CAR_Public/080917.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

         Wednesday, September 17, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 185

                            Headlines

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Injunction in Suit Over Vivendi Deal Denied
ADVANCE AMERICA: Parties in "Johnson" Case Engage in Mediation
ADVANCE AMERICA: Parties in "King" Lawsuit Engage in Mediation
ADVANCE AMERICA: Parties Settle Claims in "White" Lawsuit
ADVANCE AMERICA: Former Customers' Suits Still Pending in Fla.

ADVANCE AMERICA: Suits Over Credit Checks Still Pending in S.C.
AQUA LUNG: Recalls Scuba Regulators & Adaptors for Drowning Risk
BJC HEALTHCARE: Judge Approves Uninsured Patients' Suit Deal
CHELAN COUNTY PUD: Pays $360,000 to End Overtime Pay Lawsuit
DAVITA INC: Suit Over Epogen Usage Still Pending in California

DAVITA INC: Labor Code Violations Suit Still Pending in Calif.
DOW JONES: Certification Denied in N.Y. Suit Over Barron Access
DVA RENAL: Labor Law Violations Suit Still Pending in California
EXPEDITORS INT'L: Faces Lawsuit Over Workers' Misclassification
EXPEDITORS INT'L: Faces Suit Over Freight Forwarding Services

FORD MOTOR: Lawsuit Over South Africa Apartheid Still Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Lawsuit Over Saturn Vue and Ion Vehicles
GONNELLA BAKING: EEOC Suit Alleges Bias Against Hispanic Workers
INFOGROUP INC: Del. Court Stays Proceedings in Investors' Suit
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over "Supersize" Items

MENZIES AVIATION: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
MERRILL LYNCH: Shareholders Sue Over Proposed BofA Acquisition
MURPHY OIL: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in ROSE Lawsuit
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuit
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Amended Complaints Filed in Calif. BPA Lawsuits

PACIFIC CAPITAL: Nov. 12 Certification Hearing Set for RAL Suit
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Court Yet to Approve "Kessler" Settlement
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Opposes Enforcement of Ill. FCRA Suit Deal
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Unit to Appeal Verdict in SMLA Lawsuit
SONY ELECTRONICS: Recalls Notebook Computers Due to Burn Hazard

STANDARD PACIFIC: No Amended Complaint Planned in Calif. Lawsuit
TIMBERLAND COMPANY: Settles Text Message Ad Suit for $7 Million
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Consolidated Reese-Levering Suit in Calif.
UNITED STEEL: Cheats By Lowballing, Baptist Church's Suit Claims
WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Consolidated N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit

* Paul Novak, Former Michigan Asst. Atty. Gen., to Join Milberg


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

HARRIS STRATEX: Labaton Sucharow Files Delaware Securities Suit
NVIDIA CORP: Dreier LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PERINI CORP: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
QUEST ENERGY: Brian Felgoise Files Okla. Securities Fraud Suit
SYNCHRONOS TECHNOLOGIES: Federman Files N.J. Securities Lawsuit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Injunction in Suit Over Vivendi Deal Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction in a purported
class-action lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, Inc., formerly
Activision, Inc., has been denied.

On Feb. 8, 2008, the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System
filed the putative class-action lawsuit against the parties to a
certain business combination agreement as well as certain
members of the company's board of directors.

The suit is challenging the transactions contemplated by a
business combination agreement, dated as of Dec. 1, 2007, among
Activision; Vivendi, S.A.; Vivendi Games, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Vivendi; and VGAC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Vivendi and the sole stockholder of Vivendi Games.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that certain of
Activision's directors failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties
with regard to the transactions by "surrendering" the
negotiating process to "conflicted management," that those
breaches were aided and abetted by Vivendi and those of its
subsidiaries named in the complaint, and that a preliminary
proxy statement contains certain statements that the plaintiff
alleges are false and misleading.

The suit seeks a ruling from the court that, among other things:

   -- certifies the case as a class action,

   -- enjoins the transaction,

   -- requires the defendants to disclose all material
      information,

   -- declares that the transaction is in breach of the
      directors' fiduciary duties and therefore unlawful and
      unenforceable,

   -- awards the plaintiff and the putative class damages for
      all profits and special benefits obtained by the defendant
      in connection with the transaction and tender offer, and

   -- awards the plaintiff its cost and expense, including
      attorney's fees.

In a ruling on March 12, 2008, the court initially declined to
schedule a preliminary injunction hearing or allow broad
discovery, pending the company's filing of a revised preliminary
proxy statement in connection with the proposed transactions.
However, the court did order the parties to initiate discovery
of core documents, and the company made an initial production of
documents.

Moreover, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
grounds that were detailed in a brief filed on April 30, 2008.
The company also filed a motion to stay discovery in the case
pending a ruling on its dismissal motion.

Separately, Vivendi and its defendant-subsidiaries also
requested the court to dismiss the sole claim alleged against
them.

After various initial motions were filed and ruled upon, on
May 8, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that,
among other things, added allegations relating to a revised
preliminary proxy statement filed by the company on April 30,
2008.

Additional motions were then filed, including a motion for
preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff and a motion filed
by Vivendi and its subsidiaries to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On June 24, 2008, the court granted Vivendi and its
subsidiaries' motion to dismiss pertaining to claims against
them.  On July 1, 2008, the court denied the plaintiff's motion
for preliminary injunction.

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

Activision Blizzard Inc. -- http://www.activisionblizzard.com/
-- formerly Activision, Inc., is an online and console game
publisher.  On July 9, 2008, the company was formed by combining
Activision, Inc., an independent publisher of interactive
entertainment, and Vivendi Games, Vivendi SA's interactive
entertainment business.  The company's portfolio includes video
games, such as Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, and Tony Hawk, as well
as Spider-Man, X-Men, Shrek, James Bond and TRANSFORMERS,
franchises, such as Crash Bandicoot and Spyro and Blizzard
Entertainment's StarCraft, Diablo and Warcraft franchises,
including massively multi-player online role-playing game, World
of Warcraft.  Activision Blizzard maintains operations in the
U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ireland,
Italy, Sweden, Spain, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Romania,
Australia, Chile, India, Japan, China, the region of Taiwan and
South Korea.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Parties in "Johnson" Case Engage in Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter captioned "Sharlene Johnson, Helena
Love and Bonny Bleacher v. Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03142-JF," are currently
engaged in court-ordered mediation.

On Aug. 1, 2007, Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love, and Bonny
Bleacher filed a putative class action lawsuit against Advance
America and two of its subsidiaries alleging that the company
provided lines of credit to borrowers in Pennsylvania without a
license required under Pennsylvania law and with interest and
fees in excess of the amounts permitted by Pennsylvania law.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, seeks, among other things:

   -- a declaratory judgment that the monthly participation fee
      charged to customers with a line of credit is illegal,

   -- an injunction prohibiting the collection of the monthly
      participation fee, and

   -- damages equal to three times the monthly participation
      fees paid by customers since June 2006.

In January 2008, the trial court entered an order compelling the
purported class representatives to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis, unless determined otherwise by the arbiter.

Both parties appealed this order and, in July 2008, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit directed the parties to
engage in mediation.  The parties are currently engaged in
court-ordered mediation, 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.

The suit is "Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love and Bonny Bleacher v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-03142-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge John P. Fullam,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. (iackelsberg@langergrogan.com)
          Langer & Grogan PC
          1600 Market St., Suite 2020
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-419-6549
          Fax: 215-419-6546

Representing the defendants are:

          Phillip E. Stano, Esq. (phillip.stano@sablaw.com)
          Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 202-383-0261

               - and -

          Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq. (aschwartz@mdwcg.com)
          Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin
          1845 Walnut St., 17th Fl.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-575-2765
          Fax: 215-575-0856


ADVANCE AMERICA: Parties in "King" Lawsuit Engage in Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter "Raymond King and Sandra Coates v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC, Case
No. 2:07-cv-00237-JF," are currently engaged in court-ordered
mediation.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 18, 2007, naming Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., and Cash Advance Centers of
Pennsylvania, LLC, as defendants.  It was brought on behalf of
customers of BankWest -- the lending bank for which the company
marketed, processed, and serviced payday cash advances in
Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit is alleging various causes of action, including that
the Pennsylvania subsidiary made illegal payday loans in the
state in violation of Pennsylvania's usury law, the Pennsylvania
Consumer Discount Company Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Pennsylvania Fair
Credit Extension Uniformity Act and the Pennsylvania Credit
Services Act.  It further alleges that BankWest was not the
"true lender" on the advances that the company marketed,
processed and serviced for BankWest in Pennsylvania and that the
company was the "lender in fact."  The suit seeks compensatory
damages, attorneys fees, punitive damages and the trebling of
any compensatory damages.

The company filed a motion to compel arbitration in March 2007.
In January 2008, the trial court entered an order compelling the
purported class representatives to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis, unless deemed otherwise by the arbiter.

Both parties appealed this order and, in July 2008, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit directed the parties to
engage in mediation.  The parties are currently engaged in
court-ordered mediation, 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.

The suit is "King et al. v. Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-00237-JF," filed
before the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge John P. Fullam,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David A. Searles, Esq. (dsearles@donovansearles.com)
         Donovan Searles, LLC
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-732-6067
         Fax: 215-732-8060

              - and -

         Deborah Zuckerman, Esq. (dzuckerman@aarp.org)
         AARP Foundation Litigation
         601 E. Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20049
         Phone: 202-434-6045
         Fax: 202-434-6424

Representing the defendants is:

         Mark J. Levin, Esq. (levinm@ballardspahr.com)
         Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll
         1735 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
         Phone: 215-864-8235


ADVANCE AMERICA: Parties Settle Claims in "White" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the purported class-action lawsuit "Kelvin White
v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Arkansas, Inc., et
al.," have reached a settlement in the matter, which names a
unit of Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., as a
defendant.

On May 31, 2007, Kelvin White and two other individuals filed a
lawsuit with the Circuit Court of Ouachita County, Arkansas.  It
generally 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.  It also alleges that the company's
current subsidiary made usurious loans under the Arkansas Check
Cashers Act.

Thus, the suit 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.

In July 2008, the parties settled this case, and, once entered
by the court, all claims will be resolved 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: Former Customers' Suits Still Pending in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., and its
subsidiaries, McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC, and
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida, Inc., continue
to face two purported class-actions lawsuits that were commenced
by former customers, Wendy Betts and Donna Reuter, 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.

                        First Litigation

The company and the company's subsidiary, McKenzie Check Advance
of Florida, LLC, are defendants in a putative class-action
lawsuit commenced by Ms. Betts and Ms. Reuter on Jan. 11, 2001,
and a third named class representative, Tiffany Kelly, in the
Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida.

This putative class-action suit, entitled "Betts and Reuter v.
McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC et al.," alleges that
McKenzie, by and through the actions of certain officers,
directors and employees, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade
practices and violated Florida's criminal usury statute, the
Florida Consumer Finance Act and the Florida Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, and the named defendants
could be required to refund fees and interest collected, refund
the principal amount of payday cash advances, pay multiple
damages and pay other monetary penalties.

Ms. Reuter's claim has been held to be subject to binding
arbitration, which the company expects to proceed parallel with
the case.  The trial court has denied the defendants' motion to
compel arbitration of Ms. Kelly's claims, the substituted named
plaintiff.

All proceedings at the trial court level are stayed pending the
outcome of the defendants' appeal of the trial court's decision
to deny arbitration.

                       Second Litigation

A second Florida lawsuit, entitled "Reuter and Betts v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida, Inc. et al.," was
filed on Aug. 24, 2004, in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach
County by former customers Gerald Betts and Ms. Reuter against
the company, the company's subsidiary -- Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers of Florida, Inc. -- and certain officers and
directors.

The allegations, relief sought and the Company's defenses are
nearly identical to those alleged in the first lawsuit.

The proceedings at the trial court level are stayed pending the
outcome of the company's appeal of the trial court's denial of
certain defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

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: Suits Over Credit Checks Still Pending in S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc., continues to face
several purported class-action lawsuits that are pending either
with the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
or with a state court, 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.

Initially, seven separate putative class action complaints were
filed in South Carolina against Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers of South Carolina, Inc., and several other unaffiliated
defendants.

These suits were filed by:

     1. John and Rebecca Morgan, on Aug. 27, 2007, before the
        Horry County Court of Common Pleas;

     2. Margaret Horne, on Sept. 6, 2007, before the Spartanburg
        County Court of Common Pleas;

     3. Tawan Smalls, on Sept. 10, 2007, before the Charleston
        County Court of Commons Pleas;

     4. Chadric and Lisa Wiley, on Sept. 27, 2007, before the
        Richland County Court of Common Pleas;

     5. Mildred Weaver, on Sept. 27, 2007, before the Darlington
        County Court of Common Pleas;

     6. Lisa Johnson and Gilbert Herbert, on Oct. 2, 2007,
        before the Georgetown County Court of Common Pleas; and

     7. Kimberly Kinney, on Oct. 12, 2007, before the Marion
        County Court of Common Pleas.

The allegations and relief sought are similar in each case.  The
plaintiffs allege that the company's South Carolina subsidiary
violated the South Carolina Deferred Presentment Services Act
and the Consumer Protection Code by failing to perform a credit
check and evaluate a customer's ability to repay the advance.

Each complaint seeks an injunction to prohibit the company from
continuing its operations, the return of fees and interest,
actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Each of the lawsuits has been removed to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina.

The complaint filed by Lisa Johnson and Gilbert Herbert has been
remanded to state court and the company is seeking an appeal of
this ruling.

The plaintiffs in the remaining class actions have moved to
remand those actions to state court and the parties are awaiting
the court's decision on those motions, the company said 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.


AQUA LUNG: Recalls Scuba Regulators & Adaptors for Drowning Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Lung USA, of Vista, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 6,000
Titan DIN 1st Stage Scuba Regulators and Titan/Conshelf DIN
Scuba Adaptors.

The company said over-tightening of the DIN retainer by a
technician during installation can result in the retainer
breaking under pressure, a rapid escape of air from the scuba
cylinder, and the regulator detaching from the scuba cylinder.
This poses a drowning hazard to divers.

The firm has received one report of a DIN retainer breaking
under pressure.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled regulators have a brass DIN retainer manufactured
prior to June 2006.  The recalled Aqua Lung Titan Din 1st Stage
regulators have serial numbers lower than 6062501 stamped on the
side of the regulator's body. Recalled Titan/Conshelf DIN
adaptors are marked "300 BAR MAX" on the side of the part.  DIN
adaptors marked "300 BAR MAXI" are not included in this recall.

These recalled regulators and adapters were manufactured in
France and were being sold at authorized Aqua Lung dealers
nationwide from January 1997 through September 2008 for about
$300 to $450 for the scuba regulators or $70 for DIN adaptors
sold separately.

Pictures of the recalled regulators and adaptors can be found
at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08393a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08393b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
diving regulators and DIN adaptors and return them to any
authorized Aqua Lung dealer for a free replacement DIN retainer.

For additional information, contact Aqua Lung toll-free at
877-253-3483 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.aqualung.com/


BJC HEALTHCARE: Judge Approves Uninsured Patients' Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David L. Dowd of the Circuit Court in St. Louis has
approved the class action settlement between BJC HealthCare and
a group of its uninsured patients, Cynthia Wilson writes for
InsideARM.

Under the terms of the settlement, uninsured patients will
receive a 25% self-pay discount on inpatient and outpatient
services, plus any charity care discounts for which they may
qualify.  Uninsured patients will get an additional 5% discount
if they pay their bills within 30 days.  Uninsured patients who
paid some or all of the cost may be eligible for refund or
reduction in their bills.

According to the report, Judge Dowd issued the ruling on
Sept. 12, 2008 -- nearly 10 days after several members of the
lawsuit filed objections to the settlement.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 4, 2008,
several members of the class-action opposed the deal, saying it
does little to address the excessive prices billed to patients
without insurance.  Specific concerns raised in the objection
include self-pay discounts of 25% being insufficient considering
that the underlying charge can be three times what an insured
patient might be billed.

According to InsideARM, Stuart R. Berkowitz, Esq., the attorney
representing the objecting class-action members, had asked the
court to require BJC Healthcare to at least match Tenet
Healthcare Corp.'s policy of granting uninsured patients its
lowest negotiated rate with an insurer.  His motion was
supported by St. Louis Area Jobs for Justice, the Missouri
Association of Social Welfare and Community Catalyst, a national
policy and advocacy organization.

BJC spokeswoman June Fowler, however, told InsideARM that the
judge accepted the settlement "as written."

"We think it's a fair settlement and in the best interest of our
patients who donít have insurance," Ms. Fowler said.  "This
combined with our already existing financial assistance programs
for people willing to share their income and family size makes
this a very good outcome."

Ms. Fowler added that BJC has been providing the discounts since
it agreed to the settlement in March.  It affects uninsured
patients who received care at BJC since January 1, 1999.  The
discounts agreed to in the settlement will continue through at
least 2012, she said.

                        Case Background

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

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

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


CHELAN COUNTY PUD: Pays $360,000 to End Overtime Pay Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Chelan County Public Utility District has paid $360,000 to
settle a class-action suit for overtime pay filed in November
2006 on behalf of 81 union employees, Christine Pratt writes for
The Wenatchee World Online.

Matthew Zuchetto, Esq., an attorney for the employees, told
Wenatchee World that his office has received the payment and
started sending checks to each member of the suit.

The report says that of the total settlement, $155,000 will go
to the employees and the remaining $205,000 will go to the
employees' two attorneys, one based in Seattle and the other in
Spokane.

Wenatchee World recounts that in the suit, filed before U.S.
Federal Court in the Eastern District of Washington, the
employees demanded double-time pay for the 10 to 15 minutes they
worked before their shifts started in order to be briefed by
fellow employees on the shift prior.

Class members work at the PUD's Lake Chelan, Rocky Reach and
Rock Island dams and the PUD control center at the Confluence
Technology Center in Wenatchee.  All of them are mechanics,
wiremen, systems operators, hydro operators and fish bypass
operators.

The PUD had earlier argued that class members were not eligible
for overtime pay because they were paid fixed salaries for
fluctuating work weeks.

Yet, in an interview in March, PUD lead attorney Carol Wardell,
Esq., said the utility agreed to settle on the disputed claim,
"so we could have certainty and move forward."

The settlement limits the number of employees who now arrive
early for shift turnover briefings.  It also requires those who
arrive early to document their extra time worked, Ms. Wardell
said.

Mr. Zuchetto said some members of the suit had been arriving
early for the briefings for years, but the law limits claims to
a maximum of three years.

Many class members will receive $1,000 checks, Mr. Zuchetto
said, but some higher-paid workers will receive $3,000 to
$4,000.

Judge Justin L. Quackenbush approved the settlement on a final
basis on July 17, 2008.


DAVITA INC: Suit Over Epogen Usage Still Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in relation to the administration and use of
Epogen(R).

On Aug. 28, 2007, Sheet Metal Workers National Health Fund and
Glenn Randle filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against the company.

The complaint also names as defendants Amgen Inc. and Fresenius
Medical Care Holdings Inc.  It is styled as a class action and
alleges four claims against the company:

   1. violations of the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and
      Corrupt Organizations) statute,

   2. violations of California's unfair competition law,

   3. violations of California's false advertising law, and

   4. unjust enrichment.

The complaint's principal allegations is that the defendants
engaged in a scheme to unlawfully promote the administration of
Epogen(R) to hemodialysis patients intravenously, as opposed to
subcutaneously, and to over-utilize Epogen(R).

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

The suit is "Sheet Metal Workers National Health Fund et al. v.
Amgen Inc et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05620-PSG-AGR," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert A. Cantore, Esq. (rac@gslaw.org)
          Gilbert and Sackman
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2732
          Phone: 323-938-3000
          Fax: 323-937-9139

               - and -

          Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq. (dweintraub@wdklaw.com)
          Whatley Drake and Kallas LLP
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-447-7070
          Fax: 212-447-7077

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark W. Pearlstein, Esq. (mpearlstein@mwe.com)
          McDermott Will and Emery LLP
          28 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-535-4000

               - and -

          Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. (sbirnbau@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6522
          Phone: 212-735-3000


DAVITA INC: Labor Code Violations Suit Still Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita, Inc., continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit
filed before the Superior Court of California over its alleged
violations of the state's labor code requirements.

In February 2007, the company was served with a complaint filed
by one of its former employees who worked in one of its chronic
facilities as a reuse technician.

The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among
other things, that the company failed to provide rest and meal
periods, failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing such
rest or meal periods, and failed to comply with certain other
California labor code requirements.

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

DaVita, Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- operates kidney
dialysis centers and provides related renal care services
primarily in dialysis centers and in contracted hospitals across
the U.S.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated or provided
administrative services to 1,359 outpatient dialysis centers
located in 43 states and the District of Columbia, serving
approximately 107,000 patients.  The business includes dialysis
and related services and other ancillary services and strategic
initiatives, which relate primarily to its core business of
providing renal care services.


DOW JONES: Certification Denied in N.Y. Suit Over Barron Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York denied without prejudice class
certification for online subscribers to the Wall Street Journal
who sued Dow Jones & Co. for removing free access to Barron's
online, which they were promised would be included in their
year's subscription, CourtHouse News Service reports.

On March 21, 2006, Gary Lebowitz sued Dow Jones for breach of
contract and violation of N.Y. G.B.L. Section 349.

On April 18, 2006, Andrew Newmark, Allan Newmark and Burt Faure,
also sued Dow Jones over similar claims.  Both suits were filed
in federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (codified in scattered
sections of Title 28, United States Code) (CAFA).  The suits
were consolidated on May 26, 2006.

On Jan. 18, 2007, the judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for
unjust enrichment and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 42-110a et seq., and
gave leave to amend as to the two remaining claims, breach of
contract and violation of N.Y. G.B.L. Section 349.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify the class.

A third amended consolidated complaint was filed on Nov. 13,
2007.

Recently, Judge Cedarbaum ruled that it is unclear how many
members are in the putative class, and how to value their
damages.  "The parties are still involved in discovery disputes
regarding subject matter jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the motion
to certify the class is denied as premature.  If subject matter
jurisdiction is established, the motion may be renewed."

The first identified suit is "Gary Lebowitz et al. v. Dow Jones
& Company, Inc., Case No. 06 Civ. 2198 (MGC)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


DVA RENAL: Labor Law Violations Suit Still Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc., continues to face a purported class-
action suit filed before the Superior Court of California,
alleging violations of the state's labor laws.

DVA Renal is formerly known as Gambro Healthcare, Inc.  It is
now a subsidiary of DaVita, Inc.

In June 2004, DVA Renal was served with a complaint filed with
the Superior Court of California by one of its former employees
who worked for its California acute services program.  The
complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among
other things, that DVA Renal failed to provide overtime wages,
defined rest periods and meal periods, or compensation in lieu
of such provisions and failed to comply with certain other
California labor code requirements.

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

DaVita, Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- operates kidney
dialysis centers and provides related renal care services
primarily in dialysis centers and in contracted hospitals across
the U.S.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated or provided
administrative services to 1,359 outpatient dialysis centers
located in 43 states and the District of Columbia, serving
approximately 107,000 patients.  The business includes dialysis
and related services and other ancillary services and strategic
initiatives, which relate primarily to its core business of
providing renal care services.


EXPEDITORS INT'L: Faces Lawsuit Over Workers' Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California over the misclassification
of certain employees as exempt from overtime and from meal and
rest breaks.

The suit was filed on May 16, 2008, by a former employee, under
the caption "Kingery v. Expeditors International of Washington,
Inc., No. 08-02510."

The lawsuit, in which a class has not been certified, purports
to be brought on behalf of some group of current and former
salaried management and supervisory employees who the plaintiff
alleges were misclassified as exempt from overtime and from meal
and rest breaks under California and Federal law.  It seeks
unspecified damages and injunctive relief, 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 "Kingery v. Expeditors International of Washington,
Inc., No. 08-02510," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Samuel Conti, presiding.


EXPEDITORS INT'L: Faces Suit Over Freight Forwarding Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., and several other
global logistics providers are facing a purported class action
suit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, alleging antitrust violations, 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 was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption,
"Precision Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport
(Holding) Ltd."  It alleges that the defendants engaged in
various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter
April 21, 2008).

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are:

     -- Panalpina, Inc.;
     -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG;
     -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.;
     -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.;
     -- EGL, Inc.;
     -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP;
     -- Deutsche Bahn AG;
     -- Schenker AG;
     -- Schenker, Inc.;
     -- Deutsche Post AG;
     -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.;
     -- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and
     -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders.

Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC
d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental
entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and
their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding
Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix,
         stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding
         Services sold in the United States;

     (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
         violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
         combination alleged;

     (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took
         affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy
         or combination;

     (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
         contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;

     (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of
         Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an
         artificially high and non-competitive level;

     (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
         combination upon interstate commerce;

     (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         declaratory and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim
        contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule
        23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination
        alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint
        of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as
        provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment
        in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against
        the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance
        with the antitrust laws;

     -- 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:

        (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract,
            conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering
            into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering
            into any other contract, conspiracy or combination
            having a similar purpose of effect, and from
            adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
            device having a similar purpose or effect; and

        (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the distribution or sale of
            Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning
            prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any
            such products except to the extent necessary in
            connection with bona fide sale transactions between
            the parties to such communication;

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

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

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

The suit is "Precision Associates, Inc., et al. cv. Panalpina
World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et al., Case No. CV 08 0042,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq. (clovell@lshllp.com)
          Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: 212-608-1900
          Fax: 212-719-4677

Representing the defendants are:

          August C. Venturini, Esq. (acv@venturini-law.com)
          Venturini & Associates
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 545
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-826-6800
          Fax: 212-949-6162

          James Joseph Calder, Esq. (james.calder@kattenlaw.com)
          Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-940-6460
          Fax: 212-940-3871

               - and -

          Breon S. Peace, Esq. (bpeace@cgsh.com)
          Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-225-2059
          Fax: 212-225-3999


FORD MOTOR: Lawsuit Over South Africa Apartheid Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. continues to face a "multidistrict litigation" in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
that was brought on behalf of South African citizens who
suffered alleged "crimes against humanity" and other forms of
violence and oppression under the apartheid regime.

Along with more than 30 other prominent multinational companies,
Ford is a defendant in purported class-action lawsuits seeking
more than $400 billion in damages on behalf of South African
citizens who suffered violence and oppression under South
Africa's apartheid regime.

The lawsuits allege that, by doing business in South Africa, the
defendant companies "aided and abetted" the apartheid regime and
its human rights violations.

These cases, collectively referred to as "In re South African
Apartheid Litigation," were initially filed in 2002 and 2003,
and are being handled together as coordinated "multidistrict
litigation" in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The District Court dismissed these cases in 2004, but in 2007
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and
remanded the cases to the District Court for further
proceedings.

In May 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants'
petition for a writ of certiorari due to a lack of quorum.  The
cases have therefore returned to the District Court, where
further proceedings are likely to include amended complaints and
further motions to dismiss, 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.

Ford Motor Co. -- http://www.ford.com/-- is a producer of cars
and trucks.  The company and its subsidiaries also engage in
other businesses, including financing vehicles.  Ford operates
in two sectors: Automotive and Financial Services.  The
Automotive sector includes the operations of Ford North America,
Ford South America, Ford Europe, Premier Automotive Group, and
Ford Asia Pacific and Africa/Mazda segments.  The Financial
Services sector includes the operations of Ford Motor Credit
Co., which is engaged in vehicle-related financing, leasing and
insurance.  Effective May 31, 2007, Ford Motor Co. and its
subsidiary, Jaguar Cars Limited, completed the sale of its 100%
interest in Aston Martin.  In June 2008, the company completed
the sale of its Jaguar and Land Rover operations to Tata Motors
Limited.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Lawsuit Over Saturn Vue and Ion Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Oct. 15, 2007, that a
purported class action lawsuit was filed against General Motors
Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California over alleged defective transmissions in its Saturn
Vue and Ion vehicles.

The suit, "Castillo et al. v. General Motors Corporation, Case
No. 2:07-00948," was filed by Mark Brown, through The Lakin Law
Firm, on behalf of other GM customers.  It seeks to certify a
class of Saturn Vue and Ion owners from the states of
California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and
Oklahoma.

Specifically, the suit concerns the 2002 to 2004 model years of
Saturn Vue and Ion vehicles that allegedly have defective
transmissions, which resulted in outright failures requiring
complete replacement.  The plaintiffs contend that GM knew the
VTi transmissions in the 2002 to 2004 Saturn Vue and Ion were
inherently defective and likely to fail.
In an update, MotorTrend Magazine relates that General Motors
has settled the class-action lawsuit.  More than 90,000 owners
of Saturn Vue and Ion models had joined the case.

The magazine notes that the transmission has had an unusually
high failure rate and cost $4,000 to $5,000 to replace.  It says
that this transmission was discontinued after 2005.

According to MotorTrend, the settlement has received preliminary
approval from a federal judge, but the official settlement
hearing will not occur until February 17, 2009.

In an interview with Automotive News, Rob Schmeider, Esq., of
The Lakin Law Firm, who represents the Saturn owners, estimated
that the lawsuit could cost GM over $100 million, though GM
attorney Joe Lines, Esq., found that figure "wildly exaggerated"
and estimated the true cost would be closer to $10 million to
$20 million.  Mr. Lines declined to give a failure rate for the
transmission.

The MotorTrend report says that the settlement applies to all
owners of '02 to '05 Vues and '03 to '04 Ions with the VTi
transmission.  The percentage of the settlement each person
receives will depend on the number of miles on the vehicle when
the transmission failed and whether the current owner bought the
vehicle new or used.

Assuming the settlement is approved, all owners of the vehicles
will receive a claims form for expenses related to the
transmission failure, but only if the vehicle had fewer than
125,000 miles on it before the failure and the transmission
failed within eight years of the date the vehicle was
manufactured, the report notes.


GONNELLA BAKING: EEOC Suit Alleges Bias Against Hispanic Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class
action lawsuit against Gonnella Baking Co. in Aurora, alleging
that Hispanic employees were subjected to grueling and unsafe
working conditions, Aurora Beacon News reports.

According to Aurora Beacon, an investigation by the EEOC
revealed that a Gonnella supervisor routinely made derogatory,
racist comments to Hispanic employees.  The EEOC pointed out
that when employees complained, they endured more unfair labor
practices.

The case, captioned "EEOC v. Gonnella Baking Co.," was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.

Founded in 1886, Gonnella bought the Aurora plant at 2435
N.Church Road in 2002 and renovated it to employ 50 and produce
80,000 pounds of bread per day.


INFOGROUP INC: Del. Court Stays Proceedings in Investors' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated lawsuit that was filed against infoGROUP, Inc. --
formerly infoUSA Inc. -- and certain directors of the company,
including Vinod Gupta, was stayed pursuant to an order of the
Court of Chancery for the state of Delaware in and for New
Castle County.

                   Cardinal Value Litigation

In February 2006, Cardinal Value Equity Partners, L.P., which
reported beneficial ownership of 5.7% of the company's stock,
filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County, against the company and
certain of its current and former directors.

The lawsuit was filed as a derivative action on behalf of the
company and as a class action on behalf of Cardinal Value Equity
Partners, L.P., and other stockholders.  It asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and seeks an order that would require
the company to reinstate the special committee of directors.

The special committee was formed to consider a proposal from
Mr. Gupta to acquire the shares of the company not owned by him
and was dissolved in August 2005 following Mr. Gupta's
withdrawal of his proposal.

The suit seeks an order awarding the company and the class
unspecified damages.  In May 2006, Cardinal amended its
complaint to add several new allegations and named two
additional directors of the company as defendants.

The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  On Oct. 17, 2006, the court granted that
motion and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.  The court's
order permits Cardinal to file an amended complaint within 60
days of the order.

Cardinal subsequently filed a third amended complaint, alleging
derivative claims of breach of fiduciary duty and violations of
Delaware law.

In January 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
consolidate the action with a similar action filed by Dolphin
Limited Partnership I, L.P. et al.

                   Dolphin Limited Litigation

In October 2006, Dolphin Limited Partnership I, L.P., Dolphin
Financial Partners, L.L.C. and Robert Bartow filed a lawsuit
against certain current and former directors of the company, and
the company as a nominal defendant.

The lawsuit was filed as a derivative action on behalf of the
company.  It asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
misuse of corporate assets, and seeks an order rescinding or
declaring void certain transactions between the company and
Vinod Gupta, requiring the defendants to reimburse the company
for alleged damages and expenses relating to such transactions,
and directing the company to amend its Stockholder Rights Plan
to include Mr. Gupta, his family and affiliates.  The lawsuit
also seeks an order awarding the company unspecified damages.

                         Consolidation

In January 2007, the court ordered the consolidation of the two
cases.

Pursuant to the consolidation order entered by the court,
Dolphin and Cardinal filed a consolidated complaint that
essentially combines the claims that had been set forth in their
respective individual complaints.

The defendants moved to dismiss that complaint, and the motion
was granted in part and denied in part on Aug. 13, 2007 (the
court revised its opinion on Aug. 20, 2007).

The suit is currently stayed pursuant to an order of the court,
according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Omaha, Nebraska-based InfoGROUP, Inc., formerly infoUSA, Inc. --
http://www.infogroup.com/-- is a provider of sales leads,
mailing lists, direct marketing, database marketing, e-mail
marketing and market research solutions.  The company operates
three principal business groups or segments. The Data Group
maintains 12 databases of U.S. and international businesses and
consumers.  The Services Group consists of subsidiaries
providing list brokerage and list management, direct mail,
database marketing services and e-mail marketing services to
customers.  The Marketing Research Group provides customer
satisfaction surveys, employee surveys, opinion polling, and
other market research services for businesses and for
government.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over "Supersize" Items
--------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging it advertised
that it would "supersize" items on its "value meals" for 39
cents, but charged more than that, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The complaint alleges that McDonald's charged consumers a
greater amount for "supersized" meals than the additional charge
advertised.  The overcharges were small and calculated to escape
the notice of the customer.

The plaintiff claims that he discovered the overcharges because
he paid by credit card and kept the receipts.

The plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of all persons who were
charged by McDonald's a greater amount for "supersized" meals
than the additional charge advertised.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant engaged in the practices
         complained of;

     (b) whether the practices complained of constitute a breach
         of contract;

     (c) whether the practice complained of constitute fraud;

     (d) whether the practices complained of entitled the
         affected consumers to restitution; and

     (e) the appropriate remedy.

The plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment for:

     -- compensatory and punitive damages;

     -- appropriate damages;

     -- restitutionary damages;

     -- costs; and

     -- such other or further relief as the court deems proper.

The suit is "Nathan Gundi, et al. v. McDonald's Corporation,
Case No. 08CH33972," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-739-4200
          Fax: 312-419-0379


MENZIES AVIATION: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Menzies Aviation Group, Evergreen International Airlines,
Ironwood Management, and Swissport USA are facing a class-action
complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

CourtHouse did not report any further details or developments
regarding the case.


MERRILL LYNCH: Shareholders Sue Over Proposed BofA Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Houston Business Journal, Bank of America Corp.
(NYSE: BAC) has agreed to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.
(NYSE: MER) in a $50-billion deal that aims to create a global
financial-services company.

"Acquiring one of the premier wealth-management, capital-markets
and advisory companies is a great opportunity for our
shareholders," BofA Chairman and Chief Executive Ken Lewis said
in a statement Monday morning.  "Together, our companies are
more valuable because of the synergies in our businesses."

Houston Journal relates that under the terms of the transaction,
BofA would exchange 0.8595 shares of its common stock for each
Merrill Lynch common share.

However, according to a report by Reuters, Merrill Lynch
shareholders sued the company's chief executive officer, John
Thain, and its board of directors over the proposed BofA buyout,
claiming the terms of the deal are unfair.

Reuters says that the lawsuit, filed in New York State Supreme
Court on behalf of a shareholder identified as Peter Miller and
a class of investors, said the proposed $50-billion sale was
"wrong, unfair and harmful to Merrill public stockholders."

The lawsuit, filed by law firm Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP,
described the woes of the subprime mortgage crisis and said
Merrill's attempt to mitigate its losses had failed.  It also
said Merrill's public stockholders "have been and will continue
to be denied the fair process and arm's length negotiated terms
to which they are entitled in a sale of their company."

The lawsuit includes requests that the defendants withdraw their
consent to the sale of Merrill and that Merrill solicit
competing bids.

Reuters notes that earlier Monday, another law firm, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, indicated that it would
file an investor lawsuit against both Merrill and BofA.

According to Reuters, Bank of America shares closed down 21.3%
on Monday, wiping out about $33 billion of market value, while
Merrill ended barely changed at $17.06, despite being valued in
the deal at $29 each, a 70% premium to Friday's close.

Houston Journal writes that BofA expects to achieve $7 billion
in pre-tax expense savings, fully realized by 2012.  The company
says the acquisition should be accretive to earnings by 2010.

The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of
2009. It has been approved by directors of both companies but is
subject to shareholder votes at both companies and standard
regulatory approvals.

Houston Journal further notes that pursuant to the deal, three
directors of Merrill Lynch will join the BofA board of
directors.  The combined company would have leadership positions
in retail brokerage and wealth management.  By adding Merrill
Lynch's more than 16,000 financial advisers, BofA would have the
largest brokerage in the world, with more than 20,000 advisers
and $2.5 trillion in client assets.

As stated in various press reports, news of the Merrill/BofA
deal came out just as reports of fellow securities firm
-- Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. -- filing a Chapter 11 Petition
erupted.

A press release states that Merrill CEO John Thain reportedly
called BofA CEO Ken Lewis on Saturday morning from a meeting
between government and banking officials to discuss how to save
the U.S. financial system from the breakdown of Lehman Brothers
and BofA CEO Lewis came up to New York immediately to archive a
solution.

The New York Times says that these news relating to the two
firms -- as they try to avert a deepening financial crisis --
mark one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street's history.

According to the NY Times, the humbling moves by both Merrill
Lynch and Lehman reshape the landscape of American finance and
mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous year in which once-proud
financial institutions have been brought to their knees as a
result of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses because of
bad mortgage finance and real estate investments.

For more information, contact:

          Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
          3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 423
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Fax: +1-858-605-5739


MURPHY OIL: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in ROSE Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Louisiana federal court denied a motion that sought for class
certification in a consolidated lawsuit against Murphy Oil Corp.
in connection with a June 10, 2003 fire that severely damaged
the Residual Oil Supercritical Extraction unit at the company's
Meraux, Louisiana refinery.

The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the heavy fuel oil stream
for conversion into gasoline and diesel.

Subsequent to the fire, numerous class actions have been filed
seeking damages for area residents.  All the lawsuits have been
administratively consolidated into a single legal action in St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana, except for one action filed in
federal court.

On May 5, 2004, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action in St.
Bernard Parish amended their petition to include a direct action
against certain of the company's liability insurers.

The St. Bernard Parish action has since been removed to federal
court, which issued an order on July 25, 2008, denying the
plaintiff's request to certify the case as a class-action suit,
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.

Murphy Oil Corp. -- http://www.murphyoilcorp.com/-- is a global
oil and gas exploration, and production company with refining
and marketing operations in North America and the U.K.  The
Company's operations are classified into two business
activities: Exploration and Production, and Refining and
Marketing.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Openwave Systems reached an agreement in principle to settle the
securities class action lawsuit filed against the company,
according to the company's Sept. 15 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Initially, between Feb. 21 and March 27, 2007, four
substantially similar securities class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Openwave and four current and former officers
of the company.

The complaints purport to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Openwave stock from Sept. 30, 2002,
through Oct. 26, 2006, and allege that during the class period,
the defendants engaged in improper stock options backdating and
issued materially false and misleading statements in the
company's public filings and press releases regarding the manner
in which Openwave granted and accounted for the options.

Based on these allegations, the complaints assert two causes of
action -- one against all defendants for violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and a second against the individual defendants for violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On April 25, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
filed a joint motion to transfer the actions to the Northern
District of California where the related shareholder derivative
class actions are pending.

On May 18, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating the
four securities class action suits into a single action
captioned "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation
(Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," and appointing a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel.

On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint.  The consolidated and amended
complaint adds 17 additional defendants, including:

     * several current and former Openwave officers and
       directors,

     * KPMG LLP,

     * Merrill Lynch,

     * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     * Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     * J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and

     * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

The consolidated and amended complaint alleges claims for
violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, as well as claims for violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 arising out
of the company's 2005 public offering.  It seeks money damages,
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company is required under contracts with the individual
defendants to indemnify them under certain circumstances for
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System was appointed as lead
plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead
counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated actions and the
class.

On Aug. 10, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated and amended class action complaint.  On Oct. 31,
2007, the court granted the motions to dismiss claims asserted
under the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants against
whom those claims were asserted, and granted the motion to
dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims against
certain of the officer and director defendants.  However, the
motion to dismiss the Exchange claims asserted against Openwave
and certain of the other director and officer defendants was
denied.

As a result of the court's decision, KPMG LLP, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Lehman Brothers Inc., J.P. Morgan
Securities, and Thomas Weisel Partners have all been dismissed
as defendants from the consolidated lawsuit.

The remaining defendants are the company, certain former
officers of the company, and certain former and current
directors of the company (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2008).

On August 5, 2008, the company announced their preliminary
financial results for fiscal 2008.  Subsequently, they reached
an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action
lawsuit, which resulted in a $5.0 million net expense recorded
in the fiscal 2008 results.

The suit is "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation
(Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Denise L. Cote
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laura Helen Gundersheim, Esq. (Laurag@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1463
          Fax: 212-554-1444

               - and -

          Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          Marshall Ross King, Esq. (mking@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: 212-351-3905
          Fax: 212-351-5243

               - and -

          Andrew W. Stern, Esq. (astern@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-839-5300
          Fax: 212-839-5599


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Amended Complaints Filed in Calif. BPA Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amended complaints were filed in two purported class-action
lawsuits pending in California against Pacific Capital Bancorp
that was initiated by tax preparation franchisees of Jackson
Hewitt, Inc., in connection with certain Bank Product
Agreements, according to the company's August 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suits, both filed on Jan. 14, 2008, are:

      1. "Big Sky Ventures I, LCC, et al v. Pacific Capital
         Bancorp, et al.," filed before the U.S. District Court
         for the Central District of California.

      2. "Joseph D. Irlanda v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, et
         al.," filed before the Superior Court of California,
         County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs in both actions entered into annual Bank Product
Agreements with the company which gave them the right, but not
the obligation, to provide to their customers certain company
financial products such as refund anticipation loans.

The plaintiffs in the two cases allege that prior to the
Agreement with the company applicable to the 2006 tax year, they
could charge their customers fees in connection with the
company's financial products which they provided.

They allege that in the 2006 tax year Agreement, their fees were
limited to $40 per product and that in the Agreements for the
2007 and 2008 tax years, they were prohibited from charging
their customers any fee for providing them with such products.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that in their franchise
agreements with Jackson Hewitt, Inc., they are required to
provide the company's financial products to their customers.

In each action, the plaintiffs make the following claims for
relief:

      -- a judicial declaration that the agreements applicable
         to the 2007 and 2008 tax years are unconscionable,
         void and unenforceable for economic duress, lack of
         consent, undue influence, and lack of consideration.

      -- injunctive relief prohibiting the company from
         enforcing the terms of the 2008 Bank Product
         Agreement.

      -- restitution from the company for the uncompensated
         services provided by the plaintiffs during the 2006,
         2007 and 2008 tax years.

      -- rescission of the 2008 Bank Product Agreement.

      -- damages from the company pursuant to California's
         Unfair Competition Law under Business and Professions
         Code Sections 172000, et seq.

In Big Sky Ventures, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  Following a hearing on May 15, 2008, the motion was
granted in part and denied in part.  Specifically, the judge's
order granted the motion to dismiss as to the cause of action
for rescission and denied it as to the other causes of action.

In addition, the order struck the plaintiffs' requests for
punitive damages and attorneys fees.  The plaintiffs have filed
an amended complaint.

In the Irlanda case, an amended complaint has been filed.  No
hearings have been scheduled so far.

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

Pacific Capital Bancorp -- http://www.pcbancorp.com/-- is a
bank holding company and has five subsidiaries; Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A., and four wholly owned unconsolidated subsidiaries,
used as business trusts in connection with issuance of trust-
preferred securities.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Nov. 12 Certification Hearing Set for RAL Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 12, 2008 class certification hearing is scheduled for a
purported class-action lawsuit against Pacific Capital Bancorp
in connection with refund anticipation loans (RAL), according to
the company's August 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Initially, a purported class action complaint was filed by
Canieva Hood and the Congress of California Seniors against:

       -- Santa Barbara Bank & Trust,
       -- Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., and
       -- Jackson-Hewitt, Inc.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of persons who entered into a
refund anticipation loan application and agreement with the
company from whose tax refund the company deducted a debt owed
by the applicant to another RAL lender.

It was filed on March 18, 2003, before the Superior Court in San
Francisco, California, as "Canieva Hood and Congress of
California Seniors v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific
Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-Hewitt, Inc."

The company is a party to a separate cross-collection agreement
with each of the other RAL lenders by which it agrees to collect
sums due to those other lenders on delinquent RALs by deducting
those sums from tax refunds due to its RAL customers and
remitting those funds to the RAL lender to whom the debt is
owed.  This cross-collection procedure is disclosed in the RAL
Agreement with the RAL customer and is specifically authorized
and agreed to by the customer.

The plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but
contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests
damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the
company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

The venue for this suit was changed to Santa Barbara.  The
company filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint
for indemnification against the other RAL lenders.

On May 4, 2005, a superior court judge in Santa Barbara granted
a motion filed by the company and the other RAL lenders, which
resulted in the entry of an order dismissing the suit.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal.  A hearing before the Court of
Appeal was held on June 14, 2006, and the matter was taken under
submission.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision,
issued an opinion which held that the claims in the complaint
that the company had violated certain California consumer
protection laws were not preempted by Federal law and
regulations.

The company and the cross-defendants filed a petition for writ
of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to reverse the
Court of Appeal's opinion.  The petition was denied.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the superior court.
The company filed a demurrer to the cause of action in the
amended complaint based on the California Legal Remedies Act.
The superior court granted the demurrer without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate seeking to reverse
the superior court's decision was denied by the Court of Appeal.
The plaintiff filed an appeal to the California Supreme Court
which was denied.

A Sixth Amended Complaint has been filed, which adds an
additional plaintiff Tyree Bowman.

A class certification hearing is scheduled for Nov. 12, 2008.

Pacific Capital Bancorp -- http://www.pcbancorp.com/-- is a
bank holding company and has five subsidiaries; Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A., and four wholly owned unconsolidated subsidiaries,
used as business trusts in connection with issuance of trust-
preferred securities.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Court Yet to Approve "Kessler" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
is considering giving final approval to the proposed settlement
in a purported class-action lawsuit known as "Kessler," which
was filed against Residential Capital, LLC -- a wholly-owned
subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC, which itself is a wholly
owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.

This putative class action lawsuit was consolidated for
settlement purposes with five other cases, all alleging that the
plaintiffs obtained second-lien mortgage loans from either
Community Bank of Northern Virginia or Guaranty National Bank of
Tallahassee and that they were charged interest rates and fees
violating the Pennsylvania Secondary Mortgage Loan Act.

The plaintiffs additionally claim that the banks were not the
actual lenders, but rather that the banks "rented" their banking
charters to affiliates for the purpose of facilitating the
assessment of "illegal" fees.  They further allege that the
affiliates either split the fees or kicked back the fees in
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The plaintiffs sought to hold the company's subsidiary liable
primarily on the basis that the subsidiary was an assignee of
the mortgage loans.

In December 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania gave its final approval to a proposed
$41.1-million settlement for all six cases, inclusive of
attorney fees.  The settlement contemplated payment to
approximately 44,000 borrowers nationwide.

A group of seven plaintiffs' class action counsel appealed the
settlement in part on the grounds that the underlying litigation
did not address possible Truth in Lending Act or Home Ownership
and Equity Protection Act claims.

In August 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacated the district court's approval of the settlement and
remanded the matter to the district court to determine whether
such claims were viable.

The parties and the Objectors then briefed the issue of the
"viability" of the TILA and HOEPA claims within this particular
litigation.

In July 2006, the parties amended the proposed settlement to
address the Third Circuit's concerns, and in October 2006, the
trial court held that the purported TILA and HOEPA claims were
not viable.

In November 2006, the parties filed a motion seeking preliminary
approval of the settlement, as amended.

In late March 2007, the parties and the Objectors attended a
hearing before a court-appointed magistrate to present arguments
pertaining to the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed
amended settlement.

On July 5, 2007, the magistrate issued an advisory opinion
ruling that the proposed modified settlement is "fair,
reasonable, and adequate."

Following an Oct. 9, 2007 hearing, the trial court, on Jan. 25,
2008, entered an order:

       -- certifying the nationwide settlement class;

       -- preliminarily approving the modified settlement; and

       -- ordering that the settling parties give notice of the
          modified settlement to the settlement class, along
          with a new right of opt-out.

Following the dissemination of new notice to the class, the
court held a final fairness hearing on June 30, 2008, at which
it heard all objections and took the question of final approval
of the settlement under advisement, according to Residential
Capital, LLC's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Residential Capital, LLC -- https://www.rescapholdings.com/ --
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC, which
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.  The company is real
estate finance company focused primarily on the residential real
estate market.  Its businesses include the origination,
purchase, service, sale and securitization of residential
mortgage loans.  The company conducts its operations primarily
through three operating business segments: Residential Finance
Group, Business Capital Group and International Business Group.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Opposes Enforcement of Ill. FCRA Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Residential Capital LLC is opposing the
enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement in the matter
captioned  "Murray v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., Case No.
1:2005cv01229."

The case was filed against a unit of Residential Capital, LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC, which
itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.  It was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
in March 2005.

In the suit, the plaintiff's counsel alleges that the company's
subsidiary, in sending a "pre-approved offer" to the plaintiff,
accessed the plaintiff's credit report without authorization
from the plaintiff and without a "permissible purpose" under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act since the material allegedly did not
qualify as a "firm offer of credit."

The suit also alleges that the material failed to make FCRA
required notices and disclosures in a "clear and conspicuous"
manner.  It seeks statutory penalties for an allegedly willful
violation of the statute.

Class certification was denied by the district court, but that
decision was reversed on appeal and the matter remanded to the
district court for further proceedings, including amended cross-
motions for summary judgment as well as a renewed motion for
class certification.

On April 10, 2007, the district court certified a narrow class
limited to those residents of Will County, Illinois, who
received the mailer in question during the fall of 2004 and who
can be identified from any available mailing list.

The district court also granted in part and denied in part each
of the parties' summary judgment motions, opining that the
mailer in question did not constitute a firm offer of credit,
entering judgment in favor of the company's subsidiary on the
clear and conspicuous disclosure issue, and finding a genuine
issue of fact with respect to whether the alleged violation of
FCRA could be said to be willful.

On June 5, 2007, the company's subsidiary filed a motion for
reconsideration on the willfulness issue based upon the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in "Safeco Ins. Co., et al. v. Burr, et
al."

Upon reconsideration, on July 2, 2007, the district court
vacated its order certifying the class and granted the
subsidiary's motion for summary judgment on the willfulness
issue, entering judgment on behalf of the company's subsidiary.

On April 18, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the
company's subsidiary, holding in a non-published opinion that
the company's subsidiary made a firm offer of credit and that
any failure to make clear and conspicuous disclosures was not
willful.

On April 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the
April 18, 2008 opinion, contending that the company's subsidiary
reached an enforceable settlement agreement with the individual
plaintiff prior to the date the April 18, 2008 opinion was
entered.  That motion was denied.

On June 18, 2008, the plaintiff filed a contract action in state
court seeking to enforce the alleged settlement agreement, which
the company's subsidiary is opposing, according to Residential
Capital, LLC's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Murray v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation, Case No.
1:2005cv01229," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge David H. Coar, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. (courtecl@edcombs.com)
          Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
          120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-739-4200

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas Justin Cunningham, Esq.
          (tcunningham@lockelord.com)
          Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-443-0700


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Unit to Appeal Verdict in SMLA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Residential Capital, LLC, which is a defendant
in a purported class-action suit over alleged violations of the
Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act, Mo.R.S. Section 408.233,
based on the lenders' charging or contracting for payment of
allegedly unlawful closing costs and fees, intends to appeal the
jury verdict in the matter.

The suit was filed on July 29, 2003, in the state court in
Kansas City, Missouri, against a unit of Residential Capital,
LLC -- is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC,
which itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.

The relief sought includes a refund of all allegedly illegal
fees, the refund of interest paid, and the discounted present
value of interest to be paid in the future on active loans.  The
plaintiffs also seek prejudgment interest and punitive damages.

The company's subsidiary is an assignee.  The plaintiffs contend
that the company's subsidiary is strictly liable for the
lender's (Mortgage Capital Resources Corp.) alleged SMLA
violations pursuant to the assignee provisions of the Home
Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. Section
1641(d)(1).

The Mitchell case involves approximately 258 Missouri second
mortgage loans made by MCR and assigned to our subsidiary.

The plaintiffs and the class are seeking approximately
$6.7 million in actual and statutory damages plus prejudgment
interest, attorney's fees and expenses.  The plaintiff's counsel
will seek a contingent fee of approximately 40% plus litigation
expenses.  In addition, the plaintiffs will seek prejudgment
interest and punitive damages.

The parties participated in a mediation in August 2007 without
success.  Mortgage Capital Resources Corp. is currently in the
process of being liquidated in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The company's subsidiary terminated its relationship with
Mortgage Capital Resources Corp. in early May 2000.

The case went to trial in state court in Kansas City, Missouri
beginning on Dec. 3, 2007.

On Jan. 4, 2008, a jury verdict was returned, ordering the
company's subsidiary to pay $4.3 million in compensatory damages
and $92 million in punitive damages.

The company's subsidiary is in the process of filing post-trial
motions and intends to appeal any adverse decision and to
vigorously contest the punitive damage award.

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

Residential Capital, LLC -- https://www.rescapholdings.com/ --
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC, which
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.  The company is real
estate finance company focused primarily on the residential real
estate market.  Its businesses include the origination,
purchase, service, sale and securitization of residential
mortgage loans.  The company conducts its operations primarily
through three operating business segments: Residential Finance
Group, Business Capital Group and International Business Group.


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

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

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

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

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

A picture of the recalled notebook computers can be found at:

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

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

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


STANDARD PACIFIC: No Amended Complaint Planned in Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Vinod Patel v. Andrew H. Parnes.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-05364-MMM-SH," have filed a notice with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
stating that they do not intend to file any amended complaint in
the action.

On Aug. 16, 2007, a securities fraud class-action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Andrew H. Parnes, the company's Executive
Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer, by putative
plaintiff Vinod Patel.  The company was not named in the
complaint.

The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duties to the
company's stockholders, as well as violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, during the
period between Oct. 27, 2005 and Aug. 2, 2007.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company:

       -- issued materially false and misleading statements
          regarding our finances, business and prospects;

       -- lacked requisite internal controls over lending
          practices; and

       -- misrepresented the extent of risk in the company's
          loans.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages (including
interest), reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as well as
equitable, injunctive or other relief that the court may deem
just and proper.  The complaint has not been served.

On Dec. 3, 2007, the Court appointed Pinellas Park Retirement
System, Plumbers Local No. 98 Defined Benefit Pension Fund, and
the City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System as lead
plaintiffs.

On or about Jan. 23, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint for violations of Federal
Securities Laws (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008).

The Consolidated Complaint names Andrew Parnes and Stephen
Scarborough, Standard Pacifics Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chairman of the Board, as defendants.  It does not
name the company as a defendant.

In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs seek to certify a
class of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Standard Pacific between Oct. 27, 2005, and
Aug. 2, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the price of Standard Pacifics common
stock was artificially inflated during this period because
Mr. Parnes and Mr. Scarborough provided false and misleading
earnings and sales guidance to the public that lacked a
reasonable basis due to the adverse impact of rising interest
rates, slowing housing markets and other macro-economic factors
affecting Standard Pacific.

The plaintiffs assert claims against Mr. Parnes and Mr.
Scarborough for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and against Mr. Parnes
for violation of Section 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Mr. Scarborough and Mr. Parnes filed a motion seeking dismissal
of the case on March 10, 2008.  In May 2008, the court granted
the motion, and dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave
to amend.  In its May 2008 order, the court allowed the Lead
plaintiffs until July 3, 2008 to file any amended complaint.

On July 3, 2008, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice in which
they stated that they do not intend to file any amended
complaint in this action, according to the company's Aug. 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Vinod Patel v. Andrew H. Parnes., Case No. 2:07-cv-
05364-MMM-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Margaret M. Morrow
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com)
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              - and -

         Joon M. Khang, Esq. (jkhang@lhlaw.com)
         Lee Hong Degerman Kang & Schmadeka
         660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-623-2221
         Fax: 213-623-2211


Representing the defendants are:
         Kristopher Price Diulio, Esq. (kdiulio@gibsondunn.com)
         Matthew E. Lilly, Esq. (mlilly@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         3161 Michelson Dr.
         Irvine, CA 92612-4412
         Phone: 949-451-3907
                949-451-3800


TIMBERLAND COMPANY: Settles Text Message Ad Suit for $7 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago businessman has scored a $7 million victory against
The Timberland Company, which used text messaging to advertise a
sale on its Web site, United Press International reports.

Jeffrey Weinstein said in his suit that he got angry when he
received a text message on his cell phone in December 2005 from
the Timberland shoe company.  Thus, he decided to become the
lead plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit charging
Timberland with violating a federal ban on unsolicited calls on
cell phones.

UPI says that instead of going to trial, Timberland and the e-
commerce company that worked on its marketing campaign have
agreed to create a $7-million settlement fund.

The report relates that Mr. Weinstein, who stands to get $5,000,
said the suit is not just about the money.  He said what is more
important is for the text messaging to stop before it becomes
uncontrollable.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Consolidated Reese-Levering Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. is facing a consolidated class-action
suit over alleged violations of the Reese-Levering Automobile
Sales Finance Act of California.

Initially two separate lawsuits were filed.  The first lawsuit,
"Garcia v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation," is a cross-
complaint, alleging a class action, filed on January 2007 in the
Superior Court of California Stanilaus County.  It claims that
the company's post-repossession notice failed to comply with the
Reese-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act of California.

The second cross-complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
California San Francisco County, alleging a class action.  The
suit, "Aquilar and Smith v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation,"
was filed in February 2008 and contains similar allegations
claiming that the company's post-repossession notices failed to
comply with Reese-Levering.

The plaintiffs in the Aguilar matter are seeking injunctive
relief, restitution and disgorgement, as well as damages.

The company has filed a petition to consolidate these cases as
they present nearly identical questions of law and fact.  The
cases have been consolidated in Stanislaus County as they
present nearly identical questions of law and fact, 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.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial
equipment dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range
of finance products, including retail financing, leasing, and
dealer financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and
their customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and
claims administration related to covering certain risks of
vehicle dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage
and related administrative services to its affiliates.  The
company is wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas
Corp. (TFSA).


UNITED STEEL: Cheats By Lowballing, Baptist Church's Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Steel Building Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and
for Broward County, Florida, alleging the company cheats
customers by taking deposits on a lowball estimate, then raising
the price, citing increased steel prices, forcing customers to
pay more money or lost their deposits, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a putative class action brought pursuant to Rule 1.220
of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Landmark Baptist Church of Haines City claims each member of
the proposed class suffered damages of $15,000 or more, and that
the total losses may or may not exceed $5 million.

To add insult to injury, the church says, United claims that
"its 'Company Motto' is to 'Live by the Golden Rule: Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you.' Such is not the
case, however."

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 1.220, Fla. R.
Civ. P. on behalf of:

     (1) all consumers who contracted with defendant for
         purchase of a steel building during the class period,
         who made deposit payment to United for said purchase,
         and who paid additional monies to United over and above
         the original contract price due to United's demand for
         additional payment due to a purported increase in the
         cost of steel; and

     (2) all consumers who contracted with defendant for
         purchase of a steel building during the class period,
         who made deposit payment to United for said purchase,
         and whose deposit United retained when the consumers
         refused to pay additional monies demanded by United
         over and above the original contract price due to
         United's demand for additional payment due to a
         purported increase in the cost of steel.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant advertised, sold or delivered for
         sale steel buildings through the use of a uniform
         business practice;

     (b) whether defendant's sale of steel buildings through the
         use of common business practice violated Florida's
         Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act through the
         course of deceptive and unfair conduct as alleged;

     (c) whether defendant's sale of steel buildings through the
         use of a common business practice violated the uniform
         contract executed by defendant and all class members;

     (d) whether the defendant was unjustly enriched due to its
         sale of steel buildings and retention of deposit monies
         when class members refused to pay the difference in
         price claimed by defendant due to a purported increase
         in the cost of steel;

     (e) whether the defendant was unjustly enriched due to its
         sale of steel buildings and collection of additional
         monies over and above the original contracted price
         that purported to represent an increase in the cost of
         steel; and

     (f) whether the class had been damaged and, if so, the
         extent of such damages, and the nature of the
         equitable relief, which the class is entitled to plead
         and prove.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- the entry of an order certifying this matter as a class
        action;

     -- restitution in the amount of deposit monies and monies
        paid by plaintiff and the class as a result of
        defendant's demand of an increased amount due to the
        purported increase in the cost of steel;

     -- interest, attorneys' fees and costs where applicable;

     -- a trial by jury on all issues so triable; and

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

The suit is "Landmark Baptist Church of Haines, et al. v. United
Steel Building Inc., Case No. 08041784," filed in the Circuit
Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County,
Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Gary M. Farmer, Jr., Esq.
          Freedland, Farmer & Russo
          7251 W. Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 206
          Boca Raton, FL 33433
          Phone: 561-416-4848


WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Consolidated N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott, Ltd., settled a securities fraud class-action
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In November 2006, the company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in the matter, "Albano v. Warner Chilcott
Limited et al.," a class-action suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  Subsequently,
similar purported class action lawsuits were filed.

The complaints asserted claims under the U.S. Securities Act of
1933 on behalf of a class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common
stock in connection with its IPO between Sept. 20, 2006, and
Sept. 26, 2006.

All cases were eventually consolidated.  A consolidated amended
complaint, which added as defendants the lead underwriters for
the IPO, was filed on May 4, 2007.  The consolidated amended
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company omitted
and misstated certain facts concerning its planned transition
from the sale of OVCON 35 to the sale of its new patented
product, OVCON 35 FE (now FEMCON FE).

The company and the individual defendants answered the complaint
on June 18, 2007.  The District Court certified the plaintiff
class on Feb. 4, 2008.

On April 25, 2008, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the class-action lawsuit.  The terms of the
settlement, which are subject to negotiation of definitive
documentation and must be approved by the court, include a cash
payment of $16,500,000, which is expected to be made to the
plaintiffs during 2008.  The majority of the settlement will be
funded by insurance proceeds and it will not have a material
adverse impact on the company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

The tentative settlement resolves all claims asserted against
the company and the other defendants in this case.

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 "Angelo Albano, et al. v. Warner Chilcott Limited,
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11515-WHP" filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge William H.
Pauley III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs)
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

               - and -

          Lawrence Donald Levit, Esq. (llevit@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          Daniel Shay Kirschbaum, Esq.
          (dkirschbaum@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-373-3000 x3072
          Fax: 212-492-0072

               - and -

          Mary Jane Eaton, Esq. (maosdny@willkie.com)
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-728-8000
          Fax: 212-728-8111


* Paul Novak, Former Michigan Asst. Atty. Gen., to Join Milberg
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg LLP, America's premier law firm for class action and
other complex litigation, announced that Paul F. Novak, Esq.,
will become Of-Counsel to the firm and head its antitrust
practice beginning in October, 2008.

Mr. Novak brings extensive private- and public-sector experience
in antitrust, health care, public utility, municipal and complex
commercial litigation to Milberg.  Since 2006, he has been
Senior Attorney in the Administrative Practice Group of Clark
Hill PLC, a Michigan-based law firm.  Previously, he practiced
for sixteen years in the public sector as an Assistant Attorney
General for the State of Michigan and as the City Attorney of
Lansing.

"Paul's experience will be a valuable asset to our clients and
our firm," said Sanford Dumain, a member of Milberg LLP's
Executive Committee.  "His expertise in complex, multi-state
litigation is a natural fit for Milberg and will further enhance
our strength in antitrust, commercial and class action
litigation."

Mr. Novak has provided legal counsel on antitrust compliance and
litigation issues as well as complex civil litigation issues.
In the Michigan Attorney General's office, he was in charge of
the State's Special Litigation Division, which handled antitrust
enforcement, securities fraud and public utility regulation
work.  He has been a national leader in multi-state litigation
involving pricing practices in the pharmaceuticals industry and
has represented Michigan in cases involving the electricity,
natural gas, telecommunications and computer software
industries.

Mr. Novak is the Chair of the State Bar of Michigan's Antitrust,
Franchising and Trade Regulation Section and is a contributing
editor of the American Bar Association's Antitrust and Health
Care Newsletter.  He was awarded the Frank J. Kelley Excellence
in Trial Advocacy Award for his work in antitrust enforcement.
He has also lectured on antitrust issues in the pharmaceuticals
and insurance industries for the Practicing Law Institute.

He received a J.D. from Emory University School of Law in 1986,
an M.A. in Economics from Michigan State University in 1983, and
a B.A. from Michigan State University in 1983.

Milberg LLP --  http://www.milberg.com/-- has been representing
individual and institutional investors for nearly 40 years and
serves as lead counsel in federal and state courts throughout
the United States.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

HARRIS STRATEX: Labaton Sucharow Files Delaware Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow filed a class action lawsuit on September 15,
2008, in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of
Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., between January 29, 2007, and
July 30, 2008, inclusive, including shareholders of Stratex
Networks Inc. who exchanged shares of Stratex for shares of
Harris Stratex pursuant to the registration statement/prospectus
that became effective on January 8, 2007.

The lawsuit was filed against Harris Stratex and certain
officers and directors.

This action seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements about its financial condition prior to and
following its formation in early 2007 through the date of the
merger of Stratex Networks and the Harris Microwave
Communications Division.

On July 30, 2008, the Company announced that it had discovered
accounting errors which rendered its previously issued financial
statements to be incorrect.  According to the announcement, the
Company will restate earnings reports from 2005 through the
present.  The Company reported these accounting errors will cut
previously reported pre-tax income by $18 million to
$25 million.  As a result of the restatement, the Company
announced that its prior financial statements for the first
three quarters of fiscal 2008 and the fiscal years 2005 through
2007 should no longer be relied upon.  Harris Stratex's share
price fell in reaction to the announcement, falling from $11.24
to $7.35 per share -- a 34.61% decline in value.

For more information, contact:

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq. (arado@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 800-321-0476
                 212-907-0700


NVIDIA CORP: Dreier LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP commenced a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of NVIDIA Corp. from November 8,
2007, through July 2, 2008, inclusive.

NVIDIA is engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing
MCPs (media and communications processors), and is the inventor
of the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), a high-performance
processor which generates interactive graphics on workstations,
personal computers, game consoles, and mobile devices.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants concealed the fact that its MCPs and GPUs were
experiencing unprecedented failure rates, relating to "heat
cycling."

The complaint alleges Defendants knew about these problems
throughout the Class Period but concealed them and their
ramifications on the Company's financial health and future,
through a series of false and misleading statements made to the
investing public.  According to the complaint, these statements
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose, among other things, that the Company's graphics cards
were defective and the impact the defects would have on NVIDIA's
financial condition, results and future business prospects. In
addition, these statements failed to adjust the Company's
projections and reported financial results for customer
warranty, repair, return, replacement and other consequential
costs and expenses resulting from the defects.  As a result, the
complaint alleges that the Company's expenses were understated
and its revenue, income and margin were overstated.

On July 2, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it revealed
that flawed processes and materials used in manufacturing the
graphics cards were causing unprecedented failure rates.  On the
same day, after the close of trading, NVIDIA unexpectedly
slashed its second-quarter revenue and margin forecasts.  In
substantial part, the Company attributed the drastically revised
projections to the fallout from its defective graphics cards.
As a direct and proximate result of these revelations, NVIDIA's
stock opened at $12.98 on July 3, 2008, down almost $6 per share
from its intraday high of $18.78 on July 2, 2008.  This 31%
decline cut NVIDIA's market capitalization by over $3 billion
virtually overnight.

For more information, contact:

          Dreier LLP
          499 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-328-6100
          Fax: 212-328-6101
          e-mail: info@dreierllp.com


PERINI CORP: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
purchasers of Perini Corp. common stock during the period
between November 2, 2006, and January 17, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges Perini and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The class action complaint alleges that the defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose:

     (a) that the developer of Perini's Las Vegas, Nevada
         projects, including the Cosmopolitan Resort & Casino
         Project, was experiencing financial problems because it
         failed to secure financing for the entire project and
         was dependent upon raising the remainder of the
         financing from the expected sale of residential units.
         However, the proceeds from the residential unit sales
         were based on unrealistic and aggressive prices at a
         time when the condo market in Las Vegas, Nevada was
         extremely weak;

     (b) that the Company's Las Vegas projects were being
         delayed, and could possibly be halted;

     (c) that the developer was in risk of defaulting on its
         construction loan;

     (d) that the Company's future revenue and profit was
         dependent upon the Las Vegas projects since the
         projects consisted of approximately 20% of its backlog;
         and

     (e) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to
         maintain its profit margins was in serious doubt.

On January 17, 2008, Perini announced that Deutsche Bank
"delivered a notice of loan default to the developer of the
Cosmopolitan Resort and Casino project under construction in Las
Vegas, Nevada."  In response, Perini's stock price plummeted
more than $10 per share to close at $27.65.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Perini common stock during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 20,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764


QUEST ENERGY: Brian Felgoise Files Okla. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., commenced a securities
class action suit on behalf of shareholders who acquired Quest
Energy Partners, L.P. securities between the date of the
Company's initial public offering on or about November 7, 2007,
and August 25, 2008, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. (FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net)
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: 215-886-1900


SYNCHRONOS TECHNOLOGIES: Federman Files N.J. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 5, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The class period is from February 4, 2008, through June 9, 2008.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *