia brings this class action to
recover damages and other relief available at law and in equity
on behalf of all persons or entities located within the United
States who purchased a Mitsubishi television which has a 1080p
display but cannot accept 1080p signals from any available
source.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Mitsubishi has failed to disclose to consumers
         the material fact that Mitsubishi televisions marketed
         as "1080p" were incapable of accepting a digital 1080p
         signal from any available source;

     (b) whether or not plaintiff and the members of the class
         have been damaged by the wrongs complained of, and if
         so, the measure of those damages and the nature and
         extent of other relief that should be afforded;

     (c) whether Mitsubishi engaged in unfair, fraudulent, and
         unconscionable conduct; and

     (d) whether Mitsubishi failed to disclose material facts
         about the subject Mitsubishi high definition
         televisions.

The plaintiff requests that the court:

     -- certify the proposed class and notice thereto to be paid
        by defendant;

     -- adjudge and decree that defendant has engaged in the
        conduct alleged;

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

     -- order an injunction for defendant to cease and desist
        from engaging in the unfair, fraudulent, and
        unconscionable practices alleged in the complaint;

     -- award compensatory, treble and punitive damages
        according to proof on certain causes of action;

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

     -- award both pre and post-judgment interest at the maximum
        allowable rate on any amounts awarded;

     -- award costs of the proceedings; and

     -- award reasonable attorneys fees as allowed by statute.

The suit is "Vincent Garcia, et al. v. Mitsubishi Digital
Electronics America Inc., Case No. CV08-05521," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com)
          Richard L. Kellner, Esq. (rlk@kbklawyers.com)
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. (at@kbklawyers.com)
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-217-5000
          Fax: 213-217-5010


MRV COMMS: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Sept. 8
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP announced that September 8,
2008, is the deadline for investors to seek a lead plaintiff
appointment in the pending class action lawsuits against MRV
Communications, Inc., and others.

On July 8, 2008, Dyer & Berens LLP filed the suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of MRV
between March 31, 2003, and June 5, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges MRV and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Thereafter, other law firms filed similar complaints on
behalf of purchasers of MRV common stock.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Remaining Iowa Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc., and Princor Financial Services
Corp. continue to seek the dismissal of a sole remaining lawsuit
that was filed against them in Iowa.

Initially, two purported class-action lawsuits -- one alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, the other alleging violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 -- were
filed against the defendants.

The suits were filed on Aug. 28, 2007, before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the company and
Princor Financial (Principal Defendants).

One of the lawsuits alleges that the Principal Defendants
breached alleged fiduciary duties to participants in employer-
sponsored 401(k) plans who were retiring or leaving their
respective plans, including providing misleading information and
failing to act solely in the interests of the participants,
resulting in alleged violations of ERISA.

The second suit is based upon the same facts and alleges
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

The allegations of the second suit include alleged omissions and
misrepresentations by the Principal Defendants related to mutual
fund shares purchased by plan participants rolling out of
employer-sponsored retirement plans.

The plaintiffs dismissed the second suit, which was based upon
the same facts and alleged violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.

The defendants have filed a request to dismiss the remaining
lawsuit.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/--
is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Life Insurance Co., a unit of Principal Financial
Group, Inc., continues to a face a purported class-action suit
that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa, alleging violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

A trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement Savings Plan filed
the purported class-action suit over allegations that the
company received secret kickbacks from mutual funds.

Originally, the putative class action was filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Nov. 8,
2006.

The suit alleges, among other things, that Principal Life
breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services
to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose,
to employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life
receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are
included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed
to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services
provided to the plans.

The plaintiff further alleges that these acts constitute
prohibited transactions under Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all retirement plans
to which Principal Life was a service provider and for which
Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from
mutual funds.  The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Ruppert v. Principal Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 4:07-cv-00344-HDV-TJS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa, Judge Harold D. Vietor,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Klint L. Bruno, Esq. (kbruno@koreintillery.com)
         Korein Tillery
         209 South LaSalle, Suite 701
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-759-7510

Representing the defendant is:

         Joel S. Feldman, Esq. (jfeldman@sidley.com)
         Sidley, Austin et al.
         10 South Dearborn Street, Bank One Plaza
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Pone: 312-853-7000
         Fax: 312-853-7036


SAINT JOSEPH'S: Sued Over Patient Admission and Billing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saint Joseph's Hospital of Atlanta, Inc., engaged in a
systematic scheme to inappropriately admit and overcharge
thousands of patients, according to Page Perry, LLC, which has
filed a second class action lawsuit against the hospital.

Dorothy J. Rivard, a former nursing and pharmacy assistant who
was hospitalized at Saint Joseph's in October 2007, alleges in
the new lawsuit that she was wrongly diagnosed as a stroke
victim, injected over her objections with inappropriate
medication, and then subjected to two days of unnecessary and
expensive medical testing.

The lawsuit alleges that Ms. Rivard later learned that her
medical records contained "a variety of serious
mischaracterizations" that apparently were "used to justify the
belated length of stay and the battery of medical testing."

According to the Complaint, "In order to increase revenues, and
thus profitability, [Saint Joseph's] engaged in a widespread and
systematic scheme to admit to inpatient status patients who did
not otherwise meet inpatient admission criteria and then issue
charges and bills for such inpatient services accordingly." The
scheme was "well known to [Saint Joseph's] management,
administration, staff and contractors, if not also its board of
directors.  Moreover, [Saint Joseph's] management and
administration actively concealed such practices," the lawsuit
claims.

In May, former Saint Joseph's patient Steven M. Lamb, of
Snellville, Georgia, alleged another class action lawsuit that a
carotid artery stent procedure he underwent in 2005 kept him
admitted on an "inpatient" basis for two days -- about twice as
long as was medically necessary and at a more costly rate than
an "outpatient visit" which typically is accomplished in hours,
not days.

Ms. Rivard and Mr. Lamb are represented by James M. Evangelista,
Esq., and David J. Worley, Esq., of Page Perry, LLC, of Atlanta,
and James A. Dunlap Jr., Esq., of Atlanta.  The counsel will
seek to have Ms. Rivard's lawsuit certified as a class action
that includes all patients of the hospital system between
Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 21, 2007 who were improperly admitted to
Saint Joseph's under inpatient status.

In December 2007, the United States Attorney for the Northern
District of Georgia announced a "whistleblower" (qui tam)
settlement in which Saint Joseph's paid $26 million to settle
federal false claims allegations related to thousands of patient
stays between 2000 and 2005 that were billed to the federal
Medicare program.  The lawsuits filed on behalf of Ms. Rivard
and Mr. Lamb seek to recover costs billed to individual
patients, among other damages.

Mr. Evangelista stated, "Patients came to Saint Joseph's
trusting that they would receive appropriate care, not expecting
to be deliberately overbilled by Saint Joseph's extending their
hospital stay in a pretense of needed care.  Ms. Rivard and Mr.
Lamb and many people like him from throughout Georgia and
elsewhere were inappropriately admitted and improperly billed."

Both lawsuits -- which allege breach of contract, breach of
implied contractual duties of good faith and fair dealing,
unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty -- seek actual,
exemplary, and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The new case is "Dorothy J. Rivard, et al., v. Saint Joseph's
Hospital of Atlanta, Inc., and Saint Joseph's Health System,
Inc.," (Case No. 2008CV155034, in the Superior Court of Fulton
County).

The previously filed case is "Steven M. Lamb, et al., v. Saint
Joseph's Hospital of Atlanta, Inc., and Saint Joseph's Health
System, Inc.," (Case No. 08-CV-151075, in the Superior Court of
Fulton County).


SOUTHERN CO: Claims Dismissal in Mirant IPO Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a securities fraud class-action suit against
The Southern Co. in relation to Mirant Corp.'s initial public
offering are seeking reconsideration of an earlier court order
dismissing certain claims in the matter.

In November 2002, Southern Co., certain of its former and
current senior officers, and 12 underwriters of Mirant's initial
public offering were added as defendants in a class action
lawsuit that several Mirant shareholders originally filed
against Mirant and certain Mirant officers in May 2002.

Several other similar lawsuits filed subsequently were
consolidated into this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

The amended complaint is based on allegations related to alleged
improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the
California energy market, alleged false statements and omissions
in Mirant's prospectus for its initial public offering and in
subsequent public statements by Mirant, and accounting-related
issues previously disclosed by Mirant.

The lawsuit purports to include persons who acquired Mirant
securities between Sept. 26, 2000, and Sept. 5, 2002.

In July 2003, the court dismissed all claims based on Mirant's
alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities
involving the California energy market.  The remaining claims do
not allege any improper trading and marketing activity,
accounting errors, or material misstatements or omissions on the
part of Southern Co., but seek to impose liability on Southern
Co. based on allegations that Southern Co. was a "control
person" as to Mirant prior to the spin-off date.

Southern Co. filed an answer to the consolidated amended class
action complaint in September 2003.  The plaintiffs have also
filed a motion for class certification.

During Mirant's Chapter 11 proceeding, the securities litigation
was stayed, with the exception of limited discovery.  But since
Mirant's plan of reorganization has become effective, the stay
has been lifted.  On March 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that
portion of its July 14, 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims based upon Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and
marketing activities involving the California energy market.

Southern Co. and the other defendants have opposed the
plaintiffs' motion.  The plaintiffs have also stated that they
intend to request that the court grant leave for them to amend
the complaint to add allegations based upon claims asserted
against Southern Co. in the MC Asset Recovery litigation.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 6, 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 Mirant Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:02-cv-01467-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Judge Richard W. Story, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. (isquith@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600

               - and -

          David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dab@classlaw.com)
          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (mdc@classlaw.com)
          Chitwood & Harley
          1230 Peachtree Street
          N.E. 2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900

Representing the defendants are:

          Kirk Quillian, Esq.
          (kirk.quillian@troutmansanders.com)
          Thomas Edward Reilly, Esq.
          (thomas.reilly@troutmansanders.com)
          Jaime L. Theriort, Esq.
          (jaime.theriot@troutmansanders.com)
          Troutman Sanders
          Bank of America Plaza
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 5200
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-885-3000


TRIPLE-S INC: Wants P.R. Suit of Shareholder's Heirs Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Triple-S Management
Corp., continues to seek the dismissal of a purported class-
action lawsuit filed in the Court of First Instance for San
Juan, Superior Section in Puerto Rico.

The suit was filed on Oct. 23, 2007, by Ivonne Houellemont,
Ivonne M. Lens, and Antonio A. Lens, heirs of Dr. Antonio Lens-
Aresti, a former shareholder of Triple-S.

The plaintiffs are seeking the return of 16 shares -- prior to
giving effect to the 3,000-for-one stock split -- that were
redeemed in 1996, a year after the death of Dr. Lens-Aresti, or
compensation of $40,000 per share which they allege is a share's
present value.  They allege that they were fraudulently induced
to submit the shares for redemption in 1996.

At the time of Dr. Lens-Aresti's death, the bylaws of Triple-S
would not have permitted the plaintiffs to inherit Dr. Lens-
Aresti's shares, as those bylaws provided that in the event of a
shareholder's death, shares could be redeemed at the price
originally paid for them or could be transferred only to an heir
who was either a doctor or dentist.

The plaintiffs' complaint also states that they purport to
represent as a class all heirs of Triple-S's former shareholders
whose shares were redeemed upon the shareholders' deaths.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
claims as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
company's motion to dismiss, alleging that the two-year statute
of limitations is not applicable to the redemption of the stock
by the Corporation that took place in 1996.

On March 3, 2008, the Corporation filed a reply to the
plaintiffs' opposition to the dismissal motion.  In its reply,
the Corporation renews its motion to dismiss and further argued
that plaintiffs' argument is wrong because the statute of
limitations has expired, pursuant to the two-year term provided
under the Uniform Security Act of Puerto Rico for cases of this
nature, according to Triple-S Management's Aug. 6, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Triple-S Management Corp. -- http://www.triplesmanagement.com/
-- is a managed care company in Puerto Rico, serving
approximately one million members across all regions.  The
company offers a portfolio of managed care and related products
in the commercial, Medicare and Puerto Rico Health Reform
(similar to Medicaid) markets.  The company serves a range of
customer segments, from corporate accounts, federal and local
government employees and individuals to Medicare recipients and
Puerto Rico Health Reform enrollees, with a range of managed
care products.


TRIPLE-S INC: Certain Physicians Appeal "Thomas" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain physicians involved in the matter, "Kenneth A. Thomas,
M.D., et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Case No.
03-21296-CIV-MORENO," which names Triple-S, Inc. -- a unit of
Triple-S Management Corp. -- as a defendant, are appealing
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit the
approval of the settlement reached in the matter, according to
Triple-S Management's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on May 22, 2003, by medical
doctors Kenneth A. Thomas and Michael Kutell on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated and the Connecticut
State Medical Society against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Assoc. and multiple other insurance companies including Triple-
S.

The individual plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for the defendants' alleged illegal acts, which the
plaintiffs alleged have resulted in a loss of their property and
a detriment to their business, and for declaratory and
injunctive relief to end those practices and prevent further
losses.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a
timely manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.

The class-action complaint alleges that the health care plans
are the agents of Blue Cross licensed entities, and as such have
committed the alleged acts, and acted within the scope of their
agency, with the consent, permission, authorization and
knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of both their
interest and the interests of other defendants.

The company believes that it was dragged into litigation for the
sole reason of being associated with Blue Cross.

However, on June 18, 2004, the complaint was amended to name
additional plaintiffs.

The defendants sought to dismiss the complaint on multiple
grounds, including arbitration and applicability of the McCarran
Ferguson Act.

The parties have been ordered to engage in mediation by the
District Court, and 24 plans, including Triple-S, are actively
participating in mediation efforts.

The mediation resulted in the creation of a settlement agreement
that was filed before the Court on April 27, 2007.  The District
Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement in May
2007, and approved it on a final basis on April 19, 2008.

Certain physicians who were unable to either prevent the final
approval of the settlement or modify the terms of the agreement,
appealed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.  The appeals were recently lodged and the clerk has yet
to notify the briefing schedule.

The suit is "Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D., et al. v. Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, Case No. 03-21296-CIV-MORENO," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Judge Federico A. Moreno, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicole Miles Acchione, Esq.
         Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards
         226 W Rittenhouse Square, The Penthouse,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-731-9004
         Fax: 215-731-9044

Representing the defendants are:

         Cesar T. Alcover-Costa, Esq. (calcover@cabprlaw.com)
         Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez
         254 Munoz Rivera Avenue
         PO Box 363507
         San Juan, PR 00936-3507
         Phone: 787-753-3113
         Fax: 250-7545

         Michael Garrett Austin, Esq. (maustin@mwe.com)
         McDermott Will & Emery, LLP
         201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2200
         Miami, FL 33131-4336
         Phone: 305-347-6517
         Fax: 305-347-6500

              - and -

         Laura Besvinick, Esq. (lbesvinick@hhlaw.com)
         Hogan & Hartson, 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-459-6500
         Fax: 459-6550


UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 46: Appeals Bias Suit Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on August 20, 2008, that
Judge Robert Gettleman of the U.S. District Court in Chicago 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.

According to the CAR report, the recent ruling 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 U46 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.

In an update, The Courier News relates that the School District
U46 filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, asking the court to reverse the class
action certification order.

As stated in previous CAR reports, 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 or
attendance maps to segregate minority students and that the
district inadequately serves students with limited English
proficiency.

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

U46 serves more than 41,000 students from pre-kindergarten
through high school in 11 suburbs in Kane and DuPage Counties
and northwest Cook County.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Oct. 21 Hearing Set for $21M ETF Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 21, 2008, at 2:00
p.m. to consider final approval of the proposed $21,000,000
settlement in the matter "White et al., v. Cellco Partnership
d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. RG04-137699."

The a hearing will be held at Department 17 of the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda,
located at 1221 Oak Street, 4th Floor, in Oakland, California.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before Oct. 7, 2008, and Sept. 30, 2008,
respectively.  Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on
Oct. 17, 2008.

In general, the lawsuit claimed that Verizon Wireless violated
California consumer protection law and similar state and federal
laws by imposing a flat early termination fee (usually $175).
It sought to recover monetary damages and restitution, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

A proposed settlement has been reached in the purported class-
action suit.  The settlement will provide $21 million into a
common fund for claims of subscribers who were charged, paid,
and were subject to a flat ETF.

The lawsuit, which was certified as a class action, is known as
"White et al., v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless,
Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG04-137699."  It is
pending with the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda, located in Oakland, California.

The settlement will also likely resolve other pending cases --
some of which are purported class-actions lawsuits -- that
challenge Verizon Wireless' flat ETF.  These other suits
include:

   -- "Brown, Zobrist & Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
      Wireless, American Arbitration Association, Case Nos. 11
      494 01274 05 and 11 494 0032 05," pending before the
      American Arbitration Association in New York, New York;

   -- "Gentry v. Cellco Partnership, Case No. 05-7888," pending
      with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
      California; and

   -- "Waudby v. Verizon Wireless, et al., Case No. 07-470,"
      pending with the U.S. District Court for the the District
      of New Jersey.

For more information, contact:

         The Law Offices Of Scott A. Bursor
         500 Seventh Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY  10018
         Web site: http://www.bursor.com/

              - and -

         White v. Cellco d/b/a Verizon Wireless
         Claims Administrator
         c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
         P.O. Box 808054
         Petaluma, CA 94975-8054.
         Phone: 1-888-309-3847
         Web site: classcounsel@ETFsettlement.com
         e-mail: classact@gilardi.com


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Wash. Suit Over Steered Investments
------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual Inc. is facing is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington alleging it steered investments to the
WaMu Group of Funds and paid kickbacks to broker dealers,
CourtHouse News reports.

This is a class action that seeks to recover damages under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for defendants' failure to disclose payments by the WM Group of
Funds investment advisor to brokers or dealers selling the WM
Group of Funds' as required by defendants' highest management
that was intended to, and did, compromise the objectivity of
brokers or dealers in their dealing with customers and created
insurmountable, undisclosed conflicts of interest.

The plaintiffs bring this action as a class-action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares, units or
like interests in any of the WAMU Funds (including through the
reinvestment of Fund dividends) within the applicable statute of
limitations, or such other class, classes or periods of time as
the court deems appropriate.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether statements made by the Registrants to the
         investing public before, at least, March 1, 2005
         concerning the existence of, source of funding for,
         purpose and effect of the Steering Programs misstated,
         omitted or concealed material facts;

     (b) whether the Registrants' false and misleading
         statements and omissions are material as a matter of
         law;

     (c) whether plaintiffs and the class' WAMU Funds assets
         were dissipated by the Steering Programs and the fees
         deducted therefore;

     (d) whether the Registrants acted with scienter when
         issuing the false and misleading statements and
         omissions;

     (e) whether the Steering Programs created insurmountable
         conflict(s) of interest for the Registrants, the WAMU
         Advisor, WAMU Distributor and brokers;

     (f) whether the federal securities laws were violated by
         defendants' acts as alleged; and

     (g) to what extent plaintiff and members of the class have
         sustained damages and the proper measure of damages.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:

     -- declaring that this action is properly maintained as a
        class action and certifying plaintiffs as class
        representatives under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure;

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

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class recision of their
        contracts with the defendants, including recovery of all
        fees which would otherwise apply and recovery of all
        fees paid to the defendants pursuant to such agreements;

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

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

The suit is "June Robinson et al. v. Washington Mutual Inc., et
al., Case No. C08-1251," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-624-0594


XETHANOL: N.Y. Court Approves $2.8MM Deal in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has granted preliminary approval of a proposed
settlement affecting people who purchased the publicly-traded
common stock of Xethanol between January 31, 2006, and August 8,
2006.

On Oct. 23, 2006, a purported class action suit was filed by
Milton Ariail against Xethanol, Lawrence S. Bellone, Christopher
d'Arnaud- Taylor and Jeffery S. Langberg (Civil Action No. 06-
10234).

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and
the individual defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's operations, management and
internal controls in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.

The plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period between Jan. 31, 2006, and April 8, 2006.

Six nearly identical class action complaints were then filed in
the same court, all of which have been consolidated into one
action captioned, "In re Xethanol Corporation Securities
Litigation, 06 Civ. 10234 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.)."

The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on
March 23, 2007.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on April 23, 2007, which dismissal request was later denied by
the District Court.

Subsequently, on Nov. 28, 2007, the defendants, including the
company, reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs'
lead counsel to settle the case.

The tentative settlement agreement, which was reached during a
mediation overseen by a retired U.S. District Court judge, calls
for the payment of $2.8 million to the plaintiffs, of which the
company will pay $400,000 and the company's insurance carriers
will pay $2.4 million.  In addition, the company's insurance
carriers will pay the plaintiffs $300,000 in legal costs (Class
Action Reporter, June 27, 2008).

A hearing will be held on September 15, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.,
before the Honorable Harold Baer at the United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 23B, in New York, New
York, for the purpose of determining:

     (1) whether the Proposed Settlement of the claims in the
         Litigation for the sum of $2,800,000 in cash should be
         approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;

     (2) whether, after the hearing, this Litigation should be
         dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and
         conditions set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
         dated as of April 29, 2008;

     (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable and
         adequate and should be approved; and

     (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
         of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses
         incurred in this Litigation should be approved.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on August 29,
2008.

The suit is "In Re Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-10234-HB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Harold Baer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Kim Elaine Miller, Esq. (kimmiller225@yahoo.com)
         Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
         12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-696-3730
         Fax: 504-455-1498

Representing the defendant is:

         Katherine Blackwood Harrison, Esq. (kh@pwlawyers.com)
         Paduano & Weintraub LLP
         1251 Avenue of The Americas, 9th Floor
         New York, NY 10020
         Phone: 212-785-9100
         Fax: 212-785-9099


YRC WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Fuel Surcharges Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide, Inc., and other less-than-truckload carriers are
seeking the dismissal of an amended complaint filed in a
consolidated class action suit that accuses them of conspiring
throughout four years or more to fix fuel surcharges on LTL
shipments, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. --
d/b/a Water Tech -- and C.B.J.T. -- d/b/a Agricultural Supply --
on behalf of themselves and other plaintiffs, filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the company and 10 other companies
engaged in the LTL trucking business in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California (Class Action Reporter
March 27, 2008).

Specifically, the named defendants 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.,
          -- Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc.

Farm Water and its subsidiary CBJT contend that the practice
dates back to 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29,
2007).

They charge 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 plaintiffs bring 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 (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 2, 2007).

The plaintiffs want 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;

     -- the 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:

        (a) 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

        (b) 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.

Since that time, other plaintiffs have filed similar cases in
various courts across the nation.

In December 2007, the courts consolidated these cases before the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in May
2008.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, including the
company, conspired to fix fuel surcharges in violation of
federal antitrust law and seek unspecified treble damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

The defendants, including the company, have filed in July 2008 a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

The suit is "Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. et al. v.
Arkansas Best Corporation et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00660-WSD,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Judge William S. Duffey, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq. (chrisb@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the defendants are:

          Jacqueline Bos, Esq. (jbos@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-6240

          W. Perry Brandt, Esq. (perry.brandt@bryancave.com)
          Bryan Cave, LLP
          Suite 3500, One Kansas City Place
          1200 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-374-3206
          Fax: 816-374-3300

          Thomas F. Cullen, Jr., Esq. (tfcullen@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001-2113
          Phone: 202-879-3939

               - and -

          Joel S. Sanders, Esq. (jsanders@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
          One Montgomery Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-393-8268


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

COMPUCREDIT CORP: Chitwood Harley Files Georgia Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP commenced a class action lawsuit
against CompuCredit Corporation and various individuals on
behalf of purchasers of CompuCredit common stock  during the
period of November 6, 2006, and June 9, 2008, inclusive.

The case, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, alleges that CompuCredit and
certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

CompuCredit provides credit and related financial services and
products to what it refers to as "underserved" and "un-banked"
consumers.

The complaint specifically alleges Defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results.  As a result of CompuCredit's false
statements, its stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching its Class Period high of
$40.61 per share in December 2006.

Additionally, on June 10, 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported
that federal regulators were expected to seek more than
$100 million dollars in fines and restitution against
CompuCredit related to credit-card marketing and debt-collection
practices.  On this news, CompuCredit's stock dropped $2.49 per
share to close at $6.30 per share on June 10, 2008, a one-day
decline of 28% on extremely high volume.

According to the complaint, Defendants materially misrepresented
the Company's solvency in violation of the federal securities
laws in the following manner:

     (a) Defendants publicly praised the strength and integrity
         of the Company's credit card marketing and collections
         services and its customer friendly products, when in
         fact the Company was engaging in deceptive and
         fraudulent marketing and collection practices;

     (b) Defendants falsely touted the growth of the Company's
         credit card business without disclosing that such
         growth was based on fraudulent conduct and that the
         Company faced material risk of rescission of the fees
         and payment of massive fines;

     (c) Defendants claimed the Company was in compliance with
         applicable federal regulations even though its
         marketing and collecting practices violated such
         regulations; and

     (d) Defendants misrepresented the FDIC and FTC
         investigations into the Company's accounting practices,
         falsely indicating that:

          -- the Company had taken measures that addressed most
             of the regulators' concerns, and

          -- any settlement would not have a material impact on
             its financial condition.

For more information, contact:

         Katie King, Esq. (kking@chitwoodlaw.com)
         Ze'eva Banks, Esq. (zbanks@chitwoodlaw.com)
         Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
         11 Grace Avenue, Suite 306
         Great Neck, NY 11021
         Phone: 1-888-873-3999
                404-873-3900
         Web site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com/


INYX INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Inyx, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: IYXI) between March 31, 2005, and
July 2, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws (under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by
issuing various materially false and misleading statements that
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities and causing Class members to overpay for
the securities including that the Company materially overstated
its assets and revenues by creating invoices were created before
the items were billable and had not actually been issued to
customers and as a result, the Company's financial statements
were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles and were materially false and misleading.

The complaint also alleges that on July 2, 2007, after
publication of a report that Inyx had filed for Chapter 11
protection, the price of Inyx common stock declined
substantially.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 20,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-986-0036
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/


PERINI CORP: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Perini Corp. during the period between November 2,
2006, and January 17, 2008, inclusive.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that
misrepresented and failed to disclose:

     -- that the developer of Perini's Las Vegas, Nevada
        projects, including the CityCenter Project,

     -- had failed to secure financing for the entire project
        and was dependent upon raising the remainder of the
        financing from the expected sale of units at unrealistic
        and aggressive prices at a time when the condominium
        market in Las Vegas, Nevada was extremely weak,

     -- placing the developer at greater risk of defaulting on
        its construction loan; and that the Company's future
        profit was dependent upon the Las Vegas projects
        (constituting approximately 20% of backlog) and its
        ability to maintain its profit margins was in serious
        doubt.

The complaint further alleges that after it was announced on
January 17, 2008, that Deutsche Bank "delivered a notice of loan
default to the developer of the Cosmopolitan Resort and Casino
project under construction in Las Vegas, Nevada," the value of
the Company's common stock declined.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 20,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-986-0036
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/


REDDY ICE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Michigan Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, gave
notice that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of Reddy Ice Holdings,
Inc. between August 10, 2005, and August 6, 2008, inclusive.

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

Reddy Ice manufactures and distributes packaged ice, serving
approximately 82,000 customer locations in 31 states and the
District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name.

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

     (1) that the Company had engaged, and continued to engage,
         in illicit business practices with its competitors in
         the packaged ice industry;

     (2) that the Company had joined with its competitors in the
         packaged ice industry in colluding and agreeing to
         allocate territories and customers in the United States
         packaged ice market;

     (3) that the Company had agreed with its competitors in the
         industry to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices
         for packaged ice in the United States' market;

     (4) that the Company's revenues had been significantly
         increased through the use of such illicit business
         practices;

     (5) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements
         were false and misleading at all relevant times;

     (6) that such illicit business practices, when they were
         revealed, would initiate an investigation by the
         federal authorities into the Company's business
         practices;

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

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

The Company is one of very few packaged ice companies operating
in the United States.  Its main competitors are the Canadian
corporation Arctic Glacier, Inc. and Ohio-based Home City Ice
Company.  Reddy Ice, Arctic Glacier and Home City dominate the
packaged ice industry in the United States.  Most packaged ice
in the United States is sold to supermarkets, convenience stores
and retail outlets.

On March 6, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that federal officials had executed a search warrant
at the Company's corporate office.  The following day, the
Company stated that search warrant was directed by the Antitrust
Division of the United States Department of Justice in
connection with an investigation into the packaged ice industry.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $7.73 per share, or
33.45 percent, to close on March 7, 2008, at $15.38 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.  Subsequently, Home City
pleaded guilty to conspiring with other packaged ice firms to
allocate customers and territories in the market.

Then, on August 7, 2008, The Wall Street Journal published an
article that described an interview with Martin McNulty, the
former vice president of sales at Party Time Ice (a subsidiary
of Arctic Glacier).  Among other things, Mr. McNulty disclosed
that some industry executives were caught by FBI wiretaps
discussing the alleged conspiracy. Further, Mr. McNulty said
that he provided prosecutors with evidence of an agreement by
the ice companies to divide up customers and stay out of each
other's sales regions.  On this news, the Company's shares fell
an additional $2.40 per share, or 17.92 percent, to close on
August 7, 2008 at $10.99 per share, again on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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

For more information, contact:

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


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of its client and on behalf of
other similarly situated purchasers of SemGroup Energy Partners,
L.P. common units during the period between July 17, 2007, and
July 17, 2008, and on behalf of purchasers of SGLP's common
units acquired pursuant and traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with SGLP's
Initial Public Offering completed on or about July 23, 2007, as
well as all purchasers of SGLP common units acquired pursuant
and traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with SGLP's secondary offering completed on
or about February 20, 2008.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

SGLP owns and operates a diversified portfolio of midstream
energy assets, including storage facilities, terminals and
pipelines in the United States.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements and
Prospectuses issued in connection with the IPO and Secondary
Offering were materially false and misleading, and omitted
material information necessary to make the statements made, in
light of such material omissions, not materially false and
misleading.  In addition, during the Class Period, a continuous
course of conduct was undertaken that operated as a fraud and
deceit upon plaintiff and the Class.  Various untrue and
misleading statements of material facts were made, and material
facts necessary in order to make the statements made not
misleading, were omitted.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statements and
Prospectuses issued in connection with the IPO and Secondary
Offering and the statements made during the Class Period failed
to disclose the adverse financial condition and lack of
liquidity of SemGroup L.P. (SGLP's Parent, from whom SGLP
derives more than 80% of its revenue) as a result of its
speculative, dangerous and unauthorized hedging and trading in
crude oil.

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Jonathan Tucker, Esq. (jtucker@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: 888-240-0775
                 202-408-4600


               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  * * *