CAR_Public/080902.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 2, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 174

                            Headlines

AES CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Lawsuit
AMERICAN CENTURY: Sued in California Over Illegal Gambling
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Faces La. Lawsuits Over July 23 Oil Spill
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Subsidiary Spin-Off Suit Dismissal Confirmed
AMERICAN MEDICAL: "Overbilling" Suit Still Pending in Washington

FASTENAL COMPANY: Reaches Preliminary Agreement to Settle Suit
FIFTH THIRD: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ohio Court
FIFTH THIRD: Payment Card Interchange Fee Suit Pending in N.Y.
FIFTH THIRD: First Circuit Yet to Rule in TJX Lawsuit Appeal
HITACHI LTD: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over HD Television Defects

HOPITAL HONORE: C. Difficile Victims' Family Launch $10MM Suit
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Miller" Lawsuit
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Agrees to Settle Derivative Suit in Tenn.
KLA-TENCOR: September Hearing Set for $65MM Securities Suit Deal
KLA-TENCOR: Wants "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" Lawsuit Thrown Out

KLA-TENCOR CORP: Wants Class Claim in Derivative Suit Dismissed
LAWNMOWER MAKERS: Face South Dakota Suit Over Mowers' Horsepower
MCKESSON CORP: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Price-Fixing Suit
MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Prepare for $12BB RICO Trial in Dec.
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: New York Court Approves $9M Suit Settlement

PAYPAL INC: E-mails Sent in Consumer Protection Programs Suit
R&G FINANCIAL: Amended Allocation Plan in Securities Suit Filed
ROCKWOOL: Caused Rise in Brain Cancer Cases, N.Y. Suit Claims
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Faces Ill. Suit Over Prescription Drug "Ketek"
SCOR HOLDING: Reaches 2 Proposed Settlements in Securities Case

SPARKLETTS WATER: Charges for Undelivered Goods, Suit Claims
SYSTEMAX INC: N.Y. Transfers "Vukson" Lawsuit to Florida Court
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Faces Lawsuits Over HP Labels in Lawnmowers
WMG ACQUISITION: N.Y. Court Considers Dismissal of Pricing Suit

* Victims of Illegal Rallies in Korea May Demand Compensation

* Susman Godfrey Wins 3 Cases In One Day in Tex. Supreme Court


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CHINA SHENGHOU: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
GT SOLAR: Nixon Raiche Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.H.
PERINI CORP: Izard Nobel Commences Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
SIGNALIFE INC: Vianale Files South Carolina Securities Lawsuit



                           *********


AES CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class-action suit "Comer, et al.
v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.," which names AES Corp. as a
defendant, are appealing the dismissal of their case to the the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In April 2006, a putative class-action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
on behalf of certain individual plaintiffs and all residents and
property owners in the State of Mississippi who allegedly
suffered harm as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and against the
company and numerous unrelated companies, whose alleged
greenhouse gas emissions allegedly increased the destructive
capacity of Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs assert unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy/aiding
and abetting, public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence,
and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment claims against
the defendants.  They seek damages relating to loss of property,
loss of business, clean-up costs, personal injuries and death,
but do not quantify their alleged damages.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the court dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs
have filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, 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 30, 2008.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          F. Gerald Maples, Esq. (federal@geraldmaples.com)
          Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
          (mmayberry@geraldmaples.com)
          F. Gerald Maples, PA
          902 Julia Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Phone: 504-569-8732

              - and -

          Randall Allan Smith, Esq. (rasmith3@bellsouth.net)
          Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. (smwiles@smithfawer.com)
          Smith & Fawer
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-525-2200
          Fax: 504-525-2205


AMERICAN CENTURY: Sued in California Over Illegal Gambling
----------------------------------------------------------
American Century Cos. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging it blew investors' money by putting it into
illegal gambling operations that were busted in the summer of
2006, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The named defendants in the complaint are:

     -- American Century Companies Inc.,
     -- American Century Investment Management Inc.,
     -- James Stowers Jr.,
     -- Jonathan Thomas,
     -- Thomas Brown,
     -- Andrea Hall,
     -- Donald Pratt,
     -- Gale A. Sayers,
     -- M. Jeannine Strandjord,
     -- Timothy Webster,
     -- William Lyons,
     -- Mark Mallon,
     -- Wade Slome,
     -- Bruce Wimberly,
     -- Jerry Sullivan, and
     -- American Century Mutual Funds Inc. -- d/b/a American
        Century Ultra Fund, nominal defendant.

The complaint states that Kansas City, Mo.-based American
Century allegedly put money invested in its Ultra Fund into
"entities whose primary business constituted illegal gambling."

These unlawful investments, the suit says, suffered significant
losses when the government began arresting principles of the
gambling enterprises during a law enforcement crackdown
beginning in the summer 2003.

The complaint does not state how much of the plaintiff's money
the defendants lost in the alleged gambling operations.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) defendants' acts and conduct as alleged violated RICO;

     (b) defendants breached their fiduciary and other duties to
         plaintiff;

     (c) defendants committed negligence;

     (d) defendants' wrongful conduct proximately caused injury
         to plaintiff; and

     (e) defendants are required to forfeit all fees,
         commissions or other profits received from the time
         that they first violated their fiduciary duties to
         plaintiff.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- compensatory damages for individual shareholders
        representing the reduction in value of their investments
        resulting from defendants' wrongful conduct;

     -- compensatory damages for the Ultra Fund representing the
        reduction in value of its investments resulting from
        defendants' wrongful conduct;

     -- forfeiture and disgorgement of any commissions, fees or
        profits received by defendants from the time of their
        first wrongful conduct;

     -- treble damages;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- recovery of plaintiff's attorneys' fees, expert witness
        fees, and costs and disbursements of suit;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and

     -- such other and further relief to which plaintiff is
        deemed entitled by the court and/or the jury.

The suit "Laura Seidl, et al. v. American Century Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. CV 08 4117," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Crystal G. Howard, Esq. (choward@simmonscooper.com)
          John Bruegger, Esq. (jbruegger@simmonscooper.com)
          SimmonsCooper LLC
          100 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1350
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: 310-322-3555
          Fax: 310-322-3655


AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Faces La. Lawsuits Over July 23 Oil Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Commercial Lines, Inc., is facing several purported
class-action lawsuits over an incident at the Mississippi River
that resulted in an oil discharge, 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 30,
2008.

The company has been notified that it has been named as a
defendant in the following class action lawsuits, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana against the company and American Commercial Lines LLC
(ACLLLC), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the company:

       * "Austin Sicard et al. on behalf of themselves and
         others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime
         (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D.
         Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc.
         and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots
         Association, Case No. 08-4012," filed on July 24,
         2008;

       * "Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on
         behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs.
         Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co.
         Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American
         Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge
         Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007," filed
         on July 24, 2008;

       * "George C. McGee, and Sherral Irvin, and all others
         similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.,
         Whitefin Shipping Co., Ltd., DRD Towing Co, LLC,
         American Commercial Lines, LLC and New Orleans Baton
         Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4025,"
         filed on July 25, 2008;

       * "Bernadette Glover, on behalf of herself and all
         others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime
         (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, DRD
         Towing Company, LLC, and American Commercial Lines,
         Inc., Case No. 08-4031," filed on July 25, 2008;

       * "James Roussell, Daniel Hingle, and Prince Seals on
         behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
         vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping
         Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American
         Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge
         Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4058," filed
         on July 29, 2008;

       * "James Joseph, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.,
         Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company,
         LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New
         Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case
         No. 08-4059," filed on July 29, 2008;

       * "Jefferson Magee and Acy J. Cooper, Jr. vs. American
         Commercial Lines, Inc., DRD Towing Co., LLC, M/V Mel
         Oliver in rem, M/V Tintomara in rem, Whitefin Shipping
         Co. Ltd. and Laurin Maritime AB, Case No. 08-4055,"
         filed on July 29, 2008; and

       * "Vincent Grillo and Anthony Buffinet vs. American
         Commercial Lines, Inc., DRD Towing Co., LLC, M/V Mel
         Oliver in rem, M/V Tintomara in rem, Whitefin Shipping
         Co. Ltd. and Laurin Maritime AB, Case No. 08-4060,"
         filed on July 29, 2008.

These claims stem from the incident on July 23, 2008, involving
one of ACLLLC's tank barges that was being towed by DRD Towing
Company, L.L.C., an independent towing contractor.

The tank barge was involved in a collision with the motor vessel
Tintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the
Mississippi River in the New Orleans area.  It was carrying
approximately 9,900 barrels of # 6 oil.  The tank barge was
damaged in the collision and partially sunk, while there was no
damage to the towboat.  There were no injuries reported to the
crews of either vessel in the incident.

The Timtomara incurred minor damage.  The amount of oil
discharged from the barge is unknown at this time.

The actions include various allegations of adverse health and
psychological damages, destruction and loss of use of natural
resources, and seek unspecified economic and compensatory
damages for claims of negligence, strict liability, trespass,
nuisance, and claims under Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

American Commercial Lines, Inc. -- http://www.aclines.com/-- is
a marine transportation and service company.  ACL provides barge
transportation and related services, and manufactures barges,
towboats and other vessels, including ocean-going liquid tank
barges.  Barge transportation accounts for the majority of the
Company's revenues, and includes the movement of grain, coal,
steel, liquids and other bulk products in the U.S.  ACL operates
in two primary business segments: transportation and
manufacturing. ACL's transportation segment includes barge
transportation operations in North America, and domestic
fleeting facilities that provide fleeting, shifting, cleaning
and repair services at various locations along the inland
waterways.  The manufacturing segment constructs marine
equipment for external customers, as well as for the company's
transportation segment.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Subsidiary Spin-Off Suit Dismissal Confirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joan N. Ericksen of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota confirmed the dismissal of a class action
complaint against American Express' February 2005 spin-off of
its subsidiary, American Express Financial Advisors, and
American Express Financial Advisors' adoption of the Ameriprise
brand, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a putative class action brought by Judith Klosek and
Linda Davenport against:

     -- The American Express Company,
     -- Ameriprise Financial, Inc., and
     -- Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.

The case arises out of The American Express Company's decision
in February 2005 to spin off its subsidiary, American
Express Financial Advisors, and American Express Financial
Advisors' subsequent adoption of the Ameriprise brand.

The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations
of the Minnesota Franchise Act, and tortious interference with
contract.  The defendants moved to dismiss.

In a Report and Recommendation dated June 3, 2008, the Honorable
Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended
that the defendants' motions to dismiss be granted.

The plaintiffs objected, and the defendants responded.  The
Court has conducted a de novo review of the record.

According to CourtHouse, the plaintiffs begin their objections
by arguing that the magistrate judge fundamentally misunderstood
their claims.  They assert that the magistrate judge
misconstrued their claims as premised on an assertion that
Defendants could never replace the American Express brand with
another.

The plaintiffs expressly disclaim this assertion: "To be clear:
Plaintiffs do not dispute that American Express Financial
Advisors . . . retained the right to substitute the American
Express brand," according to the report.  The plaintiffs instead
maintain that their claims are premised on the contention that
any brand substitution required that the new brand be well-
recognized.

The Court rejects the plaintiffs' assertion that the magistrate
judge misunderstood their claims.  The magistrate judge
repeatedly acknowledged the plaintiffs' contention that
Ameriprise Financial Services breached its obligation to provide
a well-recognized brand and ultimately concluded that the
franchise agreements unambiguously indicate that Ameriprise
Financial Services had no obligation to supply a well-recognized
brand.

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court
overrules the plaintiffs' objections.

The Court adopts the recommendation to dismiss this case and
ordered that:

     1. defendants' motions to dismiss [Docket Nos. 11, 13, 20,
        21] are granted;

     2. to the extent the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment
        regarding the covenants not to compete in their
        franchise agreements, the case is dismissed without
        prejudice; and

     3. all other claims in the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
        are dismissed with prejudice.

The suit is "Judith Klosek, et al. v. The American Express
Company, et al., Civil No. 08-426 (JNE/JJG)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: "Overbilling" Suit Still Pending in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Response, a unit of Emergency Medical Services
L.P., continues to face a purported class action lawsuit in
Washington for allegedly overbilling patients.

On Dec. 13, 2005, a lawsuit purporting to be a class action was
commenced against AMR in Washington State Court, Spokane County
(Class Action Reporter, March 5, 2008).

The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third-party
payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at a
higher level than contractually permitted.  It also alleges that
the company engaged in an ongoing practice of overcharging
patients under a contract sanctioned and monitored by city
government (Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2007).

The suit specifically alleges that patients picked up within the
city of Spokane are billed for more-expensive "advanced life
support" services when they only need cheaper "basic life
support".  The ALS base rate is $480, compared with the BLS rate
of $348.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Spokane residents Lori E.
Davis-Bacon and Lorraine and Doug Bacon.  It was certified as a
class action in June 2006.

However, the size and membership of the class has not yet been
determined, 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.  The company also reported no
further development in the matter in its regulatory filing.

For more details, contact:

          D. Roger Reed, Esq. (drreed@reedgiesa.com)
          Reed & Giesa, P.S.
          222 North Wall, Suite 410
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Phone: 509-838-8341
          Fax: 509-838-6341

               - and -

          Paul J. Dayton, Esq.
          Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC
          Wells Fargo Center
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
          Seattle, WA 98104-4088
          Phone: 206-682-3333
          Fax: 206-340-8856


FASTENAL COMPANY: Reaches Preliminary Agreement to Settle Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fastenal Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle a
purported class action lawsuit relating to the classification of
its assistant general managers as exempt for purposes of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
California, Oregon, and Pennsylvania state statutes.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Oct. 18, 2007, against
Fastenal Co. on behalf of two former employees claiming to
represent all those employed in the store position of Assistant
General Manager in the U.S. within three years prior to the
filing date (four years for California employees) (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 26, 2008).

The suit alleges that Fastenal misclassified its Assistant
General Managers as exempt for purposes of the overtime
provisions of the FLSA and California and Pennsylvania state
statutes.  It also alleges that Assistant General Managers in
California did not receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest
periods under the California Labor Code.

The complaint seeks overtime pay, meal and rest period
penalties, liquidated damages, restitution, attorneys' fees,
costs and interest.  It also seeks class-action status.

The suit is "Calhoun et al. v. Fastenal Company, Case No.
3:2007cv05326," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn H. Patel
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq. (helland@nka.com)
          Nichols Kaster & Anderson, LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-277-7235
          Fax: 415-277-7238

Representing the defendants is:

          Leslie Erin Wallis, Esq.
          (leslie.wallis@ogletreedeakins.com)
          Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
          633 West Fifth Street, 53rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800


FIFTH THIRD: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ohio Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp is facing two purported securities fraud
class-action suits before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, according to its Aug. 7, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The two putative class-action complaints were filed in June and
July 2008 against the Bancorp and its chief executive officer,
among other parties, alleging violations of federal securities
laws related to disclosures made by Bancorp in press releases
and filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding its quality and sufficiency of capital, credit losses
and related matters.

The suit is seeking unquantified damages on behalf of putative
classes of persons who purchased the Bancorp's securities,
interest, attorney and expert fees and other costs and
litigation expenses.

Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp
operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers,
including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside
select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines
in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri.  The
Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial
Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors
and Fifth Third Processing Solutions.


FIFTH THIRD: Payment Card Interchange Fee Suit Pending in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp continues to face a consolidated antitrust
class-action suit, captioned "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee
and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No.
1:05-md-01720-JG-JO," which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On April 26, 2006, the company was added as a defendant in the
consolidated lawsuit, which was originally filed against Visa,
MasterCard, and several other major financial institutions.

The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses
throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the
interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable
and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

Fifth Third reported no new development in the matter 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 "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-
JG-JO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Judge John Gleeson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

               - and -

          Jason S. Cowart, Esq. (jasoncowart@yahoo.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665

Representing the company is:

          Patrick F. Fischer, Esq. (pfischer@kmklaw.com)
          Keating Muething & Klekamp
          One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-579-6400
          Fax: 513-579-6457


FIFTH THIRD: First Circuit Yet to Rule in TJX Lawsuit Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has yet to rule
on the defendants' appeal of a series of rulings entered by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in the
consolidated cases brought by financial institutions that now
fall under the caption "In Re TJX Security Breach Litigation,"
which names Fifth Third Bancorp as one of the defendants.

Fifth Third was the transaction processor for the TJX companies,
and therefore responsible for ensuring security of the card
information, the explains.

Initially, several putative class-action complaints were filed
against the company in various federal and state courts.  The
federal cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation and are now known as "In Re TJX
Security Breach Litigation."  The state court actions have been
removed to federal court and have been consolidated into that
same case.

The complaints relate to the alleged intrusion of The TJX
Companies, Inc.'s computer system and the potential theft of the
customers' non-public information and alleged violations of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Some of the complaints were filed by consumers and seek
unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons
who transacted business at any one of TJX's stores during the
period of the alleged intrusion.  Another complaint was filed by
financial institutions and seeks unquantified damages on behalf
of other similarly situated entities that suffered losses in
relation to the alleged intrusion.

The U.S. District Court has granted Fifth Third's motion to
dismiss certain of the claims, but additional claims remain
pending.

On Nov. 29, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the consolidated cases brought by
financial institutions.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the District Court entered its final order in
the Financial Institution Track litigation:

       -- denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
          their complaint, without prejudice;

       -- dismissing the case for lack of subject matter
          jurisdiction; and

       -- transferring the case from the U.S District Court to
          the Massachusetts Superior Court in and for the County
          of Middlesex.

TJX Companies then filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit as to that portion of the Court's
order transferring the case to Massachusetts State Court and an
emergency motion to stay the Massachusetts State Court
proceedings pending the appeal.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the First Circuit granted the request for stay
until a further order by the Court.

Fifth Third then filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit
solely as to that portion of the District Court's order
transferring the case to the Massachusetts State Court.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal
in the First Circuit as to the entirety of the District Court's
Dec. 18, 2007 Order and also as to all other prior "adverse
rulings" including, without limitation, the District Court's
denial of class certification and dismissal of various claims.

Both TJX and the Bancorp amended their Notices of Appeal to
likewise appeal all adverse rulings by the District Court.

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

Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp
operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers,
including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside
select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines
in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri.  The
Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial
Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors
and Fifth Third Processing Solutions.


HITACHI LTD: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over HD Television Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Heygood, Orr, Reyes, Pearson & Bartolomei in
Dallas has filed a lawsuit against the American subsidiary of
Japanese consumer electronics giant Hitachi over alleged defects
in the company's high-definition television sets.

According to the lawsuit, tens of thousands of consumers who
bought the high-end TVs may be experiencing the same trouble.

Plaintiff Anthony Partida of Dallas says he and other owners of
Hitachi's 50V500A model LCD rear projection television are
experiencing a design defect that creates green "blobs," red
"blooms," green haze, blue dots, yellow lines and other color
anomalies on their TV screens.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status on behalf of every
owner of the 50V500A model, says the defect makes the
televisions useless for their intended purpose.

In the lawsuit against Hitachi America Ltd., filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
attorneys for Mr. Partida say Hitachi has known of the defect
since early 2005, but the company has continued to sell the
defective sets.  Despite the company's knowledge of the problem,
the lawsuit continues, Hitachi has been unable or unwilling to
develop a solution.

"Hitachi has been more than willing to take people's money for
these TV sets and they should be more than willing to fix them,"
says attorney Eric D. Pearson, Esq., of Heygood, Orr, Reyes,
Pearson & Bartolomei, who represents Mr. Partida in the case.
"In some cases, people paid $3,500 or more for these TVs.  You
can't take that kind of money and deliver a defective product."

Brisbane, Calif.-based Hitachi America is a subsidiary of Tokyo-
based Hitachi, Ltd., a telecommunications, electronics, power
systems, digital media and consumer products giant that employs
more than 400,000 people worldwide.

For more information, contact:

          Mark Annick, Esq.
          Heygood, Orr, Reyes, Pearson & Bartolomei
          2331 W. Northwest Highway, 2nd Floor
          Dallas, TX 75220
          Phone: 800-559-4534
                 214-213-1754 (mobile)


HOPITAL HONORE: C. Difficile Victims' Family Launch $10MM Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Relatives of patients who either got infected or died from C.
difficile diarrhea during an outbreak at a St. Hyacinthe
hospital in 2006 have launched a class action against the local
health authority, seeking up to CDN$10 million in damages, The
Gazette reports.

The Gazette recounts that the outbreak at Hopital Honore Mercier
was one of the worst in Quebec, killing 16 people.  In total, 70
patients picked up a virulent strain of Clostridium difficile
while being treated in the hospital.

"We want to send a strong message that infection-control must be
maintained as a priority by hospitals, administrators and
staff," medical malpractice lawyer Jean-Pierre Menard told a
news conference last week.

Mr. Menard added that the Honore Mercier outbreak is especially
tragic since Quebec had already dealt with C. difficile
outbreaks in 2004-2005, yet the South Shore community hospital
did not appear to have learned from the experience.

According to The Gazette, a coroner's report in 2007 into the
Honore Mercier outbreak blamed shoddy infection control and
hospital cutbacks in maintenance and room cleanliness for
causing the outbreak.  However, the report also noted that the
situation improved following a change in the administration.

The Gazette cites that one of those who died was 60-year-old
Marie-Andree Dorion, who was initially admitted to the hospital
to be treated for diverticulitis -- an inflammation of the part
of the intestine.  However, while she was in the hospital, Ms.
Dorion contracted C. difficile and died following an emergency
operation to remove her colon.

Ms. Dorion's sister, Sylvie Dorion, said that almost two years
after, she is still furious over what happened.  Sylvie said
that her family had been kept in the dark by the hospital when
her sister contracted C. difficile colitis.  "The hospital has
never apologized to my family over this," she added.

Mr. Menard has filed a request in Quebec Superior Court for
authorization to file a class action.

According to the report, officials at the Centre de sante et des
services sociaux Richelieu Yamaska -- which runs Honore Mericer
-- refused to give a comment on the court action.  However,
hospital officials have said in the past that they did
everything possible to contain the outbreak and had been dealing
with a particularly virulent strain of spore-forming bacterium.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Miller" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter, "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming Inc., et
al.," which names International Game Technology, Inc., as
defendant, have entered into a stipulation that dismisses the
lawsuit, 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 complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their
fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the
approval of the merger transaction between Acres Gaming and
International Game and sought to enjoin and void the merger
agreement among other forms of relief (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 12, 2008).

The other defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Floyd W. Glisson,
     -- Todd L. Bice,
     -- Roger B. Hammock,
     -- Richard Furash,
     -- David R. Willensky,
     -- Robert W. Brown, and
     -- Ronald G. Bennett.

On Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order to prevent Acres stockholders from
voting on the merger.  The plaintiff then requested the Nevada
Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the TRO and to enjoin
Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the merger.  The
Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition.

In November 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to
recover damages.  The defendants then pointed to the amended
complaint's failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.  Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint on Sept. 9, 2004.

On April 7, 2006, the defendants filed a Notice of Removal to
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  The plaintiff
filed a motion to remand the action to state court, which was
granted by order dated Aug. 15, 2006.  Thus, on Nov. 30, 2006,
the case was transferred to business court and discovery
continues.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Oct. 5,
2007, which request was later denied.  The plaintiff then filed
a petition for Writ of Mandamus, or in the alternative,
prohibition seeking to have the Nevada Supreme Court vacate the
District Court's order denying class certification.

On May 9, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's
petition.

In August 2008, the parties to the action entered into a
Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice as to All Parties.

The suit is "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al., Case No.
P03-A-470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District Court,
Judge Michelle Leavitt, presiding.

Representing the defendants are:

         Paul R. Hejmanowski, Esq.
         (phejmanowski@lionelsawyer.com)
         Lionel Sawyer & Collins
         1700 Bank America Plaza
         300 S. Fourth Street
         Las Vegas, NV 89101
         Phone: 702-383-8880
         Fax: 702-383-8845


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Agrees to Settle Derivative Suit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2008, King Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NYSE:KG) entered
into a settlement with shareholders to settle a shareholder
derivative lawsuit, that was pending in Chancery Court for
Sullivan County at Bristol, Tennessee and accused the company ,
among other things, of breaching its fiduciary duty by certain
former officers and certain current and former directors by
underpaying commitments to Medicaid.

Beginning in March 2003, four purported shareholder derivative
complaints were filed in Tennessee State Court alleging a breach
of fiduciary duty by some of the Company’s current and former
officers and directors (Corporate Litigation Reporter, Sept. 13,
2007).

In June 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint,
seeking to name as defendants additional current and former
officers and directors and the Company’s independent auditors
and to add additional claims.

Under the settlement King Pharmaceuticals Inc agreed to make
changes to its corporate governance, including changes to its
internal auditing procedures that would create separate
positions for both the chairman and CEO, new accounting
policies, and duties for various committees on the board of
directors, and to pay $13.5 million plus escrow account interest
for counsel for the plaintiffs as full and complete compensation
for all their services in the action.

According to an Aug. 27, 2008 filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, this amount will be paid on the
Company's behalf by its insurance carriers. The settlement is
subject to court approval.

According to a press release dated from August 7, 2006, King
Pharmaceuticals Inc. had already paid $38.25 million in the
class-action lawsuit settlement.

Bristol, Tenn.-based King Pharmaceutical Inc. makes branded
pharmaceuticals, including cardiovascular, critical care, and
neuroscience products. Among the Company's most popular drugs
are cardiovascular treatment Altace and Levoxyl, a thyroid
disorder drug. The firm contracts its excess manufacturing
capabilities to outside pharmaceutical companies.


KLA-TENCOR: September Hearing Set for $65MM Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative September 2008 hearing is set to consider final
approval of a $65-million settlement in the matter, "In re KLA-
Tencor Corp. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04065," which was
filed against KLA-Tencor Corp., according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

KLA-Tencor and various current and former directors and officers
of the company were named as defendants in a putative securities
class-action suit filed on June 29, 2006, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  Two similar
complaints were filed later in the same court, and these were
subsequently consolidated with the first action.

The consolidated complaint alleges claims under Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 14(a), Section 20(a), and
Section 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a
result of the company's past stock option grants and related
accounting and reporting.  The suit seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of
purchasers of the company's stock between June 30, 2001, and
May 22, 2006, who allegedly suffered losses as a result of
material misrepresentations in the company's SEC filings and
public statements during that period.

The lead plaintiffs, who seek to represent the class, are:

   * the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
     Detroit,

   * the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
     System, and

   * the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement.

Aside from the company, other defendants named in the suit are:

   -- Edward W. Barnholt,
   -- H. Raymond Bingham,
   -- Robert T. Bond,
   -- Gary E. Dickerson,
   -- Richard J. Elkus, Jr.,
   -- Jeffrey L. Hall,
   -- Stephen P. Kaufman,
   -- John H. Kispert,
   -- Kenneth Levy,
   -- Michael E. Marks,
   -- Stuart J. Nichols,
   -- Kenneth L. Schroeder,
   -- Jon D. Tompkins,
   -- Lida Urbanek, and
   -- Richard P. Wallace.

This litigation is at an early stage.  Discovery has not
commenced, and the court has not yet determined whether the
plaintiffs may sue on behalf of any class of purchasers.

The company and all other defendants filed motions to dismiss
the case in June 2007.  However, the dismissal motions have been
taken off calendar and stayed due to the agreement between the
parties to resolve the suit.

On June 5, 2008, the court granted preliminary approval to the
parties' settlement deal.  Under the terms of the settlement,
the company will be required to make a payment of $65 million to
the settlement class.

The settlement, which is subject to final court approval at a
hearing now scheduled to occur in September 2008, provides for
the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a full
release of KLA-Tencor and the other named defendants in
connection with the allegations raised by the plaintiffs and all
members of the settlement class.

The suit is "In re KLA-Tencor Corp. Securities Litigation, No.
C06-04065," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert S. Green, Esq. (rsg@classcounsel.com)
         Green Welling LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2750
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710

              - and -

         Lesley Ann Hale, Esq. (lhale@bermanesq.com)
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         425 California Street, Suite 2100
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-433-3200
         Fax: 415-433-6382

Representing the defendants is:

         Benjamin P. Smith, Esq. (bpsmith@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         One Market, Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-442-1000
         Fax: 415-442-1001


KLA-TENCOR: Wants "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" Lawsuit Thrown Out
---------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a purported class-
action suit -- "Crimi v. Barnholt et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-
02249-CRB" -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The plaintiff, Chris Crimi, filed the putative class-action
complaint on Sept. 4, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Santa Clara against the company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of persons
who held KLA-Tencor common stock between Sept. 20, 2002, and
Sept. 27, 2006.

The suit alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty
and rescission based on alleged misstatements and omissions in
the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission concerning the company's past stock option grants.
It seeks unspecified damages based upon purported dilution of
the company's stock, injunctive relief, and rescission.

Aside from the company, the defendants named in the suit are:

   -- Edward W. Barnholt,
   -- H. Raymond Bingham,
   -- Robert T. Bond,
   -- Richard J. Elkus, Jr.,
   -- Stephen P. Kaufman,
   -- Kenneth Levy,
   -- Michael E. Marks,
   -- Dean O. Morton,
   -- Kenneth L. Schroeder,
   -- Jon D. Tompkins, and
   -- Richard P. Wallace.

The company filed a motion to stay the case pending the
resolution of other option-related litigation, as well as a
demurrer asking the court to dismiss the case on the ground that
the claims have no merit.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court sustained the company's demurrer and
granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.  The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint reasserting his original
claims and adding a claim under section 1507 of the California
Corporations Code on April 1, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the company removed the suit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, and
again filed a motion to dismiss the action.

The plaintiff has again amended his complaint, and the company
expects to file a further motion to dismiss, to be heard in
September 2008, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Crimi v. Barnholt et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-02249-
CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. (mweiler@morganlewis.com)
          Attorney at Law
          One Market, Spear Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
          Phone: 415-442-1000
          Fax: 415-442-1001


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Wants Class Claim in Derivative Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a class-action
claim filed in a derivative lawsuit that remains pending in the
Delaware Chancery Court.

As part of the derivative lawsuit, which was filed on July 21,
2006, a plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder
recently asserted a separate putative class action claim against
the company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers alleging that shareholders incurred damage due to
purported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting from
historical stock option granting practices.

The company has moved to dismiss this claim, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

KLA-Tencor Corp. -- http://www.kla-tencor.com/-- is a supplier
of process control and yield management solutions, for the
semiconductor and related microelectronics industries.


LAWNMOWER MAKERS: Face South Dakota Suit Over Mowers' Horsepower
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Aug. 20, 2008, that a
class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey charging that
manufacturers of lawnmowers have purposely misstated
horsepower valuations on their products in order to justify
higher prices.

Josh Verges, of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, writes that
another suit against the same defendants has been filed by three
South Dakota residents.

Argus Leader relates that the suit, filed in the U.S. District
Court, alleges that the leading lawnmower makers have conspired
to lie about the amount of power in their engines.
Specifically, the suit targets:

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

The report notes that plaintiffs Mike Kaitfors of Spearfish and
Doug Eidahl of Mitchell allege an ongoing conspiracy to mislead
the public and conceal the true horsepower of their mowers.
They claim that more expensive mowers with higher horsepower
ratings actually contain identical engines as cheaper mowers.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs say the horsepower ratings reported
to the government under the Clean Air Act are far different from
that advertised to consumers.

"The true horsepower of Defendants' engines is significantly
less than the horsepower represented by Defendants in
advertising, marketing and selling their lawn mowers and lawn
mower engines to the public," the complaint states.

Messrs. Kaitfors and Eidahl seek to represent all South Dakotans
who have purchased a gas-powered lawn mower up to 30 horsepower
from one of the defendants since 1994.

The suit says that more than $5 million is at stake if the class
action is certified, the report notes.


MCKESSON CORP: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Price-Fixing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patti B. Saris dismissed a potential class-action lawsuit
against McKesson Corp. that alleged the drug distributor engaged
in unlawful price fixing, CNNMoney.com reports.

According to CNN Money, Judge Saris granted the company's motion
to dismiss the case, saying the plaintiffs, led by the New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, failed to show that
competition was hurt by a "conspiracy to increase prices."

The report recounts that the suit alleged that McKesson
collaborated with First DataBank, a publishing unit of Hearst
Corp., to inflate drug prices through lists of so-called average
wholesale prices for brand-name drugs.

                        Case Background

The suit, entitled "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund
et al. v. McKesson Corporation, Case No. 1:07-cv-12277," was
filed on December 10, 2007.

In this proposed national class action, the plaintiffs alleged
that McKesson, a drug wholesaler, engaged in unlawful price-
fixing by entering into an agreement with First DataBank, a
publishing company, to inflate the average wholesale price for
numerous prescription pharmaceuticals beginning in late 2001.
The plaintiffs alleged that McKesson's price-fixing scheme
violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state
antitrust laws.  The proposed class includes third-party payors
and consumers that paid for the drugs.

The allegations in this complaint are based on the same set
of operative facts as alleged in the plaintiffs' civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) suit,
captioned "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First
DataBank, Inc., 1:05-cv-11148."

McKesson moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the
plaintiffs failed to allege any anti-competitive effects from
the conspiracy to increase prices.  This motion was granted by
Judge Saris.

The case is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al.
v. McKesson Corporation, Case No. 1:07-cv-12277," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston), Judge Patti B. Saris, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edward Notargiacomo, Esq.
          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. (Tom@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          One Main Street, 4th Floor
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Phone: 617-374-3738
                 617-482-3700
          Fax: 617-374-3003
               617-482-3003

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Avenue
          Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101-1090
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594

Representing the defendants are:

          James P. Bennett, Esq. (jbennett@mofo.com)
          Lori A. Schechter, Esq. (lschechter@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94107-2406
          Phone: 415-268-7000
          Fax: 415-268-7522


MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Prepare for $12BB RICO Trial in Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing consumers in a case accusing McKesson
Corp. (NYSE: MCK) of illegally rigging the price of virtually
every prescription drug have crossed the final procedural
hurdles and are now preparing for a trial set for December 1 in
U.S. District Court in Boston.

Steve W. Berman, Esq., filed the suit in 2006 on behalf of
third-party payers and consumers, claiming that McKesson engaged
in a scheme to fraudulently inflate the price of more than 400
prescription drugs, including blockbusters such as Prozac,
Lipitor, Zocor, Vioxx and more.

On March 18, 2008, Judge Patti Saris for a second time rejected
McKesson's motions to dismiss the case, citing the strength of
the evidence, which includes volumes of e-mail exchanges by
McKesson executives discussing the price-fixing scheme.  The
plaintiffs in the case peg the damages at $4 billion, which puts
McKesson at risk of a $12-billion judgment with the tripling of
damages allowed by the RICO statute under which the suits were
filed.

RICO -- the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
-- allows for civil action against those believed to participate
in conspiracies to commit crimes or illegally reap profits.  The
law calls for the disgorgement of ill-gotten profits and the
tripling of damages.

Judge Saris earlier this week dismissed a related case charging
the drug giant of antitrust violations.  This related case is
captioned "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al.
v. McKesson Corporation, Case No. 1:07-cv-12277."

"We believe the antitrust laws were intended to address the sort
of disingenuous behavior McKesson exhibited, but we recognize
that the allegations presented a context not directly addressed
by prior case-law," Mr. Berman said.  "We understand and
appreciate Judge Saris' ruling, and are eager to move forward
with the strongest case -- the RICO charges."

The case represents two classes:

   i. consumer purchasers, which includes anyone who made a co-
      payment for prescription medication from August 1, 2001,
      through May 15, 2005; and

  ii. all third-party payers that made a payment or
      reimbursement based on the inflated average wholesale
      price (AWP) during the class period.

The suit claims McKesson and First DataBank, a publishing
company, reached a secret agreement on how the average wholesale
price would be set for brand-name drugs and, in doing so, raised
the spread between the published AWP and the actual acquisition
costs from 20 to 25 percent in an effort to increase profits.

According to documents cited in the case, McKesson communicated
the price increase to First DataBank, who published the
information, even amid questions by manufacturers who recognized
the impact to consumers and third-party payers.  McKesson did so
to raise the profits for its large clients like Rite Aid and
Walgreen's.

Earlier this year, First DataBank settled with plaintiffs,
leaving McKesson as the sole defendant.  As reported in the
Class Action Reporter on July 15, 2008, First DataBank has
agreed to pay $1 million to settle the purported class action
lawsuit.

For more information on this case and to sign up as a consumer
or third-party payer you can visit the Hagens Berman Web site
at: http://www.hbsslaw.com/

The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al.
v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Patti B. Saris, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         George E. Barrett, Esq. (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com)
         Barret Johnston & Parsley
         217 Second Avenue, N.
         Nashville, TN 37201-1601
         Phone: 615-244-2202

              - and -

         Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101-1090
         Phone: 206-623-7292
         Fax: 206-623-0594

Representing the defendants are:

         Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. (sbirnbaum@skadden.com)
         Thomas E. Fox, Esq. (tfox@skadden.com)
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036-6522
         Phone: 212-735-3000
         Fax: 212-735-2000

              - and -

         James P. Bennett, Esq. (jbennett@mofo.com)
         Christopher E. Babbitt, Esq. (CBabbitt@mofo.com)
         Morrison & Foerster LLP
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94107-2406
         Phone: 415-268-7000
         Fax: 415-268-7522


OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: New York Court Approves $9M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
approved a proposed $9,000,000 settlement in the class-action
suit entitled "In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW," according to OSI
Pharma's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On or about Dec. 16, 2004, several purported shareholder class-
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the company, certain of its
current and former executive officers, and the members of its
board of directors.  These lawsuits were brought on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common
stock during certain periods in 2004.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff who, on Feb. 17, 2006,
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint seeking to
represent a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's common stock during the period from
April 26, 2004, through Nov. 22, 2004.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
material misstatements and omissions concerning the survival
benefit associated with the company's product, Tarceva, and the
size of the potential market of Tarceva upon the Food and Drug
Administration's approval of the drug.  The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

On April 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  The Court then granted in part
and denied in part the dismissal motion.  Specifically, the
Court dismissed claims against some of the individual defendants
and dismissed the Section 11 and 15 claims, but granted the
plaintiff 30 days leave to replead the Section 11 claim in
accordance with the Court's order and to renew the Section 15
claim.

The plaintiff did not amend, and thus those claims were
dismissed with prejudice.

The parties have subsequently reached an agreement to settle the
action for $9.0 million, which deal was approved by the court in
May 2008.  Approximately $500,000 will be paid by the company,
and the balance of the settlement will be paid by its insurer.

The suit is "In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge
Joanna Seybert, with referral to Judge William D. Wall.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173

              - and -

         Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. (frank@spornlaw.com)
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, PC.
         19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 212-964-0046
         Fax: 212-267-8137

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
         Dechert LLP
         Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19104
         Phone: 215-994-4000


PAYPAL INC: E-mails Sent in Consumer Protection Programs Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garden City Group sent an e-mail to certain PayPal users about a
settlement in a class action lawsuit against PayPal filed in
2005, Ina Steiner writes for AuctionBytes Blog.

In March 2005, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in New York
state court on behalf of themselves and the Class.  The lawsuit
alleges claims against PayPal and eBay arising out of
representations contained in certain provisions of the PayPal
User Agreement regarding PayPal's policies and practices for
responding to refund requests (or "Buyer Complaints") from those
customers who pay for transactions through PayPal using funds
from sources other than a credit card.

In particular, the lawsuit alleges that PayPal's policies and
practices constitute deceptive trade practices, fraudulent
inducement and misrepresentations, and breach of the PayPal User
Agreement. The lawsuit also alleges claims against Essex, a
company that sold goods through eBay, arising out of alleged
misrepresentations about Essex's goods and services.

In April 2005, this lawsuit was removed to federal court, where
it is currently pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.  Senior United States District
Court Judge I. Leo Glasser is in charge of this action.

In 2006, PayPal reached a $3.5 million preliminary settlement
agreement with a proposed class of PayPal customers in an action
pending in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn.

Under the terms of the settlement agreements, PayPal did not
admit any liability for any of the allegations in the case.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on November 17, 2008.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objections is on October 31,
2008. Deadline to file claims is on December 14, 2008.

More details regarding the Steele Settlement is found at
http://www.steelesettlement.com/

The suit is "Steele, et al. v. Paypal, Inc., et al., Case
Number: 1:2005cv01720," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Senior-Judge I. Leo Glasser,
presiding, with referral to Magistrate-Judge Viktor V.
Pohorelsky.


R&G FINANCIAL: Amended Allocation Plan in Securities Suit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead counsel in "In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," submitted to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York for its approval an amended plan of allocation for the
$51 million settlement of this action.

The amended plan of allocation now includes specific provisions
for R&G's Noncumulative Perpetual Monthly Income Preferred Stock
-- Series A, B, C and D (the "Preferred Shares"), which, as
publicly-traded securities of R&G during the Class Period, are
part of the Class and Settlement in this action.

                         Case Background

On May 26, 2005, investors sued R&G Financial, claiming that the
financial holding company issued false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public (Class Action Reporter,
March 4, 2008).

The class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York seeking damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
purchased R&G common stock from April 21, 2003, through and
including April 25, 2005.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.

According to the complaint, R&G's financial statements were
materially false and misleading when made because the defendants
failed to disclose:

     -- that the company's earnings quality had been
        significantly weakened by the company's use of more
        aggressive assumptions to generate gain on sale income,
        as well as to the value it retained in its interest only
        residuals in securitization transactions;

     -- that R&G's methodology used to calculate the fair value
        of its IO residual interests was incorrect and caused
        the company to overstate its financial results by at
        least $50 million;

     -- that the company's financial statements were not
        prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
        Accounting Principles;

     -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
        was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
        condition of the company; and

     -- that as a result, the value of the company's net income
        and financial results were materially overstated at all
        relevant times.

On April 25, 2005, after the close of trading, R&G shocked the
investing public when it announced that it would restate its
earnings for 2003 and 2004.

On this news, R&G stock fell $8.14 per share, or 35 percent, to
close at $15.04 on April 26, 2005, a two-year low.

On June 27, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed in court.  Judge John
Sprizzo heard oral arguments on July 25-26, 2005, signed an
order consolidating all related cases into one class action, as
"In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," and appointing lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2006).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Alan Barrack, Esq. (jbarrack@barrack.com)
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          Fax: 215-963-0838

               - and -

          Eric Todd Kanefsky, Esq. (erick@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1467
          Fax: 212-554-1444

Representing the defendants are:

          Maite Aquino, Esq. (aquinom@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-558-4000

               - and -

          Diana L. Weiss, Esq. (dweiss@orrick.com)
          Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
          Columbia Center
          1152 15th Street, N.W.,
          Washington, DC 20005-1706
          Phone: 202-339-8984
          Fax: 202-339-8500


ROCKWOOL: Caused Rise in Brain Cancer Cases, N.Y. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwool Industries is facing a class-action complaint filed in
Clinton County Court (New York) alleging the insulation company,
which has been closed since 1991, caused an increase in brain
cancers and other illnesses, Joe Harris writes for the
CourtHouse News Service.

Also named defendants in the complaint are Susquehanna Corp., of
Delaware, and its parent company, Eteroutremer, of Belgium, as
was a former Rockwool manager.

The plaintiffs claim Rockwool dumped toxic chemicals at or near
the plant from 1974 to 1982 and that Rockwool buried hazardous
waste near the plant and in a local quarry.

The report states that the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency recently told
Cameron residents that soil tests near the plant and quarry
revealed high levels of lead and arsenic, but that the levels
were not high enough to threaten health.

Sixty-eight Cameron residents returned surveys reporting cases
of brain tumors to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior
Services as part of an investigation of whether there was a
cancer cluster in the town, the report says.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Faces Ill. Suit Over Prescription Drug "Ketek"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Aventis is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
alleging it fraudulently promoted its prescription drug Ketek
(telithromycin) for off-label uses and it damaged patients'
livers, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff, Dorothy Ray, brings this class action against
Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., LLC and Sanofi-Aventis, who conspired to
conceal facts and evidence regarding the dangerous side effects
of the prescription drug Ketek by engaging in conduct and
activities for the purpose of concealing, falsifying, endorsing,
and staging clinical studies that would conceal a multitude of
side effects, including severe liver damage and death, in order
to realize billions of dollars in profits from the sale of
KETEK.

The complaint alleges that through a series of fraudulent
schemes the defendants implemented, calculated and engaged in
fraudulent activities in furtherance of their scheme.

The suit says that the defendants unlawfully marketed and
promoted KETEK through its conspiracies, and deliberately
mislead physicians and consumers into believing that KETEK was
safe and effective.  The plaintiff and members of the plaintiff
class suffered injuries resulting from the defendants' illegal
and fraudulent activities.

The plaintiff and the members of the class seek to recover
damages suffered as a result of these schemes under sections
1962(c) and 1962(d) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of
all persons residing in the United States who purchased, were
prescribed and ingested KETEK manufactured by Defendants.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     a. whether defendants' transmission of payments paid to
        physicians, ghost-authors and others to make fraudulent
        statements in furtherance of the scheme to promote KETEK
        constitutes wire fraud;

     b. whether defendants' agreement and activities in
        furtherance of its agreement with members of the KETEK
        Marketing Enterprise in furtherance of the scheme to
        promote KETEK, constitute an "enterprise" as defined in
        18 U.S.C. Section 1961(4) that is engaged in, or the
        activities of which affect, interstate or foreign
        commerce;

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

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

     e. whether defendants have conspired, under 18 U.S.C.
        Section 1962(d), to engage in activities and conduct
        described;

     f. whether defendants concealed adverse information from
        plaintiff and the KETEK Class regarding KETEK;

     g. whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to
        recover compensatory, exemplary, punitive, and other
        damages as a result of defendants' fraudulent and
        unlawful conduct;

     h. what is the proper mechanism for assessing and awarding
        damages and administering relief to class members,
        including the relief to reduce the threat of future harm
        to class members;

     i. whether defendants' conduct in selling and promoting
        and marketing and distributing KETEK fell below
        the duty of care owed by defendants to plaintiff and
        members of the plaintiff class;

     j. whether the defendants negligently, recklessly, or
        intentionally concealed information about the safety of
        KETEK from the plaintiff and plaintiff class, as well as
        their physicians, hospitals, healthcare professionals,
        and the FDA;

     k. whether the defendants under-reported the adverse events
        associated with KETEK;

     l. whether defendants' conduct constitutes fraudulent
        concealment;

     m. whether defendants' conduct constitutes fraudulent
        misrepresentation and fraud;

     n. whether plaintiff class members have sustained
        irreparable harm and whether they are entitled to
        equitable relief including restitution and refund
        and, if so, the nature and extent of such damages;

     o. whether the plaintiff class is entitled to compensatory
        damages and, if so, the nature and extent of such
        damages;

     p. whether defendants are liable for punitive damages and,
        if so, how much is necessary and appropriate to punish
        it for its conduct, deter others and fulfill the
        policies and purposes of punitive and exemplary
        damages;

     q. how any and all punitive and exemplary damages
        awarded to plaintiffs should be equitably allocated
        among the plaintiff and the plaintiff class;

     r. whether the defendants acted to defraud, misrepresent,
        and deceive the plaintiff and the plaintiff class;

     s. whether defendants failed to adequately test its
        products; and

     t. whether the defendants failed to adequately warn of the
        adverse effects of KETEK.

The plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of
the plaintiff and the plaintiff class members and against the
Defendants in the amount provided by law, together with punitive
damages to deter such conduct in the future, plus treble damages
and attorneys fees as provided by the RICO act, and grant such
further relief as may be proper.

The suit is "Dorothy Ray, et al. v. Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., LLC,
et al., Docket No. 3:08-cv-612-DRH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          John J. Driscoll, Esq.
          720 Olive Street, #1800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: 618-444-6049


SCOR HOLDING: Reaches 2 Proposed Settlements in Securities Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class Action "In Re SCOR Holding (Switzerland AG Securities
Litigatio, Case No. 04 Civ. 7897 (DLC)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York has been
certified as a class action and that the Lead Plaintiff has
reached two proposed settlements to resolve all claims in the
action.

One settlement is with SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG, formerly
known as Converium Holding AG, and the named individual officer
defendants for $75,000,000 in cash.

The other settlement is with Zurich Financial Services ("ZFS")
for $9,600,000 in cash.

The certified Class has been defined to include:

     (i) all persons and entities who purchased Converium
         American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the Class
         Period and

    (ii) all persons and entities who, during the Class Period,
         were U.S. residents and purchased Converium Common
         Stock on the SWX Swiss Exchange during the Class
         Period.

A hearing will be held on December 12, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. at the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on November 24,
2008.

For more information, contact:

          Steven B. Singer, Esq. (blbg@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019


SPARKLETTS WATER: Charges for Undelivered Goods, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Sparkletts Water, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed
in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging it delivers goods
customers didn't order and don't want and charges for it,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Sparkletts Water, Inc. is one of the country's finest providers
of pure, refreshing bottled water.  It is also the official
bottled water of many well-known theme parks, attractions and
professional team sponsorships across Southern California.


SYSTEMAX INC: N.Y. Transfers "Vukson" Lawsuit to Florida Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
granted a motion that seeks to transfer the purported class-
action suit "Vukson v. TigerDirect, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:2007-cv-04353," which names Systemax Inc. and two subsidiaries
-- TigerDirect and OnRebate -- as defendants, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On Oct. 18, 2007, Kevin Vukson filed a class action complaint
against TigerDirect, Inc., OnRebate.com Inc. and Systemax Inc.
on behalf of himself and all OnRebate customers whose rebates
were denied or delayed.  OnRebate.com Inc. is a rebate
processing company owned by Systemax.

Mr. Vukson's complaint alleges that since 2004, Systemax,
TigerDirect, and OnRebate have conducted a deceptive and
unlawful enterprise by failing to pay rebates that should have
been paid and delaying unnecessarily the payment of other
rebates that were paid.

Mr. Vukson alleges claims arising under Florida's Unfair,
Deceptive Trade Practice Act, the federal Racketeering
Influenced Corrupt Organizations statute, along with claims for
breach of contract, conspiracy to commit fraud and unjust
enrichment.

Systemax, TigerDirect and OnRebate have moved to dismiss the
complaint and moved to transfer the matter to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The court has ruled in favor of Systemax with respect to the
motion to transfer the complaint to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.  However, the court has not
ruled on the motion to dismiss, 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.

The suit is "Vukson v. TigerDirect, Inc. et al., Case No 2:2007-
cv-04353," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Judge Arthur D. Spatt, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Theodore Michael Eder, Esq. (teder@smsm.com)
          Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney
          805 Third Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-912-3661
          Fax: 212-912-3667

Representing the defendants is:

          William Francis Hamilton, Esq.
          (william.hamilton@hklaw.com)
          Holland & Knight LLP
          Suite 4100, 100 N. Tampa Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-227-6480
          Fax: 813-229-0134


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Faces Lawsuits Over HP Labels in Lawnmowers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products, Inc., continues to face several purported
class-action suits over the printing of inaccurate horsepower
labels on certain of its lawnmowers, 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.

                      Original Litigation

A nationwide class-action lawsuit filed against the company and
other defendants alleged that the horsepower labels on the
products the plaintiffs purchased, which included products
manufactured by the company's former Engine & Power Train
business, were inaccurate (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14,
2008).

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class of all persons in
the U.S. who, beginning Jan. 1, 1995, through the present,
purchased a lawnmower containing a two-stroke or four-stroke gas
combustible engine up to 20 horsepower that was manufactured by
defendants.

In April of 2008, the court issued a written opinion dismissing
the complaint, but subject to the ability to re-plead certain
claims.

                         New Litigation

In July, 2008, the plaintiffs re-filed a class action complaint
in Illinois and have filed new class action complaints in
federal courts in New Jersey and California asserting claims on
behalf of consumers in each of those states with respect to
lawnmower purchases from Jan. 1, 1994, to the present.

Tecumseh Products Co. -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a
manufacturer of hermetic compressors for residential and
commercial refrigerators, freezers, water coolers,
dehumidifiers, window air conditioning units, and residential
and commercial central system air conditioners and heat pumps.


WMG ACQUISITION: N.Y. Court Considers Dismissal of Pricing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion that seeks the dismissal of a
consolidated class action suit over the pricing of digital music
downloads, which named WMG Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of
Warner Music Group Corp., as one of the defendants.

Originally, more than 30 putative class actions concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads have been filed.  On Aug. 15,
2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the
caption, "In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:2006-md-01780."

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007,
alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release
of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing
of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads.  It seeks
unspecified compensatory, statutory, and treble damages.

All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007.  The Court
heard an argument on this motion on March 25, 2008, and reserved
its decision, according to 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 "In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:06-md-01780-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Loretta A. Preska,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. (fbalint@bffb.com)
          Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.
          2901 N. Central, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-274-1100
          Fax: 602-274-1199

          Monique Alonso, Esq.
          Gross & Belsky LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Ste 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-544-0200
          Fax: 415-544-0201

               - and -

          Brian Joseph Barry, Esq. (bribarry1@yahoo.com)
          Law Office of Brian Barry
          1801 Ave. of The Stars, Suite 307
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-788-0831

Representing the defendant is:

          Chet Alan Kronenberg, Esq. (ckronenberg@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 310-407-7557


* Victims of Illegal Rallies in Korea May Demand Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victims of illegal rallies in Korea will be able to sue for
compensation if the Presidential Council on National
Competitiveness and the ruling Grand National Party have their
way, The Chosun Ilbo reports.

According to the report, the Council and the Grand National
Party recently agreed to introduce class action suits as a way
to compensate victims of illegal collective actions such as
illegal rallies and strikes for damage.

"In many cases, victims of illegal rallies cannot even conceive
the idea of bringing a claim to court due to the huge amounts of
court costs and complicated processes despite the small amount
of damage for each victim," an official with the Council told
Chosun Ilbo.  "But if class action suits are possible, then all
victims of such illegal rallies can easily get compensation as
they can benefit from the outcome of one person's lawsuit."

The report relates that the Council is expected to hold a public
hearing on Wednesday to gather expert opinion on the legality of
the system and get a bill passed by the National Assembly during
its regular session.

"The majority opinion in judicial circles is that it is possible
to file a class action lawsuit against civic organizations, not
necessarily the state or enterprises," a presidential official
said.  "We expect that it will contribute to improving the
protest culture, considering that such a system will put
substantial pressure on civic organizations that have so far led
illegal, violent protests."


* Susman Godfrey Wins 3 Cases In One Day in Tex. Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The litigation boutique, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., won three
different appeals for three different clients in three different
opinions issued by the Texas Supreme Court.

In the first case, "Forest Oil Corporation, et al. v. James
Argyle McAllen, et al.," the Texas Supreme Court reversed the
court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court with
instructions to compel arbitration in accordance with the
parties' written agreement.  The plaintiffs, Mr. McAllen and
others, had ignored their written agreement to pursue their
claims in an arbitration in Houston, Texas, and, instead, had
filed a lawsuit in state court in McAllen, Hidalgo County,
Texas, in the city named after Mr. McAllen's ancestors.

Susman Godfrey partner Geoffrey L. Harrison, Esq., argued the
case in the Supreme Court on behalf of Forest Oil back in
October 2007.  Mr. Harrison urged the Supreme Court to enforce
an arbitration agreement contained in the parties' years-earlier
settlement agreement.  Mr. Harrison argued that an unambiguous
waiver-of-reliance provision in that settlement agreement
precluded Mr. McAllen's "after-the-fact story" of fraudulent
inducement as a matter of law.

The Supreme Court agreed and recognized, as Mr. Harrison had
argued, that "sophisticated parties represented by counsel in an
arm's-length transaction negotiated a settlement agreement that
included clear and broad waiver-of-reliance and release-of-
claims language."  The Court concluded that the "unequivocal
disclaimer of reliance in the parties' bargained-for settlement
agreement conclusively negates as a matter of law the element of
reliance needed to support McAllen's fraudulent-inducement
claim."  The underlying dispute involves allegations of
environmental contamination and intentional battery with
allegedly radioactive oil well tubing. Susman Godfrey attorneys
Johnny Carter and Rick Hess also worked on the Supreme Court
briefs and on all other aspects of the case.

In the second case, "In re Poly-America, L.P." the Texas Supreme
Court granted conditionally a petition for mandamus to Susman
Godfrey's client, Poly-America, LP.  The Texas Supreme Court
held that Poly-America's arbitration agreement was enforceable
and that the trial court had not abused its discretion when it
granted the company's motion to compel arbitration.  Susman
Godfrey partner Erica Harris, Esq., represented Poly-America,
LP.

In the third case, "Zurich American Insurance Co., et al. v.
Nokia, Incorporated No. 06-1030," the Texas Supreme Court held
that Zurich American Insurance Company, Federal Insurance
Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company had a duty to
defend Susman Godfrey's client, Nokia, Inc., in a series of
class actions pending around the U.S. The ruling is a
vindication for Nokia which has spent millions successfully
defending these claims.  Nokia hired Susman Godfrey partner Eric
Mayer, Esq., after losing on this issue in the trial court.
Mayer and Susman Godfrey lawyers Brian Melton, Ian Crosby and
Lexie White argued that Nokia's insurers wrongfully denied
coverage.  The ruling by the Texas Supreme Court now opens the
way for Nokia to recover millions in defense costs and fees from
this group of insurers.  Mayer argued the appeal for Nokia.

For more information, contact:

          Geoffrey L. Harrison, Esq.
          (gharrison@susmangodfrey.com)
          Erica W. Harris, Esq. (eharris@susmangodfrey.com)
          Eric J. Mayer, Esq. (emayer@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
          Suite 5100, 1000 Louisiana
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Phone: 713-653-7807
                 713-653-7810
                 713-653-7853


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CHINA SHENGHOU: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings,
Inc. common stock during the period between July 23, 2007, and
August 20, 2008.

The complaint charges that CSP and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading
statements pertaining to CSP's business prospects and condition,
and filing materially false financial statements with the SEC.

On August 20, 2008, the Company announced that its previously
issued financial statements for the fiscal periods ended
June 30, September 30, and December 30, 2007, and fiscal quarter
ended March 31, 2008, should no longer be relied upon and would
be restated due to certain accounting errors, internal control
issues and related matters.  News that the Company's financial
statements must be restated caused the Company's stock price to
fall dramatically damaging investors.

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

For more information, contact:

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


GT SOLAR: Nixon Raiche Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.H.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nixon, Raiche, Vogelman, Barry & Slawsky, P.A. filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the District
of New Hampshire against GT Solar International, Inc., and
certain of its officers and directors that alleges violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or acquired the common stock of GT Solar pursuant
or traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
July 23, 2008 initial public offering.

Also named as defendants are certain underwriters of the IPO.

The Complaint alleges that on July 23, 2008, GT Solar
accomplished its IPO of 30.3 million shares at $16.50 per share
for proceeds of $500 million.  As further alleged, on July 24,
2008, in its first day of trading, GT Solar's common stock
closed at $14.59 per share.

However, as alleged, before the market opened on July 25, 2008,
LDK Solar Co, Ltd., GT Solar's largest customer, issued a press
release announcing it had signed a contract to purchase the same
type of equipment it was purchasing from GT Solar from one of GT
Solar's competitors and on this disclosure the price of GT
Solar's stock declined to as low as $9.30 per share before
closing at $12.59 per share on July 25, 2008, representing a 24%
decline from the IPO price.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the
IPO failed to disclose the true extent of the risks surrounding
the Company's relationship with LDK, including the fact that GT
Solar was at imminent risk of losing out on a contract for
future orders from LDK, its single largest customer.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 30,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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

               - or -

          David P. Slawsky, Esq. (dslawsky@nixonraiche.com)
          Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq.
          Nixon, Raiche, Vogelman, Barry & Slawsky, P.A.
          77 Central Street
          Manchester, NH 03101
          Phone: 603-669-7070
          Fax:  603-669-7080


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


SIGNALIFE INC: Vianale Files South Carolina Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on August 28, 2008, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Signalife, Inc., between January 29, 2004, and
April 11, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint names Signalife and several of its present and
former officers as defendants.

Signalife claims to research, develop and market wireless heart
monitoring devices in the United States.  The complaint alleges
that Signalife (formerly known as Recom Managed Systems, Inc.
and before that, Mt. Olympus Enterprises, Inc.), violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff alleges that Signalife issued false positive
statements about the Company's ability to manufacture and market
its Fidelity 100 Monitor System, a supposedly wireless heart
monitoring device.  Despite years of highly positive statements
about its heart monitor, Signalife has had virtually no sales,
and the Company has never had a product that was commercially
viable.  As a result, Signalife's stock was artificially
inflated during the Class Period.  Signalife's stock dropped on
April 11, 2008, on unprecedented volume of 3,752,100 shares,
when the truth came to light that Signalife's Fidelity 100
monitor system was unsalable.  The Company recently announced
its imminent delisting from AMEX, and its stock price has
slumped to 6 cents.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 28,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. (kvianale@vianalelaw.com)
          Julie Prag Vianale, Esq. (jvianale@vianalelaw.com)
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-4750
          Toll Free: 1-888-657-9960






                            *********

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  * * *