CAR_Public/080904.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 176

                            Headlines

99 CENTS: Court Gives Final OK to $3.2MM Labor Suit Settlement
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: 5th Circuit Considers "Comer" Dismissal Appeal
APPLE INC: Sued in California Over iPhones' Misrepresented Sale
AUTO COOL: Offers Settlement for Faulty Advertising Lawsuit
AVIS BUDGET: Calif. Court Dismisses Certain Claims in "Shames"

AVIS RENT: Plaintiffs Withdraw "Ludwig" Lawsuit in California
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Cipro Antitrust Lawsuits Still Pending
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: No Trial Date Set for Ovcon-35 Lawsuits
BETHLEHEM AREA: Judge Approves Settlement in Voting Rights Suit
BJC HEALTHCARE: Uninsured Patients' Suit Settlement Challenged

BUDGET TRUCK: Court Approves Refueling Practices Suit Settlement
COVENTRY HEALTH: Court Orders "Tag-Along" Lawsuit Arbitration
DIEBOLD INC: Ohio Court Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuit
EVANS & TATE: Hundreds More Investors Urged to Join AUD4MM Suit
FLAGHOUSE INC: Recalls Hammocks Due to Fall, Strangulation Risks

GENERAL MOTORS: Michigan Court OKs UAW Suit Deal on Final Basis
GENERAL MOTORS: Objector Appeals $37.5M ERISA Suit Deal Approval
GENERAL MOTORS: Parties Brief Court on Antitrust Lawsuit Motions
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Lawsuits Over Engine Cooling Systems
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Michigan Securities Lawsuit for $277 Mln

GENERAL MOTORS: Lawsuits Over Defective Parking Brakes Pending
GENTA INC: N.J. Securities Suit Deal Granted Court's Final Nod
GMAC LLC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Zielezienski" Lawsuit
GRISTEDE'S OPERATING: Loses New York FLSA Violations Lawsuit
IMAX CORP: Awaits N.Y. Court Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit

LANDSHIRE INC: Recalls Sub Sandwich for Possible Health Risk
LENOX GROUP: Plaintiff Wants FACTA Violations Suit Deal Okayed
LIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. RICO Suit Over Finance Charges
MEDSTAFF INC: Court Certifies Class in "Petray" Labor Lawsuit
MERIX CORP: Plans Certiorari Petition Over Ruling in Ore. Matter

PORTLAND GENERAL: April 2009 Hearing Set for Customers' Lawsuits
REGAL LAGER: Recalls Phil & Teds Strollers for Laceration Hazard
SEMPRA ENERGY: Faces Suits Over 2007 San Diego County Wildfires
STANDARD CONRETE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Labor Code Violations
STONE ENERGY: La. Court Mulls Modifying Stay in Derivative Suit

STONE ENERGY: Sept. 21, 2009 Trial Set for La. Securities Suit
TRANS OCEAN: Recalls Smoked Salmon for Possible Health Risks
TRANSMERICA LIFE: Settles Management Fee Overcharge Lawsuit
U.S. AUTO: Sept. 29 Hearing Set for $10M Deal in California Suit
UNOCAL CORP: Parties Settle Lawsuits Over Reformulated Gasoline

VANGUARD GROUP: Investors Sue Over Illegal Gambling Businesses
WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Plaintiffs Appeal Reversal of "Cuesta" Ruling

* Charles R. Jaeger Joins Gibson Dunn's San Francisco Office



                           *********


99 CENTS: Court Gives Final OK to $3.2MM Labor Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ventura County Superior Court granted final approval to a
proposed $3.2-million settlement in two labor-related class-
action lawsuits filed against 99 Cents Only Stores.

The two suits are:

      1. "Vargas v. 99c Only Stores," filed in the Ventura
         County Superior Court in California, and

      2. "Washington v. 99c Only Stores," filed in the Los
         Angeles County Superior Court in California.

                       Vargas Litigation

On June 19, 2006, plaintiff Joanna Vargas filed a putative
class-action lawsuit against 99 Cents, seeking to represent its
California retail non-exempt employees.  The Vargas lawsuit
alleged that 99 Cents failed to provide or pay for meal or rest
breaks and associated claims, non-payment of wages, and non-
payment of overtime wages.

The Vargas lawsuit sought compensatory, special and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, penalties, attorneys fees and
injunctive relief.

                     Washington Litigation

On Oct. 31, 2006, plaintiff Chantelle Washington filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against the company, seeking to
represent its California retail non-exempt cashier employees
with respect to similar claims.  The Washington lawsuit alleged
failure to provide or pay for meal or rest breaks and associated
claims.

The Washington lawsuit sought compensatory damages and penalties
in unspecified amounts, as well as equitable relief, attorney
fees and interest.

                       Coordinated Suits

The Vargas and Washington actions have been coordinated in
Ventura County Superior Court.

In November 2007, the company and the plaintiffs in both cases
entered into a settlement agreement providing for a maximum
payment of $3.2 million (including attorneys' fees).

On Nov. 30, 2007, the court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement and authorized the parties to provide a notice to
class members about the settlement.  The notice and claims
process had been completed.

The court subsequently approved the settlement on a final basis,
and a proposed judgment on the cases had been entered, 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 28, 2008.

99 Cents Only Stores -- http://www.99only.com/-- is a retailer
of consumable general merchandise.  It operates through two
segments: retail operations and wholesale distribution.  The
wholesale segment, Bargain Wholesale, sells primarily the same
merchandise as the retail segment at prices generally below
normal wholesale levels to local, regional and national
distributors and exporters.  The company had no customers
representing more than 10% of net sales.  Substantially all of
the company's net sales were to customers located in the U.S.
As of March 29, 2008, the company operated 265 retail stores
with 186 in California, 46 in Texas, 22 in Arizona, and 11 in
Nevada.  These stores averaged approximately 21,722 gross square
feet.  The company is also a wholesale distributor of various
consumable products.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: 5th Circuit Considers "Comer" Dismissal Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to issue
a ruling on an appeal in connection with the dismissal of all
defendants, including Allegheny Energy, Inc., from the purported
class action lawsuit "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Co., Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW."

The suit was filed on April 19, 2006, against Allegheny Energy,
Inc., and numerous other companies with coal-fired generation
facilities.  It was brought on behalf of a purported class of
residents and property owners in Mississippi who were harmed by
Hurricane Katrina.

The named plaintiffs allege that the emission of greenhouse
gases by the defendants contributed to global warming, thereby
causing Hurricane Katrina and, as result, damages to the
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount for
damages.

On Dec. 6, 2006, Allegheny filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint on jurisdictional grounds and joined a
motion filed by other defendants to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim.

At a hearing on Aug. 30, 2007, the Court granted the defendants'
dismissal request and therefore dismissed all of the plaintiffs'
claims against all defendants.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding that ruling on
Sept. 17, 2007.  The case has been fully briefed in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and oral argument had
been done, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

             - and -

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


APPLE INC: Sued in California Over iPhones' Misrepresented Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc., and AT&T are facing a class-action
complaint before the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, over allegations that the companies unjustly profited by
misrepresenting the speed and performance of Apple's 3G iPhone
and the bandwidth network through which AT&T backs it up,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The "affected models" are the 3G-8GB and 3G-16GB iPhones.

According to the complaint, the 3G iPhone demands too much power
from the 3G bandwidths.  The AT&T infrastructure is insufficient
to handle this overwhelming 3G signal based upon the high volume
of 3G iPhones it has sold, the complaint states.

The complaint further states: "Apple's prior EDGE-based iPhone
had complaints of being too slow over the Internet, despite
early ads that made it appear as if the iPhone could surge at
desktop-like speeds.  Due to the overloaded 3G network, it is
quite common for 3G iPhone users to be on the 3G network for
only a few minutes before their 3G iPhone switches over to the
slower EDGE network, even in areas with rich 3G coverage.

"AT&T has misrepresented the performance of its 3G network.
AT&T spokesperson Brad Mays stated that iPhone 3G is 'performing
great.'  'Customers in 300 major metro areas in the United
States and 350 by the end of the year are experiencing the fast
network connectivity that our 3-G network provides,' according
to Mays in an email interview. Mays also stated that 'We have
anticipated the influx of users and have reported that the
strength of the network can, does and will continue to support
that.'"

However, the complaint continues, "According to Information
Week, Apple CEO Steven Jobs responded to an upset 3G-iPhone
owner via email stating that 'This is a known iPhone bug that is
being fixed in the next software update in September.'  So far,
Apple has issued two firmware updates to make corrections to the
device's many bugs.  Neither of Apple's Affected Models contain
a disclaimer on the outside of each and every one of defendant's
3G iPhone boxes."

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all individuals
who have purchased the affected models stated.

the plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying this case as a class action and
        appointing plaintiff and their counsel to represent the
        class;

     -- a temporary, preliminary and permanent order for
        injunctive relief enjoining defendants from pursuing the
        policies, acts and practices complained of;

     -- a temporary, preliminary, and permanent order for
        injunctive relief requiring defendants to undertake an
        immediate public campaign to inform members of the
        General Public as to their prior practices and notifying
        members of the proposed class as to the presence of
        potential restitutionary relief;

     -- an award of exemplary and punitive damages as
        appropriate to deter and punish defendants for their
        unfair and deceptive business practices, as well as
        their fraudulent and deceitful conduct;

     -- an order requiring disgorgement of defendants' ill-
        gotten gains and to pay restitution to plaintiffs and
        all members of the class and the general public all
        funds acquired by means of any act or practice declared
        by the court to be an unlawful, fraudulent or unfair
        business act or practice, a violation of laws, statutes
        or regulations, or constituting unfair competition;

     -- distribution of any monies recovered on behalf of
        the general public, or members of the class, via fluid
        recovery or cy pres recovery where necessary to prevent
        defendants from retaining the benefits of their wrongful
        conduct;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- costs of the suit;

     -- pre- and post-judgment interest; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem
        necessary or appropriate.

The suit is "William J. Gillis, Jr., et al. v. Apple Computer,
Inc. et al., Case No. 37-2008-00090743-CU-BT-CTL," filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Michael Ian Rott, Esq.
          David V. Hiden, Jr., Esq.
          Eric M. Overholt, Esq.
          Hiden, Rott & Oertle, LLP
          2635 Camino del Rio South, Suite 306
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: 619-296-5884
          Fax: 619-296-5171


AUTO COOL: Offers Settlement for Faulty Advertising Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action had earlier alleged that an infomercial's claim
that Auto Cool would keep the interior of a car nice and cool,
even if it sat out in the blistering heat, is not true,
abc7news.com recounts.

Auto Cool is manufactured by Auto Cool Guelph Ltd.

In an update, abc7news.com says that the parties in the suit
have already agreed to resolve the matter and the settlement
deal is waiting for approval from the courts.

Under the settlement, individuals who bought Auto Cool could be
in line for a $10 gift certificate, which would allow them to
get more products from Auto Cool Guelph.


AVIS BUDGET: Calif. Court Dismisses Certain Claims in "Shames"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
dismissed certain claims in a purported class-action lawsuit
that was brought against Avis Budget Group, Inc., and other
major car rental firms over alleged fixing of prices on rental
cars at California airports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on Nov. 14, 2007 (Class Action Reporter,
May 19, 2008).  Specifically named as defendants in the matter
are:

          -- The Hertz Corp.,
          -- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.,
          -- Avis Budget Group, Inc.,
          -- VanGuard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
          -- Rent-A-Car Co.,
          -- Fox Rent A Car, Inc.,
          -- Coast Leasing Corp.,
          -- The California and Tourism Commission, and
          -- Caroline Beteta

Named plaintiffs Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow allege that the
rental car defendants entered into a horizontal price-fixing
agreement among competitors, a per se violation of the antitrust
laws, by which they have agreed to raise, stabilize and fix the
prices which they charge consumers for the rental of automobiles
at those California airports.

The conspirators also allegedly misrepresent a 2.5% tax owed to
co-defendant California Travel and Tourism Commission as owed by
customers, though it is owed by the businesses, the suit says.

The plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of civil
Procedure, on behalf of all individual or entities who purchased
rental car services from rental car defendants from a California
situs airport after Jan. 1, 2007.  They want the court to rule
on:

     (a) whether defendants formed and operated a combination or
         conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
         prices of, or allocate the market for, car rental
         services operating in conjunction with California
         airports;

     (b) whether the combination or conspiracy caused the prices
         of car rental services operating in conjunction with
         California airports to be higher than they would have
         been in the absence of defendants' conduct;

     (c) the operative time period of defendants' combination or
         conspiracy;

     (d) whether defendants' conduct caused injury to the
         business or property of plaintiffs and the members of
         the class;

     (e) the appropriate measure of damages suffered by the
         class;

     (f) whether defendants' conduct violates Section 1 of the
         Sherman Act;

     (g) whether defendants' conduct violates California's
         Unfair competition Law;

     (h) whether defendants' conduct violates California's
         Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act; and

     (i) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief.

The plaintiffs ask for:

     -- an injunction halting all violations, and other
        equitable relief, including restitution and disgorgement
        of unjust enrichment;

     -- damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the class,
        trebled according to law; and

     -- attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest as
        permitted by law.

The company filed filed a motion to dismiss the suit.

On April 8, 2008, the Court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to state claims
for which relief could be granted.

An amended complaint was filed in May 2008 against the company
and six other rental car companies, as well as the California
Travel and Tourism Commission.  The amended complaint contained
claims that the defendants had violated federal antitrust law
and California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising
Law by allegedly agreeing to pass on airport concession fees and
a state tourism commission assessment to passenger car renters
in California.  The Court has dismissed all claims against the
California Travel and Tourism Commission.

On July 24, 2008, the Court granted the company's motions to
dismiss with respect to the state law claims and denied its
motion to dismiss with respect to the federal antitrust claim in
the case, according to Avis Budget Group, 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 "Michael Shames, et al. v. The Hertz Corp. Case No.
07CV 2174 H BLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

For more details, contact:

          Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq. (cpil@sandiego.edu)
          Center for Public Interest Law
          University of San Diego School of Law
          5998 Alcala Park
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: 619-260-4806
          Fax: 619-260-4753

          Donald G. Rez, Esq. (rez@shlaw.com)
          Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel
          550 West "C" Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 62101
          Fax: 619-231-4372
          Phone: 619-233-4100

               - and -

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


AVIS RENT: Plaintiffs Withdraw "Ludwig" Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class-action suit "Ludwig v.
Avis Rent A Car System, Inc." have dismissed their case, which
named as defendants Avis Budget Group, Inc., and sister company
Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., over rental car charges.

The matter was commenced in the Superior Court of California in
and for Los Angeles on behalf of plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated claiming violations of California Civil Code
Section 1936 and unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business
practices under California Business and Professions Code Section
17203.

Section 1936 of the California Civil Code establishes the
additional daily rates which a rental car company may charge for
the optional loss damage waiver product based on the
manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) of the vehicle in
2002 with Consumer Price Index increases to the MSRP commencing
Jan. 1, 2003.

The plaintiffs had contended that the amount of the daily charge
imposed for certain classes of vehicles exceeded the amount set
forth in the statute based on the vehicle cost.

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

Avis Budget Group, Inc. -- http://www.avisbudgetgroup.com/--
provides car and truck rentals and ancillary services to
businesses and consumers in the U.S., and internationally.  The
company operates two of the brands in the global vehicle rental
industry through Avis and Budget.  Avis is a rental car supplier
to the premium commercial and leisure segments of the travel
industry and Budget is a rental car supplier to the price-
conscious segments of the industry.  The company operates in
three business segments: Domestic Car Rental, consisting of its
Avis and Budget U.S. car rental operations; International Car
Rental, consisting of its international Avis and Budget car
rental operations, and truck rental, consisting of its Budget
truck rental operations.


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Cipro Antitrust Lawsuits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to face several purported
antitrust class-action lawsuits filed in various courts in
connection with Ciprofloxacin, 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.

Initially, the company was named as a co-defendant with Bayer
Corp., The Rugby Group, Inc., and others in approximately 38
class-action complaints filed before state and federal courts by
direct and indirect purchasers of Ciprofloxacin from 1997 to the
present.

The complaints allege that the 1997 Bayer-Barr patent litigation
settlement agreement was anti-competitive and violated federal
antitrust laws and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.

A prior investigation of this agreement by the Texas Attorney
General's Office on behalf of a group of state attorneys general
was closed without further action in December 2001.

The lawsuits include nine consolidated in California state
court, one in Kansas state court, one in Wisconsin state court,
one in Florida state court, and two consolidated in New York
state court, with the remainder of the actions pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (MDL Case).

                            MDL Case

On March 31, 2005, the Court in the MDL Case granted summary
judgment in the company's favor and dismissed all of the federal
actions before it.

On June 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed notices of appeal before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Second Circuit transferred the appeal involving the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeals
of the direct purchaser plaintiffs in the case.

Briefing on the merits is now complete in the Federal Circuit,
and oral argument took place on June 4, 2008.  Merits briefing
in the Second Circuit is complete, but oral argument has yet to
be scheduled.

                      Wisconsin Litigation

On Sept. 19, 2003, the Circuit Court for the County of Milwaukee
dismissed the Wisconsin state class-action lawsuit for failure
to state a claim for relief under Wisconsin law.

The Court of Appeals reinstated the complaint on May 9, 2006,
and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that decision in
July 2007, while not addressing the underlying merits of the
plaintiffs' case.

The matter was returned to the trial court for further
proceedings, and the trial court has stayed the case.  A status
hearing is scheduled for Oct. 31, 2008.

                       New York Litigation

On Oct. 17, 2003, the Supreme Court of the State of New York for
New York County dismissed the consolidated New York state class
action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.

An intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, and the
plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal to the New York Court of
Appeals.

                      California Litigation

On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court of San Diego, California,
ordered a stay of the California state class actions until after
the resolution of any appeal in the MDL Case.

The plaintiffs have moved to lift the stay.  The court has kept
the stay in place at this time, but has scheduled a further
status hearing for Dec. 12, 2008.


                        Kansas Litigation

On April 22, 2005, the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas,
similarly stayed the action before it until after any appeal in
the MDL Case.  A status hearing, however, is currently scheduled
for Nov. 19, 2008.

                       Florida Litigation

The Florida state class action remains at a very early stage,
with no status hearings, dispositive motions, pre-trial
schedules, or a trial date set as of yet.

The company reporter no further details regarding the cases in
its regulatory filing.

Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.barrlabs.com/-- is
primarily a holding company.  The company's subsidiaries, Barr
Laboratories, Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develop,
manufacture and market generic and proprietary pharmaceutical
products, respectively.  It operates in two business segments.
In the generic pharmaceutical segment, it manufactures and
distributes approximately 150 different dosage forms and
strengths of approximately 75 different generic pharmaceutical
products, including 22 oral contraceptive products that
represent the largest category of its generic product portfolio.


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: No Trial Date Set for Ovcon-35 Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date was set in connection with lawsuits filed by
direct purchasers of the Ovcon-35 drug against Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Warner Chilcott Holdings, Co. III,
Ltd., among others.

To date, the company has been named as a co-defendant with
Warner Chilcott and other companies in complaints filed before
the federal courts by the Federal Trade Commission, 34 state
Attorneys General, and certain private class-action plaintiffs
claiming to be direct or indirect purchasers of Ovcon-35.

These actions, the first of which was filed by the FTC in
December 2005, allege, among other things, that a March 24, 2004
agreement between the company and Warner Chilcott (formerly
known as Galen Holdings PLC) constitutes an unfair method of
competition, is anticompetitive and restrains trade in the
market for Ovcon-35 and its generic equivalents.

In the suit brought on behalf of the direct purchasers, on
Oct. 22, 2007, the Court granted a motion by the plaintiffs to
certify a class on behalf of all entities that purchased Ovcon
35 directly from Warner Chilcott (or its affiliated companies)
from April 22, 2004.

In November 2007, the company and the direct purchasers filed
cross motions for summary judgment.  No ruling has been made on
the motions and no trial date has been set.

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

Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.barrlabs.com/-- is
primarily a holding company.  The company's subsidiaries, Barr
Laboratories, Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develop,
manufacture and market generic and proprietary pharmaceutical
products, respectively.  It operates in two business segments.
In the generic pharmaceutical segment, it manufactures and
distributes approximately 150 different dosage forms and
strengths of approximately 75 different generic pharmaceutical
products, including 22 oral contraceptive products that
represent the largest category of its generic product portfolio.


BETHLEHEM AREA: Judge Approves Settlement in Voting Rights Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Legrome D. Davis approved a settlement
that will allow voters to choose six at-large board seats and
three regional positions at the Bethlehem Area School District,
The Express Times reports.

According to Express Times, BASD had nine at-large seats.

The report says that the settlement is the outcome of a class
action voting rights lawsuit filed by South Side residents Olga
Negron and Ramonita Garcia in February 2006.  Ms. Negron and
Ms. Garcia sued the district after school directors filled a
board vacancy with a white former director who had just lost re-
election and bypassed Hispanic candidates.

The settlement, Express Times points out, divides the district
into these three geographic regions:

    Region I: South Side, Fountain Hill and Freemansburg

   Region II: West and Center City Bethlehem and Hanover
              Township, Northampton County

  Region III: Northeast Bethlehem and Bethlehem Township

Region I will be filled in 2009 while the other two regions will
be up for election in 2010, the report notes.


BJC HEALTHCARE: Uninsured Patients' Suit Settlement Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several members of the class-action settlement between BJC
Healthcare and its uninsured patients have filed objections to
the deal, saying it does little to address the excessive prices
billed to patients without insurance, Mary Jo Feldstein writes
for St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Concerns raised include self-pay discounts of 25% being
insufficient considering that the underlying charge can be three
times what an insured patient might be billed.

"I don't think the lawsuit accomplishes anything meaningful,"
said Stuart R. Berkowitz, Esq., who represents the objecting
class members.  "I think it is basically a paper settlement."

Other concerns include how patients will be notified of
eligibility for self-pay and charity care discounts, and how the
court will be able to monitor BJC's actions.

The Class Action Reporter reported on May 17, 2007, that
a St. Louis City (Mo.) Circuit Court certified the suit as a
class action.  The suit alleged that Barnes-Jewish Hospital,
part of BJC HealthCare, overcharged uninsured patients.  The
class certified by the court consists principally of persons
who received medical services and made no payments, payment
arrangements or requests for forgiveness on bills that were sent
to them.

The suit, filed in 2004, also alleged that the hospital
overcharged thousands of uninsured patients as much as two to
three times way back 1999.

On March 20, 2008, the CAR reported that BJC HealthCare and two
Missouri law firms have reached a settlement in the class action
lawsuit.

According to St. Louis Post-Dispatch, BJC has instituted
expanded charity care policies since the lawsuit was filed.
Under the settlement, the area's largest hospital system would
continue these policies -- which provide discounted care to
patients with low to moderate incomes -- as well as institute a
"self-pay discount" policy.  This would provide a discount to
all patients without insurance regardless of their income level.

Further, the settlement calls for the the self-pay discount and
charity care discount will be applied retroactively to uninsured
patients' bills issued from Jan. 1, 1999, to the present.  The
discounts will also be available for at least four years.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch says that uninsured patients who
were treated at a BJC hospital since Jan. 1, 1999, and paid some
or all of their bill, may be eligible for a partial refund.
They will be notified of their right to submit a claim for the
refund.

Kim Kitson, a spokeswoman for BJC, said the hospital system
responded to any objections and is confident in its position.

Don Downing, Esq., the attorney representing the rest of the
class, said the agreement is "fair and reasonable for class
members."  He hopes it is approved as soon as possible so class
members can file claims and receive compensation.

Circuit Judge David Mason presides over the case.

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs is:

          Don Downing, Esq. (ddowning@grgpc.com)
          Gray, Ritter & Graham P.C.
          Gateway One On The Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1826
          (Independent City)
          Phone: 314-241-5620
          Fax: 314-241-4140
          Web Site: http://www.grayrittergraham.com/

Representing the hospital is:

          Bryan Cave LLP
          211 N Broadway Ste 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
          Phone: 1-314-259-2000
          Web site: http://www.bryancave.com/


BUDGET TRUCK: Court Approves Refueling Practices Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California approved a
proposed settlement reached in a purported class-action suit
against Budget Truck Rental, LLC, a unit of Avis Budget Group,
Inc., according to Avis Budget's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

On Oct. 27, 2006, plaintiffs Giuseppe Demarte and Mona Self
filed a complaint against Budget Truck.  The complaint alleges
causes of action for unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.,
and conversion, relating to Budget Truck's refueling practices
and procedures.

The complaint is asserted as a putative class-action lawsuit on
behalf of "all persons who, within the four years preceding the
filing of the complaint, have entered into a truck rental
agreement with Budget Truck Rental in California that provided
for a refueling fee and who paid that fee, or have paid for fuel
in connection with that rental agreement based on the amount of
fuel measured by the rented truck's fuel gauge, or have returned
the rented truck to Budget with more fuel in the tank than at
the initiation of the rental."

The parties have settled the action and court approval of the
settlement was obtained in May 2008.

The settlement principally provides that class members will be
entitled to receive a payment or coupons which may be redeemed
for discounts on truck or car rental charges, and that BTR will
issue written communications to its California locations and
post signage at such locations with respect to refueling
practices and procedures.

The aggregate value of the payments and coupons to be issued in
connection with the settlement is estimated to be less than
$1 million.

Avis Budget Group, Inc. -- http://www.avisbudgetgroup.com/--
provides car and truck rentals and ancillary services to
businesses and consumers in the U.S., and internationally.  The
company operates two of the brands in the global vehicle rental
industry through Avis and Budget.  Avis is a rental car supplier
to the premium commercial and leisure segments of the travel
industry and Budget is a rental car supplier to the price-
conscious segments of the industry.  The company operates in
three business segments: Domestic Car Rental, consisting of its
Avis and Budget U.S. car rental operations; International Car
Rental, consisting of its international Avis and Budget car
rental operations, and truck rental, consisting of its Budget
truck rental operations.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Court Orders "Tag-Along" Lawsuit Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
ordered to arbitration the matter "Harrison vs. Coventry Health
Care of Georgia, Inc. (CHCGA)" -- a tag-along action that is
included in the Multi-District Litigation "In Re: Managed Care
Litigation, MDL No. 1334" -- which names Coventry Health Care,
Inc., as defendant, according to Conventry'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 was a defendant in the provider track of "In Re:
Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division, in the suit captioned "Charles B. Shane., et al., vs.
Humana, Inc., et al."

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company
on all claims asserted in the litigation.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court's
order granting summary judgment.

The Shane lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class-
action complaints by other health care providers such as
chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed
health care professionals.  Each of these actions has been
transferred to the MDL and has been designated as "tag-along"
actions.  There are three tag-along actions currently filed
against the company.

The trial court had entered an order which stayed all
proceedings in these tag-along actions.

Recently, the trial court requested the parties in the tag-along
actions to refile all motions pending at the time of the stay
and to file any new motions.

On July 14, 2008, the trial court entered an order in the
Harrison tag-along action, dismissing all of the plaintiffs'
claims except their breach of contract claim, which the court
ordered to arbitration.

In addition, the court deferred to the arbitrator for decision
the company's affirmative defenses that the plaintiffs waived
their right to arbitration and their claim is barred by the
doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata.

The Harrison tag along action is a purported class-action suit
on behalf of all physicians in Georgia who had written provider
contracts with CHCGA.  The plaintiffs allege that CHCGA breached
their contracts by not paying statutory interest on claims not
adjudicated in compliance with Georgia's prompt pay statute.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.cvty.com/-- is a
national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland,
operating health plans, insurance companies, network
rental/managed care services companies and workers' compensation
services companies.


DIEBOLD INC: Ohio Court Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
As previously disclosed in 2005, five shareholder lawsuits were
filed against Diebold Incorporated and certain current and
former officers and directors, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

These cases were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On August 22, 2008, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated cases, and entered a judgment in favor
of Diebold and the other defendants, dismissing the complaint
with prejudice.

A separate class action suit against Diebold and certain current
and former officers and directors filed by participants in the
company's 401(k) plan, alleging breaches of duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, remains
outstanding.

Diebold, Incorporated -- http://www.diebold.com/-- is a global
leader in providing integrated self-service delivery and
security systems and services.


EVANS & TATE: Hundreds More Investors Urged to Join AUD4MM Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney-based investor behind a AUD4-million class action
lawsuit targeting Evans & Tate Ltd. founder Franklin Tate is
inviting hundreds more investors to join the legal action
against the winemaker, The West Australian reports.

According to West Australian, this move could cause the lawsuit
to blow out to more than AUD10 million.

Tony Lewis, of financial planner Lewis Securities, last week
confirmed to West Australian that he had written to more than
900 holders of Evans & Tate Wines securities inviting them to
join the Tate class action, which is being run by law firm
Maurice Blackburn.

"Now that we've done some evidence and know a bit more we've
decided to invite others to join our group -- we've found what
we think is a more compelling case (and) we think everyone can
get paid," Mr. Lewis told West Australian.

The class action was lodged in the New South Wales Federal Court
in October 2007, just months after the group collapsed under a
mountain of debt that left unsecured creditors facing the loss
of as much as AUD48.7 million and E&T securityholders about
$30.1 million.

According to the report, Maurice Blackburn is representing about
50 clients in the action, which basically alleges that Mr. Tate
misled investors over the financial state of his ailing wine
group between 2003 and 2005 and played a role in the group's
failure to comply with continuous disclosure obligations.

West Australian relates that Maurice Blackburn principal Ben
Slade recently revealed there was a "possibility" of settling
the case out of court, with a mediation hearing expected to take
place before the end of the year.  Mr. Slade said he hoped the
two parties would be able to hold talks in November before
returning to court for a hearing in December.

The report says that administrators Ferrier Hodgson are believed
to be considering launching a case against consultant
Viticulture Asset Management and E&T directors over a
contentious $2.8-million dividend payout in 2005.

West Australian points out that since the collapse of E&T,
Mr. Tate has re-entered the wine business through wholesaler
Grape Expectations Vintners and is reportedly going back to
winemaking under the new trademark Miles from Nowhere.


FLAGHOUSE INC: Recalls Hammocks Due to Fall, Strangulation Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
FlagHouse Inc., of Hasbrouck Heights, N.J., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
100 Yayita Baby Hammocks.

The company said the hammock can flip over, posing a serious
fall hazard and strangulation hazard to infants who get
entrapped in the seat's restraint straps while upside down.

FlagHouse has received one report of an incident in which the
hammock flipped over entrapping a 7 month old boy in the
restraint straps.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled baby hammock is cream-colored canvas and hangs from
a wooden pole.  The hammock measures about 29 x 43 inches. It
has three restraint straps with red buckles and is attached to a
cushioned pad for the infant.  A mounting fixture, also called a
fixing set, is sold with the hammock.  "La Siesta" is printed on
a tag located below the restraint straps.  Model number YABP-1
is printed on a white tag sewn into the hammock's side seam.

These recalled baby hammocks were manufactured in Colombia and
were being sold by FlagHouse Inc.'s catalog, and online at
http://www.flaghouse.com/and at BJ Wholesale Club's Web site,
http://www.bjs.com/from September 2007 through August 2008 for
about $90.

A picture of the recalled baby hammocks can be found at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08604.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the baby hammock
and contact FlagHouse to receive a full refund, or credit toward
the purchase of another product.

For additional information, contact FlagHouse at 800-793-7900
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.flaghouse.com/


GENERAL MOTORS: Michigan Court OKs UAW Suit Deal on Final Basis
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
approved the proposed settlement in the matter, "UAW, et al. v.
General Motors Corporation."

The suit was filed by the United Automobile Workers and eight
putative class representatives.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the company completed settlement negotiations
in the matter and entered into a Settlement Agreement with the
UAW and the putative classes.

The court certified the class and granted preliminary approval
of the Settlement Agreement on March 4, 2008.  Notice of the
settlement was mailed to 520,000 class members, and the final
hearing to review the fairness of the Settlement Agreement was
held on June 3, 2008.

On July 31, 2008, the court approved the Settlement Agreement on
a final basis.  All appeals, if any, are expected to be
exhausted no later than Jan. 1, 2010, according to General
Motors Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: Objector Appeals $37.5M ERISA Suit Deal Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
One objector has filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit regarding the approval of a $37.5-million
settlement reached in the matter, "In re General Motors ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-71085-NGE-RSW," which was pending
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against General Motors Corp.

The company was named as a defendant in an Employee Retirement
Income Security  Act lawsuit in relation to its two retirement
funds.  The case involved two General Motors ERISA Plans namely:
the Personal Savings Plan for Hourly Employees, and the Savings-
Stock Purchased Program for Salaried Employees, both holding
large amounts of General Motors stock.

The suit claimed the defendants put the interests of the company
ahead of the interests of the plan participants by continuing to
offer General Motors stock as an investment option, matching
employee contributions in General Motors stock and failing to
diversify the stock fund when it was clear General Motors stock
was not a prudent investment.

According to the suit, the members of the investment fund
committee were also responsible for overseeing the horribly
under-funded defined-benefit pension and healthcare plans.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds appointed Steve Berman as co-
lead counsel for the consolidation of three suits.  A
consolidated suit was filed May 13, 2005.  The defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the suit, but, the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan denied the motion.

In the ruling, Judge Edmunds cited that the company had a duty
to convey complete and accurate financial information about
General Motors' true financial health to the plaintiffs,
something the suit claims it failed to do.

On July 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint, which principally adds
allegations about GM's restated earnings and reclassification of
cash flows, but which does not name any additional defendants or
assert any new claims.

On Aug. 24, 2006, the GM defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  No determination has been made that the
case may be maintained as a class action.

On or around January 2008, it was announced that certain
plaintiffs' attorneys filed a motion for preliminary approval of
a proposed settlement of all claims in the matter.  If approved,
the settlement will provide a cash fund of $37.5 million.

On June 5, 2008, the Court gave final approval to the proposed
settlement reached in the matter.

In July 2008, one of the objectors to the plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees award filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, according to General Motors Corp.'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 "In re General Motors ERISA Litigation, Case No.
2:05-cv-71085-NGE-RSW," pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Nancy G. Edmunds,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq. (gjohnson@scott-scott.com)
          Scott & Scott
          33 River Street
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Phone: 440-247-8200
          Fax: 440-247-8275

               - and -

          Elwood S. Simon, Esq. (esimon@esimon-law.com)
          Elwood S. Simon Assoc.
          355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Phone: 248-646-9730
          Fax: 248-258-2335

Representing the defendants are:

          Dennis M. Barnes, Esq. (dbarnes@bsdd.com)
          Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, P.L.L.C.
          211 W. Fort Street, Suite 1500
          Detroit, MI 48226-3281
          Phone: 313-965-9725

               - and -

          Timothy A. Duffy, Esq. (tduffy@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis
          200 E. Randolph Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-861-2000


GENERAL MOTORS: Parties Brief Court on Antitrust Lawsuit Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to the purported class-action suit "In re New Market
Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases," which names
General Motors Corp. as one of the defendants, are briefing the
District Court of the defendants' various motions for summary
judgment and motions in limine, as well as the plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification.

Initially, several purported class action suits were filed in
various state and federal courts on behalf of all purchasers of
new motor vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001.

The federal court actions were consolidated for coordinated
pretrial proceedings in federal court under the caption "In re
New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases,"
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.

The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant
manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired
among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to
U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and
sold by dealers in Canada.

The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10%
to 30% lower than those in the U.S. and that preventing the sale
of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of
supracompetitive prices by U.S. consumers.  In addition, the
complaints also alleged unjust enrichment and violations of
state unfair trade practices act.

The court ruled on March 21, 2007, that it 20 separate statewide
class action suits for damages were certified under various
state law theories under Federal Rule 23(b)(3), covering the
period from Jan. 1, 2001, to April 30, 2003.

General Motors has appealed the certification of the damages
classes following the entry of the class certification order and
anticipates that its appeal will be consolidated with its
pending appeal of a prior order certifying a nationwide class
for injunctive relief only.

On Oct. 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
heard oral arguments on the company's consolidated appeal of the
orders of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine
certifying 20 separate statewide class actions for damages under
various state law theories and certifying a nationwide class for
injunctive relief only.

On March 28, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit reversed the certification of the injunctive class and
ordered dismissal of the injunctive claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also vacated the
certification of the damages class and remanded to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine for determination of
several issues concerning federal jurisdiction and, if such
jurisdiction still exists, for reconsideration of that class
certification on a more complete record.

The parties are now briefing for the District Court the
defendants' various motions for summary judgment and motions in
limine, as well as the plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification, according to General Motors Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Lawsuits Over Engine Cooling Systems
------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. settled several purported class-action
suits related to alleged defects in engine cooling systems
installed in GM vehicles.

The parties, in October 2007, reached the tentative settlement
that would resolve certain claims in the defective engine
cooling systems suits.  This settlement has been documented in
formal written agreements, which have been preliminarily
approved by the state courts in California (covering claims in
49 states) and Missouri.

If finally approved, the settlement, as negotiated, will
specifically resolve claims related to vehicles sold in the U.S.
with a 3.1, 3.4 or 3.8-liter engine or to the use of DexCool
engine coolant in sport utility vehicles and pick-up trucks with
a 4.3-liter engine from 1996 through 2000.

Hearings to consider final approval of the settlement have been
held on Aug. 29, 2008, in California, and scheduled for Sept. 5,
2008, in Missouri, according to General Motors Corp.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

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

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Michigan Securities Lawsuit for $277 Mln
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the multidistrict litigation entitled "In re
General Motors Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation," have
reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities
litigation portion of the matter for approximately $277 million,
according to General Motors Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The litigation named as defendants General Motors Corp., General
Motors Acceptance Corp., and certain of the company's officers
and directors.  It is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

Intially, on Sept. 19, 2005, a purported class action complaint,
"Folksam Asset Management v. General Motors, et al.," was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, naming as defendants:

     -- the company;

     -- GMAC;

     -- the company's chairman and chief executive officer, G.
        Richard Wagoner, Jr.;

     -- vice chairman, John Devine;

     -- treasurer, Walter Borst; and

     -- chief accounting officer, Peter Bible.

The plaintiffs purported to bring the claim on behalf of
purchasers of the company's debt and equity securities from
Feb. 25, 2002 to March 16, 2005.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of
the U.S. Exchange Act.  It also alleged violations of Sections
11 and 12(a), and, with respect to the individual defendants,
Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection with certain
registered debt offerings during the class period.

In particular, the complaint alleged that the company's cash
flows during the class period were overstated based on the
reclassification of certain cash items described in its 2004
Form 10-K.

The reclassification involves cash flows relating to the
financing of GMAC wholesale receivables from dealers that
resulted in no net cash receipts and the company's decision to
revise Consolidated Statements of Net Cash for the years ended
2002 and 2003.

The complaint also alleged misrepresentations relating to
forward-looking statements of the company's 2005 earnings
forecast that were later revised significantly downward.

In October 2005, a substantially identical suit, "Galliani v.
General Motors, et al.," was filed and consolidated with the
Folksam case.  The consolidated suit is now called, "In re
General Motors Securities Litigation."

On Nov. 18, 2005, plaintiffs in the Folksam case filed an
amended complaint, which added several additional investors as
plaintiffs, extended the end of the class period to Nov. 9,
2005, and named as additional defendants three current and one
former member of the company's audit committee, as well as its
independent accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP.

In addition to the claims asserted in the original complaint,
the amended complaint also added allegations regarding the
company's Form SEC 8-K dated Nov. 8, 2005, which reported that
its 2001 earnings would be restated and added a claim against
defendants Wagoner and General Motors Acceptance Corporation
Devine for rescission of their bonuses and incentive
compensation during the class period.

The amended complaint also included further allegations
regarding the company's accounting for pension obligations,
restatement of income for 2001, and financial results for the
first and second quarters of 2005.

Neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint specify
the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no means to
estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited
information available in the complaint.  The defendants have not
yet filed their response to the complaints, but intend to
vigorously defend these actions.

On Dec. 13, 2005, defendants in "In re General Motors Securities
Litigation," and in certain other litigation against the company
filed a Motion with the JPMDL to transfer and consolidate those
cases for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.

On Jan. 5, 2006, defendants submitted to the JPML an Amended
Motion seeking to add to their original Motion the cases:

     * "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al.;" and
     * "Gluckstern v. Wagoner, et al."

for consolidated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On April 17, 2006, the JPML entered an order transferring, "In
re General Motors Corp. Securities Litigation" to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with:

      -- "Stein v. Bowles, et al.;"

      -- "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al.;"

      -- "Gluckstern v. Wagoner, et al.;" and

      -- "Orr v. Wagoner, et al."

While the motion was pending, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
"Rosen."  The case is now captioned as "In re General Motors
Corporation Securities and Derivative Litigation."

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the GM
Securities litigation on July 21, 2008. T he settlement is
subject to the negotiation of a formal agreement, which will be
filed with the court in late August or early September 2008.

The agreement in principle calls for the company to pay
$277 million.  The company will be required to pay one-half of
the money into an escrow account within 30 days of preliminary
approval of the settlement by the court, and the other half into
an escrow account in January 2009.  The tentative settlement is
subject to court approval.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawsuits Over Defective Parking Brakes Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. continues to face four purported class-
action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada alleging that certain
1998 through 2004 C/K pick-up trucks have defective parking
brakes, according to General Motors Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The cases are:

       1. "Bryant v. General Motors Corporation," filed on March
          11, 2005 in the Circuit Court for Miller County,
          Arkansas;

       2. "Hunter v. General Motors Corporation," filed on Jan.
          19, 2005 in Superior Court in Los Angeles, California;

       3. "Chartrand v. General Motors Corporation, et al.,"
          filed on Oct. 26, 2005 in Supreme Court, British
          Columbia, Canada; and

       4. "Goodridge v. General Motors Corporation, et al.,"
          filed on Nov. 18, 2005 in the Superior Court of
          Justice, Ontario, Canada.

The complaints allege that parking brake spring clips wear
prematurely and cause failure of the parking brake system, and
seek compensatory damages for the cost of correcting the alleged
defect, interest costs and attorney's fees.

The two Canadian cases also seek punitive damages and "general
damages" of $500 million.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Miller County Circuit Court in the Bryant
case certified a nationwide class consisting of original and
subsequent owners of 1999 through 2002 GM series 1500 pick-up
trucks and sport utility vehicles equipped with automatic
transmissions and registered in the U.S.

On June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the
certification decision.  The company intends to file a petition
for certiorari seeking review of the certification decision in
the U.S. Supreme Court.

The company reporter no further developments regarding the cases
in its regulatory filing.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENTA INC: N.J. Securities Suit Deal Granted Court's Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
final approval to the proposed settlement in a consolidated
securities fraud class-action suit filed against Genta, Inc.

Initially, in 2004, numerous complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Genta and
certain of its principal officers on behalf of purported classes
of the company's shareholders who purchased its securities
within several class periods.

The complaints were consolidated into a single action and
alleged that the company and certain of its principal officers
violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading statements regarding Genasenser for the treatment
of malignant melanoma that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the company's securities.

The consolidated shareholder class-action complaint sought
monetary damages in an unspecified amount and recovery of
plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees.

The company subsequently reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle the class action suit in exchange for the
issuance of 2.0 million shares of common stock of the company
(adjusted for any subsequent event that results in a change in
the number of shares outstanding as of Jan. 31, 2007) and
$18.0 million in cash for the benefit of the plaintiffs and the
shareholder class.  The cash portion of the proposed settlement
will be covered by the company's insurance carriers.

Effective June 25, 2007, the company and the plaintiffs executed
a written Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which was
granted preliminary approval by the Court in October 2007.

An order approving the settlement on a final basis was issued on
May 27, 2008, and the settlement became final on June 27, 2008,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re: Genta, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:04-cv-02123-JAG-MCA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. (mackerman@brodsky-smith.com)
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 610-667-6200

          Andrew Robert Jacobs, Esq. (ajacobs@ramseyberman.com)
          Ramsey Berman, PC
          222 Ridgedale Avenue
          P.O. Box 2249
          Morristown, NJ 07962
          Phone: 973-267-9600
          Fax: 973-984-1632

               - and -

          Marc Bradley Kramer, Esq. (marcbkramer@cs.com)
          Law Offices of Marc B. Kramer, P.C.
          150 JKF Parkway, Suite 100
          Short Hills, NJ 07078
          Phone: 973-847-5924

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas A. Cunniff, Esq. (tcunniff@foxrothschild.com)
          Fox Rothschild LLP
          Princeton Pike Corporate Center
          997 Lenox Drive, Building 3
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2311
          Phone: 609-896-3600


GMAC LLC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Zielezienski" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit "Zielezienski v.
General Motors Corporation et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-11784-NGE-
VMM," which names GMAC LLC as a defendant, are appealing the
dismissal of the case, according to General Motors Corp.'s
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

                     Zielezienski Litigation

On Nov. 29, 2005, Stanley Zielezienski filed the purported class
action lawsuit before the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County,
Florida, against:

     -- GMAC;

     -- General Motors Corp.;

     -- General Motors Chairman and Chief Executive Officer G.
        Richard Wagoner, Jr.;

     -- GMAC Chairman Eric A. Feldstein; and

     -- certain General Motors and GMAC officers, namely:

        * William F. Muir,
        * Linda K. Zukauckas,
        * Richard J. S. Clout,
        * John E. Gibson,
        * W. Allen Reed,
        * Walter G. Borst,
        * John M. Devine, and
        * Gary L. Cowger.

The action also names certain underwriters of GMAC debt
securities as defendants.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act and, with respect to all defendants except GM,
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.  The complaint also
alleges that GM violated Section 15 of the Securities Act.  In
particular, the complaint alleges material misrepresentations
in certain GMAC financial statements incorporated by reference
with GMAC's 2003 Form S-3 Registration Statement and Prospectus.

More specifically, the complaint alleges material
misrepresentations in connection with the offering for sale of
GMAC SmartNotes in certain GMAC financial statements contained
in GMAC's forms 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended in
March 31, 2004, and June 30, 2004, and the Form 8-K, which
disclosed financial results for the quarterly period ended in
Sept. 30, 2004, were materially false and misleading as
evidenced by GMAC's 2005 restatement of these quarterly results.

In December 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
making substantially the same allegations as were in the
previous filing, with respect to additional debt securities
issued by GMAC during the period April 23, 2004, to March 14,
2005, and adding approximately 60 additional underwriters as
defendants.

GMAC said that the complaint does not specify the amount of
damages sought, and the defendants have no means to estimate the
damages the plaintiffs will seek based on the limited
information available in the complaint.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the defendants named in the original complaint
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, and on April 3, 2006, that court
transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

                    J&R Marketing Litigation

On Dec. 28, 2005, J&R Marketing, SEP, filed a purported class
action suit, captioned "J&R Marketing, et al. v. General Motors
Corporation, et al."

The action was filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County,
Michigan, against the same companies, the same individuals, and
several underwriters of GMAC debt securities.

Similar to the original complaint filed in "Zielezienski," the
J&R Complaint alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of
the Securities Act based on alleged material misrepresentations
or omissions in the Registration Statements for GMAC SmartNotes
purchased between Sept. 30, 2003, and March 16, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint alleges inadequate disclosure of GM's financial
condition and performance as well as issues arising from GMAC's
2005 restatement of quarterly results for the three quarters
ended Sept. 30, 2005.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, and
the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs
will seek based upon the limited information available in the
complaint.

On Jan. 13, 2006, the defendants removed this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

                       Mager Litigation

On Feb. 17, 2006, Alex Mager filed a purported class action
suit entitled "Mager v. General Motors Corporation, et al."

The suit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan and is substantively identical to
the J&R Marketing case.

On Feb. 24, 2006, J&R Marketing filed a motion to consolidate
"Mager" with its case and for appointment as lead plaintiff and
the appointment of lead counsel.

                         Consolidation

On March 8, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating "J&R
Marketing" and "Mager."  Subsequently, these cases were also
consolidated with "Zielezienski."

The lead plaintiffs' counsel has been appointed, and on July 28,
2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
differing mainly from the initial complaints by asserting claims
for GMAC debt securities purchased during a different period,
July 28, 2003, through Nov. 9, 2005, and added additional
underwriter defendants.

On Aug. 28, 2006, the underwriter defendants were dismissed
without prejudice.

On Sept. 25, 2006, the GM and GMAC defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

In February 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan issued an opinion granting the defendants'
dismissal motion.

The plaintiffs have appealed this order, and oral argument on
the appeal was held on Feb. 7, 2008.  Under the terms of the
Sale Transactions, GM is indemnifying GMAC in connection with
these cases.

On March 6, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing.  On June 26, 2008,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered an order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for rehearing, but reaffirming
the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint.  The plaintiffs have
filed a petition for rehearing en banc.

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

The suit is "Zielezienski v. General Motors Corporation et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-11784-NGE-VMM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Nancy G.
Edmunds, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. (jweiss@weisslurie.com)
          Weiss and Lurie
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York City, NY 10176
          Phone: 212-682-3025


GRISTEDE'S OPERATING: Loses New York FLSA Violations Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul A. Crotty, of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, granted summary judgment in favor
of a class of more than 400 current and former co-managers and
department managers of Gristede's Operating Corporation on their
claims that the New York City grocery store chain violated the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by
failing to pay them proper overtime compensation for hundreds of
thousands of overtime hours.

Judge Crotty ruled that Gristede's unlawfully "sought to treat
workers as 'hourly' for some purposes (i.e., docking them for
hours not worked during the workweek), but 'salaried' for other
purposes (i.e., not paying them overtime for hours worked in
excess of the workweek)."

Linda A. Neilan, Esq., of Outten & Golden LLP, said, "What
Gristede's forced upon its employees was a 'heads-I-win, tails-
you-lose' arrangement.  We are pleased that the Court saw
through this scheme and gave our clients the justice they
deserve.  These workers gave Gristede's so many hours of their
lives.  All they wanted was to be properly paid for their work."

The judge also ruled that Gristede's unlawfully retaliated
against two of the plaintiffs by filing counterclaims against
them, finding that the counterclaims were "so flimsy that they
must have been made for another purpose: to punish the
Individual Plaintiffs for joining the FLSA suit and having the
temerity to name certain Gristede's officers."

One of the Gristede's officers named in the suit is John
Catsimatidis, the owner and CEO of the Red Apple Group,
Gristede's parent corporation.  Mr. Catsimatidis has spoken
publicly about running a self-funded campaign for mayor of New
York City in 2009 as a Republican, although he was previously a
Democrat.

Justin M. Swartz, Esq., of Outten & Golden LLP, said, "Mr.
Catsimatidis' often repeated 'rags-to-riches' American immigrant
success story conflicts with his labor record as an employer.
One would think that 'the son of a Greek busboy' who 'delivered
groceries at the age of 14' would treat his own workers more
fairly -- and in accordance with state and federal law.  Mr.
Catsimatidis' business successes too often seem to come at the
expense of his employees."

Gristede's and Mr. Catsimatidis also were defendants in a
minimum wage class action suit, "Ansoumana v. Gristede's
Operating Corp.," which was brought by the company's delivery
workers.  In August 2003, the case settled for more than $3
million after the Office of the New York Attorney General
entered the case and a federal judge rejected Gristede's
argument that it was not responsible for paying its delivery
workers properly.

Also pending is another federal class action lawsuit which
alleges that Gristede's has systematically discriminated against
its female workers in hiring, pay, promotion, and job
assignments.

Attorney contacts are:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Linda A. Neilan, Esq.
          Outten & Golden LLP, New York
          Phone: 212-245-1000
          Web site: http://www.outtengolden.com/

Media contact is:

          Erin Powers
          Powers MediaWorks LLC
          for Outten & Golden LLP
          Phone: 281-703-6000
                 281-362-1411

The suit is "Torres, et al., v. Gristede's Operating Corp., et
al., Case No. 04 cv 3316," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Linda A. Neilan, Esq.
          Outten & Golden LLP in New York
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: +1-212-245-1000


IMAX CORP: Awaits N.Y. Court Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion that sought the dismissal of an
amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class
action lawsuit against IMAX Corp. and certain of its officers
and directors, according to IMAX's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Initially, the company and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in eight purported class action complaints filed
between Aug. 11, 2006, and Sept. 18, 2006.  These suits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York and were brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 17, 2006, and
Aug. 9, 2006.

The suits alleged primarily that the defendants engaged in
securities fraud by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements during the class period regarding their
revenue recognition of theater system installations, and failing
to disclose material information concerning the company's
revenue recognition practices.

These lawsuits sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs,
and expenses.

On Jan. 18, 2007, the court consolidated all eight class action
lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital Management, Inc., as
the lead plaintiff, and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, as
lead plaintiff's counsel.

On Oct. 2, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.  The amended complaint was brought on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock
between Feb. 27, 2003, and July 20, 2007.  It asserts the same
allegations as the original suits, but added the company's
auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a defendant.

The defendants, on Dec. 10, 2007, filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The plaintiffs filed their opposition to
this motion on Jan. 22, 2008.  A hearing on the dismissal motion
took place on Aug. 5, 2008.  However, the court has not yet
rendered its decision with respect to the dismissal request, the
company said in its regulatory filing.

The suit is "In re IMAX Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:06-cv-06128-NRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. (nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com)
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-889-3700
         Fax: 212-684-5191

              - and -

         Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
         Labaton Sucharow, LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: 212-907-0853
         Fax: 212-883-7053

Representing the defendants is:

         Lewis J. Liman, Esq. (lliman@cgsh.com)
         Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP
         1 Liberty Plaza
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: 212-225-2000
         Fax: 212-225-3499


LANDSHIRE INC: Recalls Sub Sandwich for Possible Health Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Landshire, Inc., is recalling its American Sub sandwich because
it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
Monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The American Sub sandwiches were distributed in the Midwestern
States of: Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  The
product was sold to Circle K Convenience Stores exclusively.
There were 812 sandwiches produced on lot number 21882.

The sandwich label identifies it as: "Fresh from the Deli"
American Sub.  This is a pre-packaged, individually wrapped
(clear plastic) with a black tray inside of package.  Sandwich
weight is 9.75ounces (276grams).  UPC code is 9748800540.  The
sandwiches involved have a lot number of 21882.  The lot number
is printed in black ink on the side of the package.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling taken by the
Ohio Department of Agriculture for retail food establishments.
Landshire has ceased the production and distribution of the
product as the Company continues its investigation as to the
source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased the "Fresh from the Deli" American
Sub are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact Landshire, Inc at
800-468-3354.


LENOX GROUP: Plaintiff Wants FACTA Violations Suit Deal Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a couple of contradicting motions in the
purported class-action suit against Lenox Group, Inc., alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act,
according to its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
28, 2008.

On April 12, 2007, Amanda Curiale filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging that the company willfully violated FACTA
by continuing to print more than the last five digits of the
credit card number and the expiration date on receipts provided
to debit card and credit cardholders transacting business with
the company.

Similar complaints have later been filed against a large number
of retailers.

Ms. Curiale seeks, on behalf of herself and the class, statutory
damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each
violation, as well as unspecified punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees and a permanent injunction from further engaging
in violations of FACTA.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the parties held an all-day meditation
session and reached a tentative settlement which is subject to
court approval.

Under the terms of the settlement, Lenox denies all claims as to
liability, damages, penalties, interest, fees, restitution and
all other forms of relief sought in the FACTA Litigation.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, the company
will pay approximately $128 for attorney's fees and costs, a
charitable contribution and a plaintiff's incentive fee, and
will provide participating claimants with a coupon off a future
purchase or a free product through company-operated retail
stores.

In return, the company and its affiliates will be completely
released from any and all claims, demands and actions concerning
the FACTA Litigation and any claims that could have been alleged
in the FACTA litigation.

As a result of the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification
Act of 2007 enacted on June 3, 2008, the company is seeking a
dismissal of the action with prejudice.

The plaintiff opposed the dismissal request and seeks court
approval of the tentative settlement.  The parties are awaiting
a decision by the court.

The suit is "Curiale v. Lenox Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-01432-RBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge R. Barclay Surrick, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
         Schiffin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         280 King Of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706

              - and -

         Gary F. Lynch, Esq. (glynch@carlsonlynch.com)
         Carlson Lynch, Ltd.
         36 N. Jefferson Street
         P.O. BOX 7635
         New Castle, PA 16107
         Phone: 724-656-1555
         Fax: 724-656-1556

Representing the defendant is:

         Wilson M. Brown, III, Esq. (wilson.brown@dbr.com)
         Drinker Biddle And Reath L.L.P.
         One Logan Square
         18th And Cherry Streets,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-988-2700


LIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. RICO Suit Over Finance Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lighthouse Financial Group is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, over
allegations that it charges more for interest and finance
charges on short-term, payday loans than the loan itself,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Leo Stoller says he paid $14,000 in finance
charges on a $12,000 loan.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the interest charged on the loans violates the
         Illinois usury laws;

     (b) whether defendants' loan contracts are null and void
         under Illinois law;

     (c) whether defendants violated Illinois law by charging
         more than 100% in violation of Illinois Usury Statute;

     (d) whether defendants violated Illinois law by charging
         more than 100% per annum in the state of Illinois in
         violation of Criminal Usury Statute;

     (e) whether defendants violated Illinois law regarding
         check cashing fees;

     (f) whether defendants converted funds of the plaintiff and
         the class through a predatory lending scheme;

     (g) whether defendants have violated their statutory duty
         under Illinois law;

     (h) whether defendants are jointly and severally liable for
         their acts because they entered a joint conspiracy and
         acted in concert to harm plaintiff and the class by
         making loans in excess of 5% per month interest and
         100% per annum interest on loans in violation of
         Illinois Usury Statute;

     (i) whether defendants are jointly and severally liable for
         their acts because they entered a joint conspiracy and
         acted in concert to harm plaintiff and the class by
         making loans in excess of 100% per month interest and
         100% per annum interest on loans in violation of
         Illinois Usury Statute;

     (j) whether defendants have acted in bad faith in regard to
         the making and performance of these usuriour loans,
         have been stubbornly litigious, and have caused
         plaintiff and the class unnecessary trouble and
         expenses of litigation;

     (k) whether defendants composed a "criminal enterprise"
         within the meaning of the Civil Racketeer Influenced
         and Corrupt Organization Act;

     (l) whether defendants' unlawful scheme constituted a
         criminal enterprise executed through a pattern of
         racketeering activity;

     (m) whether defendants committed the illegal act of usury,
         a predicate act under civil RICO;

     (n) whether defendants committed the illegal acts of theft
         by taking and theft by deception, predicate acts under
         Illinois RICO;

     (o) whether defendants' pattern of racketeering activity
         shared a common target or victim, to wit Illinois' most
         vulnerable and desperate consumers; and

     (p) whether the arbitration agreements contained in the
         adhesion contracts are unconscionable under the
         statutory and common law of Illinois.

The plaintiff and the class ask the court:

      -- for an order that this action is properly maintainable
         under Illinois law and appointing an attorney to
         represent the class;

      -- for an order approving plaintiff as class
         representative in this action along with such other
         persons who the court may permit to join as class
         representatives;

      -- for an order requiring reasonable and adequate notice
         be given to prospective class members following
         certification, and appointment of an attorney to
         represent the class;

      -- for compensatory damages against defendants in an
         amount to be determined by a jury trial, together with
         interest thereon, plus special, consequential, and
         incidental damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys'
         fees pursuant to Illinois law;

      -- for punitive damages sufficient to punish and deter
         defendants;

      -- for the trebling, or tripling, of ail compensatory
         damages (including all general, special, consequential,
         and incidental damages, costs, pre judgment interest,
         post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees)
         and punitive damages as demanded by tie provisions of
         Civil RICO;

      -- for a trial by jury of 12 citizens;

      -- for such other and further relief that the court deems
         just and proper;

      -- for $100 million in damages (including attorneys' fees
         and exclusive of interest, fees and costs as those
         terms are used in 28 USC Section 1332);  and

      -- for a permanent injunction from the defendants, its
         officers, directors from doing business within the
         State of Illinois.

The suit is "Leo Stoller, et al. v. Lighthouse Financial Group,
Inc., Case No. 2008L009658," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

For more details, contact:

          Leo Stoller
          7115 W. North Avenue, #272
          Oak Park, IL 60130
          Phone: 312-545-4554


MEDSTAFF INC: Court Certifies Class in "Petray" Labor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California in Riverside County granted a
class certification motion that was filed in the purported
class-action suit against Medstaff, Inc., a subsidiary of Cross
Country Healthcare, Inc.,

The suit, entitled "Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda v.
MedStaff, Inc.," was filed on Feb. 18, 2005, and relates to
MedStaff corporate employees.  It alleges violations of certain
sections of the California Labor Code, the California Business
and Professions Code, and seeks recovery of unpaid wages and
penalties.

The plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, purport to
sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
They specifically allege that MedStaff:

      -- failed, under California law, to provide meal period
         and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods
         and rest breaks;

      -- failed to compensate the employees for all hours
         worked;

      -- failed to compensate the employees for working
         overtime; and

      -- failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of
         time worked

The plaintiffs ask the Court for:

      -- an order enjoining MedStaff from engaging in the
         practices challenged in the complaint;

      -- an order for full restitution of all monies
         MedStaff allegedly failed to pay plaintiffs and their
         purported class;

      -- payment of interest;

      -- certain penalties provided for by the California
         Labor Code; and

      -- an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Court ordered the plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification by Sept. 5, 2006.  Yet, on July 21, 2006, the
company filed a motion seeking a stay of all proceedings until
the conditionally certified collective action in "Henry v.
MedStaff, Inc., et al.," has been either decertified or granted
final certification.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the court granted in part the company's stay
motion.

A joint stipulation was subsequently filed prohibiting the
plaintiffs from moving for class certification prior to Oct. 25,
2006, in order to allow for the completion of pre-certification
discovery and to allow for the completion of the opt-in period
in "Henry v. MedStaff, Inc., et al."

On Oct. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a certification motion.

The court, on Feb. 5, 2007, finally granted class certification,
according to Cross Country's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Boca Raton, Florida-based Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. --
http://www.crosscountry.com/ccinc/-- is a provider of
healthcare staffing services in the U.S.  Its healthcare
staffing business segment is comprised of travel and per diem
nurse staffing, allied health staffing, as well as clinical
research trials staffing.  Cross Country's brands include Cross
Country TravCorps and MedStaff.


MERIX CORP: Plans Certiorari Petition Over Ruling in Ore. Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merix Corp. plans to file a certiorari petition before the U.S.
Supreme Court regarding a lower court's decision in the
consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against the
company entitled, "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp.
et al, Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO."

On June 17, 2004, the company and certain of its executive
officers and directors were named as defendants in the first of
four purported class action suits alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

These four cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, have been consolidated in a single
action entitled, "In re Merix Securities Litigation, Lead Case
No. CV 04-826-MO."

The court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed a consolidated
and amended class action complaint on Nov. 15, 2004.  On
March 3, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
and consolidated complaint for failure to identify with
sufficient specificity the statements that plaintiffs allege to
have been false and why the statements were either false when
made or material.

On Sept. 15, 2005, the court dismissed the case, without
prejudice, and gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.  In November 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making certain alleged inaccurate
and misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection
with the January 2004 public offering of approximately
$103.4 million of the company's common stock.

In September 2006, the court dismissed that complaint with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

In April 2008, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
Second Amended Complaint.  The company sought rehearing and a
rehearing en banc, both of which were denied.

The company obtained a stay of the mandate from the Ninth
Circuit and will file a certiorari petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court by Sept. 22, 2008, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008.

The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp. et
al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, Judge Michael W. Mosman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq. (gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com)
         Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (sberman@sbclasslaw.com)
         Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbclasslaw.com)
         Sean M. Handler, Esq. (shandler@sbclasslaw.com)
         Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. (azivitz@sbclasslaw.com)
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056

              - and -

         Lori G. Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 2550
         Seattle, WA 98154
         Phone: 206-839-0730
         Fax: 206-839-0728

Representing the defendants are:

         Richard L. Baum, Esq. (baumr@perkinscoie.com)
         Perkins Coie, LLP
         1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor
         Portland, OR 97209-4128
         Phone: 503-727-2021
         Fax: 503-727-2222

              - and -

         Joseph E. Bringman, Esq. (jbringman@perkinscoie.com)
         Ronald L. Berenstain, Esq.
         (RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com)
         Douglas W. Greene, III, Esq. (DGreene@perkinscoie.com)
         Perkins Coie, LLP
         1201 Third Ave., Suite 4800
         Seattle, WA 98101-3099
         Phone: 206-359-8501
                206-359-8477
                206-359-8613
         Fax: 206-359-9000
              206-359-9477
              206-359-9613


PORTLAND GENERAL: April 2009 Hearing Set for Customers' Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative April 2009 trial is scheduled for two purported
class-action suits filed by electric service customers against
Portland General Electric Co.

The two suits were filed on Jan. 17, 2003, in the Marion County
Circuit Court against Portland General, on behalf of two classes
of electric service customers.

These suits are:

      1. "Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland
         General Electric Co., Marion County Circuit Court,
         Case No. 03C 10639;" and

      2. "Morgan v. Portland General Electric Co., Marion
         County Circuit Court, Case No. 03C 10640."

The "Dreyer" case seeks to represent current Portland General
customers that were customers during the period from April 1,
1995, to Oct. 1, 2001 -- Current Class -- while the "Morgan"
case seeks to represent Portland General customers that were
customers during the period from April 1, 1995, to Oct. 1, 2001,
but who are no longer customers of the company -- Former Class.

The suits seek damages amounting to $190 million for the Current
Class and $70 million for the Former Class, with the inclusion
of a return on investment of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in the
rates Portland General charges its customers.

On April 28, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment and in July 2004, Portland General also
requested summary judgment in its favor on all of the claims.

On Dec. 14, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and partial summary judgment and denied
Portland General's own summary judgment request.  Portland
General filed for an interlocutory appeal, which was rejected on
Feb. 1, 2005.

On March 3, 2005, Portland General filed a Petition for a Writ
of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court, asking it to take
jurisdiction and command the trial judge to dismiss the
complaints or to show cause why they should not be dismissed.

On March 29, 2005, Portland General filed a second petition for
an Alternative Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court
seeking to overturn the class certification order.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling on
Portland General's Petitions for Alternative Writ of Mandamus,
abating the class action proceedings.

On Oct. 5, 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court issued an Order
of Abatement in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme
Court, abating the class actions, but inviting motions to lift
the abatement after one year.

On Oct. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the
abatement.  A hearing on this motion was held on April 10, 2008.
At the hearing, the Circuit Court declined to lift the
abatement.

Instead, the Circuit Court has encouraged the parties to attempt
to agree on steps that might be taken in preparation for a trial
in the event the Circuit Court lifts the abatement following the
OPUC order expected on Sept. 12, 2008.

At a June 3, 2008 status conference, the Circuit Court scheduled
a status conference for October 2008 and set a tentative trial
date for April 2009, 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.

Portland General Electric Co. -- http://www.portlandgeneral.com/
-- is a single, integrated electric utility engaged in the
generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail
sale of electricity in the State of Oregon.  PGE also sells
electricity and natural gas in the wholesale market to utilities
and power marketers located throughout the western U.S.


REGAL LAGER: Recalls Phil & Teds Strollers for Laceration Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Lager Inc., of Kennesaw, Ga., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 44,000
Phil & Teds e3 Single Buggy, e3 Twin Buggy and sport v1 Single
Buggy Strollers.

The company said the stroller's hinge locking mechanism poses a
laceration hazard to the user folding and unfolding the
strollers.

Regal Lager has received nine reports from consumers who injured
their fingers in the stroller's hinge locking mechanism.

The recalled single strollers all have metal frames with three
wheels, a cloth seat and canopy.  The twin strollers have a
metal frame with four wheels, side-by-side cloth seats and
double sun canopies.  The strollers were sold in a variety of
colors including red, orange, green, black, charcoal and navy.
The Phil & Teds logo is located on the crotch piece of the
harness.

These recalled strollers were manufactured in China and were
being sold at baby furniture and baby products stores nationwide
from August 2003 through August 2008 for between $400 and $650.

A picture of the recalled strollers is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08377.jpg

Consumers should stop using the strollers immediately and
contact Regal Lager to obtain a free hinge cover repair kit and
instructions.

For more information, consumers can Regal Lager toll-free at
877-242-5676 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.regallager.com/


SEMPRA ENERGY: Faces Suits Over 2007 San Diego County Wildfires
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy and its subsidiary, San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
SDG&E), are facing several purported class-action lawsuits over
power lines that allegedly triggered some wildfire in San Diego
County, according to Sempra's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

In October 2007, San Diego County experienced catastrophic
wildfires.  The causes of many of these fires remain under
investigation, including the possible role of SDG&E power lines
affected by unusually high winds.

In July 2008, the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (Cal Fire) issued investigation reports stating that
the Witch and Rice fires were each a "power line-caused fire"
and that the Guejito fire occurred when a wire securing a large
communication company's fiber optic cable came into contact with
an energized power line "causing an arc and starting the fire."

The reports indicate that the Witch and Guejito fires merged and
eventually burned approximately 198,000 acres, resulted in two
fatalities, injured approximately 45 firefighters and destroyed
approximately 1,141 homes.

Cal Fire is still investigating the perimeters of these two
fires to determine the damages associated with each one.  Cal
Fire stated that the Rice fire burned approximately 9,500 acres
and damaged 206 homes and two commercial properties.

Numerous lawsuits, four of which seek to be designated as class
actions, have been filed against SDG&E in San Diego County
Superior Court, seeking unspecified amounts for damages relating
to the fires.  Several of the lawsuits also name Sempra Energy
as a defendant.

The lawsuits allege inverse condemnation, negligence and other
causes of action, and assert that SDG&E improperly designed and
maintained its power lines and failed to adequately clear
adjacent vegetation.

Sempra Energy -- http://www.sempra.com/-- is an energy services
holding company that, through its subsidiaries, develops energy
infrastructure, operate utilities, and provide related products
and services. The company has five separately managed segments
comprising Southern California Gas Co., San Diego Gas & Electric
Co., Sempra Commodities, Sempra Generation and Sempra Pipelines
& Storage.  SoCalGas and SDG&E are collectively referred to as
the Sempra Utilities.


STANDARD CONRETE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Concrete Products is facing a class-action complaint
filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging it violates the
Labor Code, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Standard Concrete Products runs ready-mix plants in all of the
major economic areas of the metropolitan Los Angeles Basin and
major portions of Orange County as well.


STONE ENERGY: La. Court Mulls Modifying Stay in Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
has yet to consider any potential modification of the stay in a
derivative action filed against Stone Energy Corp.

Initially, on or about Dec. 16, 2005, Robert Farer and Priscilla
Fisk filed respective complaints before the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana purportedly alleging
claims derivatively on behalf of Stone.

Similar complaints were filed thereafter in the Federal Court by
Joint Pension Fund, Local No. 164, I.B.E.W., and by Gregory
Sakhno in the 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette,
Louisiana (State Court).

Stone Energy was named as a nominal defendant and David Welch,
Kenneth Beer, D. Peter Canty, James Prince, James Stone, John
Laborde, Peter Barker, George Christmas, Richard Pattarozzi,
David Voelker, Raymond Gary, B.J. Duplantis and Robert Bernhard
were named as defendants in these actions.

The State Court action purportedly alleged claims of breach of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste
of corporate assets against all defendants, and claims of unjust
enrichment and insider selling against certain individual
defendants.

The Federal Court derivative actions asserted purported claims
against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and
unjust enrichment and claims against certain individual
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

On March 30, 2006, the Federal Court entered an order naming
Robert Farer, Priscilla Fisk and Joint Pension Fund, Local No.
164, I.B.E.W. as co-lead plaintiffs in the Federal Court
derivative action and directed the lead plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint.

On April 22, 2006, the complaint in the State Court derivative
action was amended to also assert claims on behalf of a
purported class of shareholders of Stone.

In addition to the original claims, the amended State Court
derivative action complaint purported to allege breaches of
fiduciary duty by the director defendants in connection with the
then proposed merger transaction with Plains Exploration and
Production Co., and seeks an order enjoining the director
defendants from entering into the then proposed transaction with
Plains.

On May 15, 2006, the first consolidated complaint in the Federal
Court derivative action was filed, containing a similar
injunctive claim.

On Sept. 15, 2006, the co-lead plaintiffs' in the Federal Court
derivative action further amended their complaint to seek an
order enjoining Stone's proposed merger with Energy Partners,
Ltd. based on substantially the same grounds previously asserted
regarding the prior proposed transaction with Plains.

On Oct. 2, 2006, each of the defendants in the Federal Court
derivative action filed or joined in motions seeking dismissal
of all or part of that action.

Those motions were denied without prejudice on Nov. 30, 2006,
when the Federal Court granted the co-lead plaintiffs leave to
file a third amended complaint.

Following the filing of the third amended complaint in the
Federal Court derivative action, defendants filed motions
seeking to have that action either dismissed or stayed until
resolution of the pending motion to dismiss the Securities
Action before the Federal Court.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Federal Court stayed the Federal Court
derivative action at least until resolution of the then-pending
motion to dismiss the Securities Action after which time a
hearing was to be conducted by the Federal Court to determine
the propriety of maintaining that stay.

As of this date, the Federal Court has yet to consider any
potential modification of the stay.

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 quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Stone Energy Corp. -- http://www.stoneenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company.  The company is engaged
in the acquisition and subsequent exploration, development,
operation and production of oil and gas properties located
primarily in the Gulf of Mexico.  It also has operations in the
Rocky Mountain Basins and the Williston Basin (Rocky Mountain
Region).  It is also engaged in an exploratory joint venture in
Bohai Bay, China and has begun acquiring leasehold interests in
Appalachia.  The company's property base also contains multiple
deep shelf exploration opportunities in the GOM, which are
defined as prospects below 15,000 feet.


STONE ENERGY: Sept. 21, 2009 Trial Set for La. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
has set a Sept. 21, 2009 trial for the consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit captioned "In re: Stone Energy Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02088," according to Stone
Energy's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On or around Nov. 30, 2005, George Porch filed a putative class
action suit against the company, David H. Welch, Kenneth H.
Beer, D. Peter Canty and James H. Prince.  Three similar
complaints were filed thereafter.  All are alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

All complaints asserted a putative class period commencing on
June 17, 2005, and ending on Oct. 6, 2005.  All complaints
contended that, during the putative class period, the
defendants, among other things, misstated or failed to disclose:

      -- that Stone had materially overstated Stone's financial
         results by overvaluing its oil reserves through
         improper and aggressive reserve methodologies;

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

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         company's proved reserves, assets and future net cash
         flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On March 17, 2006, these purported class-action suits were
consolidated into "In re: Stone Energy Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02088," with El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund designated as lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint
on June 14, 2006.  The consolidated complaint expands the
putative class period to commence on May 2, 2001, and to end on
March 10, 2006.

On Sept. 13, 2006, Stone Energy and the individual defendants
filed motions seeking the dismissal of the action.

On Aug. 17, 2007, a Federal Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation that the Federal Court grant in part and deny in
part the dismissal requests.

The Magistrate Judge report also recommended that:

       -- the claims asserted against defendants Kenneth Beer
          and James Prince pursuant to Section 10(b) of the U.S.
          Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
          thereunder, and

       -- the claims asserted on behalf of putative class
          members who sold their Company shares prior to Oct. 6,
          2005 be dismissed and that the Motions to Dismiss be
          denied with respect to the other claims against Stone
          and the defendants.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the Federal Court issued an order directing
that judgment on the Motions to Dismiss be entered in accordance
with the recommendations of the Report.

On Oct. 23, 2007, Stone and the individual defendants filed a
motion seeking permission to appeal the denial of the Motions to
Dismiss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
which motion was denied.

The discovery process is now underway.  The parties have
exchanged initial disclosures, document requests, and
interrogatories and have begun producing documents.

On or about May 12, 2008, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion to
certify the Securities Action as a class action under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The defendants filed
their opposition to the Class Certification Motion on June 27,
2008.  They also filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
and a related Motion to Amend Answer to the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on or about June 11, 2008.  The Court has not
yet ruled on any of these three motions.

The Federal Court has entered the parties' agreed Joint Plan of
Work and Proposed Scheduling Order, which provides deadlines for
additional pre-trial proceedings, including discovery, expert
reports, and dispositive motions.  The Federal Court has set
trial to begin in the Securities Action on Sept. 21, 2009.

The suit is "In re: Stone Energy Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05-cv-02088," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, Judge Tucker L. Melancon,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kglg.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Law Group
          650 Poydras St., Ste. 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-648-1850
          Fax: 504-455-1498

               - and -

          Mitchell J. Hoffman, Esq. (mhoffman@lshah.com)
          Lowe Stein, et al.
          701 Poydras St., Ste. 3600
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Phone: 504-581-2450
          Fax: 504-581-2461

Representing the defendants are:

          Walter B. Stuart, IV, Esq. (wstuart@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins
          666 5th Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10103
          Phone: 212-237-0000
          Fax: 212-237-0100

               - and -

          Amy E. Allums, Esq. (aea@jgmclaw.com)
          Johnson Gray McNamara
          P.O. Box 51165
          Lafayette, LA 70505
          Phone: 337-412-6003
          Fax: 337-412-6037


TRANS OCEAN: Recalls Smoked Salmon for Possible Health Risks
------------------------------------------------------------
Trans-Ocean Products, Inc., of Bellingham, Washington, is
recalling its 4 ounce Cracked Pepper Style Smoked Salmon Lot No
54933-2 because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism, which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Cracked Pepper Style Smoked Salmon, 4 ounce packages were
distributed to three supermarket chains in seven states:
Brookshire Brothers in Texas and Louisiana; Price Choppers in
New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Vermont; and Giant
Eagle in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The product is sliced cold-smoked salmon with black pepper.  It
is vacuum packaged in a resealable purple plastic pouch and
bears the brand name Trans Ocean Products.The lot number is ink
jetted on the back panel of the package, just right of center.

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

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
by Trans-Ocean Products revealed the presence of Listeria
monocytogenes in one 4 ounce package of Cracked Pepper Style
Smoked Salmon.

Distribution of the product has been suspended while the FDA and
Trans-Ocean Products investigate the source of the problem.

Consumers that have purchased Trans Ocean ProductsCracked Pepper
Style Smoked Salmon are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Trans-Ocean Products.  Call
800-290-2722 Monday–Friday 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.


TRANSMERICA LIFE: Settles Management Fee Overcharge Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Transamerica Life Canada and Roy Elliott O'Connor LLP, as
counsel for the proposed representative plaintiff Joseph Fantl,
confirmed that the parties have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the excess management fee claim in the
proposed national class action suit commenced against
Transamerica in 2003.

The parties also announced the next steps in the settlement
process.

Under the agreement in principle, Transamerica will compensate
policyholders who invested in various Investment Manager Series
segregated funds for any excess management fees charged and for
related losses.  Compensation will be paid pursuant to a
restitution program to be agreed by the parties and approved by
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  While the precise number
of affected policyholders is unknown, the proposed settlement
will affect over 100,000 policyholders from coast to coast.

The parties are currently negotiating the specific details of
the restitution program.  There are still a number of steps to
be completed before the policyholders receive compensation.  The
amount that any individual may receive and the total value of
the settlement are unknown at this time.  Before compensation
can be paid to any individual, the final settlement agreement
including the restitution program must be completed and approved
by the Court.  The parties are working to have compensation paid
to affected policyholders as quickly as possible.

The Fantl action concerns various IMS funds which were offered
for sale by NN Life and subsequently Transamerica after its
purchase of NN Life in 2000.  The IMS funds were offered to
policyholders under various individual variable insurance
contracts and universal life contracts.  The statement of claim
alleges that NN Life and later Transamerica charged management
fees for the IMS funds in excess of what was permitted under
various insurance policies or represented in summary information
folders.

In August 2007, Transamerica wrote to certain policyholders
about a potential management fee overcharge issue and committed
to investigate the overcharges, reset the amount of management
fees and pay restitution.  In connection with this process,
Transamerica will shortly advise its affected policyholders
about the resetting of the management fees back to contractually
permitted amounts.  This reset is currently scheduled to occur
around November 14, 2008.

The Court approval of the settlement of the excess management
fee claim in the Fantl action will occur in two phases.  First,
the parties are scheduled to appear before the Court in Toronto
on November 24 and 25 for a settlement pre-approval motion,
including approving the notice program for the class.  Second, a
fairness hearing will be held on April 22 through 25, 2009.  If
the Court is satisfied with the fairness of the settlement, it
should be approved at that time.  The foregoing dates are
tentative and subject to change.

Pursuant to the agreement in principle, the policyholders will
not have to pay the legal fees and disbursements of class
counsel because they will be paid directly by Transamerica.  In
short, as a result of this agreement the policyholders'
compensation will not be affected by the class counsel's legal
fees.  The amount of those fees and disbursements must be agreed
upon by the parties and approved by the Court or, if the parties
are unable to agree, the Court will be asked to fix the amount.

"We are pleased to reach an amicable framework for resolving the
management fee overcharge claim", said Paul Reaburn, President
and CEO of Transamerica Life Canada.  "We look forward to
completing our negotiations with REO, obtaining court approval
of our settlement and to seeing our policyholders compensated
fairly for any past overcharges which we regret occurred."

"I am pleased that Transamerica is endeavouring to resolve this
claim without the need for a trial, and I have instructed Roy
Elliott O'Connor to use their best efforts to pursue a final,
fair and reasonable settlement as quickly as possible", said
Joseph Fantl, the representative plaintiff in the class action.

Based in Toronto with 750 employees, Transamerica Life Canada,
member of the AEGON Group, provides innovative life insurance
and investment products and services.


U.S. AUTO: Sept. 29 Hearing Set for $10M Deal in California Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a hearing on September 29, 2008, at 8:30 a.m., to
consider final approval of a $10,000,000 settlement in a
consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.

On March 24, 2007, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and certain officers, directors
and underwriters.  The complaint alleges that the company filed
a false Registration Statement in connection with the company's
initial public offering in violation of Section 11 and Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

On April 26, 2007, a second complaint containing substantially
similar allegations was filed, and also included a claim under
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.

The complaints were consolidated on May 15, 2007.  A lead
plaintiff was appointed on Aug. 9, 2007.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in October 2007.
The amended complaint is against the company and certain current
and former officers, as well as Oak Investment Partners XI, LP,
and the underwriters involved in the initial public offering.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution,
unspecified equitable relief, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on Oct. 31, 2007.

In January 2008, the parties reached a settlement in principle
to resolve the matter.  A definitive settlement agreement was
filed on May 1, 2008, which settlement is still subject to the
Court's final approval (Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2008).

Deadline to file claims is on October 29, 2008.

The suit is "Patricia Johnson, et al. v. U.S. Auto Parts
Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02030," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
George H. Wu, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Sarah Catherine Boone, Esq.
          (sarah.boone@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-455-1400 x106
          Fax: 504-455-1498

               - and -

          Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
          Stull Stull and Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Luke A. Liss, Esq. (lliss@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300

               - and -

          Diane Lee McGimsey, Esq. (mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan And Cromwell
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-712-6600


UNOCAL CORP: Parties Settle Lawsuits Over Reformulated Gasoline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unocal Corp., an acquisition of Chevron Corp., and the
plaintiffs in several lawsuits related to reformulated gasoline
have reached a tentative settlement in all the cases that remain
pending.

Initially, 14 purported class actions were brought by consumers
of RFG alleging that Unocal Corp. misled the California Air
Resources Board into adopting standards for composition of RFG
that overlapped with Unocal's undisclosed and pending patents.

Eleven of these lawsuits were consolidated in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, where a class has
been certified, and the remaining three were consolidated in a
state court action that has been stayed.

Unocal is alleged to have monopolized, conspired and engaged in
unfair methods of competition, resulting in injury to consumers
of RFG.

The plaintiffs in both consolidated actions seek unspecified
actual and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and interest on
behalf of an alleged class of consumers who purchased
"summertime" RFG in California from January 1995 through August
2005.

The parties have reached a tentative agreement to resolve all of
the actions in an amount that the company says is not material
to its results of operations, liquidity or financial position.

The terms of this agreement are confidential, and subject to
further negotiation and approval, including by the courts.

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

Chevron Corp. -- http://www.chevrontexaco.com/-- manages its
investments in subsidiaries and affiliates, and provides
administrative, financial, management and technology support to
the U.S. and foreign subsidiaries that engage in fully
integrated petroleum operations, chemicals operations, mining
operations of coal and other minerals, power generation and
energy services.


VANGUARD GROUP: Investors Sue Over Illegal Gambling Businesses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders in Vanguard funds sued the Vanguard Group Inc.,
accusing fund managers of investing their money in illegal
gambling businesses before the government cracked down on them
in 2006, Grant McCool writes for Reuters.

The class action lawsuit, according to the report, was brought
by Deanna McBrearty of New York, New York, and Marylynn Hartsel
of Boca Raton, Florida, before the U.S. District Court in
Manhattan.  The suit asserts claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and seeks a jury trial,
compensatory and punitive damages.

Reuters notes that the lawsuit said "these unlawful investments
suffered significant losses when the government began arresting
principals of the gambling enterprises," but it did not provide
a specific amount.

Tom Sheridan, Esq., an attorney for the two plaintiffs, told
Reuters that the exact amounts would be revealed in the
discovery process, although he estimated that Vanguard's losses
exceeded $10 million.  "The investments by the plaintiffs are
not worthless, but they are less than they would have been if
the money had not been invested in offshore gambling companies,"
Mr. Sheridan said.

Specifically, the funds named as defendants in the lawsuit
include Vanguard International Equity Index Funds, Vanguard
European Stock Index Fund, Vanguard Horizon Funds and the
Vanguard Global Equity Fund.  Other defendants named in the
lawsuit are Alliance Bernstein LP, Acadian Asset Management LLC,
Marathon Asset Management LLP.

The suit said that Ms. McBrearty first purchased shares in
Vanguard European through her individual retirement account in
May 2005, the lawsuit said.  It also said that Ms. Hartsel
bought shares before July 1, 2006, for investment purposes.

The report recounts that the U.S. Government cracked down on
offshore betting companies in 2006 that included the arrests of
executives from British online companies such as Sportingbet and
BetOnSports Plc.  Large public companies lost billions of
dollars in market value and millions of customers when they shut
down their Web sites for sports betting, poker and other games
in the United States.

The lawsuit does not name any of the online sites, Reuters
relates.  The largest sites such as PartyGaming and Sportingbet
earned most of their money from the United States.  PartyGaming
suspended its U.S. business after President George W. Bush
signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act on
Oct. 13, 2006.


WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Plaintiffs Appeal Reversal of "Cuesta" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs is the matter "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor
Co., CJ-04-0511," are appealing before the Oklahoma Supreme
Court a decision by the Court of Civil Appeals of the State of
Oklahoma reversing the trial court's certification of a
nationwide class in a product liability case that names Williams
Controls Inc. as a defendant.

The company was named as co-defendant in the matter on Oct. 1,
2004.  The suit sought class-action status, and an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of the class.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2007, the Oklahoma district
court granted the suit class-action status.

The company and Ford appealed the District Court's class
certification ruling to the Court of Civil Appeals of the State
of Oklahoma, and during the second quarter of fiscal 2008, the
Appeals Court, in a 3-to-0 decision, reversed the District
Court's ruling and decertified the nationwide class.

As permitted under Oklahoma law, the plaintiffs filed for a re-
hearing by the Appeals Court and during the third quarter of
fiscal 2008, this rehearing request was denied.

The plaintiffs have since appealed the Court of Civil Appeals'
decertification ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, according
to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Co., CJ-04-0511,"
filed in the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.

For more details, contact:

         The Burrage Law Firm
         First United Center
         Suite 100, 115 N. Washington
         Durant, OK 74702-1727
         Phone: 580-920-0700
         e-mail: dburrage@burragelaw.com
         Web site: http://www.burragelaw.com/


* Charles R. Jaeger Joins Gibson Dunn's San Francisco Office
------------------------------------------------------------
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP announced that Charles R. Jaeger,
Esq., has joined the firm's San Francisco office as a partner.

Mr. Jaeger, formerly with Heller Ehrman, will continue to focus
his practice on accountants' liability and securities
litigation.

"We are delighted to welcome Chuck to the firm.  He is a
terrific lawyer and well regarded in the legal and business
communities," said Ken Doran, Esq., Managing Partner of Gibson
Dunn.  "Our accountants' liability, securities litigation and
corporate investigations practices are very busy, and Chuck's
addition brings us additional senior level capacity."

"Chuck is a great fit for us, personally and professionally,"
said Fred Brown, Esq., Partner-in-Charge of the San Francisco
office.  "He is a smart and accomplished lawyer, and his
experience complements the litigators in our Bay Area offices
and firmwide."

"I look forward to working with my new colleagues," said Mr.
Jaeger.  "Gibson Dunn combines a broad, top-tier litigation
platform with significant depth in my practice areas, securities
litigation and accountants' liability.  This combination will
give me the opportunity to expand my practice."

                     About Chuck Jaeger

Mr. Jaeger has a broad business litigation practice with
particular emphasis on accountants" liability, securities
litigation, corporate governance disputes and investigations. He
has represented PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, Deloitte
& Touche, Hearthstone, Bank of America, Shaklee Corporation and
Grant Thornton, among others.

He has practiced with Heller Ehrman since 1993, where he
formerly served as Co-Chair of Heller's Securities Litigation
Practice Group and Co-Chair of the San Francisco Litigation
Department. H e received his law degree from Boalt Hall School
of Law, University of California, Berkeley in 1989 and clerked
for Judge Wade Brorby of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.  Prior to attending law school, he was licensed as a
Certified Public Accountant and worked for Arthur Andersen.

       About Gibson Dunn's Securities Litigation Practice

Gibson Dunn is a recognized leader in the defense of securities
class actions, derivative litigation, and SEC enforcement
actions.  Consistently ranked as one of the top securities
litigation practices in the country, in 2007 Gibson Dunn was
ranked as one of the top firms in securities litigation in the
United States by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and Securities Law
360.  In addition, the firm’s securities litigation partners
have been honored individually by various organizations as among
the best nationally, and in key jurisdictions, such as New York
and California.

Lawyers in Gibson Dunn's Securities Litigation Practice Group
bring unparalleled experience to every matter.  The firm's
partners include nationally recognized securities class action
defense counsel, as well as a number of former senior officials
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the NASD, and the
Department of Justice (including two former U.S. Attorneys and
more than 20 former Assistant U.S. Attorneys).

                        About the Firm

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP -- http://www.gibsondunn.com/-- is
a leading international law firm. Consistently ranking among the
world's top law firms in industry surveys and major
publications, Gibson Dunn is distinctively positioned in today's
global marketplace with approximately 950 lawyers and 15
offices, including Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C.,
London, Paris, Munich, Brussels, Dubai, Singapore, Orange
County, San Francisco, Palo Alto, Century City, Dallas and
Denver.




                            *********

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  * * *