CAR_Public/080901.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 1, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 173

                            Headlines

AMKOR TECH: Briefing Completed in Arizona Suit Dismissal Appeal
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Settles Shareholders' Lawsuit for AUD40 Mln.
AT&T INC: Texas Court Denies Ruling Certification in "Stoffels"
AT&T INC: 9th Circuit Considers "Hepting" Dismissal Bid Appeal
BOOZER LUMBER: S.C. Suit Claims Illegal Dismissal of 160 Workers

C.F. SAUER: Recalls Spaghetti Sauce Mix Over Undeclared Milk
C-COR INC: Tennessee Lawsuit Alleges Labor Law Violations
CHOICE HOTELS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Maryland Court
CME GROUP: Faces Suits Over Proposed Purchase of NYMEX Holdings
CONNETICS: Calif. Court Won't Toss All Securities Suit Claims

DES MOINES: Court Allows Franchise Fee Lawsuit as Class Action
DETROIT: Appeals Court Dismisses Suit by Laid Off City Workers
EXTENDICARE REAL: Calls Wash. Suit Claims False and Misleading
FORMFACTOR INC: Calif. Court Throws Out Stockholders' Lawsuit
FORMFACTOR INC: Calif. Stockholder Derivative Suit Still Pending

GENESEE & WYOMING: Faces Suit in Ky. Over 2007 Trail Derailment
HITACHI AMERICA: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Defective TV Screens
HOME MADE: Recalls Tuna Salad Because of Possible Health Risk
JAMES BROWN BUILDERS: Bossier Homeowners Sue Over Mineral Rights
KRATOS DEFENSE: Parties Settle Calif. Securities Suit for $12MM

KRATOS DEFENSE: Parties Settle Calif. Securities Suit for $4.5MM
MAPLE LEAF: Meat Recall Prompts Canadian Listeria Outbreak Suit
MARS PETCARE: Recalls Pedigree Due to Salmonella Contamination
MCDONALD'S: Calif. Court Denies Class Certification in "Kimoto"
MEGA LIFE: Medical Insurance Scam Alleged in Florida Lawsuit

MEHMOD PATEL: Settles Medical Malpractice Suit for $3 Million
PDI INC: Faces Lawsuits Arising From Use of Baycol Medication
QWEST COMMS: Settles Colorado Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ink Cartridge Suit Targets Printer Ripoff
SLM CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Billing Practices Lawsuit

SLM CORP: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y. Over 401(k) Plans
THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Calif. Securities Fraud Suits
VISTAPRINT LTD: Named in Four Lawsuits Over Unauthorized Charges
XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Suit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

NATIONAL CITY: Howard Smith Files Securities Suit in Florida
PERINI CORP: Brualdi Files Massachusetts Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


AMKOR TECH: Briefing Completed in Arizona Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit
against Amkor Technology, Inc., have completed their respective
briefings before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in connection with an appeal of an order dismissing the
case.

On Jan. 23, 2006, a purported securities class action complaint
entitled "Nathan Weiss, et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:2007cv00278," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Amkor and
certain of its current and former officers.

Subsequently, other law firms filed two similar cases, which
were consolidated with the initial complaint.

In August 2006 and again in November 2006, the plaintiffs
amended the complaint.  The plaintiffs added additional officer,
director and former director defendants and alleged
improprieties in certain option grants.

The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants
improperly recorded and accounted for the options in violation
of generally accepted accounting principles and made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures
in violation of the federal securities laws, during the period
from July 2001 to July 2006.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23, compensatory damages, costs,
and expenses, and such other further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

On Dec. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by the defendants, the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

On Sept. 25, 2007, the Arizona Court dismissed the case with
prejudice.

On Oct. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The parties have completed briefing of the appeal.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Nathan Weiss, et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:2007cv00278," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul G.
Rosenblatt.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. (jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com)
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         P.O. Box 30132
         Elkins Park, PA 19027
         Phone: 215-782-8235

              - and -

         Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
         Brodsky & Smith, LLC
         Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-6200

Representing the defendants are:

         Patrick Loftus, Esq. (loftus@duanemorris.com)
         Duane Morris, LLP
         30 South 17th Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396
         Phone: 215-979-1367

              - and -

         Karen T. Stefano, Esq. (kstefano@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-849-3405


ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Settles Shareholders' Lawsuit for AUD40 Mln.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaming giant Aristocrat Leisure Limited (ASX: ALL) has confirmed
that it will pay  AUD40 million to settle a AUD396-million class
action suit filed by its shareholders, the SmartCompany.com.au
reports.

The report states that the total payout to shareholders is
expected to be more than $144 million, with indemnity insurance
likely to make up the gap between that figure and Aristocrat's
payment.

                       Case Background

The Class Action Reporter reported on Nov. 1, 2007, that the
shareholder class action suit finished on Oct. 31 last year with
the company conceding that if any compensation is owed, it could
peak at $1.10 a share, more than three times the figure it used
when the case opened on Oct. 4, 2007.

The CAR report recounted that the suit was filed in 2003 by
Maurice Blackburn Cashman Lawyers and litigation company IMF
Australia, alleging that the company's market forecasts
were false and misleading and that it failed to disclose all
material information in a timely manner.  The case was
transferred to the Federal Court in Sydney.

The lawsuit further alleged that the company misled shareholders
by not keeping them fully informed before announcing earnings
downgrades that wiped $1.5 billion (AUD2 billion) from the
company's value in 2003.  The lawsuit claims the non-disclosure
caused them losses.

The Statement of Claim has been amended to claim losses incurred
by shareholders who purchased shares between Feb. 18, 2002,
(previously Sept. 20, 2002) and May 26, 2003.

The case is before Justice Margaret Stone.  Dorajay Pty Limited
is representing shareholders.  Aristocrat said only Dorajay and
four other shareholders had filed details of their claims.

Proceedings began on Oct. 4, 2007, which proceedings were
dominated by procedural issues.  Maurice Blackburn submitted a
supplementary two-page letter by forensic accountant Greg
Meredith.  Three expert reports by Mr. Meredith, who is partner
and head of forensic accounting at Ferrier Hodgson, were
tendered as evidence on behalf of Dorajay.  All four reports
were uncontested by Aristocrat.

Later on, Brad Cornell, from the California Institute of
Technology, testified for Aristocrat.  The New York
econometrician Fred Dunbar testified for the shareholders.

Mr. Cornell said that only part of a 57% fall in Aristocrat's
share price in February 2003 could be attributed to previously
undisclosed bad news.  Mr. Dunbar, on the other hand, argued
that almost all the share price fall could be attributed to the
effect on earnings of the new information, according to the
report.

Mr. Dunbar said the share price would have fallen by the same
57%, albeit in stages, if Aristocrat had announced lower --
correct -- profits in February and August 2002 and if it had
righted an inflated profit forecast in December 2002.  Mr.
Cornell countered that the delay contributed to the size of the
fall.

Aristocrat said the lawsuit could cost the company AUD10 million
to AUD20 million in damages.

Aristocrat changed its loss figure to take account of opinions
expressed during the case by expert witness, Mr. Cornell.  It
now suggests a range between 35c and $1.10 a share.

Both sides agree the Aristocrat share price was inflated above
its true value because Aristocrat overstated its profits from
South American contracts in February and August 2002, and should
have warned the market from December 2002 that the next result
would be below analysts' forecasts.

In May, Aristocrat Leisure reached an agreement to settle the
AUD396-million class action (Class Action Reporter, May 22,
2008).

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Aristocrat would
incur a net cost after expenses and tax of up to $40 million,
which will be funded from cash and available facilities.

The settlement agreement is subject to Court approval and other
conditions.

Justice Stone is expected to hand down her decision early next
year.  The ruling could set a precedent for other class actions
over failure to disclose material information.

Representing the shareholders is:

          Stephen Gageler, S.C.
          (stephengageler@wentworthchambers.com.au)
          Phone: +612-9233-1209
          Fax: +612-9232-7626


AT&T INC: Texas Court Denies Ruling Certification in "Stoffels"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S District Court for the Western District of Texas denied
a motion by AT&T, Inc. -- formerly SBC Communications, Inc. --
that seeks to certify the court's ruling in the matter
"Stoffels, et al. v. SBC Communications, et al., Case No. 5:05-
cv-00233-WWJ," for interlocutory appeal, according to AT&T's
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 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas back in 2005 against AT&T by employees arguing
that the telephone concession provided by the company is, in
essence, a "defined benefit plan."

The plaintiffs, who are retirees of Pacific Bell Telephone Co.,
Southwestern Bell, and Ameritech, contend that the telephone
concession provided by the company is, in essence, a "defined
benefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

They seek to certify a class of persons that are either retirees
of the former subsidiaries of SBC or a predecessor thereof, who
received the telephone concession benefit after they retired or
current or former employees of the former subsidiaries of SBC
with more than 5 years of service during the time that they had
a policy to provide employees with a telephone concession
benefit upon retirement.

The plaintiffs also seek reformation of the out-of-region phone
concession offered under the post-employment benefits plan
(Plan) and the documents governing it to comply with ERISA, an
order requiring the company to fund the Plan as reformed, the
appointment of an independent fiduciary to administer the Plan,
an order requiring the Plan to pay benefits to plaintiffs and
other class members consistent with the terms of the plan and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to ERISA.

The company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, which was denied by the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas on Feb. 3, 2006.

On June 23, 2006, the court heard argument on plaintiffs' motion
to certify the class.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the Court certified two classes.  The issue of
whether the concession is an ERISA pension plan was tried before
the judge in November 2007.  In May 2008, the court ruled that
the concession was an ERISA pension plan.

The company asked the court to certify this ruling for
interlocutory appeal and, on Aug. 1, 2008, the court denied the
company's request.

The suit is "Stoffels, et al. v. SBC Communications, et al.,
Case No. 5:05-cv-00233-WWJ," filed in the U.S District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Judge William Wayne Justice,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert Joseph Barton, Esq. (jbarton@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue
          Suite 500 West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

               - and -

          Paul D. Huckabay, Esq. (pdhuck@gmail.com)
          Jones, Adnrews & Ortiz
          10100 Reunion Place - Suite 600
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Phone: 210-344-3900
          Fax: 210-366-4301

Representing the defendants are:

          Javier Aguilar, Esq. (ja3687@att.com)
          SBC Services, Inc.
          175 E. Houston Street, Suite 258
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Phone: 210-351-3428
          Fax: 210-351-3509

               - and -

          Geoffrey Amsel, Esq. (ga4146@att.com)
          AT&T Legal Department
          175 East Houston Street, 4th Floor
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Phone: 210-351-3529
          Fax: 214-761-8235


AT&T INC: 9th Circuit Considers "Hepting" Dismissal Bid Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal by AT&T Inc., and several other defendants in
connection with the matter "Hepting et al. v. AT&T Corp., AT&T
Inc. and Does 1-20."

Initially, 24 pending lawsuits were filed alleging that the
company and other telecommunications carriers unlawfully
provided assistance to the National Security Agency in
connection with intelligence activities that were initiated
following the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

In the first filed case, "Hepting et al. v. AT&T Corp., AT&T
Inc. and Does 1-20," a purported class action filed before the
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants have disclosed and are
currently disclosing to the U.S. Government content and call
records concerning communications to which the plaintiffs were a
party.

The plaintiffs seek damages, a declaratory judgment, and
injunctive relief for violations of the First and Fourth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and
other federal and California statutes.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The U.S.
Government asserted the "state secrets privilege" and related
statutory privileges and also filed a motion asking the court to
dismiss the complaint.  The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss.

Both the company and the U.S. government filed interlocutory
appeals.  The case was argued before a panel of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in August 2007.  The defendants
are awaiting a decision.

The company reported no new 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.

San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T, Inc. -- http://www.att.com/-- is
a provider of telecommunications services in the U.S.  It offers
its services and products to consumers in the U.S., and services
and products to businesses and other providers of
telecommunications services worldwide.  The services and
products that it offers vary by market, and include wireless
communications, local exchange services, long-distance services,
data/broadband and Internet services, video services,
telecommunications equipment, managed networking, wholesale
services and directory advertising and publishing.  Its
traditional wireline local exchange subsidiaries operate in 22
states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Indiana, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Kansas,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin (22-
state area).


BOOZER LUMBER: S.C. Suit Claims Illegal Dismissal of 160 Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boozer Lumber Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
claiming it illegally laid off 160 people without proper notice,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The mass layoffs on July 2, 2008, came amid the nationwide
collapse of the housing market, the report says.

The 10 named plaintiffs say the South Carolina mill and wood
truss factory violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act when it gave them just 10 days notice of the
mill's closure.

Dale Boozer, owner of the 62-year-old company, circulated an
internal memorandum on the impending closure on June 19, and
immediately began a phased termination process that continued
through July 2, when the facility shut its doors, the complaint
states.

The plaintiffs bring this action as a class pursuant to Rule
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Section 5(a)(5) of the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2104(a)(5),
and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, who were employees of Defendants and
were "affected employees" subject to an "employment loss," as
those terms are defined in Section 2(a)(5) and (6) of the
WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2101(a)(5) and (6), as a result of
the acts of the defendants in relation to the employee
terminations in June 2008 and thereafter, without the notices
required by Section 4 3(a) of the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
2102(a).

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     a. whether the provisions of the WARN Act apply;

     b. whether the defendants' employee terminations of June
        2008 and thereafter constitute a "plant closing" and
        "mass layoff" under the WARN Act;

     c. whether the defendants failed to provide the notices
        required by Section 3(a) of the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C.
        Section 2102(a);

     d. whether the defendants can establish that they were
        allowed to give no notice under Section 3(b) of the WARN
        Act, U.S.C. Section 2102(b);

     e. whether the defendants may reduce the amount of their
        liability under Section 5(a)(2) of the WARN Act, 29
        U.S.C. Section 2104(a)(2);

     f. the appropriate measure of damages under Section 5(a)(1)
        of the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2104(a)(1);

     g. whether the affected employees are entitled to
        compensation for unused vacation time; and

     h. whether the failure to pay wages for the 60-day notice
        period and the failure to pay accrued, unused vacation
        violated the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Allen Smith, Esq., of Childs and Halligan P.A. in Columbia, one
of two attorneys representing the aggrieved workers, said in an
interview that under the WARN Act, Boozer Lumber was obligated
to give its workers at least 60 days notice of a mass layoff or
plant closure.

"By failing to do so, Boozer is now liable for 60 days pay and
benefits for each of these workers, as well as any medical
expenses they may have incurred in the 60 days before the abrupt
closure of this mill," Mr. Smith said.  "In addition, in closing
its facility, Boozer failed to pay these employees for any
accrued vacation time they may have had."

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     (1) for an order certifying this as a class action,
         pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
         of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Class;

     (2) for an order holding that defendants' conduct violated
         Section 3 of the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2102, and
         the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to
         Section 8 of the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2107;

     (3) for an award of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the
         class members as a result of defendants' conduct, in an
         amount equal to at least the amounts provided in
         Section 5(a)(1) of the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
         2104(a)(1), including 60 days back pay, employee
         benefits, lost vacation pay, lost bonuses, and the
         costs of all medical expenses incurred during the
         employment loss which would have been covered under an
         employee benefit plan;

     (4) for an award of actual and treble damages under the
         South Carolina Payment of Wages Act;

     (5) for an award of prejudgment interest and costs,
         including reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to
         Section 5(a)(6) of the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
         2104(a)(6) and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act;
         and

     (6) for such other relief as the court deems just and
         proper.

The suit is "Sandersfeld et al. v. Boozer Lumber Company et al.,
Case Number: 3:2008cv02934," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina, Honorable Joseph F. Anderson
Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Herbert W. Louthian, Jr., Esq.
          1116 Blanding Street, 3rd Floor
          Post Office Box 1299
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Phone: 803-256-4274

               - and -

          Allen D. Smith, Esq.
          Childs and Halligan P.A.
          P.O. Box 11367
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: 803-254-4035


C.F. SAUER: Recalls Spaghetti Sauce Mix Over Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
CF Sauer Foods Inc, of Richmond, VA is recalling all packages of
Gold Medal Spaghetti Sauce Mix with the code date "8119R."

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milkrun the
risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

Gold Medal Spaghetti Sauce Mix was distributed through retail
stores in Mississippi, Kentucky, and Alabama.

The Spaghetti Sauce Mix comes in 1.37 ounce pouch and was sold
under the name Gold Medal displaying a UPC code of 0-52500-
02104-7.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
Spaghetti Sauce Mix containing milk was distributed in packaging
that did not declare the presence of milk.  Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by an oversight
in the company's development process.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to return
it to the location of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-800-688-5676 or
visit its Web site at http://www.cfsauer.com/


C-COR INC: Tennessee Lawsuit Alleges Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
C-COR, Inc., an acquisition of ARRIS Group, Inc., is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in Tennessee, alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to ARRIS Group's
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee on Feb. 12, 2008.  It was filed by Joe
Brasfield and 21 other named plaintiffs, all current or former
installers or technicians servicing cable TV customers in
Memphis, Tennessee, against Source Broadband Services, LLC, and
C-COR, alleging that the plaintiffs were not properly paid for
overtime.

Source Broadband purchased C-COR's installation business in June
2007.  The plaintiffs are attempting to have the case certified
as a class action.

The suit is "Brasfield, et al. v. Source Broadband Services, LLC
et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-02092-JPM-dkv," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Judge Jon
Phipps McCalla, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas Franklin Donaldson, Jr., Esq.
          (tfdonaldson@donaldsonlawfirm.com)
          Thomas F. Donaldson, Jr., Attorney at Law
          P.O. Box 949
          Marion, AR 72364
          Phone: 870-739-4403

               - and -

          Donald A. Donati, Esq. (don@donatilawfirm.com)
          Donati Law Firm LLP
          1545 Union Ave.
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Phone: 901-278-1004
          Fax: 901-278-3111

Representing the defendants are:

          Benjamin D. Briggs, Esq.
          (benjamin.briggs@troutmansanders.com)
          Troutman Sanders
          Bank of America Plaza
          600 Peachtree St., N.E., Ste. 5200
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-885-3000

               - and -

          Louis P. Britt, III, Esq. (lbritt@fordharrison.com)
          Ford & Harrison, LLP
          795 Ridge Lake Blvd., Ste. 300
          Memphis, TN 38120
          Phone: 901-291-1500
          Fax: 901-291-1501


CHOICE HOTELS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Maryland Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Choice Hotels International, Inc., is facing purported
securities fraud class-action suits before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland, according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

In April 2007, two securities fraud class-action complaints were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of persons who purchased the company's stock
between April 25, 2006, and July 26, 2006.

These substantially similar lawsuits assert claims pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
company, its current vice chairman and chief executive officer,
and its former executive vice president and chief financial
officer.

These claims are related to the company's July 25, 2006
announcement of the results of operations for the second quarter
of 2006.

Since the initial filings, the company filed a motion to
transfer the lawsuit from Colorado to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.

On March 24, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado granted the company's motion to transfer the matter to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland has also granted a
lead plaintiff motion.  The lead plaintiff is the Macomb County
Employees' Retirement System.

On July 14, 2008, the court granted the parties' stipulation
regarding the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and
responses.  The parties agreed that:

   -- a Consolidated Amended Complaint would be filed by Aug. 1,
      2008,

   -- the company would file its responsive pleading by
      Sept. 30, 2008,

   -- the lead plaintiff would file any opposition by Dec. 1,
      2008, and

   -- the company would file any reply by Jan. 15, 2009.

The first identified suit is "Genovese, et al. v. Choice Hotels
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:08-cv-00911-AW," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge
Alexander Williams, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gerald L Bader, Jr., Esq.
          Bader and Associates PC
          14426 E Evans Ave Ste 200
          Denver, CO 80014-1160
          Phone: 1-303-534-1700
          Fax: 1-303-534-1701

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          58 S Service Rd Ste 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 1-631-367-7100
          Fax: 1-631-367-1173

               - and -

          Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq.
          Dyer and Shuman LLP
          801 E 17th Ave
          Denver, CO 80218-1417
          Phone: 1-303-861-3003
          Fax: 1-303-830-6920

Representing the defendants is:

          James Christian Word, Esq. (christian.word@lw.com)
          Latham and Watkins LLP
          11955 Freedom Dr Ste 500
          Reston, VA 20190
          Phone: 1-703-456-5226
          Fax: 1-703-456-1001


CME GROUP: Faces Suits Over Proposed Purchase of NYMEX Holdings
---------------------------------------------------------------
CME Group, Inc., is facing purported class-action suits in the
Delaware Court of Chancery with regards to the proposed sale of
NYMEX Holdings, Inc., to CME, according to CME Group's Aug. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

                     Consolidated Litigation

Specifically, on March 17, 2008, Cataldo J. Capozza filed a
putative class action complaint against NYMEX Holdings, the
NYMEX Holdings board of directors, and CME Group.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that NYMEX Holdings
and its board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the merger agreement by failing to take steps to
maximize the value of NYMEX Holdings to its public shareholders,
failing to properly value NYMEX Holdings and taking steps to
avoid competitive bidding, to cap the price of NYMEX Holdings'
common stock and to give CME Group an unfair advantage by
failing to solicit other potential buyers or alternative
transactions.  The complaint further alleges that CME Group
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On April 14, 2008, Polly Winters filed a putative class action
complaint, also in the Delaware Court of Chancery, against NYMEX
Holdings, the NYMEX Holdings board of directors and CME Group.

On April 15, Joan Haedrich filed a similar putative class action
complaint against the same defendants.

The allegations of the Winters and Haedrich complaints are, in
substance, the same as those asserted in the Capozza complaint.
The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger.

On May 16, 2008, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
these three class actions.

                        Greene Litigation

On June 16, 2008, Shelby Greene filed a putative class action
complaint on behalf of the NYMEX Class A members in the Delaware
Chancery Court against NYMEX Holdings, the NYMEX Holdings board
of directors, CME Group and CMEG NY Inc. alleging similar claims
to the consolidated stockholder class action.

The company reported no further development regarding the cases
in its regulatory filing.

CME Group, Inc. -- http://www.cmegroup.com/-- formerly Chicago
Mercantile Exchange Holdings Inc., offers a range of products
available across all asset classes, including futures and
options on futures based on interest rates, equity indexes,
foreign exchange, agricultural commodities and alternative
investments, such as weather and real estate.  The company is
the holding company for Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME),
Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc. (CBOT) and their
subsidiaries.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the combined
volume of CME and CBOT exceeded 2.2 billion contracts.  As of
Dec. 31, 2007, the company's open interest stood at 54 million
contracts and its open interest record was 75.2 million
contracts set on Aug. 9, 2007.  The company's CME Globex
electronic trading platform is accessible around the clock.  In
January 2008, the company completed the integration of CBOT's
interest rate, equity and agricultural electronic products on to
CME Globex.


CONNETICS: Calif. Court Won't Toss All Securities Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed some, but not all, of the
allegations raised in a proposed securities class action suit
accusing Connetics Corp. of concealing information from
shareholders about its new acne medication Velac Gel, Standford
Law School Securities Class Action ClearingHouse reports.

The suit alleges Connetics kept stock prices artificially high
by failing to disclose a 2004 study that showed the drug caused
tumors in 55% of mice.

According to the report, Connetics argued that several portions
of the plaintiffs' second amended complaint should be stricken
because they were lifted from an insider trading complaint filed
by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, but the district
court refused to strike them, which helped the plaintiffs keep a
number of their allegations afloat in the case.

"Although plaintiffs continue to rely in part on the SEC
complaint, plaintiffs have explained what other sources they
rely on to formulate their factual allegations," Judge Illston
said.

The judge did dismiss the plaintiffs' claim alleging that
Connetics made fraudulent statements predicting that Velac would
gain U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval by June 2005,
finding that the forward-looking statements fell under the safe
harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

However, the report relates, the judge found the plaintiffs
adequately pled a claim alleging Connetics made false statements
about Velac's safety after June 2004, when the company became
aware of the outcome of the pre-clinical mouse study.

Connetics Corporation (NASDAQ: CNCT) is a specialty
pharmaceutical company, dealing in products for the medical
dermatology market.  It offers remedies for severe psoriasis in
adults, eczema, seborrheic dermatitis, and acne.  It has
developed Desilux Foam and Primolux Foam, which completed Phase
III clinical trials.  Its clients are dermatologists and
pediatricians in North America.


DES MOINES: Court Allows Franchise Fee Lawsuit as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Polk County judge has ruled that a lawsuit over the city of
Des Moines' utility franchise fee can continue as a class
action, Chicago Tribune reports.

According to Chicago Tribune, Judge Joel Novack has ruled that
the attorney for Lisa Kragnes "has the financial wherewithal to
proceed" and can adequately protect the interests of Des Moines
utility customers.

The report recounts that the city has fought the class action
certification saying it could draw up to 124,000 customers into
the court fight.

Ms. Kragnes filed the lawsuit in 2004, claiming that the 5% fee
on natural gas and electrical bills in Des Moines is an illegal
tax, the report recalls.


DETROIT: Appeals Court Dismisses Suit by Laid Off City Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Court of Appeals has thrown out a class action suit
filed by two laid off city workers, who allege that the city of
Detroit violated its Privatization Ordinance when city employees
lost their jobs as outside firms were brought in to do city
work, David Josar writes for The Detroit News.

According to the report, the two former workers -- Gregory
Dockery and Dan Sheard -- along with AFSCME Council 25 President
Al Garrett, who is suing as a taxpayer and not a union official,
claimed the city had privatized various city services but did
not give union employees a "last-chance" opportunity to meet the
best offer from the outside contractors.

Detroit News notes that in a ruling made public recently, the
Appeals Court ruled that the city, under the Governmental Tort
Liability Act, has immunity for being sued in that context.

The report recounts that earlier, a Wayne County Circuit judge
denied the city's request to throw out the lawsuit based on the
Government Tort Liability Act.

It was unclear if the plaintiffs would appeal the recent ruling,
Detroit News says.


EXTENDICARE REAL: Calls Wash. Suit Claims False and Misleading
--------------------------------------------------------------
Extendicare Real Estate Investment Trust (TSX: EXE.UN) said
claims made in a lawsuit filed on August 21, 2008, in Washington
State Court in Seattle, against Extendicare Homes, Inc. and Fir
Lane Terrace Convalescent Center, Inc., two wholly owned U.S.
based subsidiaries of Extendicare REIT, are false and
misleading.  Extendicare REIT also says it will vigorously
defend against the lawsuit in court.

The class action lawsuit alleges that 15 of Extendicare REIT's
Washington facilities violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act by fraudulently advertising their services when
the corporation knew that the Washington facilities had
deficiencies in its surveys (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26,
2008).

The class action alleges that private pay residents of these
facilities were influenced in their choice by the fraudulent
advertising practices during a four-year period of time.

"We appear to be the latest in a long list of nursing home
providers targeted by the same lawyer who previously filed a
series of similar class-action style lawsuits in California,"
said Tim Lukenda, President and CEO.  "These lawsuits also
alleged that nursing home providers falsely advertised the
quality of care they provided to residents.  While this lawyer
has not been successful in proving such allegations in a court
of law, we understand the previous cases have resulted in
settlements.  Many providers in the California suits were
undoubtedly forced to settle these cases rather than fight the
allegations and prove them to be false because of the costs of
litigation," Mr. Lukenda said.

"We intend to vigorously and successfully defend this lawsuit
and discourage these lawyers from trying to recreate their
California experience in Washington State," said Lukenda.  "The
allegations made by these lawyers are incorrect and misleading
and are clearly designed to maximize the potential recovery of
attorneys' fees rather than benefit residents."

Extendicare says it is remains committed to continuing to
provide quality care and services to its residents as it defends
the inflammatory allegations in this baseless lawsuit.

Extendicare REIT, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a
major provider of short and long-term care services for seniors
in North America.


FORMFACTOR INC: Calif. Court Throws Out Stockholders' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California dismissed a consolidated amended
complaint in a stockholder class action lawsuit, which was filed
against FormFactor, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2008.

Initially, a purported stockholder class action, entitled "Danny
McCasland, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y. Khandros, Ronald C. Foster
and Richard M. Freeman," was filed on Oct. 31, 2007, and names
the company and certain of its current officers, including one
officer who is a director, as defendants.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed two other purported
stockholder class-action suits before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the captions:

      1. "Yuk Ling Lui, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y.
         Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman,"
         and

      2. "Victor Albertazzi, Individually and on Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y.
         Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman."

The plaintiffs filed these actions following the company's
restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that
year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30,
2007.

The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and
Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging
that the defendants knowingly issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results prior to the restatements.  They seek to
recover unspecified monetary damages, equitable relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The three actions were later consolidated.  In April 2008, the
designated lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

On or about May 5, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On or about July 25, 2008,
the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint.

The suit is "McCasland v. Formfactor, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
05545-SI," filed before the U.S. District Court for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Susan Illston, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq. (shawnw@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. (aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com)
          Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0200
          Fax: 925-945-8792

               - and -

          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          (ashingler@scott-scott.com)
          Scott + Scott, LLC
          600 B. Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Fax: 619-233-0508

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert P. Varian, Esq. (rvarian@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5700
          Fax: 415-773-5759


FORMFACTOR INC: Calif. Stockholder Derivative Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc., continues to face a consolidated stockholder
derivative lawsuit that was filed in the the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda.

Initially, two purported stockholder derivative actions were
filed starting Nov. 19, 2007.  The suits name the company as a
nominal defendant and certain of its directors and officers as
defendants.

The first suit is captioned, "John King, Derivatively on Behalf
of Nominal Defendant FormFactor, Inc. v. Dr. Igor Y. Khandros,
Dr. Homa Bahrami, Dr. Thomas J. Campbell, G. Carl Everett, Jr.,
Lothar Maier, James A. Prestridge, Harvey A. Wagner, Ronald C.
Foster and Richard M. Freeman, and FormFactor, Inc."

The second purported stockholder class action suit is captioned
"Joseph Priestley, Derivatively on Behalf of FormFactor, Inc. v.
Igor Y. Khandros, Mario Ruscev, James A. Prestridge, Thomas J.
Campbell, Harvey A. Wagner, G. Carl Everett, Jr., Homa Bahrami,
Lothar Maier, William H. Davidow and Joseph R. Bronson, and
FormFactor, Inc."

The plaintiffs filed the actions following the company's
restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that
year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30,
2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and violated applicable law by issuing, and
permitting the company to issue, materially false, and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results prior to the restatements.

The plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The two derivative actions have been consolidated, and a
consolidated amended complaint is expected to be filed in mid-
September 2008, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 28, 2008.

FormFactor, Inc. -- http://www.formfactor.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures, sells and supports precision
semiconductor wafer probe cards.  Semiconductor manufacturers
use the company's wafer probe cards to perform wafer probe test
on the whole wafer in the front end of the semiconductor
manufacturing process.  FormFactor offers products and solutions
that are custom designed for semiconductor manufacturers' wafer
designs.


GENESEE & WYOMING: Faces Suit in Ky. Over 2007 Trail Derailment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee & Wyoming, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky over a train derailment in Sheperdsville, Kentucky.

On Jan. 16, 2007, CSX Corp.'s freight train Q502-15 derailed in
Sheperdsville, Kentucky.  The derailment involved approximately
13 railcars carrying a variety of chemicals.  As a consequence
of this derailment, the company was named as a defendant in a
class action suit filed on Jan. 16, 2008, by Roberta Green,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons.

The purported class action was brought against General Electric
Capital Services, Inc., General Electric Railcar Services Corp.,
and Genesee & Wyoming, Inc.  It was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the derailment was
caused by one or more defective components on a railcar owned by
GE, which railcar bears the railroad operating marks of one of
our subsidiaries.

The complaint alleges causes of action against GWI for :

       -- nuisance;

       -- trespass; and

       -- negligence (with respect to transportation/operations
          and duty to warn).

The suit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

The company reported no new development in the matter in its
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.

The suit is "Green, et al. v. CSX Corporation, et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00024-CRS-DW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, Judge Thomas B. Russell,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          William L. Bross, Esq. (wlbross@hgdlawfirm.com)
          Heninger Garrison Davis LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205-326-3336
          Fax: 205-326-3332

               - and -

          Lee L. Coleman, Esq. (lcoleman@hughesandcoleman.com)
          Hughes & Coleman
          P.O. Box 10120
          Bowling Green, KY 42102
          Phone: 270-782-6003
          Fax: 270-782-8820

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard W. Edwards, Esq. (redwards@bsg-law.com)
          Boehl Stopher & Graves, LLP
          400 W. Market Street
          2300 Aegon Center
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: 502-589-5980
          Fax: 502-561-9400

               - and -

          Knox D. Nunnally, Esq. (knunnally@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins LLP
          1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500
          Houston, TX 77002-6760
          Phone: 713-758-2416
          Fax: 713-615-5220


HITACHI AMERICA: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Defective TV Screens
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hitachi America, Ltd., is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
alleging it sells defective rear-projection TV screens,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This class action is brought seeking damages and equitable
relief on behalf of all persons in the United States who have
purchased Hitachi LCD Rear Projection Television, with Hitachi
model number 50V500A.

The plaintiff alleges that the televisions possess a
characteristic and inherent defect which causes green blobs, red
bloom, green haze, blue dots, yellow lines and other color
anomalies to be displayed across the screens of the televisions,
severely interfering with the program display, and rendering the
televisions unsuitable for their principal purpose.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Hitachi's representations, omissions, and
         conduct regarding the televisions were misleading or
         false;

     (b) whether Hitachi's representations and conduct were
         likely to deceive consumers into believing that the
         television operated properly;

     (c) to the extent State laws prohibiting consumer deception
         are applicable, whether Hitachi violated the respective
         laws of those States;

     (d) when Hitachi initiated the deceptive marketing
         campaign;

     (e) whether Hitachi undertook a course of conduct to hide
         the existence of the defect from the members of the
         class;

     (f) whether the defect constitutes a manufacturing or
         design defect;

     (g) whether the defect constitutes a breach of Hitachi's
         warranties;

     (h) whether the class have been injured by Hitachi's
         conduct;

     (i) whether the class have sustained damages and are
         entitled to restitution as a result of Hitachi's
         wrongdoing and, if so, what is the proper measure and
         appropriate formula to be applied in determining such
         damages and restitution; and

     (j) whether the members of the class are entitled to
         injunctive relief.

The plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment:

     -- declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a
        class action and certifying plaintiff as a class
        representative;

     -- awarding damages to plaintiff and the other class
        members for Hitachi's breach of contract;

     -- awarding restitution and disgorgement as a result of
        Hitachi's unfair business practices and untrue and
        misleading advertising;

     -- requiring Hitachi to inform the public of the defect
        possessed by its televisions and enjoining Hitachi from
        refusing to perform its warranty obligations;

     -- awarding pre and post-judgment interest;

     -- awarding attorneys' fees, expenses and costs; and

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

The suit is "Anthony Partida, et al. v. Hitachi America, Ltd.,
Case No. 3-08CV1516-D,"  filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Eric D. Pearson, Esq.
          John W. Pate, Esq.
          Heygood, Orr, Reyes, Pearson & Bartolomei
          2331 W. Northwest Highway, 2nd Floor
          Dallas, TX 75220
          Phone: 214-526-7900
          Fax: 214-526-7910


HOME MADE: Recalls Tuna Salad Because of Possible Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Home Made Brand Foods, 2 Opportunity Way, Newburyport MA 01950
is voluntarily recalling approximately 4890 pounds of "Ready-to-
Eat" Tuna Salad with an expiration date of 8/19/08.

This product has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The following products are subject to recall:

     * 99/ 5 lbs. units of "Home Made Brand Foods Tuna Salad"
       dated 8/19/08 expiration

     * 412/10 lb. units of "Stop and Shop Tuna Salad" dated
       8/19/08 expiration

     * 366/12 oz. units of "Stop and Shop Tuna Salad" dated
       8/19/08 expiration

The problem was discovered after routine sampling at the
customer level and subsequent analysis of the product by an
independent laboratory which found the product to be positive
for Listeria monocytogenes.

All product lots produced prior to and after the above listed
affected lot were found to be negative for Listeria
monocytogenes through independent laboratory analysis.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased the Tuna Salad should not consume
it, but should return it to the place of purchase.  Consumers
with questions may contact Rick Walters at 978-462-3663 ext.
314.


JAMES BROWN BUILDERS: Bossier Homeowners Sue Over Mineral Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Many homeowners in parts of Bossier Parish are finding out they
do not own the mineral rights to their property, amid all the
excitement over the Haynesville Shale natural gas field, Sonja
Bailes writes for KTBS.com.

According to the report, one major developer in the parish who
built and sold the homes -- James Brown Builders -- kept the
mineral rights in the subdivisions.

KTBS.com says that Melvin Edwards, who lives in Golden Meadows
in south Bossier City, has filed a lawsuit against James Brown
Builders.

The report relates that Mr. Edwards found out he did not own the
mineral rights under his property when he was trying to
negotiate these rights earlier this year.

"Somebody cared about those mineral rights enough to take steps
to strip them out of the land they were selling," Mr. Edwards'
attorney, Todd Benson, Esq., told KTBS.com.

Mr. Edwards' lawsuit says homeowners in 13 subdivisions who
bought property from James Brown Builders from July 2006 to the
present do not have mineral rights.

In a statement, James Brown Builders said that more than 30
years ago, the company began reserving some of the minerals on
property it developed -- long before anyone heard of the
Haynesville Shale.  The company added that ownership of the
minerals is, and always has been, public record for anyone
buying property from them.

Mr. Benson has asked the court to certify the lawsuit as a
class-action because more than 100 homeowners could easily be
affected, the report notes.  The Bossier District Court judge
hearing the case has not ruled on this request.

KTBS.com points out that the Bossier Parish clerk of court will
help property owners in the parish determine whether they own
their mineral rights.  Clerk of Court Cindy Johnston said her
staff will search property records back 10 years to check for
existing mineral reservations or leases on the land.  Inquiries
should be sent by e-mail to: bossierclerk@yahoo.com


KRATOS DEFENSE: Parties Settle Calif. Securities Suit for $12MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit
against Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. -- formerly
Wireless Facilities, Inc. -- have reached a tentative
$12-million settlement in the matter, according to Kratos'
Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

In August 2004, following the company's announcement that it
intended to restate its financial statements for the fiscal
years ended Dec. 31, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors were
named as defendants in several securities class-action lawsuits
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.  These actions were filed on behalf of those who
purchased, or otherwise acquired, the company's common stock
between April 26, 2000, and Aug. 4, 2004.

The lawsuits generally allege that, during that time period, the
defendants made false and misleading statements to the investing
public about the company's business and financial results,
causing its stock to trade at artificially inflated levels.
Based on this, the lawsuits assert that the defendants violated
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Thus, the plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages.

The lawsuit were later consolidated into a single action,
entitled "In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 04CV1589-JAH."

The plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action
complaint on April 1, 2005, which the defendants requested to to
dismiss.

A second amended complaint was filed on June 9, 2005, this time
on behalf of those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the
company's common stock between May 5, 2003, and Aug. 4, 2004.

The defendants again filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which request was granted by the court.  However, the plaintiffs
were granted the right to further amend their complaint and thus
filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint on
April 24, 2006.  After the Court denied dismissal, the
defendants filed their answer to the complaint on July 13, 2007.

In February 2008, following a voluntary mediation of the matter,
the parties reached a tentative agreement to settle the class
action.  Under this tentative settlement, the plaintiffs and the
class will dismiss all claims, with prejudice, in exchange for a
cash payment in the total amount of $12 million.

The suit is "In re Wireless Facilities, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 3:04-cv-01589-JAH-NLS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
Judge John A. Houston, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kirk B. Hulett, Esq. (kbh@hulettharper.com)
          Hulett Harper Stewart
          550 West C. Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-338-1133
          Fax: 619-338-1139

               - and -

          Peter Arthur Binkow, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Eric Martin Acker, Esq. (EAcker@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster
          12531 High Bluff Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130-3014
          Phone: 858-720-5100
          Fax: 858-720-5125

               - and -

          Roman E Darmer, II, Esq. (DarmerR@howrey.com)
          Howrey LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1700
          Irvine, CA 92614-8557
          Phone: 949-721-6900
          Fax: 949-721-6910


KRATOS DEFENSE: Parties Settle Calif. Securities Suit for $4.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties of a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit
against Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. -- formerly
Wireless Facilities, Inc. -- have reached a tentative
$4.5-million settlement in the matter, according to Kratos'
Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

In March and April 2007, there were three federal class-action
suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California against the company and several of its current and
former officers and directors.  These class-action lawsuits
followed the company's March 12, 2007 public announcement that
it was conducting a voluntary internal review of its stock
option granting processes.

These actions have been consolidated into a single action,
captioned "In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation
II, Master File No. 07-CV-0482-BTM-NLS."  The consolidated
class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 19, 2007.

In March 2008, following a voluntary mediation of the matter,
the parties reached a tentative agreement to settle the class
action suit.  Under the settlement proposal, the plaintiffs and
the class will dismiss all claims, with prejudice, in exchange
for a cash payment of $4.5 million.

The suit is "In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities
Litigation II, Master File No. 07-CV-0482-BTM-NLS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Johnson & Perkinson
          1690 Williston Road
          South Burlington, VT, 05403
          Phone: 802-862-0030
          Fax: 802-862-0060
          e-mail: JPLAW@adelphia.net

          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti PC
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, NY, 10038
          Phone: 212-964-0046
          Fax: 212-267-8137
          e-mail: shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott & Scott LLC
          P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT, 06415
          Phone: 860-537-5537
          Fax: 860-537-4432
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


MAPLE LEAF: Meat Recall Prompts Canadian Listeria Outbreak Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was launched against Maple Leaf Foods
(OTCBB:MLFNF) in the Superior Court in the Province of Quebec,
District of Montreal, demanding damages over a Listeria outbreak
caused by sliced meat products, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Maple Leaf recalled the products on Aug. 17, and "has repeatedly
expanded the recall, so that currently there are several dozen
meat products on the recall list," according to the class
action.

Named plaintiffs in Montreal, Juanita Melvin and Thomas Guay, a
married couple, say they bought and ate Maple Leaf sliced turkey
and ham between Aug. 10 and Aug. 16.

Ms. Melvin suffered from nausea and diarrhea and Mr. Guay "lost
his motor functions and had difficulty articulating his words,"
according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs wish to institute a class action on behalf of:

     1) all physical persons in Quebec and Canada who purchased
        or consumed meat products manufactured by the Respondent
        that have been subject to the recalls of meat products
        made by the Respondent or related entities starting in
        August, 2008; and

     2) all legal persons who, during the 12-month period
        preceding the filing of this Motion for Authorization to
        Institute a Class Action and to Obtain the Status of
        Representative, had not more than 50 employees, who
        purchased meat products manufactured by the Respondent
        that have been subject to the recalls of meat products
        made by the Respondent or related entities starting in
        August 2008.

The suit is "Juanit Melvin, et al. v. Maple Leaf Foods, Inc.,
Case No. 500 06-000445-086," filed in the Superior Court in the
Province of Quebec, District of Montreal.

The plaintiffs' counsel is:

          The Merchant Law Group LLP
          83 St. Paul Ouest
          Montreal, Quebec
          H2Y 1Z1
          Phone: 514-842-7776
          Fax: 514-842-8055


MARS PETCARE: Recalls Pedigree Due to Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mars Petcare US announced a voluntary recall of limited bags of
PEDIGREE Complete Nutrition Small Crunchy Bites sold in
Albertsons stores in Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada.

The pet food is being voluntarily recalled because of potential
contamination with Salmonella. There have been no complaints or
reports of injury resulting from consumption or handling of the
recalled product.

The product should not be sold or fed to pets.  Pet owners
should dispose of product in a safe manner (example, a securely
covered trash receptacle) and return the empty bag to the store
where purchased for a full refund.

Salmonella can cause serious infections in dogs and cats, and,
if there is cross contamination caused by handling of the pet
food, in people as well, especially children, the aged, and
people with compromised immune systems.  Healthy people
potentially infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.  On
rare occasions, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments,
including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle
pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers
exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product
should contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some pets
will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.
Animals can be carriers with no visible symptoms and potentially
infect other animals or humans.  If your pet has consumed the
recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your
veterinarian.

Recalled Pet Food

     Product: PEDIGREE Complete Nutrition Small Crunchy Bites
     Size: 20-pound bags
     UPC Code: 23100 14719
     Lot Code: 830BFCAT02
     Best Buy Date: 07/2009
     Best Buy Date Location: Back of bag
     Affected Stores: Albertsons locations in Southern
     California and Las Vegas.

In an effort to prevent the transmission of Salmonella from pets
to family members and care givers, the FDA recommends that
everyone follow appropriate pet food handling guidelines when
feeding their pets.

Pet owners who have questions about the recall should call
1-877-568-4463 or visit http://www.petcare.mars.com/


MCDONALD'S: Calif. Court Denies Class Certification in "Kimoto"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California granted McDonald's Corp.'s motion
to deny certification of plaintiff Deanna Kimoto's putative meal
and rest period classes in the suit "Kimoto v., McDonald's
Corp., Case No. CV 06-03032."

The Plaintiff brought a purported California-wide class action
against McDonald's asserting that its nonexempt employees were
not provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with California
law, as well as derivative claims for failure to pay overtime,
inaccurate wage statements, failure to maintain required wage-
hour records, and unfair competition.  Plaintiff sought to
represent a class of approximately 45,000 restaurant employees.

Following the close of discovery, rather than waiting for the
Plaintiff to file a motion to certify the class, McDonald's
filed a motion to deny class certification.  The plaintiff then
filed her motion to certify 11 days after McDonald's filed its
motion.

In an 11-page ruling, Judge Gutierrez ruled that McDonald's
motion to deny certification was well-founded and granted
McDonald's motion, and deemed moot the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The Court initially found that Plaintiff's later filing date
failed to comply with the Court's order requiring the filing of
a class certification motion before August 4, 2008, as well as
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(a), which requires the Court to
determine whether to certify a class action at "an early
practicable time after a person sues or issued as a class
representative."  On the substantive aspects of McDonald's
motion, the Court agreed with McDonald's construction of the
meal and rest period requirements of California law, consistent
with the recently decided case of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v.
Superior Court, Cal. Rptr. 3d, 2008 WL 2806613 (Cal. App. 4
Dist., July 22, 2008), holding that employers need only make
available meal and rest breaks, and need not ensure that
employees take such breaks.  Under that standard, and
considering the standards of Rule 23(b)(3), the Court concluded
that Plaintiff had not shown predominance of any common issues
for class certification.

The Court also rejected Plaintiff's attempt to redefine her
classes as only constituting those employees who were provided
breaks "late" in the day (i.e., employees who were not
authorized to take a first rest break in the first 4 hours of
their shifts, and employees who were not authorized to take meal
breaks in the first 5 hours of their shifts). Even with those
redefined classes, the Court concluded that individual questions
predominated in determining if employees were or were not
authorized to take breaks at the appropriate times.

Jones Day partners Michael Gray, Esq. (Chicago), and Mark
Kemple, Esq. (Los Angeles), with associates Matthew Yu, Esq.,
Elizabeth McRee, Esq., Kamran Mirrafati, Esq., and Anna Hartog,
Esq., represented McDonald's in the matter.

To contact Jones Day in California:

          Jones Day
          555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 1-213-489-3939
          Fax: 1-213-243-2539


MEGA LIFE: Medical Insurance Scam Alleged in Florida Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Healthmarkets and Mega Life & Health Insurance Co. are facing a
class-action complaint filed in the Circuit Court for the 18th
Judicial Circuit, in and for Seminole County, Florida alleging
the companies "prey on" people and small businesses in an
"elaborate and fraudulent marketing scheme . . . to sell medical
insurance," by claiming to have group purchasing power, without
revealing that the "group" consists entirely of their wholly
owned subsidiaries, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs say that "despite settling a class action
lawsuit, the defendants continue to maintain this fraudulent
marketing scheme."

Parents suing on behalf of their children reserve the right to
make this a class action, the suit says.  They also sued
Americans For Financial Security, Specialized Association
Services LTD, and insurance agent Kathleen Miller, according to
the report.

The plaintiffs say the defendants pitch their services by
claiming that customers "become members of a large group that
enjoys true buying power. The major benefit promised by American
is the ability to purchase America's 'endorsed' medical
insurance at affordable group rates. American 'endorses' Mega
Life insurance plans on behalf of American members. Plaintiff
and other insurance consumers are never told the truth that, in
reality, American is controlled by Healthmarkets and the only
medical insurance American endorses is that of Mega Life, Mid-
West National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee, The
Chesapeake Life Insurance Company, all of which are wholly owned
subsidiaries of Healthmarkets."

The complaint states: "Plaintiffs were not members of a previous
class action that encompassed only persons who purchased
insurance from Defendants between August 1, 1998 and May 14,
2004. Despite settling a class action lawsuit, Defendants
continue to maintain this fraudulent marketing scheme."

This is an action for damages that are in excess of the sum of
$15, 000, exclusive of costs, interests and attorney's fees.

The suit is "William J. McGinn, et al. v. Healthmarkets Inc., et
al., Case No. 08CA-5154-15-L," filed in the Circuit Court for
the 18th Judicial Circuit, in and for Seminole County, Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel J. Thornburgh, Esq.
          Joshua A. Jones, Esq.
          Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
          Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz
          803 N. Palafox Street
          Pensacola, FL 32501
          Phone: 850-916-7450
          Fax: 850-916-7449


MEHMOD PATEL: Settles Medical Malpractice Suit for $3 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
As a federal case against Lafayette cardiologist Mehmood Patel,
M.D., is under way, one of the several class-action lawsuits
involving him has recently been settled for more than
$3 million, Shay Randle writes for The Advertiser.

The report recounts that at least seven of Dr. Patel's patients
filed a petition against his malpractice liability insurers,
Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company, Acadiana Cardiology
LLC, and Acadiana Cardiovascular Center LLC.

The plaintiffs in the suit were several of the "people who claim
to have undergone an unnecessary interventional cardiac medical
procedure performed by Mehmood Patel, M.D., from January 1,
1996, through February 1, 2004," according to court records.
Dr. Patel, the report notes, is currently in the first stages of
a trial that began recently after he was indicted in 2006 on 93
counts of health care fraud.

The Advertiser recalls that Dr. Patel is accused of billing
public and private health benefit programs for medically
unnecessary cardiac procedures on patients between 2001 and
2004.

According to the report, the court document says that the recent
settlement agreement was reached on Aug. 12 after the plaintiffs
weighed "the substantial benefits that members of the Class will
receive as a result of the settlement against probable success
and failure to secure any recovery by means of further
litigation."

The court document also states that by agreeing to the
settlement, the "defendant does not admit to any liability
whatsoever to the plaintiffs but is entering into this agreement
solely to compromise claims."


PDI INC: Faces Lawsuits Arising From Use of Baycol Medication
-------------------------------------------------------------
PDI, Inc., is facing two purported class action lawsuits
alleging claims arising from the use of Baycol, a prescription
cholesterol-lowering medication.

Baycol was distributed, promoted and sold by Bayer Corp. in the
U.S. until early August 2001, at which time Bayer voluntarily
withdrew Baycol from the U.S. market.  Bayer had retained
certain companies, such as PDI, to provide detailing services on
its behalf pursuant to contract sales force agreements.

To date, PDI has defended these actions vigorously and have
asserted a contractual right of defense and indemnification
against Bayer for all costs and expenses the company incur
relating to these proceedings.

In February 2003, the company entered into a joint defense and
indemnification agreement with Bayer, pursuant to which Bayer
has agreed to assume substantially all of the company's defense
costs in pending and prospective proceedings and to indemnify
the company in these lawsuits, subject to certain limited
exceptions.

Furthermore, Bayer agreed to reimburse the company for all
reasonable costs and expenses incurred through such date in
defending these proceedings.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, Bayer has reimbursed the company for
approximately $1.6 million in legal expenses, the majority of
which was received in 2003 and was reflected as a credit within
selling, general and administrative expense.

The company has not incurred any costs or expenses relating to
these matters since 2003.

The company reported no further development regarding the cases
in its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.

PDI Inc. -- http://www.pdi-inc.com/-- is a provider of contract
sales teams to pharmaceutical companies, offering a range of
sales support services.  In addition to contract sales teams,
the company also provides marketing research, physician
interaction and medical education programs.  The services offer
customers a range of promotional and educational options for the
commercialization of their products throughout their lifecycles,
from development through maturity.  The three segments of the
company are Sales Services, Marketing Services and PDI Products
Group.


QWEST COMMS: Settles Colorado Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in consolidated securities fraud
lawsuit captioned "New England Health, et al. v. Qwest Comm Intl
Inc, et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-01451-REB-KLM," which names Qwest
Communications International, Inc. -- the parent company of
Qwest Corp. -- as a defendant, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.

Initially, 12 putative class-action lawsuits purportedly brought
on behalf of purchasers of QCII's publicly traded securities
between May 24, 1999, and Feb. 14, 2002, were consolidated as
one securities action before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado against QCII and various other defendants.

The first of these actions was filed on July 27, 2001.  The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendants issued
false and misleading financial results and made false statements
about QCII's business and investments, including materially
false statements in certain of QCII's registration statements.

The most recent complaint in this matter sought unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.  However, counsel for the
plaintiffs indicated that the putative class would seek damages
in the tens of billions of dollars.

                        QCII settlement

In November 2005, QCII, certain other defendants, and the
putative class representatives entered into, and filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, a Stipulation
of Partial Settlement that, if implemented, will settle the
consolidated securities action against QCII and certain other
defendants.  Pursuant to the QCII settlement, QCII has deposited
approximately $400 million in cash into a settlement fund.

In connection with the QCII settlement, QCII received
$10 million from Arthur Andersen LLP.  As part of the QCII
settlement, the class representatives and the settlement class
they represent are also releasing Arthur Andersen.

If the QCII settlement is not implemented, QCII will be repaid
the $400 million plus interest, less certain expenses, and QCII
will repay the $10 million to Arthur Andersen.

If implemented, the QCII settlement will resolve and release the
individual claims of the class representatives and the claims of
the settlement class they represent against QCII and all
defendants except Joseph Nacchio, the company's former chief
executive officer, and Robert Woodruff, the company's former
chief financial officer.

In September 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado issued an order approving the proposed QCII settlement
on behalf of purchasers of QCII's publicly traded securities
between May 24, 1999, and July 28, 2002, over the objections of
Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff.

Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff then appealed that order to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  In addressing that
appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that the federal district court
order overruling Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff's objections to
the QCII settlement was not sufficiently specific, and it
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
consider certain issues and to provide a more detailed
explanation for its earlier decision overruling those
objections.

Subsequent to the remand, a proposed settlement was reached
involving the claims of the putative class against Messrs.
Nacchio and Woodruff as described below that, if implemented,
will also result in the implementation of the QCII settlement.

                  Nacchio/Woodruff Settlement

On Aug. 4, 2008, QCII, Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff, and the
putative class representatives entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (Nacchio/Woodruff settlement) that, if implemented,
will, among other things:

        -- settle the individual claims of the putative class
           representatives and the class they purport to
           represent against Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff, and

        -- result in the withdrawal by Messrs. Nacchio and
           Woodruff of their objections to the QCII settlement
           and the resolution of their indemnification dispute
           with QCII arising from the QCII settlement.

Under the proposed Nacchio/Woodruff settlement, QCII would
contribute $40 million, and Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff would
contribute a total of $5 million of insurance proceeds.

The Nacchio/Woodruff settlement is subject to a number of
conditions and future contingencies, including that it:

        -- requires both preliminary and final court approval,
           and

        -- provides QCII with the right to terminate the
           settlement if class members representing more than a
           specified amount of alleged securities losses elect
           to opt out of the settlement.

The suit is "New England Health, et al. v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc,
et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-01451-REB-KLM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, Robert E.
Blackburn, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael James Barry, Esq. (mbarry@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          1201 North Market Street
          #2100 Chase Manhattan Centre
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7000
          Fax: 303-622-7100

               - and -

          X. Jay Alvarez, Esq. (JayA@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP-San Diego
          655 West Broadway, #1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the defendants are:

          Timothy Granger Atkeson, Esq.
          (Tim_Atkeson@aporter.com)
          Arnold & Porter LLP
          370 Seventeenth Street, #4500
          Denver, CO 80202-1370
          Phone: 303-863-1000
          Fax: 303-832-0428

               - and -

          Terry W. Bird, Esq. (twb@birdmarella.com)
          Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks &
               Lincenberg
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Phone: 310-201-2100
          Fax: 310-201-2110


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ink Cartridge Suit Targets Printer Ripoff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., is rigging its printers and
misleading consumers in its quest to sell as many costly and
profitable toner cartridges as possible, according to a class
action lawsuit filed by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP in the U.S.
District Court in Trenton, NJ.

"This is 'razor blade' economics taken to a fraudulent extreme,"
said KBK Managing Partner Brian Kabateck, Esq.  "Consumers are
not getting the toner they're paying for because Samsung is
rigging its machines.  The victims in this case are entitled to
use the toner they've purchased, but Samsung's malevolent
programming is blocking the way."

Printer companies like Samsung derive more revenues and profits
from selling toner and ink cartridges than they do by selling
printers. (Some call this the "razor blade" model.  Many razor
companies make more money from blade cartridges than razors.)
While cartridge prices remain high, printer costs have fallen
along with the cost of other computer equipment, with many
printers even being provided free to computer purchasers.

Printers, in many cases, are simply vehicles that drive their
manufacturers' true profit-centers -- toner and ink cartridges.
Samsung, according to the suit, programs its printers to shut
down and display a "toner empty" message when there is in fact a
significant amount of toner still remaining in the toner
cartridge.  Users must install a new Samsung toner cartridge to
resume using their printers, even though there is plenty of
toner left in their old cartridge.  Users cannot pursue the
relatively cheaper options of refilling their old cartridges or
using another company's cartridges -- Samsung employs "smart
chip" technology to force consumers to use their cartridges.

KBK previously sued Epson for designing its printers to shut
down with a substantial amount of ink still in the cartridge.
Following certification of a national class, Epson settled the
case.  The victims received ink cartridges and other
compensation that the court valued at more than $350 million.

The Samsung cartridges for the printer owned by the plaintiff
cost $80.  The suit seeks to represent a class comprising all
individuals or entities in the United States who have purchased
or leased a Samsung laser printer.

"We're simply asking Samsung to be straight with its customers,"
said Darren Kaplan, Esq., a partner with the Atlanta-based law
firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP and co-counsel with KBK in
the litigation.  "It's disappointing that it's taking a judge
and jury to make them do the right thing."

According to Lyra Research, 2007 ink and toner sales approached
$70 billion, while by 2011, printer manufacturers will make over
$15 billion more in ink and toner than printer sales.

The outrageous cost of toner and ink was put into perspective by
Gizmodo, which found that printing with vodka, penicillin, and
even human blood would be cheaper.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that while we complain
about $50 to $75 gas tank fill-ups, that same tank would cost
$4,000 to $5,000 to fill up with printer ink.

For more information, contact:

          Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street,
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-217-5000
          Fax: 213-217-5010
          Web site: http://www.kbklawyers.com/


SLM CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Billing Practices Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action suit against against
SLM Corp. -- a/k/a Sallie Mae -- over its Federal Family
Education Loan Program billing practices are appealing to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a decision that
granted summary judgment in favor to all defendants.

The suit, "Ann Chae et al. v. SLM Corporation, Case No. 2:07-cv-
02319-ER-RC," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on April 14, 2007.  It was served
to the company by several borrowers.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code 17200, breach of contract, breach of covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, violation of consumer legal
remedies act and unjust enrichment.  It challenges the company's
FFELP billing practices as they relate to use of the simple
daily interest method for calculating interest.

On June 19, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Sept. 14, 2007, the court entered an
order denying Sallie Mae's request.

The court did not comment on the merits of the allegations or
the plaintiffs' case but instead determined that the allegations
stated a claim sufficient under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The company filed an answer in September 2007 and, in November
2007 filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The court
denied this motion without ruling on the merits of the
plaintiffs' claims.

On June 16, 2008, the court granted summary judgment on all
counts against all defendants in "Chae, et al. v. SLM
Corporation, et al."  On that same date, the court also denied
as moot the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, United
States of America's motion for summary judgment, and the
plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment, and the court
canceled the jury trial previously scheduled for July 22, 2008.

The court entered judgment in the case on June 25, 2008.  On
July 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 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 "Ann Chae et al. v. SLM Corporation, Case No. 2:07-
cv-02319-ER-RC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Edward Rafeedie,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 109
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@cmht.com)
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll
          West Tower
          1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005-3964
          Phone: 202-408-4600

               - and -

          William J. Genego, Esq. (wgenego@gmail.com)
          Nasatir Hirsch Podberesky and Genego
          2115 Main Street
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Phone: 310-399-3259

Representing the defendants is:

          Anne K. Edwards, Esq. (aedwards@akingump.com)
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
          Century Twr. Plz.
          2029 Century Park E, Ste. 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010
          Phone: 310-229-1000


SLM CORP: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y. Over 401(k) Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corp. -- a/k/a Sallie Mae -- is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit, entitled "Slaymon v. SLM Corporation et al.,
Case No. 1:2008-cv-04334," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York over its 401(k)
plans, according to its Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

On June 24, 2008, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed "Boston v.
SLM Corporation et al.," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  This case was a
putative class-action complaint for alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act regarding 401(k) plan
interest in the company's common stock.  The plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the case because the plaintiff never
participated in Sallie Mae's 401(k) plans.

A complaint alleging similar violations, entitled "Slaymon v.
SLM Corporation et al., Case No. 1:2008-cv-04334," which was
also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on May 8, 2008, remains outstanding.

The suit is "Slaymon v. SLM Corp. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-
04334-WHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge William H. Pauley, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephen John Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          (stephen@sfclasslaw.com)
          Squitieri & Fearon LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-575-2092
          Fax: 212-575-2184

               - and -

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq. (rharwood@hfesq.com)
          Wechsler Harwood LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-935-7400
          Fax: 212-753-3630

Representing the defendants are:

          Bridgit Marie Depietto, Esq.
          (bdepietto@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania, NorthWest
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 202-739-5277
          Fax: 202-739-3001


THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Calif. Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is facing several purported
securities fraud class-action suits in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On July 5 and July 18, 2007, purported shareholder class-action
complaints alleging violations of the federal securities laws
were filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer
Harold E. Selick and its former Chief Financial Officer Janet I.
Swearson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On Sept. 14, 2007, these lawsuits, which have been consolidated
by the court into a single proceeding, were ordered transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

In a consolidated amended complaint filed on Jan. 15, 2008, the
plaintiffs, on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of  the
company's common stock from the date of its initial public
offering of securities on Feb. 4, 2005, through July 14, 2006,
purported to allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, generally alleging that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by, among other things,
making material misstatements or omissions concerning the
company's Phase II and Phase III clinical trials of Lonidamine
(TH-070).

On July 11, 2008, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, but afforded the
plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint within a
time period that has not yet expired.

The first identified complaint is "Twinde v. Threshold
Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-04972-CW," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Judge Claudia Wilken, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Dennis J. Herman, Esq. (dennish@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
          Brodsky & Smith LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-741-4977

Representing the defendants is:

          Kevin Anthony Burke, Esq. (kburke@hewm.com)
          Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP
          Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6524
          Phone: 212-832-8300
          Fax: 212-763-7600


VISTAPRINT LTD: Named in Four Lawsuits Over Unauthorized Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four class-action lawsuits have been brought against VistaPrint,
a small business marketing company with over 15 million
customers worldwide, regarding unauthorized charges of the
credit cards and bank accounts of customers who purchased items
on the company's U.S. Web site.

VistaPrint Limited and its U.S. subsidiary, along with Vertrue
Inc. and its subsidiary Adaptive Marketing LLC, were named as
defendants in all four cases.

VistaPrint revealed in a press release that pending cases were
filed in New Jersey and Texas, but Counselor has learned that
additional class-action suits were filed in both Massachusetts
and Alabama.

"As we allege in the complaint, we believe that VistaPrint and
Vertrue are acting in concert to access consumers' credit card
information and then begin charging them relatively small
amounts," says Jerome Noll, Esq., counsel for the plaintiff that
filed the Massachusetts suit.  "You're talking about $14.95 a
month or $12.95 a month, hoping that consumers just won't
notice."

Dolores Gordon, the plaintiff in the Massachusetts case, claims
that there were six unauthorized charges on her credit card of
$14.95 each after she purchased business cards from VistaPrint
on Sept. 1, 2007.  One unauthorized charge was allegedly from
VistaPrint and five were from Shopping Essentials, a trademark
of Adaptive Marketing.

Ms. Gordon says she canceled her card to stop the charges.  "She
had contacted the defendants many times over the six months
asking them for credit and for them to stop charging her," says
Mr. Noll, whose firm has also filed a lawsuit in Connecticut
against Vertrue.  "They would tell her, 'Yes, of course, we'll
give you the credit, of course we'll stop charging you.' They
never did."

The complaints, all filed in federal courts, allege that the
defendants were in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act (which protects from unauthorized charges) and the federal
Electronic Communications and Privacy Act (which prohibits the
unlawful access of financial information).

VistaPrint could not comment due to pending litigation. Its
press release states, "VistaPrint believes it has meritorious
defenses to these lawsuits and intends to defend these matters
vigorously."

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, VistaPrint Ltd. supplies graphic
design services and customized printed products to small
businesses and consumers.  The Company also offers Internet-
based graphic design software, localized Websites, order
receiving, and processing technologies and advanced computer
integrated printing facilities.


XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported securities fraud class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Xerium Technologies, Inc.

Parkside Capital Ltd. filed the purported class-action complaint
on June 7, 2006, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated against Xerium and Xerium's chief executive officer and
chief financial officer.  The company was served with the
complaint on June 8, 2006.

The complaint concerns the company's initial public offering of
common stock and alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
and liability under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.

The plaintiff seeks rescission rights, attorneys' fees and other
costs and unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock "pursuant and/or
traceable to the company's IPO on or about May 16, 2005 through
Nov, 15, 2005."  The litigation is presently in discovery.

The company reported no new 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 "Parkside Capital Ltd. v. Xerium Technologies Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-10991-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya W. Zobel,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134

Representing the defendants is:

         Seth C. Harrington, Esq.
         (seth.harrington@ropesgray.com)
         Ropes & Gray, LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7226
         Fax: 617-951-7050


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

NATIONAL CITY: Howard Smith Files Securities Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who acquired the common
stock of National City Corporation (NYSE: NCC) pursuant and
traceable to the Company's registration statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with National
City's Corp.'s acquisition of Fidelity Bankshares, Inc., on
January 5, 2007.

The class action lawsuit was filed in the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit for Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning National City Corp.'s financial performance
and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of
National City Corp. stock.

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

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847
          Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


PERINI CORP: Brualdi Files Massachusetts Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
purchasers of Perini Corp. common stock during the period
between November 2, 2006, and January 17, 2008, for violations
of the federal securities laws.

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

     -- that the developer of Perini's Las Vegas, Nevada
        projects, including the CityCenter Project, had failed
        to secure financing for the entire project and was
        dependent upon raising the remainder of the financing
        from the expected sale of units at unrealistic and
        aggressive prices at a time when the condominium market
        in Las Vegas, Nevada was extremely weak, placing the
        developer at greater risk of defaulting on its
        construction loan; and

     -- that the Company's future profit was dependent upon the
        Las Vegas projects (constituting approximately 20% of
        backlog) and its ability to maintain its profit margins
        was in serious doubt.

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

For more information, contact:

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





                            *********

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  * * *