CAR_Public/080903.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 3, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 175

                            Headlines

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Class Certification in "Simmons"
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Blanco" Suit in Calif. Voluntarily Dismissed
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consolidated Suit By Ex-Store Workers
COMCAST CORP: Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
COURT SOUTH: Settlement in Phased-Out Contracts Suit Approved

EDDIE BAUER: Calif. Court Yet to Approve "Hill" Suit Settlement
EDDIE BAUER: "Scherer" Labor Lawsuit Still Pending in California
FIRSTENERGY GENERATION: Faces Suits Over Bruce Mansfield Plant
GAMBLING SHIP OPERATORS: Former Workers Sue Over WARN Act Breach
GENERAL NUTRITION: Class Certification Sought in "Casarez" Case

GENERAL NUTRITION: N.Y. Court Dismisses Andro Products Lawsuits
GNC FRANCHISING: March 2009 Trial Scheduled for "Ahussain" Case
INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls Stroller Activity Bars
JERSEY CENTRAL: Plaintiffs in N.J. Lawsuit Seek Bifurcated Trial
LIVE NATION: Calif. Court OKs Stay Stipulation in Antitrust Suit

MACROVISION CORP: Parties Settle Del. Suit Over Gemstar-TV Deal
MAPLE LEAF: Lawsuits Over Recalled Meat Products Escalate
MODINE MANUFACTURING: Cancer Suit Settlement Wins Final Approval
NESTLE: Recalls Pizza Products Containing Foreign Materials
OHIO EDISON: WH Sammis Plant Suit Certification Denial Appealed

OPES PRIME: ANZ, Merrill Move to Strike Out AUD100 Million Suit
ORGANON INTERNATIONAL: NuvaRing Suits Consolidated in Missouri
ORIOXI INTL: Recalls Hoodies Posing Strangulation Hazard
PARKLAND MEMORIAL: Texas Court Refuses to Certify "Valcho" Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Recalls Coffee Makers Due to Fire & Burn Hazards

SHORETEL INC: Underwriters Seek to Toss Securities Fraud Suit
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN: Disabled Employees' Lawsuit Allege Bias
SYMANTEC CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Antivirus Online Upgrades
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit Named
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Popcorn Due to Undeclared Dairy Allergen

WILLIAMS COS: Awaits Ruling in Royalties Suit Certification Bid
WILLIAMS COS: Colo. Royalty Interest Owners' Suit Remains Stayed
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Kansas Court Yet to Certify Natural Gas Suit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Class Certification in "Simmons"
------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is appealing an order issued by the
District Court in Caddo County, Oklahoma, certifying a class in
the matter "Ivan J. Simmons, Madaline M. Thompson and Gaylon Lee
Mitchusson v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation."

In the suit, which was filed in February 2004, the plaintiffs
claim that Anadarko failed to correctly pay royalties on gas,
arguing that costs associated with compression, gathering,
dehydration, and processing should not have been deducted or
factored into the royalty calculation.  They are seeking an
award of monetary and punitive damages.

In January 2008, the district judge issued an order certifying
the case as a class action.  The defined class generally
includes all royalty interest owners in Oklahoma wells where
Anadarko is or was the operator, working interest owner or
lessee, and relates only to payment of hydrocarbons produced
from those wells since 1985.

The company has admitted no liability in this matter and has
filed an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order
before the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking a reversal of the
District Court's certification order.  Currently, no hearing
date has been scheduled with regard to the company's appeal.

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

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. -- http://www.anadarko.com/-- is an
oil  and gas exploration and production company with 2.43
billion barrels of oil equivalent of proved reserves as of
Dec. 31, 2007.  The company's major areas of operation are
located onshore in the U.S., the deepwater of the Gulf of
Mexico, and Algeria.  Anadarko also has production in China and
a development project in Brazil.  It markets natural gas, oil
and natural gas liquids and owns and operates gas gathering and
processing systems.  In addition, Anadarko has hard minerals
properties that contribute operating income through non-operated
joint ventures and royalty arrangements in several coal, trona
(natural soda ash) and industrial mineral mines located on lands
within and adjacent to its Land Grant holdings.  The Land Grant
is an eight million acre strip running through portions of
Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah where the company owns most of its
fee mineral rights.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Blanco" Suit in Calif. Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an order dismissing with prejudice the purported class
action lawsuit captioned "Veronica Blanco v. CEC Entertainment
Concepts LP et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00559-GPS-JWJ," which was
filed against CEC Entertainment, Inc.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on Jan. 23, 2007,
against the company by an alleged customer of one of the
company's Chuck E. Cheese's stores purporting to represent all
individuals in the U.S. who, on or after Dec. 4, 2006, were
knowingly and intentionally provided at the point of sale or
transaction with an electronically printed receipt by the
company that was in violation of U.S.C. Section 1681c(g) of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

The plaintiffs did not seek actual damages, but only sought
statutory damages for each willful violation under FACTA.

On Jan. 10, 2008, the court denied class certification without
prejudice and stayed the case pending the appellate outcome of
the Soualian v. Int'l Coffee & Tea LLC case before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On June 3, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the
Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act of 2007, which
amends FACTA to clarify that any person who printed an
expiration date on any consumer receipt between Dec. 4, 2004,
and June 3, 2008, and otherwise complied with FACTA, will not be
in willful noncompliance with FACTA.

Following the enactment, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the
case against the company.

Accordingly, on June 23, 2008, the court entered an order
dismissing the case with prejudice and requiring each party to
bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.  Thus, this case has
been dismissed without payment of any compensation to the
plaintiffs, 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 29, 2008.

The suit is "Veronica Blanco v. CEC Entertainment Concepts LP et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00559-GPS-JWJ," which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge George P. Schiavelli, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James Mark Moore, Esq. (mark@spiromoss.com)
          Spiro Moss Barness
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: 310-235-2468

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq. (jshub@seegerweiss.com)
          Seeger Weiss LLP
          1400 Walnut Street 5th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-584-0700
          Fax: 215-735-7583

Representing the defendants are:

          Adam T. Dougherty, Esq.
          (adam.t.dougherty@bakernet.com)
          Baker & McKenzie
          2300 Trammell Crow Center
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-978-3025

               - and -

          Jody Steinberg, Esq. (js@hlslaw.com)
          Hanger Steinberg Shapiro and Ash
          21031 Ventura Boulevard Suite 800
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364-6512
          Phone: 818-226-1222


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consolidated Suit By Ex-Store Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc., is facing a consolidated class-action
suit in California that was filed by former store employees,
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 29, 2008.

Initially, on Nov. 19, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit
against the company entitled "Ana Chavez v. CEC Entertainment,
Inc., et. al., Cause No. BC380996," was filed in the Central
District Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County.
The company received service of process on Dec. 21, 2007.

The Chavez Litigation was filed by a former store employee
purporting to represent other similarly situated current and
former employees of the company in the State of California from
Nov. 19, 2003, to the present.  The lawsuit alleges violations
of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid vacation wages,
meal periods, wages due upon termination, waiting time
penalties, and unfair competition and seeks an unspecified
amount in damages.

On Jan. 9, 2008, a second purported class action lawsuit,
entitled "Cynthia Perez et. al. v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et.
al., Cause No. BC3853527," was filed against the company in the
Central District Superior Court of California in Los Angeles
County.  The company was served with this complaint on Jan. 30,
2008.

The Perez Litigation was filed by former store employees
purporting to represent other similarly situated current and
former employees of the Company in Los Angeles County from
Jan. 8, 2004 to the present.  The lawsuit also alleges
violations of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid
overtime wages, meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements,
waiting time penalties, retaliation, unfair competition, and
constructive trust and seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

The company removed the two cases to federal court on Jan. 18,
2008, and Feb. 29, 2008, respectively.  In March, the Chavez
Litigation was remanded back to state court and in April, it was
the Perez Litigation that was remanded.

The two cases were then consolidated by the court for procedural
purposes in the Superior Court of the State of California in Los
Angeles County on June 18, 2008.

The company reported no further details regarding the
consolidated lawsuits in its regulatory filing.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com/-- is
engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business.
The company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's
restaurants.  In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of
the company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants.  Chuck E.
Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar,
sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and
comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family
oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities.  The company
and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five
foreign countries/territories.


COMCAST CORP: Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harvey Bartle III of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a securities fraud
suit that accused Comcast Corp. of making false statements about
its projected growth throughout 2007 despite knowing that it
faced rising capital expenditures and slowing growth of
subscribers due to increased competition, the Standford Law
School Securities Class Action ClearingHouse reports.

The suit accuses Comcast's executives of inflating share price
through false and misleading reports while dumping 585,792 of
their own shares at artificially high prices, for more than
$15 million (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2008).

Named plaintiff Marilyn Clark brought this action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of
all those who purchased the publicly-traded securities of
Comcast between Feb. 1, 2007, and Dec. 4, 2007, inclusive, and
who were damaged, thereby.

The plaintiff wanted the court to rule on:

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

     (b) whether statements made by defendants to the investing
         public during the class period misrepresented material
         facts about the business and operations of Comcast;

     (c) whether the price of Comcast common stock was
         artificially inflated during the class period; and

     (d) whether to what extent the members of the class have
         sustained damages and the proper measure of damages;

The plaintiff asked the court to:

     -- determine that this action is a proper class action,
        designating the plaintiff as lead plaintiff and
        certifying her as a class representative under Rule 23
        of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
        plaintiff's counsel as lead counsel;

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

     -- award the plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs
        and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
        fees and expert fees.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the case in February 2008.

The plaintiff did not respond, but instead sought leave to amend
the complaint, which the court granted.  The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint in May 2008, naming only the company and two
current officers as defendants.

In June 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2008).

In a recent ruling, the judge found that investors had failed to
properly allege fraud.  Judge Bartle III said that the proposed
class of investors failed to back up their claims that Comcast
executives were aware of the falsity of their bullish statements
at the time they made them.

"Plaintiffs do not identify specific documents that would
contain facts or figures indicating that any of the 'undisclosed
true facts' were true or known to the defendants, much less any
other details about the content of those documents," Judge
Bartle wrote.  Instead, Judge Bartle found, the allegations in
the suit were limited to a 'barebones sketch' of how budget and
subscriber data documents are purportedly compiled and reviewed
at Comcast.  As a result, the judge concluded that the
plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements of either the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act or Rule 9(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which calls for
'particularized' allegations when pleading fraud.

Judge Bartle quoted a 2004 decision from the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in California Public Employees' Retirement
System v. Chubb Corp. that said: "Cobbling together a litany of
inadequate allegations does not render those allegations
particularized in accordance with Rule 9(b) or the PSLRA."

Similarly, Judge Bartle found that, for the investors suing
Comcast, their "failure to identify the specific documents on
which they rely is fatal to their ability to meet the pleading
requirements."

The suit is "Marilyn Clark et al. v. Comcast Corp. et al., Case
No. 08-CV-00052," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Harvey Bartle, III,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Laura Andracchio, Esq. (lauraa@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

              - and -

         Bernard M. Gross, Esq.
         Bernard M. Gross, PC
         450 The Wanamaker Bldg.
         100 Penn Sq. East
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-561-3600
         Fax: 215-561-3000
         e-mail: peggy@bernardmgross.com

Representing the defendants are:

         M. Norman Goldberger, Esq. (mgoldberger@hangley.com)
         Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
         One Logan Square, 27th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-7021

              - and -

         Michael P. Carroll, Esq.
         Davis, Polk & Wardwell
         450 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-450-4000


COURT SOUTH: Settlement in Phased-Out Contracts Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Knox County (Tenn.) Chancellor Daryl R. Fansler approved a
settlement brought in a class-action lawsuit against health and
fitness club Court South Centres LL by members whose low-cost
contracts are being phased out by the club's new owners, Carly
Harrington writes for Knoxville News Sentinel.

The class action suit was filed by Court South members who had
paid from zero to a few thousand dollars in the 1980s and early
1990s for what they considered lifetime memberships.  After
signing, members thought all they would have to pay were small
yearly renewal fees of $10 or so for the duration of their
membership

Subsequently, however, the parties agreed to resolve the matter.

In June, Knox County Chancellor Fansler granted preliminary
approval to the settlement deal in which members who qualify as
part of the class can pay a fixed monthly rate of $29.95 for 15
years or a staggered larger annual amount for three years and
then a fixed guaranteed rate of $29.95 for seven additional
years.

Some members of the class action lawsuit have opposed
preliminary approval of the settlement deal for members who
bought low-cost memberships they believed were to last the rest
of their lives.

At the Aug. 25 hearing, Chancellor Fansler approved the
settlement, under which members who qualify as part of the class
will have two options.  They can either pay a fixed rate of
$29.95 a month per person for 15 years or they can pay a
staggered yearly amount of $75 the first year, $125 the second
year, $200 the third year and $29.95 a month guaranteed for
seven years.

Court South was bought by National Fitness owners John and Helen
Captain in 2005, Knoxville News notes.


EDDIE BAUER: Calif. Court Yet to Approve "Hill" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in the State of California  has
yet to grant final approval to a proposed settlement of a
purported class-action suit against Eddie Bauer, Inc., according
to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 28, 2008.

The purported class-action lawsuit, entitled, "Tara Hill v.
Eddie Bauer, Inc.," was filed on June 15, 2006, before the Los
Angeles Superior Court in the State of California.  The suit
alleged, among other things, that Eddie Bauer:

      -- did not provide the plaintiffs with adequate wage
         statements;

      -- did not reimburse the plaintiffs for business-related
         expenses;

      -- forced the plaintiffs to buy Eddie Bauer clothing;

      -- did not timely pay the plaintiffs at the cessation of
         employment; and

      -- improperly required the plaintiffs to work during rest
         and meal periods without compensation.

Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert various causes
of action, including those under the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.

On April 23, 2007, the company reached a settlement related to
the class-action suit.

A hearing to consider final court approval of the settlement
occurred on July 10, 2008, at which the plaintiff in the matter,
"Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No. 3:2007cv02270,"
objected to the settlement on various grounds.

The court took the parties' positions under advisement and the
company expects a ruling to be issued during the third quarter
of 2008.

In connection with the proposed settlement, the company accrued
$1.6 million in the first quarter of 2007 to cover settlement
payments and attorneys' fees, the company's regulatory filing
stated.  The settlement payments are proposed to be made partly
in cash and partly in company gift cards.

Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.eddiebauer.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that sells casual sportswear and accessories
for the modern outdoor lifestyle.  The company's primary target
customers are women and men who are 30-54 years old.


EDDIE BAUER: "Scherer" Labor Lawsuit Still Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Bauer, Inc., continues to face a purported class-action
lawsuit, entitled "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No.
2007-cv-02270," which is pending with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 28,
2008.

The purported class action suit was filed in September 2007 by
Kristal Scherer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, against Eddie Bauer, Inc., and Does 1 to 100 before
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

The suit alleges violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code relating to the payment of
incentive bonuses and the company's policy on forfeiture of
personal days.

The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

In December 2007, the company filed a partial motion to dismiss
certain counts of the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim.  That motion was denied in June 2008.

The complaint was amended in January 2008 to add an additional
named plaintiff.  The company filed an answer in July 2008
denying the claims made, according to its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2008.

The suit is "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No.
3:2007cv02270," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James C. Kostas, Esq. (jkostas@aol.com)
          Huffman and Kostas
          1441 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-544-0800
          Fax: 619-544-0892

               - and -

          Sheldon A. Ostroff, Esq. (sostrofflaw@aol.com)
          Law Offices of Sheldon A. Ostroff
          1441 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-544-0881

Representing the defendants is:

          Kalia C. Petmecky, Esq. (kpetmecky@akingump.com)
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-229-1000


FIRSTENERGY GENERATION: Faces Suits Over Bruce Mansfield Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Generation Corp., a unit of FirstEnergy Corp., which
owns and operates non-nuclear generating facilities, is facing
several purported class-action suits in Pennsylvania over the
Bruce Mansfield Plant, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s Aug. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter period ended June 30, 2008.

On July 22 and 23, 2008, three complaints were filed against
FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania as well as in the Beaver County Court of Common
Pleas, seeking damages based on Bruce Mansfield Plant air
emissions.

In addition to seeking damages, two of the complaints seek to
enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a
"safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner."  One of these
complaints was filed on behalf of 21 individuals and the other
is a class-action complaint, seeking certification as a class
action with eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is
principally a holding company that holds, directly or
indirectly, all of the common stock of its eight principal
electric utility operating subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Co., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison Co.,
Pennsylvania Power Co., American Transmission Systems, Inc.,
Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co., and
Pennsylvania Electric Co.  The company's consolidated revenues
are primarily derived from electric service provided by its
utility operating subsidiaries and the revenues of its other
principal subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.


GAMBLING SHIP OPERATORS: Former Workers Sue Over WARN Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal lawsuits have been filed on behalf of 80 former
employees of gambling ship operators that curtailed sailing amid
heightened competition from tribal casinos, Ed Duggan writes for
the Orlando Business Journal.

These suits include:

    (a) Sterling Casino Lines LP, Sextant Sterling 1 Inc. and
        John Brevick.

        The suit alleges that Sterling operated the Ambassador
        II from Port Canaveral and failed to give 60 days'
        notice of termination -- as required by the federal WARN
        Act -- to the 500 terminated workers.

        Additionally, it charges that minimum wage and overtime
        wages were not paid and asks for class-action status.

    (b) Miami Star Casino LLC and Massachusetts-based parent
        Horizons Edge Casino Cruises LLC.

        The suit claimed plaintiffs were terminated from the
        Horizon Star, operating out of Miami's Bayside
        Marketplace, without the proper 60-days warning
        required.

According to the report, spokespersons for the companies
declined to comment.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Class Certification Sought in "Casarez" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a lawsuit, captioned "Casarez, et al. v.
General Nutrition Centers Inc., et al., Case No. 8:2007cv00875,"
are seeking certification of a class in the case, which was
filed against General Nutrition Centers, Inc., before the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to GNC's Aug 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On April 24, 2007, Kristin Casarez and Tyler Goodell filed the
lawsuit against the company in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Orange.  The company later
removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The plaintiffs purport to bring the action on their own behalf,
on behalf of a class of all current and former non-exempt
employees of GNC throughout the State of California employed on
or after Aug. 24, 2004, and as private attorney general on
behalf of the general public.

The plaintiffs allege that they and the members of the putative
class were not provided all of the rest periods and meal periods
to which they were entitled under California law.  They further
allege that GNC failed to pay them split shift and overtime
compensation to which they were entitled to under California
law.

The plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on
May 2, 2008.  GNC afterward filed a reply motion opposing the
certification request.  Oral argument on the Certification
Motion was held on Aug. 11, 2008.

The suit is "Casarez, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers Inc et
al., Case No. 8:2007cv00875," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge James V. Selna
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq. (jps@spencerlaw.net)
         Jeffrey P Spencer Law Offices
         635 Camino De Los Mares, Ste. 312
         San Clemente, CA 92673
         Phone: 949-240-8595

              - and -

         Jeffrey N. Wilens, Esq. (jeff@lakeshorelaw.org)
         Lakeshore Law Center
         17476 Yorba Linda Blvd, Ste 221
         Yorba Linda, CA 92886
         Phone: 714-854-7205

Representing the defendants is:

         Maria R. Harrington, Esq. (mharrington@littler.com)
         Littler Mendelson
         2050 Main Street, Suite 900
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Phone: 949-705-3000
         Fax: 949-724-1201


GENERAL NUTRITION: N.Y. Court Dismisses Andro Products Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an order dismissing with prejudice several purported
class-action lawsuits against General Nutrition Centers, Inc.,
in connection with Andro Products, according to GNC'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 is defending against five lawsuits relating to the
sale by GNC of certain nutritional products alleged to contain
the ingredients commonly known as Androstenedione,
Androstenediol, Norandrostenedione, and Norandrostenediol (Andro
Products).  These five lawsuits were filed in California, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

In each of the five cases, the plaintiffs have sought, or are
seeking, to certify a class and obtain damages on behalf of the
class representatives and all those similarly situated who
purchased certain nutritional supplements from the company
alleged to contain one or more Andro Products.

On April 17-18, 2006, the company filed pleadings seeking to
remove each of the Andro Actions to the respective federal
district courts in which the respective Andro Actions are
pending.  At the same time, the company filed motions seeking to
transfer each of the Andro Actions to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York based on "related to"
bankruptcy jurisdiction, as one of the manufacturers supplying
them with Andro Products, and to whom they sought indemnity --
MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc. -- filed for
bankruptcy.

The company was successful in removing the New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Florida Andro Actions to federal court.  These
actions were then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York based on bankruptcy jurisdiction.
The California case was not removed and remains pending in state
court.

Following the conclusion of the MuscleTech Bankruptcy case, the
plaintiffs, in September 2007, filed a stipulation dismissing
all claims related to the sale of MuscleTech products in the
four cases currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Florida cases).

Additionally, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand these
actions to the respective state courts where they were
originally filed, asserting that the federal court is divested
of jurisdiction because the MuscleTech bankruptcy action is no
longer pending.  The motions to remand remain pending before the
District Court.

A more detailed description of the cases, listed by original
stated court proceeding and current style, follows:

(1) "Harry Rodriguez v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc."

    The case was previously pending with the Supreme Court of
    the State of New York, New York County, New York, Index No.
    02/126277.

    Upon its transfer to the U.S. District Court for the
    Southern District of New York, it was styled, "Harry
    Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
    similarly situated, v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.
    Case No. 1:06-cv-02987-JSR."

    The plaintiffs filed this putative class action suit on or
    about July 25, 2002.  The complaint, as amended, alleged
    claims for unjust enrichment, violation of General Business
    Law Section 349 (misleading and deceptive trade practices),
    and violation of General Business Law Section 350 (false
    advertising).

    On July 2, 2003, the court granted part of GNC's motion to
    dismiss the case, and dismissed the unjust enrichment cause
    of action.

    On Jan. 4, 2006, the court conducted a hearing on GNC's
    motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs' motion for
    class certification, both of which remain pending.

(2) "Everett Abrams v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc."

    The case was previously pending with the Superior Court of
    New Jersey, Mercer County, New Jersey, Docket No. L-3789-02.
    Upon transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
    District of New York, it was styled "Everett Abrams,
    individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
    v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-
    07881-JSR."

    The plaintiffs filed this putative class action on July 25,
    2002.  The complaint, as amended, alleged claims for false
    and deceptive marketing and omissions and violations of the
    New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

    On Nov. 18, 2003, the court signed an order dismissing the
    plaintiff's claims for affirmative misrepresentation and
    sponsorship with prejudice.  The claim for knowing omissions
    remains pending.

(3) "Shawn Brown, Ozan Cirak, Thomas Hannon, and Luke Smith v.
    General Nutrition Companies, Inc."

    The case was previously pending with the 15th Judicial
    Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, Index. No. CA-02-
    14221AB.   Upon its transfer to the U.S. District Court for
    the Southern District of New York, it was styled "Shawn
    Brown, Ozan Cirak, Thomas Hannon and Like Smith, each
    individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
    v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
    06356-UA."

    The plaintiffs filed this putative class action on July 25,
    2002.  The complaint, as amended, alleged claims for
    violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
    Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida
    Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act.  These claims
    remain pending.

(4) "Andrew Toth v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., et al."

    The case was previously pending with the Common Pleas Court
    of Philadelphia County, Philadelphia, Class Action No. 02-
    703886.   Upon transfer to the U.S. District Court for the
    Southern District of New York, it was styled "Andrew Toth
    and Richard Zatta, each individually and on behalf of all
    others similarly situated v. Bodyonics, LTD, d/b/a Pinnacle
    and General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-
    02721-JSR."

    The plaintiffs filed this putative class action suit on
    July 25, 2002.  The complaint, as amended, alleged claims
    for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
    Protection Law, and unjust enrichment.  The court denied the
    plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and that order
    has been affirmed on appeal.

    The plaintiffs thereafter filed a petition in the
    Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking that the court consider an
    appeal of the order denying class certification.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the petition after the
    case against GNC was removed.

    The Claims for the violations of the Unfair Trade Practices
    and Consumer Protection Law and unjust enrichment remain
    pending.

(5) Guzman Litigation

    The suit "Santiago Guzman, individually, on behalf of all
    others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
    public v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.," was previously
    pending with the California Judicial Counsel, Coordination
    Proceeding No. 4363, Los Angeles County Superior Court.

    The plaintiffs filed this putative class action on Feb. 17,
    2004.  The complaint, as amended, alleged claims for
    violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of
    the Unfair Competition Act, and unjust enrichment.

    The plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on
    Feb. 13, 2008.  GNC filed its Motion opposing certification
    on March 12, 2008, and oral argument was heard on June 10,
    2008.  The Court has not yet decided on the Certification
    Motion.

                           Mediation

On Jan. 25, 2008, a mediation was held for the Andro Actions and
no resolution was reached.  On June 4, 2008, the U.S. District
Court (on its own motion) set a hearing for July 14, 2008, for
the purpose of hearing argument as to why the Rodriguez, Abrams,
Brown and Toth cases should not be dismissed for failure to
prosecute in conformity to the Courts Case Management Orders.

Following the hearing, the court advised that all four cases
would be dismissed with prejudice and issued an Order to that
effect on July 29, 2008.  Appeals are anticipated.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a
holding company that, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
global specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements (VMHS)
products, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.  Its product mix is sold under its GNC
brands, including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance and
Preventive Nutrition, and under third-party brands.  The company
operates through three business segments: Retail, Franchise and
Manufacturing/Wholesale. The Retail segment generates revenues
primarily from sales of products to customers at Company-owned
stores in the U.S. and Canada, and through GNC's Web site at
http://www.gnc.com/ The Franchise segment consists of the
Company's domestic and international franchise operations.  The
Manufacturing/Wholesale segment consists of GNC's manufacturing
operations in South Carolina and its wholesale sales business.


GNC FRANCHISING: March 2009 Trial Scheduled for "Ahussain" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A March 2009 trial is slated for the purported class-action suit
captioned "Ahussain v. GNC Franchising LLC, Case No.
8:2006cv01090," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against units of General
Nutrition Centers, Inc.

On Nov. 7, 2006, Abdul Ahussain, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, sued GNC Franchising LLC, and General
Nutrition Corp.

Specifically, the plaintiffs, who are all current franchisees,
filed a putative class action lawsuit seeking to certify a class
of current and former California GNCF franchisees.

The suit alleges that GNC engages in unfair business practices
designed to earn a profit at its franchisees' expense.  These
alleged practices include:

       -- requiring its franchises to carry slow moving
          products, which cannot be returned to GNC after
          expiration, with the franchise bearing the loss;

       -- requiring franchised stores to purchase new or
          experimental products, effectively forcing the
          franchisees to provide free market research;

       -- using the Gold Card program to collect information on
          franchised store customers and then soliciting
          business from such customers;

       -- underselling its franchised stores by selling products
          through the GNC website at prices below or close to
          the wholesale price, thereby forcing franchises to
          sell the same products at a loss; and

       -- manipulating prices at which franchised stores can
          purchase products from third-party suppliers, so as to
          maintain GNC's favored position as a product
          wholesaler.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an unspecified amount and
equitable and injunctive relief.

On March 19, 2008, the court certified a class as to only the
plaintiffs' claim for violation of California Business &
Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq.  The class consists of
all persons or entities who are or were GNC franchisees in the
State of California from Nov. 13, 2002, to the date of
adjudication.

The plaintiffs' other claims remain as individual claims in this
lawsuit.

A trial is scheduled for March 2009, according to General
Nutrition Centers, Inc.'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 "Ahussain v. GNC Franchising LLC, Case No. 06-
01090," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Judge David O. Carter, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Abel E. Aguilera, Esq. (eaguilera@bmkalaw.com)
          Bohm Matsen Kegel and Aguilera
          695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-384-6500

               - and -

          Omar Ahmed Siddiqui, Esq. (osiddiqui@usllp.com)
          Ulwelling Siddiqui
          Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-384-6650

Representing the defendants are:

          Christopher C. Eck, Esq. (chris-eck@gnc-hq.com)
          General Nutrition Corporation
          300 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-288-4600

               - and -

          Brad A. Funari, Esq. (bfunari@mcguirewoods.com)
          McGuire Woods
          Dominion Tower
          625 Liberty Avenue, 23rd - 27th Floors
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-667-6000


INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls Stroller Activity Bars
--------------------------------------------------------
International Playthings Inc., of Parsippany, N.J., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 10,000 Taggies Strollin' Along Stroller Activity
Bars.

The company said the shiny material on the elephant's ear on the
activity bar can detach, posing a choking hazard to young
children.

International Playthings has received three reports of the shiny
material detaching and children putting it in their mouth.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Taggies Strollin' Along stroller
activity bars.  The multicolored, fabric, and plastic activity
bars feature a yellow giraffe, a purple hippo and a blue
elephant attached to a 12" long elliptical base with straps that
attach to a stroller.  The Taggies and Earlyears logos are
located on woven and satin labels sewn into the seam on the
lower left front of the activity bar.

These recalled stroller activity bars were manufactured in Hong
Kong and were being sold at specialty toy stores nationwide and
on the Internet from February 2007 through July 2008 for about
$23.

A picture of the recalled stroller activity bars is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08373.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the activity
bars and contact International Playthings for a free replacement
toy.

For additional information, contact International Playthings at
800-445-8347 or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.intplay.com/


JERSEY CENTRAL: Plaintiffs in N.J. Lawsuit Seek Bifurcated Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action suit in New Jersey
against Jersey Central Power & Light Co. -- the New Jersey
electric utility operating subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. --
over the July 1999 power outages have stated in a recent case
management conference that they desire for a bifurcated trial of
the case.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat
wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&L's
territory.  In an investigation into the causes of the outages
and the reliability of the transmission and distribution systems
of all four of New Jersey's electric utilities, the New Jersey
Board of Public Utilities concluded that there was not a prima
facie case demonstrating that, overall, JCP&L provided unsafe,
inadequate or improper service to its customers.

Two class action lawsuits, which were subsequently consolidated
into a single proceeding, were filed in New Jersey Superior
Court in July 1999 against JCP&L; GPU, Inc., former parent of
JCP&L, which merged with FirstEnergy on Nov., 7, 2001; and other
GPU companies seeking compensatory and punitive damages arising
from the July 1999 service interruptions in the JCP&L territory.

In August 2002, the trial court granted partial summary judgment
to JCP&L and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for consumer
fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and strict
product liability.

In November 2003, the trial court granted JCP&L's motion to
decertify the class and denied the plaintiffs' motion to permit
into evidence their class-wide damage model indicating damages
in excess of $50 million.

These class decertification and damage rulings were appealed to
the Appellate Division.  The Appellate Division issued a
decision on July 8, 2004, affirming the decertification of the
originally certified class, but remanding for certification of a
class limited to those customers directly impacted by the
outages of JCP&L transformers in Red Bank, N.J., based on a
common incident involving the failure of the bushings of two
large transformers in the Red Bank substation resulting in
planned and unplanned outages in the area during a 2-3 day
period.

In 2005, JCP&L renewed its motion to decertify the class based
on a very limited number of class members who incurred damages
and also filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining
plaintiffs' claims for negligence, breach of contract and
punitive damages.

In July 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court dismissed the
punitive damage claim and again decertified the class based on
the fact that a vast majority of the class members did not
suffer damages and those that did would be more appropriately
addressed in individual actions.

The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the New Jersey Appellate
Division which, on March 7, 2007, reversed the decertification
of the Red Bank class and remanded this matter back to the Trial
Court to allow plaintiffs sufficient time to establish a damage
model or individual proof of damages.

JCP&L filed a petition for allowance of an appeal of the
Appellate Division ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court which
was denied on May 9, 2007.

At a management conference on June 13, 2008, the plaintiffs
stated their intent to drop their efforts to create a class-wide
damage model and, instead of dismissing the class action,
expressed their desire for a bifurcated trial on liability and
damages.  The judge directed the plaintiffs to indicate how they
intend to proceed under this scenario.  Thereafter, the judge
expects to hold another pretrial conference to address the
plaintiffs' proposed procedure, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended June 30, 2008.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is
principally a holding company that holds, directly or
indirectly, all of the common stock of its eight principal
electric utility operating subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Co., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison Co.,
Pennsylvania Power Co., American Transmission Systems, Inc.,
Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co., and
Pennsylvania Electric Co.  The Company's consolidated revenues
are primarily derived from electric service provided by its
utility operating subsidiaries and the revenues of its other
principal subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.


LIVE NATION: Calif. Court OKs Stay Stipulation in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
entered an order approving a stipulated continuance and stay of
all proceedings in a consolidated antitrust lawsuit filed
against Live Nation, Inc.

The consolidated suit alleges that anti-competitive practices
for concert promotion services by the company caused
artificially high-ticket prices.

Originally, the company is a defendant in 22 putative class-
action suits filed by different named plaintiffs in various
district courts throughout the country.

The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to
claims made in the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-04503-JES," except that the geographic markets
alleged are statewide or more local in nature, and the members
of the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased
tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged.

The company filed its answers in all actions, and has denied
liability.

On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the lawsuits and
any similar ones commenced in the future to a single federal
district court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

On April 17, 2006, the MDL Panel granted the company's motion
and ordered the consolidation and transfer of the suits to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On June 4, 2007, the Court conducted a hearing on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On June 25, 2007,
the Court entered an order staying all proceedings in the case
pending a ruling on the plaintiffs' class certification request.

On Oct. 22, 2007, the Court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor,
granting class certification and certifying a class in the
Chicago, New England, New York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern
California regional markets.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the company filed a petition for permission to
appeal the class certification order in the U.S. District Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  At a status conference
conducted on Nov. 5, 2007, the District Court extended its stay
of all proceedings pending further developments in the company's
appeal with the Ninth Circuit.

On Feb. 15, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied the company's
petition for permission to appeal.  On Feb. 20, 2008, the
company filed a motion before the District Court for
reconsideration of its class certification order.

On March 6, 2008, the U.S. District Court entered an order
approving a stipulated continuance and stay of all proceedings
pending further developments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
         1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-7292

Representing the defendants are:

         Paul Chalmers, Esq.
         Paul Chalmers Law Offices
         Two Lafayette Centre, 1133
         21st Street NW #405
         New York, NY 920036
         Phone: 202-772-1834

              - and -

         Sara B. Ciarelli, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
         12 East, 49th Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-999-5859


MACROVISION CORP: Parties Settle Del. Suit Over Gemstar-TV Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class-action lawsuit in connection
with Macrovision Corp.'s proposed acquisition of Gemstar-TV
Guide International, Inc., have reached a settlement in the
matter, 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 purported shareholder class-action suit, styled "Martin
Henkel v. Battista, et al.," was filed on Dec. 17, 2007, in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Gemstar-TV,
and the members of its board of directors.

The suit alleges that Macrovision's proposed acquisition of
Gemstar-TV is unfair to Gemstar-TV's shareholders and that the
defendants agreed to accept consideration for Gemstar-TV's
shares that is substantially less than their value.  The
complaint contains a cause of action for breach of fiduciary
duty against Gemstar-TV and members of its board of directors.

On Feb. 1, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding News Corp. as a defendant and asserting a cause of action
against News Corp. for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty.  The amended complaint also contains allegations that
certain of Gemstar-TV's disclosures in connection with the
proposed transaction are inadequate.

The amended complaint seeks an injunction to prevent the
proposed sale, rescission or rescissory damages in the event
that the sale is consummated, rescission of the voting agreement
in which News Corp. agreed to vote its shares in favor of the
proposed transaction, an accounting of damages allegedly
suffered by Gemstar-TV's shareholders, and an award of attorneys
and experts fees.

On March 14, 2008, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, agreeing to a full settlement of the matter in
exchange for certain supplemental public disclosures related to
the proposed acquisition and attorney fees not to exceed
$1.25 million.  The court has approved the settlement.

Macrovision Solutions Corp. -- http://www.macrovision.com/--
formerly, Macrovision Corp. provides a set of solutions that
enable businesses to protect, enhance and distribute their
digital goods to consumers across multiple channels.  Its
offerings include anti-piracy and content protection
technologies and services, digital rights management products
and technologies, embedded licensing technologies, usage
monitoring tools for enterprises and related technologies, and
services from software installation and updating to back-office
license entitlement management.  These solutions are deployed by
companies in the entertainment, consumer electronics, gaming,
software, information publishing and Web retail/portals.  Its
operations are organized into three business units:
Entertainment, Embedded Solutions, and Distribution and
Commerce.


MAPLE LEAF: Lawsuits Over Recalled Meat Products Escalate
---------------------------------------------------------
Calgary legal firms are launching class-action claims against
listeria-linked Maple Leaf Foods (OTCBB:MLFNF), seeking damages
for clients they argue have fallen violently ill from the
company's products, Bill Kaufman writes for C-Health.

Maple Leaf Foods has announced a massive recall of 243 types of
ready to eat meat products supplied to stores, restaurants and
cafeterias (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008).  These
products have been recalled because of concerns of a link
between the products and an outbreak of listeriosis.

Maple Leaf recalled the products on Aug. 17, and "has repeatedly
expanded the recall, so that currently there are several dozen
meat products on the recall list" (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 1, 2008).

Listeriosis is an illness caused by exposure to the Listeria
monocytogenes bacteria.  Symptoms of listeriosis include flu-
like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, cramps, diarrhea, headache,
constipation and persistent fever.  Symptoms usually appear
within 2 to 30 days and up to 70 days after consuming
contaminated food.  The very young, the elderly or those with
compromised immune systems are the most susceptible.

Maple Leaf has apologized for the listeria-tainted meat and
admitted it is accountable for the poisonings.


MODINE MANUFACTURING: Cancer Suit Settlement Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted final approval to Modine
Manufacturing Co.'s settlement in the McCullom Lake brain cancer
cases, Kevin P. Craver writes for Northwest Herald.

According to the report, Judge Pratter's approval of the
$2-million settlement paves the way for residents to get
reimbursed for medical monitoring.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 6, 2008,
Judge Pratter had asked both parties in the purported class
action suit filed against Modine Manufacturing, as well as
against Rohm & Haas Co., Morton International, and Huntsman
Corp., to tweak the tentative settlement reached in matter.

                        Case Background

The class-action lawsuit was filed in April 2006 and blamed
pollution from Ringwood plants Rohm and Haas and Modine for a
number of brain cancer cases among current and former residents
of McCullom Lake.  The case, "Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas
Co., et al., Case No. 06-1743," claimed personal injury from
exposure to solvents that were allegedly released to groundwater
and air for an undetermined period of time.

Specifically, the class suit, along with individual personal
injury complaints, alleged that Modine contaminated the
environment with trichloroethylene, an industrial-strength
degreaser, which broke down into carcinogenic vinyl chloride.
The company dumped wastes between 1968 and 1982 into an on-site
disposal pit, which leached into shallow groundwater.

However, no village wells have tested positive for any of the
chemicals listed in the lawsuits since the lawsuits were filed,
Northwest Herald points out.

The class action suit sought damages for medical monitoring and
property value diminution for a putative class of residents of a
community that are allegedly at risk for personal injuries as a
result of exposure to this same allegedly contaminated
groundwater and air.

The company mediated the cases in December 2007 and had executed
agreements with the plaintiffs' counsel settling the class
action (Class Action Reporter, June 4, 2008).

The settlement, which was tentatively reached in January, calls
for Modine to pay $1.4 million toward establishing a medical
monitoring fund for village residents wanting an MRI (Class
Action Reporter, July 2, 2008).  Furthermore, $100,000 would go
to property damage relief, and $500,000 would cover court-
approved legal fees.

According to CAR's previous report, the two settlement classes
are:

   -- the medical-monitoring class, which includes anyone who
      lived in village limits for a cumulative year between
      Jan. 1, 1968, and Dec. 31, 2002; and

   -- the property damage class, which includes anyone who owned
      property in the village between April 25, 2006, and
      Jan. 18, 2008.

However, Judge Pratter, at an earlier hearing, asked that the
tentative settlement between the plaintiffs' attorney and Modine
emphasize consulting with residents' physicians more than
seeking an MRI.

Judge Pratter also asked Modine and plaintiff attorney Aaron
Freiwald, Esq., to send a draft of the notice that will go out
should the court give final approval to the settlement by
Aug. 15.

                    Deal Wins Final Approval

According to Northwest Herald, Judge Pratter ruled on Aug. 26,
2008, that the settlement meets federal guidelines.

"It opens the door now for people to have access to these
settlement funds, so people in this community can pursue medical
monitoring and medical testing," Mr. Freiwald told Northwest
Herald.  "Hundreds of people have already said they want this,
and now the court has approved their having access to these
funds."

The final class-action settlement amount, as was agreed in the
tentative deal, aggregates $2 million, of which

     * $1.4 million of which is set aside to reimburse eligible
       residents up to $1,400 for whatever screening their
       doctors recommend;

     * $100,000 is set aside to cover reimbursement of up to
       $1,000 per property for anyone who owned property in
       village limits between April 25, 2006, and Jan. 18, 2008;
       and

     * the remaining $500,000 will cover court-approved legal
       fees and the cost of implementing the deal.

Modine denies any connection between pollution from its Ringwood
plant and local illnesses, Northwest Herald notes.  Mr. Freiwald
also admits in settlement documents that the plant is a minimal
contributor to the contamination.

                      Eligible Claimants

Northwest Herald notifies eligible residents who have not
already signed up for medical screening or property damage
reimbursement that they have until Sept. 25 to do so.  According
to Judge Pratter's ruling, 435 medical monitoring claims and 164
property claims have been received.

Mr. Freiwald's law firm will be available to help people file
claims from 4:00 to 9:00 p.m. on Sept. 4 at the Shah Center, in
4100 W. Shamrock Lane, McHenry.

More information is available by calling 800-528-7199, or by
visiting http://www.mccullomlakesettlement.com/

               Rohm and Haas Remains as Defendant

Northwest Herald relates that Modine settlement leaves Rohm and
Haas as the sole remaining defendant in the lawsuit, as well as
23 individual lawsuits filed by Mr. Freiwald in Pennsylvania
state court on behalf of residents with brain and nerve cancer
and liver damage.  Rohm and Haas attorney Ralph Wellington,
Esq., told Northwest Herald that the company will continue to
fight the lawsuits.

As previously reported in the CAR, Judge Pratter is expected to
rule this year on whether the class-action lawsuit against Rohm
and Haas can proceed to a civil trial.

The suit is "Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company, et al.,
Case No. 06-1743," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Gene E.K. Pratter,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq. (ajf@layserfreiwald.com)
         Layser & Freiwald PC
         1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 215-875-8000

Representing the defendants is:

         Albert G. Bixler, Esq. (abixler@eckertseamans.com)
         Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
         1515 Market Street, 9th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 215-851-8412


NESTLE: Recalls Pizza Products Containing Foreign Materials
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Prepared Foods Company, a Mt. Sterling, Ky.,
establishment, is recalling approximately 215,660 pounds of
frozen stuffed pepperoni pizza sandwich products that may
contain foreign materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

     * 54-ounce, 12-pack cartons of "HOT POCKETS PEPPERONI
       PIZZA" brand stuffed sandwiches.  Printed on the side of
       each carton is "8157544614D," "EST 7721A," and "BEST
       BEFORE JAN2010."  Each carton bears the USDA mark of
       inspection.

The products were produced on June 5 and distributed to retail
establishments nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the company received consumer
complaints.  FSIS has not received any consumer complaints or
reports of injury at this time.  Anyone concerned about an
injury from consumption of the products should contact a
physician.

Media with questions about the recall should contact Company
Marketing Communications Manager Roz O'Hearn at 440-264-5170.
Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Nestle
Consumer Services Center at 800-350-5016.


OHIO EDISON: WH Sammis Plant Suit Certification Denial Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit filed against
Ohio Edison Co., an electric utility operating subsidiary of
FirstEnergy Corp., are appealing a denial of their motions to
certify a class and amend their complaint, according to
FirstEnerg's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit was filed in Jefferson County, Ohio Common Pleas Court
on Aug. 22, 2005, by two named plaintiffs.  It is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages to be determined at trial
based on claims of negligence and eight other tort counts
alleging damages from W.H. Sammis Plant air emissions.  The suit
is also seeking injunctive relief to eliminate harmful emissions
and repair property damage and the institution of a medical
monitoring program for class members.

On April 5, 2007, the Court rejected a request by the plaintiffs
to certify the case as a class action and, accordingly, did not
appoint them as class representatives or their counsel as class
counsel.

On July 30, 2007, the plaintiffs' counsel voluntarily withdrew
their request for reconsideration of the April 5, 2007 Order
denying class certification and the Court heard oral argument on
the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint.  Ohio Edison
opposed this motion to amend, which motion was later denied by
the Court.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs have appealed the court's denial of
the motion for certification and the motion to amend their
complaint.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is
principally a holding company that holds, directly or
indirectly, all of the common stock of its eight principal
electric utility operating subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Co., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison Co.,
Pennsylvania Power Co., American Transmission Systems, Inc.,
Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co., and
Pennsylvania Electric Co.  The company's consolidated revenues
are primarily derived from electric service provided by its
utility operating subsidiaries and the revenues of its other
principal subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.


OPES PRIME: ANZ, Merrill Move to Strike Out AUD100 Million Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
OPES Prime's financiers, ANZ Bank and investment bank Merrill
Lynch, lodged documents in federal court to throw out a
$100 million-plus class action suit launched by Slater & Gordon
on behalf of more than 50 clients of the collapsed broker,
Richard Gluyas writes for Australian IT.

On May 30, Slater & Gordon launched the claim for more than
$100 million on behalf of more than 50 former clients of Opes
Prime (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2008).  The class action
alleges negligence and breaches of corporations law.

The lead claimant in the class action is Imobilari Pty Ltd, the
investment company of a Sydney businessman who lost several
hundred thousand dollars as a result of the Opes Prime collapse.

In May, the Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific reported that
the Commonwealth Legal Funding -- a U.S.-based litigation firm
-- agreed to fund the class action (Troubled Company Reporter-
Asia Pacific, May 19, 2008).

The banks also knew about Opes' misleading conduct, and should
not benefit at the expense of the broker's clients, the
plaintiffs' lawyers claimed.

However, ANZ hit back, saying there was no evidence to suggest
it had actual knowledge of Opes' conduct, and that the facility
agreements between the broker and its customers could not be
construed as a mortgage.

An ANZ spokesman said that the two banks were arguing that the
class action was "flawed in significant respects".

                        About Opes Prime

Opes Prime Group Ltd is an Australian unlisted public company
providing a range of financial services and products for high
net worth individuals, stockbrokers and financial advisors,
asset managers, banks and other firms, both for themselves and
their clients.  The Group conducts business via a number of
operating subsidiaries based in Melbourne, Sydney and Singapore.


ORGANON INTERNATIONAL: NuvaRing Suits Consolidated in Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal lawsuits involving the contraceptive device NuvaRing,
which is manufactured by Organon International, have been
consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
Newsinferno.com reports.

According to Newsinferno, the NuvaRing suits were consolidated
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
before Judge Rodney W. Sippel.

The report explains that NuvaRing is a transparent, flexible
vaginal ring that provides month-long birth control by emitting
a continuous dose of estrogen and progestin for 21 days.
However, since the product hit the market in 2001, it has been
the subject of many lawsuits related to blood clots.  It has
also been blamed for 12 deaths nationwide.

Newsinferno further explains that NuvaRing releases a
combination of ethinyl estradiol, a form of the hormone
estrogen, and etonogestral, which is an active metabolite of
desogestrel -- a form of the hormone progestin.  In 2003, the
report notes, the New England Journal of Medicine published two
studies that concluded that the use of low-estrogen oral
contraceptives containing the progestin desogestrel
significantly increases the risk of venous thromboembolism, a
potentially fatal type of blood clot, more than low-estrogen
birth control pills containing levonorgestrel.  NuvaRing
releases approximately 120 micrograms of etonogestral per day, a
relatively high dose of the dangerous hormone, the report notes.

In 2007, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen asked
federal regulators to ban oral contraceptives that contained
forms of desogestral because this dangerous progestin has been
implicated in a higher risk of strokes, blood clots and other
cardiovascular problems.

On August 22, 2008, the MDL Panel granted a petition filed by
the plaintiffs involved in federal NuvaRing lawsuits to create
the NuvaRing Multidistrict litigation.  The plaintiffs suggested
in their petition that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri was the particular federal district court
that should be assigned the NuvaRing Multidistrict Litigation.
The plaintiffs said that one case pending there, "Sarah M. Jenn
v. Organon International, Inc., et al.," had progressed further
in the pre-trial stage of litigation than most, if not all
other, NuvaRing federal lawsuits.

Newsinferno points out that a multidistrict litigation is not
the same as a class action lawsuit as each case in an MDL
retains its own identity.  If the MDL process does not resolve
the cases, they are transferred back to the court where they
originated for trial.


ORIOXI INTL: Recalls Hoodies Posing Strangulation Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
Orioxi International Corp., of Brea, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
43,000 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts and Jackets.

The company said the sweatshirts and jackets have drawstrings
through the hood which pose a strangulation hazard to young
children.  In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help
prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the
neck and waist drawstring in upper garments, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled garments were sold in children's sizes small,
medium and large in the following colors: white, ivory, red,
black, navy, brown, green, charcoal, blue, and pink. "BAC" is
printed on the sewn-in tag on some of the garments.
"Breckenridge", "Keystone", "Jackson Hole", "Vail", "Steamboat",
and "Mackinac Island" is printed on the front of the garments.

These recalled hoodies were manufactured in China and were being
sold at "Shirt off My Back" retail stores located in Colorado,
Wyoming, and Michigan from September 2005 through May 2008 for
between $20 and $30.

Pictures of the recalled hoodies are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08379a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08379b.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08379c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from
the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard.  Consumer can return
the garments to the place of purchase for a refund.

For additional information, contact Outfitter Trading Company at
800-875-4352 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. MT Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.shirtoffmyback.com/


PARKLAND MEMORIAL: Texas Court Refuses to Certify "Valcho" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an Aug. 19, 2008 ruling, Chief Judge Sidney Fitzwater of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas declined
to grant class-action status to a lawsuit filed against Parkland
Memorial Hospital, Joyce Tsai writes for the Dallas Business
Journal.

Plaintiff Angela Valcho filed the lawsuit against Parkland
Health & Hospital System, alleging that she and other hourly
nursing employees at Parkland were shortchanged from overtime
wages whenever they were interrupted during their lunch and
asked to work because of staffing problems.

Judge Fitzwater's recent ruling has nothing to do with the
merits of Ms. Valcho's claims, other than to determine the
format of the case, the report notes.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Recalls Coffee Makers Due to Fire & Burn Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears, Roebuck and Co., the great indoors and Kmart Corp., of
Hoffman Estates, Ill. -- in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission -- is recalling about 145,000 Kenmore
and Kenmore Elite Coffee Makers.

The company said the wiring in the coffee maker can overheat,
posing burn and fire hazards to consumers.

Sears has received 20 reports of coffee makers overheating,
including 12 fires, causing damage to counter tops, cabinet
damage, and plastic melting on the floor.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves 12-cup Kenmore coffee makers sold in black,
white, and red with the following model numbers: 100.80006
(black), 100.81006 (white), and 100.82006 (red).  The recall
also involves 12-cup Kenmore Elite coffee makers with thermal
carafe (model number 100.90007) and 14-cup Kenmore Elite coffee
makers (model number 100.90006).  The model number can be found
on the bottom of the unit. There is a Kenmore or Kenmore Elite
logo on the front bottom of the maker.

These recalled coffee makers were manufactured in China and were
being sold at Sears, Sears Hardware, the great indoors, and
Kmart stores nationwide, as well as Sears.com and Kmart.com,
from August 2007 through April 2008 for between $30 and $100.

Pictures of these recalled coffee makers are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08372a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08372b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the coffee
makers and take them to their nearest Sears or Kmart store to
obtain a free replacement coffee maker.

For more information, contact Sears at 800-978-7615 between 7:00
a.m. and 9:00 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday, or visit the
following Web sites: http://www.sears.com/http://www.kmart.com/
or http://www.thegreatindoors.com/


SHORETEL INC: Underwriters Seek to Toss Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lehman Brothers Inc. and JPMorgan Securities Inc., the lead
underwriters for ShoreTel Inc.'s initial public offering, are
joining forces with the company in seeking to throw out a
securities class action suit brought by investors who claim they
were misled after stock prices fell in the wake of the IPO,
Standford Law School Securities Class Action ClearingHouse
reports.

On Jan. 16, 2008, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned "Watkins v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al.," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against ShoreTel, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.

On Jan. 29, 2008, a second purported stockholder class action
complaint, captioned "Kelley v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al.," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the same defendants.

Both complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock pursuant to its IPO on
July 3, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2008).  Both
complaints purport to allege claims for violations of the
federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

The two underwriters said in court documents filed recently in
that the plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action complaint
should be dismissed with prejudice because, among other things,
their claim that misrepresentations appeared in the company's
IPO registration statement can't be established by any facts.

That registration statement consisted entirely of accurate
historical information and a detailed presentation of risks
ShoreTel would face in the future, including the risk that
revenues might not continue to grow or might even decline, the
underwriters said in their motion.  In the quarter following
ShoreTel's July 2007 IPO, ShoreTel achieved its highest revenues
in its 12-year history.

The first identified complaint is "Watkins v. ShoreTel, Inc. et
al., Case Number: 3:2008cv00271," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Hon. Charles R.
Breyer, presiding.


SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN: Disabled Employees' Lawsuit Allege Bias
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Social Security Administration is facing a complaint that
accuses the agency of systemic discrimination against employees
with disabilities, Tim Kauffman writes for the Federal Times.

According to the report, Barbara Penny, a former supervisor at
the SSA, admitted that employees with disabilities at the agency
are passed over for training and are viewed as a costly burden
because they often require special accommodations, such as
interpreters or electronic readers.  As a result, they are not
promoted as often as other employees.

Ms. Penny related that in at least one instance, she and other
members of a panel charged with reviewing top candidates for a
job opening at the agency were provided details on each
candidate's race, gender and disabilities -- factors that should
not be considered in personnel decisions.  The list was shredded
after the selection panel made its decision, she said.

"There is no doubt in my mind that disability was a factor in
decision-making because it was more convenient for SSA not to
pick the disabled person who needed an expensive accommodation,"
Ms. Penny said.

Ms. Penny's account is laid out in the recently filed
discrimination complaint against the SSA, the report says.
In addition, more than 40 current and former employees who say
they were denied promotions at the agency have also provided
statements in support of the complaint, which was filed before
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Federal Times notes that the complaint seeks class-action
certification to cover current and former employees with severe
disabilities who were denied equal promotional opportunities
since August 2003.

Federal Times points out that the SSA is doing a better job than
most agencies at hiring disabled employees.  There are 1,284
employees with severe disabilities at the agency, or 2% of the
agency's total work force.  The government-wide figure is less
than 1 percent, the report further notes.

However, disabled employees told Federal Times that the SSA's
positive story ends there.  According to the lawsuit, about 57%
of the agency's disabled employees work at or below GS-8, and
none hold upper-management positions.  Moreover, the number and
percentage of employees with severe disabilities at the agency
has decreased steadily since 2000.

The lawsuit cites the case of Ronald Jantz, who is deaf, and was
hired by SSA in 1988 as a fiscal management analyst.  Mr. Jantz
has remained at the same GS-12 pay level for 20 years, although
he estimates that he has applied and made the best-qualified
list for at least 30 vacant GS-13 positions and has been passed
over time and time again for non-disabled employees who he
claims were less qualified.

SSA has known for decades that its disabled employees are not
treated equally, the lawsuit claims.  A 1991 study by an agency
working group found that employees with severe disabilities
received fewer promotions, fewer awards and less training than
their non-disabled colleagues and were subject to significantly
more disciplinary actions.


SYMANTEC CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Antivirus Online Upgrades
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Superior Court of Santa Clara County in California alleging it
sells Norton computer security products, has an unlawful policy
of terminating subscription time of certain customers who
purchased upgrades without providing a credit or refund for
unused subscription time, and fails to disclose this policy.

Examples of this software include:

     -- Norton AntiSpam,
     -- Norton Personal Firewall,
     -- Norton AntiVirus,
     -- Norton Internet Security,
     -- Norton SystemWorks,
     -- Norton Confidential and
     -- Norton 360.

Plaintiffs claim that each class member purchased Norton
computer security software which came with a subscription for
regular "content updates," which keep the security software up
to date.  These updates are delivered by Symantec via online
downloads through the LiveUpdate feature of the Norton software.

As the subscription expiration date approaches, the Norton
security software prompts the user to consider renewing their
subscription for another term and also presents an opportunity
to upgrade to a new product by making an online purchase.  If
the user then chooses to purchase an upgrade, the new
subscription begins when the upgrade is installed, not when the
existing subscription expires.  Plaintiffs allege that the new
subscription should begin when the existing subscription
expires, and that Symantec unlawfully terminated subscription
time without providing a credit or refund and without disclosing
this policy.

In Feb., the representative plaintiffs have filed a Consolidated
Second Amended Complaint which alleges:

     -- violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
        Code Section 1750 et seq.,

     -- violation of the Unfair Competition Act, Cal. Bus. &
        Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.,

     -- violation of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. &
        Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.,

     -- breach of contract, and

     -- breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
        money had and received, unjust enrichment and
        declaratory relief.

On May 7, 2008, the Honorable Jack Komar of the Superior Court
of Santa Clara County, California certified this case as a class
action on behalf of persons and entities who purchased online
upgrades of certain Norton antivirus and Internet security-type
software products, the installation of which resulted in the
uninstallation of another Norton subscription product prior to
the expiration of that product's subscription.

The Class consists of persons and entities who installed their
upgrade product between December 5, 2001 and April 11, 2008, but
does not include those who purchased upgrades through Symantec's
online store.

The Court also certified a subclass consisting of: All members
of the class who purchased online, primarily for personal,
household or family purposes, a Symantec Subscription Product
with a Stock Keeping Unit that designates the product as an
upgrade, the installation of which resulted in the
uninstallation of another Symantec Subscription Product prior to
the expiration of that Productís subscription.

Symantec denies these allegations and asserts that, at all
times, its actions and business practices have been lawful and
appropriate.

Deadline to file for exclusion is on November 19, 2008.

The suit is "Bruce Heverly et al. v. Symantec Corp., Case No. 1-
05-CV-053711," filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara
County.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael Scott Green, Esq.
          Green & Pagano LLP
          522 Route 18 North
          P.O. Box 428
          East Brunswick, NJ 08816
          Phone: 800-270-8695
          e-mail: nortoncase@heverlylawyers.com

          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          Chavez & Gertler LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Phone: 800-270-8695
          e-mail: nortoncase@heverlylawyers.com

          Michael H. Landis, Esq.
          Smolow & Landis
          204 Two Neshaminy Interplex
          Trevose, PA 19053
          Phone: 800-270-8695
          e-mail: nortoncase@heverlylawyers.com

          C. Benjamin Nutley, Esq.
          Kendrick & Nutley
          1055 E. Colorado Blvd., 5th Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Phone: 800-270-8695
          e-mail: nortoncase@heverlylawyers.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, PC
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: 800-270-8695
          e-mail: nortoncase@heverlylawyers.com


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit Named
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has named National Elevator Fund
as the lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP as the lead counsel in a consolidated litigation that
consists of nine securities fraud class action suits accusing
VeriFone Holdings Inc. and its chief officers of artificially
inflating the company's stock price, Standford Law School
Securities Class Action ClearingHouse reports.

The report notes that several class action lawsuits have been
filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of VeriFone Holdings.  The complaints allege that
VeriFone and certain of its present and former officers violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially
misleading statements regarding artificially high revenues.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on December 3, 2007,
VeriFone announced that it was restating its financial
statements for the first three fiscal quarters of 2007, and that
the previous statements could no longer be relied upon.  In
reaction to this news, VeriFone's share price fell by 45% -- or
$22 per share -- on nearly 35 times its average trading volume.

On February 5, 2008, the Court issued an order signed by U.S.
District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel consolidating several similar
class actions into Civil Action C 07-6140 MHP.  The consolidated
action is captioned "In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

In a recent ruling, Judge Patel whittled the six sets of
plaintiffs seeking lead status to three serious contenders
before selecting National Elevator Fund as the best putative
class representative and naming Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins as class counsel.

The report says that NEF purchased approximately 243,000 shares
of VeriFone between Aug. 30, 2006, and Dec. 3, 2007, at a cost
of nearly $9 million.  It lost approximately $2.8 million after
VeriFone notified investors that it would be forced to restate
the company's financial results, causing the stock price to
plummet to almost half its previous value.  NEF won out over a
group investors aggregated as the Israeli Group, whose
$15 million losses were the highest among the candidates for
lead plaintiff.  The difficulty of coordinating among the five
investor entities that make up the Israeli Group proved too
great an obstacle to efficiency, the order said.

The court said it found no rationale for the Israeli grouping
other than to band together the greatest financial interests in
order to be appointed lead plaintiff.  Another set of potential
lead plaintiffs consisted of CLAL Finance Batucha Investment
Management, whose purchase of VeriFone shares culminated in a
loss of roughly $3 million, but Judge Patel passed over the
investor because it included a day-trader member that would not
adequately represent the class, the order said.

The suit is "In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action C 07-6140 MHP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

To contact lead counsel:

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423
          e-mail: info@csgrr.com


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Popcorn Due to Undeclared Dairy Allergen
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling 365 Organic Everyday Value
Popcorn, Lightly Salted because it may contain undeclared milk
ingredients.

The popcorn in these packages was incorrectly flavored with a
white cheddar seasoning which includes milk ingredients; the
seasoning may not be visibly apparent. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk ingredients run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

This product was distributed to and sold in Whole Foods Market
retail stores in California, Arizona, Nevada, Kentucky,
Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington D.C,
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Oregon, New
Jersey, New York and Washington.

The product is sold in a blue and white 5 ounce bag with a
picture of popcorn in a red and white container. The product is
labeled as 365 Organic Everyday Value Organic Popcorn, Lightly
Salted with a UPC of 9948240552.  The recalled product's lot
code is stamped on the front top right corner and reads "Sell By
10/28/08" or "Sell By 10/29/08".

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
product containing milk ingredients was incorrectly packaged in
bags that did not reveal the presence of milk ingredients.
Subsequent investigations indicate the problem was caused by a
temporary breakdown in the producer's packaging processes.

Consumers who have purchased 365 Organic Popcorn Lightly Salted
with a lot code of "Sell By 10/28/08" or "Sell By 10/29/08" are
urged to return it to any Whole Foods Market for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 512-542-
0656.


WILLIAMS COS: Awaits Ruling in Royalties Suit Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Cos., Inc., is awaiting a ruling from a Kansas
state court regarding the class certification of a lawsuit over
royalties.

In 2001, fourteen of the company's entities were named as
defendants in a nationwide class action in Kansas state court
that had been pending against other defendants, generally
pipeline and gathering companies, since 2000.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.

The fourth amended petition, which was filed in 2003, deleted
all Williams defendant entities except two Midstream
subsidiaries.  All remaining defendants have opposed class
certification and a hearing on the plaintiffs' second motion to
certify the class was held in April 2005.  The company is
awaiting a decision from the court.

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

The Williams Cos., Inc. -- http://www.williams.com/-- is a
natural gas company.  The company primarily finds, produces,
gathers, processes and transports natural gas.  Its operations
are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Gulf
Coast and the Eastern Seaboard.  Its activities are primarily
operated through business segments, which include Exploration &
Production, Gas Pipeline, Midstream Gas & Liquids, and Gas
Marketing Services.  Exploration & Production produces, develops
and manages natural gas reserves primarily located in the Rocky
Mountain and Mid-Continent regions of the U.S.  Gas Pipeline
includes interstate natural gas pipelines and pipeline joint
venture investments.  Midstream Gas & Liquids includes natural
gas gathering, treating and processing business.  Gas Marketing
Services manage its natural gas commodity risk.  Other primarily
consists of corporate operations.  Other also includes the
company's interest in Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P.


WILLIAMS COS: Colo. Royalty Interest Owners' Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit filed against The Williams Cos.,
Inc., over calculation of oil and gas royalty payments to
royalty interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado, continues
to be stayed.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit with the Colorado state
court alleging that the company improperly calculated oil and
gas royalty payments, failed to account for the proceeds that
the company received from the sale of gas and extracted
products, improperly charged certain expenses, and failed to
refund amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.

The plaintiffs claim that the class might be in excess of 500
individuals and seek an accounting and damages.

The parties have agreed to stay this action in order to
participate in ongoing mediation.

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

The Williams Cos., Inc. -- http://www.williams.com/-- is a
natural gas company.  The company primarily finds, produces,
gathers, processes and transports natural gas.  Its operations
are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Gulf
Coast and the Eastern Seaboard.  Its activities are primarily
operated through business segments, which include Exploration &
Production, Gas Pipeline, Midstream Gas & Liquids, and Gas
Marketing Services.  Exploration & Production produces, develops
and manages natural gas reserves primarily located in the Rocky
Mountain and Mid-Continent regions of the U.S.  Gas Pipeline
includes interstate natural gas pipelines and pipeline joint
venture investments.  Midstream Gas & Liquids includes natural
gas gathering, treating and processing business.  Gas Marketing
Services manage its natural gas commodity risk.  Other primarily
consists of corporate operations.  Other also includes the
company's interest in Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P.


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Kansas Court Yet to Certify Natural Gas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas state court has yet to rule on a motion seeking class
certification for a lawsuit filed against Williams Partners L.P.
along with its other subsidiaries.

In 2001, the company and certain of its units were named
defendants in a purported nationwide class action lawsuit in
Kansas state court that had been pending against other
defendants, generally pipeline and gathering companies, since
2000.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.

The defendants have opposed class certification and a hearing on
the plaintiffs' second motion to certify the class was held on
April 1, 2005.  The parties are awaiting a decision by the
court.

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

Williams Partners L.P. -- http://www.williamslp.com/-- is a
partnership formed by The Williams Cos., Inc. to own, operate
and acquire a diversified portfolio of complementary energy
assets.  The company is principally engaged in the business of
gathering, transporting and processing natural gas and
fractionating and storing natural gas liquids.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *