CAR_Public/080908.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 8, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 178

                            Headlines

AIR NEW ZEALAND: Faces U.S. Lawsuit Over Anti-Trust Violation
ALLTEL CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Private Equity Buyout
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Certification Sought in Antitrust Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Auction Rate Securities Suits in Calif.
BENJAMIN INTL: Recalls Charms Due to Risk of Lead Exposure

CARRIAGE SERVICES: Parties Work to Settle Indiana "Means" Suit
CARRIAGE SERVICES: FSLA Violations Suit in Nevada Still Pending
CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Suit in Indiana Still Pending
CERTEGY CHECK: Court Gives Final OK to Data Breach Suits Deal
CHARLES SCHWAB: Calif. Court Consolidates YieldPlus Fund Suits

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Proposes to Settle Labor Suit for $28.5M
CHINA LIFE: Court Rejects New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CORNELL COS: Discovery Begins in VCDC Strip Search Lawsuit
CORNELL COS: Texas Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger is Pending
DELTA AIR LINES: Faces Calif. Suit Over Checked Baggage Fees

FLORIDA POWER: Customers Sue Over Sunshine Energy Program Funds
GEORGE HUDGINS: Sued for Defrauding Investors in Ponzi Scheme
HYDRO-ELECTRIC: CDN$100MM Suit Launched Over Apartment Explosion
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Faces Delaware Suit Over Bristol-Myers Buyout
IRON MOUNTAIN: Court Dismisses La. Suit Over Lost Personal Data

KINDER MORGAN: September 2008 Trial Scheduled for "Heimann" Case
OPTAVE INC: Recalls Action Baby Carriers Due to Fall Hazard
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Wants Consolidated Securities Suit Nixed
RIDLEY INC: Ontario Court Approves BSE Claims Settlement Deal
SONY ELECTRONICS: Recalls Notebook Computers Due to Burn Hazard

SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Calif. Superior Court Certifies Overtime Suit
TARGET: Recalls Children's Bobbie Socks Due to Choking Hazard
TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: 3rd Circuit Revives Mercury-in-Tuna Suit
UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS: Court to Hear $49MM Insurance Suit Deal
VALERO ENERGY: Pleading Filed in Kans. Fuel Temperature Lawsuits

VALERO ENERGY: Seeks Ill. High Court Review of "Rosolowski" Case
VERISIGN: Appeals Denial of Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal Motion
VERISIGN: Appeals Denial of "Herbert" Lawsuit Dismissal Motion
VERISIGN INC: "Hardin" Consumer Fraud Suit in Georgia Dismissed
VERISIGN INC: Settlement in Calif. Consumer Suit Becomes Final

VERISIGN INC: Stock Option Grants Suit Still Pending in Calif.
WOLF APPLIANCE: Recalls Gas Ranges Due to Burn Hazard
YAHOO! INC: Wants Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
YAHOO! INC: Calif. & Del. Suits Over Microsoft Offer Are Pending


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

REDDY ICE: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Mich. Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


AIR NEW ZEALAND: Faces U.S. Lawsuit Over Anti-Trust Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Californian traveler William Adams has been named lead plaintiff
in a U.S. class action suit was filed against Air New Zealand
that alleges he suffered "pecuniary injury" as a result of anti-
trust violations by the carrier on Pacific flights to Los
Angeles and San Francisco, Stuff.co.nz reports.

According to stuff.co.nz, a hearing date is yet to be set in the
California courts for the claim asserting "global conspiracy
among certain airlines to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize
prices for long-haul passenger trans-Pacific flights to and from
the US."

The report says that the suit also claims fuel surcharges and
fees charged to passengers by airlines were purportedly to
compensate the airlines for increased fuel costs.

Eleven other airlines are named in the writ for acting
collusively to fix prices and fuel surcharges on passenger
tickets between 2004 and August 2007, the report notes.
Different plaintiffs are named for different airlines.

The report relates that Air NZ has added the lawsuit to its
contingent liabilities in this year's annual accounts, bringing
to four the number of class action suits that it is facing.  No
dollar amount has been provided in Air NZ's accounts for the
likelihood of a negative outcome because "there are no
contingent liabilities for which it is practicable to estimate
the financial effect," the airline stated.

Stuff.co.nz recounts that Air NZ chief executive officer Rob
Fyfe said earlier this year that extensive inquiries had failed
to find any wrongdoing warranting a contingent liability in the
accounts.  He considered the latest claim "nothing more than an
attempt to get money out of airlines which didn't have the
patience to go through legal process."  He also said the
plaintiffs were ordered to provide a more specific claim by the
end of May but nothing has been seen to date.

Californian law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and its New York
co-counsel Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll are taking the case.

The U.S. law firms have also named All Nippon Airways, Cathay
Pacific Airways, China Airlines, EVA Airways, Japan Airlines
International, Malaysia Airlines, Qantas, Singapore Airlines,
Thai Airways and United Airlines in their class action writ.
The firms have specifically targeted flights to San Francisco
and Los Angeles airports.  They allege that the illegal price-
fixing scheme and conspiracy was directed at and caused injury
to people and entities residing in, located in, or doing
business in California and throughout the U.S.


ALLTEL CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Private Equity Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------
Little Rock, Arkansas-based mobile phone operator Alltel Corp.
settled a class action lawsuit in connection with the company's
acquisition by private equity interests last year, TeleClick
Enterprises reports.

On May 20, 2007, Alltel entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Atlantis Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and Atlantis Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Atlantis.

Under the terms of the Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with
and into Alltel, with Alltel surviving the merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Atlantis.

Later on, Alltel and its directors were named in 16 putative
class action complaints alleging claims of breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting such alleged breaches arising out
of the proposed sale.

Eight of the complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, and were subsequently consolidated
into one class action complaint for breach of fiduciary duty.

The other eight complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and were also consolidated into one complaint.

Among other things, the complaints in the Arkansas and Delaware
actions allege that:

       -- Alltel conducted an inadequate process for extracting
          maximum value for its shareholders, including
          prematurely terminating an auction process by entering
          into a merger agreement with Atlantis on May 20, 2007,
          despite previously setting June 6, 2007, as the
          outside date for submitting bids;

       -- the Alltel directors are in possession of material
          non-public information about the company;

       -- the Alltel directors have material conflicts of
          interest and are acting to better their own interests
          at the expense of Alltel's shareholders, including
          through the vesting of certain options for Scott Ford,
          the retention of an equity interest in Alltel after
          the merger by certain of Alltel's directors and
          executive officers, and the employment of certain
          ALLTEL executives, including Scott Ford, by Alltel (or
          its successors) after the merger is completed;

       -- taking into account the current value of Alltel stock,
          the strength of its business, revenues, cash flow and
          earnings power, the intrinsic value of Alltel's
          equity, the consideration offered in connection with
          the proposed merger is inadequate;

       -- the merger agreement contained provisions that will
          deter higher bids, including a $625.0 million
          termination fee payable to the Sponsors and
          restrictions on Alltel's ability to solicit higher
          bids;

       -- that Alltel's financial advisors, JPMorgan Securities
          Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., and
          Stephens Inc. have conflicts resulting from their
          relationships with the Sponsors; and

       -- that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Alltel
          with the SEC on June 13, 2007, failed to disclose
          material information concerning the merger.

The complaints seek, among other things, class action status, a
court order enjoining Alltel and its directors from consummating
the merger, and the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 19, 2007, the parties in the shareholder litigation
entered into a memorandum of understanding contemplating the
settlement of the litigation (Class Action Reporter, June 25,
2008).

Recently, Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Chris Piazza said
that a settlement requiring Alltel officials to disclose
information about other bids for Alltel "was the best possible
course of action" for dissatisfied investors, who believed the
company was worth more than the $71.50/share offered by the
equity investors.

"The court has received, reviewed and considered the objections
to the settlement filed by class members and finds such
objections to be without merit," Judge Piazza stated.
"Therefore, the objections are overruled in their entirety."

The equity investors who purchased Alltel are currently in the
process of selling it to larger rival, Verizon Wireless, for
$28.1 billion, TeleClick relates.

ALLTEL Corp. -- http://www.ALLTEL.com/-- provides an array of
wireless communication services to individual and business
customers.


BANK OF AMERICA: Class Certification Sought in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee
and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-
01720-JG-CLP," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York and names Bank of America Corp.
and certain of its subsidiaries as defendants, are seeking the
certification of a class in connection with the case.

BofA and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in
actions filed on behalf of a putative class of retail merchants
that accept Visa and MasterCard payment cards.  The first of
these actions was filed in June 2005.

On April 24, 2006, putative class plaintiffs filed a first
consolidated and amended class action complaint.  The plaintiffs
therein allege that the defendants conspired to fix the level of
interchange and merchant discount fees and that certain other
practices, including various Visa and MasterCard rules, violate
federal and California antitrust laws.

On May 22, 2006, the putative class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint against many of the same defendants,
including BofA and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging
additional federal antitrust claims and a fraudulent conveyance
claim under New York Debtor and Creditor Law, all arising out of
MasterCard's 2006 initial public offering.

The putative class plaintiffs seek unspecified treble damages
and injunctive relief.

Additional defendants in the putative class actions include
Visa, MasterCard, and other financial institutions.

The putative class actions are coordinated for pre-trial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, together with additional, individual actions
brought only against Visa and MasterCard, under the caption "In
Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation."

Motions to dismiss portions of the first consolidated and
amended class action complaint and the supplemental complaint
are pending.

On May 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, to which the defendants have not yet responded,
according to BofA'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 Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-CLP,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, Judge John Gleeson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs:

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

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

              - and -

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Auction Rate Securities Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp., Banc of American Investment Services,
Inc., and Banc of America Securities LLC are facing four
purported class-action suits over allegations that they violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in connection with the sale of
auction rate securities, according to BofA's Aug. 7, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suits are:

   1. "Bondar v. Bank of America Corporation," which was filed
      in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
      California on May 22, 2008.

   2. "Bearman v. Bank of America Corporation," which was filed
      in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
      California on June 23, 2008.

   3. "Cattell v. Bank of America Corporation," which was filed
      in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
      Illinois on July 13, 2008.

   4. "Ben-Tal v. Bank of America Corporation," which was filed
      in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
      California on July 21, 2008.

The four putative class action suits all purport to assert
claims on behalf of purchasers of auction rate securities
between May 2003 and February 2008 and contain substantively
similar allegations regarding Bank of America's sales and
marketing practices in connection with ARS.  The actions seek
damages, attorneys' fees, and rescission.

Bank of America Corp. -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a
bank holding company.  Through its banking subsidiaries, and
various non-banking subsidiaries throughout the U.S. and in
selected international markets, Bank of America provides a
diversified range of banking and non-banking financial services
and products through three business segments: Global Consumer
and Small Business Banking, Global Corporate and Investment
Banking, and Global Wealth and Investment Management.  The
company operates in 32 states, the District of Columbia and 30
foreign countries.  In the U.S., it serves 59 million consumer
and small business relationships with 6,100 retail banking
offices, 18,500 automated teller machines, and 24 million active
online users.  It offers services in 13 states.


BENJAMIN INTL: Recalls Charms Due to Risk of Lead Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin International, of Middlebury, Conn., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 57,000 Fairy Dust Pendants and Candle Charms.

The company said the recalled metal pendants and charms contain
high levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young
children and can cause adverse health effects.  No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled pewter pendants were sold in a collection of 12
pendants.  The pendants were sold separately and on candles of
various colors and scents.

These recalled fairy dust pendants and candle charms were
manufactured in Hong Kong and were being sold at gift shops
nationwide from February 2004 through February 2008 for between
$6 and $8 for the pendants and between $12 and $15 for the
charms with candles.

Pictures of the  recalled fairy dust pendants and candle charms
are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08390a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08390b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these
pendants/charms and contact Benjamin International to receive a
free replacement pendant/charm.

For additional information, contact Benjamin International toll-
free at 888-249-7639 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, or
visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.benjamininternational.com/


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Parties Work to Settle Indiana "Means" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class-action lawsuit, captioned
"Means v. Carriage Cemetery Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
49D12-0704-PL-016504," which was filed against Carriage
Services, Inc., in the Indiana Superior Court, in Marion County,
Indiana, are exploring the possibility of reaching a settlement
in the matter.

On April 20, 2007, the plaintiff, Cecilia Means, filed the
putative class-action complaint alleging that one or more of the
current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in Madison,
Indiana, including the Carriage subsidiaries that owned the
cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, and one or more
of the bank trustees who served as trustee of Grandview
Cemetery's Pre-Arrangement Trust Fund improperly withdrew funds
from the Grandview Trust Fund.

Carriage denies all material allegations because the subject
withdrawals occurred in a period other than during Carriage's
ownership.  The company also filed a motion for summary judgment
with respect to the plaintiff's claims against it.  The
plaintiff, in turn, has also filed a motion to certify a class.

The court has suspended the briefing schedule on the plaintiff's
motion to certify and the hearing on Carriage's motion for
summary judgment while the parties explore the possibility of
settlement.

The company reported no new development regarding the matter in
its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Carriage Services, Inc. -- http://www.carriageservices.com/--
is a provider of death care services and merchandise in the U.S.
The company operates two types of businesses: funeral homes,
which principally service businesses that provide burial and
cremation services and sell related merchandise, such as caskets
and urns, and cemetery operations, which provides interment
rights (grave sites and mausoleums) and related merchandise,
such as markers and memorials.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: FSLA Violations Suit in Nevada Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc., continues to face a purported class-
action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada and generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

On Nov. 28, 2007, five former funeral directors filed suit for
themselves and on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt employees of
Carriage.  The plaintiffs allege violations of state wage and
hour laws and FLSA, as well as related tort and contract claims.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Carriage failed to
properly compensate employees for time spent on community work,
on-call time, pre-need appointments, and training, failed to
provide required meal and rest breaks under California state
law, and failed to maintain proper records.

Carriage filed its answer to the complaint on Jan. 28, 2008,
denying all material allegations and asserting appropriate
affirmative defenses.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification under the FLSA.  The parties have
effectuated notice of the lawsuit to all potential class members
pursuant to the Court's order.  The case is currently in its
opt-in period, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Spencer Cranney, et al., v. Carriage Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01587," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, Judge Roger L. Hunt,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Justin M. Cordello, Esq.
          (jcordello@theemploymentattorneys.com)
          Dolin Thomas Solomon LLP
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Phone: 585-272-0540

               - and -

          Kyle T. McGee, Esq. (kmcgee@margolisedelstein.com)
          Margolis Edelstein
          525 William Penn Place
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-281-4256
          Fax: 412-642-2380

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael L. Banks, Esq. (mbanks@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-5387
          Fax: 215-963-5001


CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Suit in Indiana Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc., continues to face a purported class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, which suit is captioned "Leathermon, et al.
v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-
137."

On Aug. 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
suit against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery
in Madison, Indiana, including Carriage subsidiaries that owned
the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of
all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview Cemetery.

The plaintiffs claim that the cemetery owners performed burials
negligently, breached plaintiffs' contracts, and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery.

On Oct. 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County
Circuit Court, Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

The company reported no new development regarding the matter in
its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-137," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge Sarah Evans
Barker, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John C. Eckert, Esq. (john@eckertlawfirm.net)
          Eckert Law Firm
          606 E. Main Street
          Madison, IN 47250
          Phone: 812-265-1606
          Fax: 812-265-2951

               - and -

          J. Anthony Goebel, Esq. (tony@goebellawoffice.com)
          Goebel Law Office
          1034 Copperfield Drive
          Georgetown, IN 47122
          Phone: 812-951-2500
          Fax: 812-951-2522

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert Lewis Barlow, II, Esq. (rbarlow@blueriver.net)
          Barlow Law Office
          201 East Main Street
          Madison, IN 47250
          Phone: 812-273-4440
          Fax: 812-273-2329

               - and -

          John B. Drummy, Esq. (jdrummy@k-glaw.com)
          Kightlinger & Gray
          151 North Delaware Street, Suite 600
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 317-638-4521
          Fax: 317-636-5917


CERTEGY CHECK: Court Gives Final OK to Data Breach Suits Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has approved on a final basis a settlement in
two class-action lawsuits filed against check authorizing
company Certegy Check Services and its ultimate parent, Fidelity
National Information Services Inc. (formerly known as Certegy
Inc.) that had more than 8.4 million consumer records stolen and
sold to direct marketers, Elaine Silvestrini writes for The
Tampa Tribune.

According to court documents posted at the settlement Web site
-- https://datasettlement.com/ -- these two settled lawsuits
are:

   * "Dana M. Lockwood, et at. v. Certegy Check Services, Inc.,
     Case No. 8:07-cv-01434;" and

   * "Linda Beringer, et al. v. Certegy Check Services, Inc.,
     Case No. 8:07-cv-01657."

                           Background

On July 3 and 25, 2007, Certegy publicly announced that William
G. Sullivan, a database administrator that worked for the
company, stole consumer records and sold them to a third party
for marketing purposes.  The number of consumer records stolen
and subsequently disseminated numbered in the millions.  Mr.
Sullivan was terminated upon discovery of the theft.

The Stolen Records consisted of identifying information and, in
some cases, checking account numbers, credit and debit card
numbers and the clients' dates of birth.  Mr. Sullivan drew this
information from multiple databases maintained by Certegy.  No
social security numbers or driver's license numbers were
included in the Stolen Records.

The Tampa Tribune recounts that a federal prosecutor said at Mr.
Sullivan's sentencing hearing that Certegy had to spend
$3.2 million to notify the 5.9 million customers whose private
financial information had been stolen.  The victims were in all
50 states, as well as in the District of Columbia, the Virgin
Islands, Puerto Rico and overseas.  Some customers had data
stolen that was not deemed to be private financial information.

Subsequently, a number of lawsuits were filed in federal court
asserting claims against Certegy in relation to the Stolen
Records.

                   The Settlement Agreement

According to The Tampa Tribune, the settlement provides for a
range of credit monitoring services and reimbursement of
expenses for those whose identity info was stolen.  Certegy
Check is also reimbursing more than $2 million in legal expenses
to the law firms involved in the cases.

The report relates that the class covered by the settlement
includes anyone in the U.S. and Puerto Rico whose credit card,
debit card, checking or demand deposit account numbers or
information was included in the company's multiple databases.
It excludes anyone who decided to opt out of the settlement
after being notified of the deal.

The two representative plaintiffs, Linda Beringer and Dana M.
Lockwood, were awarded $500 each, while the other named
plaintiffs were awarded $250 each.

Moreover, the Web site set up to notify consumers about the
settlement indicates that all class members who had their
personal or financial information stolen can get compensated up
to $20,000 for certain unreimbursed identity theft losses caused
by the data theft.  The losses covered could occur from Aug. 24,
1998, to Dec. 31, 2010.

The Tampa Tribune also notes that consumers notified by Certegy
are also eligible for credit monitoring or bank monitoring
performed by Certegy, identity theft insurance, and
reimbursement for certain out-of-pocket expenses.

The benefits depend on the type of information that was stolen,
the report says.  If credit or debit card account information
was stolen, the consumer is eligible to receive one year of
credit monitoring and $10,000 in identity theft insurance and
reimbursements for identity theft and certain out-of-pocket
expenses.

Judge Steven D. Merryday, of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Tampa Division) approved the
settlement on an interim basis on March 21, 2008.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Barnow and Associates, P.C.
          1 North LaSalle, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-621-2000

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          Harke & Clasby LLP
          155 South Miami Ave., Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-536-8220

               - and -

          Ralph K. Phalen, Esq.
          Ralph K. Phalen, Attorney at Law
          1000 Broadway, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-589-0753

Certegy is represented by:

          Mark S. Melodia, Esq.
          Paul Bond, Esq.
          Reed Smith, LLP
          Princeton Forest Village
          136 Main Street, Suite 250
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: 609-520-6015


CHARLES SCHWAB: Calif. Court Consolidates YieldPlus Fund Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
consolidated several purported class-action suits against The
Charles Schwab Corp. in relation with the Schwab YieldPlus Fund.

Initially, in March 2008, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed on behalf of investors in the Schwab YieldPlus Fund,
alleging that the mutual fund's registration statements and
prospectuses were false and misleading in violation of federal
securities laws.

Six additional purported class action complaints asserting
largely identical claims were filed in April 2008.

Aside from the company, the other defendants named in the eight
lawsuits are:

   -- Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.,

   -- Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.,

   -- Randall W. Merk,

   -- Charles R. Schwab, and

   -- other current and former management affiliated trustees
      and officers of the fund or Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

In addition, several of the lawsuits name the fund itself,
Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares),
and the current and former independent trustees of the fund.

The claimants seek unspecified compensatory and rescission
damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, and costs
and attorneys fees.

Five of the lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, two in the U.S.
District Court for Massachusetts, and one in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The five
California cases have been assigned to the same judge.

In May 2008, a ninth purported class action on behalf of fund
investors was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy
and fund marketing, names the company and many of the same
defendants named in the prior eight lawsuits and seeks similar
relief.

On July 3, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated all nine lawsuits into a
single action for purposes of pre-trial proceedings and
appointed a group of fund investors as lead plaintiff, 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 consolidated suit is "In re Charles Schwab Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:08-cv-01510-WHA," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
William H. Alsup, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Peter E. Borkon, Esq. (peterb@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          Fax: 510-725-3001

Representing the defendants is:

          Darryl Paul Rains, Esq. (drains@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          755 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
          Phone: 650-813-5600
          Fax: 650-494-0792


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Proposes to Settle Labor Suit for $28.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications Inc. has proposed to pay $28.5 million to
settle a class action lawsuit filed by its installers and other
employees, Lawyers and Settlements reports.

According to the report, Judge Barbara Crabb, of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, gave
preliminary approval to the proposed settlement on Aug. 29,
2008.

The report says that the company also proposes $4 million in
settlement services.

Lawyers and Settlements recalls that the suit, filed in 2007,
alleged that the communications firm violated federal labor
standards by not paying an employee who had to take home a
company vehicle and was required to unload equipment from the
vehicle, perform maintenance checks, fill out activity logs,
reconcile equipment inventories, and reload the vehicle the next
day.  The class involves an estimated 1,225 employees, over half
of whom are residents of Wisconsin.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 19, 2008,
Judge Crabb granted class action status to the complaint on
March 3.  The class applies to broadband technicians, senior
systems technicians, installers and installer/repairmen who took
company trucks home overnight.

According to the CAR report, the workers also allege that
Charter has a task-based quota system for field workers.  Raises
and promotions are based on meeting the quotas.  However, points
are not assigned and there is no time credit for other necessary
tasks such as loading and unloading equipment from company
trucks at a worker's home or for maintenance of the trucks.
Moreover, the suit claims, Charter holds workers responsible for
hardware in their possession, and requires that workers secure
the equipment in their homes if they take vehicles overnight.

In addition, the workers said they felt compelled to do
inventory and other paperwork before going on the clock, in
order to leave time to complete their points-earning assigned
tasks for the day.

The named plaintiff is Maurice Sjoblom of Beloit, Wis., but, the
CAR report noted, Judge Crabb ruled that alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act may have occurred in Charter's
dealings with field workers across the country.


CHINA LIFE: Court Rejects New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has thrown out a lawsuit against China Life Insurance Co. by
U.S. investors accusing China Life's biggest life insurer of
failing to disclose sensitive information during its listing,
the world's largest in 2003, Business Insurance reports.

In 2004, shareholders of China Life had accused the company and
some of its directors with violations of federal securities
laws.  The breaches included an alleged failure by China Life to
disclose financial irregularities relating to the insurance
giant's state-owned parent, which artificially inflated its
share price (Class Action Reporter, July 16, 2004).

Recently, the New York Southern District Court had dismissed the
suit as lacking in merit.

The company, however, said in a statement that it "does not rule
out the possibility that the plaintiffs may seek reconsideration
by the New York Southern District Court or to appeal the
dismissal."

The suit is "In Re China Life Insurance Company Limited
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-02112-TPG," filed under
Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

Representing the defendant is:

          Isaac S. Greaney, Esq. (igreaney@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP(NY)
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-839-7324
          Fax: 212-839-5599

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter D. Bull, Esq. (pdb@nyclasslaw.com)
          Bull & Lifshitz, LLP
          18 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-213-6222
          Fax: 212 213-9405

          William B. Federaman, Esq.
          Federman & Sherwood P.C.
          120 North Robinson Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: 405-235-1560

          Mark A. Gardy, Esq. (mgardy@abbeygardy.com)
          Stephen Thran Rodd, Esq. (srodd@abbeygardy.com)
          Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, L.L.P.
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-889-3700
                 212-889-3700
          Fax: 212-684-5191

          Ann Meredith Lipton, Esq. (alipton@milberg.com)
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC)
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300
          Fax: 212-868-1229

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

               - and -

          Steven G. Schulman, Esq. (sschulman@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC)
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-946-9356
          Fax: 212-273-4406


CORNELL COS: Discovery Begins in VCDC Strip Search Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in a purported class-action suit against
Cornell Companies, Inc., filed in the Federal District Court in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, by individuals stripped searched at the
Valencia County Detention Center.

The suit was filed in April 2007 by Joe Torres and Eufrasio
Armijo.  Each named plaintiff alleged that he was stripped
searched at VCDC in violation of his federal rights under the
Fourth, Fourteenth and Eighth amendments to the U.S.
constitution.  The claimants also allege violation of their
rights under state law and seek to bring the case as a class
action on behalf of themselves and all detainees at VCDC during
the applicable statues of limitation.

The plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

Valencia County, which operated the VCDC for a significantly
greater portion of the period covered by the lawsuit, is also a
named defendant in the case.

Discovery has commenced in the case.

The company reported no new development regarding the matter in
its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/--
provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and
treatment services for adults and juveniles.  The company
partners with federal, state, county and local government
agencies.  Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure
institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice,
educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment programs.


CORNELL COS: Texas Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger is Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc., continues to face a purported class-
action suit filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
269th Judicial District (No. 2006-67413) by Ted Kinbergy, a
purported stockholder of the company.

The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 19, 2006, and names as defendants
the company and each member of its board of directors as well as
Veritas Capital Fund III, L.P.

The purported class action suit alleges, among other things,
that:

      -- the defendants have breached fiduciary duties they
         assertedly owed to the company's stockholders in
         connection with the company entering into the Agreement
         and Plan of Merger, dated as of Oct. 6, 2006, with
         Veritas, Cornell Holding Corp., and CCI Acquisition
         Corp., and

      -- the merger consideration is unfair and inadequate.

The plaintiffs sought, among other things, an injunction against
the consummation of the merger.

The proposed merger was rejected at a special meeting of the
company's stockholders held on Jan. 23, 2007.

The company reported no new development in the matter in its
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/--
provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and
treatment services for adults and juveniles.  The company
partners with federal, state, county and local government
agencies.  Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure
institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice,
educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment programs.


DELTA AIR LINES: Faces Calif. Suit Over Checked Baggage Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
Orange County Court, in California, accusing it of selling
tickets that did not include extra fees for checked baggage,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Delta Air Lines Inc. (NYSE: DAL) --
http://www.delta.com/-- is the world's second-largest airline
in terms of passengers carried and the leading U.S. carrier
across the Atlantic, offering daily flights to 328 destinations
in 56 countries on Delta, Song, Delta Shuttle, the Delta
Connection carriers and its worldwide partners.  Delta flies to
Argentina, Australia and the United Kingdom, among others.


FLORIDA POWER: Customers Sue Over Sunshine Energy Program Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Broward County resident has filed a lawsuit against Florida
Power & Light on behalf of about 38,000 other customers who gave
the utility company $9.75 every month to help develop green
energy, only to learn most of the money was not used for that
purpose, Christine Stapleton writes for Palm Beach Post.

Paul Zedeck, who claims to be an "environmentally concerned
citizen," is seeking class action status for his suit.  The suit
alleges that FPL "committed deceptive and unfair trade practices
by misrepresenting the true nature, purpose and execution of the
Sunshine Energy Program."

According to Palm Beach Post, Mr. Zedeck did not indicate in his
court filing how long he has participated in the program or how
much the power company should refund him.  No other Sunshine
Energy program members are identified because, according to the
suit, they "are so numerous and geographically diverse."

The report points out that for years, the company marketed the
Sunshine Energy Program as a way for customers to help develop
solar projects in Florida.  However, the report recounts, an
audit by Florida's Public Service Commission found that the bulk
of the $11.4 million raised between 2004 and 2007 was spent on
"highly excessive" administrative and marketing costs.  The PSC
shut down the program in July.

FPL sent letters to nearly 40,000 customers last month, the
report further recalls.  The program was "one of the best-
performing renewable energy programs in the nation" and
prevented the release of about 500,000 tons of greenhouse gases,
according to the company's Web site.  Refunds would not be made
because the program met its objectives, the site says.

FPL spokesman Randy Clerihue told Palm Beach Post that company
officials had not been served with the lawsuit but that the
company "will vigorously defend any such lawsuit."  The company
fulfilled its commitment to develop green energy, Mr. Clerihue
added.

Mr. Zedeck is represented by Maya Saxena, Esq., a Boca Raton
attorney who has filed numerous class-action lawsuits, the
report says.


GEORGE HUDGINS: Sued for Defrauding Investors in Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed in federal court against
George Hudgins, the Nacogdoches businessman already facing civil
and criminal charges for allegedly defrauding investors of
millions of dollars, Matthew Stoff writes for The Daily
Sentinel.

The latest lawsuit, filed on Aug. 28, also names as defendant
Mr. Hudgins' futures commission merchant, Rosenthal Collins
Group, of Chicago.  The suit seeks to recover lost funds
unlikely to be recovered through the liquidation of Mr. Hudgins'
assets.

According to The Daily Sentinel, the lawsuit estimates a
shortfall of at least $40 million between what is recovered in a
receivership in the other civil action and the total amount
invested.

"Hudgins' scheme was aided and abetted by RCG, which carried all
of the accounts utilized by Hudgins in connection with his
deliberate scheme to defraud investor victims and substantially
assisted Hudgins," the lawsuit says.

"The class action is against Mr. Hudgins and against Rosenthal
Collins Group out of Chicago, and our primary claims there are
that Rosenthal Collins Group was aware of Mr. Hudgins investing
other peoples' money and permitted him to operate as an
unregistered commodity pool operator," Bryan Forman, Esq., the
Tyler attorney who filed the suit, said.

Gerald Fishman, executive vice president and general council for
RCG, told The Daily Sentinel that he had not seen the lawsuit
and could not comment.

The named plaintiffs are Barbara and James Carey, Dave
Fleckenstein and Mildred Pitts, as well as "all others similarly
situated."  The Careys, Mr. Fleckenstein and Ms. Pitts are
Nacogdoches residents who invested money with Mr. Hudgins in
what authorities have called a "Ponzi scheme" that lost about
$80 million.  Authorities say more than 200 investors
participated in Mr. Hudgins' trading operation.

Mr. Hudgins' attorney, Chuck Meadows, Esq., told The Daily
Sentinel in a telephone interview that he had not seen the
lawsuit, but that the receiver in the other civil case against
Mr. Hudgins would probably handle the case "because they have
all our assets."


HYDRO-ELECTRIC: CDN$100MM Suit Launched Over Apartment Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of all
residents of 2 Secord Avenue, in Toronto, as a result of the
July 20, 2008 explosion on the premises.

Residents of the building at 2 Secord Avenue were evacuated and
many have been unable to return to their apartments as a result
of the extensive damage caused by the explosion.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant is liable for causing
the explosion.  As a result of the explosion, the residents were
displaced and have incurred damages.  Many of the residents are
unable to return to their units due to extensive smoke and soot
damage.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ted Charney of Falconer
Charney LLP, Glyn Hotz of Hotz Lawyers, and Harvey T. Strosberg
Q.C., of Sutts, Strosberg LLP.

Mr. Charney stated "Despite statements that tenants can return
to their units, the fact is that most of the units remain
uninhabitable because of smoke and soot damage.  This lawsuit is
intended to compensate residents for damages to their contents
and the cost incurred for additional living expenses while they
remain displaced."

Harvey T. Strosberg is one of Canada's leading counsel in class
action lawsuits.  He was one of the lead counsel in the
Hepatitis-C class action against the federal government that
resulted in a settlement of $1.1 billion -- the largest in
Canada's history.  He was one of the lead negotiators of a
groundbreaking settlement for compensation from the Ontario
government for Walkerton residents as a result of the E. coli
contaminated water problem in May 2000.

For further information, contact:

          Ted Charney
          Falconer Charney LLP
          8 Prince Arthur Avenue
          Toronto, Ontario
          M5R 1A9
          Phone: 416-964-3408 x225

          Glyn Hotz
          Hotz Lawyers
          100 Av Upper Madison
          North York, ON M2N 6M4
          Phone: 416-754-9962

          - and -

          Sharon Strosberg
          Sutts, Strosberg LLP
          600 Westcourt Place, 251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor ON N9A 6V4
          Phone: 519-561-6244


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Faces Delaware Suit Over Bristol-Myers Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
ImClone Systems Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware fighting Bristol-
Myers Squibb's buyout offer of $60 a share, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is a stockholder class action brought by the plaintiff on
behalf of the public shareholders of Imclone common stock
against the company, its directors and others to enjoin the
defendants from causing the company to enter into an agreement
to be acquired by the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company for
inadequate consideration and pursuant to an unfair process.

Shareholders claim the offer is $10 cheaper than the $70
Bristol-Myers paid for 14.4 million ImClone shares in 2001, and
significantly undervalues the value of ImClone's cancer drug,
Erbitux.  Among the defendants are ImClone Chairman of the Board
Carl Icahn, who holds 13.5% of ImClone's stock.

Erbitux already is approved for colorectal cancer and some head
and neck cancers, and plaintiffs say they expect it to be
approved for lung cancer this financial year.  They say UBS
projects $1.7 billion in Erbitux sales this financial year,
rising to $3.1 billion in 2011, and Standard & Poor's expects
$4 billion in Erbitux sales by 2012.

Bristol-Myers' offer of $60 a share for 86 million outstanding
shares comes to $5.16 billion, or less than two years of
Erbitux's projected sales. Erbitux is ImClone's only successful
product.

Shareholders say Icahn and the ImClone board appear to consider
the buyout offer inadequate, but "hired JPMorgan Chase as its
financial advisor to advise ImClone on BMs' offer in more
detail, and weigh a possible plan to split ImClone into two
businesses."  Shareholders want the buyout enjoined.

ImClone and Erbitux were at the center of the Martha Stewart
inside trading scandal.  Stewart and ImClone CEO Samuel Waksal
were sentenced to prison for dumping ImClone shares after
getting advance word that Erbitux would be denied FDA approval.
Share price tanked on the announcement, but ironically, the FDA
denial appears to have been caused by a faulty application, not
by problems with the drug itself.  ImClone, a monoclonal
antibody, turned out to be a financially successful drug.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on whether:

     (a) the defendants have and are breaching their fiduciary
         duties to the detriment of the company's shareholders;
         and

     (b) the class has been damaged and the extent to which
         members of the class have sustained damages, and what
         is the proper measure of those damages.

The plaintiffs ask the court for an order:

     -- certifying this action as a class action and the named
        plaintiff as the class representative and the
        plaintiff's counsel as class counsel;

     -- enjoining the buyout preliminarily and permanently;

     -- to the extent the buyout is consummated prior to the
        entry of this court's final judgment, rescinding it or
        granting the class rescissory damages;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the class compensation for
        all damages they sustain as a result of the defendants'
        unlawful contact;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of
        this action, including a reasonable allowance of
        attorney's fees and expenses; and

     -- granting such other relief as the court may find just
        and proper.

The suit is "Eugene Smith, et al. v. John E. Celentano, et al.,
Transaction ID 213281158," filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert D. Golberg, Esq.
          Biggs & Battaglia
          921 N. Orange Street
          P.O. Box 1489
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Phone: 302-655-9677


IRON MOUNTAIN: Court Dismisses La. Suit Over Lost Personal Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted a motion for summary judgment dismissing all of the
claims against Iron Mountain, Inc., in a consolidated litigation
over the loss of a container storing back-up electronic media
that contained personally identifiable information.

On Sept. 19, 2007, a container storing back-up electronic media
belonging to one of the company's customers, the Louisiana
Office of Student Financial Assistance (LOSFA), was lost while
being transported to the customer's office.

The company immediately undertook efforts to locate the media
and it promptly notified LOSFA and appropriate law enforcement
authorities.

In response to a public reward offer, the container was returned
to the company and it has been provided with information to the
effect that the media was discarded.  To date, the media has not
been found.

Beginning on Oct. 15, 2007, LOSFA issued one or more press
releases and other public communications advising of the loss,
indicating that personally identifiable information was on the
media and advising persons who might be affected as to how to
protect themselves against possible identity theft and fraud.
LOSFA has demanded that the company indemnify it in connection
with any losses arising from the lost media.

In late October 2007 and early November 2007, actions seeking to
represent a purported class of allegedly affected individuals
were filed in state courts in Louisiana in the 18th Judicial
District for the Parish of West Baton Rouge, in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, and in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

These actions sought monetary damages under various theories of
liability as a result of the lost media.

The company removed the first of those actions (West Baton
Rouge) to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana where, subsequently, it was voluntarily
dismissed.

The company removed the second action (New Orleans) to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, where it
was consolidated with the third similar action.

On June 5, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion for
summary judgment dismissing all of the claims against the
company, and the time for appeal has expired, 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.

Iron Mountain, Inc. -- http://www.ironmountain.com/-- is
engaged in information protection and storage services.  The
company offers records management and data protection solutions,
along with the focus on address complex information challenges,
such as rising storage costs, litigation, regulatory compliance
and disaster recovery.  The company has a diversified customer
base, which consists of commercial, legal, banking, healthcare,
accounting, insurance, entertainment and government
organizations.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company provided
services in 37 countries on five continents, employed over
20,000 people and operated over 1,000 records management
facilities.


KINDER MORGAN: September 2008 Trial Scheduled for "Heimann" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A September 2008 trial is slated for a class action against
Kinder Morgan CO2 Co. that is captioned "J. Casper Heimann,
Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio Petro LTD, individually and on
behalf of all other private royalty and overriding royalty
owners in the Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico
similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., Case No.
04-26-CL," which was filed before the Eight Judicial District
Court, Union County New Mexico.

The suit was filed by J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty
Trust and Rio Petro Ltd., individually and on behalf of all
other private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Bravo
Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 28, 2007).

The suit involves a purported class action against Kinder Morgan
CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty and
overriding royalty on the true and proper settlement value of
compressed carbon dioxide produced from the Bravo Dome Unit in
the period beginning Jan. 1, 2000.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an
accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

The purported class is comprised of current and former owners,
during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private
property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held
by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands,
the United States of America, and those private royalty
interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit.

The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class
previously certified in a suit before the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico captioned "Doris Feerer, et al.
v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC N.M. Civ. No. 95-
0012."

The plaintiffs allege that Kinder Morgan CO2's method of paying
royalty interests is contrary to the settlement of the Feerer
Class Action.  Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a motion to compel
arbitration of this matter pursuant to the arbitration
provisions contained in the Feerer Class Action settlement
agreement, which motion was denied.

Kinder Morgan CO2 appealed this decision to the New Mexico Court
of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court.  The
New Mexico Supreme Court granted further review in October 2006,
and after hearing oral argument, the New Mexico Supreme Court
quashed its prior order granting review.

In August 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking further review.
The Petition was denied in December 2007.

The case is now proceeding in the trial court as a certified
class action and the case is set for trial in September 2008.

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

Kinder Morgan Management, LLC -- http://www.kindermorgan.com/--
is a limited partner in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., and
manages and controls its business and affairs pursuant to a
delegation of control agreement.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the
company owned approximately 29.2% of Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P.'s limited partner interests.  Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. is the owner and operator of an
independent refined petroleum products pipeline system in the
U.S.  The company's voting shares are owned by Kinder Morgan,
G.P., Inc., of which Knight Inc. owns all the outstanding common
equity.  Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. is the general partner of
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Kinder Morgan, Inc., is an
energy transportation and storage company in North America,
operating, either for itself or on behalf of Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P.  On April 30, 2007, the company acquired
the Trans Mountain pipeline system from Knight Inc.


OPTAVE INC: Recalls Action Baby Carriers Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Optave Inc., of Alpena, Mich., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 250
Action Baby Carriers.

The company said the baby carrier's chest strap can detach from
the shoulder straps, posing a fall hazard to the baby.

Optave Inc. has received two reports of the chest strap
detaching from the shoulder straps on the baby carrier.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled carriers were sold under the "Action Baby Carrier"
brand name.  The carriers are sold in various colors and
patterns: blue, brown, green, "so square", "the larrisa" and
"spring breeze."

These recalled baby carriers were manufactured in the United
States and were being sold at specialty retail stores nationwide
and Internet sites from May 2008 through June 2008 for between
$80 and $90.

A picture of the recalled baby carriers is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08389.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the carrier in
the positions that require the use of the chest strap and
contact Optave to receive free replacement straps.

For additional information, contact Optave Inc. toll-free at
866-208-0269 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.actionbabycarriers.com/


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Wants Consolidated Securities Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Powerwave Technologies, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
it in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 29, 2008.

Several purported shareholder class-action complaints were filed
in January, February and March 2007, against the company, its
president and chief executive officer, its executive chairman of
the board of directors and its chief financial officer.

The complaints are:

      -- "Jerry Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
         al.,"

      -- "Kenneth Kwan v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
         al.,"

      -- "Achille Tedesco v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
         al.," and

      -- "Farokh Etemadieh v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc. et.
         al."

These were brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
complaints purport to state claims on behalf of all persons who
purchased Powerwave securities between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9,
2006.

The essence of the allegations is that the defendants made
misleading statements or omissions concerning the company's
projected and actual sales revenues, the integration of certain
acquisitions and the sufficiency of the company's internal
controls.

In June 2007, the four cases were consolidated into one, and a
lead plaintiff was appointed.  In October 2007, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same causes
of action.

The amended complaint purports to state claims on behalf of all
persons who purchased Powerwave securities between May 2, 2005,
and Nov. 2, 2006.

In December 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On April 17, 2008, the court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in
connection with the company's projected sales revenues, but
denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the other claims
asserted.

The suit is "Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies Inc et al., Case
No. 8:07-cv-00065-PSG-MLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group
          12304 Santa Monica Blvd Suite 109
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: 310-442-7756
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. (rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Brualdi Law Firm
          29 Broadway, Ste. 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-952-0602

               - and -

          Lewis Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-455-1400

Representing the defendants are:

          Seth A. Aronson, Esq. (saronson@omm.com)
          O'Melveny and Myers LLP
          400 South Hope Street 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Phone: 213-430-7486


RIDLEY INC: Ontario Court Approves BSE Claims Settlement Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has provisionally approved
the settlement agreement entered into by Ridley with the
representative plaintiffs in the BSE (bovine spongiform
encephalopathy) class action lawsuits against Ridley Inc. and
the Government of Canada.

In April 2005, Ridley Inc., along with its majority shareholder,
Ridley Corporation Limited of Sydney Australia, and the
Government of Canada were named defendants in proposed class
action suits filed in four Canadian provinces.  These lawsuits
sought damages, including punitive damages, for losses allegedly
incurred by Canadian cattle producers as a result of
international bans on the importation of Canadian beef and
cattle.

These bans followed the May 20, 2004 announcement of a BSE
diagnosis in an Alberta cow.  None of the plaintiffs in any of
the cases alleged any direct connection between them and Ridley
Inc.

The representative-plaintiffs sought to certify class actions in
Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec to include all
Canadian cattle farmers who allegedly suffered damage as a
result of international bans.

In October 2005, Ridley disclosed that it had filed and argued
preliminary motions seeking early dismissal of the BSE lawsuit
filed in the Ontario Superior Court for failure to state
actionable claims under Canadian law.  Ridley had asserted
strong legal arguments supporting its request that the
Court strike the claims in advance of class certification
hearings or commencement of discovery.

In 2006, Ridley reported that the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice denied its motion for early dismissal of the proposed
class action (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).  In its
June 21, 2007 decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld
the January 2006 decision of the Ontario Superior Court.

In 2007, Ridley filed an application with the Supreme Court of
Canada to appeal a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal
denying Ridley's motion to strike claims of economic losses by
cattle producers affected by an international meat ban in 2004
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 7, 2007).

On February 5, 2008, Ridley reached a settlement agreement with
the representative-plaintiffs in the BSE class action lawsuits
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2008).

Under the settlement agreement, Ridley will pay CDN$6 million
into a plaintiffs' settlement trust fund and will effectively
cap its exposure to the claims made by the plaintiffs to
$6 million.  However, Ridley will remain a participant in the
ongoing litigation as the plaintiffs continue their claim
against the Government of Canada.

Motions were heard in the Ontario Superior Court in June 2008
for certification of the Ontario lawsuit as a class action and
approval of the settlement agreement, but no decision has been
rendered yet by the Court on those motions.

The lawsuit in Quebec has been authorized as a class action and
the settlement agreement between Ridley and the plaintiffs has
been approved by the Superior Court of Quebec.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice's ruling, released
September 3, 2008, is a key step towards finalization of the
settlement agreement in which Ridley agreed to pay CDN$6 million
into a plaintiffs' settlement trust fund thereby limiting its
exposure to the claims made by the plaintiffs to that amount.

The Ontario court also provisionally granted class certification
to the Ontario lawsuit for purposes of the settlement.

The Ontario ruling follows a decision by the Superior Court of
Quebec in May 2008 approving the settlement with the plaintiffs
in a parallel class action lawsuit on behalf of cattle farmers
in Quebec.

In its recent decision, the Ontario court provisionally approved
the settlement subject to satisfaction of concerns for the
administration and operation of the trust fund that will be
addressed at a subsequent case conference by plaintiffs'
counsel.

"The court's decision on Ridley's settlement with the plaintiffs
is a positive step towards resolution of this matter. We have
managed with the uncertainty associated with this litigation for
the last three years, but enabling the settlement to proceed
will allow us to focus on our strategic objectives for Ridley",
said Steve VanRoekel, President and CEO of Ridley Inc.

Settlement notices will be submitted for approval before the
Ontario and Quebec courts, following which the settlement class
of cattle farmers in all provinces of Canada will be notified of
the court approval and settlement and their right to opt out of
the settlement.  The settlement will be finalized and Ridley
will pay the settlement funds provided the number of class
member opt-outs is below an agreed threshold.

Ridley will remain a participant in the ongoing litigation as
plaintiffs continue their claim against the Government of
Canada.  In agreeing to the settlement, Ridley made no admission
of liability or wrongdoing in the matter, and will continue to
contest any allegation it was responsible for the plaintiffs'
damages.

Ridley Inc., headquartered in Mankato, Minnesota and Winnipeg,
Manitoba, is one of North America's leading commercial animal
nutrition companies.  Ridley manufactures and distributes a full
range of animal nutrition products under a number of highly
regarded trade names.


SONY ELECTRONICS: Recalls Notebook Computers Due to Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Electronics Inc., of San Diego, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
73,000 certain VAIO TZ-series Notebook Computers.

The company said irregularly positioned wires near the
computer's hinge and a dislodged screw inside the hinge can
cause a short circuit and overheating.  This poses a burn hazard
to consumers.

Sony has received 15 reports of overheating, including one
consumer who suffered a minor burn.

The recalled notebook computer models are the VAIO VGN-TZ100
series, VGN-TZ200 series, VGN-TZ300 series and VGN-TZ2000
series.  The computers' screen size is about 11.1" measured
diagonally.  Not all units are affected; consumers should
contact Sony to determine if their unit is included in the
recall.

The recalled notebook computers were manufactured in Japan and
the United States and were being sold by the SonyStyle stores
and Web site, authorized electronics retailers, and authorized
business-to-business dealers nationwide from July 2007 through
August 2008 for between $1,700 and $4,000.

A picture of the recalled notebook computers is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08392.jpg

Consumers should stop using the recalled notebook computers
immediately and contact Sony to determine if their notebook is
affected.  The firm will arrange for an inspection and repair,
if needed.

For additional information, contact Sony toll-free at
888-526-6219 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.sony.com/support/


SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Calif. Superior Court Certifies Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court has certified an overtime-related
lawsuit against Sun Microsystems Inc., the Mondaq News Alerts
reports.

In May, technical writer Dani Hoenemier filed the lawsuit
accusing the Santa Clara-based Sun Microsystems (NASDAQ:JAVA) of
violating state labor laws involving breaks and overtime (Class
Action Reporter, May 19, 2008).

The report relates that Ms. Hoenemier worked long days as a
technical writer for Sun Microsystems, sometimes spending over
60 hours a week at her computer when the company was preparing a
new product release.

Sun Microsystems' technical writers may earn salaries of
$100,000 a year, but they do not get overtime pay for the extra
hours, according to Ms. Hoenemier's attorney, who is challenging
the company's practice of treating Ms. Hoenemier and about 300
other writers as exempt from state labor laws governing overtime
and breaks.

Mondaq News notes that California enacted controversial
legislation in 2000 that exempted "computer professionals" such
as software developers from rules requiring overtime for working
over 40 hours a week or 8 hours a day.

According to Mondaq News, the Hoenemier lawsuit marks the first
time a class action for overtime claims has been certified for
"technical writers" in California.  Up until now, these
individuals were commonly understood to be exempt from the right
to receive overtime pay under California's Labour Code.  That
code contains an exemption for individuals employed as "computer
professionals."

Headquartered in Santa Clara, California, Sun Microsystems Inc.
(NASDAQ: JAVA) -- http://sun.com/-- provides network computing
infrastructure product and service solutions worldwide.  Sun
Microsystems conducts business in 100 countries around the
globe, including Brazil, Argentina, India, Hungary, United
Kingdom, among others.


TARGET: Recalls Children's Bobbie Socks Due to Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Target, of Minneapolis, Minn., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 330,000
Circo Rosette Bobbie Socks.

The company said the ribbon on the sock can detach, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

Target has received four reports of the ribbon detaching.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves girls Circo bobbie socks.  The socks were
sold in packs of six (pink, purple, plain white and three pairs
with a box), ranging in size from 6- to 12-months, 12- to 24-
months and 2T to 5T.  The socks are packaged in a green and
white sleeve with a Circo-brand logo on the front.

These recalled bobbie socks were manufactured in Hong Kong and
were being sold exclusively at Target stores nationwide from
January 2007 to July 2008 for about $6.

A picture of the recalled bobbie socks is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08386.jpg

Consumers are advised to take these socks away from children and
return them to the nearest Target store to receive a full
refund.

For additional information, contact Target at 800-440-0680
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/


TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: 3rd Circuit Revives Mercury-in-Tuna Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuity has revived a
class action suit against Tri-Union Seafoods, the manufacturer
of Chicken-of-the-Sea brand tuna, brought by consumers who
claimed they were never warned that excessive consumption of the
product could lead to mercury poisoning, Law.com reports.

According to Law.com, the appellate court's three-judge panel
unanimously found that a lower court improperly dismissed the
suit, captioned "Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods," on the grounds
that it was pre-empted by U.S. Food & Drug Administration
regulations.  Thus, the recent ruling reverses the decision by
Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh, of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

"The FDA has promulgated no regulation concerning the risk posed
by mercury in fish or warnings for that risk, has adopted no
rule precluding states from imposing a duty to warn, and has
taken no action establishing mercury warnings as misbranding
under federal law or as contrary to federal law in any other
respect," Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Walter K. Stapleton wrote.

Judge Stapleton, in an opinion joined by Judge Dolores K.
Sloviter and Judge D. Brooks Smith, concluded that Deborah
Fellner's lawsuit does not conflict with the FDA's regulatory
scheme for the risks posed by mercury in fish "because the FDA
simply has not regulated the matter."

Law.com recounts that defense lawyers had argued that Ms.
Fellner's "duty-to-warn" claim conflicted with the FDA's
decision to forego any warnings in order to avoid scaring
consumers away from a useful product.

Specifically, John A. Kiernan, Esq., of Bonner Kiernan Trebach &
Crociata argued that the FDA would deem any warning false and
misleading because it would not "balance out the negative . . .
information with positive information about the numerous healthy
attributes of canned tuna."

Judge Stapleton disagreed, saying "the FDA took no action to
preclude state warnings -- at least, no binding action via
ordinary regulatory procedures."

The Third Circuit found that Judge Cavanaugh had improperly
equated the FDA's decision to issue a consumer advisory with
actual regulation.  Judge Cavanaugh, in his January 2007
decision, said that "the FDA's regulatory scheme is the result
of over 10 years of data collection and study," and that the
plaintiffs were effectively asking the court to disregard the
FDA's "deliberately nuanced response" to the issue of mercury in
seafood.

Judge Stapleton noted that, in the advisory, the FDA offered
advice to women who are or may become pregnant about selecting
and eating fish.  In doing so, Stapleton said, the FDA did not
"specifically regulate" anything, but instead gave "non-binding
advice to a class of consumers."  As a result, Judge Stapleton
said, the FDA advisory did not "promulgate a federal legal
standard" with which Ms. Fellner's state law claims could
potentially conflict.

"The mere fact that the FDA chose to warn only certain 'at risk'
consumers, rather than all consumers, does not create a
conflict," Judge Stapleton further wrote.  "The advisory does
recommend continued fish consumption within certain parameters,
but that recommendation is clearly not inconsistent with a
warning against excess consumption."

The report recounts that Ms. Fellner originally filed the suit
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, alleging that her diet
consisted almost exclusively of Chicken-of-the-Sea tuna for five
years, causing her to contract severe mercury poisoning, and
that Tri-Union Seafood had failed to warn consumers of the risk
of excessive tuna consumption.

Tri-Union later removed the suit to federal court and sought
dismissal on federal pre-emption grounds, citing a California
court's decision to dismiss a consumer suit brought by former
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

According to Law.com, while the California suit was pending, the
FDA had sent a letter to Mr. Lockyer that said the FDA's prior
regulatory actions pre-empt the state's suit because tuna
canning companies would be unable to comply both with the FDA's
approach and state law.  The letter warned Mr. Lockyer that his
suit would "frustrate the FDA's carefully considered federal
approach" to the issue of mercury in fish.

Subsequently, in May 2006, the California Superior Court agreed
with the FDA and found the suit was indeed pre-empted by federal
law.

Now, the Third Circuit's recent ruling directly conflicts with
the California court's decision, finding that the FDA's opinion
that such suits are pre-empted is not entitled to deference from
the courts because the agency has never truly regulated mercury
levels in fish.

"While the FDA may well have the authority to promulgate a
regulatory scheme which would preclude any state duty to warn
consumers of the risks of mercury in tuna, it simply has not
done so," Judge Stapleton wrote.

Ms. Fellner is represented by Adina H. Rosenbaum, Esq., and
Brian Wolfman, Esq., of the Public Citizen Litigation Group in
Washington, D.C., along with William O. Crutchlow, Esq., and
Khalid Elhassan, Esq., of Eichen Levinson & Crutchlow in Edison,
N.J.


UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS: Court to Hear $49MM Insurance Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Muscogee County in the State of Georgia
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 20, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., to
consider final approval of the proposed $49-million settlement
in the matter "Tony Pierce, et al., v. Universal Underwriters
Life Insurance Company, Civil Action No. SU 2003 CV 377."

The hearing will be held before Judge Douglas C. Pullen of the
Superior Court of Muscogee County at the Government Center in
Columbus, Georgia.

Any objection and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before Sept. 22, 2008.

According to a detailed notice, automotive buyers were sold
single premium credit life and credit disability insurance when
borrowing to pay for their purchase.  The entire premium for the
life of the loan was paid up front in a single premium.

The lawsuit revolves around loans being paid off early for
which prepaid premiums were not refunded.  The complaint was
filed against Universal Underwriters Life Insurance Co. on
behalf of those who purchased credit insurance and then paid off
their loans early but did not get an "unearned premium" refund.

In essence, the suit claimed that the defendant failed to refund
unearned premiums when the insured loan was terminated prior to
the expiration of the loan period.

The settlement reached by the parties covers anyone who paid off
their insured loan early or whose loan terminated early -- that
is, before the loan period (typically 48 to 72 months) had
expired, and had bought credit insurance through UULIC, and who
has not received a refund of unearned premium, may be entitled
to a refund, if they were insured by a UULIC policy prior to
March 14, 2008.

For more details, contact:

         The Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 937
         Minneapolis, MN 55440-0937
         Phone: 877-465-4814
         Web site:
         http://www.uuliccreditinsurancesettlement.com/index.htm

         James E. Butler, Jr., Esq.
         Joel O. Wooten, Esq.
         Butler, Wooten & Fryhofer, LLP
         P.O. Box 2766
         Columbus, GA 31902
         Phone: 706-322-1990
         Fax: 706-323-2962
         Web site: http://www.butlerwooten.com/

              - or -

         Samuel W. Oates, Jr., Esq. (samoatesjr@aol.com)
         Oates & Courville
         P.O. Box 20
         Columbus, GA 31902
         Phone: 706-327-8000
         Web site: http://www.lawyers.com/oateslaw


VALERO ENERGY: Pleading Filed in Kans. Fuel Temperature Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "In re: Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation, Multi-District Litigation Docket No.
1840," filed a pleading attempting to name Valero Energy Corp.,
and other petroleum companies as class representatives of
defendant classes composed of their respective branded outlets,
including retail outlets owned by other parties.

As of Aug. 1, 2008, the company was named in 21 consumer class-
action lawsuits relating to fuel temperature.  The complaints,
filed before federal courts in several states, allege that
because fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the
defendants have violated state consumer protection laws by
failing to adjust the volume of fuel when the fuel temperature
exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

The complaints seek to certify classes of retail consumers who
purchased fuel in various locations.  They seek an order
compelling the installation of temperature correction devices as
well as associated monetary relief.

In June 2007, the federal lawsuits were consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation case in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas (In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, Multi-District Litigation Docket No.
1840).

In February 2008, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaints.

In July 2008, the plaintiffs filed a pleading attempting to name
Valero and other petroleum companies as class representatives of
defendant classes composed of their respective branded outlets,
including retail outlets owned by other parties, according to
the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


VALERO ENERGY: Seeks Ill. High Court Review of "Rosolowski" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy, Inc., filed an appeal before the Illinois Supreme
Court regarding a recent decision in the matter "Rosolowski v.
Clark Refining Marketing, Inc., et al., Case No. 95-L 014703," a
purported class-action lawsuit that the company assumed after
its acquisition of Premcor Inc. under a merger agreement on
Sept. 1, 2005.

The suit, filed on Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release
to the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of
heavy metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery
on Oct. 7, 1994.  The release resulted in the temporary
evacuation of certain areas near the refinery.

The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three
classes, two of which received nominal or no damages, and one of
which received a sizeable jury verdict.

That class consisted of local residents who claimed property
damage or loss of use and enjoyment of their property over a
period of several years.

In November 2005, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs
of $80.1 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in
punitive damages.

However, following the company's motions for new trial and
judgment notwithstanding the verdict (citing, among other
things, misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel and improper class
certification), the trial judge in November 2006 vacated the
jury's award and decertified the class.

The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to vacate the
$120 million judgment and decertify the class.  The plaintiffs'
appeal was heard before the state appeals court in February
2008, and in June 2008, the state appeals court reversed the
trial court's decision to decertify the class and set aside the
judgment.

The appeals court preserved the company's rights, and on Aug. 4,
2008, the company filed an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court,
according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


VERISIGN: Appeals Denial of Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc., is appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit a decision by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denying the company's motion to
dismiss a purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned
"Cheryl Bentley et al. v. NBC Universal Inc et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-03647-FMC-VBK."

Initially, on June 5, 2007, plaintiff Cheryl Bentley, on behalf
of herself and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a
complaint against VeriSign, m-Qube Inc., and other defendants.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants collectively operate
an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing
viewers of the NBC television show "The Apprentice" to incur
premium text message charges in order to participate in an
interactive television promotion called "Get Rich With Trump."

The company sought to dismiss the case, which request was denied
by the District Court.

The case is now pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, awaiting resolution of the defendants' petition
for interlocutory appeal of the District Court's denial of the
dismissal motion, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Cheryl Bentley, et al. v. NBC Universal Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03647-FMC-VBK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Florence-
Marie Cooper, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Michiyo M. Furukawa, Esq. (mfurukawa@milberg.com)
          Milberg LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-617-1200
          Fax: 213-617-1975

               - and -

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (kiesel@kbla.com)
          Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: 310-854-0812

Representing the defendants are:

          Ronald L. Johnston, Esq. (ronald_johnston@aporter.com)
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-243-4000

               - and -

          Chad S. Hummel, Esq. (chummel@manatt.com)
          Manatt Phelps & Phillips
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Phone: 310-312-4000


VERISIGN: Appeals Denial of "Herbert" Lawsuit Dismissal Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc., is appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit an order issued by the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California denying the company's motion
to dismiss a purported consumer fraud class-action suit
captioned "Karen Herbert et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case No.
CV 07 3537FMC."

Also named defendants in the complaint are:

     -- Endemol USA,
     -- Verisign, Inc.,
     -- M-Qube, Inc., and
     -- Don Jagoda Associates, Inc.

The named plaintiffs -- Karen Herbert, Judy Schenker, Jodi
Eberhart and Cheryl Bentley -- claim that the Internet
promotion, known as the "Lucky Case Game," which costs 99 cents
per text message, is a game of chance that offers a winner a
shot at "Deal or no Deal" Program, which offers a $1 million
grand prize (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 22, 2007).

At a predetermined time during each broadcast, six gold
briefcases (different from the in-studio contestants' cases) are
displayed on-air and an announcer invites home viewers to
participate in the Promotion by submitting the number one
through six that they believe corresponds to the winning gold
briefcase.  The game ends when one briefcase is opened on-air to
reveal that night's "Lucy Case."

The game allegedly involves the three elements of illegal
gambling: consideration, chance and prize.  Viewers of the
program enter the promotion via text message for which they
incur a premium text message fee, or via the Internet.  The
potential winners among eligible entrants are chosen at random,
and have the opportunity to win cash and other prizes.

The alleged illegal gambling game is broadcast during the show,
the plaintiffs say.

The plaintiffs further claim the show, broadcast nationwide from
California, violates California and Massachusetts laws against
gambling.

The defendants operate the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, as
follows:

     (a) Endemol produces the "Deal or No Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (b) Don Jagoda designe the "Lucky Case Game," including its
         rules and conditions;

     (c) NBC broadcasts the "Deal or NO Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (d) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" during the broadcasr of "Deal or No Deal";

     (e) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" in advertisements for "Deal or No Deal" and the
         "Lucky Case Game";

     (f) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda solicit thext message
         entries to the "Lucky Case Game";

     (g) NBC levies charges for premium text messages sent by
         entrants in the promotion;

     (h) VeriSign and M-Qube act as the billing agent for the
         promotion;

     (i) VeriSign and M-Qube aggregate all entrie, and randomly
         select and contact the potential prize winner amongst
         the entries correctly identifying the "Lucky Case";

     (j) VeriSign and M-Qube award and distribute prizes to
         winning entrants; and

     (k) Endemol, NBC, VeriSign and M-Qube sponsor the "Lucky
         Case Game."

The plaintiffs brought the nationwide class action suit pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of a class consisting of all
persons in the U.S. who paid or incurred premium text message
charges in connection with entrance into the "Lucky Case Game,"
and who did not win a prize.

The plaintiffs brought the action in their individual
capacities,  and for the First and Second Causes of Action, as a
class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities who have paid or
incurred premium text message charges in connection with
entering the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, and who have not won
any prize.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     1. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constitutes illegal
        gambling;

     2. the extent of each defendants' participation in
        conducting the promotion;

     3. whether defendants' conduct violated California
        Business and Professions Section 17200;

     4. whether defendants' violations directly and proximately
        caused injury to plaintiffs and the class;

     5. the extent to which the injuries suffered by plaintiffs
        and the class are entitled to damages, restitution,
        disgorgement, or other monetary remedies;

     6. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constituted a gaming or
        related activity covered by Massachusetts General Laws
        ch. 137, Section 1:

     7. whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
        recover the amount of premium text messages paid to
        enter the "Lucky Case Game" in contract; and

     8. whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
        the "Lucky Case Game."

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for restitution;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for damages;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs for treble damages;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against
        conducting the "Lucy Case Game" Promotion;

     -- a declaration that the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion
        constitutes an illegal lottery and illegal gambling;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the
        class as may be just and proper; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

The company and the other defendants had sought to dismiss the
case, but this this request was denied by the District Court.

The case is currently pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit awaiting resolution of the defendants'
petition for interlocutory appeal of the District Court's denial
of their dismissal motion, according to the company's Aug. 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Karen Herbert, et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case
No. CV 07 3537FMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (kiesel@kbla.com)
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: 310-854-0812

          William A. Pannell, Esq. (billpannell@mindspring.com)
          William A. Pannell, P.C.
          3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: 404-353-2283

               - and -

          Kevin T. Moore, Esq. (kaw30328@aol.com)
          Kevin T. Moore, P.C.
          6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, N.E.
          Building C, Suite 201
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: 770-396-3622


VERISIGN INC: "Hardin" Consumer Fraud Suit in Georgia Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported consumer fraud class-action lawsuit, filed with
regard to accusations that VeriSign, Inc., along with several
others, violated gambling laws in the promotion of the "Deal Or
No Deal" show, has been dismissed, according to the company's
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On June 7, 2007, plaintiffs Michael and Michele Hardin, on
behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers, filed
the complaint against VeriSign and other defendants alleging
that the defendants collectively operate various "gambling
games" in violation of Georgia state law.  The suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiffs allege that interactive television promotions
contained in various broadcasts, including NBC's "Deal or No
Deal," wrongly permit participants to incur premium text message
charges in order to participate in the promotions to win a
prize.

On Aug. 17, 2007, VeriSign filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On Sept. 20, 2007, the Court heard oral arguments on
VeriSign's dismissal motion.

The Hardin lawsuit was dismissed on April 28, 2008, following a
favorable ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court on a matter of law
certified to the U.S. Supreme Court by the District Court.

The suit is "Hardin, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00064-WCO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Judge William C. O'Kelley,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Dustin Thomas Brown, Esq. (dustin@dcfblaw.com)
         Daughtery, Crawford, Fuller & Brown, LLP
         P.O. Box 1118
         Columbus, GA 31902
         Phone: 706-320-9646
         Fax: 706-494-0221

              - and -

         Jerry Alan Buchanan, Esq. (jab@buchananland.com)
         Buchanan & Land
         P.O. Box 2848, 1425 Wynnton Road
         Columbus, GA 31902
         Phone: 404-323-2848

Representing the defendant is:

         Jonathan R. Chally, Esq. (jchally@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600


VERISIGN INC: Settlement in Calif. Consumer Suit Becomes Final
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California gave final approval to a
settlement in a purported consumer fraud class-action lawsuit
against VeriSign Inc. that accuses the company of false and
misleading advertisement with regard to its Internet-security
software.

The putative class action suit was filed on Feb. 14, 2005, by
the Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP, before the Superior
Court of California, alleging violations of unfair competition
laws, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment relating
to the company's Secure Site Pro SSL certificates.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased the Secure Site Pro certificate from February 2001 up
to the present.  On April 17, 2006, the class was certified and
class notice was issued on May 21, 2007.

In March 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve the matter.  The settlement became final on July 15,
2008, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com/-- is a provider of
intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect
billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks
worldwide.


VERISIGN INC: Stock Option Grants Suit Still Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc., continues to face a purported class action suit
in California that alleges false representations and disclosure
failures regarding certain historical stock option grants.

On May 15, 2007, the putative class action suit -- "Mykityshyn
v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign, Inc." -- was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County,
naming the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.

The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned
VeriSign common stock between April 3, 2002, and Aug. 9, 2006.

The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and
2006 Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the
1998 Option Plan.  It also seeks to enjoin the defendants from
granting any stock options and from allowing the exercise of any
currently outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006
Option Plans.  It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, costs and attorneys fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com/-- is a provider of
intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect
billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks
worldwide.


WOLF APPLIANCE: Recalls Gas Ranges Due to Burn Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
Wolf Appliance Inc., of Madison, Wis., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
24,000 Wolf Appliance Gas Ranges.

The company said delayed ignition of gas in the 18-inch oven can
cause a flash of flames to be projected at a consumer when the
range door is opened, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

Wolf has received 97 reports of units experiencing delayed
ignition, including 15 minor burns.  There have been no reports
of fires or property damage.

This recall involves the following Wolf Appliance 48-Inch gas
ranges with model numbers: P48, PS48 and R48.  The gas ranges
are stainless steel with a double oven.  A "Wolf" appliance logo
is on the front of the larger oven door.

These recalled gas ranges were manufactured in the United States
and were being sold at home builders and appliance stores
nationwide from January 1998 through June 2008 for between
$5,000 and $9,000.

A picture of the recalled gas ranges is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08391.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled gas
range 18-inch oven and contact the manufacturer to schedule a
free, in-home repair.  The large oven and all cooktop burners
are not affected and may be used.

For more information, consumers can contact Wolf Appliance toll-
free at 866-643-6408 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.wolfappliance.com/


YAHOO! INC: Wants Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. is seeking to dismiss a consolidated securities
fraud lawsuit pending against it before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Initially, on May 11, 2007, the first of two purported
securities class action complaints was filed against Yahoo! and
certain of its officers and members of its board of directors.
The lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California by Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky, under
the caption, "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:2007cv03125."

The second lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California by Manfred Hacker, under the
caption, "Manfred Hacker v. Yahoo! Inc et al., Case No.
2:2007cv03902."

These actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and, on Dec. 21, 2007, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who
purchased Yahoo!'s common stock between April 8, 2004, and
July 18, 2006.  They allege that the defendants engaged in a
scheme to inflate Yahoo!'s share price by making false and
misleading statements regarding Yahoo!'s operations, financial
results, and future business prospects in violation of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5.

The plaintiffs also allege that the individual defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of the Section 20(A) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, and as control persons are
subject to liability under Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of alleged insider trading
proceeds, and other equitable relief.

At the defendants' behest, the Court, on March 10, 2008,
transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which motion will be heard on Sept. 18, 2008,
in conjunction with a case management conference, according to
the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The consolidated suit is "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03125-CAS-FMO," pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Christina A. Snyder, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nate Bear, Esq. (nbear@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

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

               - and -

          Mark I. Labaton, Esq. (mlabaton@kreindler.com)
          Kreindler and Kreindler LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-622-6469

Representing the defendants is:

          Jordan Eth, Esq. (jeth@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-7000


YAHOO! INC: Calif. & Del. Suits Over Microsoft Offer Are Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. continues to face several lawsuits in California and
Delaware in connection with Microsoft Corp.'s unsolicited
proposal to acquire the company, according to the company's
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

                     California Lawsuits

Since Feb. 1, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were
filed in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County,
against Yahoo! Inc., the members of the company's board of
directors, and selected former officers of the company by
plaintiffs Edward Fritsche, the Thomas Stone Trust, Tom Turberg,
Congregation Beth Aaron, and the Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System.

The California Lawsuits were consolidated, and on March 12,
2008, a consolidated amended class action and derivative
complaint was filed, captioned "In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder
Litigation," in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint alleges
that the Yahoo! Board of Directors breached fiduciary duties in
connection with Microsoft's unsolicited proposal to acquire
Yahoo!.  The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 28, 2008, the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted
the defendants' motion to stay the Consolidated Amended Class
Action and Derivative Complaint pending resolution of similar
proceedings pending with the Delaware Court of Chancery.

                       Delaware Lawsuits

Since Feb. 11, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Yahoo! and
members of its Board of Directors by plaintiffs The Wayne County
Employees' Retirement System, Ronald Dicke, and The Police and
Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit along with The
General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund and
Vernon A. Mercier.

Two of the Delaware Lawsuits (by plaintiff Wayne County and by
plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union) were voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice.

The remaining Delaware Lawsuits were consolidated (lead
plaintiff is the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City
of Detroit) and a lead counsel was appointed.

On June 13, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
operative complaint.  On June 16, 2008, the court denied the
plaintiffs' renewed request for an expedited trial date and on
July 11, 2008, stayed all discovery pending resolution of the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

In lieu of opposing the motion to dismiss, on July 14, 2008, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave of court to file an amended
complaint (Second Amended and Consolidated Complaint).  The
proposed Second Amended and Consolidated Complaint purports to
allege claims against certain former and current members of
Yahoo!'s Board of Directors on behalf of all Yahoo!
stockholders, except the defendants and their affiliates.

Yahoo! is named as a nominal defendant only, and no monetary
relief is sought against the company.

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

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet
brand.  To its global users, it provides owned and operated
online properties and services.   To its advertisers, it
provides tools and marketing solutions.  Many of Yahoo!'s
services are free to its users.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

REDDY ICE: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Mich. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., and
various individuals on behalf of purchasers of Reddy Ice who
purchased common stock between August 10, 2005, and August 6,
2008.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) that the Company had engaged, and continued to engage,
         in illicit business practices with its competitors in
         the packaged ice industry;

     (2) that the company had joined with its competitors in the
         packaged ice industry in colluding and agreeing to
         allocate territories and customers in the United
         States' packaged ice market;

     (3) that the Company had agreed with competitors in the
         industry to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices
         for packaged ice in the United States market;

     (4) that the Company's revenues had been significantly
         increased through the use of such illicit business
         practices;

     (5) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements
         were false and misleading at all relevant times;

     (6) that such illicit business practices, when they were
         revealed, would initiate an investigation by the
         federal authorities into the Company's business
         practices;

     (7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
         basis.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 7,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

           Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
           Eitan Kimelman
           Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
           60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
           New York, NY 10165
           Phone: 212-697-6484





                            *********

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  * * *