CAR_Public/081006.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 6, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 198

                            Headlines

ALDERWOODS GROUP: Fla. Court Yet to Certify Class in "Garcia"
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Service Mark-Ups Suit Still Pending in Calif.
ALTRIA CLIENT: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Alleging ERISA Violations
ALTRIA GROUP: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in "Good" Lawsuit
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Seek Stay in FACTA Violations Lawsuit

AMERICAN BUSINESS: Noteholders' Lawsuit Settled for $16 Million
AMERICAN INT'L: Court Stays Proceedings in Caremark-Related Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Alleging ERISA Violations
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New York
AMERICAN INT'L: La. Court Approves $29M "Gunderson" Settlement

AMERICAN INT'L: Amended Securities Suit Complaint Not Allowed
AMERICAN INT'L: October 7 Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement
AMERICAN INT'L: S.C. Court Dismisses Claims in Employers' Suit
APPLE INC: Settles Calif. Suit Over Faulty Notebook Adapters
BOEING CO: "Spano" 401(k) Fee Lawsuit Sanctioned as Class Suit

BRP US: Recalls Youth All Terrain Vehicles Due to Collision Risk
BUILDING MATERIALS: Workers from Sue Over Improper Wages
CARMAX INC: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Oct. 6
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Faces Texas Suit Over Denied Fuel Refund
FIFTH THIRD: 401(k) Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action Lawsuit

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: $40MM Settlement in Paxil Lawsuit Approved
GLOBALSTAR INC: New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
HILB ROGAL: Third Circuit to Review Insurance Brokerage Lawsuit
HORIZON BANK: Faces Indiana Lawsuit Over Repossessed Vehicles
JOHN JAQUES: Recalls Lawn Dart Games Due to Risk of Puncture

JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Lawsuit in Utah Over Alleged Fraud Web
LENDER PROCESSING: Faces Texas Suit Over Attorney Fee-Splitting
LIGGETT GROUP: Illinois Court Yet to Certify Class in "Cleary"
LIGGETT GROUP: No Hearing Set for Oral Arguments in "Brown" Case
LIGGETT GROUP: Cigarette Suits Pending in W.V., Kansas and N.M.

LORILLARD TOBACCO: Court Decertfies Class in "Schwab" Lawsuit
LORILLARD TOBACCO: Tobacco Marketing, Advertising Suits Pending
LORILLARD TOBACCO: Supreme Court Denies Petition in "Sanders"
MESABA AVIATION: EEOC Files Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
NATIONAL TITLE: Faces 12 Antitrust Lawsuits Over Title Insurance

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Faces Tenn., N.J. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
PENN TACO: EEOC Commences Sexual Harassment Suit in Pennsylvania
POTTERY BARN: Recalls Hammock Stands for Fall, Laceration Risk
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Savings Plan Members' Suit Gets Class Status
SEVEN UP/RC BOTTLING: Faces Wage, Hour Violations Suit in Calif.

SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Holk" Lawsuit
SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Settles Calif. Suit Over Lemonade Juice Drink
SUPERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces N.J. Suit Over "Prostavar" Sale
USANA HEALTH: Calif. Court Dismisses Distributor Class Lawsuit
TORCHMARK CORP: Ala. High Court Dismisses Appeal in "Robertson"

TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Consolidated "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit
TRIBUNE CO: Settles N.Y. Suit Over Inflated Circulation Numbers
WAL-MART: Judge Upholds $185MM Verdict in Workers' Lawsuit

* Shareholder Lawsuits Certain to Follow Financial Crisis



                           *********


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Fla. Court Yet to Certify Class in "Garcia"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, has yet to certify a class in the case against
Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was acquired by Service Corp.
International on Nov. 28, 2006.

The suit, bearing Case No. 04-25646 CA 32, was filed by Reyvis
Garcia and Alicia Garcia against:

     -- Alderwoods Group, Inc., and

     -- Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation
        doing business as Graceland Memorial Park South, and
        formerly known as Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, which was filed in December 2004,
are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was
buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986, when the
cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc.

Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of
the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia.  The
plaintiffs essentially claimed that due to poor record keeping,
spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not
afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location
of the decedent could not be located.

In July 2006, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to
certify a class of all persons buried at the cemetery whose
burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this is due to
poor record keeping, maps and surveys at the cemetery.  They are
also seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable
and injunctive relief.

No class has been certified in the matter.

Service Corp. International reported no development regarding
the case in its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral homes and cemeteries.


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Service Mark-Ups Suit Still Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was acquired by Service Corp.
International on Nov. 28, 2006, continues to face a purported
class action lawsuit over its alleged non-disclosure of markups
on funeral service contracts.

The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Los Angeles, Central District, in
February 2005, under the caption "Richard Sanchez et al. v.
Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al., Case No. BC328962."  The suit
seeks to certify a nationwide class on behalf of all consumers
who purchased funeral goods and services from the company.

The plaintiffs allege in essence that the Federal Trade
Commission's Funeral Rule requires the company to disclose its
mark-ups on all items obtained from third parties in connection
with funeral service contracts.  They further allege that the
company has failed to make such disclosures.

The suit is seeking to recover an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, attorney's fees, costs and unspecified injunctive and
declaratory relief.

This case is substantially similar to "Mary Louise Baudino, et
al. v. Service Corp. International, et al., Case No. BC324007,"
and the company expects that the outcome of the case will be
governed by the law applied in the Baudino Lawsuit, 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.

Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral homes and cemeteries.


ALTRIA CLIENT: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Alleging ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Client Services Inc., formerly Altria Corporate Services,
Inc., is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Four participants in the Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Thrift Plan, a
defined contribution plan, filed the class-action complaint on
July 2, 2008, on behalf of all other plan participants and
beneficiaries.

The named defendants in this action include Altria Corporate
Services, Inc. (now Altria Client Services Inc.) and certain
company committees that allegedly had a connection with the
Kraft Thrift Plan.

The plaintiffs request, among other remedies, that the
defendants restore to the Kraft Thrift Plan all losses
improperly incurred, according to Altria Group, Inc.'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 "George et al. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:08-cv-03799," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Ruben Castillo,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jason P. Kelly, Esq. (jkelly@uselaws.com)
          Schlichter, Bogard & Denton
          100 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: 314-621-6115

               - and -

          Thomas R. Meites, Esq. (tmeites@mmbmlaw.com)
          Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-263-0272
          Fax: 312-263-2942

Representing the defendants are:

          Amy Covert, Esq. (acovert@proskauer.com)
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          One Newark Center - 18th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: 973-274-3258

               - and -

          Ronald J. Kramer, Esq. (rkramer@seyfarth.com)
          Seyfarth Shaw LLP
          131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603-5577
          Phone: 312-460-5000
          Fax: 312-460-7000


ALTRIA GROUP: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in "Good" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the matter
captioned "Good et al. v. Altria Group Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00127-JAW," which names Altria Group, Inc., and its
subsidiary, Philip Morris USA, Inc., as defendants.

The plaintiffs in the purported class action suit allege, among
other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and "Ultra
Lights" in cigarettes constitute deceptive and unfair trade
practices, common law fraud, or violations of the , and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages.

The suit was brought on behalf of individuals who purchased and
consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro
Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights.

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in the case on the grounds that
plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Federal Cigarette
Labeling and Advertising Act and dismissed the case.

In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
vacated the district court's grant of PM USA's motion for
summary judgment on federal preemption grounds and remanded the
case back to the district court.

The district court stayed the case pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's ruling on the defendants' petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on
Jan. 18, 2008.

The case has been stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision.  The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case
on Oct. 6, 2008, according to Altria Group, Inc.'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 "Good et al. v. Altria Group Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00127-JAW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine, Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. (gmantese@aol.com)
          Mantese and Associates, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Phone: 248-457-9200

               - and -

          Samuel W. Lanham, Jr., Esq.
          (slanham@lanhamblackwell.com)
          Lanham Blackwell, P.A.
          470 Evergreen Woods
          Bangor, ME 04401
          Phone: 207-942-2898

Representing the defendants are:

          Judith Bernstein-Gaeta, Esq.
          (judith.bernstein-gaeta@aporter.com)
          Arnold & Porter, LLP
          555 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-1206
          Phone: 202-942-5497

               - and -

          Frances E. Bivens, Esq. (frances.bivens@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk & Wardwell
          450 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-450-4000


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Seek Stay in FACTA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a suit, entitled "Michael Bateman v. American
Multi-Cinema, Inc., Case No. 07-00171," which names as defendant
AMC Entertainment, Inc., are seeking a stay of the matter.

The suit was filed in January 2007 before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more
than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on electronic receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is
deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the cardholder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in an
appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case.

The parties have requested the District Court to stay all
proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit
case.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2008.

The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Gary A. Feess,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. (greg@spirmoss.com)
         Ira Spiro, Esq. (ira@spiromoss.com)
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

          David E. Novitskim, Esq.
          Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
          Phone: 213-576-8097
          Fax: 213-576-8080


AMERICAN BUSINESS: Noteholders' Lawsuit Settled for $16 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action "In re American Business Financial Services,
Inc. Noteholders Litigation, Master File No. 05-232," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has been settled for $16,767,500.

The class consists of all buyers of notes, debentures or money-
market notes issued by American Business Financial Services,
Inc. between Jan. 18, 2002, and Jan. 20, 2005.

Initially, several securities fraud lawsuits, including that of
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, were filed against ABFS.  The
lawsuit seeks to recover on behalf of investors who bought the
Company's subordinated notes pursuant to materially false and
misleading prospectuses and registration statements, which
violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaints allege that, at the end of 2004, the Company
stopped paying principal and interest on maturity and stopped
honoring checks written on ABFS money market accounts.  On
December 23, 2004, the Company issued a press release stating
that it was unable to make any payments on the Company's notes
as they became due and on January 21, 2005, the Company
announced that it had filed for bankruptcy protection.

On March 30, 2005, the various cases against ABFS were
consolidated and the lead plaintiff and counsel were appointed
in this action.  Following further investigation by lead
counsel, an amended consolidated complaint was filed on Nov. 16,
2005.

The parties in the consolidated case subsequently agreed on a
deal to resolve the matter.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill,
Jr. at 11:00 a.m., on November 3, 2008, to determine whether the
Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; to consider the proposed Plan of Allocation; to
consider applications for Class Counsel's fees and costs and
reimbursement to Plaintiffs for their out-of-pocket expenses;
and to consider any objections filed by Class Members.

For more information, contact:

          Claims Administrator: In Re American Business
          Financial Services, Noteholders Litigation
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP
          P.O. Box 360
          Philadelphia, PA 19105-0360
          Phone: 800-768-8450
          Web site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/


AMERICAN INT'L: Court Stays Proceedings in Caremark-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A state court in Alabama has granted a motion seeking a stay of
proceedings in a purported class-action lawsuit filed against
American International Group, Inc., and certain of its
subsidiaries over a 1999 settlement of an earlier class and
derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc.

Initially, AIG and certain of its subsidiaries were named as
defendants in two putative class action complaints in a state
court in Alabama that arises out of the 1999 settlement.

The plaintiffs in the second-filed action have intervened in the
first-filed action, and the second-filed action has been
dismissed.

An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to
the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of
liability.

In the current action, the plaintiffs allege that the judge
approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of
available insurance coverage and would not have approved the
settlement had he known of the existence and unlimited nature of
the excess policy.  They further allege that AIG, its
subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression
for misrepresenting and concealing the nature and extent of
coverage.  In their complaint, the plaintiffs request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of
$3.2 billion, plus punitive damages.

AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and
suppression and have asserted, inter alia, that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement.  They further assert that the
current claims are barred by the statute of limitations and that
the plaintiffs' assertions that the statute was tolled cannot
stand against the public disclosure of the excess coverage.

The plaintiffs and intervenor-plaintiffs, in turn, have asserted
that the disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the
nature of the coverage and did not start the running of the
statute of limitations.

On Nov. 26, 2007, the trial court issued an order that dismissed
the intervenors' complaint against the lawyer-defendants and
entered a final judgment in favor of the lawyer-defendants.

The intervenors are appealing the dismissal of the lawyer-
defendants and on Jan. 2, 2008, requested a stay of all trial
court proceedings pending the appeal.

On March 4, 2008, the trial court granted the motion for a stay.
No further proceedings at the trial court level will occur until
the appeal of the dismissal of the lawyer-defendants is
resolved.

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

New York, New York-based American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the U.S. and abroad.  AIG's
primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.
AIG's major product and service groupings are General Insurance,
Life Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and
Asset Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG
provides insurance, financial and investment products and
services to both businesses and individuals in more than 130
countries and jurisdictions.  In September 2007, AIG announced
that it has completed the merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of
AIG with 21st Century Insurance Group (21st Century).  Upon
consummation of the merger, AIG acquired remaining 39.3%
interest in 21st Century, which AIG did not previously own.


AMERICAN INT'L: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Alleging ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., is facing several purported
class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to
the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

On June 25, 2008, the company, certain of its executive officers
and directors, and unnamed members of the company's Retirement
Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in two
nearly identical, but separate actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The actions purport to be brought as class-action lawsuits on
behalf of all participants in or beneficiaries of certain
pension plans sponsored by AIG or its subsidiaries during the
period May 11, 2007, to June 25, 2008 and whose participant
accounts included investments in the company's common stock.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary responsibilities to Plan participants
and their beneficiaries under the ERISA by:

       -- failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans and
          the Plans' assets;

       -- failing to provide complete and accurate information
          to participants and beneficiaries about the company
          and the value of the company's stock;

       -- failing to monitor appointed Plan fiduciaries and to
          provide them with complete and accurate information;
          and

       -- breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.

The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other things, the
defendants' purported failure to monitor and disclose unrealized
market valuation losses on AIGFP's super senior credit default
swap portfolio as a result of severe credit market disruption.

Three additional purported ERISA class-action complaints were
subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, both containing similar allegations.

New York, New York-based American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the U.S. and abroad.  AIG's
primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.
AIG's major product and service groupings are General Insurance,
Life Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and
Asset Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG
provides insurance, financial and investment products and
services to both businesses and individuals in more than 130
countries and jurisdictions.  In September 2007, AIG announced
that it has completed the merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of
AIG with 21st Century Insurance Group (21st Century).  Upon
consummation of the merger, AIG acquired remaining 39.3%
interest in 21st Century, which AIG did not previously own.


AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., is facing several purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On May 21, 2008, a purported securities fraud class-action
complaint was filed against AIG and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements during
the period from May 11, 2007, through May 9, 2008, in press
releases, the company's quarterly and year-end filings and
during conference calls with analysts which were materially
false and misleading and which artificially inflated the price
of the company's stock.

The alleged false and misleading statements relate to, among
other things, unrealized market valuation losses on AIGFP's (AIG
Financial Products Corp. and AIG Trading Group Inc. and their
respective subsidiaries) super senior credit default swap
portfolio as a result of severe credit market disruption.

The complaint also alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.

Three additional purported securities class action complaints
were subsequently filed in the Southern District of New York,
all containing similar allegations.

One of the additional complaints filed on June 19, 2008, alleges
a purported class period of Nov. 10, 2006, through June 6, 2008.

New York, New York-based American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the U.S. and abroad.  AIG's
primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.
AIG's major product and service groupings are General Insurance,
Life Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and
Asset Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG
provides insurance, financial and investment products and
services to both businesses and individuals in more than 130
countries and jurisdictions.  In September 2007, AIG announced
that it has completed the merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of
AIG with 21st Century Insurance Group (21st Century).  Upon
consummation of the merger, AIG acquired remaining 39.3%
interest in 21st Century, which AIG did not previously own.


AMERICAN INT'L: La. Court Approves $29M "Gunderson" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 14th Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana gave
final approval to the proposed $29-million settlement of a
purported class-action lawsuit against a subsidiary of American
International Group, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 6,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit, known as the "Gunderson" complaint, accuses the
defendants of failing to comply with certain provisions of the
Louisiana Any Willing Provider Act relating to discounts taken
by defendants on bills submitted by Louisiana medical providers
and hospitals that provided treatment or services to workers
compensation claimants.  The suit seeks monetary penalties and
injunctive relief.

On July 20, 2006, the court denied the defendants' motion for
summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' partial motion for
summary judgment, holding that the AIG subsidiary was a group
purchaser and, therefore, potentially subject to liability under
the Act.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the court issued an order certifying a class
of providers and hospitals.

In an unrelated action also arising under the Act, a Louisiana
appellate court ruled that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims at issue.

In response, the defendants in the Gunderson case filed an
exception for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  On Jan. 19,
2007, the court denied this motion, holding that it has
jurisdiction over the putative class claims.  The AIG subsidiary
appealed the class certification and jurisdictional rulings.

While the appeal was pending, the AIG subsidiary settled the
lawsuit.  On Jan. 25, 2008, the plaintiffs and the AIG
subsidiary agreed to resolve the lawsuit on a class-wide basis
for approximately $29 million.

The court has preliminarily approved the settlement and will
hold a final approval hearing on May 29, 2008.  On May 29, 2008,
the court entered a Final Order and Judgment, approving the
settlement and fully and finally resolving the litigation.

New York, New York-based American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the U.S. and abroad.  AIG's
primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.
AIG's major product and service groupings are General Insurance,
Life Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and
Asset Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG
provides insurance, financial and investment products and
services to both businesses and individuals in more than 130
countries and jurisdictions.  In September 2007, AIG announced
that it has completed the merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of
AIG with 21st Century Insurance Group (21st Century).  Upon
consummation of the merger, AIG acquired remaining 39.3%
interest in 21st Century, which AIG did not previously own.


AMERICAN INT'L: Amended Securities Suit Complaint Not Allowed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied a motion that sought leave to file an amended complaint
in the matter captioned "In Re American International Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES."

Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud
class action complaints were filed against AIG which were later
consolidated as "In re American International Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

The lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action suit is a
group of public retirement systems and pension funds benefiting
Ohio state employees who are suing on behalf of themselves and
all purchasers of AIG's publicly traded securities between Oct.
28, 1999, and April 1, 2005.

The named defendants are AIG and a number of present and former
AIG officers and directors, as well as C.V. Starr & Co., Inc.,
Starr International Company, Inc., General Reinsurance Corp.,
and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, among others.

The lead plaintiff alleges, among other things, that AIG:

       -- concealed that it engaged in anti-competitive conduct
          through alleged payment of contingent commissions to
          brokers and participation in illegal bid-rigging;

       -- concealed that it used income smoothing products and
          other techniques to inflate its earnings;

       -- concealed that it marketed and sold income smoothing
          insurance products to other companies; and

       -- misled investors about the scope of government
          investigations.

In addition, the lead plaintiff alleges that AIG's former CEO
manipulated AIG's stock price.   The lead plaintiff asserts
claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

In April 2006, the court denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss the second amended class-action complaint.  In December
2006, a third amended class action complaint was filed, which
assert basically the same claims as the previous complaint.
Fact and class discovery is currently ongoing.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On June 9, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to amend its complaint to include allegations
related to unrealized market valuation losses on AIGFP's (AIG
Financial Products Corp. and AIG Trading Group Inc. and their
respective subsidiaries) super senior credit default swap
portfolio.  On July 17, 2008, the court denied lead plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re American International Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John
E. Sprizzo presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

         Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq. (tdubbs@labaton.com)
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0700
         Fax: 212-818-0477

Representing the defendants is:

         Lewis E. Farberman, Esq. (lfarberman@paulweiss.com)
         Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-373-3577
         Fax: 212-492-0577


AMERICAN INT'L: October 7 Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing was scheduled for Oct. 7, 2008, to consider
final approval of a proposed settlement in a consolidated class-
action lawsuit alleging that American International Group, Inc.,
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Between Nov. 30, 2004, and July 1, 2005, several ERISA-related
complaints were filed on behalf of a purported class of
participants and beneficiaries of three pension plans sponsored
by AIG or its subsidiaries.

A consolidated complaint filed on Sept. 26, 2005, indicates a
class period of Sept. 30, 2000, to May 31, 2005, and names as
defendants AIG, the members of AIG's Retirement Board and the
Administrative Boards of the plans at issue, and four present or
former members of AIG's Board of Directors.  The factual
allegations in the consolidated complaint are essentially
identical to those in the matter, "In Re American International
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES."

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter for an amount within AIG's insurance coverage limits.

The court has scheduled a hearing on May 29, 2008, to consider
preliminary approval of the settlement.  On July 3, 2008, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.  The court
has scheduled a hearing on final settlement approval for Oct. 7,
2008, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

New York, New York-based American International Group, Inc. --
http://www.aigcorporate.com/-- is a holding company which,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in a range of insurance and
insurance-related activities in the U.S. and abroad.  AIG's
primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations.  Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.
AIG's major product and service groupings are General Insurance,
Life Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and
Asset Management.  Through these operating segments, AIG
provides insurance, financial and investment products and
services to both businesses and individuals in more than 130
countries and jurisdictions.  In September 2007, AIG announced
that it has completed the merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of
AIG with 21st Century Insurance Group (21st Century).  Upon
consummation of the merger, AIG acquired remaining 39.3%
interest in 21st Century, which AIG did not previously own.


AMERICAN INT'L: S.C. Court Dismisses Claims in Employers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
dismissed all claims without prejudice in the matter captioned
"Temporary Services Incorporated v. American International Group
Inc et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00271."

The purported class-action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina on Jan. 25,
2008, against AIG and certain of its subsidiaries.  It was
brought on behalf of a class of employers that obtained workers'
compensation insurance from AIG companies and allegedly paid
inflated premiums as a result of AIG's alleged underreporting of
workers' compensation premiums.

An amended complaint in the South Carolina action was filed on
March 24, 2008, and AIG filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 21, 2008.

On July 8, 2008, the South Carolina court granted AIG's motion
to dismiss all claims without prejudice and granted the
plaintiff leave to refile subject to certain conditions,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Temporary Services Incorporated v. American
International Group Inc et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00271," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina,
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark Dale Chappell, Esq.
          (mchappell@chappellsmitharden.com)
          Chappell and Smith
          PO Box 12330
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: 803-929-3600
          Fax: 803-929-3604

          Richard A Harpootlian, Esq. (rah@harpootlianlaw.com)
          Richard A. Harpootlian PA
          1410 Laurel Street
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Phone: 803-252-4848
          Fax: 803-252-4810

               - and -

          James Kevin Holmes, Esq.
          (kholmes@steinberglawfirm.com)
          Steinberg Law Firm, P.O. Box 9
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: 843-720-2800
          Fax: 843-722-1190

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert H. Brunson, Esq.
          (robert.brunson@nelsonmullins.com)
          Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough
          P.O. Box 1806
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Phone: 843-853-5200
          Fax: 843-722-8700


APPLE INC: Settles Calif. Suit Over Faulty Notebook Adapters
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. has agreed, without admitting fault, to settle a
class-action lawsuit alleging that power adapters sold with
certain Power PC-based iBook and PowerBook notebooks were
defective in that they could dangerously fray, sparks and
prematurely fail to work, Katie Marsal writes for the Apple
Insider.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, claimed that the Adapter sold with the
Subject Computers is defective in that it "dangerously frays,
sparks and prematurely fails to work," and that Apple engaged in
misrepresentations regarding the Adapter.

The suit is filed on behalf of all United States residents who
purchased in the United States, for their own use and not for
resale, an Apple PowerBook or iBook computer.

According to Apple Inside, the settlement reached by the company
offers to provide a cash payment to customers who purchased
certain model Apple PowerBook or iBook computers, had their
power adapter fail within the first three years following the
initial retail purchase, and then purchased a replacement
adapter.

The settlement covers the purchase of a Replacement Adapter due
to failure of the Adapter sold with the Subject Computer within
the first three years following the initial retail purchase of
the Subject Computer, and before May 31, 2009.  The amount of
the cash payment will vary depending on when the Adapter
included with or sold for the Subject Computer failed.

Customers that meet the criteria of a class member and who wish
to file a claim must print, complete, sign and mail the Claim
Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked by February 11,
2009, for Replacement Adapters purchased on or before October
14, 2008.

For filing a claim for a Replacement Adapter purchased after
October 14, class members must print, complete, sign and mail
the Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked within 120
days of the adapter failure OR by May 31, 2009, whichever date
is earlier.

Deadline to file for exclusion is on December 1, 2008.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 9:00 a.m. on Dec. 15,
2008.

The suit is "Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv-
05358-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Class counsel is:

          Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street - 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016

Defense counsel is:

          Penelope A. Preovolos, Esq.
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482


BOEING CO: "Spano" 401(k) Fee Lawsuit Sanctioned as Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David R. Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois sanctioned an excessive 401(k) fee
lawsuit against Boeing Co. as a class action, Fred Schneyer
writes for the PlanAdviser.

On Oct. 13, 2006, Boeing was named as a defendant in the
lawsuit.  The plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in the Boeing
Company Voluntary Investment Plan, alleged that fees and
expenses incurred by the Plan were and are unreasonable and
excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit of the Plan and
its participants, and were undisclosed to participants.

The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
sought injunctive, and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which
Boeing has opposed.

On Sept. 10, 2007, the court issued an order staying class
certification motion pending resolution by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of a related case, "Lively v.
Dynegy, Inc."

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file
an amended complaint, which added the company's Employee
Benefits Investment Committee as a defendant, and included new
allegations regarding alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The stay of proceedings entered by the court on Sept. 10, 2007,
pending resolution by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit of "Lively v. Dynegy, Inc.," was lifted on April 3,
2008, after notification that the Lively case had been settled.

On April 16, 2008, the plaintiffs sought leave to file a second
amended complaint that would add investment performance
allegations (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2008).

Recently, Judge Herndon sanctioned the excessive 401(k) fee
lawsuit against Boeing Co. as a class action.  He said the class
action litigation would be made up of nearly 190,000 plan
participants.

Judge Herndon turned aside Boeing's claim that the case should
not be granted class action status because the allegations the
company paid excessive plan fees would require participant-by-
participant consideration—making it too difficult to judge the
merits of the case collectively.

In addition, Judge Herndon said class certification was
appropriate because the lawsuit involved the common issue of
whether the defendants selected imprudent and improper
investment options for the plan. The court also noted that the
lawsuit raised the common issue of whether the administrative
fees paid by the plan were reasonable.

The court rejected the defendants' contention that the class
should not include future or past participants. "[T]he Court
finds that the inclusion of future class members is appropriate
here because Plaintiffs request an injunction prohibiting the
continuation of current practices; and this injunctive relief,
if granted, would affect not just present participants, but
future participants as well," Judge Herndon wrote.

The suit is "Spano et al. v. Boeing Company, The et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00743-DRH-DGW," filed in the U. S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, Judge David R. Herndon
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Daniel V. Conlisk, Esq. (DConlisk@uselaws.com)
         Schlichter, Bogard et al.
         Generally Admitted
         100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
         St. Louis, MO 63102
         Phone: 314-621-6115

Representing the defendants are:

         Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. (lgolumbic@groom.com)
         Groom Law Group, Chartered
         1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1200
         Washington, DC 20006
         Phone: 202-861-6615
         Fax: 202-659-4503

              - and -

         Lisa Demet Martin, Esq. (lmartin@bryancave.com)
         Bryan Cave
         211 North Broadway
         One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600
         St. Louis, MO 63102
         Phone: 314-259-2000
         Fax: 314-259-2020


BRP US: Recalls Youth All Terrain Vehicles Due to Collision Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRP U.S. Inc., of Sturtevant, Wis., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,200
Model Year 2008-2009 Can-Am Youth ATVs.

The company said that if the rider is ejected and the cord strap
is pulled, the shutoff switch can fail to disable the engine.
The ATV can operate uncontrolled, until the engine returns to
idle, and cause a collision with bystanders, vehicles or other
objects. This poses a serious risk of injury.  No injuries have
been reported.

The recall involves Model Year 2008-2009 Can-Am DS 90 X ATVs.
The model name can be located on the side panels.  The ATV is
black with yellow and orange trim.

These recalled ATVs were manufactured by Vietnam Precision
Industrial Co., of Vietnam and were being sold at authorized
Can-Am dealers nationwide from August 2007 through September
2008 for about $3,400.

A picture of the recalled ATVs is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09701.jpg

Parents are advised to stop children from using these vehicles
immediately and contact any Can-Am dealer to schedule a free
repair.  Consumers are being sent a direct notice from BRP.

For additional information, call BRP toll-free at 888-638-5397
between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.can-am.brp.com/


BUILDING MATERIALS: Workers from Sue Over Improper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
A group of construction workers from California, Arizona and
Nevada filed a lawsuit accusing Building Materials Holding Corp.
-- one of the nation's largest home-building subcontractors --
of failing to pay proper wages, the workers' lawyer told
Examiner.com.

The lawsuit, filed recently in the U.S. District Court, alleged
that Building Materials and several of its subsidiaries,
including San Francisco-based SelectBuild Construction Inc.,
withheld overtime and other wage payments.

"The pressures in the industry have been experienced by these
workers who are not getting paid for the wages they have
earned," Glenn Rothner, Esq., said at a press conference.

Mr. Rothner said the 14 plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, which
seeks an unknown amount of back wages and other damages, were
asking a judge to give the lawsuit class-action status.


CARMAX INC: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Oct. 6
------------------------------------------------------------
     DENVER, Oct. 2, 2008 -- Dyer & Berens LLP reminds
purchasers of CarMax Inc. common stock during the period between
April 2, 2008, and June 17, 2008, of the upcoming deadline to
seek a lead plaintiff appointment.

     On August 6, 2008, Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of CarMax common
stock during the Class Period.

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

     The class action complaint alleges that the defendants
issued false and misleading statements concerning CarMax's
financial performance and prospects.

For more information, contact:

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


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Faces Texas Suit Over Denied Fuel Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Airlines Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas alleging it converted money by refusing to refund fuel
surcharges to customers who bought tickets but did not use them,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action brought pursuant to the provisions of the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d),
1453, and 1711-1715 on behalf of all persons who purchased
tickets for airline travel from the defendant, and who paid a
"fuel surcharge" to Defendant as part of the ticket price, and
paid taxes on these tickets to Defendant, and who did not travel
on their ticket, but were not refunded the "fuel surcharge" and
taxes by Defendant.

The report explains that under CAFA, federal courts possess
original jurisdiction over any class action if the class has 100
or more proposed members, the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000 in the aggregate, and if minimal diversity is met
(i.e., any class member is a citizen of a state different from
any defendant).  The suit says that jurisdiction is proper under
CAFA because the class includes more than 100 proposed members,
because the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000,
and because at least one class member is a citizen and resident
of a state different from that of the defendant.

Plaintiff Timothy Moriarty asks that:

   -- the defendant be cited to appear and answer,

   -- this action be declared to be a class action,

   -- he be designated as lead plaintiff,

   -- his counsel be designated as class counsel,

   -- upon trial hereof, he have judgment in the amount of his
      compensatory damages against the defendant, including all
      actual damages he and the class suffered, including pre-
      and postjudgment interest, costs of suit, reasonable and
      necessary attorneys fees, and

   -- he be awarded all further relief both general and special,
      in law or in equity.

The suit is "Timothy Moriarty et al. v. Continental Airlines,
Inc., Case Number:  4:2008cv02907," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Anthony G. Buzbee, Esq. (tbuzbee@txattorneys.com)
          Christopher K. Johns, Esq.
          (chrisjohns@txattorneys.com)
          Hogg Palace
          401 Louisiana, 8th floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-653-5640
          Fax: 713-653-5693


FIFTH THIRD: 401(k) Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 2, 2008 -- A federal court has granted
"class action" status to the Fifth Third 401(k) lawsuit that is
pending in Cincinnati, Ohio.

     The lawsuit, brought on behalf of all participants and
beneficiaries in the Fifth Third Master Profit Sharing Plan,
alleges that Fifth Third Bancorp, George Schaefer and certain
other top executives at the company mismanaged the Plan and
breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

     ERISA is a federal statute that requires companies to act
with loyalty and prudence when managing a 401(k) plan.  The
plaintiffs claim that Fifth Third and the other defendants
violated ERISA by offering Fifth Third stock in the Plan at a
time when it was an inappropriate investment and by failing to
make appropriate disclosures to employees that would allow them
to make an informed decision about investing in Fifth Third
stock.

     "This decision confirms the appropriateness of the class
action mechanism in this case," states lead attorney David R.
Scott, Esq., of Scott+Scott, LLP.  "Only a class action can
equalize the playing field between big-business defendants and
the class."

     In a separate opinion, the court also upheld the
plaintiffs' claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by charging the Plan unreasonably excessive investment
management fees.

     Among other things, the plaintiffs allege that Fifth Third
engaged in a practice known as "triple-dipping" on the Plan's
fees.  "Triple-dipping" occurs when a company charges a 401(k)
Plan three levels of fees, one at the plan level, one at the
mutual fund level and one at the underlying mutual fund level.

     "Triple-dipping" increases the company's own revenues and
profits, at the expense of the employees and retirees in the
401(k) Plan.  Plaintiffs allege that this practice is strictly
prohibited under ERISA and constitutes a separate fiduciary duty
breach.

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          29 West 57th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 800-404-7770
                 860-537-5537
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
          Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com/


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: $40MM Settlement in Paxil Lawsuit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 1, 2008 -- U.S. Judge
Michael J. Davis of the District of Minnesota has approved the
final settlement of $40 million to reimburse insurance
companies, as third-party payers, for their costs in insuring
Paxil purchases paid for by the parents of minors prescribed
Paxil or Paxil CR.

     Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman originated the class
actions and litigated the heart of the case based on internal
GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) documents showing that GSK promoted Paxil
as an effective medication for children and adolescents despite
internal communications acknowledging that Paxil's pediatric
depression clinical trials failed to out-perform sugar pills,
yet had higher suicidality rates than sugar pills.

     Notwithstanding, GSK promoted Paxil as being "remarkably
safe and effective" for depressed children.

    Paxil was never approved for children, so there were no
explicit warnings for pediatric use on Paxil's warning label.
Thus, the prescription and sale of Paxil to children was all
"off label", which is permitted, but with severe restrictions on
such "off-label" promotion and marketing.

    "Off-label marketing of drugs is prohibited, with limited
exceptions that allow scientific trial results to be presented
as long as they are truthful and accurate," stated Michael Baum,
Esq., senior partner at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman.  "Here
GSK should not have promoted Paxil for kids' use when GSK's own
pediatric clinical trials showed Paxil was no more effective
than sugar pills and, in fact, caused pediatric Paxil patients
to experience increased suicidality.  Litigation like this helps
remove the incentive for drug companies to take advantage of the
off-label marketing loophole."

    Similar class actions were filed in several courts seeking
restitution of money paid by insurance companies that paid for
minors' Paxil, which were ultimately consolidated as a national
class action before Judge Davis in Minneapolis.  The first phase
of these cases, the class action for the individual Paxil
payments, were resolved in April, 2007 when GSK agreed to
reimburse parents for the money they paid out-of-pocket for
their children's Paxil prescriptions.

     The class representatives in the insurance company phase
are Universal Care Inc., the Carpenters and Joiners Welfare
Fund, and Philadelphia Firefighters Local 22 Health and Welfare
Fund (Carpenters and Joiners Welfare Fund, et al. v. SmithKline
Beecham Corp., doing business as GlaxoSmithKline, No. CV 04-
3500, D. Minn.).

     Each were class representatives of four individual class
actions in California, Minnesota and Pennsylvania that sought a
refund of monies paid by third-party payers who purchased Paxil
for patients under 18 from Jan. 1, 1998, to Dec. 31, 2004.

     In addition to Baum Hedlund, the team of law firms
representing the insurance company class representatives are
Brian Strange of Strange & Carpenter in Los Angeles; J.D. Horton
of Quinn, Emanuel in Los Angeles; Christopher Coffin of Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin in Plaquemine, LA; Shawn Raiter of Larson King
in St. Paul; Stephen Swedlow of Swedlow & Associates in Chicago;
Paul Dahlberg of Meshbesher & Spence in Rochester, MN; Michael
Perrin of Bailey Perrin Bailey in Houston; and William Marvin of
Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Philadelphia. GSK is represented by
Dwight Davis and Meghan Magruder of King & Spalding.

     Through the team's skillful negotiating, especially Steve
Swedlow's, all objections to the class were handled and
withdrawn.  The settlement team also handled, with King &
Spalding's assistance, nearly all of the companies that had
considered opting out of the class, addressing their concerns
and shepherding them back into the settlement, as well.

     These lawyers coordinated a unique settlement that has the
entire proceeds being paid out by GSK, not just the amount
claimed.

     Judge Davis pointed out that the case was "heavily
litigated" and noted that the amount of opposition to the
settlement was de minimis.  Davis ruled that if the aggregate
amount of claimed benefits does not exceed the $40 million
settlement amount, up to $1 million will be donated to one or
more charitable organizations whose primary purpose includes
mental health affecting children and the rest will be
distributed pro rata among the claimants.

     Under the settlement terms, class members would be refunded
up to 40 percent of their actual cost for Paxil if they provide
proof that a patient under 18 with diagnosis of a major
depressive disorder was prescribed Paxil or Paxil CR.  Class
members would receive 15 percent of their actual cost if the
diagnosis is not included.

     Each of the insurance companies were class representatives
of four class actions in California, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.
The class consists of "[a]ll third-party payors in the United
States and its territories, including administrators and
benefits managers, who reimbursed, purchased, or paid for Paxil
or Paxil CR prescribed for consumption by any person under the
age of 18, between Jan. 1, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2004."

For more information, contact:

          Robin McCall
          Media Relations Director
          Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone : 310-207-3233
          Fax : 310-820-7444


GLOBALSTAR INC: New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
     MILPITAS, Calif., Oct 2, 2008 -- On September 30, 2008, a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Globalstar,
Inc. -- the world's largest provider of mobile satellite voice
and data services to businesses, governments and individuals --
and certain of its officers, stemming from the Company's initial
public offering, was dismissed with prejudice by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

     In February 2007, Ladmen Partners, Israel Bollag and
Margueritte Sherrard, filed three separate purported class
action complaints against the company, its chief executive
officer and its chief financial officer (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 21, 2007).

     The suits allege that the company's registration statement
related to its initial public offering in November 2006
contained material misstatements and omissions.

     The actions cited a drop in the trading price of the
company's common stock that followed its filing, on Feb. 5,
2007, of a current report on SEC Form 8-K relating in part to
changes in the condition of the company's satellite
constellation.

     The Court consolidated the three cases as "Ladmen Partners,
Inc. v. Globalstar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-0976 (LAP),"
and appointed Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.

     On Aug. 15, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a securities
class action consolidated amended complaint reasserting claims
against the company and the company's CEO and CFO, and adding as
defendants the three co-lead underwriters of the IPO – Wachovia
Capital Markets, LLC; JPMorgan Securities, Inc.; and Jefferies &
Co., Inc.

     On Nov. 15, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.  The amended complaint seeks, on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's common stock who purchased shares in
the IPO, recovery of damages under Sections 11 and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and rescission under Section
12(a)(2) of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

     On Sept. 30, the court dismissed the suit with prejudice.
The plaintiff has the right to file an appeal of the dismissal
within 30 days from the date of the dismissal.

The suit is "Ladmen Partners, Inc., et al. v. Globalstar, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-0976 (LAP)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Loretta A.
Preska, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Joel Paul Laitman, Esq. (jplaitman@aol.com)
          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-964-0046
          Fax: 212-267-8137

Representing the defendants are:

          Lewis Clifford Craig, Esq. (craigc@taftlaw.com)
          Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
          425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
          Cincinnati, Oh 45202-3957
          Phone: 513-381-2838
          Fax: 513-381-0205

               - and -

          Mitchell A. Lowenthal, Esq. (maofiling@cgsh.com)
          Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP
          1 Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-225-2000
          Fax: 212-225-3499


HILB ROGAL: Third Circuit to Review Insurance Brokerage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit tentatively
listed for consideration by the merits panel the case entitled
"In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Case No. MDL-
1663, Master Docket No. 2:04-cv-5184," which names Hilb, Rogal &
Hobbs Co., as a defendant.

The class-action lawsuit has been reassigned to Judge Garrett E.
Brown, Jr., Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

Initially, in August 2004, OptiCare Health Systems Inc. filed a
putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Case No. 04-CV-06954) against a
number of the country's largest insurance brokers and several
large commercial insurers.  Hilb Rogal was named as a defendant
in the OptiCare suit in November 2004.

In December 2004, two other purported class action suits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois by Stephen Lewis (Case No. 04-C-7847), and Diane Preuss
(Case No. 04-C-7853), respectively, against certain insurance
brokers, including the company, and several large commercial
insurers.

On Feb. 17, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that the OptiCare suit, along with three other purported
antitrust class action suits filed in New York, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania against industry participants, be centralized and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In addition, by a Conditional Transfer Order dated March 10,
2005, the MDL Panel conditionally transferred the Lewis and
Preuss cases to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  The transfer subsequently became effective and as a
result of the Panel's transfer orders, the OptiCare, Lewis and
Preuss cases are proceeding on a consolidated basis with other
purported class actions under "In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. MDL-1663, Master Docket No. 2:04-
cv-5184."

               Commercial Class Action Complaint

On Aug. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs in the Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation filed a First Consolidated Amended
Commercial Class Action Complaint (Civil No. 04-5184) against
the company and certain other insurance brokers and insurers.

In the Commercial Complaint, the named plaintiffs purport to
represent a class consisting of all persons who, between
Aug. 26, 1994, and the date on which class certification may
occur, engaged the services of any one of the broker-defendants
or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates to obtain advice with
respect to the procurement or renewal of insurance and who
entered into or renewed a contract of insurance with one of the
insurer defendants.

Tn the Commercial Complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other
things:

      -- that the broker defendants engaged in improper steering
         of clients to the insurer defendants for the purpose of
         obtaining undisclosed additional compensation in the
         form of contingent commissions from insurers;

      -- that the defendants were engaged in a bid-rigging
         scheme involving the submission of false and
         inflated bids from insurers to clients;

      -- that the broker defendants improperly placed their
         clients' insurance business with insurers through
         related wholesale entities where an intermediary was
         unnecessary for the purpose of generating additional
         commissions from insurers;

      -- that the broker defendants entered into unlawful tying
         arrangements to obtain reinsurance business from the
         defendant insurers; and

      -- that the defendants created centralized internal
         departments for the purpose of monitoring, facilitating
         and advancing the collection of contingent commissions,
         payments and other improper fees.

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, Rule 18 of the U.S. Civil Code Section
1962(c) and (d), fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek monetary relief, including treble damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, interest,
attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and other relief.

                   Employee Benefits Complaint

The plaintiffs in the Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
also filed on Aug. 1, 2005, a First Consolidated Amended
Employee Benefits Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey against:

      -- the company;
      -- Frank F. Haack & Associates, Inc.;
      -- O'Neill, Finnegan & Jordan Insurance Agency Inc.; and
      -- certain other insurance brokers and insurers.

In the Employee Benefits Complaint (Civil Nos. 04-5184, et al.),
the named plaintiffs purport to represent two separate classes
consisting of ERISA and non-ERISA plan employees and employers,
respectively, that have acquired insurance products from the
defendants in connection with an employee benefit plan between
Aug. 26, 1994 and the date on which class certification may
occur.

The plaintiffs allege in the Employee Benefits Complaint, among
other things:

      -- that the broker defendants secretly conspired with the
         insurer defendants to steer plaintiffs and members of
         the classes to the insurer defendants in exchange for
         undisclosed fees, including communication fees,
         enrollment fees, service fees, finders fees and
         administrative fees, contingent commissions and other
         payments, including broker bonuses, trips and
         entertainment, from the insurer defendants;

      -- that the defendants were engaged in a bid-rigging
         scheme involving the submission of false and
         inflated bids from insurers to clients;

      -- that the broker defendants improperly placed their
         clients' insurance business with insurers through
         related wholesale entities where an intermediary was
         unnecessary for the purpose of generating additional
         commissions from insurers; and

      -- that the defendants entered into unlawful tying
         arrangements under which the broker defendants would
         place primary insurance contracts with insurers on the
         condition that the insurers use the broker defendants
         for placing their reinsurance coverage with reinsurance
         carriers.

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, Rule 18 of the U.S. Civil Code Section
1962(c) and (d), fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment.  They seek monetary relief, including treble
and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
restitution, interest, attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and
other relief.

The company, along with other defendants, filed a motion to
dismiss both the Commercial Complaint and the Employee Benefits
Complaint.  The motion is now fully briefed and awaiting a
decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Also, on Feb. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their motions for
class certification in each case.  On May 5, 2006, the
defendants filed their oppositions to the motions for class
certification.

On May 31, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support
of their motions for class certification.  The motion for class
certification is fully briefed and awaiting a decision from the
District Court of New Jersey.

    Developments on Commercial, Employee Benefits Complaint

On Oct. 3, 2006, the District Court of New Jersey denied in part
the motion to dismiss the Commercial Complaint and the Employee
Benefits Complaint and ordered that plaintiffs provide
supplemental information regarding each of their consolidated
complaints by Oct. 25, 2006.  The plaintiffs filed the
supplemental pleadings and the company, along with other
defendants, filed renewed motions to dismiss.

On Feb. 12, 2007, MDL 1663 was transferred to Judge Garrett E.
Brown, Jr., Chief Judge of the District Court of New Jersey.

On April 5, 2007, the District Court of New Jersey dismissed the
Commercial Complaint and the Employee Benefits Complaint without
prejudice.

On May 22, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Commercial Class Action Complaint (the Second Amended
Commercial Complaint) and a Second Consolidated Amended Employee
Benefits Class Action Complaint (the Second Amended Employee
Benefits Complaint).

The Second Amended Employee Benefits Complaint does not contain
allegations against the Company; Frank F. Haack & Associates,
Inc.; O'Neill, Finnegan & Jordan Insurance Agency Inc.; or any
of the Company's other subsidiaries or affiliates, and the
Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates are, therefore, no
longer defendants in the Employee Benefits case, Civil No. 05-
1079.

In the Second Amended Commercial Complaint, the named plaintiffs
purport to represent a class consisting of all persons or
entities who between Jan. 1, 1998 and Dec. 31, 2004 engaged the
services of any one of the broker defendants, including the
Company, or any one of their subsidiaries or affiliates, in
connection with the purchase or renewal of insurance or
reinsurance from an insurer.

The plaintiff Tri-State Container Corp. purports to represent a
class consisting of all persons or entities who between Jan. 1,
1998 and Dec. 31, 2004 engaged the services of the company,
including its subsidiaries and affiliates, in connection with
the purchase or renewal of insurance from an insurer.

Certain other plaintiffs purport to represent classes of persons
and entities with claims against other broker and insurer
defendants.

The plaintiffs allege in the Second Amended Commercial
Complaint, among other things:

       -- that the broker defendants engaged in improper
          steering of clients to the insurer defendants for the
          purpose of obtaining undisclosed additional
          compensation in the form of contingent commissions
          from insurers;

       -- that certain of the defendants were engaged in a bid-
          rigging scheme involving the submission of false
          and inflated bids from insurers to clients;

       -- that certain of the broker defendants improperly
          placed their clients' insurance business with insurers
          through related wholesale entities where an
          intermediary was unnecessary for the purpose of
          generating additional commissions from insurers;

       -- that certain of the broker defendants entered into
          unlawful tying arrangements to obtain reinsurance
          business from the defendant insurers; and

       -- that certain of the broker defendants created
          centralized internal departments for the purpose of
          monitoring, facilitating and advancing the collection
          of contingent commissions, payments and other improper
          fees.

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and (d) (RICO),
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  They seek monetary
relief, including treble damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief, restitution, interest, attorneys' fees and expenses,
costs and other relief; however, no actual dollar amounts have
been stated as being sought.

On June 21, 2007, the company, along with the other defendants,
filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Commercial Complaint
and to strike the addition of certain allegations and parties,
including the addition of Tri-State as a named plaintiff.

On July 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed oppositions to the
motions to dismiss and to strike and cross-moved for leave to
amend the Second Amended Commercial Complaint to add allegations
and parties, including Tri-State.  On July 31, 2007, the
defendants filed reply briefs.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the District Court of New Jersey dismissed all
federal antitrust claims in the Second Amended Commercial
Complaint.  On Sept. 28, 2007, the District Court of New Jersey
dismissed all federal RICO claims in the Second Amended
Commercial Complaint with prejudice.  The District Court of New
Jersey further declined to exercise jurisdiction over state law
claims in the Second Amended Commercial Complaint, dismissed
those state law claims without prejudice and dismissed Civil No.
04-5184 in its entirety.  The District Court of New Jersey also
dismissed as moot all other motions pending in Civil No. 04-5184
as of Sept. 28, 2007.

On Oct. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, relating to the
District Court of New Jersey's order dismissing Civil No. 04-
5184 and all other adverse orders and decisions in Civil No. 04-
5184.

The plaintiffs filed an opening brief in support of their appeal
on Feb. 19, 2008.  The defendants filed an opposition brief on
April 7, 2008, and the plaintiffs filed a reply brief on April
24, 2008.

On July 2, 2008, the Third Circuit issued an order granting
joint motions by the plaintiffs and defendant Marsh & McLennan
and various of its affiliates to dismiss the appeal as to the
Marsh entities and partially remanded the case to the District
Court for the district court to consider a motion to approve a
settlement agreement between plaintiffs and the Marsh entities.

Furthermore, the Third Circuit stayed the appeal pending these
further proceedings by the District Court and ordered that
status reports be filed monthly until those proceedings are
completed at which time the parties are to file a statement
outlining the remaining appeal issues.

On July 10, 2008, the plaintiffs filed with the Third Circuit a
motion to vacate the stay order.  On July 30, 2008 the Third
Circuit granted plaintiffs' motion to vacate the stay order and
lifted the stay.  On July 31, 2008, the Third Circuit
tentatively listed Civil No. 04-5184 for consideration by the
merits panel on April 20, 2009.

The Third Circuit's notice states that it may become necessary
to move the date to another day within the week of April 20,
2009, and that the parties will be advised no later than one
week prior to this disposition date if oral argument will be
required, 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 "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. MDL-1663, Master Docket No. 2:04-cv-5184," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Faith
S. Hochberg.

Representing the company are:

         Michael R. Griffinger, Esq. (griffinger@gibbonslaw.com)
         Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, PC
         One Riverfront Plaza,
         Newark, NJ 07102-5496
         Phone: 973-596-4500

              - and -

         Shawn Patrick Regan, Esq. (sregan@hunton.com)
         Hunton & Williams, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-309-1046


HORIZON BANK: Faces Indiana Lawsuit Over Repossessed Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Bank, N.A., the bank subsidiary of Horizon Bancorp, is
facing a purported class-action suit in Indiana over repossessed
vehicles, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On Aug. 5, 2008, Maria Coto filed a putative class action
complaint in the Porter County Superior Court, Porter County,
Indiana, on behalf of herself and others who have had their
vehicles repossessed by the Bank during the four years prior to
the filing of the action.

The complaint alleges that the Bank's post-repossession notice
to defaulting borrowers does not comply with certain aspects of
Indiana law.  The plaintiff seeks statutory damages and costs.

Horizon Bancorp -- http://www.accesshorizon.com/-- is a bank
holding company based in Michigan City, Indiana.  It provides a
range of banking services in Northwestern Indiana and
Southwestern Michigan through its bank subsidiary, Horizon Bank,
N.A., and other affiliated entities. Horizon operates as a
single segment, which is commercial banking.  The Bank is a
full-service commercial bank offering commercial and retail
banking services, corporate and individual trust and agency
services and other services incident to banking.  On April 23,
2007, the Bank opened a full service branch in Benton Harbor,
Michigan and on Jan. 28, 2008 the Bank opened its second full
service branch in Valparaiso, Indiana.  The Bank maintains 14
other full service facilities in Northwest Indiana and Southwest
Michigan.  The Bank also maintains a loan production office in
Lake County Indiana.


JOHN JAQUES: Recalls Lawn Dart Games Due to Risk of Puncture
------------------------------------------------------------
     John Jaques & Son Ltd., of Edenbridge, England, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 35 Lawn Dart Games.

     The company said the darts in the games pose a puncture
hazard to young children.  Lawn darts were banned in December
1988 to protect children from skull, face and eye puncture
wounds.  No injuries have been reported.

     The recalled lawn dart game includes four projectiles, each
consisting of a 14 3/4" bamboo shaft, four fins, and a wooden
tip.

     These recalled lawn dart games were manufactured in China
and were being sold at Kensington Trading Company online and
Hammacher Schlemmer online from March 2006 through July 2008 for
about $60.

     A picture of the recalled lawn dart games is found at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09703.jpg

     Parents are advised to immediately stop young children from
playing with the recalled games and contact the firm to receive
a refund.  John Jaques & Son and Hammacher Schlemmer are
contacting customers directly.

     For additional information, contact the firm toll-free at
877-374-8881 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. MT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.jaqueslondon.com/


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Lawsuit in Utah Over Alleged Fraud Web
------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Chase & Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the Third District Court for Salt Lake County (Utah) alleging
it helped an unaccredited online nursing college in constructing
a house of lies meant to push tuition lending, Robert Kahn of
CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the report, also sued is American Education
Services, which services the loans originated by JP Morgan,
formerly known as Bank One.

CourtHouse relates that this is an action for fraud, for breach
of fiduciary duty, for violation of Utah and Ohio statutes
relating to consumer protection and consumer credit
transactions, and for breach of contract of student lending
transactions, all realting to the failed Academy of Nursing.

According to the report, the claims recapitulate the disaster
unfolding on Wall Street, alleging an underlying fraud papered
over by an avalanche of loan swapping, securitization and
bankruptcy.

The class action claims Excelsior College participated in the
fraud by lending its accreditation to the Academy of Nursing,
and that JP Morgan Chase pushed the loans and touted the Academy
while ignoring its accreditation problems.

Eleven named student plaintiffs and two plaintiffs who co-signed
loans say the Academy was not accredited, could not award
nursing degrees despite promising that it could, and that it
often did not even use accredited teachers, but "students who
had just completed the classes."  And some of those "teachers"
had not even passed the courses they were teaching, the
complaint states.

The whole scheme was a way to push loans, according to the
complaint.

In a final irony, defendant The Educational Resource Institute
(TERI), which was created to guarantee student loans that are
not guaranteed by the government, filed for bankruptcy itself in
April this year. This came after "the financial community
lobbied successfully for federal legislation that prevents
students who borrow from private lenders using TERI loans from
extinguishing the TERI loan in bankruptcy."

The plaintiffs therefore need permission from the bankruptcy to
sue TERI.  The complaint adds that TERI, of Boston, is an
affiliate of defendant First Marblehead.  "TERI became such a
fixture in the non-federally guaranteed student loan program
that loans it guaranteed have become known as 'TERI loans.'"

The State of Utah shut down the Academy of Nursing in February
2005, "due to many violations of state law," the complaint
states.

AES also claims to own the loans, "under convoluted legal
arrangement that have become commonplace in this age of
packaging and selling 'securitized loans.' . . . (S)uch an
arrangement allows AES to circumvent fair debt collection
practices under state and federal statutory schemes, and to
pursue debt collection practices which would be illegal if
pursued by a third-party debt collector."

Defendant Excelsior College, another Internet college, was
"affiliated with" the Academy of Nursing, though the
relationship was murky, the complaint states.  "The Academy of
Nursing was not an accredited institution, and could not award
nursing degrees to students.  It relied exclusively on the
distance and online course of study created by Excelsior
College, as well as Excelsior's accreditation.

"The Academy of Nursing was severely underfunded.  Its
association with Excelsior College was ill-defined.  At various
times, the Academy's course of study did not coincide with that
of Excelsior College.  Textbooks used by the Academy were not
approved by Excelsior.  Many of the Academy of Nursing's
instructors were not trained as teachers.  Some were simply
students who had just completed the classes.  Based on
information and belief, some instructors had failed to pass the
classes they were teaching.  The Academy's financing and
operation, including but not limited to its practice of taking
tuition from students for multiple years in advance, violated
Utah law.  None of these facts were known to the students.

"On several occasions Excelsior College disavowed its
affiliation with the Academy. Students were often given
conflicting stories of the colleges' affiliation, of their
enrollment in Excelsior, and of the accepted courses of study."

The complaint adds: "Student loan checks from Bank One were most
often made payable jointly to the student borrower and Excelsior
College.  Excelsior College confirmed enrollment of several of
the named plaintiffs with Bank One, AES and others, as requested
. . . Excelsior's nursing program is accredited with the
National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission."

Bank One allegedly sold the students' loans to First Marblehead,
whose finances were "severely negatively impacted by TERI's
bankruptcy."  Defendant JPMorganChase is successor to Bank One,
having merged with it in 2004.

Defendant "National Collegiate Trust is one of more trusts
create to purchase the TERI loans of the plaintiffs and other
students similarly situated.  In a typical transaction, the
trust will sell notes to investors, and the trust will use the
proceeds from the notes to purchase groups of TERI guaranteed
student loans.  The trust enters into an administration
agreement with First Marblehead and a servicing agreement with
AES."

And defendant Protagoras Corp., whose charter expired in 2005,
was an affiliate of the Academy of Nursing, according to the
complaint.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- all actual damages incurred by plaintiffs;

     -- all statutory damages incurred by plaintiffs;

     -- reimbursement of all monies paid by the plaintiffs
        on the loan;

     -- an order extinguishing the plaintiffs' liability
        under the loans;

     -- a declaration that the loans are illegal and violate
        the Utah and Ohio statutes and are extinguished, and for
        an injunction enjoining collection of the loans;

     -- all attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs
        incurred; and

     -- such other further relief deemed just and equitable.

The suit is "Carolee Aquila, et al. v. Academy of Nursing et
al.," filed in the Third District Court for Salt Lake County
(Utah).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          E. Jay Sheen, Esq.
          E. Jay Sheen, PLLC
          3853 Cobble Ridge Dr. #11-303
          West Jordan, UT 84084
          Phone: 801-574-6626
          Fax: 801-284-2187


LENDER PROCESSING: Faces Texas Suit Over Attorney Fee-Splitting
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lender Processing Services, Inc., is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas over allegations that the company engaged in
unlawful attorney fee-splitting practices in its default
management business.

Initially, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed on Jan. 16,
2008, as an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court in the
Southern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges that Lender Processing Services, Inc.,
engaged in unlawful attorney fee-splitting practices in its
default management business.  It seeks declaratory and equitable
relief reversing all attorneys' fees charged to debtors in
bankruptcy court and disgorging any such fees we collected.

Lender Processing filed a motion to dismiss the case, and the
Bankruptcy Court dismissed three of the six counts contained in
the complaint.  The company also filed a Motion to Withdraw the
Reference and remove the case to federal district court as the
appropriate forum for the resolution of the allegations
contained in the complaint.

The Bankruptcy Court recommended removal to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, and the U.S. District
Court accepted that recommendation in April 2008, according to
the company's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Lender Processing Services, Inc. -- http://www.lpsvcs.com/-- is
a provider of integrated technology and outsourced services to
the mortgage lending industry, with capabilities in mortgage
processing and default management services in the U.S.  The
company's technology solutions include its mortgage processing
system.  Its outsourced services include default management
services, which are used by mortgage lenders and servicers, and
its loan facilitation services, which support most aspects of
the closing of mortgage loan transactions to national lenders
and loan servicers.  LPS conducts its operations through two
segments: technology, data and analytics, and loan transaction
services.


LIGGETT GROUP: Illinois Court Yet to Certify Class in "Cleary"
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois state court has yet to rule on a motion seeking
class certification in the matter "Cleary v. Philip Morris,
Inc.," which names as defendant Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary
of Vector Group Ltd.

The lawsuit was filed in June 1998 with the Illinois state
court.  It was brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly
been injured by:

       -- the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to which
          defendants allegedly concealed material facts
          regarding the addictive nature of nicotine;

       -- the defendants' alleged acts of targeting their
          advertising and marketing to minors; and

       -- the defendants' claimed breach of the public's right
          to defendants' compliance with laws prohibiting the
          distribution of cigarettes to minors.

The plaintiffs request that the defendants be required to
disgorge all profits unjustly received through their sale of
cigarettes to plaintiffs, which in no event will be greater than
$75,000 each, inclusive of punitive damages, interest and costs.

In July 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  A class certification hearing occurred in
September 2007 and the parties are awaiting a decision.  Merits
discovery is stayed pending a ruling by the court, according to
Vector Group's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Vector Group Ltd. -- http://www.vectorgroupltd.com/-- is a
holding company for a number of businesses through its wholly
owned subsidiary, VGR Holding Inc.  Vector Group is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC; and the development
and marketing of the low-nicotine and nicotine-free QUEST
cigarette products and the development of reduced risk cigarette
products through its subsidiary, Vector Tobacco Inc., and the
real estate business through its subsidiary, New Valley LLC,
which owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC.  Douglas Elliman
Realty, LLC operates as a residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


LIGGETT GROUP: No Hearing Set for Oral Arguments in "Brown" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has yet to set a hearing on a
petition for review with regard to a purported class-action
lawsuit, captioned "Brown v. The American Tobacco Co., Inc.,"
which names as a defendant Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of
Vector Group Ltd.

In April 2001, a California state court granted in part the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case, and
certified a class comprised of adult residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes "during the
applicable time period" and who were exposed to the defendants'
marketing and advertising activities in California.

In March 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
decertify the class based on a recent change in California law.

In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with
the California Supreme Court, which was granted in November
2006.  Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

Vector Group reported no further development regarding the
matter in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Vector Group Ltd. -- http://www.vectorgroupltd.com/-- is a
holding company for a number of businesses through its wholly
owned subsidiary, VGR Holding Inc.  Vector Group is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC; and the development
and marketing of the low-nicotine and nicotine-free QUEST
cigarette products and the development of reduced risk cigarette
products through its subsidiary, Vector Tobacco Inc., and the
real estate business through its subsidiary, New Valley LLC,
which owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC.  Douglas Elliman
Realty, LLC operates as a residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


LIGGETT GROUP: Cigarette Suits Pending in W.V., Kansas and N.M.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector Group Ltd., is still
facing several class-action lawsuits that were filed in West
Virginia, Kansas, and New Mexico.

The "Blankenship" case in Virginia is dormant.  The "Smith" case
in Kansas and the "Romero" case in New Mexico are actions in
which the plaintiffs allege that cigarette manufacturers
conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust
laws.

Class certification was granted in "Smith v. Philip Morris" in
November 2001.  Discovery is ongoing.

Class certification was granted in "Romero v. Philip Morris" in
April 2003 and was affirmed by the New Mexico Supreme Court in
February 2005.

In June 2006, the trial court granted the defendants' motions
for summary judgment in "Romero."  The Plaintiffs appealed to
the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

Briefing was completed in August 2007 and the parties are
awaiting a decision.

Vector Group reported no further development regarding the cases
in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Vector Group Ltd. -- http://www.vectorgroupltd.com/-- is a
holding company for a number of businesses through its wholly
owned subsidiary, VGR Holding Inc.  Vector Group is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC; and the development
and marketing of the low-nicotine and nicotine-free QUEST
cigarette products and the development of reduced risk cigarette
products through its subsidiary, Vector Tobacco Inc., and the
real estate business through its subsidiary, New Valley LLC,
which owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC.  Douglas Elliman
Realty, LLC operates as a residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


LORILLARD TOBACCO: Court Decertfies Class in "Schwab" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the
class certification order in the matter "[Schwab] McLaughlin v.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and names Lorillard Tobacco Co., a unit of
Lorillard, Inc., as one of the defendants.

The case is a nationwide "lights" class action suit that was
filed on May 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York several tobacco manufacturers,
including Lorillard, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, July 17,
2007).

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages against each
defendant, jointly and severally, for all losses and damages
suffered as a result of the defendants' alleged wrong-doings
complained of, including pre- and post-judgment interest, costs
and disbursements of the action, including attorneys' fees and
experts' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs also seek temporary, preliminary and permanent
equitable and injunctive relief, including enjoining future
wrong- doing, rescission, disgorgement of defendants' ill-gotten
funds, and attaching, impounding or imposing a constructive
trust upon or otherwise restricting the proceeds of the
defendants' ill-gotten funds.

The plaintiffs brought the case pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, challenging the
practices of the defendants in connection with the
manufacturing, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution
and sale of cigarettes that were labeled as "lights" or "light."

The plaintiffs have estimated damages to the class to be in the
hundreds of billions of dollars.  Any damages awarded to the
plaintiffs based on defendants violation of the RICO statute
would be trebled.

The case was certified as a nationwide class action involving
lights cigarettes.  The defendants including the company
appealed the certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

The Second Circuit has agreed to review the class certification
order, and it has stayed all activity before the trial court
until the appeal is concluded.

In March 2008, the Second Circuit reversed the class
certification order and ruled that the case may not proceed as a
class action.  The case has been returned to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York for further
proceedings, according to Lorillard, Inc.'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 "[Schwab] McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jack
B. Weinstein presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. (lnussbaum@kaplanfox.com)
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
         805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-687-1980
         Fax: 212-687-1980

              - and -

         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Ave. NW, Ste. 500, West Tower
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600
         Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants are:

         Mark A. Belasic, Esq. (mabelasic@jonesday.com)
         Jones Day
         901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 216-586-3939
         Fax: 216-579-0212

              - and -

         Peter A. Bellacosa, Esq.
         (peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis
         Citigroup Center
         153 East 53rd Street
         New York, NY 10022-4675
         Phone: 212-446-4800
         Fax: 212-446-4900


LORILLARD TOBACCO: Tobacco Marketing, Advertising Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard Tobacco Co., a subsidiary of Lorillard, Inc., is still
facing class-action lawsuit in California that were on appeal to
either the California Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

                        Brown Litigation

One of the lawsuits is "Brown v. The American Tobacco Company,
Inc., et al.," which was filed before the Superior Court, San
Diego County, California on June 10, 1997.

The California court granted the defendants' motion to decertify
the class.  The class decertification order was affirmed on
appeal, but the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the
case.

The class originally certified in "Brown" was composed of
residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants'
cigarettes between June 10, 1993, and April 23, 2001, and who
were exposed to the defendants' marketing and advertising
activities in California.

It is possible that the class certification ruling could be
reinstated as a result of the pending appeal.

                       Daniels Litigation

The second case is "Daniels v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, et
al.," which was filed in the Superior Court, San Diego County,
California on Aug. 2, 1998.

The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment
during 2002 and dismissed the case.  Both the California Court
of Appeal and the California Supreme Court have affirmed the
case's dismissal.

The plaintiffs have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review
"Daniels," but the Court has not determined whether it will hear
the case.

Prior to granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment,
the court had certified a class composed of California residents
who, while minors, smoked at least one cigarette between April
1994 and Dec. 31, 1999, and were exposed to defendants'
marketing and advertising activities in California.

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

Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is a
manufacturer of cigarettes in the U.S.  Newport, which is the
company's flagship brand, is a menthol-flavored premium
cigarette brand.  In addition to the Newport brand, the
Lorillard product line has five additional brand families
marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max brand
names.  These six brands include 44 different product offerings,
which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and packaging.  The
company sells its products primarily to distributors that, in
turn, service retail outlets, chain store organizations and
government agencies, including the U.S. Armed Forces.  Upon
completion of the manufacturing process, the company ships
cigarettes to public distributing warehouse facilities for order
fulfillment to wholesalers and other direct-buying customers.
As of Dec. 31, 2007, Lorillard had approximately 600 direct
buying customers servicing more than 400,000 retail accounts.


LORILLARD TOBACCO: Supreme Court Denies Petition in "Sanders"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari
in the matter "Sanders v. Lockyer, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-
02281-SI," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of California, and names Lorillard Tobacco
Co., a unit of Lorillard, Inc., as a defendant.

On June 9, 2004, Lorillard, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Loews Corp., and other major cigarette manufacturers, along with
the Attorney General of the State of California, were sued by a
consumer purchaser of cigarettes in a putative class action
alleging violations of the Sherman Act and California state
antitrust and unfair competition laws.

The plaintiff seeks treble damages of an unstated amount for the
putative class as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

All claims are based on the assertion that the Master Settlement
Agreement (http://ag.ca.gov/tobacco/msa.php)together with
certain implementing legislation enacted by the state of
California, constitute unlawful restraints of trade.

On March 28, 2005, the defendants' motion to dismiss the suit
was granted.  The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Argument was heard on Feb. 15, 2007, and the Ninth Circuit
issued an opinion on Sept. 26, 2007, affirming dismissal of the
suit.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the plaintiff filed a petition seeking
certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on
May 12, 2008, ending this suit, according to Lorillard, Inc.'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 "Sanders v. Lockyer, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-02281-
SI," filed in U.S. District Court for Northern District of
California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thad Alan Davis, Esq. (thaddavis@quinnemanuel.com)
          Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP
          865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-443-3000

Representing the defendants are:

          D. Eric Shapland, Esq. (eshapland@hewm.com)
          Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP
          601 S. Figueroa Street, 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5758
          Phone: 213-689-0200
          Fax: 213-614-1868

          Margaret Eve Spencer, Esq.
          (margaret.spencer@doj.ca.gov)
          California Attorney General
          455 Golden Gate Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3664
          Phone: 415-703-5543
          Fax: 415-703-5480

               - and -

          Patrick J. Gregory, Esq. (pgregory@shb.com)
          Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
          333 Bush Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-544-1900
          Fax: 415-391-0281


MESABA AVIATION: EEOC Files Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit
against Mesaba Aviation Inc. -- d/b/a Mesaba Airlines --
alleging it failed to accommodate its employees or job
candidates whose religious beliefs or observances conflicted
with their work schedules, the Pioneer Press reports.

According to the report, federal law requires an employer, once
on notice, to reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely
held religious beliefs or observances conflicts with a work
requirement, unless it would create an undue burden.

The suit asserts that Mesaba refused to accommodate customer
service agent, Laura Vallejos, by insisting that she adhere to
its policy banning new employees from shift swapping for 90
days.  It says she informed the company during a job interview
that she couldn't work during Sabbath, and informed her direct
supervisor and human resources once on the job.

The report notes that Mesaba has since dropped the 90-day
policy, but the EEOC's suit alleges that other applicants and
employees in customer service positions were affected and should
be compensated.  The agency's investigation into the policy will
include looking at thousands of job applications going back to
June 2005.

"The real failing here on Mesaba's part is when Laura Vallejos
brought it up to them, they refused to discuss any options,"
said Nick Pladson, Esq., the EEOC attorney who is handling the
case.

Although the EEOC suit concentrates on the firing of Ms.
Vallejos because she could not work on the Jewish Sabbath, the
federal agency said a former policy at the regional airline also
prevented people of other faiths from taking off work for
religious observances, such as Christians attending Sunday
morning church services.

The EEOC intends to look into how many Mesaba employees across
the country may have been discriminated against and how many job
candidates were rejected because their religious practices would
have conflicted with the work schedule.  The suit was filed as a
class action.

The EEOC is claiming back pay and other monetary damages for all
those identified as class members.  It also is seeking an
injunction that would prevent the airline from reviving the
policy.

Based in Eagan, Minnesota, Mesaba Aviation Inc., dba Mesaba
Airlines -- http://www.mesaba.com/-- operates as a Northwest
Airlink affiliate under code-sharing agreements with Northwest
Airlines(OTC:NWACQ.PK).


NATIONAL TITLE: Faces 12 Antitrust Lawsuits Over Title Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Title Insurance of New York, Inc., a subsidiary of
Lender Processing Services, Inc., is facing 12 putative
antitrust class-action lawsuits in connection with high title
insurance prices.

The complaints in these lawsuits are substantially similar and
allege that the title insurance underwriters named as
defendants, including National Title Insurance of New York,
Inc., engaged in illegal price fixing as well as market
allocation and division that resulted in higher title insurance
prices for consumers.

The complaints seek treble damages in an amount to be proved at
trial and an injunction against the defendants from engaging in
any anti-competitive practices under the Sherman Antitrust Act
and various state statutes.

A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to
consolidate and coordinate these actions in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York.  However, that
motion was denied.

However, the cases are generally being consolidated before one
district court judge in each state and scheduled for the filing
of consolidated complaints and motion practice, according to the
company's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Lender Processing Services, Inc. -- http://www.lpsvcs.com-- is
a provider of integrated technology and outsourced services to
the mortgage lending industry, with capabilities in mortgage
processing and default management services in the U.S.  The
company's technology solutions include its mortgage processing
system.  Its outsourced services include default management
services, which are used by mortgage lenders and servicers, and
its loan facilitation services, which support most aspects of
the closing of mortgage loan transactions to national lenders
and loan servicers.  LPS conducts its operations through two
segments: technology, data and analytics, and loan transaction
services.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Faces Tenn., N.J. Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., is facing various purported class-
actions lawsuits brought by consumers and municipalities and
other U.S. governmental entities involving hotel occupancy taxes
and the company's merchant hotel business, according to Orbitz's
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

In June 2008, three such lawsuits were filed in Tennessee, and
New Jersey.  Two of the putative class-action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee on June 2, 2008, by the cities of Goodlettsville and
Brentwood, Tennessee.  The other putative class-action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on June 18, 2008, by the Township of Lyndhurst, New
Jersey.

The cases are purported class-action lawsuits and most of the
cases were brought simultaneously against other Internet travel
companies, including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline.

The cases allege, among other things, that the company violated
the jurisdictions' hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to
the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under the
ordinance.

While not identical in their allegations, the cases generally
assert similar claims, including violations of local or state
occupancy tax ordinances, violations of consumer protection
ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a
constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable accounting,
injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and in some cases,
civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including:
declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition
of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs,
attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an
order certifying the action as a class action.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global
online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and
business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel
products.  The company's brand portfolio includes Orbitz,
CheapTickets, the Away Network and Orbitz for Business in the
Americas; ebookers in Europe, and HotelClub and RatesToGo based
in Sydney, Australia, which have operations globally.  The
company provides customers with the ability to book a set of
travel products, from over 85,000 suppliers worldwide, including
air travel, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises,
travel insurance and destination services, such as ground
transportation, event tickets and tours.


PENN TACO: EEOC Commences Sexual Harassment Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a sexual
harassment lawsuit against the company that owns the Hanover
Taco Bell, Steve Maroni writes for The Evening Sun.

The commission alleges that Penn Taco, owner of six Pennsylvania
Taco Bells, subjected several female employees to a hostile work
environment through sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.

The suit names two employees at other locations who were
"constructively discharged," commission supervisory trial
attorney Terrence Cook, Esq., said.  That means the work
environment became intolerable and, despite letting the company
know about it, the harassment continued, forcing them to quit.

According to Mr. Cook, the harassment was allegedly done by
general manager Steven Zaffuto, who worked as general manager,
overseeing several Taco Bells, including the one in Hanover.

The suit alleges Mr. Zaffuto subjected a class of females to a
sexually hostile work environment.  He allegedly referred to
himself regularly as "the best lover around."  He also allegedly
performed a "crude dance" in front of an employee, saying "this
is how I do it when I have sex," according to the lawsuit.  His
actions also allegedly involved a series of lewd comments and
actions, including comments about the appearance of female
employees and customers.

According to Mr. Cook, Penn Taco is being sued because the
company did not stop the harassment despite the complaints of
the female employees who became part of the suit through the
commission.

"He remains employed by the company and, to our knowledge, was
never disciplined," Mr. Cook said about Mr. Zaffuto.  "He was
even promoted."

The Evening Sun could not reach Mr. Zaffuto for comment.


POTTERY BARN: Recalls Hammock Stands for Fall, Laceration Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Pottery Barn, of San Francisco, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
30,000 Wooden Hammock Stands.

     The company said that when used outdoors, the wood in the
hammock stand can deteriorate over time and break, posing a risk
of falls and lacerations to consumers.

     Pottery Barn has received 12 reports of injuries requiring
medical attention, including lacerations, neck and back pain,
bruising, and one incident involving fractured ribs and about 50
reports of the hammock stand breaking.

     The wooden hammock stands measure about 154-1/2 inches long
by 53-1/2 inches in height by 53 inches in width.  There are two
black metal brackets on the base and on the arms of the hammock
stand.  All Pottery Barn two pole wooden hammock stands sold
from 2003 through 2008 are included in this recall.

     These recalled wooden hammock stands were manufactured in
China and were sold through Pottery Barn catalog and the firm's
Web site from March 2003 through July 2008 for about $300.

     A picture of the recalled wooden hammock stands is found
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09001.jpg

     Consumers are advised to remove the two top side brackets
of the hammock stand and dispose of the remaining portion of the
hammock stand.  Contact Pottery Barn to schedule a free pickup
of the brackets and to receive a merchandise credit for the
amount of the stand.

     For additional information, contact Pottery Barn toll-free
at 888-922-9245 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.potterybarn.com/


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Savings Plan Members' Suit Gets Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katharine S. Hayden of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey said a participant lawsuit against
Schering-Plough Corp. over employee company stock investments
can be pursued as a class action, Fred Schneyer writes for the
PlanAdviser.

The suit was filed on March 31, 2003, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty against the company, the company's Employee
Savings Plan administrator, and Richard Jay Kogan, who resigned
as chairman of the board on Nov. 13, 2002, and stepped down as
chief executive officer, president and director of the company
on April 20, 2003.

The suit charges that Schering-Plough and its board of directors
hurt the firm financially by, among other things, going after
regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration of a
new allergy drug, Clarinex, to replace the company's already
successful allergy drug, Claritin, whose patent was set to
expire.

According to the suit, company's efforts to get approval of
Clarinex were hamstrung because of Schering-Plough's failure to
comply with FDA regulations regarding good manufacturing
practices—a failure that led to the imposition of a $500-million
fine, capital expenditures of $50 million for new equipment, and
the additional hiring of new quality control employees.

In May 2003, the company was served with a second putative class
action complaint filed before the same court with allegations
nearly identical to the complaint filed March 31, 2003.

On Oct. 6, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
which names as additional defendants seven current and former
directors and other corporate officers of the company.

The amended complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses
allegedly suffered by the Plan.  The court dismissed this
complaint on June 29, 2004, and shortly thereafter, the
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.

On Aug. 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
reversed the dismissal by the district court and the matter was
remanded back to the district court for further proceedings
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12, 2008).

Recently, Judge Hayden said the employees can move forward with
their suit based on three of the four allegations in their suit
filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The three claims certified to move forward as a class action are
claims that the defendants failed:

     -- to prudently and loyally manage the plan's investment in
        Schering-Plough stock;

     -- to ensure that the plan's investment committee had
        complete and accurate information regarding the company;

     -- to retain independent fiduciaries, provide federal
        agencies with information necessary to determine the
        prudence of Schering-Plough's securities, and take steps
        necessary to ensure that the participants' interests
        were loyally and prudently served.

Judge Hayden turned aside Schering-Plough's argument that the
named plaintiff would not make a good enough representative for
other class members because the woman told the lawyers during a
pre-trial deposition that she had "affection and confidence" for
the drugmaker.

In addition, Judge Hayden rejected the Schering-Plough
defendants' argument that the named plaintiff was an inadequate
representative because she had signed a release waiving any
claim she had against Schering-Plough.

The suit is "Zhu, et al. v. Schering Plough Corp, et al., Case
No. 2:03-cv-01204-KSH-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Judge Katharine S. Hayden,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. (jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com)
           Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
           Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
           Newark, NJ 07102-5003
           Phone: 973-623-3000

           Peter Houghton Levan, Jr., Esq. (plevan@hangley.com)
           Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
           20 Brace Road, Suite 201
           Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-2634
           Phone: 856-616-2100

           Susan D. Pontoriero, Esq. (sdp@njfamilylawyers.com)
           The Pontoriero Law Firm
           Brook 35 Plaza, Premier Executive Suites
           2150 Highway 35, Suite 250
           Sea Girt, NJ 08750
           Phone: 732-785-9700
           Fax: 732-785-9760

Representing the defendants is:

           Douglas Scott Eakeley, Esq. (deakeley@lowenstein.com)
           Lowenstein Sandler PC
           65 Livingston Avenue
           Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
           Phone: 973-597-2500


SEVEN UP/RC BOTTLING: Faces Wage, Hour Violations Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Up/RC Bottling Co., Inc., a unit of Dr Pepper Snapple
Group, Inc., is facing two purported class-action lawsuits in
California, alleging violations of the state's wage and hour
law, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

In 2007, Seven Up/RC Bottling Company Inc. was sued by Nicolas
Steele, and in a separate action by Robert Jones, in each case
in Superior Court in the State of California (Orange County),
alleging that its subsidiary failed to provide meal and rest
periods and itemized wage statements in accordance with
applicable California wage and hour law.

The cases have been filed as class actions, and are captioned
as:

       -- "Nicolas Steele v. Seven Up/RC Bottling Company Inc.,"

       -- "Robert Jones v. Seven Up/RC Bottling Company of
          Southern California, Inc."

The classes, which have not yet been certified, consist of
employees who have held a merchandiser or delivery driver
position in California in the past three years.  The potential
class size could be substantially higher due to the number of
individuals who have held these positions over the three year
period.

On behalf of the classes, the plaintiffs claim lost wages,
waiting time penalties and other penalties for each violation of
the statute.

Plano, Texas-based Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. --
http://www.drpeppersnapplegroup.com/-- formerly CSAB Inc, is an
integrated refreshment beverage business, marketing more than 50
beverage brands throughout North America.  In addition to its
flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio
includes 7UP, Mott's, A&W, Sunkist Soda, Hawaiian Punch, Canada
Dry, Schweppes, RC Cola, Diet Rite, Rose's, Clamato, Mr & Mrs T,
Holland House mixers and other consumer favorites.  Based in
Plano, Texas, the company has 24 bottling and manufacturing
facilities, and 250 distribution centers across the U.S.,
Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.  It operates in four segments:
Beverage Concentrates, Finished Goods, Bottling Group, and
Mexico and the Caribbean.


SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Holk" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter, "Holk v. Cadbury Schweppes Americas
Beverages et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-03018-MLC-JJH," which names
as defendant Snapple Beverage Corp., a unit of Dr Pepper Snapple
Group, Inc., is appealing the dismissal of the case, according
to Dr Pepper Snapple's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

In 2007, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Stacy Holk, in New
Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County.  The Holk case was filed
as a class-action lawsuit.  Subsequent to filing, the Holk case
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Ms. Holk alleges that Snapple's labeling of certain of its
drinks is misleading and deceptive and was seeking unspecified
damages on behalf of the class, including enjoining Snapple from
various labeling practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of
amount paid for product and treble damages.

Snapple filed a motion to dismiss the Holk case on a variety of
grounds.  On June 12, 2008, the district court granted Snapple's
dismissal request and the Holk case was thrown out.  The
plaintiff has filed an appeal of the dismissal order.

The suit is "Holk v. Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages et
al., Case No. 3:07-cv-03018-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Mary L. Cooper,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Philip A. Tortoreti, Esq. (ptortoreti@wilentz.com)
          Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Phone: 732-636-8000

Representing the defendants is:

          Richard B. Harper, Esq.
          (richard.harper@bakerbotts.com)
          Baker Botts, LLP
          30 Rockerfeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Phone: 212-408-2675
          Fax: 212-259-2475


SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Settles Calif. Suit Over Lemonade Juice Drink
---------------------------------------------------------------
Snapple Beverage Corp., a unit of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.,
settled a purported class-action lawsuit in California filed
over the labeling of its lemonade juice drink, according to Dr
Pepper Snapple's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

In May 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, by Ray
Ivey against Snapple Beverage Corp. and other affiliates.

The plaintiff alleged that Snapple's labeling of its lemonade
juice drink violates California's Unfair Competition Law and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and constitutes fraud under
California statutes.

The plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice to
refiling and this matter is now resolved.

Plano, Texas-based Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. --
http://www.drpeppersnapplegroup.com/-- formerly CSAB Inc, is an
integrated refreshment beverage business, marketing more than 50
beverage brands throughout North America.  In addition to its
flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio
includes 7UP, Mott's, A&W, Sunkist Soda, Hawaiian Punch, Canada
Dry, Schweppes, RC Cola, Diet Rite, Rose's, Clamato, Mr & Mrs T,
Holland House mixers and other consumer favorites.  Based in
Plano, Texas, the company has 24 bottling and manufacturing
facilities, and 250 distribution centers across the U.S.,
Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.  It operates in four segments:
Beverage Concentrates, Finished Goods, Bottling Group, and
Mexico and the Caribbean.


SUPERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces N.J. Suit Over "Prostavar" Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superbalife International, of Los Angeles, is facing a class-
action complaint filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey over
allegations it defrauded customers by selling "Prostavar," which
allegedly fixes prostate and urinary problems and improves
sexual performance, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, the Prostavar product does not, and
lacks capacity, to induce the results promised, advertised, and
represented by defendant.  Furthermore, the suit asserts that
the defendant's advertisements, promises and representations
concerning the purported clinical testing of Prostavar and its
alleged ingredients being all-natural and all botanicals are
false, deceptive, fabricated, constitute a misrepresentation and
are replete with material omissions.

The plaintiff demands judgment for treble damages and punitive
damages together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
fees, costs, attorney's fees, and any other and further relief
as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Harold M. Hoffman, et al. v. Superbalife
International LLC, Docket No. BER-L-7274-08," filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey.

To contact Mr. Hoffman:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631-4352
          Phone: 201-569-0086


USANA HEALTH: Calif. Court Dismisses Distributor Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     SALT LAKE CITY, Oct. 2, 2008 -- A California State court
has dismissed the distributor class action suit captioned
"Johnson v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc.," filed in 2007 against
the company and certain of its officers, distributors and
directors.

     The Plaintiffs agreed to request that the court dismiss the
case with prejudice after plaintiffs reviewed recent evidence
and determined there was no longer any merit to maintaining a
class action lawsuit.

     "We are pleased that the court approved this motion to
dismiss," said Dave Wentz, chief executive officer, USANA Health
Sciences, Inc. "We will continue to move forward without further
distraction or expense."

USANA Health Sciences, Inc. --
http://www.usanahealthsciences.com/-- develops and manufactures
high quality nutritionals, personal care, and weight management
products that are sold directly to Preferred Customers and
Associates throughout the United States, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore,
Mexico, Malaysia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.


TORCHMARK CORP: Ala. High Court Dismisses Appeal in "Robertson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the remaining appeal in the
matter captioned "Robertson v. Liberty National Life Insurance
Company, CV-92-021," which is a consolidated class-action
lawsuit filed against Torchmark Corp. and Liberty National Life
Insurance Co. over cancer policies.

The company and Liberty National were parties to the purported
class-action suit captioned "Roberts v. Liberty National Life
Insurance Company, Case No. CV-2002 009-B," filed before the
Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama, on behalf of all
persons who currently or in the past were insured under Liberty
cancer policies, which were no longer being marketed, regardless
of whether the policies remained in force or lapsed.

The case was based on allegations of breach of contract in the
implementation of premium rate increases, misrepresentation
regarding the premium rate increases, fraud and suppression
concerning the closed block of business and unjust enrichment.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion
granting Liberty's and Torchmark's petition for a writ of
mandamus, concluding that the Choctaw Circuit Court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction and ordering the Circuit Court to
dismiss the action.

The plaintiffs then filed a purported class-action lawsuit,
captioned "Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company,
Civil Action No. CV-03-0137," against Liberty and Torchmark in
the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, on Dec. 30, 2003.

On April 16, 2004, the parties filed a written stipulation of
agreement of compromise and settlement in the Barbour County,
Alabama Circuit Court, seeking potential settlement of the
Roberts case.

A fairness hearing on the potential settlement was held by the
Barbour County Circuit Court on July 15, 2004.  After receipt of
briefs on certain issues and submission of materials relating to
objections to the proposed settlement to the court-appointed
independent special master, the Court reconvened the previously
continued fairness hearing on Sept. 23, 2004.

The Barbour Court, after hearing from the objectors to the
potential settlement, ordered the appointment of an independent
actuary to report back on certain issues.  The report of the
independent actuary was subsequently furnished to the special
master and the court on a timely basis.

On Nov. 22, 2004, the Barbour Court entered an order and final
judgment consolidating "Roberts" with "Robertson v. Liberty
National Life Insurance Company, CV-92-021," for purposes of the
Roberts stipulation of settlement, and certified the Roberts
class as a new subclass of the class previously certified by
that court in "Robertson."

The court approved the stipulation and settlement and ordered
and enjoined Liberty to perform its obligations under the
stipulation.  Subject to the stipulation, Liberty and Torchmark
were permanently enjoined from:

      -- instituting, engaging or participating in, maintaining,
         authorizing or continuing premium rate increases
         inconsistent with the Stipulation;

      -- failing to implement temporary premium waivers in
         accordance with the Stipulation;

      -- failing to implement the new benefits procedure
         described in the Stipulation; and

      -- failing to implement the special schedules and special
         provisions of the stipulation for subclass members who
         have cancer and are receiving benefits and for subclass
         members who have no other cancer or medical insurance
         and are not covered by Medicare.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, released the
defendants, enjoined Roberts subclass members from any further
prosecution of released claims and retained continuing
jurisdiction of all matters relating to the Roberts settlement.

In an order issued Feb. 1, 2005, the court denied the objectors'
motion to alter, amend or vacate its earlier final judgment on
class settlement and certification.

The companies proceeded to implement the settlement terms.  On
March 10, 2005, the Roberts plaintiffs filed notice of appeal to
the Alabama Supreme Court.

In an opinion issued on Sept. 29, 2006, the Alabama Supreme
Court voided the Barbour County Circuit Court's final judgment
and dismissed the Roberts appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the Barbour County Court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction in "Roberts" to certify the Roberts
class as a subclass of the Robertson class and to enter a final
judgment approving the settlement since "Roberts" was filed as
an independent class action collaterally attacking "Robertson"
rather than being filed in "Robertson" under the Barbour County
Court's reserved continuing jurisdiction over that case.

On Oct. 23, 2006, Liberty filed a petition with the Barbour
County Circuit Court under its continuing jurisdiction in
"Robertson" for clarification, or in the alternative, to amend
the Robertson final judgment.

Liberty sought an order from the Circuit Court declaring that
Liberty pay benefits to Robertson class members based upon the
amounts accepted by providers in full payment of charges.

A hearing was held on Liberty's petition on March 13, 2007.  On
March 30, 2007, the Barbour County Circuit Court issued an order
denying Liberty's petition for clarification and modification of
"Robertson," holding that Liberty's policies did not state that
they will pay "actual charges" accepted by providers.

On April 8, 2007, the Court issued an order granting a motion to
intervene and establishing a subclass in "Robertson" comprised
of Liberty cancer policyholders who are now or have within the
past six years, undergone cancer treatment and filed benefit
claims under the policies in question.

Liberty filed a motion with the Barbour County Circuit Court to
certify for an interlocutory appeal that Court's order on
Liberty's petition for clarification in Robertson on April 17,
2007.  An appellate mediation of these issues was conducted on
Aug. 9, 2007.

On Oct. 16, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court entered orders,
based upon the conclusion by the parties of the appellate
mediation, staying the proceedings for a writ of mandamus,
reinstating the cases on the appellate docket, and remanding the
cases to the Barbour County Circuit Court to implement the
parties' settlement agreement.

A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement was held by the
Barbour County Circuit Court on Jan. 15, 2008.  Subsequent to
this hearing, an order approving the settlement agreement was
approved by the Barbour County Circuit Court but was thereafter
vacated by that Court due to technical errors in the printing of
the original order.

A corrected order finally approving the settlement was entered
on May 6, 2008.  Prior to the entry of the corrected order,
notice of appeal was filed by one objector.

On July 29, 2008, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the
remaining appeal in "Robertson," according to Torchmark's
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Consolidated "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travelcenters of America, LLC, is facing a consolidated class-
action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas filed by retail purchasers who purchased motor fuel
that was greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale.

Beginning in mid-December 2006, and continuing to the present, a
series of class action complaints have been filed against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry, including
TravelCenters of America, Inc., or its subsidiaries, in U.S.
District Courts in at least 23 states.

Major petroleum companies and significant retailers in the
industry have been named as defendants in one or more of these
lawsuits.

The company has been named in at least seven cases to date,
including cases in California, Alabama, New Mexico, Nevada and
Missouri.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who purchased motor fuel that was greater than
60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale.

There are two primary theories upon which the plaintiffs seek
recovery in these cases.  The first theory alleges that the
plaintiffs purchased smaller quantities of motor fuel than the
amount for which defendants charged them because the defendants
measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-standard
gallons, which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.

The "temperature" cases seek, among other relief, an order
requiring the defendants to install temperature-correcting
equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices,
damages, and attorneys' fees.

The second theory alleges that fuel taxes are calculated in
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons and are collected by the
government from suppliers and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in
the amount of the tax by the defendant retailers before the fuel
is sold to consumers.

The "tax" cases allege that when the fuel is subsequently sold
to consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers
sell a greater volume of fuel than the amount on which they paid
tax, and therefore reap a windfall because the customers pay
more tax than the retailer paid.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery
of excess taxes paid and punitive damages.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas pursuant to
multidistrict litigation procedures.

The company reported no further development regarding the cases
in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com/
-- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the
U.S. Interstate highway system.  The Company was formed as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hospitality Properties Trust.  Its
customers include long haul trucking fleets and their drivers,
independent truck drivers and motorists.  As of Dec. 31, 2007,
TravelCenters of America's business included 236 travel centers
located in 41 states in the United States and the province of
Ontario, Canada.  Its travel centers include 167 that are
operated under the TravelCenters of America (TA) brand names,
including 144 that it operates and 23 that franchisees operate.
Sixty-nine are operated under the Petro brand name, 45 of which
are operated by the company and 24 by the franchisees.  On
Jan. 31, 2007, the company added one TA franchised location.


TRIBUNE CO: Settles N.Y. Suit Over Inflated Circulation Numbers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Co. settled a lawsuit in New York over inflated
circulation numbers of its Newsday publication.

In July 2004, a lawsuit was filed in New York Federal Court by
certain advertisers of Newsday, alleging damages resulting from
inflated Newsday circulation numbers as well as federal and
state antitrust violations.

On Feb. 11, 2008, the suit was settled with all remaining
plaintiffs, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 29, 2008.

Tribune Co. -- http://www.tribune.com/-- is operating
businesses in publishing, interactive and broadcasting.  It
reaches more than 80 percent of U.S. households and is the only
media organization with newspapers, television stations and
websites in the nation's top three markets.


WAL-MART: Judge Upholds $185MM Verdict in Workers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could pay $185 million to end class action
suits alleging that the retailer underpaid its employees,
Lawyers and Settlements reports.

The report says that a Philadelphia judge affirmed the award
as part of an opinion in an appeal pending with the Pennsylvania
Superior Court.

According to Law.com, Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein's
opinion under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a)
said the appeals court should affirm a jury verdict finding over
186,000 current and former Pennsylvania Wal-Mart employees were
not properly compensated for off-the-clock work and missed rest
breaks between March 19, 1998, and May 1, 2006.

Law.com notes that Judge Bernstein wrote in his opinion that yhe
jury found that Wal-Mart employees were owed $1,462,910.35 in
damages for off-the-clock work and $27,715,964 for rest break
violations between March 19, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2001, and
$1,031,430 for off-the-clock work and $48,258,111 for rest break
violations between Jan. 1, 2002, and May 1, 2006.

Lawyers and Settlements relates that the judge also said that
Wal-Mart should pay $62.2 million in statutory liquidated
damages, $33.8 million in statutory attorney fees, $11.9 million
in non-statutory attorney fees and $10.2 million in prejudgment
interest.  The report says that the total judgment against Wal-
Mart currently totals $187,648,589.11.

Law.com says that the trial in "Braun v. Wal-Mart" and "Hummel
v. Wal-Mart" was held in September 2006.

According to Law.com, Wal-Mart had argued in its post-verdict
motions that rest breaks and lunch breaks are not fringe
benefits, that the two class actions should not have been
certified and that Philadelphia was not the proper venue for the
class action.  Wal-Mart also argued that Judge Bernstein
improperly denied its motion in limine to preclude the
plaintiffs' argument that the evidence that Wal-Mart ceased
record-keeping of employee break periods potentially was
evidence of an improper action, the judge noted.

However, Judge Bernstein rejected Wal-Mart's argument, saying
the trial evidence showed that Wal-Mart corporate leaders ceased
all record-keeping of employees' rest break periods after
numerous lawsuits over the missed rest breaks were filed. Judge
Bernstein said the jury was entitled to infer that Wal-Mart
changed its policy to ensure that there were no records of
missed rest breaks.

Law.com recalls that the jury found Wal-Mart saved $1,031,430 by
not paying their employees for the time they worked off the
clock, and that the company saved $48,258,111 by prohibiting
their employees from taking promised rest breaks.

Lead class counsel Michael Donovan, Esq., of Donovan Searles,
told Law.com that they are "pleased with Judge Bernstein's
cogent explanation as to why he rejected the frivolous post-
trial claims of Wal-Mart."  He said he is anxious to get Wal-
Mart employees the compensation that they are owed.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Daphne Moore told Law.com that it is the
company's policy to pay every associate for all the time they
work, and that managers who violate the policy face discipline,
including termination.  Ms. Moore also said that associates
testified during the trial that they voluntarily skipped or cut
short their breaks, and an employer should not be penalized for
a choice made freely by employees.  Ms. Moore added that other
courts have denied class certification for similar class actions
because it is erroneous to base a class action suit on
individual circumstances.


* Shareholder Lawsuits Certain to Follow Financial Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------
      USPRwire, Sept. 26 2008 -- An attorney who represents
pension funds, unions, individuals and others in class-action
securities cases says shareholder lawsuits against investment
banks and other failed financial institutions are almost certain
to follow the financial meltdown on Wall Street.

     Jeffrey Zwerling, Esq., of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling,
LLP, in New York says such lawsuits would seek recoveries for
smaller investors who are facing millions of dollars in losses
based on the financial institutions' claims that their
underlying investments were sound.

     "The people who invested in these stocks or mortgage-backed
securities weren't high-stakes gamblers," Mr. Zwerling says.
"They're like you and me.  They invested a dollar and expected
to receive a dollar’s worth of value in return."

     "But because the executives at some of these financial
institutions, investment banks and mortgage houses were treating
their businesses as if they were their own personal casinos, the
investors didn't receive the value they thought they paid for,"
he says.  "All they received was an illusion."

     Mr. Zwerling represents the lead plaintiff in the
securities class-action case involving auction rate securities
underwritten or sold by Citigroup (NYSE:C) in auctions it
managed.  After the market for auction rate securities shut down
early this year, investors were left with no access to their
money.  Since then, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has
forced Citigroup and other institutions to make good on the
auction rate securities, but still unknown is whether pension
funds and the individual workers they represent will receive any
money.

     In Michigan, Mr. Zwerling represents the Wayne County
Employees Association in a class-action securities lawsuit
against the MGIC Investment Corporation (NYSE:MTG), a provider
of private mortgage insurance.  The lawsuit claims MGIC failed
to warn investors of large financial losses it was experiencing
as a result of the worsening credit crisis and problems in the
home mortgage industry.





                            *********

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  * * *