CAR_Public/080910.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 10, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 180

                            Headlines

ACH FOOD: Recalls Dopiaza Cooking Sauce Due to Undeclared Milk
ALLIANCE DATA: Court Gives Final OK to Merger Suit Settlement
CORN PRODUCTS: Court Consolidates Suits Over $4.8BB Bunge Offer
CORN PRODUCTS: Syrup Price-Fixing Suits Still Pending in Canada
DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Wash. Court Dismisses FCRA Violations Lawsuit

EFUNDS CORP: Court Yet to Grant Final Approval to "Fresco" Deal
EINSTEIN NOAH: Settles Class Action Suits for $1,900,000
EL PASO: Colorado Court Nixes Claims in ERISA & Age Bias Lawsuit
EL PASO: Discovery Ongoing in Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit
EL PASO: Kans. "Price" Antitrust Suit Awaits Class Certification

EL PASO: Texas Court Yet to Rule on Motions in ERISA Lawsuit
FCSTONE GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is Sept. 15
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Deal in Info Theft Suits Gears for Final Okay
GS CALTEX: Lawsuit Over Stolen Customer Information Looms
IKANOS COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal

INFINITY INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Maystruck"
INVENTIV HEALTH: Parties in "Weisz" Lawsuit Begins Mediation
INVERNESS MEDICAL: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Mass.
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Still Pending in N.Y.
JONES SODA: Wants Washington Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Calif.
LANIER GOLF: Class Action Status Denied in Ga. Golf Course Suit
LEADIS TECH: Seeks Sup. Ct. Review in Calif. Securities Lawsuit
MERCURY INSURANCE: Sued in Calif. for Unprovided Medical Service
NEW YORK: Lottery Division Defrauds Public, Lawsuit Claims

RBS GLOBAL: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Brass Crimp Fittings
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Delaware Lawsuit Over Allied Waste Deal
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Seeks Inclusion of Persons Into $7.5MM Deal
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Labor-Related Suit Still Pending in Calif.
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Calif.

STARWAY INC: Recalls Preserved Peaches Over Undeclared Sulfites
TD AMERITRADE: Sept. 15 Conference Set for "Elvey" Suit Deal
TD AMERITRADE: Faces Several Suits Over Auction Rate Securities
TEL AVIV PUB: Owners Face ILS8-Mln. Suit Over Anti-Smoking Law
THE CANYONS: Osguthorpe Family's Complaint in Maryland Dismissed

TOLL BROTHERS: Pa. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TRILEGIANT CORP: Lawyers to Get $8MM from $25MM "Pederson" Deal
UNITED ONLINE: Reaches Settlement in California NetZero Lawsuit
UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Court Decertifies Class in "Marlo" Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Third Circuit to Hear Appeal in "Hohider" Lawsuit

VALUECLICK INC: Wants Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Thrown Out
WACHOVIA BANK: Floria Suit Alleges Company of Cheating on Fees
WELLPOINT: $11.8M Deal to Proceed Despite 3 Hospitals Opting Out


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FEDERAL NATIONAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Conn.
QUEST RESOURCE: Federman Files 1st Okla. Securities Fraud Suit
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Howard Smith Files Securities Suit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ACH FOOD: Recalls Dopiaza Cooking Sauce Due to Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
ACH Food Companies, Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee is recalling its
Patak's Dopiaza Cooking Sauce sold in the United States because
it may contain an undeclared milk allergen.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk may run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The product is distributed nationally through retail stores.
ACH Food Companies is notifying its distributors and stores that
carry this product that it contains an undeclared milk allergen
and to immediately remove it from distribution.

The product is sold under two different labels, "Patak's Rich
Tomato and Onion Cooking Sauce Dopiaza (Mild)" and "Patak's
Dopiaza Curry Cooking Sauce Mild."  The recall only applies to
products sold in the United States and no other Patak's products
other than these two labels are affected by this voluntary
recall.

ACH Food Companies has notified the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration (FDA) of the ingredient omission and is
cooperating with federal authorities and its customers to recall
this product.  This allergen affects a very small number of
people.  To date, neither ACH Food Companies nor the FDA have
received any reports of illness or complaints due to this error.
Anyone concerned about an allergic reaction should contact a
health professional immediately. None of ACH Food Companies'
other "Patak's((R)" family of products is affected by this
recall.

The product, as formulated, did not include butter.  Therefore,
butter was not included on the ingredient statement or in the
nutritional statement.  An inadvertent error at the co-packer
caused the wrong formula to be used in preparing the sauce and
the wrong formula included butter as an ingredient.

Consumers who have purchased this product with either of these
labels and with a "Best By Date" on or before February 2010
should return the unused portion of the product to the store
from which they purchased the item for reimbursement or call ACH
Food Company's Consumer Hotline at 800-726-3648 to receive a
coupon for another Patak's(R) product.  The Consumer Hotline is
open Monday to Friday from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. CDT.


ALLIANCE DATA: Court Gives Final OK to Merger Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County in Texas gave
final approval to a settlement reached in the purported class-
action lawsuit "In re Alliance Data Corp. Class Action
Litigation, No. 07-04689," which names Alliance Data Systems
Corp. as a defendant.

On May 17, 2007, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Aladdin Solutions, Inc. (f/k/a Aladdin Holdco,
Inc., Parent) and Aladdin Merger Sub, Inc., pursuant to which
the company was to be acquired by affiliates of The Blackstone
Group L.P.

On May 18, 2007, Sherryl Halpern filed a putative class-action
suit (Case No. 07-04689) before the same court on behalf of
company stockholders against the company, all of its directors
and Blackstone.

On May 29, 2007, Linda Levine filed a putative class-action suit
(Case No. 07-05009) on behalf of company stockholders in the
192nd Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, against the
company and all of its directors.

On May 31, 2007, the J&V Charitable Remainder Trust filed a
putative class-action suit (Case No. 07-05127-F) on behalf of
company stockholders in the 116th Judicial District of Dallas
County, Texas, against the company, all of its directors and the
Blackstone Group.

The three putative class-action lawsuits have been consolidated
in the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas
under the caption, "In re Alliance Data Corp. Class Action
Litigation, No. 07-04689."

On July 12, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed a motion to enjoin
the scheduled Aug. 8, 2007 special meeting of stockholders at
which stockholders would be asked to vote to adopt the Merger
Agreement.

The company and its directors filed general denials in response
to the putative class actions.

On July 16, 2007, a consolidated class action petition was
filed, seeking a declaration that the action was a proper class
action, an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the
Merger, a declaration that the director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and an award of fees, expenses and costs.

On July 27, 2007, the company and its directors filed an
opposition brief the motion.  The company continued to deny all
of the allegations in the consolidated class action petition,
contended that the asserted claims were baseless and strongly
believed that its disclosures in the company's definitive proxy
statement filed in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 5, 2007 (Definitive Proxy) were appropriate and adequate
under applicable law.

Nevertheless, in order to lessen the risk of any delay of the
closing of the Merger as a result of the litigation, the company
made available to its stockholders certain additional
information in connection with the Merger, which was filed with
the SEC on July 27, 2007, and subsequently mailed to
stockholders on or about July 28, 2007 (Proxy Supplement).

The plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their motions to enjoin the
Aug. 8, 2007 special meeting of stockholders.

On Aug. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Petition, in which they withdrew all prior claims but added a
claim for an equitable award of attorney's fees.  They allege
that their lawsuits caused the company to issue the Proxy
Supplement, and that the supplement constituted a benefit to the
company, its directors and stockholders for which the
plaintiffs' attorneys should be compensated.

In mid-December 2007, the parties reached a tentative settlement
wherein the company agreed to pay the class plaintiffs' counsel
$380,000 as consideration for their contribution to the issuance
of the Proxy Supplement.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on May 21,
2008, which the court preliminarily approved on May 22, 2008.

Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, the company mailed a
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action to all persons or
entities who could be identified through reasonable efforts who
were record or beneficial holders of the company's common stock
at any time during the period from, and including, May 17, 2007,
through Aug. 14, 2007.

Also pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, the company
issued a press release announcing the proposed class action
settlement on June 13, 2008.  No stockholders filed an objection
to the proposed settlement.

The Court entered a Final Order and Judgment approving the class
action settlement at a fairness hearing held July 28, 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.

Alliance Data Systems Corp. -- http://www.alliancedata.com/--
is a provider of loyalty and marketing solutions derived from
transaction rich data.  ADSC partners with its clients to
develop insight into consumer behavior.  It uses that insight to
create and manage customized solutions and enables its clients
to build stronger, mutually beneficial relationships with their
customers.  ADSC focuses on facilitating and managing
interactions between its clients and their customers through
multiple distribution channels, including in-store, catalogs and
online.   It operates in three business segments: Marketing
Services, Credit Services and Transaction Services.


CORN PRODUCTS: Court Consolidates Suits Over $4.8BB Bunge Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, consolidated three
purported class-action lawsuits against Corn Products
International, Inc., over allegations that the company is
selling itself too cheaply to Bunge Ltd. -- for $4.8 billion --
after nine consecutive quarters of record sales and a growing
demand for its products, for food and ethanol, 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.

                        Simon Litigation

On June 23, 2008, a putative class-action suit entitled, "Simon
v. Almeida, et al., Case No. 08CH22717," was filed against Corn
Products and its directors in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division.

The suit purports to be filed on behalf of all Corn Products
stockholders.  It alleges that Corn Products' directors violated
their fiduciary obligations to Corn Products stockholders in
approving the merger agreement.

Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
the directors failed to:

    -- undertake an adequate evaluation of Corn Products'
       worth as a potential merger candidate;

    -- take adequate steps to enhance Corn Products' value as
       a merger candidate;

    -- effectively expose Corn Products to the marketplace to
       create an open auction for Corn Products; and

    -- act independently to protect the interests of Corn
       Products stockholders.

The complaint seeks various forms of relief, including
injunctive relief that could, if granted, prevent the completion
of the merger.  No answer or responsive pleading has yet been
filed.

                       Fuller Litigation

On July 8, 2008, a second putative class-action suit, entitled
"Fuller v. Corn Products International, et al., Case No.
08CH24465," was filed against Corn Products and its directors
before the same court.

The complaint purports to be on behalf of all Corn Products
stockholders.  The complaint alleges that Corn Products'
directors violated their fiduciary obligations to Corn Products
stockholders in approving the merger agreement.

Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
the directors:

    -- failed to take steps to maximize the value of Corn
       Products to its stockholders and took steps to avoid
       competitive bidding, to cap the price of Corn
       Products' stock and to give the defendants an unfair
       advantage by failing to solicit other potential
       acquirors or alternative transactions;

    -- failed to properly value Corn Products;

    -- ignored or did not protect against conflicts of
       interest resulting from the directors' own
       interrelationship or connection with the merger; and

    -- failed to disclose all material information to Corn
       Products' stockholders.

In addition, the Fuller complaint alleges that the terms of the
merger agreement were designed to ensure that the sale of Corn
Products to Bunge is preferential to Bunge, and to subvert the
interests of plaintiff and other Corn Products stockholders.

In particular, the plaintiff alleges that the merger agreement
contains "unlawful provisions" including the termination fee
provisions, the no solicitation provisions, and the grant of
"matching rights" to Bunge to match any superior proposal
received by Corn Products.  The complaint seeks various forms of
relief, including injunctive relief that could, if granted,
prevent the completion of the merger.  No answer or responsive
pleading has yet been filed.

                        Smith Litigation

On July 9, 2008, a third putative class-action lawsuit, entitled
"Smith v. Corn Products International, et al., Case No.
08CH24565," was filed against Corn Products and its directors
before the same court.

The complaint purports to be on behalf of all Corn Products
stockholders.  The allegations and relief sought in this case
are substantially the same as that of the Fuller case, discussed
above.  No answer or responsive pleading has yet been filed.

                     Consolidated Litigation

On July 14, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Fuller and Smith cases
filed a motion to consolidate their cases with the Simon case.
On July 15, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Simon case also filed a
motion to consolidate the three cases.

On July 22, 2008, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
County Department, Chancery Division consolidated the Fuller and
Smith cases with the Simon case.  The plaintiffs in the Simon
case also asked the court to appoint Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP as interim class counsel.

Corn Products International, Inc. --
http://www.cornproducts.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells a number of ingredients to a variety of
food and industrial customers.  It operates as a corn refiner
and a supplier of food ingredients and industrial products
derived from wet milling and processing of corn and other
starch-based materials, such as tapioca.  Its sweetener products
include high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), glucose corn syrups,
high-maltose corn syrups, caramel color, dextrose, polyols,
maltodextrins, and glucose and corn syrup solids.  Its starch-
based products include both industrial and food-grade starches.


CORN PRODUCTS: Syrup Price-Fixing Suits Still Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corn Products International, Inc., continues to face two anti-
competition class-action lawsuits in Canada over an alleged
conspiracy to fix the price of high fructose corn syrup,
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 April 4, 2006, the company was served with complaints in two
cases:

     1. "Sun-Rype Products, Ltd v. Archer Daniels Midland, et
        al., L051456," which is pending in the Supreme Court of
        British Columbia, Canada; and

     2. "Ali Holdco, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland, 06-CV-
        309948PD3," filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
        Justice, Canada.

Both suits purport to be class action anti-competition cases.

These lawsuits contain nearly identical allegations against a
number of industry participants including the company.  The
suits seek unspecified damages for an alleged conspiracy to fix
the price of high fructose corn syrup sold in Canada during the
period between 1988 and June 1995.  In the alternative, the
complaints seek recovery under restitutionary principles.

In May 2007, the court ruled on a joint defendants' motion to
dismiss the British Columbia lawsuit based on the statute of
limitations.  The court held that the plaintiffs' causes of
action other than the claims based on restitutionary principles
are time-barred.

Appeals and cross-appeals regarding the order were argued in
April 2008.  On July 10, 2008, the Court of Appeal for British
Columbia dismissed the defendants' appeal and allowed part of
the plaintiffs' cross-appeal.  The defendants have until Sept.
29, 2008, to file an application for leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada.

To date, there has been no activity in the Ontario lawsuit.

Corn Products International, Inc. --
http://www.cornproducts.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells a number of ingredients to a variety of
food and industrial customers.  It operates as a corn refiner
and a supplier of food ingredients and industrial products
derived from wet milling and processing of corn and other
starch-based materials, such as tapioca.  Its sweetener products
include high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), glucose corn syrups,
high-maltose corn syrups, caramel color, dextrose, polyols,
maltodextrins, and glucose and corn syrup solids.  Its starch-
based products include both industrial and food-grade starches.


DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Wash. Court Dismisses FCRA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
dismissed a purported class-action suit, "Burgess et al. v.
Drugstore.com Inc et al., Case No.  2:08-cv-00335-RSM," which
was filed against Drugstore.com, Inc., alleging breach of a
provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act related to the
printing of credit card receipts.

The suit was filed by Aaron Burgess and John James Garland in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
on Feb. 26, 2008.  It seeks statutory and punitive damages.

The company was served with the complaint on March 7, 2008, and
filed its answer on April 17, 2008.

In May 2008, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that clarified
FCRA and rendered the lawsuit moot.  As such, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to dismiss the suit with prejudice.

On May 28, 2008, the Order of Dismissal was entered, and the
litigation ended, 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 "Burgess, et al. v. Drugstore.com Inc., et al., Case
No.  2:08-cv-00335-RSM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Judge Ricardo S. Martinez,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephen P. Connor, Esq. (steve@cslawfirm.net)
          Connor & Sargent PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1650
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-654-5050
          Fax: 206-624-5469

          Charles L. Holliday, Esq. (holliday@spraginslaw.com)
          Spragins Barnett & Cobb
          312 East Lafayette Street
          Jackson, TN 38301
          Phone: 731-424-0461

               - and -

          James Brandon Mcwherter, Esq.
          (bmcwherter@gilbertfirm.com)
          Gilbert Russell Mcwherter PLC
          101 North Highland Avenue
          Jackson, TN 38301
          Phone: 731-664-1340

Representing the defendant is:

          Mark A. Wilner, Esq. (mwilner@gordontilden.com)
          Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292


EFUNDS CORP: Court Yet to Grant Final Approval to "Fresco" Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
yet to grant final approval to a settlement in the class-action
suit entitled "Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions,
Inc., et al., Case No. CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein," which named
eFunds Corp., an acquisition of Fidelity National Information
Services, Inc., as a defendant.

The putative class-action lawsuit was filed against eFunds,
which was acquired by Fidelity National in Sept. 12, 2007, and
seven other non-related parties.  The complaint alleged that
eFunds purchased motor vehicle records that were used for
marketing and other purposes that are not permitted under the
Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.  The plaintiffs sought
statutory damages, plus costs, attorney's fees and injunctive
relief.

eFunds and five of the other seven defendants settled the case
with the plaintiffs.  That settlement was approved by the court
on a preliminary basis over objections of a group of Texas
drivers and motor vehicle record holders.  The deal is awaiting
final court approval.

                           Objectors

The objectors to the deal filed two class-action complaints,
styled "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company et
al." and "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom et al.," before the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging
similar violations of the DPPA.

The Acxiom action is filed against eFunds subsidiary ChexSystems
Inc., while the Biometric suit is filed against Certegy Check
Services Inc., a separate subsidiary of Fidelity National.

ChexSystems filed a motion to dismiss or stay the action based
upon the earlier settlement's pending final approval.  The
objectors have appealed the order granting the stay and that
appeal is set for argument during the third quarter of 2008.

The judge recused himself in the action against Certegy Check
because he was a potential member of the class.  The lawsuit was
reassigned to a new judge and Certegy filed a motion to dismiss.
Certegy believes both the DPPA and Texas law allow it to obtain
motor vehicle records for the purposes outlined in its contract
with the State of Texas.  However, the Court has not yet ruled
on this issue.

Fidelity National reported no further 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.

The suit is "Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions,
Inc., et al., Case No. CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Judge Ted E. Bandstra, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. (ta@aronovitzlaw.com)
         Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
         150 W. Flagler Street
         Suite 2700 Museum Tower
         Miami, FL 33130
         Phone: 305-372-2772
         Fax: 375-0243

              - and

         Lawrence Dean Goodman. Esq.
         (lgoodman@devinegoodman.com)
         Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells
         777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-374-8200
         Fax: 374-8208


EINSTEIN NOAH: Settles Class Action Suits for $1,900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Eric Mathistad, a former store manager, filed a putative class
action on September 18, 2007, against Einstein Noah Restaurant
Group, Inc., in the Superior  Court of California for the State
of California, County of San Diego.  The plaintiff alleges that
the company failed to pay overtime wages to "salaried restaurant
employees" of the company's California stores who were
misclassified as exempt employees, and that the employees were
deprived of mandated meal periods and rest breaks.

On November 14, 2007, Bernadette Mejia, another former store
manager, filed a similar case and these cases were subsequently
consolidated.  On August 27, 2008, the company reached an
agreement in principle for the settlement of the litigation with
the plaintiffs.

On February 8, 2008, Gloria Weber and Hakan Mikado, non-exempt
employees, filed a putative class action against the Company in
the Superior Court of California for the State of California,
County of San Diego.  The plaintiff alleges that Einstein Noah
failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime and failed
to provide rest periods and meal breaks, among other charges.

On August 27, 2008, Einstein Noah reached an agreement in
principle for the settlement of the litigation
with the plaintiffs.

Einstein Noah discloses that the settlements provide for payment
of up to an aggregate of $2.5 million by the company.  Each
settlement is subject to completion of a settlement agreement to
be signed by the parties, preliminary and final court approvals
and the participation of a sufficient percentage of each of the
putative classes.  There can be no assurance that these
conditions will be satisfied.

The company will be recording a liability in the third quarter
of 2008, in the amount of $1.9 million to satisfy the
settlements.  This one-time charge represents the company's
current estimate of the aggregate amount that is probable to be
paid pursuant to these settlements, but there can be no
assurance that amounts actually paid will not be greater, up to
$2.5 million, or less than the amount recorded by the company.


EL PASO: Colorado Court Nixes Claims in ERISA & Age Bias Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed
certain claims in a purported class-action suit, captioned
"Tomlinson et al. v. El Paso Corp. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
02686-WDM-OES."

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed in December 2004.
The lawsuit alleges various violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act as a result of its change from a final average earnings
formula pension plan to a cash balance pension plan.

Certain of the claims that said the company's cash balance plan
violated ERISA were recently dismissed by the trial court.

The company reported no further 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.

The suit is "Tomlinson et al. v. El Paso Corp. et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-02686-WDM-OES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Walker D. Miller, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. (stephen.bruce@prodigy.net)
         Stephen R. Bruce, Law Offices
         805 15th Street, NW #210
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-371-8013
         Fax: 202-371-0121

              - and -

         Barry Douglas Roseman, Esq. (broseman@nela.org)
         Roseman & Kazmierski, LLC
         1120 Lincoln Street #1607
         Denver, CO 80203-2141
         Phone: 303-839-1771
         Fax: 861-9214

Representing the company are:

         Raymond W. Martin, Esq. (martin@wtklaw.com)
         Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP
         1801 California Street #3600
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-244-1863
         Fax: 303-244-1879

              - and -

         Christopher James Rillo, Esq.
         Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal
         685 Market Street, Sixth Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-882-5000
         Fax: 415-543-5472


EL PASO: Discovery Ongoing in Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the matter "In re: Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation," which names  El
Paso Natural Gas Co., and certain of its affiliates as
defendants.

Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed against El Paso
Marketing L.P., alleging that it conspired with El Paso Natural
Gas Co. and other energy companies to manipulate the price of
natural gas by providing false price information to industry
trade publications that published gas indices.

The first set of cases, involving similar allegations on behalf
of commercial and residential customers, was transferred as a
multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL) in the U.S. District
Court for Nevada and styled, "In re: Western States Wholesale
Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation."  These cases were dismissed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however,
reversed the dismissal at the plaintiffs' behest and remanded
the cases to the trial court.

The second set of cases also involve similar allegations on
behalf of certain purchasers of natural gas.  These cases
include:

   -- "Farmland Industries v. Oneok Inc., et al.," which was
      filed in the state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas, in
      July 2005, and

   -- "Missouri Public Service Commission v. El Paso
      Corporation, et al." which was filed in the circuit court
      of Jackson County, Missouri at Kansas City in October
      2006.

In addition, the second set of cases include several purported
class-action lawsuits.  They are:

   -- "Leggett, et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al.,"
      filed in the Chancery Court of Tennessee in January 2005;

   -- "Ever-Bloom Inc., et al. v. AEP Energy Services Inc., et
      al.," filed in federal court for the Eastern District of
      California in September 2005;

   -- "Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.," filed in
      the state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas in September
      2005;

   -- "Breckenridge, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.," filed in
      the state court in Denver County, Colorado, in May 2006;

   -- "Arandell, et al. v. Xcel Energy, et al.," filed in
      the circuit court of Dane County, Wisconsin in December
      2006; and

   -- "Heartland, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.," filed in the
      circuit court of Buchanan County, Missouri in March 2007.

The Leggett case was dismissed by the Tennessee state court and
has been appealed.  The Missouri Public Service case was
transferred to the MDL, but remanded back to state court, where
a motion to dismiss has been filed.

The remaining cases have all been transferred to the MDL
proceeding.

The Breckenridge Case has been dismissed, but a motion for
reconsideration was filed.

Motions for summary judgment in Learjet and Farmland were
denied, but a motion for reconsideration has been filed.

Discovery is proceeding in the MDL cases, 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.

El Paso Natural Gas Co. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is engaged
in the primary business of interstate transportation of natural
gas.  It conducts its business activities through two pipeline
systems: The EPNG system, which consists of approximately 11,000
miles of pipeline with a winter sustainable west-flow capacity
of 4,850 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) and approximately
800 MMcf/d of east-end deliverability, and The Mojave system,
which consists of approximately 400 miles of pipeline with a
design capacity of approximately 400 MMcf/d.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2004, the average throughput on the EPNG system
and the Mojave system was 4,074 billion barrels tons per day
(BBtu/d) and 161 BBtu/d, respectively.


EL PASO: Kans. "Price" Antitrust Suit Awaits Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on
the plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification of a class-
action suit filed against a number of El Paso Corp. subsidiaries
and other natural gas companies.

The suit "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their
Predecessors, et al.," was originally filed in 1999, alleging
that the defendants mis-measured natural gas volumes and heating
content of natural gas on non-federal and non-Native American
lands.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of royalty owners
in wells on non-federal and non-Native American lands in Kansas,
Wyoming and Colorado.

The suit also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages in
the form of additional royalty payments (along with interest,
expenses and punitive damages) and injunctive relief with regard
to future gas measurement practices.

Motions for class certification have been briefed and argued in
the proceedings and the parties are awaiting the court's ruling,
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.

El Paso Natural Gas Co. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is engaged
in the primary business of interstate transportation of natural
gas.  It conducts its business activities through two pipeline
systems: The EPNG system, which consists of approximately 11,000
miles of pipeline with a winter sustainable west-flow capacity
of 4,850 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) and approximately
800 MMcf/d of east-end deliverability, and The Mojave system,
which consists of approximately 400 miles of pipeline with a
design capacity of approximately 400 MMcf/d.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2004, the average throughput on the EPNG system
and the Mojave system was 4,074 billion barrels tons per day
(BBtu/d) and 161 BBtu/d, respectively.


EL PASO: Texas Court Yet to Rule on Motions in ERISA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
yet to rule on various motions filed in the class-action lawsuit
captioned "William H. Lewis, III v. El Paso Corp., et al."

The suit was filed in December 2002, alleging generally that the
company's direct and indirect communication with participants in
the El Paso Corp. Retirement Savings Plan included
misrepresentations and omissions that caused members of the
class to hold and maintain investments in El Paso stock in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Various motions have been filed, and the company is awaiting the
court's ruling.

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

The suit is "Lewis, et al. v. EL Paso Corp., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-04860," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Judge Lynn N. Hughes, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner and Bilek LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404

              - and -

         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         Three Bala Plz E., Ste. 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706

Representing the company is:

         Stephen D. Susman, Esq. (ssusman@susmangodfrey.com)
         Susman Godfrey, 1000 Louisiana Ste 5100
         Houston, TX 77002-5096
         Phone: 713-651-9366
         Fax: 713-654-6670


FCSTONE GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is Sept. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates says that the deadline for investors to
move to be designated lead plaintiff in the class action suit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of
purchasers of FCStone Group Inc. securities is on September 15,
2008.

The class period starts April 10, 2008, and runs through July 9,
2008.

As set forth in the Complaint the Company entered into an
important hedge transaction, which, for the first two quarters
of fiscal 2008, generated net income to the Company of
approximately $5 million.  Most of this income was generated in
the second quarter ended February 29, 2008.

In a conference call on April 10, 2008, the Company concealed
the true nature of the Hedge, by failing to reveal that should
there develop a significant spread between the U.S. based Fed
Funds interest rate and the London Inter-Bank Rate ("LIBOR"),
the Hedge would decline in notional value.  Based on what the
market was told, the investing public viewed the hedge as simply
one to protect the Company from falling interest rates, and not
one which was crucially dependent upon the spread between the
Fed Funds Rate and LIBOR not widening.

However, in the third quarter of 2008, a significant spread
arose between the Fed Funds Rate and LIBOR.  As a result, the
Hedge was declining so swiftly in notional value that the
Company sold the Hedge, which sale wiped out any Hedge based
gains for the first two quarters of fiscal 2008.

On July 10, 2008, FCStone shocked the market by announcing third
quarter earnings per share of 28 cents versus the expected 47
cents.  Much of the deviation was due to the decline and sale of
the Hedge.  In addition, the Company announced previously
unmentioned and significant bad debt expenses due to volatility
in the cotton markets which had occurred in March.  Nothing was
said about this volatility and its adverse effects on the
April 10, 2008 conference call.  Upon revelation of this adverse
news, FCStone shares dropped over 41%, wiping out over $300
million in shareholder value. The shares have not appreciably
recovered.

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490
          Web site: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com/


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Deal in Info Theft Suits Gears for Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. -- a Georgia-based
corporation formerly known as Certegy, Inc. -- settled several
purported class-action lawsuits over stolen consumer
information.

On July 3, 2007, the company reported that one of its database
administrators had misappropriated consumer information.  To
date, it has seen no evidence of the stolen information being
used for anything other than marketing purposes.

Nevertheless, multiple putative class action complaints were
filed against the company, seeking monetary damages.  These
class action suits were settled in January 2008 and the court
preliminarily approved the settlement in March 2008.

Notice of the settlement will be mailed to class members within
the second quarter of 2008.

The company intends to seek final approval of the settlement
once the notice process is complete.  This is expected to occur
in the third quarter of 2008.

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

Jacksonville, Fla.-based Fidelity National Information Services,
Inc. -- http://www.fidelityinfoservices.com/-- is a provider of
core processing services, card issuer and transaction processing
and mortgage-related services to financial institutions,
mortgage lenders, and servicers.


GS CALTEX: Lawsuit Over Stolen Customer Information Looms
---------------------------------------------------------
Police earlier arrested two employees of a subsidiary of GS
Caltex and two accomplices on charges of unlawfully downloading
customer information at Korea's No. 2 refinery and attempting to
sell it on the black market, Kim Tong-hyung writes for The Korea
Times.

According to the report, the suspects copied the private
information of more than 11.25 million customers, a number
nearly equivalent to the country's entire adult population, on
CDs, making it the country's largest case of data theft ever.

As a result of this data theft incident, Seoul-based private
lawyer Lee Dong-gook began gathering applications for a class
action lawsuit against GS Caltex and said he will be seeking
compensation of about KRW2 million per head, Korea Times
relates.

The report notes that another lawyer, Baek Seung-woo, is also
gathering applicants for a separate class action suit against
the company.

"Right now, we have set the compensation level at 1 million won
per person, but could increase that amount depending on the
investigation results by law enforcement officials," Mr. Baek
told Korea Times.

According to the report, the GS Caltex incident is the latest in
a series of public and private sector data breaches in Korea
that led security experts to criticize companies for their loose
standards in privacy protection.

As previously reported in various newspapers and news sites,
online shopping giant Auction is facing complaints after it was
revealed earlier this year that customer information of the
company's 10.81 million subscribers was stolen by a hacker.
In addition, Korean broadband Internet provider Hanarotelecom
was also hit by a 40-day business suspension in July and is
facing lawsuits after a police investigation revealed that the
company has been abusing the personal information of its
6 million subscribers for illegal marketing schemes.

Korea Times relates that GS Caltex's case would probably be the
biggest data-breach case in the country and possible financial
damage would be greatly significant.


IKANOS COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action suit, which
was filed against Ikanos Communications Inc., certain of its
directors and officers, and two investment banks, are appealing
the dismissal of their case.

Initially, in November 2006, three putative class-action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company, its directors, an
executive officer and a former executive officer.  These
lawsuits allege certain misrepresentations by the company in
connection with its initial public offering in September 2005,
the follow-on offering in March 2006, and thereafter concerning
its business and prospects.  The suits seek unspecified damages.

The lawsuits were consolidated and an amended complaint was
filed on April 24, 2007.  The amended complaint alleges the same
claims.

On June 25, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and on March 10, 2008, the court ordered the
case dismissed with prejudice.

In March 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
reconsideration of the court's dismissal order and permission
for them to file a second amended complaint.  The defendants
have opposed this motion to reconsider.

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, and on
July 9, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the court's order
dismissing with prejudice, 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.

The suit is "Panther Partners Inc., et al. v. Ikanos
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-12967-PAC," filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Judge Paul A. Crotty, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         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

Representing the defendant is:

         James N. Kramer, Esq. (jkramer@orrick.com)
         Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
         The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-773-5700
         Fax: 415-773-5759


INFINITY INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Maystruck"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit, captioned
"Eugene Maystruck v. Infinity Insurance Co.," are appealing the
dismissal of the case, which named a unit of Infinity Property
and Casualty Corp. as a defendant.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Los Angeles County, as a putative class-action suit
in October 2007.

The action alleges that Infinity's Repair Satisfaction Vehicle
Program violates California Administrative Code Section
2695.8(e), Insurance Code section 758.5(d), Section 17200 of the
Business and Professions Code, and constitutes a breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The putative class-action lawsuit seeks compensatory damages,
attorney fees, injunctive relief, reformation of the insurance
policy and costs and expenses.

On May 21, 2008, the court granted the company's demurrer to the
plaintiffs' complaint, without leave to amend, thereby
dismissing all causes of action against the company.

On July 9, 2008, the plaintiff filed notice that it was
appealing the dismissal of the case, according to Infinity
Property and Casualty Corp.'s Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Infinity Property and Casualty Corp. -- http://www.ipacc.com/--
is a holding company that, through subsidiaries, provides
personal automobile insurance with a concentration on
nonstandard auto insurance.  The company also writes standard
and preferred personal auto insurance, monoline commercial auto
insurance and classic collector automobile insurance.  Infinity
is organized into two regions: East and West.  Each region has
its own product management and business development staff and is
supported by centralized departments, which comprise: marketing,
claims, customer service, accounting, treasury, human resources
and information technology resources.  Infinity distributes its
products primarily through a network of over 13,000 independent
agencies (with approximately 17,000 locations).


INVENTIV HEALTH: Parties in "Weisz" Lawsuit Begins Mediation
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter "Weisz v. Albertsons, Inc., Case No.
GIC 830069," which names as defendant Adheris, Inc. -- a
business segment of inVentiv Health, Inc. -- have entered into a
60-day litigation standstill to pursue settlement through
mediation, according to inVentiv's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on May 17, 2004, in
the San Diego Superior Court, California, by Utility Consumer
Action Network against Albertsons, Inc., and its affiliated drug
store chains and 17 pharmaceutical companies.

The suit alleged, among other claims, violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act arising from the
operation of manufacturer-sponsored, pharmacy-based compliance
programs similar to Adheris' refill reminder programs.

An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 4, 2004, adding Adheris
as a defendant to the lawsuit.  A subsequent amendment to the
complaint substituted plaintiff Kimberly Weisz as the class
representative to the purported class action.

After several rounds of pleading challenges to the plaintiff's
various renditions of the complaint, all but one pharmaceutical
manufacturing company, AstraZeneca LP, were dismissed from the
case, leaving only Albertsons Inc., Adheris, and AstraZeneca as
the remaining defendants in the action.

In pleading challenge to the plaintiff's fifth amended c
complaint, the remaining defendants were successful in
eliminating a number of claims, including fraud-based and breach
of privacy claims.  The plaintiff's class allegations were
stricken as improper with leave to amend.

An operative sixth amended complaint was filed on Jan. 6, 2008.
The defendants moved to strike certain of the plaintiff's claims
and the plaintiff's class allegations as improper.  These
motions were denied.

In conjunction therewith, the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration as to her breach of privacy claim was granted.

As a result, there are four live claims alleged against Adheris:

       -- violation of the CMIA;
       -- breach of fiduciary duty;
       -- unjust enrichment; and
       -- breach of privacy.

On July 9, 2008, Albertsons filed a motion for summary judgment
on the grounds that all of the plaintiff's claims were barred by
the applicable statute of limitations.  Adheris intends to join
in these arguments.  This motion currently is set to be heard on
Oct. 3, 2008.

On July 11, 2008, the counsel for the parties entered into a
60-day litigation standstill to pursue settlement through
mediation.  The agreement included taking off calendar all
pending motions, discovery and depositions for 60 days.  The
parties are in the process of selecting a mediator and preparing
for mediation.

inVentiv Health, Inc. -- http://www.inventivhealth.com/-- is a
provider of value-added services to the pharmaceutical, life
sciences and healthcare industries.  The company supports a
range of clinical development, communications and
commercialization activities that are critical to its customers'
ability to complete the development of drug products and medical
devices and commercialize them.  inVentiv provides services to
over 325 client organizations, including all top 20 global
pharmaceutical companies, specialty biotechnology companies and
payors.  The company's service offerings reflect the changing
needs of its clients as their products move through the late-
stage development and regulatory approval processes and into
product launch, and then throughout the product lifecycle.


INVERNESS MEDICAL: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc., continues to face a
purported class-action lawsuit in Massachusetts, alleging that
the company's prospectus supplement with respect to its November
2007 public offering was inaccurate and misleading and omitted
material facts.

The purported federal securities class action lawsuit was filed
on April 10, 2008, by Pyramid Holdings Inc., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company; its
chief executive officer, Ron Zwanziger; and its chief financial
officer, David Teitel.

The complaint seeks damages and interest, rescissory damages for
class members who have sold their shares, and recovery of
reasonable costs and expenses of this litigation.

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.

The suit is "Pyramid Holdings Inc. v. Inverness Medical
Innovations Inc. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-10615-JLT," filed
before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Joseph L. Tauro, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

Representing the defendants is:

          Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
          (BPastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com)
          Goodwin Procter LLP
          Exchange Place, 53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-570-1094
          Fax: 617-523-1231


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Still Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
iStar Financial Inc. continues to face two purported securities
fraud class-action lawsuits before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, asserting substantially
similar claims.

                     Citiline Litigation

On April 14, 2008, Citiline Holdings, Inc., filed a suit on
behalf of purchasers of common stock in iStar's Dec. 13, 2007
public offering.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current
executive officers as defendants.  It alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
December 2007 public offering.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering.

                    Christenson Litigation

On April 24, 2008, Dennis Christenson filed suit on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock on its Dec. 13, 2007
public offering.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current
executive officers as defendants.  It alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
December 2007 public offering.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering.

The court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff in the
lawsuits, no class has been certified and discovery has not
begun, 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.

iStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.istarfinancial.com/-- is a
finance company focused on the commercial real estate industry.
The company provides custom-tailored financing to private and
corporate owners of real estate, including senior and mezzanine
real estate debt, senior and mezzanine corporate capital,
corporate net lease financing and equity.  It has two primary
lines of business: lending and corporate tenant leasing.  Its
primary sources of revenues are interest income, which is the
interest that borrowers pay on loans, and operating lease
income, which is the rent that corporate customers pay to lease
corporate tenant lease properties.  The lending business
primarily consists of senior and mezzanine real estate loans
that range in size from $20 million to $150 million, and have
maturities ranging from 3 to 10 years.  The company's corporate
tenant leasing business provides capital to corporations and
others who control facilities leased primarily to single credit-
worthy customers.


JONES SODA: Wants Washington Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jones Soda Co. is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
according to its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Initially, on Sept. 4, 2007, a putative class-action complaint
was filed against the company, its chief executive officer, and
its chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, alleging claims under Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The case is entitled, "Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al.,
Case No. 07-CV-1366-RSL," and purports to be brought on behalf
of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock during
the period from March 9, 2007, to Aug. 2, 2007.

Six substantially similar complaints were subsequently filed in
the same court, some of which allege claims on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period
from Nov. 1, 2006, to Aug. 2, 2007.  Some of the subsequently
filed complaints also added as defendants certain directors and
another officer of the company.

The additional complaints generally allege violations of federal
securities laws based on, among other things, false and
misleading statements and omissions about the company's
financial results and business prospects.  They seek unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, all seven lawsuits were consolidated as a
single action entitled "In re Jones Soda Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL."  The Court appointed
Robert Burrell as lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities
case.

On May 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint, which purports to allege claims on
behalf of a class of purchasers of our common stock during the
period Jan. 10, 2007, to May 1, 2008, against the company and
Peter van Stolk, its former CEO, former Chairman of the Board,
and current director.

The First Amended Consolidated Complaint generally alleges
violations of federal securities laws based on, among other
things, false and misleading statements and omissions about the
company's agreements with retailers, allocation of resources,
and business prospects.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on July 7, 2008.  The motion is scheduled to be fully briefed
and submitted for consideration in early October 2008.

The suit is "In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation,
Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

          David A.P. Brower, Esq. (brower@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          488 Madison Ave., 8th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-501-9000

               - and -

          Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. (cacantor@comcast.net)
          627 208th Ave Se
          Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
          Phone: 425-868-7813
          Fax: 425-868-7870

Representing the defendants is:

          Barry M. Kaplan (bkaplan@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-883-2500
          Fax: 206-883-2699


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juniper Networks, Inc., continues to face a securities fraud
class-action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, 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.

Initially, on July 14, 2006, a purported class-action complaint,
captioned "Garber v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C-06-
4327 MJJ," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.  The plaintiff filed a corrected
complaint on July 28, 2006.

The Garber lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Juniper Networks' common stock between Sept. 1, 2003, and
May 22, 2006.

On Aug. 29, 2006, another purported class-action complaint,
captioned "Peters v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C 06
5303 JW," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The "Peters" lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Juniper Networks' common stock between April 10, 2003, and
Aug. 10, 2006.

Both purported class action lawsuits allege that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by manipulating stock option grant dates to
coincide with low stock prices and issuing false and misleading
statements including, among others, incorrect financial
statements due to the improper accounting of stock option
grants.

Both suits were later consolidated.  On Nov. 20, 2006, the court
appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiff, who
filed a consolidated class action complaint in January 2007.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
purchasers of, or those who otherwise acquired, Juniper
Networks' publicly traded securities from April 10, 2003,
through and including Aug. 20, 2006.  It alleges violations of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

In February 2007, the parties agreed in a court-approved
stipulation that the plaintiffs may file an amended consolidated
complaint within 30 days after the company files its restated
financial statements with the U.S. Securities Exchange
Commission.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
certain of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007.
In March 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' dismissal motion.  Specifically,
the Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' section 10(b)
claim to the extent it was based on challenged statements made
before July 14, 2001.  The order also dismissed, with leave to
amend, the plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim against Pradeep
Sindhu.  All of the plaintiffs' other claims were upheld.

The order gave the plaintiffs until May 1, 2008, to file an
amended complaint, but the plaintiffs chose not to amend their
complaint.  The defendants filed their answer to the complaint
on June 23, 2008.

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

The suit is "In Re: Juniper Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:06-cv-04327-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge James Ware presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard Bemporad, Esq. (rbemporad@ldbs.com)
         Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad Selinger & Cohen, P.C.
         White Plains Plaza
         1 North Broadway, 5th Floor
         White Plains, NY 10601-2310
         Phone: 914-997-0500

              - and -

         William M. Audet, Esq. (waudet@audetlaw.com)
         Audet & Partners
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-982-1776
         Fax: 415-576-1776

Representing the defendants is:

         Joni L. Ostler, Esq. (jostler@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100


LANIER GOLF: Class Action Status Denied in Ga. Golf Course Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An attempt to file a class-action lawsuit to stop the
residential development of a golf course in eastern Forsyth
County has failed, Forsyth County News reports.

According to Forsyth News, visiting Senior Superior Court Judge
Albert Pickett of Augusta denied a request for class-action
status, which would have allowed anyone with a similar complaint
against Lanier Golf Course Inc. join the suit.

The report says that Judge Pickett's order was filed on Sept. 2,
2008, in Forsyth County Superior Court.

Forsyth News, however, notes that the request for class action
status could be brought before a judge again.

"I wouldn't say that the decision has been made at this point,
but we are certainly considering the appeal," Bob McFarland Sr.,
Esq., who filed the motion for class-action status, told Forsyth
News.  "We have always known that in all likelihood it would
probably end up in an appeal."

The report recounts that Mr. McFarland filed the suit in October
2007 on behalf of Michael D. Peck and about 120 of his neighbors
against Lanier Golf Club owners Jack Manton and George Bagley
Jr.  Mr. Peck and his neighbors sought class-action status based
on the notion that residents living around the course have an
implied easement to it.

Mr. Manton shared with Forsyth News that he is pleased with
Judge Pickett's decision.  "We felt all along that based upon
two title opinions from two very fine law firms that we had the
right to sell the golf course" to an entity that would not run
it as a golf course, Mr. Manton said.  That way, he added, the
site could be rezoned and developed.

Mr. Manton, represented by attorneys Doug Dillard, Esq., and
Andrea Jones, Esq., testified that he did not think Mr. Peck
could represent the homeowners because he does not have
sufficient evidence to justify a lawsuit.

According to the report, Judge Pickett's order contends, among
other things that Mr. Peck is not a member of the class he
sought to represent; the course is not under a restrictive
covenant, which would limit the property to only being used as a
golf course; and Mr. Peck did not have a guaranteed right to the
course.

Mr. Manton said settling the case against the county out of
court appears doubtful, despite discussions by attorneys on both
sides.  He added it is likely Judge Pickett will hear the case
either late this year or early 2009.

"Half of the case will not be a jury trial," Mr. Manton said.
"Whether or not they gave us a constitutional zoning is an issue
for the judge to decide."

The report notes that the course was closed in October 2007 and
reopened in April.  Mr. Manton also told Forsyth News that it
likely will remain open through November and December, if the
level of play stays up.


LEADIS TECH: Seeks Sup. Ct. Review in Calif. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leadis Technology, Inc., and other defendants intend to file a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in
connection with a ruling in the consolidated securities fraud
class-action suit "Safron Capital Corporation v. Leadis
Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00882-CRB."

Initially, a securities class-action suit was filed on March 2,
2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false
and misleading statements in the company's registration
statement and prospectus filed on June 16, 2004, for the
company's initial public offering.

Another similar action was commenced on March 11, 2005.

On April 20, 2005, the court consolidated the two cases.  The
consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
class of purchasers that acquired shares of the company common
stock pursuant to its registration statement and prospectus.

The claims appear to be based on allegations that at the time of
the IPO, demand for the company's color organic light-emitting
diodes products was already slowing due to competition from one
of its existing customers, and that the company failed to
disclose that it was not well positioned for continued success
as a result of such competition.

On Oct. 28, 2005, the company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  The court, in March 2006,
granted the defendants' dismissal motion, with prejudice, and a
judgment was entered in their favor.

On March 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On April 18, 2008, the Court of Appeals issued a decision
reversing the decision of the District Court and remanding the
case back to the District Court.

The company and the other defendants intend to file a petition
for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the third
quarter of 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.

The suit is "Safron Capital Corporation v. Leadis Technology,
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00882-CRB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants are:

         Grant P. Fondo, Esq. (gfondo@cooley.com)
         Laura R. Smith, Esq. (smithlr@cooley.com)
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
         Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
         Phone: 650-843-5458
         Fax: 650-857-0663


MERCURY INSURANCE: Sued in Calif. for Unprovided Medical Service
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Insurance Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in Los Angeles Superior Court over allegations it illegally
refuses to provide medical coverage for auto accident injuries,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

CourtHouse reported no further details regarding the case.

Mercury General Corp. -- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com/-- and
its subsidiaries are engaged primarily in writing automobile
insurance principally in California.


NEW YORK: Lottery Division Defrauds Public, Lawsuit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Division of Lottery is facing a class-action
complaint filed in New York County Court alleging it defrauded
the public by grossly overstating the chances of winning its
Take Five Game, CourtHouse News Service reports.

CourtHouse reporter no further detail regarding the case.


RBS GLOBAL: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Brass Crimp Fittings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of RBS Global, Inc., whose indirect parent is
Rexnord Holdings, Inc., is facing several purported class-action
lawsuits over defective brass crimp fittings, according to RBS
Global's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are defendants in a number
of putative class-action lawsuits pending in various U.S.
federal courts.

The plaintiffs in these suits seek to represent a class of
plaintiffs alleging damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of the Zurn brass crimp fittings on the PEX
plumbing systems in homes and other structures.

The complaints assert various causes of action, including but
not limited to negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, and
violations of the Magnuson Moss Act and certain state consumer
protection laws, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and
damages (including punitive damages) in unspecified amounts.

RBS Global, Inc. -- http://www.rexnord.com/-- is a diversified,
multi-platform industrial company.  Its business is comprised of
two platforms: Power Transmission (PT) and Water Management.
Its PT product portfolio includes gears, industrial bearings,
flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace
bearings and seals, industrial chain.  The products are either
incorporated into products sold by original equipment
manufacturers or sold to end users through industrial
distributors as aftermarket products.  The company's PT products
are used in the plants and equipment of companies in diverse
end-market industries, including aerospace, cement and
aggregates, construction, energy, food and beverages and forest
and wood products.  RBS Global's WM platform is focused on non-
residential construction market for water management products.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Delaware Lawsuit Over Allied Waste Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Services, Inc., is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Delaware over its planned merger with Allied Waste
Industries, Inc., 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 class-action lawsuit was filed on July 25, 2008, in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by the New Jersey
Carpenters Pension Fund and the New Jersey Carpenters Annuity
Fund against the company and the members of the company's board
of directors, each individually.

The suit seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction between the
company and Allied Waste Industries and compel the company to
accept the unsolicited bid made by Waste Management, Inc., on
July 14, 2008, or at least compel the company's board of
directors to further consider and evaluate the Waste Management
proposal.

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

Republic Services, Inc. -- http://www.republicservices.com/--
is a provider of services in the domestic non-hazardous solid
waste industry. Its operations primarily consist of the
collection, transfer and disposal of non-hazardous solid waste.
The company provides non-hazardous solid waste collection
services for commercial, industrial, municipal and residential
customers through 136 collection companies in 21 states.  It
also owns or operates 94 transfer stations, 58 solid waste
landfills and 33 recycling facilities.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, its
operations were organized into five regions: Eastern, Central,
Southern, Southwestern and Western.  Each region is organized
into several operating areas and each area contains multiple
operating locations.  Each of the company's regions and
substantially all its areas provide collection, transfer,
recycling and disposal services.


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Seeks Inclusion of Persons Into $7.5MM Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc., filed a motion requesting a
California court to include certain individuals in the
$7.5-million settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the
company that relates to how the company classified certain
employees under California overtime laws.

Initially, in 2001, two similar class-action lawsuits were filed
against the company.  These lawsuits were consolidated into one
action.

The consolidated action involves the issue of whether current
and former employees in the general manager and assistant
manager positions who worked in the company's California
restaurants during specified time periods were misclassified as
exempt and deprived of overtime pay.  It also asserts claims for
alleged missed meal and rest breaks.

In addition to unpaid overtime, these cases seek to recover
waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other
types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees
that these former employees purport to represent.

On March 19, 2007, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the class action representatives to settle the
matter.

Although the company denies the allegations underlying the
consolidated action, it has agreed to the proposed settlement to
avoid significant legal fees, other expenses and management time
that would have to be devoted to pursue a victory in litigation.

The settlement, which is subject to final documentation and
court approval, provides for a settlement payment of
$7.5 million in the aggregate (including attorneys' fees and
costs, fees for administering the settlement and any employer
taxes).

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
March 23, 2007.  The settlement agreement was then approved on a
final basis by the court in June 2007.

The total settlement amount is payable in three installments.
The first $2.5 million installment was paid on Aug. 31, 2007.
The second $2.5 million installment is due on or before Dec. 28,
2008.  The third and final installment of $2.5 million is due on
or before June 28, 2010.

The company recently learned that approximately 160 current and
former employees who qualified to participate as class members
in this class action settlement were not included in the
settlement list approved by the court, and some number of these
individuals may file claims to participate in the class action.

It has filed a motion requesting the court to include these
individuals in the approved settlement and to provide that their
claims are payable out of the aggregate settlement payment.  The
court has not yet ruled on the company's motion and there is no
assurance that the court will grant the request, 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 29, 2008.

Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- owns,
operates and franchises restaurants.  As of March 25, 2008, the
company owned and operated 174 fast-casual Mexican restaurants,
three licensed locations, and two franchised restaurants that
offers Mexican cuisine, including chargrilled chicken, steak and
fresh seafood items, such as burritos, tacos and quesadillas
inspired by the Baja, California region of Mexico.  The company
has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Rubio's Restaurants of
Nevada, Inc., and and Rubio's Promotions, Inc.  Its restaurants
are located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah.
The company's menu includes the Fish Tacos, HealthMex and Kid's
Meals.


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Labor-Related Suit Still Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc., is facing a purported class-action
suit in a California state court, alleging that it failed to
provide former employees with certain meal and rest period
breaks and overtime pay.

The lawsuit was filed on March 24, 2005, by a former employee of
the company.  The parties moved the matter into arbitration, and
the former employee amended the complaint to claim that he
represents a class of potential plaintiffs.

The amended complaint alleges that current and former shift
leaders who worked in the company's California restaurants
during specified time periods worked off the clock and missed
meal and rest breaks.

This case is still in the pre-class certification discovery
stage, and no class has been certified.

The company reported no further 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 29, 2008.

Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- owns,
operates and franchises restaurants.  As of March 25, 2008, the
company owned and operated 174 fast-casual Mexican restaurants,
three licensed locations, and two franchised restaurants that
offers Mexican cuisine, including chargrilled chicken, steak and
fresh seafood items, such as burritos, tacos and quesadillas
inspired by the Baja, California region of Mexico.  The company
has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Rubio's Restaurants of
Nevada, Inc., and and Rubio's Promotions, Inc.  Its restaurants
are located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah.
The company's menu includes the Fish Tacos, HealthMex and Kid's
Meals.


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc., continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud lawsuit that is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

In February 2008, multiple putative class-action suits were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California against the company and certain of its officers
and directors.  These complaints allege that the defendants made
misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's
business and operating results in violation of the federal
securities laws.

These cases have been consolidated and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on July 28, 2008.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
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 "In re SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:2008cv00856," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Maxine M. Chesney, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

          David Malcolm Furbush, Esq.
          (david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com)
          Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-233-4500
          Fax: 650-233-4545


STARWAY INC: Recalls Preserved Peaches Over Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starway Incorporated, located at 137 Grattan Street, Brooklyn,
NY, 11237, is recalling EGO brand Preserved Peaches because the
product contains undeclared sulfites.  People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening reactions if they consume this product.

EGO brand Preserved Peaches is sold in a 14 ounce, un-coded,
clear plastic package and was distributed nationwide.  It is a
product of Malaysia.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in EGO brand Preserved Peaches
which were not declared on the label.  The consumption of 10
milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit
severe reactions in some asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock could
occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10
milligrams or more of sulfites.

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

Consumers who have purchased EGO brand Preserved Peaches are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at
718-417-1788.


TD AMERITRADE: Sept. 15 Conference Set for "Elvey" Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has scheduled a case conference for Sept. 15, 2008, in
connection with the settlement reached in a lawsuit against TD
Ameritrade Inc. that accuses the company of illegally selling
e-mail addresses to spammers.

Initially, one purported class-action lawsuit, captioned "Elvey
v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ," was filed on
May 31, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleges that TDA Inc.
disclosed, inadvertently or intentionally, the e-mail addresses
of account holders to spammers, who then sent the account
holders e-mail solicitations promoting certain stocks.

The suit includes claims of alleged violations of California and
federal statutes and alleged breach of fiduciary duty and
requests injunctive and other equitable relief and damages.

As disclosed in a press release dated September 14, 2007, the
company discovered and eliminated unauthorized code from its
systems that allowed access to an internal database.  The
discovery was made as the result of an internal investigation of
stock-related spam.  The company hired an independent consultant
to investigate whether identity theft occurred as a result of
the breach.

The consultant conducted four investigations over the last 12
months and found no evidence of identity theft.

A second lawsuit, captioned "Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.," was
filed on Sept. 26, 2007, in the same jurisdiction on behalf of a
purported nationwide class of account holders.  The factual
allegations of this complaint and the relief sought are
substantially the same as those in the first lawsuit.

The cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re TD
Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation."

The parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a
class basis subject to court approval.

A hearing on a motion requesting preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement was held on June 12, 2008.  At the hearing,
one of the three plaintiffs objected to the proposed settlement.
Thus, the court entered an order denying the motion for
preliminary approval without prejudice and directed the parties
to provide supplemental information to assist the court in
evaluating the proposed settlement.

On July 10, 2008, TDA Inc. and two of the plaintiffs provided
supplemental information in response to the court's direction
and in further support of the proposed settlement.  The court
has scheduled a case conference in connection with the deal for
Sept. 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.

The suit is "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
02852-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq. (skamber@kolaw.com)
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-920-3072
          Fax: 212-202-6364

               - and -

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
          2757 Leonis Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90058
          Phone: 323-585-8696
          Fax: 323-585-8198
          e-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net


TD AMERITRADE: Faces Several Suits Over Auction Rate Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. is facing several purported class-
action lawsuits over its sale of auction rate securities,
according to its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Beginning in March 2008, lawsuits were filed against various
financial services firms by customers related to their
investments in auction rate securities.  The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits allege that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions in statements to customers
about investments in ARS and the manner in which the ARS market
functioned in violation of provisions of the federal securities
laws.

Two purported class-action complaints have been filed alleging
such conduct with respect to TDA Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding
Corp.

The first case, filed on March 19, 2008, is captioned, "Humphrys
v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al."  The second case, filed
on April 17, 2008, is captioned, "Silverstein v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp. et al."

Both complaints were filed on behalf of customers who purchased
ARS between March 19, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008.  The complaints
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

A motion has been filed by some plaintiffs requesting that the
proceedings in the lawsuits against the various financial
services firms in effect be consolidated before one judge.  The
company and the other defendants and several plaintiffs in other
cases have filed oppositions to the proposed consolidation.

The company has asserted in its opposition that it is in a
significantly different position than a number of other
financial services firms because the company did not act as an
underwriter of ARS, did not act as a manager of any auctions and
did not act as a market maker for ARS.  The consolidation motion
is pending.

TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors.  The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers.  As of
January 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage
business of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc..  The client offerings
include TD AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD
AMERITRADE Izone, Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD
AMERITRADE Corporate Services.  The products available to the
clients include common and preferred stock, exchange-traded
funds, option trades, mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending
and cash management services.


TEL AVIV PUB: Owners Face ILS8-Mln. Suit Over Anti-Smoking Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tel Aviv Pub and its owners, Moshe Eliahu and Pierre Pnina, are
facing an ILS8-million class-action complaint for allegedly
failing to enforce anti-smoking legislation on Fridays, and
causing their customers to be exposed to the hazards of passive
smoking, Hila Raz writes for the Haaretz Daily.

The plaintiffs -- Mark and Yelena Litvin and Maxim Tiutiunnik --
argue that they have been exposed to disease and possible death
from passive smoking when visiting the pub.  The three
plaintiffs are seeking damages for all customers present on
Fridays.

The plaintiffs say smoking there was unhindered on Fridays, and
anti-smoking laws went unenforced.

Complaints to pub employees were dismissed with the explanation
"Yes, there is smoking, do what you want about it," claim the
plaintiffs.

According to the report, the three say they had endeavored to
seek out relatively smoke-free areas in the establishment, but
found the smoke to be everywhere and ultimately elected to
leave.


THE CANYONS: Osguthorpe Family's Complaint in Maryland Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge has put an end to the Osguthorpe family's efforts to
evict The Canyons from an important piece of property at the ski
area near Park City, Trading Markets reports.

Land the Osguthorpes own is part of thousands of acres of
property that was leased to American Skiing Co., the former
parent company to The Canyons, so that ASC could form the
Snyderville Basin resort in 1997.

In a 13-page ruling and order issued Sept. 2, 3rd District Court
Judge Bruce Lubeck said the Osguthorpes could not be evicted
with an unlawful detainer action.

The Osguthorpes' contract with the Canyons is not a "leasehold
interest," the decision states.

Therefore, The Canyons cannot be removed from the land as a
landlord evicts a tenant because the resort only maintains an
easement to use the property, according to Judge Lubeck.

Lawyers for The Canyons argued in August that resort officials
couldn't be removed from the land when they asked Judge Lubeck
to dismiss the case.

Resort employees must access the Osguthorpe land to repair
equipment at The Canyons.  The Saddleback Express chairlift
unloads onto property the family owns.

"The unlawful detainer statute arose to help landlords and
tenants quickly settle disputes as to possession and occupancy
of real property," the decision states.  "The court does not
believe the parties' agreement spells out [The Canyons'] status
as a tenant, such that a cause of action for unlawful detainer
is appropriate."

Allowing eviction in this case "forces a court to adjudicate the
merits of disputed issues in a summary manner without giving
them the properly considered attention on the merits," the
ruling states.

"A tenant must be in possession (of) real property to be guilty
of unlawful detainer," according to the judge.

A past "restatement of agreement" between Osguthorpe and ASC
defined the contract as an "easement," Judge Lubeck states.

The Canyons "clearly does not have or hold exclusive
possession," the judge said.

Judge Lubeck acknowledged in the decision that the Osguthorpes
continue to "utilize the property."

Judge Lubeck also rejected a request from the Osguthorpes for
class action status for the lawsuit.

The Osguthorpes hoped to include as defendants, "each person,
who skis or snowboards at [The Canyons.]"

Talisker Corp. recently purchased The Canyons from American
Skiing Company and the Osguthorpes wanted employees at Talisker
Canyons Finance Co. barred from entering the resort.

The Osguthorpes claimed resort officials ignored their claims
that snow-making equipment harmed their sheep.  They had asked
for several million dollars in damages from The Canyons.


TOLL BROTHERS: Pa. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge James T. Giles of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied Toll Brothers Inc.'s  motion to
dismiss a purported securities fraud class action suit filed
against the company, The Standford Law School Securities Class
Action ClearingHouse reports.

On April 17, 2007, a securities class action suit was filed
against Toll Brothers and Robert I. and Bruce E. Toll, two
current officers of the company, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The original plaintiff, Desmond Lowrey, has been replaced by two
new lead plaintiffs: The City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement
System and the Laborers Pension Trust Funds for Northern
California.

On Aug. 14, 2007, an amended complaint was filed on behalf of
the purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between Dec. 9, 2004, and Nov. 8, 2005, and the following
individual defendants, who are directors and officers of Toll
Brothers, Inc., were added to the suit:

       -- Zvi Barzilay,
       -- Joel H. Rassman,
       -- Robert S. Blank,
       -- Paul E. Shapiro,
       -- Carl B. Marbach,
       -- Richard Braemer, and
       -- Joseph R. Sicree.

The amended complaint on behalf of the purported class alleges
that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The company has responded to the amended complaint by filing a
motion to dismiss, challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 18, 2008).

Recently, Judge Giles flatly rejected the defendant's argument
that the plaintiffs did not "plead with particularity" facts
indicating material misrepresentations and facts evidencing
scienter.

Judge Giles ruled that the plaintiffs -- The City of Hialeah
Employees' Retirement System and Laborers Pension Trust Funds
for Northern California -- met the pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The plaintiffs adequately alleged that the defendants
misrepresented then-existing facts, not revealing the actual
softened demand for the company's existing homes and the fact
that new communities were slow in selling, the judge said.

Moreover, the plaintiffs reasonably pled that the defendant's
forward-looking statements lacked any reasonable basis, Judge
Giles said.

The suit is "Lowrey v. Toll Brothers, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-01513-JG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge James T. Giles.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

        Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lcsr.com)
        Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP
        655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
        San Diego, CA 92101
        Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendant is:

        Steven B. Feirson (steven.feirson@dechert.com)
        Dechert, Price & Rhoads
        1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
        Phone: 215-994-2749


TRILEGIANT CORP: Lawyers to Get $8MM from $25MM "Pederson" Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lakin Law Firm will receive $8 million in fees and named
plaintiffs Charlene Pederson, Heather Nordberg, William Smith,
Julie Asbshine, Thomas Stackhouse, Richard Schnickel, Virginia
Schnickel and Stephen Powers will receive between $3,000 and
$10,000 in incentive awards as part of a $25-million settlement
in the nationwide class action lawsuit "Pederson v. Trilegiant,
Case No. 01-L-1126," filed in the Circuit Court, Third Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The purported class action suit was filed against Trilegiant
Corporation -- now known as Affinion Group, Inc. -- and a
Cendant Corp. subsidiary, in July 2001, in connection with
various membership-based products or programs offered, sold,
serviced, or provided to consumers by or through Trilegiant
Corp. or an entity with which Trilegiant has a business
relationship, and for which the member was charged a membership
fee.

These products or programs include but are not limited to
Privacy Guard, Credit Alert, AutoVantage, Travelers Advantage,
Buyers Advantage, Complete Home, Digital Protection Plus, Great
Fun, Great Options, HealthSaver, Hot-Line, Just For Me, National
Card Registry, Netmarket.com, Shoppers Advantage, and Travel ER,
along with similar programs marketed or created with Trilegiant
that have the same or substantially the same characteristics of
these memberships, regardless of the name of the product.

The lawsuit claimed that Trilegiant enrolls consumers in
membership programs through deceptive or unfair means, and
places membership charges on consumers' credit or debit cards,
bank accounts, telephone bills, or home mortgage accounts
without proper authorization or consent.  It further alleged
that Trilegiant refuses to cancel memberships upon a consumer's
request.

The settlement reached by the parties provides up to $25 million
in cash benefits, along with changes in the business practices
of Trilegiant and other relief.

The settlement resolves nationwide litigation against Trilegiant
for allegedly billing and collecting unauthorized charges from
consumers for products or memberships that consumers never
requested or consented to receive.  It also resolves disputes
over alleged refusals to cancel memberships upon consumer
request.

Under the settlement, consumers who had unsolicited or
unauthorized charges for Trilegiant products posted to their
credit cards or other accounts for such Trilegiant products as
Privacy Guard, Credit Alert, Auto Vantage, Travelers Advantage,
Buyers Advantage, Compete Home, Digital Protection Plus, Great
Fun, Great Options, HealthSaver, Hotline, Just for Me, National
Card Registry, NetMarket, Shoppers Advantage, Travel ER, and
others, can file a claim to receive a minimum of $20 or whatever
they were charged--up to three times the cost of each Trilegiant
Product for which they were charged.

In addition to the cash compensation, the settlement requires
Trilegiant offer consumers an easy cancellation method,
affirmative relief regarding Trilegiant's business practices, a
charitable contribution, and payment by Trilegiant of all costs
and legal fees related to the lawsuit.

In July, the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison
County, Illinois, granted final approval of the proposed
$25-million settlement (Class Action Reporter, July 22, 2008).

Trilegiant must publish notices of the settlement in Parade
Magazine, USA Weekend, USA Today, TV Guide, People, American
Profile and PR Newswire between 28 and 45 days of preliminary
approval; set up a Web site where class members can download
claim forms, and pay up to $100,000 in charitable donations.

All claims must be postmarked by Jan. 15, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Trilegiant Claims Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.,
          P.O. Box 670
          Minneapolis, MN 55440-0670
          Phone: 1-888-952-9102
          Web site: http://www.trisettlement.com/


UNITED ONLINE: Reaches Settlement in California NetZero Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in the consolidated consumer
fraud class-action lawsuit filed against NetZero, a brand name
of United Online, Inc.

On March 6, 2006, Anthony Piercy filed a purported consumer
class action lawsuit before the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero, claiming
that NetZero continues to charge consumers fees after they
cancel their Internet access account.

On July 27, 2006, Donald E. Ewart filed another purported
consumer class action suit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero containing
substantially similar allegations as the "Piercy" case.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought injunctive and declaratory
relief and damages.  NetZero filed a response to both lawsuits
denying the material allegations of the complaints.

Both Mr. Piercy and Mr. Ewart subsequently withdrew from the
actions as class representatives.  Then, on March 16, 2007,
Barbara Rasnake, Robert Du Verger, and Peter Chrisler were
substituted as purported class representatives.

On May 25, 2007, the court consolidated the two cases under the
caption, "Rasnake v. NetZero, Inc., Case No. BC348461."

On July 13, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class-action complaint at which time Peter Chrisler was also
substituted as a purported class representative.

Subsequently, a settlement agreement has been entered into by
all parties in the case, 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.

United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.net/-- is a
provider of consumer Internet and media services through a
number of brands, including NetZero, Juno, Classmates and
MyPoints.


UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Court Decertifies Class in "Marlo" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has decertified the class in a lawsuit captioned "Michael Marlo
v. United Parcel Service, Case No. 03-4336," which contains
various class-action allegations under certain wage-and-hour
laws.

The suit alleges that the plaintiffs improperly were denied
overtime and therefore seeks penalties for missed meal and rest
periods, and interest and attorneys' fees.  The named plaintiffs
purport to represent a class of 1,300 full-time supervisors.

The case was certified as a class action in June 2004.

However, in August 2005, the court granted summary judgment in
favor of UPS on all claims, and the plaintiffs appealed the
ruling.  In October 2007, the appeals court reversed the
District Court's decision.

In April 2008, the District Court decertified the class and
vacated the trial scheduled for April 29, 2008.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
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 "Michael Marlo v. United Parcel Svc, et al., Case
No. 2:03-cv-04336-DDP-RZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Dean D. Pregerson,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John A. Furutani, Esq.
          (jafurutani@furutani-peters.com)
          Furutani & Peters
          350 W. Colorado Blvd., Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Phone: 626-844-2437
          Fax: 626-844-2442

Representing the defendants is:

          George W. Abele, Esq. (georgeabele@paulhastings.com)
          Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
          515 S. Flower Street, 25th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
          Phone: 213-683-6000
          Fax: 213-627-0705


UNITED PARCEL: Third Circuit to Hear Appeal in "Hohider" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted United
Parcel Service, Inc.'s petition to hear its appeal of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania's recent
certification order in the matter "Hohider v. United Parcel
Service, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00363-JFC."

The suit was filed in 2004, charging UPS with systematic
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal
law that protects persons with disabilities from employment
discrimination (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2007).

According to one of the allegations in the lawsuit, UPS
maintains a policy, pattern and practice of requiring employees
to provide a "full" or "100 percent" medical release, without
restrictions, before permitting employees to return to work
following a medical leave of absence.

The lawsuit also charges that UPS refuses to meet in good faith
with its disabled employees to determine the extent of their
disabilities and what work the employees can perform at UPS
within the limits of their work restrictions, instead conducting
a sham investigation of the workers' medical condition, which
invariably results in a decision by UPS that the individual is
either too disabled to work at any job UPS has or not disabled
enough to warrant the protection of federal laws that require
UPS to assist the worker to return to work.  Either way UPS puts
the employee out of a job at the company.

Employees also contend that UPS refuses to reinstate permanently
disabled employees in a position that will accommodate their
medical restrictions in situations where reinstating them would
not impose an undue hardship on the company.

Finally, the lawsuit charges UPS retaliates against workers who
have filed workers compensation or discrimination claims by
refusing to let them return to work even if a 100% release is
eventually submitted, and in violation of the workers' seniority
rights under UPS' collective bargaining agreement with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin UPS
from engaging in discriminatory employment practices in
violation of the ADA, as well as the implementation of policies
that provide equal employment opportunities for persons with
present, past or perceived disabilities.

The court certified the suit as a class action.

In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
granted the company's petition to hear its appeal of the trial
court's recent certification order.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
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 "Hohider v. United Parcel Service, et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-00363-JFC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Joy Flowers Conti,
presiding.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Christian Bagin, Esq. (christian@wienandandbagin.com)
          312 Boulevard of the Allies, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1916
          Phone: 412-281-1110
          Fax: 412-281-8481

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

          Erin G. Comite, Esq. (ecomite@scott-scott.com)
          Anita M. Laing, Esq. (alaing@scott-scott.com)
          David R. Scott, Esq. (drscott@scott-scott.com)
          Scott & Scott
          108 Norwich Avenue, P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: 860-537-5537
                 860-537-3818

               - and -

          Judith B. Goldstein, Esq.
          (jgoldstein@equaljusticefoundation.com)
          Kimberly M. Skaggs, Esq.
          Equal Justice Foundation
          88 East Broad Street, Suite 1590
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-221-9800
          Fax: 614-221-9810

Representing defendant are:

          Joseph E. Culleiton, Esq. (jculleiton@reedsmith.com)
          David J. McAllister, Esq. (dmcallister@reedsmith.com)
          Joseph P. McHugh, Esq. (jmchugh@reedsmith.com)
          Perry A. Napolitano, Esq. (pnapolitano@reedsmith.com)
          Reed Smith
          435 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886
          Phone: 412-288-7216
                 412-288-3131


VALUECLICK INC: Wants Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Thrown Out
-------------------------------------------------------------
ValueClick, Inc., asks the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California to dismiss a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit filed against it.

Initially, a purported securities fraud class action suit was
filed on Aug. 17, 2007, by Carl Waldrep, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, presuming to represent all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
ValueClick between Nov. 1, 2006, and July 27, 2007.

The lawsuit alleges violations of certain federal securities
laws and is brought against the company, its executive chairman
and its chief administrative officer.

A similar purported class action was filed later.  On Nov. 20,
2007, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California consolidated the second purported securities fraud
class action with the first lawsuit.  The court appointed the
combined funds of Laborers' International Union of North America
National Pension and the LIUNA Staff & Affiliates Pension Fund
as lead plaintiffs.

In January 2008, the LIUNA Funds filed a consolidated complaint
alleging violations of certain federal securities laws based
upon the company's and its officers' alleged misrepresentation
of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
company's compliance with laws and standards applicable to its
lead generation business, among other things.

The LIUNA Funds purport to represent all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of the company between
June 13, 2005, and July 27, 2007, and seek class certification,
damages, costs incurred in bringing suit, and
equitable/injunctive relief.

In March 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
litigation.

The company reported no further 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.

The suit is "Carl Waldrep, et al. v. ValueClick, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:2007cv05411," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Dean D. Pregerson,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. (dbacine@barrack.com)
          Barrack Rodos and Bacine
          3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600

               - and -

          Mary K. Blasy, Esq. (maryb@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael B. Smith, Esq. (mbsmith@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-849-5300


WACHOVIA BANK: Floria Suit Alleges Company of Cheating on Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Bank NA is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging it cheated at least 200,000 customers of millions of
dollars in overdraft fees by failing to post transactions in
chronological order, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs claim Wachovia delays processing small
transactions and processes larger, later ones first, so it can
wrongfully charge repeated "overdraft" fees.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the plaintiffs bring this action
on behalf of all persons who suffered injuries as a result of
Wachovia's fraudulent, deceptive, unfair, and abusive business
practices.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- for certification of this matter as a class action
        lawsuit to proceed on behalf of the class of all
        currently unnamed plaintiffs after suitable discovery
        has been completed;

     -- for injunctive relief;

     -- for restitution;

     -- for an award of such damages as are authorized by law;

     -- for an award of all reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
        incurred by plaintiff;

     -- for trial by jury of all matters; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        just and equitable.

The suit is "Melanie L. Garcia, et al. v. Wachovia Bank NA, Case
1:08-cv-22463-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeremy W. Alters, Esq.
          Kimberly L. Boldt, Esq.
          Alters Boldt Brown Rash & Culmo PA
          4141 N.E. 2nd Avenue
          Phone: 305-571-8550
          Fax: 305-571-8558


WELLPOINT: $11.8M Deal to Proceed Despite 3 Hospitals Opting Out
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on July 9, 2008, that on
behalf of the California Hospital Association and all
California hospitals, Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, Inc., has
negotiated a landmark $11.8-million settlement with Blue Cross
of California, Blue Cross Life and Health, and their parent
company -- Wellpoint, Inc. -- in a class action suit relating to
the rescission of patients' policies.

In an update, BizJournals relates that a health plan spokeswoman
confirmed that Blue Cross will stick to the $11.8-million class
action settlement with the California hospitals even though
three health systems opted out of the deal.

Specifically, according to BizJournals, Sutter Health, Catholic
Healthcare West and St. Joseph Health System -- representing a
total of 74 hospitals --opted out of the deal by the Aug. 8
deadline, but their hospitals represent less than a quarter of
more than 400 potentially affected by the controversial policy.

The BizJournals report points out that the agreement between
WellPoint and the California Hospital Association settled a case
alleging that health plans did not cover the bills of patients
whose coverage was dropped after they were treated.

The national health law firm of Hooper Lundy filed a class
action complaint in October 2006, before the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, seeking to expand protection of hospitals
statewide from the practice by Blue Cross of California, Blue
Cross Life and Health, and their parent company, Wellpoint, of
retroactively rescinding insurance policy coverage for numerous
patients after the health care services have been provided by
the hospitals (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2006).

The complaint explained that California law prohibits Blue Cross
from retroactively denying payment after the services have been
provided in good faith.

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding approved by
the court:

     -- Blue Cross will establish a Facility Compensation Fund
        to reimburse hospitals for the services they provided to
        rescinded members;

     -- Blue Cross will establish a Patient Reimbursement Fund
        to reimburse patients for payments they made to
        hospitals after their policies were rescinded; and

     -- hospitals will cease collection activities against
        rescinded Blue Cross members for claims that were not
        paid by Blue Cross due to policy rescissions.

"The practice of rescinding patients' policies after the patient
has received medically necessary services causes a great deal of
financial stress to both the patients and the hospitals who
provide those services.  This settlement goes a long way towards
compensating the hospitals for those services and providing
closure to the patients for these debts," Hooper Lundy
attorney and co-plaintiff counsel, Glenn Solomon, Esq., had said
earlier.

"We are very pleased to have come to an agreement with Blue
Cross that fairly reimburses hospitals for the services they
provided to Blue Cross members and protects the patients from
being liable to pay for those services," said Hooper Lundy
attorney and co-plaintiff counsel, Daron Tooch, Esq.

According to the previous CAR report, Blue Cross has been the
subject of dozens of lawsuits by patients alleging that Blue
Cross routinely looks for after-the-fact reasons to cancel
policies by reviewing previously approved applications.  But the
rescissions also directly impacted the hospitals, because they
were the ones not being paid for their services, and instead
were being directed and forced by Blue Cross to try to collect
from their patients.

The case is BC360235 (CCW).

For more information, contact:

          Glenn Solomon, Principal (Cell: 310-503-2553)
          Daron Tooch, Principal (Cell: 310-702-8192)
          Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc.
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-551-8179
                 310-551-8192

BizJournals says that Blue Cross had the legal right to scuttle
the deal if it felt not enough hospitals went for it.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FEDERAL NATIONAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Federal
National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") publicly traded
securities during the period between November 16, 2007, and
September 5, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges certain of Fannie Mae's officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Fannie Mae is a shareholder-owned, government-sponsored
enterprise of the United States federal government that is
authorized to make loans and loan guarantees.  It is the leading
market-maker in the U.S. secondary mortgage market, which helps
to replenish the supply of money for mortgages and enables money
to be available for housing purchases.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements about Fannie
Mae's business and prospects and misrepresented the Company's
financial statements.  These false and misleading statements
cause Fannie Mae stock to trade at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching as high as $40.69 per share.

On July 7, 2008, a financial analyst at Lehman Brothers
published a report suggesting that Fannie Mae might need to
raise as much as $46 billion in capital, causing the Company's
stock price to plummet 16% in a single trading day.  Following
that disclosure, former St. Louis Federal Reserve Board
President, William Poole, suggested that Fannie Mae was nearly
insolvent and The New York Times disclosed that the federal
government was making plans to place the Company into a
conservatorship.  On July 13, 2008, the Treasury Department
announced that it was making a temporary line of credit
available to Fannie Mae and would purchase an equity stake if
necessary to provide more capital.  From July 7 through July 14,
2008, Fannie Mae's stock price declined over 48%. Finally, on
Sunday, September 7, 2008, in the biggest government bail out in
U.S. history, federal regulators seized control of Fannie Mae.

On September 8, 2008, Fannie Mae stock opened at $1.91 per
share, down from a close of $7.04 per share on September 5,
2008, a 72% decline.

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:

     (a) the decline in the U.S. housing market rendered Fannie
         Mae undercapitalized;

     (b) Fannie Mae's December 2007 capital raise did not meet
         its capital needs;

     (c) Fannie Mae's May 2008 capital raise did not meet its
         capital needs;

     (d) although Fannie Mae had more capital than its regulator
         required, it did not have "surplus capital" as
         defendants claimed; and

     (e) Fannie Mae's publicly disclosed financial results
         misrepresented the financial condition of the Company.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Fannie Mae publicly traded securities during the
Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shuman Law Firm filed a lawsuit seeking class action status
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
on behalf of all those who purchased the common stock of General
Electric Company between March 12, 2008, and through April 10,
2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period GE made
materially false and misleading statements regarding, among
other things, the Company's 1Q08 earnings guidance, including
earnings per share, the performance of GE's financial services
division, the Company's sale of key real estate assets and the
ability of the Company's Consumer and Industrial division and
Healthcare division to sell certain products.  The complaint
alleges that defendants provided a 1Q08 EPS guidance of $.50-
.53, and FY08 guidance of $2.42 "or greater."

This would represent EPS growth of 10% at a minimum. Despite
repeated reassurance by GE directly to its investors, however,
the complaint alleges that the Company shocked the market and
its investors when it released its 1Q08 results on April 11,
2008.  Instead of reporting a 1Q08 EPS of $0.50-0.53 and
improving on 1Q07 results, as the Company had assured its
investors that it would just weeks before, GE reported a
significantly lower 1Q08 EPS of $0.43, down 2% from the 1Q07.
As the market reacted to these disclosures, GE's stock declined
$4.70 per share from $36.75 to close at $32.05 per share on
volume of over 366 million shares, representing a 13% drop that
wiped out approximately $47 billion in market value.

The complaint also alleges that defendants failed to disclose
that GE's financial services division was underperforming prior
representations and that GE's Consumer and Industrial and
Healthcare Divisions were experiencing an inability to sell
certain products and real estate assets of approximately $900
million.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 29,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com)
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com)
          The Shuman Law Firm
          885 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80203
          Phone: 866-974-8626
          Fax: 303-484-4886
          Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/


QUEST RESOURCE: Federman Files 1st Okla. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood, a law firm based in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, filed the first securities class action lawsuit in the
Western District of Oklahoma against Quest Resource Corporation
and certain current and former officers and directors.

The Complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, including allegations of material
misrepresentations and omissions in Quest's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Initial
Public Offering on November 7, 2007.  The class period begins
with the IPO on November 7, 2007, and continues through
August 25, 2008.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a purported
Class.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 4,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405-235-1560
          Fax 405-239-2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Howard Smith Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: SNCR)
between February 4, 2008, and June 9, 2008, inclusive.

The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Synchronoss' business and prospects, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Synchronoss securities.

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

For more information, contact:

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


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *