CAR_Public/080916.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Tuesday, September 16, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 184

                            Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Ark. Court Stays Proceedings in "McGinnis" Case
ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Calif. Suit Over Cash Advance Contracts
ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Lending Laws Violations
ADVANCE AMERICA: "Garrett" Case Voluntarily Withdrawn, Dismissed
ADVANCE AMERICA: N.C. Appeals Court Mulls Consolidation of Suits

ADVANCE AMERICA: Opposes Arbitration in BankWest Customers' Suit
AMERICAN FAMILY: Substitution Bid in Lakin Suit Yet to be Heard
AMERIHEALTH INSURANCE: Faces N.J. Suit Over Breach of Contracts
ARGENT MORTGAGE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
BONNE BELL: Recalls Accessory Bags Due to Excessive Lead Content

BRIDGECORP: Borrower Craig McDermott May Face Suit by Investors
CABOT CORP: Seeks Summary Judgment in "Anthony" Beryllium Suit
CABOT CORP: "Sheridan" Beryllium Hazards Suit Pending in Pa.
DANA CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Securities Suit
DJO OPCO: Calif. Court Grants Final OK to Stockholder Suit Deal

FRANCHESCO'S RESTAURANT: Workers Sue Over Wage Laws Violation
GENERAC CORP: Sued Over Defective Air-Cooled Generator Motors
HABERMAASS CORP: Recalls Wooden Infant Toys Due to Choking Risk
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Consolidated Complaint Filed in "Cole" Suit
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Fla. Court Consolidates Multiple ERISA Suits

HERTZ CORP: Appeals Court Decertifies Class in Texas FSC Lawsuit
HERTZ CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses Certain Claims in "Shames"
HERTZ CORP: Discovery to Commence in Nev. Concession Fee Lawsuit
HERTZ CORP: Wants Calif. Tourism Assessment Fee Suit Transferred
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Opposes Class Certification Bid in LDW Lawsuit

HERTZ EQUIPMENT: TCPA Suit Transferred to Another Kansas Court
HUFF REALTY: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Use of Deceptive Contracts
LOTO-QUEBEC: Played Down Dangers of VLT, Suit Says; Trial Starts
MARS PETCARE: Recalls Pet Food Due to Salmonella Contamination
PHONE COMPANIES: Text Message Monopoly Alleged in Illinois Suit

POTASH LITIGATION: Price-Fixing Conspiracy Alleged in Ill. Suit
PROTOCOL: RC Helicopters Recalled Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
SHARPER IMAGE: Del. Court Certifies Class of Gift Card Holders
SOUTHWESTERN RESOURCES: Settles Class Suits for CDN$15.5 Million
VERITAS SOFTWARE: $21.5M Deal in Delaware Suit Granted Final OK

VERITAS SOFTWARE: Securities Suit Returned to California Court
WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls In-Store Made Bagels Due to Choking Risks
ZIX CORP: Court Gives Final Okay to $5.6MM Securities Suit Deal


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

QUEST RESOURCE: Rosen Law Files Oklahoma Securities Fraud Suit
SYNCHRONOS TECH: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Lawsuit in N.J.



                           *********


ADVANCE AMERICA: Ark. Court Stays Proceedings in "McGinnis" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Appellate Court in Arkansas stayed proceedings in the matter
captioned "Brenda McGinnis v. Advance America Servicing of
Arkansas, Inc. et al."

The putative class-action suit was filed on Feb. 27, 2007, in
the Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas.  It alleges
violations of the Arkansas usury law, the Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act and a 2001 class action settlement agreement
entered into by the company's prior subsidiary in Arkansas.

The complaint also alleges that the company's current subsidiary
made usurious loans under the Arkansas Check Cashers Act
beginning on May 15, 2001.  It seeks compensatory damages in
amount equal to twice the interest paid on the loans, a
declaration that the contracts are void, enforcement of the 2001
class action settlement agreement, attorneys fees and costs.

The trial court has denied the company's motion to compel
arbitration and the class was certified on April 22, 2008.

The company appealed both decisions.  The Appellate Court has
issued a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending outcome
of the company's appeal of the arbitration issue, according to
Advance America's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com/-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.  Advance America Servicing of
Arkansas, Inc., is a subsidiary of Advance America, Cash
Advance.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Calif. Suit Over Cash Advance Contracts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in California, entitled "Kerri
Stone v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et al.,"
according to Advance America's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

On July 18, 2008, Kerri Stone filed a putative class-action
complaint in the Supreme Court of California against the company
and its California subsidiary alleging violations of the
California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, the California
Unfair Competition Law, and the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

The putative class-action complaint seeks trebling of
compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits, attorney's fees,
punitive damages, and an order enjoining enforcement of class
action waiver clauses in cash advance contracts.

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

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com/-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Lending Laws Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America and Cash Advance Centers of Missouri is facing a
class-action complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri for violating a slew of lending
laws, starting with charging 277% interest on a $500 loan.

The Class Action Reporter reported on March 14, 2008, that the
named plaintiffs, Patricia Hooper and Josephine Vaughan, bring
the action against these defendants:

     -- Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., and

     -- Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc.

The suit was filed as a result of the defendant's violations of
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (Mo.Rev.Stat. 407.010)
and the laws governing payday lenders (Mo.Rev.Stat. 408.500 et
seq.).

With regards to the plaintiffs and the class, Advance America
violated Missouri law in each of these ways:

     -- Advance America renewed the plaintiffs' loans without
        reducing the principal.

     -- Advance America never evaluated the plaintiffs' ability
        to repay their loans.

     -- Advance America limited the number of renewals that the
        plaintiffs could obtain to less than six despite the
        fact that Missouri law provides consumer six renewals.

     -- Advance America charged an interest rate that made
        obtaining six legal renewals, in which the principal was
        reduced by the minimum required amount of 5%, impossible
        without the plaintiffs and the class paying more than
        75% of the original loan amount in interest and fees.

This policy reinforced Advance America's stated policy of
allowing no more than four renewals.  This allowed Advance
America to collect far larger sums of money than Missouri law
would allow and encouraged the plaintiffs and class to remain in
loans longer than the legislature intended.

The plaintiffs bring the action pursuant to Missouri Revised
Statute 407.025.3, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf
of all Missouri citizens who obtained any payday loan from
Advance America, where Advance America:

     A) limited the number of principal reduction renewals to
        fewer than six;

     B) set the interest rate on the loan at a level that would
        not allow six renewals without requiring the customer's
        payment of total interest and fees paid by the consumer
        to exceed 75% of the original amount borrowed;

     C) failed to consider the financial ability of the borrower
        to reasonably repay the loan in the time and manner
        specified in the loan contract;

     D) charged a total amount of accumulated interest and fees
        exceeding 75% of the initial loan amount of that loan
        for the entire term of that loan and all renewals of
        that loan;

     E) flipped consumer loans by encouraging the consumer to
        "pay off" one loan and immediately borrow back the money
        that was paid.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     i. whether the defendant illegally limited the number of
        renewals available to the plaintiffs and the class;

    ii. whether the defendant illegally renewed the loans of the
        plaintiffs and the class by failing to reduce the
        principal by at least 5%;

   iii. whether the defendant set interest rates at a level that
        would not allow the six renewals permitted by law
        without causing the total amount of interest and fees
        paid on the loan to exceed 75% of the original loan
        amount;

    iv. whether the defendant failed to evaluate the ability of
        the plaintiffs and the class to repay loans in the
        manner and time specified;

     v. whether the defendant charged over 75% of the original
        loan amount in interest and fees;

    vi. whether the defendant's practice of renewing loans
        without lowering the principal was an unfair practice;

   vii. whether the defendant willfully violated Missouri law;

  viii. whether the defendant's arbitration clause is
        unconscionable and against Missouri public policy; and

    ix. whether the defendant's arbitration clause serves as a
        de facto immunity clause against claims by the
        plaintiffs and the class.

The plaintiffs and the class request that the Court enter an
order:

     -- maintaining the suit as a class action pursuant to
        Missouri Supreme Court Rule 52.08 and Missouri Revised
        Statute 407.025.3, and certifying classes;

     -- certifying the plaintiffs as class representative and
        appointing their counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and class compensatory damages,
        to include any fees and interest illegally charged and
        further awarding any damages caused by such payments;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the class their
        consequential and incidental damages;

     -- awarding total damages in excess of $25,000;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and class pre-judgment and post-
        judgment interest as provided by law;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and class punitive damages as
        provided by law;

     -- imposing a constructive trust and equitable lien against
        all money paid by the class to and wrongfully withheld
        by Advance America;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the class attorneys' fees
        and costs as provided by law;

     -- entering a preliminary and permanent injunction
        prohibiting Advance America from engaging in unfair or
        deceptive trade practices including the limiting
        renewals to four, the setting of an interest rate that
        exceeds the permissible rate, the renewal of loans
        without the reduction of principal by at least 5%, the
        collection of interest and fees exceeding 75% of the
        original loan amount, encouraging and allowing customers
        to pay off one loan with the proceeds of another and the
        issuing of loans to customers without an evaluation of
        their ability to repay the loan in the time and manner
        prescribed;

     -- entering an order that the defendant abide by the terms
        of the spoliation letter;

     -- issuing a declaratory judgment that the defendant's
        arbitration clause is unconscionable, against Missouri
        public policy, and unenforceable against the plaintiffs
        and the class; and

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the class such other and
        further relief as may be just and proper.

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

The suit is "Patricia Hooper, et al. v. Advance America, et al.,
Case No. 08-4045-cv-c-NKL," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John Campbell, Esq. (jcampbell@simonpassanante.com)
          Erich Vieth, Esq. (evieth@simonpassanante.com)
          Simon Passanante, PC
          701 Market St., Suite 1150
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: 314-241-2929
          Fax: 314-241-2029

          Debra K. Lumpkins, Esq. (dlumpkins@gatewaylegal.org)
          Gateway Legal Services, Inc.
          200 N. Broadway, Ste. 950
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: 314-534-0404
          Fax: 314-652-8308

               - and -

          Noel (Neal) Bisges, Esq. (bisgeslaw@mchsi.com)
          Bisges Law Office
          529 East High Street
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Phone: 573-635-6850

Representing the defendants is:

          Brendan Ballard, Esq. (brendan.ballard@sablaw.com)
          Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
          1275 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 202-383-0820
          Fax: 202-637-3593


ADVANCE AMERICA: "Garrett" Case Voluntarily Withdrawn, Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class-action lawsuit, captioned
"Phyliss Garrett v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of
Arkansas, Inc., et al.," has voluntarily made a motion to
withdraw and dismiss this case.

On July 3, 2007, Phyliss Garrett filed a motion for contempt
with the Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas, alleging a
violation of the 2001 class action settlement agreement entered
into by the company's prior subsidiary in Arkansas and
incorporated into a court order.

The relief sought by the plaintiff and its defenses are
substantially similar to those at issue in the matter, "Brenda
McGinnis v. Advance America Servicing of Arkansas, Inc. et al."

The plaintiff has voluntarily made a motion to withdraw and
dismiss this case which, when entered by the court, will resolve
all claims against the company, according to Advance America's
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com/-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.


ADVANCE AMERICA: N.C. Appeals Court Mulls Consolidation of Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has yet to rule on a motion
to consolidate the purported class action lawsuit "Kucan et al.
v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc.
et al.," with two other similar cases filed in the state.

On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence and Terry Coates,
each a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Co., the lending bank
for whom the company -- Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of
North Carolina, Inc. -- marketed, processed and serviced payday
cash advances in North Carolina, filed a putative class action
suit with the General Court of Justice for the Superior Court
Division for New Hanover County, North Carolina, against the
company and William M. Webster, IV, its chief executive officer.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the relationship
between the company's North Carolina subsidiary and Republic
Bank was a "rent a charter" relationship and therefore Republic
was not the "true lender" on the payday cash advances it
offered.

The lawsuit also claims that the payday cash advances were made,
administered and collected in violation of numerous North
Carolina consumer protection laws.  It seeks an injunction
barring the subsidiary from continuing to do business in North
Carolina, the return of the principal amount of the payday cash
advances made to the plaintiff class since August 2001, the
return of any interest or fees associated with those advances,
treble damages, attorneys' fees and other unspecified costs.

On Dec. 30, 2005, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' motion for arbitration, staying the proceedings and
denying class certification.  The plaintiffs have appealed the
order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The plaintiffs in this case and two other North Carolina cases
currently before the Court of Appeals filed a petition, which
the company has opposed, for discretionary review and
consolidation of the cases.

The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the matter in
January 2007.  The company is awaiting a ruling from the Court
of Appeals.

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

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com/-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Opposes Arbitration in BankWest Customers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Georgia, Inc., a unit
of Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., continues to
resist efforts to conduct class arbitration in the purported
class-action lawsuit captioned "King and Strong v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of Georgia, Inc., et al."

On Aug. 6, 2004, Tahisha King and James E. Strong, who were
customers of BankWest, the lending bank for whom the company
marketed, processed and serviced payday cash advances in
Georgia, filed a putative class action suit against the company;
William M. Webster, IV, its chief executive officer; and other
unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders."

The suit is alleging various causes of action including that the
Georgia subsidiary made illegal payday loans in Georgia in
violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan
Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.  It also alleges that BankWest was not the "true lender"
and that the company was the "de facto" lender.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.

The company and the other defendants have denied the plaintiffs'
claims and intend to continue to resist plaintiffs' efforts to
conduct class arbitration, according to Advance America's
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com/-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Substitution Bid in Lakin Suit Yet to be Heard
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Class Action Reporter story published on Feb. 29, 2008, said
that Lakin Law Firm attorneys who have kept a Madison County
class action lawsuit against American Family Insurance alive for
four years are proposing to replace a dead class representative
with a band of chiropractors.

In its sixth amended complaint filed on Feb. 1, 2008, the firm
introduced chiropractors who claim that American Family
improperly reduced payouts on medical bills from car crashes.
None of these plaintiffs, however, live in Madison County.

Jeff Millar, Esq., of Lakin Law Firm, introduced
these chiropractors and chiropractic clinics:

   * Kruse and Manley Clinic of Sioux City, Iowa, who claim that
     the insurer cheated them out of a dollar, paying $39 on a
     $40 bill;

   * Matthew Chenault of Greenville Rehab and Pain Clinic in
     Greenville, Illinois, who alleges an improper $4 reduction,
     from $60 to $56;

   * Anthony Wolf of Indianapolis and Breann Moddes of Tempe,
     Ariz., who allege improper $4 reductions, from $40 to $36;

   * Kent Marshall of Henderson, Nevada, who alleges an improper
     $22 reduction, from $60 to $38; and

   * Charles Vifquain of Lees Summit, Mo., who alleges an
     improper $26 reduction, from $75 to $49.

These chiropractors claim breach of contract but they cannot
begin to prove it.

                        Case background

The CAR reported on Jan. 31, 2007, that the lawsuit was
originally filed against the company by Manuel Hernandez in
2000, who also claimed that the insurer improperly reduced a
payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto accident.

In 2002, Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, as associate judge,
certified Mr. Hernandez as representative of a class in 17
states.  As circuit judge, Judge Stack trimmed the class to 11
states in 2005.

According to CAR, early in 2007, the company discovered that
Mr. Hernandez has been dead since January 2004, and therefore
asked the court to dismiss the case on this basis.

The Lakins tried to substitute the deceased plaintiff's wife,
Nora, but Judge Stack rejected her because she did not belong to
the class.

Mrs. Hernandez is now suing along with the chiropractors in
Mr. Millar's amended complaint as her husband's personal
representative.

However, Mr. Millar wrote to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack that the
class plaintiffs "lack copies of those individual policies and
thus cannot attach them to this pleading."  Mr. Millar figures
the defense should supply the evidence.

According to Mr. Millar, American Family carried out a scheme
with software contractors Mitchell International and ADP Claims
Solution Group.  "AFI purchased, leased and used the Mitchell
and ADP software to systematically underpay Medpay claims," he
stated.  "AFI uses/used Mitchell and ADP reports as a
subterfuge, for their true purpose is to intentionally reduce
AFI's first-party medpay claims payouts, and to increase
profits."

American Family rewards claims adjusters for low payments and
instructs them in adversarial use of Mitchell and ADP reports,
Mr. Millar added.  "Thus, from the beginning of the claims
process, the claims adjuster's interests conflict with the
insureds."

Mr. Millar urged Judge Stack to disregard arbitration clauses,
arguing that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive.
Mr. Millar argued that American Family designed the clause to
prevent the class from effectively vindicating statutory and
common law causes of action and that it is part of the insurer's
fraudulent scheme.

"Absent a class action," he wrote, "AFI will continue in its
deceptive course of conduct and will retain its ill-gotten
profits," Mr. Millar, who estimated the class in the tens of
thousands, said.

The class definition covers claims from 1990 to the date of
final judgment, and includes Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Iowa,
Ohio, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Arizona, Nevada and Idaho, Madison
Record notes.

In addition to breach of contract, Mr. Millar claims consumer
fraud for each class member under the law of his or her own
state.

             Court Sets Substitution Motion Hearing

In an update, Madison County Record relates that the list of
chiropractors -- that continue as potential substitutes for Mr.
Hernandez in his claim that American Family improperly reduced
payouts on medical bills of accident victims -- has been
modified.

Judge Stack has set a hearing for Nov. 5, 2008, on Mr. Millar's
substitution motion.  This motion asks the court to certify as
class representatives these chiropractors and chiropractic
clinics:

   * East Washington Chiropractic,
   * Anthony Wolf,
   * Greenville Rehab and Pain Clinic,
   * Matthew Chenault, and
   * Kruse and Manley Clinic of Chiropractic.

American Family, represented by Anthony Martin, Esq., of
Sandberg, Phoenix, filed on Aug. 25 a motion to dismiss Mr.
Millar's amended complaint containing substitution request.  Mr.
Martin argued that Lakin's chiropractors lack standing to sue
American Family.

"The exact nature of these claims is confusing," Mr. Martin
said.  "The movants do not allege, nor could they show, the
existence of a contract between them and American Family," he
wrote.  "None of the movants can demonstrate they ever received
a valid written assignment from an American Family insured."

"Accordingly, they are not members of the class defined by the
court," Mr. Martin contended.  The plaintiffs can't show injury,
damages or deception and "The movants cannot show a breach of
contract or fraud merely by alleging that American Family used
computer software to review medical bills."

They can't invoke consumer law because they are not customers,
Mr. Martin added.

Mr. Millar is required to file a response to American Family's
motion to dismiss by Sept. 30.


Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Millar, Esq.
          Brad Lakin, Esq.
          Jonathan Piper, Esq.
          The Lakin Law Firm, P.C.
          300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, IL 62095-0229 (Madison Co.)
          Phone: 618-254-1127
          Fax: 618-254-0193
          Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/

American Family is represented by:

          Anthony Martin, Esq. (amartin@spvg.com)
          Timothy Sansone, Esq. (tsansone@spvg.com)
          Sandberg, Phoenix and Von Gontard
          One City Centre, 15th Floor
          515 North 6th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1880
          Phone: 314-231-3332
                 800-225-5529
          Fax: 314-241-7604


AMERIHEALTH INSURANCE: Faces N.J. Suit Over Breach of Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriHealth Insurance Co. and its affiliates are facing a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging it breached contracts by
refusing to cover costs of treatment for eating disorders,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action suit on behalf of all individuals who are
covered by medical insurance written by AmeriHealth where it has
set limitations on payments and denied or reduced coverage for
treatment of eating disorders, including, but not limited to,
anorexia nervosa and bulimia.

The plaintiffs demand:

     -- compensatory, statutory and other damages permitted by
        law;

     -- the issuance of a mandatory injunction requiring payment
        of medical claims related to the care and treatment of
        eating disorders and pre-certification for care and
        treatment, including in network and out of network
        facilities;

     -- all damages allowable under ERISA;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and interests; and

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

The suit is "Peter Pontani, et al. v. AmeriHealth Insurance
Company of New Jersey, et al., Civil Action No. 06-06219
(FSH)(PS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
          Nagel Rice, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ
          Phone: 973-618-0400


ARGENT MORTGAGE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Argent Mortgage Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
alleging it stiffed more than 150 account managers and loan
processors for overtime, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a nationwide
collective class as a collective action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 USC Section 216(b) (FLSA), and on behalf
of a California class as a class action for claims arising under
California law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant properly calculated the amounts
         payable to class members for overtime wages under both
         federal and California law;

     (b) whether the defendant violated the FLSA, California
         Labor Code, and California IWC Wage Orders by
         withholding overtime compensation from the class
         members;

     (c) whether the defendant violated California Business &
         Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq; and

     (d) whether the defendant's failure to pay the class
         members all overtime wages due and owing was willful.

The plaintiffs demand judgment:

     -- for compensatory damages according to proof;

     -- for an order requiring defendant to make restitution of
        all amounts of unpaid overtime wages due and owing;

     -- for interest according to proof;

     -- for reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit; and

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

The suit is "Ryan McIntosh, et al. v. Argent Mortgage Company,
LLC, Case No. SACV08-1004 CJC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          J. Kirk Donnelly, Esq.
          Law Offices of J. Kirk Donnelly
          7668 El Camino Real, Suite 104-760
          Carlsbad, CA 92009
          Phone: 760-634-5700
          Fax: 760-634-5701


BONNE BELL: Recalls Accessory Bags Due to Excessive Lead Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonne Bell Co., of Lakewood, Ohio, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 945,000
Bonne Bell Children's Cosmetics Accessory Bags.

The company said the metal clasps on the handle of the accessory
bags contain excessive levels of lead, which is toxic if
ingested and can cause adverse health effects.  No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled accessory bags are made of plastic and have a
zipper and carrying handle.  The bags come with an assortment of
cosmetic products, which are not part of this recall.  The model
name and UPC numbers are located on the hangtag.  The following
recalled model names and UPC numbers are involved in this
recall:

  SMACKERS Sweet Treats Collection         UPC 0 50051 50575 7
  SMACKERS Sparkle & Shine Collection      UPC 0 50051 50576 4
  SMACKERS Glam It Up Collection         UPC 0 50051 50577 1
  BONNEBELL Natural Neutrals Collection    UPC 0 50051 22640 9
  BONNEBELL Pretty Pinks Collection   UPC 0 50051 22641 6
  BONNEBELL Fresh Pinks Collection         UPC 0 50051 22642 3
  BONNEBELL Glamorous Neutrals Collection  UPC 0 50051 22643 0

These recalled accessory bags were manufactured in China and
were being sold at retail stores nationwide and Bonne Bell's Web
site from September 2007 through August 2008 for about $9.

Pictures of the recalled accessory bags are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08382a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08382b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled accessory
bag away from children and contact Bonne Bell for a replacement
bag.

For more information, consumers can contact Bonne Bell toll-free
at 866-288-8643 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, send an e-mail to quality@bonnebell.com or visit
the company's Web site at
http://www.thebonnebellcompany.com/recall/


BRIDGECORP: Borrower Craig McDermott May Face Suit by Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig McDermott seems to be falling deeper after Bridgecorp's
receiver reported that he might have misrepresented his personal
assets when taking out a multimillion-dollar loan, Sydney
Morning Herald reports.

According to SMH, the claim will be galling for the collapsed
investment company's 770 investors whose main chance of
recovering their investments was in clawing back money from
Mr. McDermott.  Mr. McDermott reportedly owed the lender
$19.6 million.

In 2005, the former Test fast bowler was riding the crest of a
Queensland property boom.  SMH recounts that in a statement that
year to Bridgecorp Finance, Mr. McDermott said he owned his
$7.5 million Gold Coast mansion among total assets of
$20 million.  However, he has told the receiver that the house,
along with millions of dollars in jewelery, furniture and
property investments, belongs to his wife, Ann-Maree.

On Sept. 11, 2008, Bridgecorp receiver Brian Silvia, of Ferrier
Green Krejci Silvia, sent a letter to the company's investors
about Mr. McDermott's apparent misrepresentation.

According to SMH, this means that investors could receive as
little as 2.6 cents in the dollar back.  The loan to
Mr. McDermott's companies was Bridgecorp's biggest asset.

"I had many conversations and met in conference with McDermott
and his adviser in an attempt to determine the assets and
liabilities of the McDermott Group," Mr. Silvia said in his
circular.  "McDermott's response to my requests for information
was less than satisfactory and sufficient information was not
provided."

Mr. Silvia said that the return to secured debenture holders of
Bridgecorp, which went into receivership last year, would be
between 2.6 cents and 27.8 cents in the dollar.

SMH recalls that Mr. McDermott declared himself bankrupt in
June, listing his occupation as unemployed.  His property
development company, Maxen Developments, is in liquidation.
Maxen's creditors are considering a fighting fund to launch
court action against Mr. McDermott.

Mr. Silvia told SMH that he was encouraging Maxen's liquidators
and Mr. McDermott's bankruptcy trustee to conduct a public
examination of the former cricketer, his wife, and their assets.
Mr. Silvia said he had heard that Mrs. McDermott would not have
had enough money to be able to finance and build the Gold Coast
home, now on the market for $10 million, but he had been unable
to confirm these allegations.


CABOT CORP: Seeks Summary Judgment in "Anthony" Beryllium Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp. filed a motion for summary judgment against the
plaintiffs' claims in a class-action lawsuit over health hazards
posed by beryllium-containing products manufactured by the
company, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

In September 2006, Cabot was one of several named defendants in
"Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., et al.," a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of certain present
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge Inc. facility in
Sellersville, Pennsylvania.

U.S. Gauge is a company alleged to have purchased beryllium-
containing products from Cabot.  The class action suit alleges
that the present and former employees were exposed to beryllium
dust and fumes during the machining of beryllium-containing
products purchased from Cabot and that they are therefore
entitled to receive medical monitoring.

Also named as defendants in the case are:

     -- Ametek, Inc. (third-party defendant);
     -- Admiral Metals Inc.;
     -- Tube Methods, Inc.; and
     -- Small Tube Manufacturing Corp.

The company has asserted claims against the other defendants and
another party.  It and the other defendants have filed a motion
for summary judgment against the class plaintiff's claims in the
case, and oral arguments were heard in June 2008.  No decision
has been issued, according to the company's regulatory filing.

The suit is "Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-04419-JKG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge James Knoll
Gardner, presiding.

Representing plaintiff Gary Anthony are:

         Ruben Honik, Esq. (rhonik@golombhonik.com)
         Golomb & Honik, PC
         121 South Broad Street, 9th Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-985-9177

              - and -

         Stephan Matanovic, Esq. (smatanovic@golombhonik.com)
         Golomb & Honik PC
         121 S. Broad Street, 9th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-985-9177

Representing the company is:

         Neil S. Witkes, Esq.
         Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP
         401 City Avenue, Suite 500
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-660-5700
         Fax: 484-430-5711


CABOT CORP: "Sheridan" Beryllium Hazards Suit Pending in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp. continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit
captioned, "Sheridan, et al. v. NGK North America, Inc., et
al.," which is pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to its Aug. 8, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The class-action complaint was originally filed in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on
behalf of persons that resided within a one-mile radius of
Cabot's former facility in Reading, Pennsylvania, for a period
of at least six months between 1950 and 2000.  In 1986, the
company sold the Reading manufacturing facility to NGK Metals,
Inc.

The complaint alleges that these residents were exposed to
emissions of beryllium from the Reading plant and are,
therefore, entitled to receive medical monitoring.

The company and the other defendants have filed motions to
dismiss the class plaintiffs' claims.  Subsequently, one of the
two named class plaintiff's claims was dismissed; the other
motion remains pending.

The suit is "Sheridan, et al. v. NGK North America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05510-JKG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge James
Knoll Gardner, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Ruben Honik, Esq. (rhonik@golombhonik.com)
         Golomb & Honik, PC
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         121 South Broad Street, 9th Fl.
         Phone: 215-985-9177

Representing the defendants is:

         Thomas c. Delorenzo, Esq. (tcdelorenzo@mdwcg.com)
         Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin
         1845 Walnut Street, 19th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-575-2741
         Fax: 215-575-0856


DANA CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Howard Frank v. Michael J. Burns
and Robert C. Richter," which was filed against certain officers
of Dana Corp., are appealing the dismissal of their case by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The suit specifically names Dana's chief executive officer,
Michael Burns, and its former chief financial officer, Robert
Richter, as defendants.

The plaintiffs in the action allege violations of the U.S.
securities laws and claim that the price at which Dana's shares
traded at various times between February 2004 and November 2005
was artificially inflated as a result of the defendants' alleged
wrongdoing.

The suit was later consolidated with other similar suits.

In a consolidated complaint filed in August 2006, the lead
plaintiffs alleged violations of the U.S. securities laws and
claimed that the price at which the company's stock traded at
various times between April 2004 and October 2005 was
artificially inflated as a result of the defendants' alleged
wrongdoing.

In June 2007, the District Court denied the lead plaintiffs'
motion for an order partially lifting the statutory discovery
stay which would have enabled them to obtain copies of certain
documents produced to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

By order dated Aug. 21, 2007, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and
entered a judgment closing the case.

In September 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
from the District Court's order and judgment.  As of the date of
the regulatory filing, the appeal has been fully briefed.  Oral
argument has not been scheduled.

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

The suit is "Frank v. Dana Corporation et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
07393-JGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Judge James G. Carr, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq. (kwschneider@ms-lawfirm.com)
         Maguire & Schneider
         Ste. 500, 250 Civic Center Drive
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph P. Thacker, Esq. (thacker@cooperwalinski.com)
         Cooper & Walinski
         900 Adams Street
         Toledo, OH 43624
         Phone: 419-249-0264
         Fax: 419-720-3439


DJO OPCO: Calif. Court Grants Final OK to Stockholder Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, in the County of San Diego,
granted final approval to DJO Opco Holdings, Inc.'s proposed
settlement of a consolidated stockholder lawsuit against it,
according to DJO Finance LLC's August 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 28, 2008.

On Aug. 31, 2007, and Sept. 6, 2007, two purported shareholder
class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of DJO Opco's public
stockholders, challenging DJO Opco's proposed merger with ReAble
Therapeutics, Inc.  The two original complaints named DJO Opco,
ReAble and the current members of DJO Opco's board of directors
as defendants.  One of the complaints also named Blackstone
Capital Partners V L.P. as a defendant.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith
and loyalty by approving the proposed merger with an allegedly
inadequate price, without adequately informing themselves of DJO
Opco's highest transactional value, and without adequately
marketing DJO Opco to other potential buyers.  They also alleged
that the individual defendants and DJO Opco failed to make full
and adequate disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement
regarding the proposed merger.

The complaints pray for, among other things, class
certification, declaratory relief, an injunction of the proposed
merger or a rescission order, corrective disclosures to the
proxy statement, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees
and other costs; and such other relief as the court may find
just and proper.

The court consolidated the two lawsuits for all purposes on
Sept. 21, 2007.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding, pursuant to which the parties agreed to settle
the consolidated action subject to court approval.  The MOU
provided for the dismissal of the consolidated action with
prejudice upon approval of a stipulation by the court.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the defendants acknowledged
that the consolidated action resulted in a decision to provide
additional information to DJO Opco's shareholders in the
definitive proxy statement concerning the proposed merger and to
modify certain terms in the merger agreement and to pay certain
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the plaintiffs.

As stated in the MOU, the defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to the plaintiffs and the
putative class in the consolidated action and deny that they are
engaged in any wrongdoing or violation of law or breach of duty.
The defendants also did not make any admission that the
supplemental disclosures are material.  The parties signed a
settlement agreement containing these terms and requested court
approval.

On June 13, 2008, the court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement after providing notice and
opportunity to be heard to the members of the class.  The
court's order will be final if not appealed within 60 days after
entry of the order.


FRANCHESCO'S RESTAURANT: Workers Sue Over Wage Laws Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two workers at the former Franchesco's restaurant have filed a
suit in federal court, accusing the restaurant's management of
violating state and federal wage laws by deducting 5% from the
tips they were to receive from credit cards, Alex Gary writes
for BusinessRockford.com.

According to the report, Susan Deschaine, of Rockford, and Tammy
Kappel, of Loves Park, are seeking class-action status for the
suit because they think the pool of affected Franchesco's
workers is more than 50.

BusinessRockford.com notes that the restaurant operated for 21
years near CherryVale Mall in Cherry Valley.  It closed this
summer after the owners sold the property to a development group
to make way for a Walgreens.  Plans call for a larger
Franchesco's to be built at McFarland Road and Perry Creek
Parkway in Rockford early next year.

The plaintiffs' attorney, James X. Bormes, Esq., of Chicago,
said Franchesco's management, Benny and Charles Salamone,
notified employees they were keeping a percentage of the tips
they received through credit cards to pay for the cost of
processing the payments.

The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 9, 2008, alleges that the actual fee
for processing the payments was well less than 5% and that by
improperly deducting the fees, the management violated
provisions that allowed the restaurant to pay its serving staff
less than minimum wage because they receive tips from customers.

If the court rules in their favor, Ms. Deschaine and Ms. Kappel,
whom Ms. Bormes described as "longtime employees" of the
restaurant, could receive all of the tips improperly deducted
and, more importantly, pay them the full minimum wage during
their tenure.  Moreover, the costs potentially could run into
the thousands if it becomes a class-action lawsuit, the report
says.

John Holievas, Esq., of Williams & McCarthy is representing the
Salamones in the suit.  Mr. Holievas told BusinessRockford.com
that his firm's policy is not to comment on pending litigation.


GENERAC CORP: Sued Over Defective Air-Cooled Generator Motors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Generac Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, State of Michigan,
alleging it sold thousands of air-cooled generator motors with
defective starters, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is brought on behalf of plaintiffs and other
consumers who have purchased air-cooled standby generators,
ranging from 10 to 15 kilowatts, built by Generac Corp.,
containing defective starter motor assemblies.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant breached its implied warranties
         to the plaintiffs; and

     (b) whether the defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive
         business practices under the Consumer Protection Act.

The plaintiffs ask for:

     -- cost of repair or replacement of the defective
        generators, and other appliances;

     -- refund of the purchase price;

     -- diminution of value;

     -- incidental, consequential, and other actual damages;

     -- costs, interest and actual attorneys' fees;

     -- injunctive relief precluding the sale of the defective
        generators, and other appliances, and requiring
        notice to all purchasers of the nature of the defect;
        and

     -- all other relief the court deems appropriate.

The suit is "Milton Rotenberg, et al. v. Generac Corp., et al.,
Case No. 08-123080 CK," filed in the Circuit Court for the
County of Wayne, State of Michigan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gerard Mantese, Esq.
          David Hansma, Esq.
          John Smith, Esq.
          Mantese and Rossman, PC
          1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
          Troy, MI 48083
          Phone: 248-457-9200


HABERMAASS CORP: Recalls Wooden Infant Toys Due to Choking Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Habermaass Corp. Inc., of Skaneateles, N.Y., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
118,000 Wooden Puzzles, Infant Rattles, Pacifier Holders, and
Stroller Toys.

The company said the wooden rattles, pacifier holders, and
stroller toys contain small pieces including glued on mirrors
and prisms that can detach, posing a choking hazard to infants.
The head of the ladybug puzzle pieces also poses a choking
hazard.

Habermaass Corp. has received 15 reports of incidents involving
the recalled puzzles, rattles, and pacifier holders including
pieces of the rattles detaching and being mouthed by young
children.

The puzzles, rattle toys, pacifier holders, and stroller toys
are wooden and are described in the chart below.  "HABA" is
printed on them.

These recalled wooden infant toys were manufactured in Germany
and were being sold at specialty toy stores nationwide and at
specialty online retailers from January 2002 through August 2008
for between $10 and $35.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled puzzles,
rattles, pacifier holders and stroller toys away from children
and contact Habermaass to receive a free replacement product or
a full refund.

For additional information, contact Habermaass Corp. at
800-468-6873 ext. 107 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.HABAusa.com/safety


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Consolidated Complaint Filed in "Cole" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint has been filed in the securities fraud
class-action suit captioned "Florence Cole v. Health Management
Associates, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00484-MMH-SPC," which
is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Initially, on Aug. 2, 2007, the company and three of its senior
executive officers and directors were named as parties to the
putative class-action suit.  The action purports to be brought
on behalf of all similarly situated persons who purchased the
company's securities during the period Jan. 17, 2007, through
July 30, 2007.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that HMA violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by making allegedly false and misleading statements in
certain disclosures regarding its provision for doubtful
accounts related to self-pay patients.

Three identical purported stockholder class action complaints
were subsequently filed in the Florida District Court.  One of
the three plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed its complaint without
prejudice and the two other plaintiffs consolidated their
complaints with the Cole Action.

In addition, three other purported stockholders who did not file
complaints filed motions to be appointed as the lead plaintiff.
However, one of the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew its motion.

On May 14, 2008, the Florida District Court designated the City
of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
However, the case will continue to be administered under the
docket number assigned to the Cole Action.

On July 31, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint, which is similar to the complaint filed in the Cole
Action, naming HMA and three current and former officers and
directors as defendants.

The lead plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and purports to
represent a class of stockholders who purchased HMA's common
stock during the period Jan. 17, 2007, through Aug. 1, 2007.

The suit is "Cole v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00484-MMH-SPC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Marcia Morales
Howard, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLC
          Three Bala Plaza E., Suite 400
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          e-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com

          Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
          (jgoldstein@magergoldstein.com)
          Mager & Goldstein, LLP
          1640 Town Center, Suite 216
          Weston, FL 33326
          Phone: 954-515-0123
          Fax: 954-515-0124

               - and -

          Maya S. Saxena, Esq. (msaxena@saxenawhite.com)
          Saxena White, PA
          Suite 257
          2424 N Federal Hwy
          Boca Raton, FL 33431-7781
          Phone: 561-394-3399
          Fax: 561-394-3382

Representing the defendants is:

          Mark A. Jacoby, Esq. (mark.jacoby@weil.com)
          Weil, Gotshal & Manges
          767 5th Ave., 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10153
          Phone: 212-310-8000


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Fla. Court Consolidates Multiple ERISA Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
consolidated several purported class-action lawsuits against
Health Management Associates, Inc., alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On or about Aug. 20, 2007, HMA and certain of its executive
officers and directors were named as defendants in a lawsuit
entitled "Ingram v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-CV-00529," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The suit purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of
all participants in or beneficiaries of the Health Management
Associates, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan during the period
Jan. 17, 2007, through Aug. 20, 2007, and whose participant
accounts included HMA's common stock.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants:

     -- breached their fiduciary responsibilities to Plan
        participants and their beneficiaries under the
        Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
        amended, and neglected to adequately supervise
        the management/administration of the Plan,

     -- failed to communicate complete, full and accurate
        information regarding the Plan's investments in HMA's
        common stock, and

     -- had conflicts of interest.

Three similar purported ERISA class action complaints were
subsequently filed in the Florida District Court in October and
November 2007.

The plaintiff in the first additional complaint, "Freeman v.
Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-CV-
00673," brought charges against HMA, its directors, 10
unidentified members of the Plan's Retirement Committee and ten
unidentified defendants who had the responsibility for selecting
the Plan's investment funds and monitoring the performance of
those funds.

The plaintiffs in the second and third additional complaints
brought their actions against HMA, the Plan's Retirement
Committee and thirty unidentified members of the Plan's
Retirement Committee who were employees and senior executives at
HMA.  These two latter actions are entitled, "O'Connor v. Health
Management Associates, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-CV-00683," and
"DeCosmo v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-CV-00741."

The plaintiffs in the Ingram, Freeman and O'Connor actions moved
to consolidate their actions and be appointed as joint lead
plaintiffs.

The suits seek awards of unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  Legal counsel for certain plaintiffs
wrote letters to the Plan's Retirement Committee claiming that
their preliminary calculations indicate the Plan suffered losses
of at least $60 million.

On May 14, 2008, the Florida District Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate all four ERISA actions into on
action entitled, "Ingram v. Health Management Associates, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:07-CV-00529."

The lead plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated action has not
yet been designated by the Florida District Court nor has a
deadline for filing a consolidated complaint been set, 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 "Ingram v. Health Management Associates Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00529-UA-SPC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Chris A. Barker, Esq.
          (cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com)
          Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
          Suite 2100
          400 N. Ashley Dr.
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-489-1001
          Fax: 813-489-1008

          Katherine B. Bornstein, Esq. (kbornstein@sbtklaw.com)
          ACLU of Georgia
          PO Box 54406
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

               - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. (eciolko@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants is:

          Mark A. Jacoby, Esq. (mark.jacoby@weil.com)
          Weil, Gotshal & Manges
          767 5th Ave., 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10153
          Phone: 212-310-8000


HERTZ CORP: Appeals Court Decertifies Class in Texas FSC Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas
reversed a class certification order issued by the 214th
Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in the case
captioned "Jose M. Gomez, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corporation."

The suit purports to be a class action filed alternatively on
behalf of all persons who were charged a Fuel and Service Charge
by the company or all Texas residents who were charged an FSC by
the company.  The complaint alleges that the FSC is an unlawful
penalty and that, therefore, it is void and unenforceable.

In response to various motions by the company, the plaintiff has
filed two amended complaints, which scaled back the putative
class from a nationwide class to a class of all Texas residents
who were charged a FSC by the company or by its Corpus Christi
Licensee.

A new cause of action was also added for conversion.  After some
limited discovery, the company filed a motion for summary
judgment in December 2004.  That motion was denied in January
2005.  The parties are engaged in more extensive discovery.

On Aug. 3, 2006, a hearing was held on the plaintiff's amended
motion for class certification with no decision rendered to
date.  After the hearing, the plaintiff filed a fifth amended
petition seeking to further refine the putative class as
including all Texas residents who were charges an FSC in Texas
after Feb. 6, 2000.

In October 2006, the judge entered a class certification order
which certified a class of all Texas residents who were charged
an FSC in Texas after Feb. 6, 2000.  The company then filed an
interlocutory appeal of the class certification order with the
Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas.  After briefing
and oral argument, the appellate court, in July 2008, reversed
the trial court's order, decertified the class and remanded the
case to the trial court for further proceedings, according to
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an
equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car
rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other.  In its car
rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries.  The company has
a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S.
and in all major European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through
approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and
Spain, as well as through its international licensees.


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

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on Nov. 14, 2007 (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 4, 2008).  Specifically named as defendants in the matter
are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plaintiffs ask for:

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

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

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

In January 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
In April 2008, the court granted -- with leave to amend -- the
separate motions to dismiss of the rental car defendants, the
California Travel and Tourism Commission and Caroline Beteta.

In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which
added a claim for alleged violations of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.  The rental car defendants and the
California Travel and Tourism Commission subsequently filed
separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint and in July
2008, the court dismissed all claims related to the California
Travel and Tourism Commission.

Also in July 2008, the court dismissed all claims, except for
the federal antitrust claim, related to the rental car
defendants.  The federal antitrust claim remains pending in
court.

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

The suit is "Michael Shames, et al. v. The Hertz Corp. Case No.
07-CV-2174 H BLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

               - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-984-8947
          Fax: 415-984-8701

          Sara L. Bensley, Esq. (sbensley@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
          1440 New York Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-371-7000
          Fax: 202-393-5760

               - and -

          John H. Stephens, Esq. (jstephens@wertzmcdade.com)
          Wertz McDade Wallace Moot & Brower
          945 Fourth Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-1888
          Fax: 619-696-9476


HERTZ CORP: Discovery to Commence in Nev. Concession Fee Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is set to commence in a suit against The Hertz Corp.
that was brought on behalf of all persons who rented cars from
the company or Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. at airports in Nevada
and who were charged airport concession recovery fees.

On Oct. 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan Ph.D., and Lydia
Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a suit against Hertz and Enterprise Rent-A-Car
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

The suit purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of
all persons who rented cars from Hertz or Enterprise at airports
in Nevada and whom Hertz or Enterprise charged airport
concession recovery fees.

The complaint alleged that the airport concession recovery fees
violate certain provisions of Nevada law, including Nevada's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  It seeks an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages, restitution of any charges found to be
improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz and Enterprise from
quoting or charging any of the fees prohibited by Nevada law.
It also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.

In November 2006, the plaintiffs and Enterprise stipulated and
agreed that claims against Enterprise would be dismissed without
prejudice.

In January 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which
motion was denied by the court.

The company thereafter filed a motion for certification seeking
to have the interpretation of Nevada Revised Statutes Section
482.31575 certified to the Nevada Supreme Court or, in the
alternative, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denied Hertz's motion for certification.  Discovery
commenced in Spring 2008.

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

The suit is "Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD., and Lydia Lee, et
al. v. The Hertz Corp. and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., Case No.
3:06-cv-00545-LRH-VPC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          G. David Robertson, Esq. (gdavid@nvlawyers.com)
          Robertson & Benevento
          50 W. Liberty St., Suite 600
          Reno, NV 89501
          Phone: 775-329-5600
          Fax: 775-348-8300

Representing the defendants are:

          Dan C. Bowen of Lionel, Esq. (dbowen@lionelsawyer.com)
          Sawyer & Collins
          50 W. Liberty St., Suite 1100
          Reno, NV 89501
          Phone: 775-788-8666

               - and -

          Matthew K. Narensky, Esq.
          (matthew.narensky@hellerehrman.com)
          Heller Ehrman, LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415 772-6000


HERTZ CORP: Wants Calif. Tourism Assessment Fee Suit Transferred
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corp. is seeking the transfer of the purported class-
action lawsuit, captioned "In re Tourism Assessment Fee
Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-08118-FMC-AJW," to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The suit, which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, is in connection to
California's Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism Assessment
Program.

                       Comiskey Litigation

On Dec. 13, 2007, a purported class action complaint was
commenced before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The suit is entitled, "Thomas J.
Comiskey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car,
Inc., Avalon Global Group, Hertz Corporation, Enterprise Rent-A-
Car, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car,
Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc., The California Travel and Tourism
Commission, and Dale E. Bonner."

The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
all persons and entities that have paid an assessment since the
inception of the Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism
Assessment Program in California on Jan. 1, 2007.

The complaint alleges that California's Passenger Car Rental
Industry Tourism Assessment Program, as included in the
California Tourism Marketing Act, violates the U.S.
Constitution's Commerce Clause and First Amendment, both
directly and in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Article I,
Sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution, and Article
XIX, Section 2 of the California Constitution.

The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, that all
unspent assessments collected and to be collected be held in
trust, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

                       Cohen Litigation

On Dec. 14, 2007, Isabel S. Cohen filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California a complaint
virtually identical to that filed in Comiskey.

                         Consolidation

In February 2008, the court consolidated Comiskey and Cohen, and
captioned the consolidated action, "In re Tourism Assessment Fee
Litigation," and ordered the plaintiffs to serve a single
consolidated class-action complaint.

                         Transfer Sought

In April 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and the company also filed a motion to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California for potential consolidation with the
matter, "Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz Corp. Case No. 07-
CV-2174 H BLM."

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., reported no further development in
the matter in its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation, Case No.
2:07-cv-08118-FMC-AJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael F. Tubach, Esq. (mtubach@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers
          275 Battery St, Ste 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
          Phone: 415-984-8700

               - and -

          Douglas B. Adler, Esq. (dadler@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
          300 S. Grand Ave Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
          Phone: 213-687-5000


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Opposes Class Certification Bid in LDW Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Equipment Rental Corp., the heavy equipment rental unit of
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., filed its opposition to class
certification, as well as a motion for summary judgment in
connection to the matter "Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz
Equipment Rental Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-03830-DMC-MF."

On Aug. 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., filed the lawsuit
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
against HERC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The suit purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of
all persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC
and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver charge.

The complaint alleges that the LDW is deceptive and
unconscionable as a matter of law under pertinent sections of
New Jersey law, including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and
the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of statutory damages
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages with the return of all LDW charges paid,
declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting HERC from
engaging in acts with respect to the LDW charge that violate the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  The complaint also asks for
attorneys' fees and costs.

In November 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff, Texas-resident Miguel V. Pro, as
well as new claims relating to HERC's charging of an
"Environmental Recovery Fee."

Causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing were also added.

In January 2007, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  Discovery subsequently commenced among the parties.

After extensive discovery, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the class in May 2008.  In June 2008, HERC filed its
opposition to class certification, as well as a motion for
summary judgment, according to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'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 "Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz Equipment Rental
Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-03830-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dennis M.
Cavanaugh, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Scott A. George, Esq. (sgeorge@sheller.com)
         Sheller, Ludwig & Sheller, P.C.
         One Greentree Ctr., Rte. 73 & Greentree Rd., Suite 201
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Phone: 856-988-5590

Representing the defendant is:

         Alan E. Kraus, Esq. (alan.kraus@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins, LLP
         One Newark Center, 16th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07101-3174
         Phone: 973-639-7293


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: TCPA Suit Transferred to Another Kansas Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, transferred to
the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, a purported class
action lawsuit against Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. -- the heavy
equipment rental division of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.

On May 3, 2007, "Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation," was commenced before the
District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.  The suit alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Fun Services purports to be a class action suit on behalf of all
persons in Kansas and throughout the U.S. who on or after four
years prior to the filing of the action were sent facsimile
messages of material advertising the availability of property,
goods or services by HERC and who did not provide express
permission for sending the faxes.

The plaintiff asserts violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and common law
conversion.  Fun Services is seeking damages and costs of suit.

In June 2007, the company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

In February 2008, the case was remanded to the District Court of
Wyandotte County, Kansas.

In April 2008, the court granted the company's motion to
transfer venue, so the case will now be transferred to the
District Court of Johnson County, Kansas.

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

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an
equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car
rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other.  In its car
rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries.  The company has
a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S.
and in all major European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through
approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and
Spain, as well as through its international licensees.


HUFF REALTY: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Use of Deceptive Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huff Realty is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio alleging it uses a
deceptive and unconscionable contract that forces buyers to use
it to buy title insurance, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action arises from unfair, deceptive and unconscionable
acts and practices committed by Huff Realty in real estate
transactions.

The plaintiff, Mildred Castrucci, says Huff used the contract to
charge her $11,100 for title insurance.

Ms. Castrucci asks the court for:

     -- a declaration that defendant's use of its preprinted
        form is an unfair, deceptive or unconscionable act or
        practice that violates Revised Code 1345.02-1345.03 and
        other applicable Ohio Law;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction that restrains
        defendant from using any preprinted form;

     -- an order entered pursuant to ORCP 23 that this action
        may be maintained as a class action;

     -- an order and judgment requiring defendant to reimburse
        or return to plaintiff and all of the members of the
        class all amounts they paid to Huff Realty Title in a
        transaction consummated under a contract made on
        defendant's preprinted form;

     -- an order and judgment for all and any other
        compensatory, equitable, injunctive and declaratory
        relief that is appropriate; and

     -- an order and judgment awarding plaintiff and all class
        members all costs of litigation incurred in this action,
        including attorney fees.

The suit is "Mildred Castrucci, et al. v. Huff-Drees Realty,
Inc.," Case No. A0808591," filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Hamilton County, Ohio.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Timothy C. Sullivan, Esq. (Sullivan@taftlaw.com)
          Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
          425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957
          Phone: 513-381-2938
          Fax: 513-381-0205


LOTO-QUEBEC: Played Down Dangers of VLT, Suit Says; Trial Starts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loto-Quebec is facing a potentially steep payout as gambling
addicts try to prove in court that the government agency is
responsible for playing down the dangers of video lottery
terminals (VLTs), Marianne White writes for Canwest News
Service.

According to the Canwest report, a group of pathological
gamblers has filed a class-action lawsuit against the province-
run commission, seeking compensation for around 119,000 addicts
in the province.

With the plaintiffs claiming that the gamblers can trace their
addictions to VLTs, a judgment could cost Loto-Quebec over
CDN$500 million, excluding exemplary damages, The Canadian Press
relates.

Canwest News says that after years of legal battles, the trial
phase of the lawsuit began in Superior Court in Quebec City
yesterday.

Canwest recounts that Jean Brochu, a lawyer and recovering
gambler, filed the lawsuit in 2001, claiming that VLTs are tied
to pathological gambling.  To back his case, he cites government
reports on the dangers of gambling.  He also blames the province
for not warning gamblers about the "dangers of dependence" to
VLTs.

Loto-Quebec denies such a link exists and says problem gambling
should be considered a personal health issue rather than one of
legal liability, Canadian Press says.

The plaintiffs want their $5,000 addiction treatments
reimbursed, the Canwest report notes.

Stephanie Charette, who represents Brochu, told Canwest News
that the case won't be settled soon because the hearing could
last six months.

"The hearing will be divided in two phases," Ms. Charette
explained.  "First, we have to prove that video lottery
terminals pose an addiction danger and, if so, then we have to
prove that Loto-Quebec didn't warn gamblers properly.  If we win
that phase, then all the addicted gamblers will have to file
their own claim for compensation."

The case will be debated four days a week, three weeks a month
for several months, Canwest News writes.

According to the report, Loto-Quebec operates 12,000 VLTs in
casinos, bars and restaurants.  It estimates that before the
government started regulating the gaming industry in 1993, there
were between 25,000 and 50,000 VLTs in the black market.


MARS PETCARE: Recalls Pet Food Due to Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mars Petcare US announced a voluntary recall of products
manufactured at its Everson, Pennsylvania facility.  The pet
food is being voluntarily recalled because of potential
contamination with Salmonella serotypeSchwarzengrund.

This voluntary recall only affects the United States.

Salmonella can cause serious infections in dogs and cats, and,
if there is cross contamination caused by handling of the pet
food, in people as well, especially children, the aged, and
people with compromised immune systems.  Healthy people
potentially infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. On
rare occasions, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments,
including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle
pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers
exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product
should contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some pets
will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.
Animals can be carriers with no visible symptoms and can
potentially infect other animals or humans.  If your pet has
consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please
contact your veterinarian.

The company stopped production at the Everson facility on
July 29, 2008, when it was alerted of a possible link between
dry pet food produced at the plant and two isolated cases of
people infected with Salmonella Schwarzengrund.

Even though no direct link between product produced at Everson
and human or pet illness has been made, Mars Petcare US is
taking precautionary action to protect pets and their owners by
announcing a voluntary recall of all products produced at the
Everson facility beginning February 18, 2008 until July 29, 2008
when we stopped production.

The company is continuing to work collaboratively with the FDA
to determine the nature and source of Salmonella Schwarzengrund
at the Everson facility.  Since it has not yet identified the
source of the Salmonella Schwarzengrund at the Everson facility,
Mars Petcare US does not plan to resume production out of a
commitment to the safety of our pet owners and their pets,
customers, and associates.

The top priority of Mars Petcare US has always been and
continues to be the health and welfare of pets and their owners.
Consumers can continue to have confidence in the quality and
safety of the products produced at other Mars Petcare US
facilities.  Only those products which were produced at the
Everson facility are impacted by the voluntary recall.

Many of the brands involved in the recall are national brands
produced at multiple facilities. A chart for all products is
below.  For example, PEDIGREE(R) is manufactured in numerous
facilities throughout the country, and Everson represents a very
small portion of the manufacturing base -- 2.7 percent of total
PEDIGREE production.

Mars Petcare US will work with retail customers to ensure that
the recalled products are not on store shelves.  These products
should not be sold or fed to pets.  In the event that consumers
believe they have purchased products affected by this voluntary
recall, they should return the product to the store where they
purchased it for a full refund.  Specific product details and
other information can be found at http://www.petcare.mars.com/

The products listed are made at our Everson facility on behalf
of a variety of retailers.

All code dates, with the exception of PEDIGREE, are listed in a
similar format as noted below: Consumers should look for "17" as
the first two digits of the second line.

For PEDIGREE the Everson code date format is as follows:

Consumers should look for "PAE" on the bottom line -- the sixth,
seventh and eighth digits.

In an effort to prevent the transmission of Salmonella from pets
to family members and care givers, the FDA recommends that
everyone follow appropriate pet food handling guidelines when
feeding their pets.  A list of safe pet food handling tips can
be found at
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/petfoodtips080307.html

Pet owners who have questions about the recall should call
1-877-568-4463 or visit http://www.petcare.mars.com/


PHONE COMPANIES: Text Message Monopoly Alleged in Illinois Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon, AT&T, Sprint-Nextel and T-Mobile are facing a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging the companies conspired
to fix prices, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This lawsuit is brought as a class action on behalf of all
individuals and entities who purchased text messaging services
directly from defendants, their predecessors or their controlled
subsidiaries and affiliates from at least as early as Jan. 1,
2005 to the present.

The complaint alleges that the price of cell-phone text messages
has doubled since 2005 because of the alleged conspiracy.

The complaint cites a Sept. 9 letter from Sen. Herb Kohl (D-
Wis.), chairman of the Senate Antitrust Committee, to Verizon,
AT&T, Sprint-Nextel and T-Mobile, "expressing concern over the
sharply rising rates that those companies have charged customers
for text messaging services since 2005.

"Senator Kohl's letter noted that, according to industry
experts, the increased rates for text messaging services did not
appear to be justified by any increase in the costs associated
with text messaging services, and instead reflected a decrease
in competition, and an increase in market power among the
Defendants.

"Senator Kohl also noted in his letter that those four
companies, which collectively serve more than 90 percent of the
nation's wireless subscribers, had increased their rates for
sending and receiving text messages by 100% since 2005. He also
expressed concern that each company had changed its rates for
text messaging at nearly the same time, with identical price
increases, concluding that 'this conduct is hardly consistent
with the vigorous price competition we hope to see in a
competitive marketplace," the suit states.

The complaint adds: "The costs to the cellular phone provider
associated with transmitting text messages are minimal and have
not increased appreciably since 2005.  Text messaging files are
very small and generally limited to 160 characters per message,
and compared to much larger sizes of files associated with
emails or downloads of music or videos.  Increases in the prices
for text messaging services charged by Defendants are therefore
not justified by increases in the costs associated with
providing those services and are more likely the product of
collusion among Defendants."

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize prices of text messaging
         services sold in the United States;

     (b) the identity of the participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in the complaint
         and the nature and character of the acts performed by
         defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of
         the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section 1 of
         the Sherman Act;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused an
         injury to the business and property of plaintiffs and
         other members of the class;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         text messaging services sold in the United States
         during the class period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and other members of the class.

The plaintiffs request:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- that the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the
        acts done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their
        co-conspirators, be adjudged to have been in violation
        of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 1;

     -- that judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of
        the class against defendants for three times the amount
        of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the class as
        allowed by law, together with the costs of this action,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner;
        and

     -- that the plaintiffs and members of the class be given
        other, further and different relief as the case may
        require and the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The suit is "Vaughanzella Smith-Howard, et al. v. AT&T Inc., et
al., Case No. 08CV5198," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Castillo, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
          Theodore B. Beel, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-984-0000
          Fax: 312-984-0001


POTASH LITIGATION: Price-Fixing Conspiracy Alleged in Ill. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The world's leading potash suppliers are facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging they conspired to fix U.S. prices
on the fertilizer, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The defendants named in the complaint are:

     -- Agrium Inc.,
     -- Agrium US Inc.,
     -- Mosaic Co.,
     -- Mosaic Crop Nutrition LLC,
     -- Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc.,
     -- PCS Sales (USA) Inc.,
     -- JSC Uralkali,
     -- RUE PA Belaruskali,
     -- RU PA Belarussian Potash Co.,
     -- BPC Chicago LLC, JSC Silvinit, and
     -- JSC International Potash Co.

Gage's Fertilizer & Grain claims the price fixing conspiracy
happened after potash prices tanked in the 1990s because "potash
producers, particularly those located in the former Soviet
Union, increased the supply of potash in world markets".

Gage's claim in Chicago states, "As part of, and in furtherance
of, this conspiracy, defendants exchanged sensitive, non-public
information about prices, capacity, sales volumes, and demand;
allocated market shares, customers, and volumes to be sold; and
coordinated on output, including the limitation of production."

According to the suit, during the class period, July 1, 2003,
until today, "defendants sold millions of tons of potash in the
United States."

Potash is, or are, mineral and chemical salts that contain
potassium, a necessary nutrient for plants. "There is no cost-
effective substitute for potash," the complaint states.

"Potash is mined from naturally occurring ore deposits that were
formed when seas and oceans evaporated, many of which are now
covered with several thousand feet of earth. ...

"Belarus, Canada, Germany, Israel, Jordan and Russia have about
90% of the global potash supply within their borders," the
complaint states.  "Over half of the world's global capacity is
located in just two regions -- Canada and the former Soviet
Union, specifically Russia and Belarus."

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased potash in the United States directly from
one or more named defendants between July 1, 2003, and the
present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants combined or conspired to fix, raise,
         maintain, or stabilize prices of potash sold in the
         United States;

     (b) whether defendants combined or conspired to restrict
         output of potash sold in the United States;

     (c) whether defendants shared non-public information,
         allocated markets and customers, restricted output of
         potash sold in the United States and committed other
         conduct in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy;

     (d) whether defendants' conduct caused the prices of potash
         sold in the United States to be artificially high and
         noncompetitive levels;

     (e) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class
         were injured by defendants' conduct, and, if so, the
         appropriate class-wide measure of damages for class
         members; and

     (f) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class
         are entitled to, among other things, injunctive relief,
         and, if so, the nature and extent of such injunctive
         relief.

The plaintiff requests that:

     -- this action may proceed as a class action, with
        plaintiff as the designated class representative and its
        counsel as class counsel;

     -- the court find that defendants have combined and
        conspired in violation of Section 1 of th Sherman Act
        (15 USC, Section 1), and that plaintiff and the members
        of the class have been injured in their business and
        property as a result of defendants' violations;

     -- the court order that plaintiff and the members of the
        class recover damages sustained by them, as provided by
        the federal antitrust laws, and that a joint and several
        judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered
        against defendants in an amount to be trebled in
        accordance with such laws;

     -- defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees and the respective officers,
        directors, partners, agents and employees thereof and
        all other persons acting or claiming to act on their
        behalf be permanently enjoined and restrained from
        continuing and maintaining the conspiracy or agreement
        alleged;

     -- plaintiff and members of the class be awarded pre-
        judgment and post-judgment interest, and that such
        interest be awarded at the highest legal rate from and
        after the date of service of the initial complaint in
        this action;

     -- plaintiff and members of the class recover their costs
        of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as
        provided by law; and

     -- plaintiff and members of the class receive such other or
        further relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is "Gage's Fertilizer & Grain Inc. et al. v. Agrium
Inc., et al., CAse No 08CV5192," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs is:

           Steven A. Hart, Esq.
           Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, LTD
           233 South Wacker Drive
           Sears Tower-Suite 5500
           Chicago, IL 60605
           Phone: 312-645-7800
           Fax: 312-645-7711


PROTOCOL: RC Helicopters Recalled Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Collection Inc. -- d.b.a. Protocol, of New York, N.Y. --
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling about 78,000 "Protocol" Remote-Controlled Mini
Helicopter Toys.

The company said the rechargeable battery inside the helicopter
can overheat. This can result in the helicopter's body melting,
as well as a risk of fire or burns to consumers.

The firm has received nine reports of incidents of the
helicopter overheating, including one minor burn to a consumer�s
fingertip.

This recall involves the "Protocol" remote-controlled mini
helicopter toys with model number starting with 1442.  The
helicopter is made of foam and plastic and measures about 7
inches long.  "Protocol" is printed on the tail and on the side
of the helicopter.  "1442-X" can be found on the packaging. The
remote-control component measures 5 1/2 inches by 4 3/4 inches.

These recalled "Protocol" Remote-Controlled Mini Helicopter Toys
were manufactured in China and were being sold at retail stores
nationwide from October 2007 through December 2007 for between
$30 and $50.

Pictures of the recalled Protocol" Remote-Controlled Mini
Helicopter Toys can be found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08395a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08395b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from children and contact the firm for information on how to
receive a replacement helicopter.

For additional information, contact Protocol at 800-261-1193
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, or visit the company's Web
site at http://www.protocoldesign.com/


SHARPER IMAGE: Del. Court Certifies Class of Gift Card Holders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin Gross of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware certified as "class" the holders of gift cards in
Sharper Image's bankruptcy case.

A "gift card claim" is defined as a gift card claim not to
exceed $2,245, held by an individual, arising from the deposit,
before the date the company filed for bankruptcy protection, of
money in connection with the purchase of property or the
purchase of services from Sharper Image, for the personal,
family, or household use, that were not delivered or
provided, and includes any individual who received and now hold
a Sharper Image gift card, but excludes any claims (a) based on
merchandise certificates and merchandise credits; or (b) based
on gifts card received as a result of corporate or other
promotion activities.

The class is represented by Clinton A. Krislov, Esq., and
Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq., at Krislov & Associates, Ltd., in
Chicago, Illinois.  Frederic Prohov is the Class Representative.

According to Mr. Krislov, the company listed $34,000,000 of
deferred revenue, presumably representing uncashed gift cards,
for the quarter ended October 31, 2007.  For the month ended
July 31, 2008, the company posted $34,885,714 of deferred
revenue representing gift cards and royalties.

Judge Gross, in an opinion, found that the Gift Card Holders
Class satisfies the requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  He pointed out that:

  -- there are potentially thousands of Gift Card Claims;

  -- the legal question applicable to all class members is a
     determination of priority treatment for Gift Card Claim,
     and that is a question that should be answered uniformly
     for all members of the defined class;

  -- the requested certification arises from the same event or
     practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims
     of other class members; and

  -- the interests of the Claimant as representative party in
     determining the treatment of gift card claimants do not
     conflict with the interests of any of the class members;
     and counsel chosen by the class representative is
     qualified, experienced, and able to vigorously conduct the
     proposed litigation.

Judge Gross also allowed the class to file a class action
complaint, and deemed the claim filed by Mr. Prohov as a claim
on behalf of the Class.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Krislov said
the Class will next ask the Court to declare the gift card
holders as having priority ahead of general unsecured trade
creditors.  He told the Journal that gift card claims "maybe
small claims but they fit squarely into the bankruptcy
priorities."  Sharper Image owes about $50,000,000 in trade
debts.


SOUTHWESTERN RESOURCES: Settles Class Suits for CDN$15.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
TSX-listed Southwestern Resources Corp. has reached an agreement
to settle class action lawsuits filed in 2007 over incorrect
information published about resources at a gold project in
China, Creamer Media's Mining Weekly reports.

Southwestern said that the company, former president and CEO
John Paterson and his wife, Margaret Joan, had agreed to pay an
aggregate of CDN$15.5 million.

The company expects that it will pay between CDN$7 million and
CDN$7.5 million.

According to the report, the settlement requires court and other
approvals, which are expected to take up to six months to
obtain.

Mining Weekly recounts that in July 2007, Southwestern withdrew
exploration results that it had previously released to the
market for the Boka gold project, after discovering
"deficiencies" in internal processes.  The announcement came a
few weeks after Mr. Paterson resigned as CEO, and the company
said at the time that it had discovered "manual and deliberate
changes" to its records.  The company fired the project's
general manager and also initiated a legal action against Mr.
Paterson.

Earlier this year, Southwestern sold the Boka project to Hong
Kong East China Non-Ferrous International Mineral Development
for $9.4 million, plus a net smelter royalty, the report notes.

"The settlement of the Class Actions and the successful sale of
Boka are important first steps towards rebuilding shareholder
confidence," William McCartney, who chairs a board special
committee, said in a statement.

One of the suits pertains to that filed by Sutts Strosberg LLP.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 24, 2007, the
law firms of Sutts Strosberg LLP and Siskinds LLP jointly filed,
on July 20, 2007, a $220-million class action seeking damages as
a result of Southwestern Resources' announcement that the
integrity of certain of its drill core samples were compromised.

On July 19, 2007, Southwestern issued a press release and
disclosed that there were deficiencies in its control procedures
for its Boka Gold Project.  The company also disclosed that it
believes there were errors in reported assay results announced
in 2007 and that the integrity of drill core samples
was compromised.  Upon this news, Southwestern's share price
fell sharply.

The class action was brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of Southwestern in the period August 31, 2005,
to July 18, 2007.

The notice of action alleged that the defendants negligently or
recklessly misrepresented the quantity of gold in its drill
samples taken from the Boka Gold Project in China.


VERITAS SOFTWARE: $21.5M Deal in Delaware Suit Granted Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
VERITAS Software Corp., which was recently acquired by Symantec
Corp., reached a tentative $21.5-million settlement in the
consolidated lawsuit "Paul Kuck, et al. v. Veritas Software
Corp., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv- 00831-SLR."

The purported class action complaint was filed on July 7, 2004,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  The
lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with the company's announcement on July 6, 2004, that
it expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2004, to fall below earlier estimates.  It generally
seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Subsequently, additional purported class-action complaints have
been filed in Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the
court entered an order consolidating these actions and
appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005,
expanding the class period from April 23, 2004, through July 6,
2004.

The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as
a defendant and added allegations that the company and the named
officers made false or misleading statements in the company's
press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings regarding the company's financial results, which
allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were
unsigned or lacked essential terms.

The defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in July 2005, which request was
denied by the court in May 2006.

In April 2008, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement in
order to resolve the matter.  The court held a hearing and, on
Aug. 5, 2008, entered an order approving the settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the company established
a settlement fund of $21.5 million on May 1, 2008, according to
Symantec Corp's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4,
2008.

The suit is "Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
00831-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, Judge Sue L. Robinson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq. (CKeener@rmgglaw.com)
          Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess
          Citizens Bank Center
          Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Phone: 302-656-4433

Representing the defendants are:

          Erica Niezgoda Finnegan, Esq. (efinnegan@crosslaw.com)
          Cross & Simon, LLC
          913 North Market Street
          11th Floor, Suite 1001
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-777-4200
          Fax: 302-777-4224

               - and -

          Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq. (pwalsh@potteranderson.com)
          Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
          1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr.
          P.O. Box 951
          Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
          Phone: 302-984-6037
          Fax: 302-658-1192


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Securities Suit Returned to California Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
Veritas Software Corp. -- which was recently acquired Symantec
Corp. -- has been returned to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California for further proceedings,
including the reissuance of the notice of settlement in the
matter

After Veritas announced in January 2003 that it would restate
its financial results as a result of transactions entered into
with AOL Time Warner in September 2000, numerous separate
complaints purporting to be class-action suits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging that Veritas and some of its officers and directors
violated provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints contain varying allegations, including that
Veritas made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to its 2000, 2001 and 2002 financial results included in
its filings with the SEC, press releases and other public
disclosures.

A consolidated complaint entitled, "In Re VERITAS Software
Corporation Securities Litigation" was filed by the lead
plaintiff on July 18, 2003.

On Feb. 18, 2005, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
in the class-action suit.  On March 18, 2005, the Court entered
an order preliminarily approving the class action settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, a $35 million
settlement fund was established on March 25, 2005.  Veritas'
insurance carriers funded the entire amount of the settlement
fund.

In July 2007, the Court of Appeals vacated the settlement,
finding that the notice of settlement was inadequate.

The matter has been returned to the District Court for further
proceedings, including reissuance of the notice.

Symantec Corp. reported no new development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2008.

The suit is "In Re VERITAS Software Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. C-03-283-MMC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Maxine M.
Chesney, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

               - and -

          Robert S. Green, Esq. (rsg@classcounsel.com)
          Green Welling LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-477-6700
          Fax: 415-477-6710


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls In-Store Made Bagels Due to Choking Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is voluntarily recalling all
varieties of its in-store made bagels and bialys (flattened
bagels with various toppings, i.e. pizza) sold in the bakery and
purchased between August 24 and September 9, 2008.

This recall is being initiated because the bagels may contain
pieces of a metal spring from a mixer that entered the dough,
which is produced at Wegmans' Central Bakeshop in Rochester,
posing a possible choking hazard. (Note: This recall does not
affect Wegmans' packaged bagels in the dairy or frozen food
departments.)

There have been no reported injuries associated with the
consumption of these products.  The problem was discovered as a
result of a customer complaint.

The in-store made bagels were sold in Wegmans' stores located in
New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and Maryland.
Wegmans estimates that approximately 1,011 cases of potentially
affected bagels were produced, representing a small percentage
of all bagels produced and sold during this period.  Out of an
abundance of caution, the recall includes all possible dates
when the dough may have been used to produce bagels in stores.

Customers may return the product to Wegmans for a full refund.
Consumers who have questions or concerns about this recall
should contact Wegmans Consumer Affairs Department at 585-464-
4760 (in Rochester) or toll free at 1-800-WEGMANS (934-6267),
ext. 4760 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.  Visit
http://www.wegmans.com/for a list of all product recalls.

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is a 71-store supermarket chain with
stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and
Maryland.  The family-owned company, founded in 1916, is
recognized as an industry leader and innovator.  Wegmans has
been named one of the 100 Best Companies to Work For' by
FORTUNE magazine for eleven consecutive years.  In 2008, Wegmans
ranked #3 on the list.


ZIX CORP: Court Gives Final Okay to $5.6MM Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas gave
final approval to the $5,600,000 settlement in a consolidated
securities fraud class-action suit against Zix Corp. and certain
of its current and former officers and directors, 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.

Beginning in early September 2004, several purported shareholder
class action complaints were filed against the company in Texas
federal court.

The purported class-action lawsuits seek unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
between Oct. 30, 2003, and May 4, 2004.

The lawsuits alleged that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act during this time
period.   The cases were later consolidated into one case.

The defendants are Zix Corp., Dennis F. Heathcote, Daniel S.
Nutkis, John A. Ryan, Ronald A. Woessner, and Steve M. York.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuits
pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act was denied in September 2006 by the Court.

Also, the shareholder representatives of the purported plaintiff
shareholder class have filed a motion with the Court to certify
a class of plaintiffs consisting of persons who purchased the
company's common stock in the open market from Oct. 30, 2003,
and May 4, 2004, inclusive and who were damaged by the allegedly
materially false and misleading statements or omissions.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' initial motion to certify the
class, but afforded the plaintiffs another opportunity to re-
file their class certification motion with the Court.  The
parties to the suit were in the process of re-briefing the class
certification issue.

Recently, it was announced that a settlement amounting to
$5,600,000 has been proposed.  Effective June 16, 2008, the
Court entered a final approval order, approving the settlement
of the class-action lawsuits.

The suit is "Brody, et al. v. Zix Corporation, et al., Case No.
04-CV-01931," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Judge Ed Kinkeade, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@bileklaw.com)
          The Bilek Law Firm LLP
          808 Travis, Suite 802
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-227-7720
          Fax: 713-227-9404

          Roger F. Claxton, Esq. (roger@claxtonhill.com)
          Claxton & Hill PLLC
          10000 N. Central Expwy
          Suite 725
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Phone: 214-969-9029
          Fax: 214-953-0583

               - and -

          Frank E. Goodrich, Esq.
          Baron & Budd
          3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: 214-521-3605
          Fax: 214-520-1181

Representing the defendants is:

          Gerard G. Pecht, Esq. (gpecht@fulbright.com)
          Fulbright & Jaworski
          1301 McKinney St., Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Phone: 713-651-5151
          Fax: 713-651-5246


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

QUEST RESOURCE: Rosen Law Files Oklahoma Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
behalf of all purchasers of Quest Resource Corporation stock
from May 2, 2005, through August 25, 2008.

The complaint charges Quest Resource and certain former and
present officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of Quest
Resource's failure to properly disclose related party
transactions between Quest Resource and its former CEO Jerry
Cash.

On August 25, 2008, Quest Resource announced that Jerry Cash had
resigned following an inquiry by the Oklahoma Department of
Securities in connection with questionable transfers of funds
between Quest and an entity controlled by Mr. Cash.  Quest
Resource also announced that it had constituted a special
committee to conduct an internal investigation. As a result of
these adverse disclosures, the price of Quest Resource shares
dropped, damaging investors.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          236 Tillou Rd
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Phone: 212-686-1060
          Weekends Phone: 917-797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


SYNCHRONOS TECH: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Lawsuit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Gardy & Notis, LLP, filed a securities fraud
class action lawsuit on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Synchronoss Technologies Inc. securities for
a class period between February 4, 2008, and June 9, 2008,
inclusive.  The lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, and names as defendants
Synchronoss, Stephen G. Waldis (President, CEO and Chairman) and
Lawrence R. Irving (CFO and Treasurer).

Synchronoss provided technology to AT&T that allowed AT&T, as
the exclusive U.S. service provider of the Apple iPhone, to
"lock" Apple iPhones distributed to AT&T's wireless phone
customers.

The complaint filed by Gardy & Notis, LLP alleges that
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 that
Synchronoss would not be activating the iPhone 3G, which was
released in July of 2008.  Instead, the iPhone 3G is activated
in-store, effectively removing Synchronoss from the transaction
altogether. In reaction to the news, Synchronoss stock fell over
17%, from $13.31 to $11.03 per share.

There is a November 7, 2008 deadline for investors who purchased
or acquired Synchronoss securities during the class period to
move and request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

For more information, contact:

          Charles Germershausen, Esq.
          (cgermershausen@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com/





                            *********

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  * * *