CAR_Public/080911.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 11, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 181

                            Headlines

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Denies Certification in ERISA Suit
AVIS BUDGET: Sued Over Illegal Use of Fee Review Software
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Lawsuits Over Ventas Realty Sale Still Pending
CHRYSLER LLC: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over TCE Pollution in Dayton
CITIBANK NA: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Ponzi Schemes

CORRECT BUILDING: Faces Minnesota Lawsuit Over Defective Decks
DOMTAR INC: Canadian Courts Approve Carbonless Sheets Agreement
DUANE READE: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in "Chowdhury" Lawsuit
DUANE READE: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in "Damassia" Labor Suit
DUKE ENERGY: Wants Breach Claims in "George" Lawsuit Thrown Out

EDWARD JONES: Will Pay $7.5 Million to Settle California Lawsuit
HERSHEY CO: Recalls Shell Topping Due to Undeclared Almonds
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in W.Va.
INTERNATIONAL COAL: W.Va. Court Mulls Motion to Junk IPO Lawsuit

ISILON SYSTEMS: Wants Wash. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
MARTIN RESOURCES: Directors' $24MM Bonuses Improper, Suit Says
MERCK & CO: Seeks Review of Ruling in Vioxx Securities Lawsuit
NETLIST INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Calif. Suit
NORTHERN MARIANAS: Foreign Workers Join Planned Suit Over Bonds

PEOPLE'S UNITED: Faces Lawsuits in Connecticut Over Lost Data
PETS OF BEL AIR: False Advertising Suit Expanded as Class Action
QC HOLDINGS: Appeals Arbitration Ruling in Unsecured Loans Suit
QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans Still Stayed
QUANTA CAPITAL: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in Securities Lawsuits

RAM ENERGY: Royalty Owners' Lawsuit Still Pending in Oklahoma
REDDY ICE: Faces Packaged Ice Suits in Federal and State Courts
REDDY ICE: Plaintiffs in GSO Merger Lawsuit Seek Attorneys' Fees
SPROUTERS: Recalls Alfalfa Sprout for Possible Health Concern
ST. JOSEPH'S CARPENTER: Camden Homeowners Sue Over Withheld Info

T. MARZETTI: Recalls Girard's Peppercorn Due to Incorrect Labels
THOMAS WEISEL: Court Dismisses Claims in Suit Over Intermix Sale
THOMAS WEISEL: Faces Calif. Suit Over Payment of Overtime Wages
THOMAS WEISEL: Faces Securities Suit in N.M. Over GT Solar IPO
THOMAS WEISEL: Settlement Reached in AirGate PCS Securities Suit

TRANSUNION: Registration Deadline for FCRA Suit Deal is Sept. 24
U.S. STEEL: Settles Suit Over Ecorse Plant Pollution for $4.45MM
UNITED STATES: ACLU Suit Challenges Passports Issuance Refusal
VALE INCO: Trial in $400MM Canadian Suit Moved to October 2009

* Former King of Plaintiff Bar William Lerach In Lock-Down


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
NVIDIA CORP: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
SYNCHRONOS TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Files Securities Suit in N.J.



                           *********


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Denies Certification in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 8, 2008, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, has issued an order
denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
on-going ERISA 401(k) class action lawsuit commenced against
American Electric Power Co. Inc. in 2003.

In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
three putative class action complaints were filed against AEP,
certain of its executives, and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator,
alleging violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an
investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP
stock.  The suits, which were later consolidated, were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Aside from American Electric Power, other defendants named in
the suit are American Electric Power Service Corp.; E. Linn
Draper, Jr.; and Thomas V. Shockley, III.

In July 2006, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification and dismissed all claims without prejudice.

In August 2007, the appeals court reversed the trial court's
decision and held that the plaintiff did have standing to pursue
his claim (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12, 2008).  The appeals
court remanded the case to the trial court to consider the issue
of whether the plaintiff is an adequate representative for the
class of plan participants.

In its recent order, the trial court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification and directs further briefing on
the issue of whether the claims brought under Section 502(a)(2)
of ERISA (to recover for AEP's 401(k) plan losses suffered by
the plan) may proceed to judgment on the merits in the absence
of an order granting class certification.

The plaintiff's initial brief on this issue is to be filed by
September 26, 2008.

The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio Judge Algenon L. Marbley, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          Stull, Stull and Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-687-7230
          e-mail: ssbny@aol.com

          James Edward Arnold, Esq. (jarnold@cpaslaw.com)
          Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
          471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-469-1400

               - and -

          Joseph J. Braun, Esq. (jjbraun@strausstroy.com)
          Strauss & Troy - 1
          The Federal Reserve Bldg.
          150 E Fourth St., 4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
          Charlie L. Divine, Esq.
          Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Issa Mikel, Esq.
          George S. Wang, Esq.
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3954
          Phone: 212-455-2000
          Fax: 212-455-2502
          Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/


AVIS BUDGET: Sued Over Illegal Use of Fee Review Software
---------------------------------------------------------
Avis Budget Group is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging
it illegally uses Fee Review Software to declare that claims for
medical expenses are "unreasonable" because they exceed a secret
benchmark, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a case about the Avis Budget Group Inc.'s -- d/b/a Avis
Budget Group LLC -- use of computer "fee review" software to
improperly deny coverage for part of the plaintiff's and the
class' reasonable medical expenses incurred after a covered
occurrence (i.e., an auto accident).

The suit says that although Avis Budget's standard automobile
liability insurance contract requires it to pay all reasonable
or usual and customary medical expenses following an accident,
Avis Budget uses computer fee review software, provided by or
licensed from third parties to routinely deny coverage for a
portion of such medical expenses without any determination of
reasonableness or unreasonableness.

"Fee review" software, also known as "bill review" software,
such as that used on the plaintiff's claims, simply compares the
amount billed for a medical procedure to fee schedules embedded
within the program, the report notes.

The plaintiff, Maryland Physicians Associates, Inc., brings this
suit as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of:

     (1) Contract Class:

         All covered claimants who sustained injuries in a
         covered occurrence, or medical providers who have the
         right to assert these claims, and who:

         -- submitted first-party claims for payment of medical
            expenses to Avis Budget;

         -- had their claim subject to computer fee review;

         -- received payment in an amount less than the
            submitted medical charge (but greater than zero)
            based on a fee review reduction code (such as
            UCR80); and

         -- at time of payment, policy limits were not
            exhausted.

     (2) Alternative Contract Class:

         All covered claimants residing in Arkansas, Arizona,
         California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
         Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
         Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
         Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and
         Washington, or medical providers who have the right to
         assert these claims, and who sustained injuries in a
         covered occurrence and who:

         -- submitted first-party claims for payment of medical
            expenses to Avis Budget;

         -- had their claim subject to computer fee review;

         -- received payment in an amount less than the
            submitted medical charge (but greater than zero)
            based on a fee review reduction code (such as
            UCR80); and

         -- at time of payment, policy limits were not
            exhausted.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     a. whether Avis Budget's conduct constitutes breach of
        contract;

     b. whether Avis Budget or the plaintiff bears the burden of
        proving that part of a charge in excess of Avis Budget's
        percentile cap is reasonable and unreasonable;

     c. whether Avis Budget's Policy represented that it would
        pay all reasonable medical expenses up to policy limits,
        and whether such representation was false;

     d. whether promise of payment of reasonable expenses is
        ambiguous, and should be interpreted in favor of
        coverage;

     e. whether Avis Budget's conduct constitutes an exclusion
        or limitation of coverage;

     f. whether Avis Budget refuses payment for medical bills
        based upon definitions of "reasonable" and
        "unreasonable" medical bills different from those
        definitions (if any) in its Policy;

     g. whether Avis Budget fails to disclose coverage
        limitations and exclusions for policy benefits in its
        Medpay policies;

     h. whether Avis Budget excluded and reduced medical
        payments for medical expenses by application of a
        statistical or mathematical method;

     i. whether Avis Budget had a business policy or practice to
        reduce medical payments for medical expenses by
        application of a statistical or mathematical method;

     j. if Avis Budget excluded medical payments for medical
        expenses by application of a statistical or mathematical
        model or cap, whether the selection and particulars of
        such method were arbitrary;

     k. whether all expenses excluded by Avis Budget from a
        medical provider that exceed a set percentile of charges
        for similar services used by Avis Budget are
        unreasonable;

     l. whether expenses by a medical provider that exceed Avis
        Budget's percentile are reasonable due to factors that
        may not have been considered by Avis Budget;

     m. whether Avis Budget's decision to reduce medical
        payments for medical expenses may be based solely on an
        arbitrarily selected statistical or mathematical method;

     n. whether Avis Budget's reduction of medical payments for
        medical expenses, if done on the basis of a statistical
        or mathematical method, is a reliable and accurate basis
        for rejecting payment upon grounds of unreasonableness
        in the absence of an opinion of unreasonableness by a
        qualified medical provider with knowledge of usual and
        customary charges in the community, or any other
        evidence;

     o. whether the charged amount on a formal bill issued by a
        licensed medical provider to a patient, on which Avis
        Budget made payment in part, constitutes prima facie
        evidence of a reasonable charge; and

     p. whether Avis Budget has reasons specific to each
        claimant why a particular medical provider charge is
        "unreasonable."

The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

     -- finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for
        maintenance as a class action set forth in Fed. R. Civ.
        P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3), and certifying the Class
        defined;

     -- designating the plaintiff as representative of the class
        and counsel as class counsel;

     -- awarding damages against defendant in favor of the
        plaintiff and the class in an amount to be determined by
        the Court as fair and just for the alleged wrongful
        activities of the defendant;

     -- awarding the plaintiff and the class prejudgment
        interest on any damages awarded by the Court;

     -- awarding the plaintiff and the class reasonable
        attorneys' fees and costs of this lawsuit; and

     -- awarding the plaintiff and the class such further relief
        as the court deems just and appropriate.

The suit is "Maryland Physicians Associates et al. v. Avis
Budget Group Inc., Case 2:33-av-00001," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          George K. Lang, Esq.
          Freed & Weiss LLC
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-220-0000


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Lawsuits Over Ventas Realty Sale Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., continues to face two lawsuits in
New York and Delaware arising out of the company's sale of
certain facilities to Ventas Realty Limited Partnership in 2004.

                       New York Litigation

The first action is "David T. Atkins et al. v. Apollo Real
Estate Advisors, L.P., et al.," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 15, 2005, by
current and former limited partners in 36 investing
partnerships.

The complaint, as amended thrice, is brought on behalf of
current and former limited partners in 14 investing
partnerships.  It names as defendants, among others, the
company; Brookdale Living Communities, Inc., a subsidiary of the
company; GFB-AS Investors, LLC, a subsidiary of BLC; the general
partners of the 14 investing partnerships, which are alleged to
be subsidiaries of GFB-AS; Fortress Investment Group, an
affiliate of the company's largest stockholder; and R. Stanley
Young, its former chief financial officer.

The third amended complaint alleges, among other things:

     -- that the defendants converted for their own use the
        property of the limited partners of 11 partnerships,
        including through the failure to obtain consents the
        plaintiffs contend were required for the sale of
        facilities indirectly owned by those partnerships to
        Ventas;

     -- that the defendants fraudulently persuaded the limited
        partners of three partnerships to give up a valuable
        property right based upon incomplete, false and
        misleading statements in connection with certain
        consent solicitations;

     -- that certain defendants, including GFB-AS, the general
        partners, and the company former Chief Financial
        Officer, but not including the company, BLC, or
        Fortress, committed mail fraud in connection with the
        sale of facilities indirectly owned by the 14
        partnerships at issue in the Action to Ventas;

     -- that certain defendants, including GFB-AS and its
        former Chief Financial Officer, but not including the
        company, BLC, the general partners, or Fortress,
        committed wire fraud in connection with certain
        communications with plaintiffs in the Action and
        another investor in a limited partnership;

     -- that the defendants, with the exception of the company,
        committed substantive violations of the Racketeer
        Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act;

     -- that the defendants conspired to violate RICO;

     -- that GFB-AS and the general partners violated the
        partnership agreements of the 14 investing
        partnerships;

     -- that GFB-AS, the general partners, and the company's
        former Chief Financial Officer breached fiduciary
        duties to the plaintiffs; and

     -- that the defendants were unjustly enriched.

The plaintiffs have asked for damages in excess of $100 million
on each of the counts asserted, including treble damages for the
RICO claims.

On April 18, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
claims with prejudice.

On April 30, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint, but granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend.

                      Delaware Litigation

A putative class-action suit was filed on March 22, 2006, by
certain limited partners in four of the same partnerships
involved in the first action.  This suit was filed in the Court
of Chancery for the State of Delaware as "Edith Zimmerman et al.
v. GFB-AS Investors, LLC and Brookdale Living Communities, Inc."

On Nov. 21, 2006, an amended complaint was filed in the action.
The putative class in the case consists only of those limited
partners in the four investing partnerships who are not
plaintiffs in the Action.  BLC and GFB-AS were named as
defendants in the Second Action.

The complaint alleges a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
arising out of the sale of facilities indirectly owned by the
investing partnerships to Ventas and the subsequent lease of
those facilities by Ventas to subsidiaries of BLC.

The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an accounting, damages
in an unspecified amount, and disgorgement of unspecified
amounts by which the defendants were allegedly unjustly
enriched.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the company filed an answer denying the claim
asserted in the amended complaint and providing affirmative
defenses.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs moved to certify the suit as a
class action.  Both the plaintiffs and defendants have served
document production requests.

                    First and Second Action

The first action is currently in the beginning stages of
document discovery, the company said in its Aug. 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.

The company also said it intends to vigorously defend the Second
Action.

Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. -- http://www.brookdaleliving.com/
-- is an operator of senior living facilities in the U.S. With
546 facilities in 35 states and the ability to serve over 51,000
residents.  The company offers its residents access to a full
continuum of services across all sectors of the senior living
industry.  BSL operates in four segments: independent living,
assisted living, retirement centers/continuing care retirement
communities and management services.


CHRYSLER LLC: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over TCE Pollution in Dayton
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler LLC and Behr Dayton Thermal Products are facing a
class-action complaint before the Court of Common Pleas of
Montgomery County, Ohio, over allegations the companies polluted
Dayton, Ohio, with carcinogenic trichlorothylene and other
poisons, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, the defendants' use of TCE and other
ultra hazardous substances were caused to be released and leave
defendants' property and enter onto plaintiffs' property, have
contaminated plaintiffs' water, soil, vegetation, air, water,
land and dwelling, thereby causing plaintiffs to suffer mental
anguish and anxiety, fear of contracting cancer and other
illness, an increased risk of future illness, damage to their
properties and personal finance, loss of the use and enjoyment
of their residences and destruction of their community.

The plaintiffs file this action, pursuant to Ohio Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 23 on behalf of:

  1. Property Damage Class

     This class is made up of all persons who, on or after
     September 2, 2008, have owned and rented real property
     located adjacent to the facility or within the boundaries
     of Stanley Ave. to the North; Deeds Ave. to the east;
     Herman Ave. to the south; and Vermont Avenue to the
     southwest and McCook Ave., and Kettering Field Park to the
     northwest; and

  2. Medical Monitoring Class

     This class is made up of all persons who ever resided,
     worked and attended school on property located adjacent to
     the facility within the boundaries of Stanley Ave. to the
     North; Deeds Ave. to the east; Herman Ave. to the south;
     and Vermont Avenue to the southwest and McCook Ave., and
     Kettering Field Park to the northwest.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether, and to what extent, defendants are responsible
         for the plume of contamination flowing on, under and
         around plaintiffs' properties;

     (b) whether, and to what extent, the actions and operations
         of defendants have resulted in a trespass on
         plaintiffs' properties;

     (c) whether, and to what extent, the actions and operations
         of defendants have annoyed and disturbed the free use,
         possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs' properties
         so as to constitute a private nuisance;

     (d) whether, and to what extent, defendants have
         fraudulently suppressed material facts and information
         which should have been provided to plaintiffs;

     (e) whether defendants have engaged in abnormally dangerous
         activities for which they are strictly liable;

     (f) whether plaintiffs and other class members were injured
         by defendants' actions and operations and, if so, the
         appropriate class-wide measure of damages; and

     (g) whether plaintiffs and other class members are entitled
         to medical monitoring relief.

The plaintiffs ask the court to:

      -- enter an order pursuant to Ohio Court Rule 23
         permitting this action to be maintained as a class
         action, appointing plaintiffs as the representatives of
         the class and plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the
         classes;

      -- create a fund, paid for by defendants, under Court
         supervision, to finance medical monitoring services,
         including, but not limited to, testing, examination,
         preventative and diagnostic screening for conditions
         that can result from, or potentially result from,
         exposure to TCE and other hazardous materials;

      -- enter an order requiring the defendants to bear the
         cost of publication to plaintiff and members of the
         classes of approved guidelines and procedures for
         medical screening and monitoring of plaintiffs and
         members of the classes, the content, form and manner of
         such publication to be approved by the court;

      -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the members
         of the classes against defendants for costs incurred in
         medical monitoring, loss of property value and for all
         other relief, in an amount to be proven at trial, as to
         which they may be entitled, including interest,
         attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs of this suit;

      -- award prejudgment and post-judgment interest as
         provided by law;

      -- award punitive and exemplary damages; and

      -- such other relief as the court deems necessary, just
         and proper.

The suit is "Kimberly Spears, et al. v. Chrysler LLC et al.,
Civil No. 08 8081," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Montgomery County, Ohio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gerald S. Leeseberg, Esq.
          Anne M. Valentine, Esq.
          Leeseberg & Valentine
          Penthouse One, 175 South Third Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-221-2223
          Fax: 614-221-3106


CITIBANK NA: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Ponzi Schemes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citibank and The Student Loan Corp. are facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California over accusations that the companies
teamed up with operators of sham vocational schools to dupe
students into accepting loans that are paid directly to the
schools in enrollment-based Ponzi schemes, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This pattern of unfair, unlawful and deceptive conduct has been
the subject of very recent congressional investigation and
extensive journalistic reporting, the complaint states.  "When
the schools shutter their doors because the scheme collapses,
the students are left with no education, no accreditation and no
employment prospects but still obligated to repay the loans,"
the complaint contends.

This lawsuit is brought on behalf of California residents who
enrolled in Silver State Helicopters vocational school (SSH) and
borrowed money from Citibank.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in "commerce" in making the
         loans to the proposed class;

     (b) whether defendants and SSH were affiliated with each
         other or had a business arrangement in connection with
         SSH's solicitation of prospective students and offering
         of tuition financing from defendants;

     (c) whether defendants and SSH intentionally violated FTC
         regulations by knowingly and intentionally omitting the
         required Holder Rule Notice from the Notes and
         insisting SSH omit the language from the Training
         Services Agreements thereby enabling defendants to
         argue in litigation with California residents that the
         Holder Rule is inapplicable to it as a matter of law
         because the Notice is in neither the Training Services
         Agreement nor the Note;

     (d) whether defendants aided and abetted SSH's violation of
         the Holder Rule;

     (e) whether California or Nevada Choice of Law rules apply;

     (f) whether defendants' fraudulent and deceptive acts in
         violation of 16 CFR 433.2 (i.e., by failing to include
         the required language in the Note) constitute a
         predicate unlawful, unfair or deceptive act or practice
         under the UCL;

     (g) whether the defendants and SSH aided and abetted each
         other in carrying out their conduct alleged.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order and judgment preliminarily and permanently
        enjoining defendants and each of them from reporting to
        any credit agency any default by plaintiff of the
        proposed class under the Notes;

     -- an order and judgment preliminarily and permanently
        enjoining defendants and each of them from enforcing the
        Notes against plaintiff and the proposed class or taking
        any action in furtherance of enforcement efforts;

     -- such other orders or judgments as the court may
        consider necessary to prevent the use or employment by
        defendants of any practice which constitutes unfair
        competition under the UCL;

     -- statutory costs of suit; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem
        proper.

The suit is "James A. Benedict, at al. v. Citibank NA, et al.,
Case No. CV 08 4230," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Andrew A. August, Esq.
          Kevin F. Rooney, Esq.
          Pinnacle Law Group, LLP
          425 California Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-394-5700
          Fax: 415-394-5003


CORRECT BUILDING: Faces Minnesota Lawsuit Over Defective Decks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Correct Building Products is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
alleging it made and sold defective decks that retain moisture
and need to be replaced, and refused to honor their 25-year
warranties, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, CorrectDeck was designed to replace
traditional wooden decks.  It is subject to failure, causing
damage to homes, property, and other buildings following
installation.  As a result of defendant's failure to properly
design, develop, test, manufacture, distribute, market, sell and
ensure that the CorrectDecks were properly designed, the named
plaintiff's deck is failing, causing him to suffer damages.

The suit says that the defendant warrants and advertises that
its CorrectDeck product requires no maintenance and is long
lasting.  However, the defendant refuses to honer their
purported 25-year warranty because the failures are allegedly
not a "defect."

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities
that own a commercial or residential structure located within
the United States that is constructed with a CorrectDeck, as
well as any individual or entity that paid for or performed
repairs of damage caused by the failure of the CorrectDecks.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant sold and entered a defective product
         into the stream of commerce in Minnesota and other
         states;

     (b) whether defendant failed to prevent damages which
         occurred because of the defective product it designed,
         manufactured and sold into the stream of commerce;

     (c) whether defendant failed to warn consumers about the
         reasonably foreseeable dangers of using the
         CorrectDecks;

     (d) whether defendant was unjustly enriched by the sale of
         the defective product;

     (e) whether defendant breached the 25-year warranty it
         represented as existing and engaged in fraudulent,
         false, deceptive and misleading misconduct with
         respect to the handling of warranty claims;

     (f) whether defendant, in violation of the Consumer
         Protection or Deceptive Trade Practice Acts in
         Minnesota or other states, made fraudulent, false,
         deceptive and misleading statements in connection
         with the sale of the CorrectDecks in its literature,
         including those relating to standards and reliability;

     (g) whether defendant omitted material information when it
         sold the CorrectDecks;

     (h) whether defendant violated Minnesota's Prevention of
         Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. Section 325F.68-70, the
         Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Section
         325D.09-16, and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
         Act, Minn. Stat. Section 325D-43-48; and

     (i) whether the members of the class have sustained damages
         and, if so, the proper measure of such damages.

The plaintiff requests that the court:

     -- declare, adjudge and decree that defendant have
        committed the violations of state law alleged;

     -- determine that under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure, this civil action may be maintained as
        a class action, and certify it as such;

     -- order that judgment is entered for plaintiff and the
        class on their claims against the defendant on the
        counts above;

     -- award plaintiff and the class damages, as determined at
        trial, with interest;

     -- award plaintiff and the class damages based on the
        defendant's violations of Minnesota's Prevention of
        Consumer Fraud Act, the Unlawful Trade Practices Act,
        the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the False
        Statement in Advertising Act or the Consumer Fraud and
        Deceptive Trade Practices Acts of other states;

     -- award plaintiff and the class restitution of profits
        from the manufacture and sale of the CorrectDeck and
        otherwise preclude the defendant's unjust enrichment;

     -- under law and equity, issue declaratory or injunctive
        relief requiring the defendant to adequately inform the
        public of the health issues posed by the mold or mildew
        problems, the toxic and dangerous nature of the newly-
        disclosed maintenance requirements, and to pay for the
        testing of decking material to ensure that it is
        structurally sound; and

     -- award plaintiff and the class their costs, including
        counsel and experts' fees, prejudgment interest and such
        other and further relief as the court may deem just and
        proper.

The suit is "Scott Jacobson, et al. v. Correct Building
Products, LLC, Case No. 08CV5135 JNE/AJB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. (rkshelquist@locklaw.com)
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 554401
          Phone: 612-339-6900
          Fax: 612-339-0981


DOMTAR INC: Canadian Courts Approve Carbonless Sheets Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Canadian courts have approved Domtar, Inc.'s proposed
settlement of two purported class-action lawsuits over alleged
damages relating to a conspiracy to fix prices of carbonless
sheets, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2008.

                       Quebec Litigation

Domtar is subject to a motion filed by Joachim Laferriere
Electricien Inc. in the Quebec Superior Court on Jan. 9, 2006,
seeking authorization to bring a class action against Domtar and
certain others for alleged damages relating to a conspiracy to
fix prices of carbonless sheets during the period from January
through December 2000 in the Province of Quebec, Canada.

The claim seeks estimated compensatory damages in the amount of
$50 million plus estimated exemplary damages amounting to around
$1 million to $5 million.

                       Ontario Litigation

Domtar is also subject to a motion filed by McLay & Company Inc.
in the Ontario Superior Court on Jan. 11, 2006, for
authorization to bring a class action suit against Domtar and
certain others for alleged inflated prices of carbonless sheets
paper during the period of October 1999 through September 2000
in the Province of Ontario, Canada.

                           Settlements

Both class action suits have been settled, and the settlements
were approved by their respective courts in July 2008.

Domtar Corp. -- http://www.domtar.com/-- is a manufacturer and
marketer of uncoated freesheet paper in North America.  The
company also manufactures papergrade, fluff and specialty pulp.
It also designs, manufactures, markets and distributes a range
of paper products for a variety of customers, including
merchants, retail outlets, stationers, printers, publishers,
converters and end-users.  Domtar operates in three segments:
Papers, Paper Merchants and Wood.


DUANE READE: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in "Chowdhury" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted class-action status to the lawsuit captioned "Enamul
Chowdhury v. Duane Reade Inc. and Duane Reade Holdings, Inc."

The suit was filed on March 24, 2006, and alleges that beginning
March 2000, the company incorrectly classified certain employees
in an attempt to avoid paying them overtime, thereby violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law.  The complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

In May 2008, the court certified the case as a class action,
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 "Chowdhury v. Duane Reade, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-02295-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Seth Richard Lesser, Esq. (slesser@lockslawny.com)
         Locks Law Firm, PLLC
         110 East 55th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-838-3333
         Fax: 212-838-3735

Representing the defendants is:

         Gerald Thomas Hathaway, Esq. (ghathaway@littler.com)
         Frances Mollie Nicastro, Esq. (fnicastro@littler.com)
         Littler Mendelson, P.C.
         885 Third Avenue 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-583-2684
                212-583-2688
         Fax: 212-832-2719


DUANE READE: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in "Damassia" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted class-action status to the the lawsuit "Damassia v.
Duane Reade, Inc."

The complaint alleges that from the period beginning November
1998, the company incorrectly gave some employees the title,
"assistant manager," in an attempt to avoid paying these
employees overtime, in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Law.  It seeks an award equal to twice an
unspecified amount of unpaid wages.

In May 2008, the court certified this case as a class action,
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 "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-
08819-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Gerard E. Lynch, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tarik Fouad Ajami, Esq. (tfa@outtengolden.com)
         Adam T. Klein, Esq. (atk@outtengolden.com)
         Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. (jms@outtengolden.com)
         Outten & Golden, LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005

Representing the defendants are:

         Gerald Thomas Hathaway, Esq. (ghathaway@littler.com)
         Lisa A. Schreter, Esq. (lschreter@littler.com)
         Littler Mendelson, P.C.
         885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10022-4834
         Phone: 212-583-9600
         Fax: 212-832-2719


DUKE ENERGY: Wants Breach Claims in "George" Lawsuit Thrown Out
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan are
seeking the dismissal of claims in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed against them in connection with the alleged
discrimination and violation of pension laws.

Initially, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District Court of South Carolina against Duke
Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan (Class
Action Reporter, March 27, 2008).

Various causes of action are alleged, including violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.  These allegations arise out
of the conversion of the Duke Power Company Employees Retirement
Plan into the Duke Power Company Retirement Cash Balance Plan.

The plaintiffs seek to represent present and former participants
in the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  This group is
estimated to include approximately 36,000 persons.

Duke Energy filed its answer to the complaint in March 2006.  A
motion to certify a class action was filed by the plaintiffs and
Duke Energy filed its response in opposition to this motion.

A hearing on the motions was held in December 2007, and the
Court issued a series of rulings in June 2008 denying the
plaintiffs' class certification motion, dismissing certain of
the causes of action originally filed by the plaintiffs and
allowing other causes of action to proceed.

As a result of these rulings, the plaintiffs re-filed a new
Amended Class Action Complaint in June 2008 asserting and re-
pleading the claims which the Court is allowing to proceed.

A new scheduling order has been entered and it is expected that
certain discovery activities will ensue with respect to the
surviving causes of action.

Duke Energy filed a motion to dismiss the case in July 2008
requesting the dismissal of the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary
claims, according to Spectra Energy Corp.'s Aug. 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.

In connection with the spin-off from Duke Energy in January
2007, Spectra Energy has agreed to share with Duke Energy any
liabilities or damages associated with this matter that relate
to Spectra Energy employees that may be members of the plaintiff
class.

The suit is "George et al. v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00373-HFF," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge
Henry F. Floyd, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James Robinson Gilreath, Esq. (jim@gilreathlaw.com)
         Gilreath Law Firm
         P.O. Box 2147
         Greenville, SC 29602
         Phone: 864-242-4727
         Fax: 864-232-4395

         Cheryl F. Perkins, Esq. (cperkins@attorneyssc.com)
         Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young, LLC
         P.O. Box 8086
         Columbia, SC 29202
         Phone: 803-799-9400
         Fax: 803-799-2017

              - and -

         Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. (mwallace@wallacegraham.com)
         Wallace and Graham
         525 North Main Street
         Salisbury, NC 28144
         Phone: 704-633-5244
         Fax: 704-633-9434

Representing the defendants is:

         Robert Oliver King, Esq. (robert.king@odnss.com)
         Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart
         P.O. Box 2757
         Greenville, SC 29602
         Phone: 864-271-1300
         Fax: 864-235-8806


EDWARD JONES: Will Pay $7.5 Million to Settle California Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Jones & Co., L.P., the brokerage firm based in Des Peres,
has agreed to pay $7.5 million in fines and fees to settle a
lawsuit brought by California authorities, Jerri Stroud writes
for St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The report recounts that in the suit, which was filed in
December 2004, the California Attorney General accused the
company of failing to adequately disclose its sharing of revenue
with mutual fund companies when it sold their funds to customers
before 2005.  Edward Jones neither admitted nor denied the
allegations.

The parties subsequently agreed to resolve the matter, and a
deal was reached last week and disclosed on Sept. 9.

Pursuant to the settlement deal, Edward Jones will pay
$2.7 million in fees and costs to the attorney general and will
pay $4.8 million in civil penalties to California.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch recounts that two years ago, Edward
Jones paid $127.5 million to settle nine class-action suits over
the practice.  The company paid $75 million in fines to the
federal government over the practice in 2004 and paid Missouri
regulators $1.5 million in fines in 2005.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 5, 2007,
Jones was sued in nine civil class actions that were eventually
consolidated into three proceedings:

      -- "Bressler, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.";

      -- "Spahn IRA, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P."; and

      -- "Enriquez, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P."


HERSHEY CO: Recalls Shell Topping Due to Undeclared Almonds
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hershey Company announced a voluntary recall of 7.25-ounce
plastic bottles of Hershey's Chocolate Shell Topping because
they contain undeclared almonds.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to almonds run
the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product.

The only 7.25-ounce bottles of Hershey's Chocolate Shell Topping
affected have the code 69N printed on the back of the bottle
below the UPC symbol.  The UPC/Bar Code is 346000.  The item in
question was available for purchase nationwide after July 8,
2008.

No Hershey confectionery items or other shell toppings are
involved in this recall.  No illnesses have been reported to
date.  The product is completely safe for consumers who do not
have an allergy or sensitivity to almonds.

Hershey issued the voluntary recall after a consumer reported
the issue.  The company immediately investigated and found that
a small portion of a Heath's Shell Topping production run used
bottles labeled Hershey's Chocolate Shell Topping.

Consumers who have purchased the item in question should contact
Hershey Consumer Relations at 1-800-468-1714.


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc., or IBG, Inc., continues to face
a purported securities fraud class-action suit that was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Jan. 14, 2008, the company was named as a defendant in a
purported shareholder class-action lawsuit alleging that the
company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
by issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection
with its initial public offering that contained false and
misleading statements or omitted material facts concerning
losses suffered by the company in connection with trading in
options of Altana AG on the German stock market.

A lead plaintiff was appointed on March 14, 2008, and an amended
complaint was then served.  The amended complaint adds the
company's founder and chief executive officer, Thomas Peterffy,
as a defendant.  It asserts claims against the company under
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and against
Mr. Peterffy under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
based on the allegations that the Registration Statement failed
to disclose $25 million in trading losses in the first quarter
of 2007 that resulted from unusually high volume in advance of
certain corporate announcements as well as the alleged failure
to disclose the losses in trading options of Altana AG.

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 quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.

The suit is "Lin v. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc., Case No.
1:08-cv-00242-CM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Colleen McMahon, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Andrew J. Levander, Esq. (andrew.levander@dechert.com)
          Dechert, LLP (NYC)
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Phone: 212-698-3500
          Fax: 212-698-3500


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Coal Group, Inc., is facing a purported securities
fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia.

The class action suit was filed on Jan. 7, 2008, by Saratoga
Advantage Trust filed a class-action lawsuit against the
company, and certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading
statements in the registration statements filed in connection
with the company's November 2005 reorganization and December
2005 public offering of common stock.

In addition, the complaint challenges other of the company's
public statements regarding its operating condition and safety
record.

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 quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Saratoga Advantage Trust v. ICG, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:08-cv-00011," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, Judge John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Troy N. Giatras, Esq. (troy@thewvlawfirm.com)
          The Giatras Law Firm
          Suite 400, 118 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: 304-343-2900
          Fax: 304-343-2942

               - and -

          Mark L. Knutson, Esq. (mlk@classactionlaw.com)
          Finkelstein & Krinsk
          Suite 1250, 501 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-238-1333
          Fax: 619-238-5425

Representing the defendants are:

          Bronson J. Bigelow, Esq. (bjbigelow@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          222 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017-6702
          Phone: 212-326-3939
          Fax: 212-755-7306

               - and -

          Edward D. McDevitt, Esq. (emcdevitt@bowlesrice.com)
          Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love
          P. O. Box 1386
          Charleston, WV 25325-1386
          Phone: 304-347-1100
          Fax: 304-343-3058


INTERNATIONAL COAL: W.Va. Court Mulls Motion to Junk IPO Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a purported
class-action lawsuit against International Coal Group, Inc.,
which is accusing it of misleading investors about its
operations when it made an initial public offering of stock in
late 2005.

On April 5, 2007, a class-action suit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
against the company and certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that the company registration statements
filed in connection with its initial public offering contained
false and misleading statements, and that investors relied upon
those securities filings and suffered damages as a result.

The court ordered certain plaintiffs to serve as lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel, and, as a result, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on Aug. 24, 2007.

The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint on Sept. 28, 2007, and that motion remains pending.

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 quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.

The suit is "City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, et
al. v. ICG, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00226," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Mark W. Carbone, Esq.
          Carbone & Blaydes
          2442 Kanawha Boulevard
          East Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: 304-342-3650
          Fax: 304-342-3651
          e-mail: wvjustice@aol.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Bronson J. Bigelow, Esq. (bjbigelow@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          222 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017-6702
          Phone: 212-326-3939
          Fax: 212-755-7306

          John R. Hoblitzell, Esq. (j.hoblitzell@kaycasto.com)
          Kay Casto & Chaney
          P.O. Box 2031
          Charleston, WV 25327-2031
          Phone: 304-345-8900
          Fax: 304-345-8909

               - and -

          Edward D. McDevitt, Esq. (emcdevitt@bowlesrice.com)
          Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love
          P.O. Box 1386
          Charleston, WV 25325-1386
          Phone: 304-347-1100
          Fax: 304-343-3058


ISILON SYSTEMS: Wants Wash. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isilon Systems, Inc., along with other defendants, seeks 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.

On Nov. 1, 2007, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.  The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under, as
well as under Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.

Substantially similar complaints were filed in the same court in
December 2007.

These cases, which were subsequently consolidated, purport to be
brought on behalf of a class of individuals or entities who
purchased or acquired the company's stock during the period
Dec. 16, 2006, to Oct. 3, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws during this period of time by, among other
things, issuing a false and misleading registration statement
and prospectus in connection with the company's Dec. 16, 2006
initial public offering, and by publicly misrepresenting the
company's current and prospective business and financial
results.

The plaintiffs claim that, as a result of these alleged wrongs,
the company's stock price was artificially inflated during the
purported class period.  They are seeking unspecified
compensatory damages, interest, an award of attorneys' fees and
costs, and injunctive relief.

On April 18, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the company, certain of its current and former
directors and officers, underwriters and venture capital firms.

On June 16, 2008, the company and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiffs'
oppositions to these motions were filed on July 31, 2008.  The
defendants' reply briefs in support of their motions was due
Aug. 27, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Youakim v. Isilon Systems Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-01764-MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Karl Phillip Barth, Esq. (kbarth@lmbllp.com)
          Lovell Mitchell & Barth
          11542 NE 21st Street, Ste. A
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Phone: 425-452-9800

               - and -

          Matthew K. Handley, Esq. (mhandley@cmht.com)
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC
          1933 18th Street NW, Ste. 303
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600

Representing the defendants are:

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Rd.
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 415-493-9300

               - and -

          Seth Aronson, Esq. (saronson@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers
          400 S. Hope St., Ste. 1050
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Phone: 213-430-6000


MARTIN RESOURCES: Directors' $24MM Bonuses Improper, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed in Harris County Court, Houston, alleges that
directors of Martin Resources Management Corp. paid themselves
more than $24 million in improper bonuses and illegally issued
stock, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action asserts direct claims and shareholder derivative
claims against four members of MRMC's board of directors for
breaches of fiduciary duty, including breached of the duties of
loyalty, care, independence, good faith and fair dealing, and
for fraud, statutory fraud, waste, unjust enrichment,
conspiracy, and excessive compensation and the recipients of
over $24 million in extraordinary and improper bonuses and
illegally and improperly issued MRMC shares, the issuance of
which the director defendants specifically and improvidently
approved.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- damages, including actual, special, exemplary, punitive
        and consequential damages;

     -- prejudgment interest on the damages at the maximum rate
        allowed by law;

     -- the declaratory relief as stated;

     -- the equitable and other relief as stated;

     -- interest on the judgment from the date of the judgment
        until paid at the maximum rate allowed by law;

     -- such other relief to which plaintiffs, individually and
        derivatively on behalf of MRMC and its shareholders, are
        unjustly entitled.

The suit is "Scott D. Martin, et al. v. Martin Resources
Management Corporation, et al., Cause No. 2008-58948," filed in
Harris County Court, Houston.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Neil D. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrews Kurth LLP
          600 Travis, Suite 4200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-220-4200
          Fax: 731-238-7247


MERCK & CO: Seeks Review of Ruling in Vioxx Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., is considering asking either the full court
of appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court to review a divided
decision of a three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals reinstating a consolidated securities class action suit.

The suit, brought by investors in connection with disclosures
regarding VIOXX, had been dismissed by a U.S. District Court in
Newark, New Jersey, in April 2007.  The district court judge had
found that the securities action should be dismissed because all
of the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under the applicable
statutes of limitations.

However, in a divided ruling, an appeals court panel reversed
the District Court's ruling.

Merck presented several alternative grounds for dismissing the
lawsuit.  In reaching his April 2007 decision to dismiss the
suit, the District Judge considered arguments regarding the
timeliness of the suit, but did not address the alternative
grounds for dismissal that Merck had presented.  As a result, if
the ruling is not reversed, Merck will renew its request to
dismiss the suit on those alternative grounds.  In the process,
the company will seek to rely upon a new standard established by
the Supreme Court after the April 2007 ruling that imposes a
higher bar for plaintiffs pursuing a securities case.

The panel has made no ruling on the merits of the plaintiffs'
lawsuit.

                  Vioxx Securities Lawsuits

The company and various current and former officers and
directors are defendants in various putative class action suits
and individual lawsuits under the federal securities laws and
state securities laws.

All of the Vioxx securities lawsuits pending in federal court
have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler for inclusion in
a nationwide MDL.  Judge Chesler has consolidated the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits for all purposes.

Also, various shareholder derivative actions and ERISA suits
filed in federal court were transferred to the Shareholder MDL
and consolidated for all purposes by Judge Chesler.

The plaintiffs requested certification of a class of purchasers
of the company's stock between May 21, 1999, and Oct. 29, 2004.

The complaint alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding Vioxx in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
sought unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees.

The complaint also asserts a claim under Section 20A of the
Securities and Exchange Act against certain defendants relating
to their sales of Merck stock.

In addition, the complaint included allegations under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 that certain
defendants made incomplete and misleading statements in a
registration statement and certain prospectuses filed in
connection with the Merck Stock Investment Plan, a dividend
reinvestment plan.

On April 12, 2007, Judge Chesler granted a motion by the
defendants to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs have appealed Judge Chesler's decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Oral argument before
the Court of Appeals took place on June 24, 2008.

The suit is "Merck & Co., Inc., Securities Derivative and ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-01151-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Stanley R.
Chesler, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul B. Brickfield, Esq. (pbrickfield@bricdonlaw.com)
          Brickfield & Donahue
          70 Grand Avenue
          River Edge, NJ 07661
          Phone: 201-488-7707

               - and -

          Irma Lois Bradley-Klein, Esq.
          Lemmon Law Firm, LLC
          650 Poydras St. Suite 2335
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 985-783-6789
          Fax: 985-783-1333

Representing the defendants are:

          Edward Cerasia II, Esq. (ecerasia@proskauer.com)
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          One Newark Center, 18th floor
          Newark NJ 07102-5211
          Phone: 973 274-3200

               - and -

          John N. Poulous, Esq. (poulos@hugheshubbard.com)
          Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
          101 Hudson St. Suite 3601
          Jersey City, NJ 07302-3918
          Phone: 201-536-9220


NETLIST INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Calif. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the consolidated securities fraud class action
lawsuit, captioned "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No.
SACV07-677 DOC (MLGx)," have filed a First Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint in the matter, according to Netlist's
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

Initially, in May 2007, Netlist and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in four purported shareholder
class-action suits, two of which were filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the
other two filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The New York suits are:

     1. "Tran v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV 3754;" and

     2. "Benjamin v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV5518."

The California suits are:

     1. "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. SACV07-677 DOC
        (MLGx);" and

     2. "Swofford v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. CV07-04006 PSG
        (FMOx)."

These purported class action suits were filed on behalf of
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's
Nov. 30, 2006 Initial Public Offering.

The complaints allege that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued by the company in connection with the IPO
contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of
material fact in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
Securities Act of 1933.  They seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.

The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action, under
th caption, "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677
DOC (MLGx)," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on Nov. 5,
2007, generally asserting the same claims.  The defendants filed
their motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Jan. 9,
2008.

The motions to dismiss were taken under submission on April 28,
2008, and on May 30, 2008, the court granted the defendants'
motions.

However, the plaintiffs were granted the right to amend their
complaint and subsequently filed their First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on July 15, 2008.

Generally, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement issued by the Company in connection with the IPO
contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of
material fact in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of Securities
Act of 1933.

The suit is "Bruce Belodoff v. Netlist Inc et al., Case No.
8:07-cv-00677-DOC-MLG," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. (ctrinko@trinko.com)
          Curtis V. Trinko Law Office
          16 West 46th Street 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-490-9550

Representing the defendants are:

          Sean T. Prosser, Esq. (sprosser@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster LLP
          12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130-2040
          Phone: 858-720-5100

               - and -

          Keith E. Eggleton, Esq. (keggleton@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Rd
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-565-5100


NORTHERN MARIANAS: Foreign Workers Join Planned Suit Over Bonds
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 100 foreign workers have signed up to take part in a
class action lawsuit that aims to compel the CNMI Department of
Labor to enforce administrative orders directing insurance
companies to pay their surety bond claims, Stefan Sebastian
writes for Saipan Tribune.

According to the report, the Labor Department has recently
adopted a policy of telling workers to pursue payment on unpaid
orders -- administrative decisions handed down by the department
-- in small claims court rather through its offices.  Many of
these workers are seeking payments from insurance companies on
surety bonds, which are intended to provide them back wages and
other expenses in the event the businesses where they work
falter.

Saipan Tribune notes that officials of the department have
previously said the new policy is an improvement because the
courts have authority to enforce orders that is beyond the scope
of the department's powers.  Obtaining payments under an order,
they also said, is ultimately the responsibility of the worker
involved.

However, critics of the department's policy, including labor
activists and CNMI Reps. Tina Sablan (I-Saipan) and Edward Salas
(R-Saipan), say this policy places an undue burden on workers,
the report relates.  The lawmakers recently touched on the issue
in a letter to the Labor Department.

Now foreign workers with unpaid surety bond claims have
organized to file a suit against the department in a bid to
compel it to enforce the administrative orders it issued
directing insurance companies to pay them.

In an interview with Saipan Tribune, labor activist Irene
Tantiado, former president of the United Coalition of Workers,
said that "Labor is the one who should enforce and they should
not be passing that responsibility onto another party like the
courts."  By directing workers to small claims court, she added,
Labor is "protecting the bonding companies at the expense of the
workers."

Saipan Tribune says that Ms. Tantiado and her attorneys began
collecting plaintiffs in the soon-to-be-filed case last month.
In addition to the more than 100 participants they have now
secured for the suit, she hopes to have an additional 100 by the
Sept. 30 self-imposed cutoff date they have set for workers to
join.

To take part in the suit, Ms. Tantiado said, workers must have
an unpaid administrative order issued within the last six years.

In response to the clamor, Deputy Labor Secretary Cinta Kaipat
noted that in litigation several years ago, the CNMI's Supreme
Court "chastised" the Labor Department for previously attempting
to enforce administrative orders on its own.  She also defended
Labor's policies as more effective than departmental
enforcement.

"If anything, it takes it up a notch," Secretary Kaipat said.
"We cannot go over there and force a bond company to pay; that's
a step for the courts.  Administratively, we do all we can to
ensure employers are ordered to pay."

Secretary Kaipat also told Saipan Tribune that the Labor
Department is working with the Department of Commerce to crack
down on surety bond companies that often fail to pay claims and
has provided assistance to workers in the form of court fee
waivers and informational packets to help them pursue payments.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Faces Lawsuits in Connecticut Over Lost Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Financial, Inc., formerly People's Bank, is
facing two purported a class-action lawsuits in Connecticut over
the loss of clients' personal information, according to the
company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.

                        First Litigation

On April 21, 2008, People's United Bank was served with a
complaint filed against it by a group of individuals in
Connecticut Superior Court.

The plaintiffs, who state that they are customers of People's
United Bank, claim to have suffered damages as a result of
People's United Bank's alleged failure to safeguard the
plaintiffs' financial and personal information.  They have moved
for certification of the case as a class action on behalf of
themselves and all People's United Bank customers who are
similarly situated.

                       Second Litigation

On May 23, 2008, People's United Bank was served with another
complaint filed by a group of individuals in Connecticut
Superior Court.

The complaint, which also names BNY Mellon LLC as a defendant,
alleges that the plaintiffs were damaged by BNY Mellon's loss of
unencrypted electronic data including personal information about
the plaintiffs.

BNY Mellon served as the conversion agent in connection with the
"second-step conversion" in 2007, pursuant to which People's
United Bank became a wholly-owned subsidiary of People's United
Financial.

The plaintiffs have moved for certification of the case as a
class action on behalf of themselves and all People's United
Bank customers who are similarly situated.  The case has since
been removed from state court to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

People's United Financial, Inc., -- http://www.peoples.com/--
formerly People's Bank, is a savings and loan holding company.
People's United Bank is a federally chartered stock savings
bank.  The principal business of People's United Financial is to
provide, through People's United Bank and its subsidiaries, a
range of financial services to individual, corporate and
municipal customers.  Traditional banking activities are
conducted primarily within the state of Connecticut and include
extending secured and unsecured commercial, and consumer loans,
originating mortgage loans secured by residential and commercial
properties, and accepting consumer, commercial and municipal
deposits.  In addition to traditional banking activities,
People's United Bank provides specialized services tailored to
specific markets, including personal, institutional and employee
benefit trust; cash management, and municipal banking and
finance.


PETS OF BEL AIR: False Advertising Suit Expanded as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John P. Shook expanded to a
class-action case a lawsuit accusing Pets of Bel Air -- a posh
pet shop -- of  fraud and false advertising, NBC 4 Los Angeles
reports.

The lawsuit, filed by Wayne S. Kreger, claims that animals the
store said were from private breeders actually came from puppy
mills and were less than healthy and hardy (Class Action
Reporter, April 30, 2008).

Puppy mills are operations that mass breed dogs for sale, often
keeping them in bare, wire cages.  The practice is legal, but
many animal welfare groups consider it cruel.

Mr. Kreger claims he bought a Chihuahua from the shop in August
2007 and it died 12 days later in his wife's arms of a virus in
its digestive system.

Other plaintiffs with similar claims of parasites and pneumonia
have since been added to the lawsuit, and attorneys are seeking
to have it certified as a class-action suit.

Judge Shook's recent ruling means the buyers of nearly 800
puppies at Pets of Bel Air between Dec. 28, 2003, and the
present will be joined as plaintiffs.

"I think a class-action is a superior way to resolve this
dispute," Judge Shook said, rejecting defense arguments that
each person with a claim against the store should have to bring
it individually.

The store's Web site says "we would never knowingly buy a dog
from a puppy mill; and we are appalled by the possibility that
this may have happened."

Visit Pets of Bel Air's Web site at http://www.petsofbelair.com/


QC HOLDINGS: Appeals Arbitration Ruling in Unsecured Loans Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., is appealing to the Missouri Court of Appeals
an order by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, in
a purported class-action suit filed against the company over
unsecured loans, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.

The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 13, 2006, by one of the company's
Missouri customers as a purported class action.  It alleges
violations of the Missouri statute pertaining to unsecured loans
under $500 and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a declaratory judgment
that the arbitration agreement with the plaintiff is not
enforceable on a variety of theories.

The company has not filed an answer, but has moved to compel
arbitration of this matter.  The plaintiff secured the right to
have discovery regarding the company's arbitration provision,
however, prior to the court's ruling on the company's motion.

The court heard oral arguments on the company's motion in
June 2007.  On Dec. 31, 2007, the court entered an order
striking the class action waiver provision in the company's
customer arbitration agreement, ordered the case to arbitration
and dismissed the lawsuit filed in Circuit Court.

In July 2008, the company filed its appeal of the court's order
before the Missouri Court of Appeals.

The company said it does not expect a ruling from the appellate
court prior to 2009.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides
short-term  consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative consumer fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, against QC
Holdings, Inc., remains stayed.

On Feb. 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries, including
its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Don Early,
the company's chairman of the board and chief executive officer,
were named defendants in a putative class-action suit filed in
the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, by
James B. Torrence Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline.

The plaintiffs were customers of a Delaware state-chartered bank
for whom the company provided certain services in connection
with the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina,
prior to the closing of the company's North Carolina branches in
fourth quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance
Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina
Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and
the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by
the bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail
locations in North Carolina.

The suit also alleges that the company is not viewed as the
"actual lenders or makers" of the payday loans and its services
to the bank that made the loans violated various North Carolina
statutes.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorney fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.

The plaintiffs have not sued the bank in this matter and have
specifically stated in the complaint that they do not challenge
the right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North
Carolina residents at such rates as the bank's home state may
permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law.
This case is in preliminary stages.

                       Similar Litigation

There are three similar purported class action complaints filed
in North Carolina against three other companies unrelated to QC
Holdings.

In December 2005, the judge in those three cases:

       -- granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported
          class action lawsuits and to compel arbitration in
          accordance with the terms of the arbitration
          provisions contained in the consumer loan contracts

       -- ruled that the class action waivers in those consumer
          loan contracts are valid, and

       -- denied plaintiffs' motions for class certifications.

The plaintiffs in those three cases, who are represented by the
same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the
company, have appealed that ruling.

The judge handling the lawsuit against the company is the same
judge who issued these three orders in December 2005.

The company has not had a ruling on the similar pending motions
by the plaintiffs and the company in its North Carolina case.

There is a stay in the North Carolina lawsuit, pending the
outcome of the appeal in the other three cases concerning the
enforceability of the arbitration provision in the consumer
contracts.

Accordingly, there will be no ruling on the company's motion to
enforce arbitration in North Carolina during the pendency of
that issue in the three companion cases.

In January 2007, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard the
appeal in the three companion cases.  In May 2008, the appellate
court remanded the three companion cases to the state court to
review its ruling in light of a recent North Carolina Supreme
court's decision.

It is expected that the trial court will hear additional
evidence in the three companion cases before issuing its new
ruling.  That ruling is not expected before 2009.

While the three companion cases are pending until the trial
court's decision, it is expected that the company's case will
remain stayed, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides
short-term  consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


QUANTA CAPITAL: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in Securities Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on certain motions filed in several purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuits against Quanta Capital
Holdings, Ltd., 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.

                   Zirkin & Coronel Complaints

On Feb. 5, 2007, Harold Zirkin filed a complaint against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The suit is captioned "Zirkin v. Quanta Capital
Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 07 CV 851."

On Feb. 26, 2007, Jorge Coronel filed a complaint against the
company in the same Court, and under the caption "Coronel v.
Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 07 CV 1405."

Both complaints alleged that the company violated the federal
securities laws as a result of false or misleading statements in
disclosures to the investing public.   Both of these cases are
now pending before Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr.

On May 7, 2007, Judge Patterson appointed Zirkin-Cutler
Investments, Inc., as lead plaintiff for a putative class of
investors who purchased the company's preferred shares, and
appointed Washington State Plumbing and Pipefitting Pension
Trust as lead plaintiff for a putative class of investors who
purchased the company common shares.

Judge Patterson directed Mr. Zirkin and Washington State
Plumbing to file amended pleadings that would supersede the
complaints previously filed by Mr. Zirkin and Mr. Coronel.

On July 16, 2007, Ms. Zirkin filed an amended complaint.  The
amended Zirkin Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased the company's preferred shares
between Dec. 14, 2005, and March 2, 2006.

The Zirkin Complaint alleges that the company made false
statements concerning reserves for hurricane-related losses in a
registration statement and prospectus that were circulated to
investors in connection with a securities offering the company
completed in December 2005.

The Zirkin Complaint alleges that the company is liable under
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.

In addition to the company, Zirkin named as defendants two firms
that served as underwriters for the offering -- Friedman,
Billings, Ramsey & Co., Inc. and BB&T Capital Markets -- as well
as six individuals who served as officers or directors at the
time of the offering -- James Ritchie, Jonathan Dodd, Robert
Lippincott III, Michael Murphy, Nigel Morris, and W. Russell
Ramsey.

                      Washington Complaint

Washington State Plumbing filed a separate amended complaint on
July 16, 2007.  Washington State Plumbing's complaint purports
to be brought on behalf of a class of investors who purchased
the company' common shares between Oct. 4, 2005, and April 3,
2006.

The Washington Complaint alleges that during that period, the
company made false and misleading statements, and omitted to
state material information, in various disclosures.

The disclosures and alleged omissions at issue in the case
relate to reserves for hurricane-related losses, reserves
related to an oil pipeline leak, and the quality of the company
internal controls over financial reporting.

The Washington Complaint alleges claims against the company
under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933,
based on statements made in connection with the above-referenced
securities offering and under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
statements made at various times and contexts.

The company, FBR, BBT, and the six individuals named as
individual defendants in the Zirkin Complaint (Messrs. Ritchie,
Dodd, Lippincott, Murphy, Morris, and Ramsey) are all named as
defendants in the Washington Complaint as well.

In addition, the Washington Complaint also names as a defendant
Tobey Russ (former chairman of the company's board of directors
and former chief executive officer).

                       Case Developments

In September 2007, the company filed motions challenging the
legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in both cases, and
asked the Court to dismiss both cases.

The briefing on these motions was completed in January 2008 and
a hearing was held in April 2008.  The court has neither issued
any rulings addressing the motions or the merits of these cases
nor decided whether it will certify any case against the company
to proceed as a class action.

In accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
discovery in these cases has been stayed pending a ruling by the
court on the motions.

Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.quantaholdings.com/
-- has been formed to provide specialty lines insurance,
reinsurance, risk assessment and risk technical services on a
global basis through its affiliated companies.


RAM ENERGY: Royalty Owners' Lawsuit Still Pending in Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAM Energy Resources, Inc., formerly Tremisis Energy Acquisition
Corp., continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit filed
by royalty owners in the District Court for Woods County,
Oklahoma.

The lawsuit was filed against RAM Energy, Inc., certain of its
subsidiaries and various other individuals and unrelated
companies, in April 2002, by a lessor of certain oil and gas
leases from which production was sold to a gathering system
owned and operated by Magic Circle Energy Corp. or its wholly-
owned subsidiary, Carmen Field Limited Partnership.  The suit
covers the period from 1977 to a current date.

In 1998, both Magic Circle and CFLP became wholly owned
subsidiaries of RAM Energy, Inc.  The lawsuit was filed as a
class action on behalf of all royalty owners under leases owned
by any of the defendants during the period Magic Circle or CFLP
owned and operated the gathering system.

The petition claims that additional royalties are due because
Magic Circle and CFLP resold oil and gas purchased at the
wellhead for an amount in excess of the price upon which royalty
payments were based and paid no royalties on natural gas liquids
extracted from the gas at plants downstream of the system.

Other allegations include under-measurement of oil and gas at
the wellhead by Magic Circle and CFLP, failure to pay royalties
on take or pay settlement proceeds and failure to properly
report deductions for post-production costs in accordance with
Oklahoma's check stub law.

RAM Energy, Inc. and other defendants have filed answers in the
lawsuit denying all material allegations set out in the
petition.

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 quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.

RAM Energy Resources, Inc. -- http://www.ramenergy.com/--
formerly Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corporation, is an oil and
gas company focused on the acquisition, exploration,
development, exploitation, production and management of oil and
gas properties, primarily in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.  On
May 8, 2006, RAM Energy Resources, Inc. merged with Tremisis
Energy Acquisition Corp.  In accordance with the merger
agreement, Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corp. has changed its
name to RAM Energy Resources, Inc.


REDDY ICE: Faces Packaged Ice Suits in Federal and State Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., is facing several purported class-
action lawsuits in federal and state courts over practices in
the packaged ice industry, according to the company's Aug. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

                      Federal Litigation

Following the announcement that the Department of Justice's
Antitrust Division had instituted an investigation of the
packaged ice industry, a number of lawsuits, including putative
class-action lawsuits, have been instituted in various federal
courts in multiple jurisdictions, alleging violations of the
federal antitrust laws and related claims and seeking damages
and injunctive relief.

Although the company has not yet been formally served in
connection with all of these lawsuits, as of May 2, 2008, it is
aware of 62 putative class-action lawsuits that have been filed
naming it and other packaged ice companies as defendants (Class
Action Reporter, May 12, 2008).

Motions have been filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation seeking to consolidate pretrial proceedings in all of
the putative class-action suits in various districts.

The company filed a response to those motions with the Panel on
April 24, 2008, agreeing that consolidation of the cases is
appropriate and requesting that the cases be consolidated in the
District of Minnesota.  A hearing on these motions has been
scheduled for May 29, 2008.

On June 5, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order that the majority of the civil actions then
pending in federal courts be transferred and consolidated for
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

Since that time, additional cases have been ordered transferred
to that court and the company anticipates that the remaining
putative class-action lawsuits pending in federal courts will
also be transferred to that court for consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The plaintiffs in several of the actions have agreed to extend
the company deadline to respond to the subject complaints until
45 days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in
the multidistrict proceedings.  The company and the other
defendants are attempting to obtain similar extensions from the
plaintiffs in the remaining actions.

                     State Court Litigation

In addition to the putative class-action lawsuits filed in
federal court, at least one putative class-action lawsuit has
been filed in state court, alleging violations of state
antitrust laws and related claims and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- is a
manufacturer and distributor of packaged ice in the U.S.,
serving approximately 82,000 customer locations in 31 states and
the District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name.  The
Company's principal product is ice packaged in 7- to 50-pound
bags, which it sells to a diversified customer base, including
supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007, it sold approximately 1.9 million tons
of ice.  In 2007, traditional ice manufacturing and Ice Factory
sales accounted for approximately 90% and 10% of the company's
ice segment revenues, respectively.  In September 2007, the
company announced that it had completed the divestiture of its
bottled water business and substantially all of its cold storage
business.


REDDY ICE: Plaintiffs in GSO Merger Lawsuit Seek Attorneys' Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in purported class action against Reddy Ice
Holdings, Inc., its board, and GSO Capital Partners LP over
Reddy's $1.1 billion buyout by GSO are seeking attorneys' fees,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

On July 3, 2007, a stockholder derivative complaint was filed on
the company's behalf in the 199th Judicial District Court of
Collin County, Texas, Cause No. 199-02240-07.   The suit seeks
to temporarily prohibit a shareholder vote on Reddy's
$1.1 billion buyout by GSO.

On Aug. 9, 2007, the complaint was amended by the plaintiff,
purporting to state a class action claim on behalf of the
company's stockholders.

The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that the
company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger transaction between the
company and affiliates of GSO by approving a transaction that
would purportedly provide certain of the company's stockholders
and directors with preferential treatment at the expense of its
other stockholders and would not maximize stockholder value.

A second amended complaint was filed on Sept. 10, 2007,
containing similar allegations and also setting forth various
alleged omissions from the disclosures provided by the company
in its preliminary proxy statement relating to the special
meeting of its stockholders to adopt the merger agreement.  All
defendants have served answers to the second amended complaint.

On Sept. 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking a
temporary restraining order to enjoin the special meeting of the
company's stockholders to adopt the merger agreement.

A hearing with respect to the motion was held on Oct. 3, 2007.
On that date, the company and the other parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action in return for the
company providing certain supplemental disclosures in advance of
the special meeting of the company's stockholders.

The defendants also agreed that, if the settlement was approved
by the Court and consummated in accordance with its terms, the
company would pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses
in an amount awarded by the Court but not to exceed $325,000 in
the aggregate.

On Jan. 31, 2008, the company announced that the merger
agreement had been terminated.  As a result, the proposed
settlement will not be consummated.

On March 28, 2008, the defendants filed a motion seeking
dismissal of the action on the ground that all of plaintiff's
claims were rendered moot by the termination of the merger
agreement.  The plaintiff did not respond to that motion.

Instead, on May 19, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
petition in which it dropped all of its claims in the first
action other than a claim for attorneys' fees related to the
proposed settlement.  The defendants have previously answered
plaintiff's petition and asserted general denials.

Separately, on July 3, 2008, the plaintiff's attorneys filed a
fee application seeking a fee of $495,000 for the "benefit"
allegedly conferred on the company's stockholders by the
prosecution of the action and the supplemental disclosures that
were disseminated pursuant to the proposed settlement.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- is a
manufacturer and distributor of packaged ice in the U.S.,
serving approximately 82,000 customer locations in 31 states and
the District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name.  The
Company's principal product is ice packaged in 7- to 50-pound
bags, which it sells to a diversified customer base, including
supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007, it sold approximately 1.9 million tons
of ice.  In 2007, traditional ice manufacturing and Ice Factory
sales accounted for approximately 90% and 10% of the company's
ice segment revenues, respectively.  In September 2007, the
company announced that it had completed the divestiture of its
bottled water business and substantially all of its cold storage
business.


SPROUTERS: Recalls Alfalfa Sprout for Possible Health Concern
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sprouters Northwest, Inc., of Kent, Washington, is recalling its
alfalfa sprout products (alfalfa sprouts, onion sprouts, and
salad sprouts) because they may be linked to a recent outbreak
of Salmonellosis in Oregon and Washington State.

To date, 13 cases of Salmonella Typhimirium infection have been
associated with the consumption of raw alfalfa sprouts.

Salmonella Typhimiriumis an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
maybe bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e. infected aneurysms),
endocarditis (swelling of the lining of the heart) and
arthritis.  Individuals who may have experienced any of the
above symptoms after eating any of the recalled products should
contact their health care provider.

The recalled sprouts were distributed in Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and Alasks in retail stores and through wholesale produce
suppliers.

The products are Sprouters Northwest brand and include all lot
numbers with a best by date of 9/17/08 or earlier of [sic]: 5oz
alfalfa sprout cups UPC - 033383701417, 4oz alfalfa clamshells
UPC-815098001088, 1lb bags of alfalfa sprouts UPC -
079566123508, 2lb trays of alfalfa sprouts UPC 079566123492,
5oz salad cups UPC - 033383702674, 4oz salad clamshells UPC -
815098002061, 5oz alfalfa onion sprout cups UPC - 033383701905,
and 4oz onion sprout clamshells UPC 815098002054.

Sprouters Northwest, Inc., is working closely with state
officials and the Food and Drug Administration to determine the
cause of this problem and what steps can be taken to combat it.

Consumers who have purchased any of these items are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Wholesalers or retailers should remove the product from sale,
cease distribution, and arrange for product return.  Questions
can be directed to the company at 253-872-0577.


ST. JOSEPH'S CARPENTER: Camden Homeowners Sue Over Withheld Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 20 homeowners from the Baldwin's Run subsidized housing
development in East Camden marched from the City Hall to the
federal courthouse on Sept. 8, 2008, to file a class-action
lawsuit against St. Joseph's Carpenter Society, the non-profit
agency that headed the development of their neighborhood,
Deborah Hirsch writes for the Courier-Post.

In the lawsuit, the residents said St. Joseph's "committed fraud
by withholding vital information" about limits on the profit
they would make if they sold their homes.

According to Courier Post, in exchange for state and other
subsidies, the Baldwin's Run homes came with deed restrictions.
One requires that homes must be sold to other low- or moderate-
income homeowners if they are sold within 10 years.  Another
requires the owner to get only a portion of the profit when the
home is sold at fair market value.  The rest will go to the
state Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency to build more
affordable housing.

The report illustrates that, for example, if a home sells for
$200,000 the owner will get only 5% of the difference between
the sales price and what the state says a low- to moderate-
income home is worth at the time of the sale.  If the state sets
that value at $150,000, then the owner gets only 5% of the
$50,000 difference, or $2,500.  The seller can, however, keep
the difference between what he actually paid for the house and
the new value set by the state.  For example, if the same
homeowner actually paid $100,000 for the home 10 years ago, he
gets to keep the $50,000 difference between what he paid and the
new price for an affordable home set by the state.  In total,
such a sale would generate $52,500, for the homeowner.

The homeowners said they did not know about the restriction
until they got a letter describing it from the state last fall
-- years after they had bought their homes between 2002 and
2004, Courier Post notes.

The report relates that the homeowners began holding meetings
and in May 2008, they protested in front of St. Joseph's.  Many
of them said they never would have bought the homes if they had
known about the restrictions.

Pilar Hogan Closkey, director of St. Joseph's, told Courier Post
that she was disheartened to hear about the lawsuit.  She said
it is possible that the homeowners did not understand how the
restrictions worked when they bought their homes because they
are so complicated.  But, she said, they were told about these
restrictions.

Ms. Closkey said each approved buyer participated in a 12-week
homeownership education program in English, Spanish or
Vietnamese that included information about deed restrictions.
She said the buyers also met individually with representatives
from the state.

The Baldwin's Run residents who protested said that might be
happening now, but insisted that the deed restriction was never
mentioned in their classes or at closing.

One of the homeowners, Zolaina Santiago, told Courier Post that
she'd spent $15,000 upgrading her home with a pool, marble
floors, a new bathroom, crown molding and a bay window before
she learned about the restrictions.  She worries that she will
never recover that money because the deed restrictions only
allow additional profits for specific upgrades.

Angel Cordero, a community activist, handed the clerk a stack of
sworn statements from about 60 residents.  Mr. Cordero said the
residents put together the lawsuit themselves because they could
not afford a lawyer.  He said they've asked the state to
investigate.

According to Courier Post, Marge Della Vecchia, executive
director of the state Housing and Mortgage Finance Authority,
stood by St. Joseph's, saying that it had an excellent
reputation for educating buyers about becoming homeowners.  She
pointed out that the purpose of the subsidies is to encourage
people to become homeowners, not to turn houses for a huge
profit.

"Quite frankly, we won't have the subsidies available to
continue to build (affordable homes) unless there is some
payback for our contribution," Ms. Vecchia said.  "In most cases
the payback is never the contribution."

Courier Post notes that Ms. Closkey agreed the restrictions
could be more favorable to the homebuyers and said she even
offered to help the residents lobby the state to change them.
But even as is, she said, "it's still an investment program
that's creating wealth for that family."

Because the 115 homes in the 25-acre development were sold for
one-quarter to one-third of full market value, Ms. Closkey said,
only 5% of a sale profit could still be several times what the
owners invested.


T. MARZETTI: Recalls Girard's Peppercorn Due to Incorrect Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
T. Marzetti Company, of Columbus, Ohio, is recalling a limited
number of 12 fl. oz. bottles of Girard's Honey Dijon Peppercorn
(item 58105) because they may have the incorrect back label of
Girard's French Dressing (item 58015).

The Girard's Honey Dijon Peppercorn contains eggs, which is not
declared as an ingredient on the Girard's French label.  People
who have allergies to egg run the risk of serious allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

The bottles were shipped in corrugated cases marked with the
item number 58105 and with a date code of Best By 06-11-09M.
The 12 fl. oz. bottles are labeled with "Girard's Honey Dijon
Peppercorn" on the front, the back of the bottle may be labeled
with Girard's French Dressing (item 58015), with the date code
of Best By 06-11-09M. No other date codes are involved in the
recall.

The recalled bottles of Girard's Honey Dijon Peppercorn Dressing
were distributed throughout the western United States (primarily
California, Washington, and Oregon).

No illnesses have been reported in connection with this problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that incorrect
back labels on the bottles were used that did not reveal the
presence of eggs.

Consumers who have purchased 12 fl. oz. bottles of Girard's
Honey Dijon Peppercorn with the incorrect back label are urged
to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company's consumer
response department at 614-846-2232.


THOMAS WEISEL: Court Dismisses Claims in Suit Over Intermix Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed, with prejudice, claims asserted against Thomas Weisel
Partners Group, Inc., in a purported class-action lawsuit
arising out of the sale of Intermix Media, Inc. to News Corp. in
September 2005.

The complaint was filed in August 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California and alleges various
misrepresentations and omissions of material information that
would have demonstrated that the sale was not fair from a
financial point of view to the shareholders of Intermix.

Thomas Weisel acted as a financial advisor to Intermix in
connection with the sale and rendered a fairness opinion with
respect to the sale.

In July 2008, the court dismissed, with prejudice, the claims
against the company, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.

Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--
is an investment bank focused principally on growth companies
and growth investors.  The company's business is managed as a
single operating segment and it generates revenues by providing
financial services that include investment banking, brokerage,
research and asset management.  The Investment Banking offerings
include corporate finance and strategic advisory.  The brokerage
operations offer institutional brokerage, which comprises
institutional sales, sales trading, trading and special
situations, and private client services.  Under Equity Research,
the company's research analysts perform independent research to
help clients understand the dynamics that drive the sectors and
companies they cover.  The company's asset management division
is divided into three principal units: private investment funds,
public equity investment products and distribution management.


THOMAS WEISEL: Faces Calif. Suit Over Payment of Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Francisco on July 2008, according to the company's
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.

The complaint is with respect to the alleged misclassification
of certain employees as exempt from provisions of California
state law requiring the payment of overtime wages.

Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--
is an investment bank focused principally on growth companies
and growth investors.  The company's business is managed as a
single operating segment and it generates revenues by providing
financial services that include investment banking, brokerage,
research and asset management.  The Investment Banking offerings
include corporate finance and strategic advisory.  The brokerage
operations offer institutional brokerage, which comprises
institutional sales, sales trading, trading and special
situations, and private client services.  Under Equity Research,
the company's research analysts perform independent research to
help clients understand the dynamics that drive the sectors and
companies they cover.  The company's asset management division
is divided into three principal units: private investment funds,
public equity investment products and distribution management.


THOMAS WEISEL: Faces Securities Suit in N.M. Over GT Solar IPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., was named as a defendant in
a purported class-action lawsuit brought in connection with an
initial public offering by GT Solar International, Inc., in July
2008 where the company acted as a co-manager, according to the
company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.

The complaint, entitled, "Braun v. GT Solar International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00312-JL," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire on Aug. 1,
2008.  It alleges violations of federal securities laws against
GT Solar and certain of its directors and officers as well as GT
Solar's underwriters, including the company, based on alleged
misstatements and omissions in the registration statement.

The suit is "Braun v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-00312-JL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire, Judge Joseph N. Laplante, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Christopher Cole, Esq. (ccole@sheehan.com)
          Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
          1000 Elm St.
          P.O. Box 3701
          Manchester, NH 03105
          Phone: 603 668-0300


THOMAS WEISEL: Settlement Reached in AirGate PCS Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a consolidated class-action lawsuit
over a secondary offering of AirGate PCS, Inc., in December
2001, which named Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., as a
defendant.

The complaint, filed on May 17, 2002, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges violations of
federal securities laws against AirGate and certain of its
directors and officers as well as the company's underwriters,
including Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., based on alleged
misstatements and omissions in the registration statement.

The underwriters' motion to dismiss was granted by the court in
September 2005, but the court permitted plaintiffs to amend
their complaint.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the
underwriters again moved to dismiss.  The court granted in part
and denied in part the company's second motion to dismiss,
dismissing all claims and allegations against the firm except a
single claim under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.

During the second quarter of 2008 a settlement was reached that
did not result in a liability for the company, thus concluding
the case, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re AirGate PCS, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:02-cv-01291-JOF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Judge J. Owen Forrester,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dbain@bain-law.com)
          Law Office of David A. Bain, LLC
          1050 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-724-9990
          Fax: 404-724-9986

               - and -

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

Representing the defendants are:

          David Lewis Balser, Esq. (dbalser@mckennalong.com)
          McKenna Long & Aldridge-GA
          303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          One Peachtree Center, Suite 5300
          Atlanta, GA 30308-3201
          Phone: 404-527-4000

               - and -

          James David Dantzler, Jr., Esq.
          (david.dantzler@troutmansanders.com)
          Troutman Sanders, LLP
          Suite 5200, Bank of America Plaza
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-885-3314
          Fax: 404-962-6799


TRANSUNION: Registration Deadline for FCRA Suit Deal is Sept. 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on June 2, 2008, that
TransUnion will be providing millions of eligible U.S. consumers
up to nine months of free credit monitoring and related services
as part of a preliminary settlement of a lawsuit that has been
pending for many years and arose from a business TransUnion
discontinued in 2001.  According to the report, this offering is
consistent with TransUnion's commitment to providing consumers
with tools and resources that empower them to actively manage
their credit health.

The CAR wrote that on May 28, 2008, the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois granted preliminary approval
to the settlement in the class action suit, which claims that
the defendants violated state laws and the Fair Credit Reporting
Act when they sold certain marketing lists.

In an update, Indianapolis Star relates that eligible claimants
have until Sept. 24 to register for benefits under the
settlement.  Any consumer who had an open credit account or an
open line of credit from a credit grantor is eligible.  The
types of credit might include a car loan, bank credit card,
retail store credit card, finance company loan, a mortgage or
student loan.  The credit account had to be opened between
Jan. 1, 1987, and May 28, 2008.

To register for the settlement, go to
http://www.ListClassAction.com/or call 866-416-3470.

                    About TransUnion

As a global leader in credit and information management,
TransUnion -- http://www.transunion.com/-- creates advantages
for millions of people around the world by gathering, analyzing
and delivering information.  For businesses, TransUnion helps
improve efficiency, manage risk, reduce costs and increase
revenue by delivering comprehensive data and advanced analytics
and decisioning.  For consumers, TransUnion provides the tools,
resources and education to help manage their credit health and
achieve their financial goals.  Through these and other efforts,
TransUnion is working to build stronger economies worldwide.
Founded in 1968 and headquartered in Chicago, TransUnion employs
more than 3,600 employees in 25 countries on five continents.


U.S. STEEL: Settles Suit Over Ecorse Plant Pollution for $4.45MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on December 2, 2004, that the
city of River Rouge filed a class-action lawsuit against U.S.
Steel Corporation, demanding increased pollution controls
and unspecified damages for residents whose health had been
affected by emissions from the company's Great Lakes Works on
the Detroit River.

The suit was filed in the federal district court on behalf of
residents in Ecorse, River Rouge and southwest Detroit, areas
where River Rouge city officials said homes were often clouded
in crimson or orange smoke and asthma rates are outrageously
high.

As previously reported in the CAR, the plaintiffs had planned to
file the suit ever since the 1,100-acre facility in River Rouge
and Ecorse, one of U.S. Steel's five main steel producing
factories, was cited numerous times by the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality for emitting large amounts of manganese
and other toxic elements.

In an update, SteelGuru reports that a settlement of the four-
year-old case has been reached by U.S. Steel and the
communities.

According to SteelGuru, U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn has
approved the $4.45-million settlement between about 7,000
residents and U.S. Steel.  Pursuant to the deal, residents in
River Rouge and Ecorse are eligible for $300 apiece.

The report relates that the court's approval of the settlement
came after a few objections were heard and deliberated.  The
objectors include River Rouge Councilman Malcolm Moulton, who
objected to that part of the deal that releases U.S. Steel from
future claims short of a catastrophic event in the future.

However, Jason Thompson, Esq., of J Thompson & Associates firm
in Southfield, explained that the language in the release
settlement was carefully crafted and does not release U.S. Steel
from all claims in the future.  He added that "It's a good
resolution.  It was a hard fought case."


UNITED STATES: ACLU Suit Challenges Passports Issuance Refusal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nine American citizens sued the federal government, challenging
the U.S. Department of State's refusal to issue them passports
because of their race and ancestry and because their births were
attended by midwives. T he class action lawsuit, filed by the
American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, the
international law firm Hogan & Hartson LLP and Refugio del Rio
Grande, Inc., builds upon a complaint filed earlier this year.

The lawsuit charges that the State Department categorically
questions the citizenship of virtually all midwife-delivered
Mexican-Americans born in southern border states.  According to
the lawsuit, the State Department has been forcing these
applicants to go to unreasonable lengths to prove their
citizenship by providing an excessive number of documents that
normally are not required.  Then, even after the applicants
supply further proof of their citizenship, the Department
responds by summarily closing their applications.

"Based on blanket race-based suspicion, the State Department is
sending this select group of passport applicants on a veritable
scavenger hunt and then refusing to issue them passports without
a fair examination of their individual cases," said ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project attorney Robin Goldfaden.  "Denying
passports to U.S. citizens in this way is clearly against the
law and violates our core American values of fairness and
equality."

The need for a passport has become particularly urgent for
citizens who need or wish to travel outside the U.S.  By virtue
of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), every
American who wishes to enter or reenter the U.S. must have a
valid U.S. passport or passport card by June 2009.  Prior to
WHTI, only a U.S. driver's license was required to enter or
reenter the U.S. from Canada or Mexico.  As a result, there has
been a surge in passport applications.  Americans who must cross
the border daily for work or family obligations but have not yet
received their passports will be effectively barred from
conducting the everyday business of their lives.

For countless Latinos who were delivered by midwifes in the
Southwest, however, trying to obtain a passport has become an
exercise in futility.  Although midwifery has been a common
practice for more than a century, particularly in rural and
other traditionally underserved communities, the U.S. government
has imposed unsurpassable hurdles on midwife-delivered Latinos
to prove their citizenship and eligibility for U.S. passports --
even when their citizenship has already been established in the
past.  The government has demanded documents that never existed,
like a 1935 census report; that no longer exist, like elementary
school records that school districts long ago destroyed; and
documents that only the government itself could produce, like
immigration documents returned to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service years ago.

The lawsuit contends that this pattern and practice by the State
Department amounts to discrimination on the basis of race and
ancestry in violation of applicants' right to equal protection
under the law. The lawsuit also charges that the Department's
practices violate due process and the Administrative Procedure
Act, which was enacted as a safeguard against arbitrary and
capricious government agency procedures.

"The U.S. government has effectively reduced a whole swath of
the population to second-class citizenship because of their last
names and because they happened to be born at home with a
midwife," said Vanita Gupta, ACLU Racial Justice Program staff
attorney.  "Our clients have more than satisfied the
requirements for a U.S. passport.  It's wrong for the government
to raise the bar to impossible heights and then arbitrarily
shelve the applications for an entire group of people."

David Hernandez, a plaintiff in the case, is a U.S. citizen and
was born in San Benito, Texas in 1964.  Hernandez lived and
attended school in the Rio Grande Valley and served honorably in
the U.S. Army, earning various medals and ribbons.  Hernandez's
passport application was closed even after he responded to the
Department's demand for additional documents by providing
further evidence of his birth and baptism in the U.S., evidence
of his mother's residency in the U.S. at the time of his birth,
his immunization records, school records, and even a letter from
the Mexican Civil Registry stating that there was no record of
Hernandez being born in Mexico.

"I thought that in America everyone was supposed to be equal,"
said Hernandez.  "I was born here. I've lived and worked here
and served in the Army.  I feel betrayed, like my country is
stabbing me in the back just because my mother didn't have the
luxury of having me in a hospital."

Juan Aranda, also a plaintiff in the case, was born in Weslaco,
Texas in 1970 and has lived and worked in the U.S. his entire
life.  He works as a supervisor at a U.S. company that sells
drinking water in Mexico and must frequently cross the border as
part of his job.  In anticipation of the new passport
requirement, he applied for a passport last year and included
his birth certificate in the application.  He received a letter
from the Department stating that more documentation was
necessary to prove he was born in the U.S., including records of
prenatal care that his mother did not have.  Aranda sent in
school records, immunization records, his baptismal certificate
and a letter explaining that his mother did not receive prenatal
care because she could not afford it.

"The cases of Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Aranda, and the other
plaintiffs in this case are just the tip of the iceberg," said
Lisa Brodyaga, the attorney for Refugio del Rio Grande, Inc.
"There are countless other passport applicants like them who
have done everything in their power to track down extra
evidence, only to be told that their applications were being
closed."

ACLU of Texas Legal Director Lisa Graybill said, "For citizens
living on the border, a passport is as necessary as a driver's
license.  It's wrong for the government to deny people their
basic rights because their parents could not, or chose not, to
have them delivered in a hospital."

Defendants in the case before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas are Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy,
Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty,
Passport Services Directorate Managing Director Ann Barrett and
the United States of America.

The suit is "Amalia Ramirez Castelano et al. v. Condoleezza Rice
et al., Case No. CA M-08-057," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.


VALE INCO: Trial in $400MM Canadian Suit Moved to October 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new trial date has been set for a class action lawsuit against
Vale Inco, Derek Swartz writes for Welland Tribune.  The lawyer
for the plaintiffs, Eric Gillespie, Esq., said that the trial is
now scheduled to begin on Oct. 10, 2009.

Mr. Gillespie also told Welland Tribune that the trial is
expected to take two months.

Del Fraipont, Vale Inco's Port Colborne manager, revealed to
Welland Tribune that both the plaintiffs and the company asked
the judge to postpone the trial date for a year because neither
side was ready to proceed with the trial next month, as was
earlier agreed on.  "It's a detailed case and there's a lot of
pretrial work to do," Mr. Fraipont said.

The report points out that the suit has been subject to appeals
and delays since it was commenced in March 2001.

Originally filed seeking $750 million in damages, the class
action suit is now seeking $400 million in damages.  Mr.
Gillespie said that the plaintiffs are seeking $300 million in
loss of property value among the 8,000 to 10,000 property owners
in Port Colborne.

The suit, which includes almost all property owners in the city,
alleges Vale Inco's refining activities in the city damaged
properties within the area.  The remaining $100 million sought
accounts for punitive damages against the company.  The alleged
damages to human health are no longer part of the suit.

The claims have not been proven in court, Welland Tribune
relates.

After two lower courts refused to certify the class action suit
earlier this decade, Ontario's Court of Appeal certified the
class action suit in November 2005, the report recounts.


* Former King of Plaintiff Bar William Lerach In Lock-Down
----------------------------------------------------------
As a white-collar criminal, the now-deposed king of the
plaintiff bar was supposed to serve his sentence at a minimum-
security prison camp.

Instead, William Lerach, is getting a taste of hard time.

Earlier this summer, Mr. Lerach was placed in administrative
segregation -- locked down for 23 hours a day -- after he
allegedly offered a corrections officer the use of his San Diego
Chargers season tickets, say three people familiar with the
situation.  Should a formal administrative proceeding go against
him, Mr. Lerach would likely be forbidden from returning to the
camp, and would instead be placed in a higher-security facility.

Mr. Lerach could also lose any "good time" he had accumulated
toward early release.

Once the top securities class action lawyer in the country,
Lerach pleaded guilty to participating in a scheme to pay
kickbacks to lead plaintiffs.  Federal Judge John Walter in Los
Angeles sentenced him to a 24-month prison term in February.
Lerach arrived at the United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, near
Santa Barbara, Calif., on May 19, and was housed in the
complex's satellite prison camp.

Little more than a month after he got there, Mr. Lerach was
chatting with a corrections officer, sources said, when the
conversation turned to sports.  The guard indicated he was a San
Diego Chargers fan, and Lerach said he could use the season
tickets if he wanted.

The guard reported the conversation to Lompoc authorities, which
kicked off a disciplinary investigation against Mr. Lerach,
these sources said.

The government does not comment about a specific inmate's
discipline situation, said a Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman.
Lerach's lawyer, John Keker, Esq., of Keker & Van Nest, was not
available to speak on Monday afternoon.

It is standard BOP procedure to place a prisoner in
administrative segregation while a disciplinary investigation is
ongoing, said Alan Ellis, a San Francisco Bay Area sentencing
specialist who is not involved in Lerach's case.  Eventually, an
administrative hearing is held, Mr. Ellis said.  An inmate is
not allowed a lawyer in those proceedings, which are closed to
the public, he said.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of an institutional investor in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of NovaGold Resources Inc. securities
during the period between October 25, 2006, and November 23,
2007.

The complaint charges NovaGold and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  NovaGold is engaged in the business of exploration and
development of mineral properties.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the costs,
progress and viability of NovaGold's multi-billion dollar Galore
Creek project.  Specifically, defendants repeatedly touted the
results of a feasibility study which estimated the capital costs
for the Galore Creek project to be CDN$2.2 billion.  In fact,
developing Galore Creek would cost $5 billion, over twice what
defendants represented.

On November 26, 2007, the Company announced that it would
suspend activities at Galore Creek based on the results of an
updated feasibility study which reflected the true costs for the
Galore Creek project.  As a result of this disclosure,
NovaGold's stock price dropped from $20.24 to $9.48 the next
trading day, a drop of 53%.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of NovaGold securities during the class period.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
                 619-231-1058


NVIDIA CORP: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP has filed a
securities fraud class action in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of NVIDIA Corp. (NASDAQ: NVDA).

The lawsuit, filed against NVIDIA and the Company's CEO and CFO,
claims defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, the defendants issued a series of misrepresentations and
omissions that actively concealed and failed to disclose the
unusually high failure rates of NVIDIA's mobile video adapters
and the impact of these defects on the Company's financial
condition and results and future business prospects.

When the defendants belatedly revealed this information on
July 2, 2008, NVIDIA's stock plummeted, and the Company's market
capitalization was promptly reduced by over $3 billion.

For more information, contact:

          Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
          Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., Esq.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 7th Ave., Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-239-4340
          Fax: 212-239-4310
          Web site: http://www.lawssb.com/


SYNCHRONOS TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Files Securities Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired securities issued by Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.
from February 4, 2008, through June 9, 2008, inclusive, seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is against defendants Synchronoss, Stephen G. Waldis
(President, CEO and Chairman), and Lawrence R. Irving (CFO and
Treasurer).

According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.

Synchronoss is a provider of on-demand multi-channel transaction
software management platforms that enable communications service
providers to automate new subscriber activation, order
management and service provisioning.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made fraudulent material misrepresentations and omissions
regarding Synchronoss's business and operations. Specifically,
Synchronoss materially misrepresented the Company's financial
condition and future prospects to the Company's shareholders and
the investing public.

Synchronoss provides technology to AT&T, Inc., that allows AT&T,
as the exclusive United States service provider of the Apple
iPhone, to "lock" Apple iPhones distributed to AT&T's wireless
phone customers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors numerous warning signs that the
unlocking of iPhones jeopardized Synchronoss's iPhone contract
with AT&T.

While Apple iPhones were extensively being unlocked for use with
other wireless carriers, Synchronoss continued to maintain that
its future prospects for growth were positive.  However, on
June 9, 2008, AT&T announced Synchronoss would not be activating
the iPhone 3G, which was released in July of 2008.  Rather, the
iPhone 3G is activated in-store, effectively removing
Synchronoss from the transaction altogether.  On this news,
Synchronoss stock fell from $13.31 to $11.03, a 17.1% decline.

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

For more information, contact:

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Roland Riggs, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119-0165




                           *********

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  * * *