CAR_Public/080828.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, August 28, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 171

                            Headlines

ADVANCED MICRO: Limited Class Certified in GPU Antitrust Suits
BECKMAN COULTER: Ex-Worker's Labor Violations Suit Still Pending
BECTON DICKINSON: Healthcare Workers' Lawsuits Still Pending
BECTON DICKENSON: Consolidated N.J. Antitrust Suit Still Pending
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Appeals Court Upholds Tort Reform Ruling

CAMBREX CORP: N.J. Court Gives Final OK to Securities Suit Deal
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Summary Judgment Bid in ERISA Suit Granted
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Natural Gas Mismeasurement Suits
CITIGROUP INC: Consolidated Auction Rate Securities Suit Amended
COLUMBUS POLICE: Sick-Leave Suit Granted Class Action Status

D.R. HORTON: Plaintiff Appeals RESPA Violations Suit Dismissal
D.R. HORTON: Calif. Home Buyers' Deception Lawsuit Still Pending
EINSTEIN NOAH: Wants Calif. Store Managers' Lawsuit Thrown Out
EINSTEIN NOAH: Calif. Non-Exempt Employees' Suit Still Pending
ELI LILLY: Suits Over Zyprexa Effects Pending in U.S. and Canada

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date Set for N.J. Securities Suit
FIRST HORIZON: Sued in Idaho Over Inflated Appraised Lot Value
GREENFIELD ONLINE: Sued in Conn. Over Cheap Sale to Quadrangle
HARMONIC INC: Oct. 29 Hearing Set for $15MM Securities Suit Deal
INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING: Recalls Chargers Due to Fire Hazard

IRIDIUM WORLD: Oct. 16 Hearing Slated for "Freeland" Settlement
JP MORGAN: Cheats Borrowers On Home Equity Loans, Lawsuit Claims
MAPLE LEAF FOODS: Lawsuit Launched Over Fatal Listeria Outbreak
MERCURY GENERAL: Sept. 16 Hearing Set for "Goodman" Settlement
MOLSON COORS: Settles U.S. & Canadian Lawsuits Over 2005 Merger

MORGAN STANLEY: ADCB Files Lawsuit Over Cheyne SIV Investments
NATIONAL CITY: Sued in Fla. Over Fidelity Bankshares Acquisition
NL INDUSTRIES: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Lead-Based Paints
NORTH COAST: Settles West Virginia Royalties Lawsuit
O'NEILL PROPERTIES: Second Lawsuit Filed Over Riverwalk Fire

PENNSYLVANIA: Sued Over Embattled Human Services Department
PRECISION DRYWALL: Employees Say Firm Violated Wash. Labor Laws
REDDY ICE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Oct. 7
RHINO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Calif. Suit Over Cheated Royalties
ST. JUDE: Discovery Still Ongoing in Minn. Securities Fraud Case

ST. JUDE: Minnesota Silzone Suit Plaintiffs Proposes New Class
ST. JUDE: Class Certification Bid in EEU Residents' Suit Denied
ST. JUDE: Continues to Face Silzone-Related Lawsuits in Canada
SUNRISE PROPANE: Seven Law Firms Unite for Explosion Lawsuit
TELECOMMUNICATION COS: Right-of-Way Suit Deal Hearing is Nov. 18

WILLIAM LYON: Del. Supreme Court Remands Case to Chancery Court
WILLIAM LYON: California Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed
WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Ex-Worker's Gender Bias Case


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CIT GROUP: Spector Roseman Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MF GLOBAL: Stull & Brody Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
PERINI CORP: Izard Nobel Files Securities Suit in Massachusetts
WM GROUP: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Wash. Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ADVANCED MICRO: Limited Class Certified in GPU Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A limited class was certified in purported antitrust class-
action suits over Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s pricing of
graphics processing units (GPU) and cards.

The company, its recent acquisition -- ATI Technologies, Inc. --
and Nvidia Corp., were named as defendants in such suits, which
were filed in the Northern District of California, the Central
District of California, the District of Massachusetts, the
Western District of Wisconsin, the District of South Carolina,
the District of Kansas, and the District of Vermont.

According to the complaints, the plaintiffs filed each of the
actions after reading press reports that the company and Nvidia
had received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division in connection with the DOJ's investigation
into potential antitrust violations related to GPUs and cards.
All of the actions appear to allege that the defendants
conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of
GPUs and cards in violation of federal antitrust law and state
antitrust law.

Furthermore, each of the complaints is styled as a putative
class action and alleges a class of plaintiffs (either indirect
or direct purchasers) who purportedly suffered injury as a
result of the defendants' alleged conduct.  The majority of the
complaints propose a class period from November or December 2002
to the present.

The court held a hearing last year on the defendants' motions to
dismiss the cases.  On Sept. 27, 2007, the court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the defendants' dismissal
motions.

Pursuant to the court's order, the plaintiffs filed motions to
amend their complaints on Oct. 11, 2007.  Then on April 24,
2008, the plaintiffs filed motions for class certification.

The court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motions for class
certification on July 1 and 2, 2008.  On July 18, the court
denied the indirect purchasers' motion for class certification
in its entirety and granted class certification only to a
limited class of individuals and entities who purchased graphics
processing card products online from the defendants' Web sites
in the U.S. during the period from Dec. 4, 2002, to Nov. 7,
2007, 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.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. -- http://www.amd.com/-- is a
global semiconductor company with facilities worldwide.  It
provides processing solutions for the computing, graphics and
consumer electronics markets. During the year ended Dec. 31,
2006, the company offered primarily x86 microprocessors, for the
commercial and consumer markets, which are used for control and
computing tasks, and embedded microprocessors for commercial,
commercial client and consumer markets.  On Oct. 25, 2006, the
company acquired ATI Technologies Inc.  As a result of the
acquisition, the company began to supply three-dimensional
graphics, video and multimedia products, and chipsets for
personal computers, including desktop and notebook PCs,
professional workstations and servers, and products for consumer
electronic devices, such as mobile phones, digital television
and game consoles.


BECKMAN COULTER: Ex-Worker's Labor Violations Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beckman Coulter, Inc., continues to face a purported class-
action lawsuit in California that alleges the company of
violating certain provisions of the California Labor Code and
applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

On Aug. 16, 2007, a former employee of the company filed a
lawsuit in Orange County California Superior Court, entitled
"Davila v. Beckman Coulter."  The lawsuit asserts claims on the
plaintiff's own behalf and also on behalf of a purported class
of former and current Beckman Coulter employees.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and
applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders
with respect to meal breaks and rest periods, the payment of
compensation for meal breaks and rest periods not taken, the
information shown on pay stubs, and certain overtime payments.
It also alleges that the company engaged in unfair business
practices.

The plaintiff is seeking back pay, statutory penalties, and
attorneys' fees, and seeks to certify the suit on behalf of the
company's non-exempt California employees.

Recently, six additional former employees have sought permission
from the court to be added as class representatives, 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.

Beckman Coulter, Inc. -- http://www.beckman.com/-- is a
manufacturer of biomedical testing instrument systems, tests and
supplies that simplify and automate laboratory processes.  It
designs, manufactures and sells systems, services, reagents and
supplies to clinical and life science laboratories worldwide.


BECTON DICKINSON: Healthcare Workers' Lawsuits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co., along with another manufacturer and
several medical product distributors, continues to face product
liability class action lawsuits commenced by healthcare workers
who allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not
become infected with any disease.

Generally, these actions allege that healthcare workers have
sustained needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices
manufactured by Becton Dickinson and, as a result, require
medical testing, counseling and treatment.

In some cases, these actions additionally allege that the
healthcare workers have sustained mental anguish.  The
plaintiffs seek money damages in all of these actions.

Becton Dickinson had previously been named as a defendant in
eight similar suits, each of which has either been dismissed
with prejudice or voluntarily withdrawn.  Currently, there are
two pending suits in Ohio and South Carolina.

The Ohio case, "Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al., Case No.
98CVB075616," was filed in Franklin County Court on Sept. 21,
2006.

Recently, The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
class certification order.  The matter has been remanded to the
trial court for a determination of whether the class can be
redefined.

The South Carolina case -- "Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et. al."
(Case No. 98-CP-40-4343, Richland County Court of Common Pleas,
South Carolina) -- was filed on Nov. 25, 1998, on behalf of an
unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class action
certification under the laws of this state in state court.

Becton Dickinson continues to oppose class action certification
in these two cases, including pursuing all appropriate rights of
appeal

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

Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a medical
technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and
sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
industry and the general public.


BECTON DICKENSON: Consolidated N.J. Antitrust Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co. continues to face a consolidated
antitrust class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

                  Direct Purchaser's Litigation

Becton Dickinson is named as a defendant in five purported class
action complaints brought on behalf of direct purchasers of the
company's products, such as distributors, alleging that the
company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the
charging of higher prices for the company's products to the
plaintiff and other purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     1. "Louisiana Wholesale Drug company, Inc., et. al. vs.
        Becton Dickinson and company" (Civil Action No. 05-
        1602, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed
        on March 25, 2005;

     2. "SAJ Distributors, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson &
        Co." (Case 2:05-CV-04763-JD, United States District
        Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
        Sept. 6, 2005;

     3. "Dik Drug company, et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
        company" (Case No. 2:05-CV-04465, U.S. District Court,
        Newark, New Jersey), filed on Sept. 12, 2005;

     4. "American Sales company, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton,
        Dickinson & Co." (Case No. 2:05-CV-05212-CRM, U.S.
        District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania),
        filed on Oct. 3, 2005; and

     5. "Park Surgical Co. Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson
        and company" (Case 2:05-CV-05678-CMR, U.S. District
        Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
        Oct. 26, 2005.

The actions brought by Louisiana Wholesale Drug company and Dik
Drug company in New Jersey have been consolidated under the
caption "In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

                Indirect Purchaser's Litigation

Becton Dickinson is also named as a defendant in four purported
class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
Becton Dickinson's products, alleging that the company violated
federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher
prices for the company's products to the plaintiff and other
purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     1. "Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson &
        company" (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, U.S. District Court,
        Greenville, Tennessee), filed on June 7, 2005;

     2. "Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson
        and company" (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District
        Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on Jan. 17, 2006;

     3. "Medstar v. Becton Dickinson" (Case No. 06-CV-03258-
        JLL (RJH), U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey),
        filed on May 18, 2006; and

     4. "The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton
        Dickinson and company" (Case No. 07-CV-2544, U.S.
        District Court, Southern District of New York), filed
        on March 28, 2007.

A fifth purported class action complaint on behalf of indirect
purchasers, captioned "International Multiple Sclerosis
Management Practice v. Becton Dickinson & company, Case No.
2:07-cv-10602," filed on April 5, 2007, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, was voluntarily withdrawn
by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action suits seek
monetary damages.

All of the antitrust class action suits have been consolidated
for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation in U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

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.

Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a medical
technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and
sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
industry and the general public.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Appeals Court Upholds Tort Reform Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's
ruling that a so-called mass action can be moved to a federal
court from a state court under the federal Class Action Fairness
Act, even if a group of plaintiffs deny that their action is a
mass action, Workforce.com reports.

The report notes that in the Appellate Court's opinion in
"Bullard et al. v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. et
al.," Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook noted that under the Class
Action Fairness Act, a mass action can be sent to federal court
if:

   -- the plaintiffs propose a trial involving the claims of at
      least 100 litigants,

   -- at least one plaintiff seeks at least $75,000,

   -- the stakes as a whole are more than $5 million, and

   -- the parties involved are from different states.

The plaintiffs in the case are 144 people seeking damages from
Burlington Northern and three other defendants for allegedly
allowing dangerous chemicals to escape from a wood-processing
plant, the report says.

Workforce.com recounts that the plaintiffs sought to have the
case tried before the circuit court in Cook County, Illinois.
The defendants, citing the Class Action Fairness Act, sought to
have the case heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The plaintiffs said the case should be
moved back to state court because their suit was not a mass
action.

The plaintiffs "insist that a complaint never proposes a trial,"
Judge Easterbrook wrote.  "According to the plaintiffs,
defendants may remove a 'mass action' only on the eve of a
trial, once a final pretrial order or equivalent document
identifies the number of parties to a trial."

The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion, and the
appeals court affirmed that ruling, with Judge Easterbrook
noting that the appeals court took the case because the legal
issue had never been addressed in any federal circuit court,
Workforce.com says.  Judge Easterbrook further wrote that the
lower court's "conclusion is the only sensible reading" of the
statute.

Judge Easterbrook further notes in his opinion that the
plaintiffs argued that "no mass action could ever be a class
action, for a suit cannot be identified as a 'mass action' until
close to trial, while a suit is a class action or not," under
the relevant section of CAFA, "on the date of filing."  The
judge said "Courts do not read statutes to make entire
subsections vanish into the night."


CAMBREX CORP: N.J. Court Gives Final OK to Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
final approval to a settlement reached in the consolidated
securities fraud class-action suit captioned "Dodge v. Cambrex
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-04896-WJM-RJH."

In October 2003, the company was notified of a securities class
action filed against Cambrex and five former and current company
officers.  Five class actions were later filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In January 2004, the Court consolidated the cases, designated
the lead plaintiff and selected counsel to represent the class.
An amended complaint was filed in March 2004.

The consolidated lawsuit has been brought as a class action in
the names of purchasers of the company's common stock from
Oct. 21, 1998, through July 25, 2003.  It alleges that the
company failed to disclose in a timely fashion its January 2003
accounting restatement and the subsequent SEC investigation, as
well as the loss of a significant contract at the Baltimore
facility.

In May 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case,
which request was later denied by the Court.

In late 2007, the company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the settlement of all claims in this
matter.

The settlement includes a payment to class members of an amount
which is well within the policy limits of, and has been paid by,
the company's insurance.  The deal has received final approval
by the Court and a final judgment relating to the case has been
entered, 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 "Dodge v. Cambrex Corp., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-
04896-WJM-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge William J. Martini, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joseph J. Depalma, Esq. (jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com)
         Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
         Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102-5003
         Phone: 973-623-3000

         Barry A. Knopf, Esq.
         Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. (PSP@njlawfirm.com)
         Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf
         Park 80 Plaza, West One,
         Saddle Brook, NJ 07662
         Phone: 201-845 9600

              - and -

         Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. (rifkin@whafh.com)
         Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4600

Representing the defendants is:

         Alan E. Kraus, Esq. (alan.kraus@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins, LLP
         One Newark Center, 16th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07101-3174
         Phone: 973-639-7293
                973-639-1234


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Summary Judgment Bid in ERISA Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower
court ruling that granted a summary judgment motion filed by
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., in a purported class-action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

In May 2002, three class action suits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston) on
behalf of participants in various company-sponsored employee
benefits plans.  Two of the lawsuits were dismissed without
prejudice.

In the remaining lawsuit, the company and certain current and
former members of its benefits committee are defendants.  That
suit alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to various employee benefits plans, directly or indirectly
sponsored by the company, in violation of ERISA by permitting
the plans to purchase or hold securities issued by the company
when it was imprudent to do so, including after the prices for
such securities became artificially inflated because of alleged
securities fraud engaged in by the defendants.

The complaint sought monetary damages for losses suffered on
behalf of the plans and a putative class of plan participants
whose accounts held CenterPoint Energy or Reliant Resources,
Inc. securities, as well as restitution.

In January 2006, the federal district judge granted a motion for
summary judgment filed by the company and the individual
defendants.

The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.  In April 2008, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the district court's ruling, and that ruling is not
subject to further review.

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 "Boca Raton Police &, et al. v. Reliant Resources,
et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-01810," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Ewing Werlein,
Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jacks C. Nickens, Esq.
          Nickens Keeton, et al.
          600 Travis, Ste. 7500
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-571-9191
          Fax: 713-571-9652

          Niki L. O'Neel, Esq.
          Alan Schulman, Esq.
          David R. Stickney, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz, et al.
          12544 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 150
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: 858-793-0070

              - and -

          Peter A. Pease, Esq.
          Michael J. Pucillo, Esq.
          Wendy Hope, Esq.
          Zoberman, Berman DeValerio & Pease
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 09109
          Phone: 617-542-8300
          Fax: 617-542-1194

Representing the company is:

          James Edward Maloney, Esq.
          Baker & Botts
          910 Louisiana, Ste 3000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-229-1255
          Fax: 713-229-7755


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Natural Gas Mismeasurement Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. and certain of its
subsidiaries are defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits
brought against approximately 245 pipeline companies and their
affiliates pending in state court in Stevens County, Kansas.

In one case originally filed in May 1999, the plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of royalty owners who allege that the
defendants have engaged in systematic mismeasurement of the
volume of natural gas for more than 25 years.

The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in July 2003
in response to an order from the judge denying certification of
the plaintiffs' alleged class.  In the amendment, the plaintiffs
dismissed their claims against certain defendants -- including
two CERC subsidiaries -- limited the scope of the class of
plaintiffs they purport to represent, and eliminated previously
asserted claims based on mismeasurement of the British thermal
unit content of the gas.

The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as
representatives of a putative class of royalty owners, in which
they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for
more than 25 years.

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
along with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs
and fees.

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

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. --
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/-- owns and operates natural
gas distribution systems in six states.  CERC's subsidiaries own
interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and
provide various ancillary services.  A wholly owned subsidiary
offers variable and fixed-price physical natural gas supplies
primarily to commercial and industrial customers and electric
and gas utilities.  CERC is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary
of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company.
Its business segments comprise: Natural Gas Distribution,
Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate
Pipelines, Field Services and Other Operations.  The Other
Operations business segment includes unallocated corporate costs
and inter-segment eliminations.


CITIGROUP INC: Consolidated Auction Rate Securities Suit Amended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Order of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on August 25, 2008, Zwerling,
Schachter & Zwerling LLP filed a consolidated amended complaint
in "In re Citigroup Auction Rate Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 08 Civ. 3095 (LTS)(FM)."

The Complaint is brought on behalf of investors who purchased
auction rate securities underwritten and sold in auctions
managed by defendants Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets,
Inc. and Smith Barney (Citigroup ARS).

The Complaint alleges that from Aug. 1, 2007, through Feb. 11,
2008, defendants manipulated the market for Citigroup ARS by
fostering the illusion that a valid market existed where buyers
and sellers came together, with supply and demand in balance,
allowing for the successful completion of auctions of Citigroup
ARS.  In fact, no such balance existed.

During the Class Period, defendants routinely and regularly
intervened to ensure that their auctions did not fail.  When
defendants ceased intervening into auctions for Citigroup ARS,
the auctions failed in their entirety, and the Citigroup ARS
market came to a sudden and immediate halt.  Investors were left
with billions of dollars of Citigroup ARS and no market to sell
their positions.

The Complaint alleges that defendants have acted in violation of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and section 206
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.  Further, the Complaint
alleges that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to
certain Citigroup ARS purchasers and have violated the Deceptive
Practices Acts of Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,
Wisconsin, Colorado, Kentucky, New Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho,
Delaware, South Dakota and North Dakota.

The suit is "In re Citigroup Auction Rate Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 08 Civ. 3095 (LTS)(FM)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


COLUMBUS POLICE: Sick-Leave Suit Granted Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory L. Frost has granted class-action status to a
lawsuit challenging the Columbus Police Division's requirement
that employees divulge their illness when they return from sick
leave, Jodi Andes writes for The Columbus Dispatch.

According to the report, Judge Frost's ruling means that any of
the more than 2,000 sworn and civilian employees of the Police
Division could receive damages if they win the lawsuit.

Pursuant to division policy, employees who are off sick for
three or more days must have a doctor's excuse naming the
medical problem, Michael Garth Moore, Esq., who filed the suit
in December on behalf of six current or former communications
technicians, told The Columbus Dispatch.  The lawsuit says that
if the doctor's excuse does not list the illness, the absence is
considered unexcused by police supervisors.

The suit also says that the division policy is unconstitutional,
and therefore seeks money damages for all employees who had to
tell their bosses what was medically wrong with them since 2004.

The report notes that in his ruling, Judge Frost wrote that it
is "judicially economical" to have all such cases handled at
once instead of having them litigated individually.

Mr. Moore told The Columbus Dispatch that policies of other city
divisions are being examined for possible inclusion in the
lawsuit.


D.R. HORTON: Plaintiff Appeals RESPA Violations Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class-action suit, entitled
"Yeatman et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-
00081-BAE-GRS," is appealing the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia's decision to dismiss the case with
prejudice.  The suit was filed against D.R. Horton, Inc.,
alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.

The suit, commenced by John R. Yeatman on June 15, 2007, also
names as defendant D.R. Horton's mortgage company -- DHI
Mortgage Co.  Mr. Yeatman, who claims that he was forced to use
the company's affiliated mortgage service to buy his home so
that the company could get discounts and incentives, is seeking
class-action status for his suit.

The complaint specifically seeks certification of a class
alleged to include persons who, within the year preceding the
filing of the suit, purchased a home from the company and
obtained a mortgage for such purchase from the affiliated
mortgage company subsidiary.

The suit alleges that the company violated Section 8 of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act by effectively requiring its
homebuyers to use its affiliated mortgage company to finance
their home purchases by offering certain discounts and
incentives.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount
and injunctive relief.

On April 23, 2008, the Court granted the company's request and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal, which is currently pending, 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 "Yeatman, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:07-cv-00081-BAE-GRS," filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Georgia, Judge B. Avant Edenfield,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Thomas A. Withers, Esq. (TWithers@gcpwlaw.com)
          Gillen, Cromwell, Parker & Withers, LLC
          P.O. Box 10164
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Phone: 912-447-8400
          Fax: 912-233-6584

Representing the defendants is:

          David M. Souders, Esq.
          Weiner, Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, PC
          1300 19th Street, NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-628-2000
          Fax: 202-628-2011


D.R. HORTON: Calif. Home Buyers' Deception Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
D.R. Horton and Western Pacific Housing continue to face a
purported class-action suit in California that accuses them of
of illegally forcing or deceiving homebuyers into financing
their houses through DHI Mortgage Co., at uncompetitive prices,
according to D.R. Horton's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

On March 24, 2008, a putative class-action suit, entitled "James
Wilson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al.," was filed by five
customers of Western Pacific Housing, Inc. -- one of the
company's wholly owned subsidiaries -- against the company,
Western Pacific Housing and the company's affiliated mortgage
company subsidiary, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

The complaint seeks certification of a class alleged to include
persons who, within the four years preceding the filing of the
suit, purchased a home from the company, or any of its
subsidiaries, and obtained a mortgage for such purchase from the
company's affiliated mortgage company subsidiary.

The suit alleges that the company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and Sections 16720, 17200 and 17500 of the
California Business and Professions Code by effectively
requiring its homebuyers to apply for a loan through its
affiliated mortgage company.

The suit also alleges that the homebuyers were either deceived
about loan costs charged by the company's affiliated mortgage
company or coerced into using its affiliated mortgage company,
or both, and that discounts and incentives offered by the
company or its subsidiaries to buyers who obtained financing
from its affiliated mortgage company were illusory.

The action seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief.

According to the April 2, 2008 edition of The Class Action
Reporter, the plaintiffs request:

     -- disgorgement and restitution to plaintiffs and all
        class members;

     -- actual damages and treble damages to plaintiffs and
        all class members;

     -- attorneys' fees and the costs of suit incurred;

     -- prejudgment interest as allowed by law; and

     -- equitable and injunctive relief.

The suit is "James Wilson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al.,
Case No: 08 CV 592 BEN RBB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. (norm@bamlawlj.com)
          Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: 858-551-1223
          Fax: 858-551-1232

Representing the defendants is:

          John T. Brooks, Esq. (jtbrooks@luce.com)
          Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps
          600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101-3372
          Phone: 619-236-1414
          Fax: 619-232-8311


EINSTEIN NOAH: Wants Calif. Store Managers' Lawsuit Thrown Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc., is seeking the dismissal
of a consolidated class-action lawsuit over the company's
alleged failure to pay overtime wages to its "salaried
restaurant employees."

Initially, two purported class action suits were filed.  The
first was filed in the Superior Court of California for the
State of California, County of San Diego, on Sept. 18, 2007, by
former store manager Eric Mathistad.

Mr. Mathistad alleges that the defendant failed to pay overtime
wages to "salaried restaurant employees" of its California
stores who were improperly designated as exempt employees, and
that these employees were deprived of mandated meal periods and
rest breaks.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's actions were in
violation of the California Labor Code Sections 1194, et seq.,
500, et seq., California Business and Professions Code Section
17200, et seq., and applicable wage order(s) issued by the
Industrial Welfare Commission.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
attorney's fees, restitution and an unspecified amount of
damages for unpaid overtime and for missed meal and rest
periods.

The second suit was filed on Nov. 14, 2007, by Bernadette Mejia,
another former store manager.

On April 10, 2008, the Mathistad and Meija cases were
consolidated into one case and, on May 6, 2008, the plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated complaint.

The company, according to its Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 1, 2008, filed a demurrer in June 2008, claiming
that, among other things

   -- the plaintiff fails to state a claim against the company;

   -- the plaintiff does not state a claim for a joint venture,
      partnership, common enterprise, or aiding and abetting;

   -- the plaintiff's definition of the class is deficient; and

   -- the plaintiff's claims for declaratory judgment regarding
      Labor Code violations ought to be dismissed.

Lakewood, Colorado-based Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. --
http://www.einsteinnoah.com/-- commenced operations as an
operator and franchisor of coffee cafes in 1993, is an
owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty
restaurants in the U.S.


EINSTEIN NOAH: Calif. Non-Exempt Employees' Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc., continues to face a
purported class action lawsuit in California that claims the
company failed to pay minimum wages, pay overtime, and provide
rest periods and meal breaks, among other charges.

The putative class action suit was filed against the company on
Feb. 8, 2008, by non-exempt employees Gloria Webber and Hakan
Mikado in the Superior Court of California for the State of
California, County of San Diego.

The parties have agreed to stay formal discovery and a formal
response to the complaint pending exchange of and pending
settlement discussions.

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 July 1, 2008.

Lakewood, Colorado-based Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. --
http://www.einsteinnoah.com/-- commenced operations as an
operator and franchisor of coffee cafes in 1993, is an
owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty
restaurants in the U.S.


ELI LILLY: Suits Over Zyprexa Effects Pending in U.S. and Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. continues to face several purported class-
action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over the side effects and
marketing of Zyprexa.

                         U.S. Lawsuits

In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide
class action suits on behalf of all consumers and third-party
payors, excluding governmental entities, which have made or will
make payments for their members or insured patients being
prescribed Zyprexa.

These actions have now been consolidated into a single lawsuit,
which is brought under certain state consumer protection
statutes, the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute, and common law theories, seeking a refund
of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Two additional lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of
New York in 2006 on similar grounds.

In 2007, The Pennsylvania Employees Trust Fund brought claims in
state court in Pennsylvania as insurer of Pennsylvania state
employees, who were prescribed Zyprexa on similar grounds as
described in the New York cases.

In general, these lawsuits allege that the company inadequately
tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and
improperly promoted the drug.

                       Canadian Lawsuits

In early 2005, the company was served with four lawsuits seeking
class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took
Zyprexa.

One of these four lawsuits has been certified for residents of
Quebec, and a second has been certified in Ontario and includes
all Canadian residents, except for residents of Quebec and
British Columbia.

The allegations in the Canadian actions are similar to those in
the litigation pending in the U.S.

The company reported no further development 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 30, 2008.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,
develops, manufactures and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The company also has an
animal health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes
its products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S.,
Puerto Rico and 25 other countries.  Eli Lilly and company's
products are sold in approximately 135 countries.  The company
also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in
animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food
production.  Its principal products include Neurosciences
products, Endocrinology products, Oncology products,
Cardiovascular products, Animal health products and Other
pharmaceuticals.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date Set for N.J. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to set a trial date for a consolidated securities fraud class
action suit filed against Exide Technologies, Inc.

In June 2005, the company received notice that two former
stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, separately
filed purported class action complaints against the company and
certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations
of certain federal securities laws.

The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the
company's stock between Nov. 16, 2004, and May 17, 2005.

The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20 (a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and
misleading public statements made during this period by the
company and its officers.  The complaints did not specify an
amount of damages sought.

On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva
Partners and Jarman cases under the caption "Aviva Partners v.
Exide Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098 (MLC)."

On March 24, 2006, Judge Cooper appointed as co-lead plaintiffs:

     * the Alaska Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust
       Fund, and

     * Lakeway Capital Management.

The judge also appointed the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoja
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as co-lead
counsel for the putative class.

On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint in which they reiterated their original claims
but purported to state a claim on behalf of those who purchased
the company's stock between May 5, 2004, and May 17, 2005.

On June 22, 2006, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints.  The court has
granted this request but permitted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint, which they did.

The defendants again moved to dismiss the amended complaint, but
this time, the Court denied this request.

Discovery in the lawsuit is proceeding and is expected to
continue throughout the remainder of 2008.  No trial date has
been set in this matter.

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 quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.

The suit is "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Mary L. Cooper,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq. (procco@lawssb.com)
         Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
         163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
         Phone: 973-775-8997

Representing the defendants is:

         Edward T. Kole, Esq. (ekole@wilentz.com)
         Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs.
         90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 - Box 10
         Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958
         Phone: 732-636-8000


FIRST HORIZON: Sued in Idaho Over Inflated Appraised Lot Value
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon Home Loan Corp. and Eagle River Mortgage are
facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the State of Idaho alleging it inflated the appraised value
of lots and homes in the 581-unit Teton Springs development in
Idaho, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Teton Springs Golf & Casting Club, LLC, a Wyoming limited
liability company, was the developer of a resort subdivision in
Victor, Idaho named "Teton Springs All Season Resort Community."
Teton Springs is an all-season resort community.  Most of the
homes within Teton Springs are second or third homes for the
owners.  The sales prices for lots within Teton Springs range
from $252,000.00 to $2.8 million.

This action asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U.S.C. 5 196 1, et seq., and for
common-law fraud.  This Court has jurisdiction over this action
under 28 U.S.C. Sections 5 133 1 and 1367, 18 U.S.C. 1965(a).

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons who
purchased lots and constructed dwellings on them in the
subdivision known as "Teton Springs All Season Resort Community"
which lots and dwellings were appraised by River's Edge and for
which First Horizon and Eagle River provided financing for the
purchase of a lot and the construction of a dwelling.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether First Horizon's or Eagle River's sending
         fraudulent appraisals by the U.S. mail and by any
         private or commercial interstate carrier constitutes
         mail fraud;

     (b) whether their extensive broker/lender relationship and
         their activities in furtherance of their relationship
         constitutes an "enterprise" as defined in 18 USC
         Section 1961(4) that is engaged in, or the activities
         of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce;

     (c) whether policies and practices described constitute
         defendants'  conduct or participation, directly or
         indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs
         through a pattern of racketeering activity;

     (d) whether defendants have violated 18 U.S.C Section
         1962(c);

     (e) whether defendants have conspired to 18 USC Section
         1962(c), in violation of 18 USC Section 1964(d);

     (f) whether defendants obtained, communicated and endorsed
         the false and fraudulent appraisals;

     (g) whether the false and fraudulent appraisals were
         material to defendants' decision to lend to plaintiff
         and the class;

     (h) whether defendants knew or should have known that the
         appraisals performed were false and fraudulent;

     (i) whether defendants intended that plaintiff and the
         class rely on the false and fraudulent appraisals;

     (j) whether plaintiff and the class relief on the false and
         fraudulent appraisals;

     (k) whether plaintiff and the class justifiable relied on
         the false and fraudulent appraisals; and

     (l) whether plaintiff and the class have suffered damages
         or been injured.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- for an order certifying that this action may be
        maintained as a class action, appointing plaintiff as
        class representative and his counsel as class counsel
        and directing that reasonable notice of this action be
        given to class members;

     -- for a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants,
        their officers, directors, employees agents, partners or
        representatives, successors and any and all persons
        acting in concert, from directly or indirectly engaging
        in the wrongful acts and practices alleged;

     -- for an order directing disgorgement or restitution of
        all improperly collected charges and the imposition of
        an equitable constructive trust over such amounts for
        the benefit of plaintiff and class members;

     -- for compensatory and general damages to be proven at the
        time of trial;

     -- for rescission of the real estate finance contracts;

     -- for treble damages under 18 USC Section 1964 and under
        state common law, including, interest or an appropriate
        inflation factor and an enhancement to offset any
        adverse tax consequences associated with lump sum
        receipt of damages and all other damages owed to
        plaintiff and the class members, in an amount to be
        proven at trial;

     -- for prejudgment and postjudgment interest as provided by
        law in an amount according to proof;

     -- for an award of costs and expenses incurred in this
        action;

     -- for reasonable attorney fees as provided by law and
        statute; and

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

The suit is "Scott Read, et al. v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp.
et al., Case Number: 1:2008cv00352," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the State of Idaho, Judge Candy W. Dale, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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


GREENFIELD ONLINE: Sued in Conn. Over Cheap Sale to Quadrangle
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Greenfield Online Inc. filed a class-action
complaint in the Superior Court of the Judicial District of
Hartford claiming the company's directors are selling it too
cheaply to the Quadrangle Group, for $15.50 a share, or
$426 million in aggregate, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit notes that on July 17, 2008, Greenfield filed a
preliminary proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission revealing that the defendant directors
failed to discharge their so-alled Revlon duties in selling the
Company.

According to the suit, the directors failed to conduct a bona
fide, reliable sales process to maximize shareholder value
because they discontinued the market auction in May 2007 all the
while continuing to negotiate with one potential buyer.
Furthermore, even though the Company entered in to nondisclosure
agreements with numerous parties and was in the middle of
negotiating with certain unsolicited parties, the Company failed
to obtain offers, if any, prior to entering into the Merger
Agreement.

On August 6, 2008, following the conclusion of the "go-shop"
period, the Company announced that a strategic party made a
$17.50 offer for the Company.

The flawed sales process in itself constitutes irreparable
injury to Greenfield's shareholders and calls for the Court's
exercise of its injunctive powers, the suit says.

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Connecticut General
Statutes Section 52-105 and Connecticut Practice Book Section 9-
7 and 9-8, on behalf of all stockholders of the Company who are
threatened with injury arising from defendants' actions
complained of.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (i) whether the individual defendants have breached their
         fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed
         Freeze-out;

    (ii) whether the individual defendants have disclosed all
         material information to Greenfield's public
         shareholders; and

   (iii) whether the plaintiff and the other class members
         would suffer irreparable injury if the proposed freeze-
         out is consummated.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:

     -- declaring this to be a proper class action and
        certifying plaintiffs as the representatives of the
        class;

     -- preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants from
        taking any steps to consummate the proposed freeze-out;

     -- directing the individual defendants to carry out their
        fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and the other members of
        the class by announcing their intention to:

          * cooperate fully with any person or entity, having a
            bona fide interest in proposing a transaction that
            would maximize shareholder value, including but not
            limited to, a buyout or takeover of the Company.

          * undertake an appropriate valuation of Greenfield's
            worth as a merger/acquisition candidate; and

          * take all appropriate steps to expose Greenfield to
            the marketplace in an effort to create an active
            auction among all potential bidders;

     -- directing defendants, jointly and severally, to account
        to plaintiff and the class for all damages suffered and
        to be suffered by them as a result of the wrongs
        complained of in the suit;

     -- awarding plaintiffs the costs of this action, including
        a reasonable allowance for plaintiffs attorneys' and
        experts' fees; and

     -- granting other and further relief as may be just and
        fair in the premises.

The suit is  "Craig Ginman, et al. v. Joel R. Mesznik, et al.,
Docket No. CV08-403-414," filed in the Superior Court of the
Judicial District of Hartford.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          20 Church Sqeet Harford, CT, 06103
          Phone: 860-493-6292
          Fax: 860-493-6290


HARMONIC INC: Oct. 29 Hearing Set for $15MM Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 29, 2008 final hearing is set to consider final approval
of a proposed $15-million settlement in a securities class-
action suit filed against Harmonic, Inc.'s and certain of its
officers and directors, 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.

In 2000, several actions alleging violations of the federal
securities laws by Harmonic and certain of its officers and
directors (some of whom are no longer with Harmonic) were filed
in or removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The actions were subsequently
consolidated.

A consolidated complaint, filed on Dec. 7, 2000, was brought on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Harmonic's
publicly traded securities between Jan. 19, 2000, and June 26,
2000.  The complaint also alleged claims on behalf of a
purported subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube securities
between Jan. 19, 2000 and May 3, 2000.

In addition to Harmonic and certain of its officers and
directors, the complaint also named C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and
several of its officers and directors as defendants.

The complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading
statements regarding Harmonic's prospects and customers and its
acquisition of C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act.

The complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated
section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act, by
filing a false or misleading registration statement, prospectus,
and joint proxy in connection with the C-Cube acquisition.

Following a series of procedural actions at the District Court
and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a
significant number of the claims alleged in the plaintiffs'
amended complaint were dismissed, including all claims against
C-Cube and its officers and directors.  However, certain of the
plaintiffs' claims survived dismissal.

In January 2007, the District Court set a trial date for August
2008, and also ordered the parties to participate in mediation.

As a result of discussions and negotiations between the
plaintiffs' counsel and Harmonic -- and its insurance carriers
-- an agreement was reached in March 2008 to resolve the
securities class-action lawsuit.

This agreement releases Harmonic, its officers, directors and
insurance carriers from all claims brought in the lawsuit by the
plaintiffs against Harmonic or its officers and directors,
without any admission of fault on the part of Harmonic or its
officers and directors.

On July 31, 2008, the District Court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.

The settlement remains subject to certain contingencies,
including funding by the companies insurance carriers and final
approval by the District Court.  A hearing on final approval has
been scheduled for Oct. 29, 2008.

Under the terms of the agreement to settle the securities class
action lawsuit, Harmonic and its insurance carriers will pay
$15 million in consideration to the plaintiffs in the securities
class-action suit.  Of this amount, Harmonic will pay $5 million
while the company's insurance carriers, in addition to having
funded most litigation costs, will contribute the remaining
$10 million on behalf of the individual defendants.

The plaintiffs' lawyers have applied for an award of fees and
costs in an unspecified amount to be paid from the $15 million
in consideration and subject to the approval of the District
Court.

In addition, Harmonic estimates that it will pay approximately
$1.4 million in related legal fees and expenses in connection
with proceedings in the securities class-action lawsuit.

Harmonic, Inc. -- http://www.harmonicinc.com/-- designs,
manufactures and sells products and systems that enable network
operators to provide a range of interactive and advanced digital
services that include digital video, video-on-demand, high-
definition television, high-speed Internet access and telephony.
The company's products generally fall into two categories: video
processing products, and edge and access products.


INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING: Recalls Chargers Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Merchandising Service Inc., of Fullerton, Calif.,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling about 210,000 Car Chargers Used with Power System
Plus 3 Million Candlepower Spotlights.

The company said the car charger is incompatible with the
spotlight's battery, which can cause it to overcharge inside of
a vehicle and pose a fire or burn hazard to consumers.

IMS has received two reports of incidents of spotlights
overheating while being charged with the car charger.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled 12V DC car charger was sold with the Power Systems
Plus/UST 3 Million Candlepower Spotlight with model number
HSLR30S.  The spotlight is black and blue and has a sticker on
each side that reads "3 Million Candle Power."  "HSLR30S" is
printed on the instruction manual and on the packaging.

These recalled chargers were manufactured in China and were sold
at Sears and K-Mart retail stores nationwide from October 2007
to June 2008 for about $20.

Pictures of the recalled chargers are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08374a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08374b.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08374c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled car
charger and contact IMS for information on how to receive a free
replacement car charger.  Consumers can continue to use the
spotlights without the car charger.

For additional information, contact IMS toll-free at
866-797-2738 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, visit the company's Web site at
http://usttools.com/recallor write to:

          IMS Inc.
          1927 W. Malvern Ave.
          Fullerton, CA 92833
          ATTN: RECALL PROGRAM


IRIDIUM WORLD: Oct. 16 Hearing Slated for "Freeland" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will hold a
fairness hearing on Oct. 16, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., to consider
final approval of a proposed $43.1-million settlement in the
matter, "Freeland, et al v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd.,
et al."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, 1225 E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse,
Courtroom 19, 6th Floor, 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., in
Washington, DC.

Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before
Oct. 2, 2008.  Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on
Nov. 17, 2008.

                         Case Background

Initially, several purported securities class action suits
arising out of alleged misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the Iridium satellite communications business were
filed (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2008).

The suits were later consolidated under the caption, "Freeland
v. Iridium World Communications, Inc., et al.," which was
originally filed on April 22, 1999.

The consolidated lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged material misrepresentations
or omissions regarding difficulties in the satellite
communications business of Iridium World Communications Ltd.,
Iridium LLC, and Iridium Operating LLC.  The alleged class
consists of purchasers of all Iridium securities during the
period from Sept. 9, 1998, to March 29, 1999.

Named as defendants in the case are Motorola, Inc.; Edward
Staiano, the former Vice-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Iridium LLC and Iridium Operating, and former Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Iridium World; Roy Grant, former Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Iridium LLC and Iridium
World; and certain underwriters, which include Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., NationsBanc
Montgomery Securities LLC, Salomon Smith Barney Inc., and
SoundView Technology Group Inc.

Iridium is not a named defendant because it is shielded from
ongoing litigation by the stay of litigation afforded to debtors
under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

                          Settlements

Starting 2008, settlements totaling about $43.1 million were
reached with Motorola, the individual defendants, and the
underwriter-defendants.

In April 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle,
subject to court approval, to settle all claims against Motorola
in exchange for Motorola's agreement to pay $20 million (Class
Action Reporter May 16, 2008).

Soon after, the individual defendants, and the underwriter-
defendants reached a $14.85-million and $8.5-million settlement,
respectively.

For more details, contact:

          In re Iridium Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9261
          Dublin, OH 43017-4661
          Phone: 1-866-825-2465
          Web site: http://gardencitygroup.com/

The suit is "Freeland, et al. v. Iridium World Comm, et al.,
Case No. 1:99-cv-01002" filed in the the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, Judge Nanette K. Laughrey, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert A. Wallner, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 1-800-320-5081
                 212-594-5300
          Fax: 212-868-1229
          Web site: http://www.milberg.com/

               - and -

          Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4690
          Fax: 212-545-4653
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/

Representing the defendants are:

          Jeffrey L. Willian, Esq. (jwillian@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis
          200 East Randolph Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-861-2000
          Fax: 312-861-2200

               - and -

          James F. Moyle, Esq. (james.moyle@cliffordchance.com)
          Clifford Chance U.S. LLP
          31 West, 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-878-8508
          Fax: 212-878-8375


JP MORGAN: Cheats Borrowers On Home Equity Loans, Lawsuit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Chase Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York alleging it
overcharges for interest owed on home equity loans, in breach of
contract, and conceals the errors for its own benefit,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs claim Morgan Chase miscalculates the interest on
its Equitylink Credit Line Agreements.

This is a consumer class action for breach of contract.
Specifically, the suit alleges that the defendants improperly
calculated the interest rate due on the home equity loans of the
plaintiffs and the members of the class, and concealed their
miscalculation, for their own benefit and to the detriment of
the plaintiffs and the members of the class.  The defendants'
unlawful conduct is continuing.

This class action is brought to obtain monetary reimbursement
for the amounts by which the defendants have overcharged the
plaintiff and the members of the class, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and any other legally compensatory relief to
which the plaintiffs and the members of the class are entitled.

This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class
action suit pursuant to Article 9 of the New York Civil Practice
Law and Rules on behalf of himself and a class consisting of all
persons who have had an outstanding balance pursuant to an
EQUITYLINKB CREDIT LINE AGREEMENT at any time since October 1,
2007, and paid interest on such balances as determined by
the defendants.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     a. whether defendants have breached and continue to breach
        the terms of the EQUITYLINKm CREDIT LINE AGREEMENT in
        charging higher interest rates that permitted by that
        Agreement on funds borrowed pursuant to that Agreement;

     b. whether the plaintiffs and the class have been damaged
        and continue to be damaged, and the amount of damages
        they are entitled to recover; and

     c. whether the plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
        injunctive relief based in order to compel Defendants to
        cease their improper breaches of contract.

The plaintiffs demand for judgment:

     -- certifying this case as a class action;

     -- adjudging the defendants to have breached, and to be
        continuing to breach, the terms of the EQUITYLINKO
        CREDIT LINE AGREEMENTS between the plaintiffs and the
        members of the class;

     -- directing defendants to pay the plaintiff and the
        members of the class the amounts by which they have been
        overcharged by defendants;

     -- enjoining defendants from continuing to improperly
        calculate the interest due pursuant to the terms of the
        EQUITYLINKB CREDIT LINE AGREEMENTS;

     -- directing defendants to pay the plaintiffs and the
        members of the Class pre- and postjudgment interest;

     -- directing defendants to pay costs and disbursements
        incurred in connection with this action, including
        attorney fees and expert fees; and

     -- directing such other relief and further relief as the
        Court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Joseph Sicialiano, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
et al., Index No. 08602453," filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Phone: 914-997-5656
          Fax: 914-997-2444


MAPLE LEAF FOODS: Lawsuit Launched Over Fatal Listeria Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was launched against Maple Leaf Foods
(OTCBB:MLFNF) after evidence surfaced during the weekend that
the company's Toronto plant was the source of a fatal listeria
outbreak in tainted meats, CityNews.ca reports.

According to Leader-Post, public health officials confirmed on
Tuesday that a total of 15 deaths in Canada have been linked to
listeriosis.  The Public Health Agency of Canada said that of
those deaths, six cases have been connected to the particular
bacteria strain found at Maple Leaf Foods, and it is a factor in
nine other deaths still under investigation.

UPI.com, citing a Canwest News Service report, notes that Maple
Leaf was named in the suit filed on Aug. 25, 2008, by the
Merchant Law Group in Regina, Saskatchewan.  Attorney Tony
Merchant told Canwest that more than 300 people had registered
as members of the class.

Mr. Merchant also told Canwest that it was too early to put a
value on the lawsuit.  "I don't know whether I view this claim
to be $200 million or $1.5 billion, but I know it's a very
significant amount of money," he said.

UPI.com recounts that earlier this month, the listeria bacterium
was found in some products, which were recalled.  During the
weekend, the company recalled all of its products.  Officials
said over 20 more cases of listeriosis have been identified in
Canada and are being investigated to see if they match the
strain packaged in Maple Leaf's Toronto facility, the report
notes.

According to CityNews, the suit will be launched in four
provinces where the cases have been most notorious -- Ontario,
Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


MERCURY GENERAL: Sept. 16 Hearing Set for "Goodman" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court scheduled a hearing on Sept. 16,
2008, to consider final approval of a proposed settlement in the
matter, captioned "Marissa Goodman, et al. v. Mercury Insurance
Co."

The suit was filed on June 16, 2002.  It is a class action suit
questioning Mercury Insurance Corp.'s use of certain automated
database vendors to assist in valuing claims for medical
payments.

The plaintiff filed a motion seeking class-action certification
to include all of the company's insureds from 1998 to the
present who presented a medical payments claim, had the claim
reduced using the computer program and whose claim did not reach
the policy limits for medical payments.

The Court certified the class on Jan. 11, 2007.  The company
appealed the class certification ruling, and the Court of Appeal
stayed the case pending review.

The company and the plaintiff have subsequently agreed to settle
the claims for an amount that the company says is immaterial to
its operations and financial position.

The settlement was approved on an interim basis by the Court on
April 24, 2008, subject to class members' ability to object.

A final approval hearing is scheduled for Sept. 16, 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 30, 2008.

Mercury General Corp. -- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com/-- and
its subsidiaries are engaged primarily in writing automobile
insurance principally in California.


MOLSON COORS: Settles U.S. & Canadian Lawsuits Over 2005 Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Co., formerly Adolph Coors Co., settled
several purported class action suits in both the U.S. and Canada
in relation to its 2005 merger with Molson, Inc., according to
the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 29, 2008.

Beginning in May 2005, several purported shareholder class
actions were filed in the U.S. and Canada, including federal
courts in Delaware and Colorado and provincial courts in Ontario
and Quebec.  The suits allege, among other things, that the
company and its affiliated entities, including Molson Inc., and
certain officers and directors misled stockholders in connection
with the merger.

The Colorado case was transferred to Delaware and consolidated
with other cases.  The Quebec Superior Court heard arguments in
October 2007 regarding the plaintiffs' motion to authorize a
class in that consolidated case.  The company opposed the
motion.

During the first quarter of 2008, the company agreed in
principle with the plaintiffs' counsel in all pending securities
cases in Delaware, Quebec, and Ontario to settle all such claims
on a worldwide basis.

Pursuant to the settlement, the company would pay, except one
case, a total of $6 million, which amount would be paid by the
company's insurance carrier.  The settlement agreement is
awaiting approval in the various courts in which the cases are
pending.

This agreement in principle did not settle one remaining case in
Delaware.  That case seeks to recover on behalf of certain
Molson Coors employees who invested in company securities around
the same time through two employee retirement savings plans.
The complaint in that case essentially relies on the same
allegations as the other shareholder lawsuits.

Early in the third quarter of 2008, the company agreed in
principle to settle this particular case for $0.2 million, an
amount that would be paid by the company's insurance carrier.
The settlement agreement for this case is still in the process
of being formalized, the company said in its regulatory filing.

Molson Coors Brewing Co. -- http://www.molsoncoors.com/--
formerly known as Adolph Coors Co., is principally a holding
company, and its operating subsidiaries include Coors Brewing
company, operating in the U.S.; Coors Brewers Limited, operating
in the United Kingdom; Molson Canada, operating in Canada, and
its other corporate entities.  MCBC, through its subsidiaries
are engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling of malt
beverage products.  MCBC has three operating segments: Canada,
the U.S. and Europe.  Each segment manufactures, markets and
sells beer and other beverage products.


MORGAN STANLEY: ADCB Files Lawsuit Over Cheyne SIV Investments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and GCC institutional investors, which
suffered substantial losses in the investments made in Cheyne
SIV, will join the class legal action against a U.S investment
bank and rating agencies to recover losses.

Morgan Stanley & Co., Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and three
securities ratings services have been sued by Abu Dhabi
Commercial Bank for allegedly rating too highly a structur ed
investment vehicle that collapsed last year.

The ADCB seeks unspecified money damages and class-action or
group status on behalf of everyone who invested in the vehicle
launched by Cheyne Finance Plc from October 2004 to October
2007, according to a complaint filed yesterday in federal court
in Manhattan.

"The financial instruments plaintiff purchased which defendants
represented had high investment-grade credit ratings are now
worth zero," lawyers for the bank said in the complaint.

Cheyne's structured investment vehicle, premised on short-term
borrowing to buy higher-yielding assets, collapsed last year.
Investors have recovered about 55 per cent of the face value of
their holdings in an auction of Cheyne's assets.  The SIV had
owed about $5.7 billion in senior debt, according to its
receivers at the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche LLP.

New York-based Morgan Stanley, through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, provides global financial services to clients and
customers, including corporations, governments, financial
institutions and individuals.


NATIONAL CITY: Sued in Fla. Over Fidelity Bankshares Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
An investor sued National City Corporation in Florida state
court, accusing the company of securities law violations.

Berman DeValerio filed the class action complaint in the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in West Palm Beach, Florida on
behalf of shareholders who obtained National City common shares
in connection with the Company's acquisition of Fidelity
Bankshares Inc. on January 5, 2007.

The suit, captioned "Reagan v. National City Corporation, et
al., Case No. 50-2008-CA-025509-MB (Division AG)," seeks damages
for violations of securities laws on behalf of all current and
former National City shareholders who acquired the Company's
common stock pursuant to and traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Fidelity Acquisition.

The lawsuit claims that National City and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77o.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement filed in
connection with the Fidelity Acquisition contained materially
misleading statements and omissions relating to:

     (a) the Company's disclosures of billions of dollars of
         risky construction loans;

     (b) the Company's classification of loans in its portfolio
         as nonperforming;

     (c) the understatement of the Company's loan loss reserves
         and

     (d) the misstatement of the Company's financial results.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 27,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, National City is a financial
holding company that provides commercial and retail banking
services throughout the United States.


NL INDUSTRIES: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Lead-Based Paints
-------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., as well as
other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and
lead-based paint, and the Lead Industries Association, which
discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as
defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for
personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures
allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints.

Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of
states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and
school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class
actions.

These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories,
including public and private nuisance, negligent product design,
negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty,
conspiracy or concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, market share or risk contribution liability,
intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of
state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and
similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.

A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs.

Valhi did not discuss more 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 30, 2008.

Valhi, Inc. -- http://www.valhi.net/-- is a holding company and
operates through its wholly owned and majority-owned
subsidiaries, including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide,
Inc., CompX International, Inc., and Waste Control Specialists,
LLC.  The company operates in three segments: chemicals,
component products and waste management.  Its chemicals segment
is operated through its majority ownership of Kronos.  It
operates in the component products industry through its majority
ownership of CompX.  It operates its waste management segment
through WCS, the company's wholly owned subsidiary, which owns
and operates a West Texas facility for the processing,
treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous, toxic and certain
types of low-level radioactive waste.


NORTH COAST: Settles West Virginia Royalties Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
North Coast Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of EXCO Resources, Inc.,
settled a putative class-action suit over the payment of
royalties in the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia,
according to EXCO Resources' Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit, "PRC Holdings, LLC, et al. v. North Coast Energy,
Inc., Civil Action No. 06-C-80E," was filed on Oct. 11, 2006.
Certain landowners and lessors in West Virginia brought it for
themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated landowners
and lessors in West Virginia.

Specifically, the suit alleges that North Coast has not been
paying royalties to the plaintiffs in the manner required under
the applicable leases, has provided misleading documentation to
the plaintiffs regarding the royalties due, and has breached
various other contractual, statutory and fiduciary duties to the
plaintiffs with regard to the payment of royalties.

The suit takes note of a case, captioned "The Estate of Garrison
Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, LLC," announced in June
2006, wherein the West Virginia Supreme Court held that language
such as "at the wellhead" and similar language contained in
leases when used in describing how to calculate royalties due
lessors was ambiguous and, therefore, should be construed
strictly against the lessee.

Accordingly, in the absence of express language in a lease that
is intended allocate between a lessor and lessee post-production
costs such as the costs of marketing the product and
transporting it to the point of sale, no post-production costs
may be deducted from the lessor's royalty payment due from the
lessee.

The claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed
against the company are similar to the claims alleged in the
Tawney case.

The plaintiffs are seeking common law and statutory compensatory
and punitive damages, interest and costs and other remedies.

Effective March 18, 2008, the company entered into an agreement
to settle all claims arising under the putative royalty owner
class action filed against its subsidiaries, North Coast Energy,
Inc. and North Coast Energy Eastern, Inc., styled, "PRC
Holdings, LLC, et al. v. North Coast Energy, Inc." for $40,000.

In connection with this settlement, all claims alleged by the
plaintiffs were dismissed with prejudice by the federal district
court on July 11, 2008.

EXCO Resources, Inc. -- http://www.excoresources.com/-- is a
public oil and natural gas  acquisition, exploitation,
development, and production company with principal operations in
Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia.


O'NEILL PROPERTIES: Second Lawsuit Filed Over Riverwalk Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Aug 20, 2008, that a
class-action complaint was filed in Montgomery County Court of
Common Pleas alleging that negligence on the part of the
developer, building and management contractors of the Riverwalk
at the Millennium apartment complex contributed to the
catastrophic losses suffered by hundreds of residents as a
result of the eight-alarm fire on August 13.

According to the CAR report, lawyers from the Philadelphia law
firm of Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky filed this lawsuit
on Aug. 18.

In an update, Margaret Gibbons of the Norristown Times Herald
writes that a second lawsuit seeking class action status to
represent "all residents and occupants of the Riverwalk at
Millennium who suffered damages as a result" of the fire was
filed in Montgomery County Court.

The lawyers who filed the second lawsuit are:

   -- Mitchell J. Shore, Esq., and Nadeem A. Bezar, Esq., of
      Kolsby, Gordon, Robin, Shore & Bezar in Philadelphia;

   -- Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq., of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine of
      Philadelphia; and

   -- Alfred V. Altopiedi, Esq., a Delaware County lawyer.

Norristown Times Herald relates that the second lawsuit, filed
on behalf of 17 plaintiffs who live or lived at the apartment
complex as well as all unnamed members of the class, is
comparable to the first suit and blames the fire on alleged
negligence by all those involved in the development,
construction and management of the complex.

Just like the first lawsuit, the defendants named in the second
case are:

   * O'Neill Properties Group of King of Prussia, the developer
     and former owner of the Riverwalk buildings and the
     developer of the under-construction Stables apartment
     building;

   * Merion Construction Inc. of Bala Cynwyd and L21
     Construction Managers of Leesport, Pa., both of which are
     listed as construction managers or general contractors for
     The Stables building;

   * Cavan Construction of Aston, Pa., a subcontractor whose
     employees are alleged to have accidentally started the
     fire; and

   * Bozzuto Corp. of Maryland, who took over management of the
     Riverwalk complex after O'Neill sold its interest.

According to Norristown Times Herald, the eight-alarm fire,
which required the efforts of more than 300 firefighters to
bring under control, destroyed two occupied Riverwalk buildings
and the unoccupied The Stables apartment building that was under
construction.

The fire, which was ruled accidental, started when smoldering
sparks or molten metal generated by an acetylene torch ignited
the five-story wooden frame-out of the Stables building, the
report relates.  The radiant heat generated by the blaze caused
the roofs on the top of the two nearby occupied apartment
buildings to catch fire, burning from the top down.

The report recounts that some 345 people initially were
displaced but those in the two unaffected Riverwalk buildings
were allowed back on Aug. 17.  However, the fire consumed a
combined 180 units in the other two buildings.

Norristown Times Herald says that the allegations in the second
lawsuit are similar to those raised in the first.  These
allegations include the defendants' failure to properly
supervise workers at the construction site, failure to consider
fire protection implications of building a five-story wood-frame
construction residential structure, failure to install
sprinklers and firewalls in the attic of the Riverwalk
buildings, and failure to inform residents of this lack.

O'Neill Properties Chairman Brian O'Neill has called the fire a
"freak accident," the report notes.  Mr. O'Neill defended the
construction of all three buildings and said that 95% of all
residential buildings use wood framing.

As for the occupied buildings, Mr. O'Neill told Norristown Times
Herald that they are designed to get people out safely in case
of a fire and that is what happened.  No lives were lost in the
blaze.


PENNSYLVANIA: Sued Over Embattled Human Services Department
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mildenberg & Stalbaum filed an intended class-
action lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia and the state of
Pennsylvania on behalf of 28,000 children and 56,000 parents who
receive services through the embattled Department of Human
Services, Alfred Lubrano writes for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The federal suit, according to the report, calls DHS "an unsafe
agency for children, in violation of the federal constitutional
and statutory rights of abused, neglected and dependent
children."

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, further
alleges that the city's child-welfare system "is in a crisis,
and as a result, innocent children are dying, being neglected
and abused around the clock."

The suit, which was also brought on behalf of "indigent clients"
of the law firm -- Veronica Spencer and Bryan Jones and their
eight children -- seeks appointment of a federal overseer of
DHS, as well as monetary damages to be determined at trial.

Philadelphia Inquirer relates that Mayor Michael Nutter calls
the suit "the worst example of an opportunistic lawsuit," and
says it is "an absolute disgrace."

"They have the audacity to claim they're riding to the rescue
when, really, they're riding in the ambulance," Mayor Nutter
told Philadelphia Inquirer.  "This kind of nonsense has to stop.
They should be embarrassed," he added.

Mr. Nutter further said that reforms of DHS were under way, but
that Mildenberg & Stalbaum preferred to "ignore" the changes "in
hysterical fashion, trying to scare people.  It's
irresponsible."

David Mildenberg, Esq., the lawyer who brought the suit, did not
respond to Philadelphia Inquirer's repeated requests for
comment.

The report points out that Mildenberg & Stalbaum is the same
firm that has filed a civil suit seeking seeking damages on
behalf of 14-year-old Danieal Kelly, whose emaciated, bedsore-
ridden body was found in her mother's home in August 2006.
Danieal was supposedly under DHS care.

"Is this firm in this for change [of DHS] or for cash?" asked
Frank Cervone, executive director of the Support Center for
Child Advocates.  He was involved in a class-action suit against
DHS in 1990 that brought about reforms, the report notes.

"This suit takes energy from an agency [DHS] that is already
trying to fix what it knows is broken," Richard Gelles, dean of
the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and
Practice, told Philadelphia Inquirer.  Mr. Gelles has been a
vocal critic of DHS's handling of the Kelly case.

Philadelphia Inquirer recounts that after it reported in October
2006 the circumstances under which Danieal Kelly died and the
budding murder investigation that followed, Mayor John F. Street
created the Child Welfare Review Panel to overhaul the agency.
Last month, the grand jury released a blistering 258-page report
filled with criticism of the people involved in Danieal Kelly's
case: her parents, the DHS and its contractors.  The report
concluded that DHS practices and personnel contributed to the
girl's death and criminal charges were brought against nine
people, including the girl's mother and father, two DHS
caseworkers, and two employees for MultiEthnic Behavioral
Health, a private agency hired by DHS to visit the young girl.

To assess DHS progress in changing its practices, the city has
created the Community Oversight Board, which continually
monitors DHS, the report further recalls.

The suit is "Victoria L. Spencer et al v. Michael Nutter et al,
" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David S. Mildenberg, Esq.
          Mildenberg and Stalbaum, PC
          123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1610
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Phone: 215-545-4870


PRECISION DRYWALL: Employees Say Firm Violated Wash. Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three former employees of Precision Drywall Inc. in Auburn have
filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against the company,
alleging that it violated Washington labor laws with wage and
hour abuse, Andrea James writes for Seattle Post Intelligencer.

The report notes that the lawsuit -- filed in King County
Superior Court by plaintiffs Isaias Ramirez, Mario Hernandez and
Gilberto Mendoza -- says that the company:

     * did not pay employees for overtime,

     * required employees to work off the clock,

     * did not pay for units produced,

     * did not provide rest or meal breaks, and

     * required employees to rebate some wages back to the
       company.

According to Seattle Post, the lawsuit applies to current and
former employees of Precision Drywall in Washington dating back
to Aug. 1, 2005.

Precision Drywall does work for Quadrant Homes, the lawsuit
says.

"Precision Drywall's systematic scheme of wage and hour abuse
helps the company provide drywall work for less money to
Quadrant Homes," the lawsuit charges.

The lawsuit, co-handled by Seattle law firm Terrell Marshall &
Daudt PLLC, seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

"We took on the case because we thought it was important to
represent these employees," said Toby Marshall, Esq., a lawyer
co-handling the case.  "A vast majority of proposed class
members are Hispanic.  They're just being abused terribly by
this employer."

Employees are frequently asked to pay back some of their wages
in cash after receiving paychecks, Mr. Marshall said.  "It's
against the law, but you've got a population here that, one,
doesn't understand the law, and two, worries about how they are
going to be perceived if they go to complain to someone," he
added.

Mr. Marshall also told Seattle Post that some of the employees
affected are likely to be undocumented.  However, labor laws
protect workers whether they've entered the country legally, he
said.

Kent law firm Hanis Irvine Prothero PLLC is co-counsel in the
case, the report notes.


REDDY ICE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Oct. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP announced that October 7,
2008, is the deadline for investors to seek a lead plaintiff
appointment in the pending class action lawsuit against Reddy
Ice Holdings, Inc., and certain other defendants.

On August 8, 2008, Dyer & Berens LLP filed the suit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock
of Reddy Ice between August 10, 2005, and March 6, 2008,
inclusive.

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

For more information, contact:

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


RHINO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Calif. Suit Over Cheated Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------

A class-action complaint fled in the Superior Court in Los
Angeles alleges Rhino Entertainment of cheating on royalties,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff James McCarty Jr., of Mitch Ryder and the
Detroit Wheels, says Rhino illegally withholds money "for
purported past overpayments."

Warner Music Group Corp. -- http://www.wmg.com/-- (NYSE: WMG)
is a publicly traded in the United States.  With its broad
roster of new stars and legendary artists, Warner Music Group is
home to a collection of the best-known record labels in the
music industry including Asylum, Atlantic, Bad Boy, Cordless,
East West, Elektra, Lava, Nonesuch, Reprise, Rhino, Roadrunner,
Rykodisc, Sire, Warner Bros. and Word.  Warner Music
International, a leading company in national and international
repertoire, operates through numerous international affiliates
and licensees in more than 50 countries.  Warner Music Group
also includes Warner/Chappell Music, one of the world's leading
music publishers, with a catalog of more than one million
copyrights worldwide.

Rhino Entertainment was developed to promote Warner Music
Group's vast catalog and extraordinary artists in the United
States, as well as to provide support and assistance to the
company's frontline labels. The division -- which includes Rhino
Records, WMG Custom Products, Warner Music Group Soundtracks and
WMG Film, Television & Commercial Licensing -- also develops new
catalog-related business opportunities across Warner Music Group
and with third-party companies.


ST. JUDE: Discovery Still Ongoing in Minn. Securities Fraud Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a consolidated securities fraud
class action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota against St. Jude Medical, Inc.

In April and May 2006, three shareholders, each purporting to
act on behalf of a class of purchasers from Jan. 25 through
April 4, 2006, separately sued the company and certain officers,
alleging that the company made materially false and misleading
statements during the class period relating to financial
performance, projected earnings guidance, and projected sales of
implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

The complaints, which all seek unspecified damages and other
relief, as well as attorneys' fees, have been consolidated.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which request
was denied by the district court in March 2007.  The parties are
now engaged in the discovery process.

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 28, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: St. Jude Medical, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-01379-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge James  M.
Rosenbaum, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jill S. Abrams, Esq. (jabrams@abbeyspanier.com)
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 E 39th St.
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-284-5258

         Stuart W. Emmons, Esq. (swe@federmanlaw.com)
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         Fax: 405-239-2112

              - and-

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

Representing the defendant is:

         Michelle S. Grant, Esq. (grant.michelle@dorsey.com)
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-5671
         Fax: 612-340-2807


ST. JUDE: Minnesota Silzone Suit Plaintiffs Proposes New Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated lawsuit against St. Jude
Medical Inc. over its Silzone-coated mechanical heart valves are
seeking the certification of a new class in the matter,
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.

                    Consolidated Litigation

In October 2001, eight complaints were consolidated into one
class action case by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

The company requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit to review the District Court's initial class
certification orders and, in October 2005, the Eighth Circuit
issued a decision reversing these class certification rulings
and directed the District Court to undertake further
proceedings.

In October 2006, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
renewed motion to certify a nationwide consumer protection class
under Minnesota's consumer protection statutes and Private
Attorney General Act.

The company again requested the Eighth Circuit to review the
District Court's class certification orders and, in April 2008,
the Eighth Circuit again issued a decision reversing the October
2006 class certification rulings.  The Eighth Circuit again
returned the case to the District Court for continued
proceedings.

The plaintiffs have recently requested the District Court to
certify a new class.

                       Silzone Background

In July 1997, the company began marketing mechanical heart
valves which incorporated Silzone coating.  The company later
began marketing heart valve repair products incorporating
Silzone coating.

Silzone coating was intended to reduce the risk of endocarditis,
a bacterial infection affecting heart tissue, which is
associated with replacement heart valve surgery.

In January 2000, the company initiated a voluntary field action
for products incorporating Silzone coating after receiving
information from a clinical study that patients with a Silzone-
coated heart valve had a small, but statistically significant,
increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared
to patients in that clinical study with heart valves that did
not incorporate Silzone coating.

Subsequent to its voluntary field action, the company has been
sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who received a
product with Silzone coating.

Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as a result of an
explant or other complications, which they attribute to Silzone-
coated products.

Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated heart valve
explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of
special monitoring they allege they need over and above the
medical monitoring all other replacement heart valve patients
receive.

Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been
initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain.
The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.  The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart
valve replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology
introducers and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and
navigation systems and ablation systems, and ANS-
neurostimulation devices.


ST. JUDE: Class Certification Bid in EEU Residents' Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Minnesota state court denied a motion that sought the
certification of a class in the purported class-action suit
against St. Jude Medical Inc. that was filed for all persons
residing in the European Economic Union member jurisdictions who
have had a heart valve replacement or repair procedure using a
product with Silzone coating, 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.

              Minnesota Litigation by EUU Members

The suit was filed in Minnesota state court and served upon the
company in February 2004 by two European citizens who now live
in Canada.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount
for the class, and in excess of $50 thousand for each plaintiff.
It also seeks injunctive relief in the form of medical
monitoring.

The company opposed the plaintiffs' pursuit of this case on
jurisdictional, procedural and substantive grounds, and in April
2008, the Minnesota state court denied the plaintiffs' request
for class certification.

                       Silzone Background

In July 1997, the company began marketing mechanical heart
valves which incorporated Silzone coating.  The company later
began marketing heart valve repair products incorporating
Silzone coating.

Silzone coating was intended to reduce the risk of endocarditis,
a bacterial infection affecting heart tissue, which is
associated with replacement heart valve surgery.

In January 2000, the company initiated a voluntary field action
for products incorporating Silzone coating after receiving
information from a clinical study that patients with a Silzone-
coated heart valve had a small, but statistically significant,
increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared
to patients in that clinical study with heart valves that did
not incorporate Silzone coating.

Subsequent to its voluntary field action, the company has been
sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who received a
product with Silzone coating.

Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as a result of an
explant or other complications, which they attribute to Silzone-
coated products.

Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated heart valve
explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of
special monitoring they allege they need over and above the
medical monitoring all other replacement heart valve patients
receive.

Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have
been initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain.
The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.  The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart
valve replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology
introducers and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and
navigation systems and ablation systems, and ANS-
neurostimulation devices.


ST. JUDE: Continues to Face Silzone-Related Lawsuits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical Inc. continues to face several purported class-
action suits in Canada over its Silzone-coated mechanical heart
valves, 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.

                      Canadian Litigation

In one such case in Ontario, the court certified that a class
action involving Silzone patients may proceed.  The company's
request for leave to appeal the rulings on certification was
rejected, and the trial of the initial phase of this matter is
scheduled for March 2009.

A second case seeking class action in Ontario has been stayed
pending resolution of the other Ontario action.

A case filed as a class action in British Columbia is in the
early stages of discovery and has not been certified by the
court as a class action.  That case remains pending.

A court in Quebec has certified a class action, and that matter
is proceeding in accordance with the court orders.

Additionally, in December 2005, the company was served with a
lawsuit by the Quebec Provincial health insurer to recover the
cost of insured services furnished or to be furnished to class
members in the class-action suit pending in Quebec.

The complaints in these cases request damages ranging from 1.5
million to 2.0 billion Canadian Dollars (the equivalent to $1.5
million to $2.0 billion at June 28, 2008).

                       Silzone Background

In July 1997, the company began marketing mechanical heart
valves which incorporated Silzone coating.  The company later
began marketing heart valve repair products incorporating
Silzone coating.

Silzone coating was intended to reduce the risk of endocarditis,
a bacterial infection affecting heart tissue, which is
associated with replacement heart valve surgery.

In January 2000, the company initiated a voluntary field action
for products incorporating Silzone coating after receiving
information from a clinical study that patients with a Silzone-
coated heart valve had a small, but statistically significant,
increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared
to patients in that clinical study with heart valves that did
not incorporate Silzone coating.

Subsequent to its voluntary field action, the company has been
sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who received a
product with Silzone coating.

Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as a result of an
explant or other complications, which they attribute to Silzone-
coated products.

Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated heart valve
explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of
special monitoring they allege they need over and above the
medical monitoring all other replacement heart valve patients
receive.

Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have
been initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain.
The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.  The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart
valve replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology
introducers and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and
navigation systems and ablation systems, and ANS-
neurostimulation devices.


SUNRISE PROPANE: Seven Law Firms Unite for Explosion Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Seven law firms representing various groups affected by an
explosion at Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc. have joined
together for one massive class action lawsuit, CityNews.ca
reports.

The law firms are:

     1. Bogorock and Associates;
     2. Falconer, Charney LLP;
     3. Flaherty Dow Elliott and McCarthy;
     4. Hotz Lawyers;
     5. Juroviesky and Ricci LLP;
     6. Stevensons LLP; and
     7. Sutts, Strosberg LLP.

According to North Bay Nugget, North York residents, whose lives
were rocked by the explosion two weeks ago, can join one of the
seven law firms in the multi-million-dollar class-action
lawsuit.  North Bay Nugget says that the firms, representing 600
plaintiffs in the action against Sunrise Propane and the City of
Toronto, have agreed to work together in a consolidated case.

The Canadian Press recounts that the early morning blasts on
August 10 at Sunrise Propane sent vivid orange fireballs into
the night sky and displaced thousands of people.  A firefighter
died at the scene and an unidentified body was found in the
charred remains of the propane facility.

Specifically, CityNews relates, nearly 10,000 residents were
forced from their homes before dawn on August 10 -- most of them
displaced temporarily while those closest to the scene of the
explosion could not return home for days.  Others also suffered
serious physical injuries, broken bones and severe bruises.

CityNews recalls that previously, there were several legal
claims in action targeting the owners of the facility where the
explosion occurred.  One of these complaints, Canadian Press
notes, seeks $300 million for negligence, nuisance, trespass,
and liability.

CityNews says that aside from Sunrise Propane and the City of
Toronto, The Technical Standards and Safety Association as well
as the province of Ontario were targeted in these previous legal
actions.


TELECOMMUNICATION COS: Right-of-Way Suit Deal Hearing is Nov. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 17, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., to
consider final approval of a proposed settlement in the matter
"Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P., et al., Case
No. 07-10651-LTS."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, in
Boston, Massachusetts.

Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before
Oct. 2, 2008.  Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on
Nov. 17, 2008.

                         Case Background

In April 2007, Waltham, Massachusetts attorney Catherine
Colinvaux, Esq., on behalf of North Chelmsford couple Richard
and Corey Kingsborough, filed the class-action suit before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
several telecommunications companies (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 13, 2008).

The named defendants in the suit are:

   -- Sprint Nextel Corp.;
   -- Sprint Communications Co., L.P.;
   -- Qwest Communications Corp.;
   -- Level 3 Communications, Inc.;
   -- Level 3 Telecom Holdings, Inc.;
   -- WilTel Communications, Inc.;
   -- WilTel Communications, LLC; and
   -- Williams Communications, LLC (f/k/a Vyvx, Inc.).

The lawsuit claims that the defendants illegally ran fiber-optic
cables under railroad rights-of-way without getting approval
from neighboring landowners.

Beginning in the early 1980s, the companies or their
predecessors buried fiber-optic cable and installed related
telecommunications equipment within railroad Rights of Way
across the United States.  A railroad Right of Way is a strip of
land on which a railroad company builds and operates a railroad.

Sprint, Qwest, WilTel and Level 3 entered into agreements with
the railroads who own or occupy the Rights of Way, and under
those agreements paid the railroads for the rights to install
the telecommunications equipment within the Rights of Way at
issue in the case.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants illegally ran the cables to
install a nationwide fiber-optic network in a way to achieve
both lower costs and extra speed in installing their systems.

Under the law, the railroads were granted easements, sometimes
forced by the eminent-domain laws, across private property to
install train tracks.  But the lawsuit states the companies
named in this lawsuit had no legal right to allow the rights of
way for commercial telecommunications purposes with consent from
and compensation to the owners of the land adjacent to the
rights of way.

As a result of this unlawful use of the land, the companies in
the lawsuit have earned millions of dollars from rents, profits
and other benefits, according to the lawsuit.

Sprint, Qwest, WilTel and Level 3 contend that the permissions
granted by the railroads were sufficient, even where the
railroad did not own all property rights in the Rights of Way,
and deny any wrongdoing.

The class consists of all current or previous owners of land
next to or under a railroad Right of Way at any time since the
cables were installed.

Subsequently, a proposed settlement has been reached between
certain defendant telecommunications companies and a proposed
class of current and prior owners of land next to or under
certain railroad Rights of Way.  The deal resolves litigation
over whether these defendants had the right to install
telecommunications facilities within railroad Rights of Way
without the consent of members of the proposed settlement class.

The Proposed Settlement will provide cash payments to qualifying
class members based on various factors that include:

      -- the length of the Right of Way where the cable is
         installed,

      -- the state where the property is located, and

      -- how the railroad got its property rights.

The Proposed Settlement will also provide Sprint, Qwest, WilTel
and Level 3 with permanent Telecommunications Easements, which
give them the right to use the railroad Rights of Way for their
telecommunications equipment.

The Proposed Settlement includes fiber-optic cable in the
District of Columbia and forty-six of the lower forty-eight
states.  This settlement does not include fiber-optic cable in
Louisiana or Tennessee.

For more details, contact:

          The Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 815
          Minneapolis, MN 55440-0815
          Phone: 1-888-952-9082
                 1-866-411-6976
          Web site: http://www.FiberOpticCableSettlement.com/

          Henry J. Price, Esq.
          Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
          301 Massachusetts Ave
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 800-905-2856
                 317-633-8787
          Fax: 317-633-8797
          Web site: http://www.price-law.com/

          Daniel J. Millea, Esq.
          Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP
          500 Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Phone: 612-336-9170
                 612-339-2020
          Fax: 612-336-9100
          Web site: http://www.zelle.com/

               - and -

          Kathleen C. Kauffman, Esq. (Kauffman@ackersonlaw.com)
          1250 H Street, N.W., Suite 850
          Washington, D.C. 20005-3952
          Phone: 202-833-8833
          Fax: 202-833-8831


WILLIAM LYON: Del. Supreme Court Remands Case to Chancery Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Supreme Court referred and remanded the matter
captioned "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092" to the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County for further
proceedings regarding the fee award to the plaintiff's counsel.

                        Case Background

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

Two purported class action complaints were filed on behalf of
the public stockholders of the company, challenging the tender
offer and challenging related actions of the company and the
directors of the company.  The suits are:

      1. "Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
         Action No. 2015-N" was filed on March 20, 2006, and

      2. "Michael Crady, et al. v. General William Lyon, et
         al., Civil Action No. 2017-N" was filed on March 21,
         2006.

Both suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.

The Delaware Complaints name the company and its directors as
defendants.  They allege, among other things, that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
plaintiffs in connection with the tender offer and other related
corporate activities.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the tender offer and, among
other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to
the litigation.

On March 23, 2006, the company announced that its board had
appointed a special committee of independent directors who are
not members of the company's management or employed by the
company to consider the tender offer.  The members of the
Special Committee are Harold H. Greene, Lawrence M. Higby, and
Dr. Arthur Laffer.

The company also announced that the Special Committee had
retained Morgan Stanley & Co. as its financial advisor and
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal counsel.

                  Consolidation and Settlement

On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the
Delaware Complaints into a single case entitled, "In re: William
Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N."

On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware
Action executed a Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a
proposed settlement subject to the Delaware Chancery Court's
approval.

Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer of $93 per
share to $100 per share, extended the closing date of the offer
to April 21, 2006, and, on April 11, 2006, filed an amended
Schedule Tender Offer.

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action have
determined that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interests of plaintiffs and the putative Class."
The Special Committee also determined that the price of $100 per
share was fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the
company's shareholders accept the revised tender offer and
tender their shares.

Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend the
closing date of the tender offer from April 21, 2006, to
April 28, 2006.

                   Certification & Dismissal

On April 23, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court conditionally
certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The
parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a
stipulation of settlement, and on Aug. 9, 2006, the Delaware
Chancery Court certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware
Action, approved the settlement, and dismissed the Consolidated
Delaware Action with prejudice as to all defendants and the
class.

On Feb. 16, 2007, the fee award to the plaintiffs' counsel was
appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.

On July 18, 2007, a three-judge panel of the Delaware Supreme
Court heard oral argument, and later referred the matter for
consideration by the Court en Banc.

In December 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court remanded the matter
to the Chancery Court for further proceedings regarding the fee
award to the plaintiff's counsel.  Under the appealed award, the
company has no expected liability for the plaintiffs' counsel
fees, which are expected to be paid by General Lyon.

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

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family
detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada.
The company offers a range of homes designed to meet the
specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer
markets.


WILLIAM LYON: California Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit that challenges a tender offer by
one of William Lyon Homes, Inc.'s stockholders continue to be
stayed.

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

On that same day, the complaint, "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
v. William Lyon Homes, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CC-00047," was
filed before the Superior Court of the state of California,
County of Orange.

The complaint in the California Action names the company and
certain of its directors as defendants and alleges, among other
things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
to the public stockholders.

The plaintiff in the California Action also sought to enjoin the
tender offer, and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees
and expenses related to the litigation.

On April 20, 2006, the California court denied the request of
the plaintiff in the California Action to enjoin the Tender
Offer.  The plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class in the
California Action, which was later taken off calendar, and the
company filed a motion to stay the California Action.

On July 5, 2006, the California Court granted the company's
motion to stay the California Action.

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

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family
detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada.
The company offers a range of homes designed to meet the
specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer
markets.


WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Ex-Worker's Gender Bias Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action suit against
Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., filed by a former female employee.

The suit was brought on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of
present and former female employees alleging that the company
discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and
seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.  The suit proposes a class period of 1998 to the time of
trial.

The company's motion to dismiss the suit was denied and the
court did not grant the company permission to immediately file
an appeal.

The parties are in the discovery phase of the 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.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CIT GROUP: Spector Roseman Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., commenced a
securities 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 CIT Group, Inc., and certain
of its executives and directors that alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased CIT-Z preferred stock
pursuant and traceable to the Company's registration statement
and prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3) with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2007,
through March 5, 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On March 6, 2008, an analyst issued a report stating that CIT
would have to write-off the entire Silver State student loan
portfolio.  On this news, the price of CIT-Z preferred stock
declined $3.30 per share from a closing price on March 5, 2008,
of $16.30 per share to close at $13.00 per share, a decline of
approximately 20%.

For more information, contact:

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


MF GLOBAL: Stull & Brody Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody, on August 25, 2008, filed a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
MF Global, Ltd. common stock between March 17, 2008, and
June 20, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint asserts claims against defendants MF Global and
certain of its officers and directors for violations of federal
securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges during the Class Period defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's capital and financial results and concealed the
material deterioration in the Company's business and the
insufficiency of its capital which would necessitate additional
offerings of securities and dilution of the ownership interest
of MF Global investors.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, MF Global stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $14.98 per
share in May 2008.

On June 17, 2008, MF Global issued a press release announcing
its intention to sell approximately $300 million in convertible
stock and bonds to repay a bridge loan due in December and
updating its current fiscal first quarter 2009 earnings
estimates.  The expected revenues were well below the levels MF
Global's management had led the market to expect just weeks
earlier.  As a result of this news, MF Global's stock dropped to
close at $7.83 per share on June 18, 2008, a decline of 43% from
June 17, 2008.

On June 19, 2008, The Wall Street Journal published an article
regarding the Company's planned $300 million offering and its
other recent problems, including a probe by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission.  On this news, MF Global's stock
dropped to $6.68 per share on June 20, 2008, a decline of 55%
from the Class Period high of $14.98 per share in May 2008.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired MF Global common stock during
the Class Period, which is between March 17, 2008, and June 20,
2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 29,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

for more information, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll Free: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 1-212-490-2022
          Web site: http://www.ssbny.com/


PERINI CORP: Izard Nobel Files Securities Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all those who purchased the common
stock of Perini Corp. between November 2, 2006, and January 17,
2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Perini and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false statements that failed to disclose:

     (i) the developer of Perini's Las Vegas, Nevada projects,
         including the Cosmopolitan Resort & Casino Project, was
         experiencing financial problems because it failed to
         secure financing for the entire project and was
         dependent upon raising the remainder of the financing
         from the expected sale of residential units.  However,
         the proceeds from the residential unit sales were based
         on unrealistic and aggressive prices at a time when the
         condo market in Las Vegas, Nevada was extremely weak;

    (ii) that the Company's Las Vegas projects were being
         delayed, and could possibly be halted;

   (iii) that the developer was at risk of defaulting on its
         construction loan; and

    (iv) that Perini's future revenue was dependent upon the Las
         Vegas projects.

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

For more information, contact:

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


WM GROUP: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Wash. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, on behalf of a class all persons
who purchased or acquired shares of Washington Mutual's
proprietary mutual funds, the WM Group of Funds between March 1,
2002, through December 31, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Funds' relevant prospectuses
failed to disclose payments by the Funds' investment advisor to
broker/dealers as part of a "steering" program that compromised
broker/dealers' objectivity and created insurmountable,
undisclosed conflicts of interest.  The complaint alleges that
the undisclosed payments were made in addition to and separate
from the Funds' 12b-1 fee, and were wrongfully diverted from
other fees in violation of Section 12(b) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940, Sections 11 and 12(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933, Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
S.E.C. rules 10b-5 and 10b-10.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 27,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          William Restis, Esq. (wrr@classaction.com)
          Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Toll free: 877-493-5366
          Fax: 619-238-5425




                            *********

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  * * *