CAR_Public/081007.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, October 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 199

                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeals Court Tosses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Charges Illegal Probate Filing Fees, Lawsuit Claims
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces Ark. Lawsuits Over Colossus Software
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending in California
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued in Wash. Over Manipulated Stock Options

CREDIT SUISSE: Mass. Judge Certifies Class in Securities Suit
EXTENDICARE: More Allegations Asserted in Washington Class Suit
EXXON MOBIL: To Be Dismissed From EPDM Lawsuit in Connecticut
HCA INC: Reaches Tentative Settlement for Tenn. ERISA Lawsuit
HCA INC: Tenth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Understaffing Suit

INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Denies Review Bid for "Nuanes"
KLA-TENCOR: $65-Mln. Securities Suit Deal Granted Final Approval
MELT INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss California Franchisees' Lawsuit
MTC TECHNOLOGIES: Nov. 6 Hearing Set for Merger Suit Settlement
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suits

PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Lawsuits in Israel Over "Lights" Cigarettes
PHILIP MORRIS: Seeks Further Review of Ruling in "Scott" Lawsuit
PHILIP MORRIS: Sup. Ct. Also Overturns $145BB Verdict in "Engle"
PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Suits Over Lights/Ultra Lights Cigarettes
QUEST ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Is On Nov. 4

QUEST RESOURCE: Nov. 11 Is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
REDDY ICE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Is On October 7
SERVICE CORP: Faces Wage, Hour & Overtime Pay Lawsuit in Calif.
SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Baudino" Lawsuit
SERVICE CORP: Casket-Related Antitrust Suits Pending in Texas

SERVICE CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Tex.
SERVICE CORP: FLSA Violations Lawsuit Still Pending in Arizona
SCI FUNERAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Valls" Lawsuit
SOTHEBY'S INC: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Concealed Interests
SYNCHRONOS TECH: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Is Nov. 7

TALON INT'L: Files Reply Brief to Cal. Shareholder Suit Appeal
VALERO ENERGY: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Undisclosed Charges


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CARTER'S INC: Glancy Binkow Files Ga. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
FANNIE MAE: Entwistle Cappucci Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Files New York Securities Fraud Suit
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Rosen Law Files Ariz. Securities Lawsuit



                           *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeals Court Tosses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Pauley III of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York rejected for the second time a
lawsuit filed by a class of shareholders against current and
former American Express Co. executives over investments in junk
bonds that lost the company millions, the Standford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse reports.

According to the report, the allegations in the suit stem from
American Express Financial Advisors Unit's investments in junk
bonds and collateralized debt obligations in the late 1990s.  In
2001, the company issued a press release stating that earnings
were expected to be 18% below the previous year's earnings
because of $185 million in losses from "certain high-yield
securities."

The complaint alleged that the company failed to disclose that
it had a "risky portfolio of high-yield or 'junk' bonds that
carried the potential for substantial losses if default rates in
the junk bond market increased."  It also stated that American
Express failed to disclose the extent of its exposure to risk
and its incomplete comprehension of its risk.

The judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove that the
American Express executives hid the falling value of the junk
bonds from investors and that testimony that the plaintiffs
received from confidential witnesses did not prove that such
information was passed along to senior executives.

Judge Pauley ruled that the executives were finding out about
the extent of the losses as they were incurred, and thus did not
hide any information from investors.

"Again, because these allegations do no more than state in
conclusory fashion what defendants should have known, they are
not entitled to any weight," Judge Pauley wrote in his decision.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The Company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the Company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


CALIFORNIA: Charges Illegal Probate Filing Fees, Lawsuit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, for the County of Ventura, alleges that the
State of California charges illegal probate filing fees,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is brought for the benefit of all persons who, from
Jan. 1, 2004, through the present (or as far back as the
applicable statute of limitations may allow).

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382, the
plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons who were
required to pay, and did pay, the mandatory filing fees required
by Government Code Section 26827 and Government Code Section
70650 and who have not received a refund of such fees.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

      (a) whether the defendants' imposition of the mandatory
          probate filing fees codified by Government Code
          Sections 26827 and 70650 are unconstitutional and
          otherwise violate California law;

     (b) whether the defendants, as a result of collecting the
         unlawful filing fees, have a legal duty and obligation
         to immediately refund the illegally collected fees to
         plaintiff and the class;

     (c) whether the defendants have improperly failed to inform
         plaintiff and the class of the true facts, and
         implement a legally sufficient refund program;

     (d) the amount of revenues received and the amount of
         monies or other obligations imposed on or lost by class
         members as a result of such wrongdoing;

     (e) whether the class is threatened with irreparable harm
         or are otherwise entitled to injunctive and other
         equitable relief and, if so, the nature of such relief;
         and

     (f) whether class members are entitled to payment of
         refunds for the illegally paid filing fees plus
         interest thereon, and the class members entitlement
         to recovery of profits made by defendants that were
         derived by the retention and investment of the
         illegally obtained filing fees, and if so, the precise
         nature of the relief allowed.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- the declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief
        requested in the above causes of action as appropriate
        for the causes of action and the particular defendants;

     -- all relief and refunds as appropriated for the
        particular causes of action;

     -- pre- and post-judgment interest on all such monies;

     -- attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia, the common
        fund and private attorney general doctrines and/or civil
        procedure section 1021.5 as may be appropriate, and for
        costs of suit incurred; and

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

The suit is "Richard R. Hart, et al. v. The State of California
et al., Case No. 56-2008-00327142-CU-MC-VTA," filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of
Ventura.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael J. Grobaty, Esq.
          Christopher L. Pitet
          Grobaty & Pitet LLP
          100 Bayview Circle, Suite 210
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: 949-502-7755
          Fax: 949-502-7762


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces Ark. Lawsuits Over Colossus Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corp. is facing two purported class-action
lawsuits in the Miller County Circuit Court, Arkansas, claiming
that the defendants conspired to wrongfully use the Colossus
software products licensed by the company and the other software
vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insureds for
bodily injury claims, according to Computer Sciences' Aug. 13,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 12, 2008.

On Feb. 7, 2005, the company was named, along with other vendors
to the insurance industry and dozens of insurance companies in
the matter, "Hensley, et al. vs. Computer Sciences Corporation,
et al."  The lawsuit was filed as a putative nationwide class-
action suit in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas,
shortly before the Class Action Fairness Act was signed into
law.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to wrongfully use
software products licensed by the company and the other software
vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insured for
bodily injury claims.  They also allege wrongful concealment of
the manner in which these software programs evaluate claims and
wrongful concealment of information about alleged inherent
errors and flaws in the software.

The suit seeks injunctive and monetary relief of less than
$75,000 for each class member, as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

On June 11, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
sever certain defendants, including the company, from the
Hensley litigation.

As a result, the company continues as a defendant in the Hensley
litigation and is also now a defendant in a separate putative
class-action lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Miller
County,  Arkansas, styled "Basham, et al. vs. Computer Sciences
Corporation,  et  al.," along with certain insurance companies
previously named as defendants in the Hensley litigation.

In July 2008, the court issued a scheduling order in the Hensley
litigation setting a class certification hearing date of Dec. 2,
2008.  No class certification date has been set in the Basham
lawsuit at this time.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in
the information technology and professional services industry.
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings
include IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and
professional services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.
Systems integration encompasses designing, developing,
implementing and integrating complete information systems.
Consulting and professional services includes advising clients
on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business
strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering,
operations, change management and business process
reengineering.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corp. and certain of its directors and other
individuals are facing a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California over
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act statute related to claims of alleged backdating of stock
options, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 12, 2008.

Initially, on Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class-action
lawsuit involving allegations of backdating at CSC was filed in
the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York.
The suit is entitled "Quan, et al.  v. CSC, et al., Case No. 06-
3927."

On Sept. 21, 2006, a related ERISA class-action lawsuit --
entitled "Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al., Case No. 06-5100" -- was
filed in the same court.  The complaints named as defendants
CSC, the CSC Retirement and Employee Benefits Plans Committee,
and various directors and officers, and alleged various
violations of the ERISA statute.

The two ERISA actions have been consolidated and, on Feb. 28,
2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class-action
complaint.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the district court granted a motion to transfer
the case to California.  Upon arrival in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, the two cases were
consolidated before U.S. District Judge James Otero in Case No.
CV 08-2398-SJO.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the copnsolidated
case and the plaintiffs opposed this motion.  The motion is
currently under submission.  The plaintiffs have also filed a
motion for class certification.

The suit is "Federico Quan et al v. Computer Sciences
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-02398-SJO-JWJ," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge S. James Otero, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull Stull and Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Paul Blankenstein, Esq. (pblankenstein@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-955-8500


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued in Wash. Over Manipulated Stock Options
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation and its directors are facing a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington alleging its directors fraudulently
manipulated stock options to enrich insiders with $472 million,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a shareholder derivative action brought by shareholders
on behalf of the company against its directors and certain of
its senior executives, seeking to remedy defendants' violations
of federal and state law, including breaches of fiduciary
duties, abuse of control, constructive of fraud, corporate
waste, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement arising out of
a scheme and wrongful course of business whereby defendants
allowed Costco insiders to divert hundreds of millions of
dollars of corporate assets to themselves via the manipulation
of grant dates associated with hundreds of thousands of stock
options granted to Costco insiders.  Each of the defendants also
participated in the concealment of the backdating option scheme
and refused to take advantage of the company's legal rights to
require these insiders to disgorge the hundreds of millions in
illicitly obtained incentive compensation and proceeds diverted
to them since 1997.

The suit is "Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation, et al. v. James
D. Sinegal, et al., Case Number: 2:2008cv01450," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Judge Thomas S. Zilly, presiding.


CREDIT SUISSE: Mass. Judge Certifies Class in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts certified a class in a massive securities
lawsuit against Credit Suisse' U.S. operations over the glowing
research it provided during Time Warner Inc.'s botched merger
with AOL, the Standford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse reports.

The complaint, filed in July 2004, claims that 35 research
reports by the bank promoted AOL and encouraged investors to
purchase its stock without revealing analysts' knowledge of
adverse information about the company, causing the plaintiffs to
suffer financial losses.

The report relates that in her ruling, Judge Gertner found that
the plaintiff only needed to show that the market for AOL stock
was efficient, and did not need to establish how the bank
analysts' statements impacted the market, in order to obtain
class certification.

Credit Suisse had argued that the plaintiffs should be required
to show that the analyst reports at issue affected the market
price for AOL, in order to show that the plaintiffs relied on
the defendant's actions to their detriment. Some circuit courts
have supported such a requirement, reasoning that the opinion-
based statements an analyst makes often don't have the same
effect in the market as fact-based statements from the issuer of
a security.  Overall, however, the courts have been split on the
issue, the judge noted.

"Indeed, as the court noted previously, while proving that a
particular statement was material and had an impact on a stock’s
market price may be more difficult for analysts' statements than
for issuer statements, the identity of the speaker should not
alter the legal or analytical framework," Judge Gertner wrote.

Judge Gertner appointed lead plaintiff Bricklayers and Trowel
Trades International Pension Fund as class representative in the
case, which targets the bank formerly known as Credit Suisse
First Boston (USA) Inc.


EXTENDICARE: More Allegations Asserted in Washington Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Oct. 3, 2008 -- A revised complaint with
additional allegations in the class action lawsuit against
skilled nursing facility Extendicare and its 16 facilities in
the state of Washington was just filed (Case #2:08-cv-01332-JCC)
in United States District Court, Western Washington Division, in
Seattle.

     The original complaint (Case #08-2-28645-2KNT), filed by
The Garcia Law Firm of Long Beach, Calif., and Stritmatter,
Kessler, Whelan, Coluccio of Seattle, Wash., before the King
County Superior Court in August 2008, alleges that Extendicare
tells the public and prospective clients that it is operated in
such a way that it meets the needs of its elderly and vulnerable
adult residents by providing a certain standard of care.  The
complaint contends that in spite of the claims made on
Extendicare's Web sites and in its brochures and in other
promotional materials, it is, in fact, cheating its residents
and misrepresenting itself to prospective residents.

     The suit was filed on behalf of Howard Steele as the
personal representative for the estate of Lee Ann Steele and on
behalf of all Washington citizens who resided in one of the
company's Washington facilities from July 1, 2004, through
July 1, 2008.

     "As people heard of the lawsuit, we started getting calls
from family members and former Extendicare staff members, each
with their own story of how bad their experience was with the
company," says plaintiff attorney Kevin Coluccio, Esq., of
Stritmatter, Kessler, Whelan, Coluccio.  "These calls, combined
with our own investigation, revealed a whole host of problems
that we hadn't even expected."

     New allegations include Extendicare's "Green Flag Policy"
or the "24/7 Extendicare Admission Policy."  This policy is
compris ed of three lists: "Green Flag," "Yellow Flag," and "Red
Flag." Various medical conditions are attributed to each list.
The "Green Flag" list includes such serious medical conditions
as tracheotomies, gastric tubes, nasal gastric tubes, Dobhoff
tubes, wounds, VAC therapy, chest tubes for drainage,
colostomies, ileostomies, ureotomies, IV therapy, Hepatitis B,
HIV.  It also includes patients who are in restraints, need
physical occupational or speech rehabilitation, chemotherapy,
radiation, traction, or are an elopement risk.  Presenting with
any of these conditions qualifies them for "Automatic
Admission/Always Yes Immediately," states the 24/7 Extendicare
Admission Policy.

     By law, a skilled nursing facility must be able to provide
the care and treatment you need and be sure you are not a danger
to other residents before it accepts you.  These admitting
policies were designed for all 16 Washington Extendicare
facilities by the corporate office in Milwaukee, Wisc.  A
patient could only be DENIED admittance if the corporate vice
president approved.

     "I don't believe a corporate vice president in Milwaukee
could possibly know if the local facility was able to handle the
needs of the patient or if the patient should be in a hospital
or another acute care facility," says Long Beach, Calif.,
plaintiff attorney Stephen M. Garcia, Esq., of The Garcia Law
Firm.  "It seems to me that the emphasis is on increasing the
census in order to increase the profits, regardless of whether
the prospective patient needed care the facility couldn't give
or if he were a felon or even a sex offender."

     Mr. Coluccio and Mr. Garcia also found that the corporate-
mandated Resident Rights form given to incoming patients, and
which they had to sign, violates Washington law.  Extendicare's
form makes patients sign away their right to bring legal action
for any potential liability for personal injury or losses of
personal property.  Washington law (Section 388-97-051 WAC) says
that the resident has the right not to be asked or required to
sign any such contract or agreement.

     In the revised complaint, Extendicare Health Services, Inc.
was added as a defendant to Howard Steele, as the Personal
Representative for the Estate of Lee Anne Steele v. Extendicare
Homes, Inc.; Fir Lane Terrace Convalescent Center, Inc.; and
Does 1 through 250, inclusive.

     Extendicare Homes, Inc. is a subsidiary of Extendicare
Health Services, Inc. and is the licensee of a number of long-
term nursing facilities. In the United States, Extendicare
Health Services, Inc., (EHSI), based in Milwaukee, Wisc., is a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Canadian company Extendicare Real
Estate Investment Trust (Extendicare REIT). The company (symbol:
ALC) is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

     Extendicare Health Services, Inc. operates, according to
its website, 191 senior care facilities in the United States
with approximately 19,200 beds.

     Extendicare's problems seem to range across the country.  A
July 27, 2008 article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported
that Extendicare owns 26 nursing homes in Wisconsin.  Twenty of
them have been cited for at least one serious care violation in
the past three years.  The article also reports that in 2005,
Extendicare paid $2.3 million to Wisconsin in a civil settlement
over serious nursing home violations arising from the 2003 death
of a resident.  Its Sun Prairie home, Willows Nursing &
Rehabilitation, was cited for poor care after two residents
died. Willows paid $198,045 in state and federal fines; it also
is on the federal list of the worst homes in the country.

     Nevertheless, Extendicare is expanding in Washington.  A
July 12, 2007 article in the Journal of Business reported that
it had received preliminary state approval to build a 120-bed
facility on the South Hill in Spokane.  The article said that
the facility is expected to open in July 2009.

For information, contact:

          Stephen M. Garcia
          The Garcia Law Firm
          200 Second Avenue West
          Seattle, WA 98119
          Phone: 800-281-8515
          Web site: http://www.lawgarcia.com/


EXXON MOBIL: To Be Dismissed From EPDM Lawsuit in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter captioned "In Re: Ethylene
Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
3:03 MD 1542 (PCD)," which is pending with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, plan to voluntarily
dismiss Exxon Mobil Corp. from the suit effective Dec. 4, 2008.

                       Case Background

Beginning in March 2003, class action complaints alleging
violations of the federal antitrust laws by the major
manufacturers of EPDM were filed in multiple federal District
Courts.  Motions were made to the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to centralize the cases in a single
court to promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.

On Aug. 12, 2003, the JPML entered a transfer order centralizing
the cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  By order dated Sept. 11, 2003, the court appointed
class counsel as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

The operative complaint in the action is the second consolidated
amended complaint, which was filed on July 1, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix or
maintain the prices of, and allocate markets for, EPDM sold in
the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 1.  It further alleges that, as part of the
conspiracy, the defendants agreed to limit the supply of EPDM
and to allocate markets and customers for the sale of EPDM.

As a result of this conduct, the complaint alleges that members
of the class paid artificially inflated prices for EPDM and,
therefore, have suffered injury.

The case covers all persons or entities that purchased EPDM
directly from any of these defendants during the period Jan. 1,
1997, to Dec. 31, 2001:

      -- Bayer AG,

      -- Bayer Corp.,

      -- Bayer MaterialScience, LLC, (f/k/a Bayer Polymers LLC),

      -- Crompton Corp., (n/k/a Chemtura Corporation),

      -- Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., (n/k/a Chemtura USA
         Corp.),

      -- The Dow Chemical Co.,

      -- DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC,

      -- DSM Elastomers B.V.,

      -- DSM Elastomers Europe B.V.,

      -- DSM Elastomers Americas, (formerly DSM Copolymer,
         Inc.),

      -- Exxon Mobil Chemical Corp.,

      -- Polimeri Europa S.p.A., (f/k/a Polimeri Europa Srl),

      -- Polimeri Europa Americas, Inc., (f/k/a EniChem
         Americas, Inc.),

      -- Syndial S.p.A., (f/k/a Enichem S.p.A).

For more details, contact:

          In re EPDM Antitrust Litigation
          c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC
          Claims Administrator
          San Rafael, California
          Phone: 415-461-0410
                 800-654-5763
          Fax: 415-461-0412
          Web site: http://gilardi.com/epdm/


HCA INC: Reaches Tentative Settlement for Tenn. ERISA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HCA, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in a purported class-
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee over alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, 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 Nov. 22, 2005, Brenda Thurman, a former employee of an HCA
affiliate, filed the complaint before the Tennessee federal
court on behalf of herself, the HCA Savings and Retirement
Program, and a class of participants in the Plan who held an
interest in the company's common stock, against the company's
chairman and chief executive officer, president and chief
operating officer, executive vice president and chief financial
officer, and other unnamed individuals.

The lawsuit, filed under sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of
ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) and (3), alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and to the plan
participants.

On Jan. 13, 2006, the court entered an order staying all
proceedings and discovery in the matter, pending resolution of a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the
related federal securities class action against the company.

On Jan. 18, 2006, the magistrate judge signed an order:

      -- consolidating Ms. Thurman's cause of action with all
         other future actions making the same claims and arising
         out of the same operative facts;

      -- appointing Ms. Thurman as lead plaintiff; and

      -- appointing Ms. Thurman's attorneys as lead counsel and
         liaison counsel in the case.

On Jan. 26, 2006, the court issued an order reassigning the case
to Judge William J. Haynes, Jr.

Subsequently, the company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the suit, subject to court approval.

The company did not provide details regarding the settlement in
its regulatory filing.

The suit is "Thurman v. HCA, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
01001," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee, Judge William J. Haynes, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. (pknashlaw@aol.com)
         Bramlett Law Offices
         P.O. Box 150734
         Nashville, TN 37215-0734
         Phone: 615-248-2828

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
         Gainey & McKenna
         485 Fifth Ave., 3rd Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-983-1300
         Fax: 212-983-0383

         Samuel K. Rosen, Esq. (srosen@whesq.com)
         Wechsler Harwood, LLP
         488 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-935-7400
         Fax: 212-753-3630

              - and -

         Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. (kvianale@vianalelaw.com)
         Vianale & Vianale, LLP
         2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Phone: 561-392-4750
         Fax: 561-392-4774

Representing the defendants are:

         James N. Bowen, Esq. (jimbowen@bowenriley.com)
         Amy E. Neff, Esq. (aneff@bowenriley.com)
         Steven Allen Riley, Esq. (sriley@bowenriley.com)
         Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, PLC
         1906 West End Avenue
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Phone: 615-320-3700


HCA INC: Tenth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Understaffing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed an
earlier order dismissing a case filed against HCA, Inc, over
allegations that, to maximize profits, HCA compromises patient
care by deliberately understaffing registered nurses at its
hospitals.

The class-action complaint was filed on April 10, 2006, against
the company in the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas
alleging, among other matters, nurse understaffing at all of the
company's hospitals, certain consumer protection act violations,
negligence and unjust enrichment.

Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died on
April 22, 2004, at the company's Wesley Medical Center in
Wichita, filed the suit.  She claims that her husband died
because the hospital did not have enough nurses working to care
for him when he was hospitalized in 2004 (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 11, 2007).

Lawrence Williamson, Esq., Mrs. Spires' attorney, said that the
company set out in about 1996 to become a $50-billion company
and has tried to reach that goal by reducing costs, primarily by
cutting staff.  The company reported revenues of $24.5 billion
in 2005.

According to the lawsuit, "The defendant's reduction of staffing
of registered nurses is the evil and the fuel that led to the
revenues that has allowed the defendant to expand into all its
markets."

Mr. Williamson seeks to include in the suit millions of patients
at the company's other hospitals since 1996.

The complaint is seeking, among other relief, declaratory relief
and monetary damages, including disgorgement of profits of
$12.250 billion.

A motion to dismiss the case was granted on July 27, 2006, but
the plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal.  While the appeal
was pending, the Kansas Supreme Court for the first time
construed the Kansas Consumer Protection Act to apply to the
provision of medical services.

Based on that new ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and
remanded the action for further consideration by the trial
court, 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.

The suit is "Spires v. Hospital Corp. of America, Case No. 2:06-
cv-02137-JWL-JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
          (l.williamson@swolawfirm.com)
          Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq. (u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com)
          Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC
          301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Phone: 316-261-5400
          Fax: 316-261-5404


INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Denies Review Bid for "Nuanes"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court denied a petition that sought a
review  of the matter entitled "Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v.
Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al."

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited
partnership units of National Property Investors 5 commenced a
purported class action lawsuit entitled "Rosalie Nuanes, et al.
v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al.," before the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo.

The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the
Partnership, its managing general partner, NPI Equity
Investments, Inc., a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and
Management Co., and several of their affiliated partnerships and
corporate entities.

The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of
limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of
limited partnerships that are named as nominal defendants,
challenging, among other things:

      -- the acquisition of interests in certain Managing
         General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group,
         Inc., and entities that were, at one time, affiliates
         of Insignia;

      -- past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to
         acquire limited partnership units;

      -- management of the partnerships by the Insignia
         affiliates; and

      -- the series of transactions which closed on Oct. 1,
         1998, and Feb. 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia
         Property Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO.

The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief,
including judicial dissolution of the Partnership.

In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint
captioned "Heller v. Insignia Financial Group," was filed
against the same defendants that are named in "Nuanes."

The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action,
and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary
duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
judicial dissolution.

On Jan. 28, 2002, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to strike the Heller complaint.  The plaintiffs took an appeal
from this order.

On Jan. 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
to resolve the Nuanes action and the Heller action.  On June 13,
2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and
entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller matters.

In August 2003, an objector filed an appeal seeking to vacate
and reverse the order approving the settlement and entering
judgment thereto.  On May 4, 2004, the objector filed a second
appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order
requiring objector to pay those fees.

In March 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both
pending appeals.

With regard to the settlement and the judgment entered, the
Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded to
the trial court for further findings on the basis that the
"state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful
appellate review."

The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21,
2005.

With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
the order requiring the objector to pay referee fees.  With
respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the
first amended complaint.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the objector and his counsel filed a motion to
disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and
filed a motion to disqualify for cause on Oct. 17, 2005, both of
which were ultimately denied and struck by the trial court.

On Oct. 13, 2005, the objector filed a motion to intervene and
on Oct. 19, 2005, filed both a motion to take discovery relating
to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and
a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with
settlement.

On Nov. 14, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Further
Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals.
The defendants joined in that motion.

On Feb. 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters
pending before it and ordered additional briefing from the
parties and the objector.

On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming
its approval of the class action settlement and entering
judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the
matter for further findings.

The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain
unchanged.

The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1,
2006, denying the objector's Motion to File a Complaint in
Intervention, the objector's Motion for Leave of Discovery and
Objector's Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice
of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Court's June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders.

The matter was argued and submitted and the Court of Appeal
issued an opinion on Feb. 20, 2008, affirming the order
approving the settlement and judgment entered thereto.

On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied Appellant's
Petition for Re-Hearing.  Appellant has until April 1, 2008, to
file a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court.

The matter has been submitted and the parties are awaiting a
decision by the California Supreme Court regarding whether or
not it will accept the matter for review.

On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied the Appellant's
Petition for Re-Hearing.  On May 21, 2008, the California
Supreme Court denied the Appellant's Petition for Review,
according to National Property Investors 5's Aug. 13, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.


KLA-TENCOR: $65-Mln. Securities Suit Deal Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted final approval to the
$65-million settlement in the matter "In re KLA-
Tencor Corp. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04065," which was
filed against KLA-Tencor Corp., the Standford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse reports.

The report recounts that KLA-Tencor and various current and
former directors and officers of the company were named as
defendants in a putative securities class-action suit filed on
June 29, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Two similar complaints were filed later
in the same court, and these were subsequently consolidated with
the first action.

The consolidated complaint alleges claims under Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 14(a), Section 20(a), and
Section 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a
result of the company's past stock option grants and related
accounting and reporting.  The suit seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of
purchasers of the company's stock between June 30, 2001, and
May 22, 2006, who allegedly suffered losses as a result of
material misrepresentations in the company's SEC filings and
public statements during that period.

The lead plaintiffs, who seek to represent the class, are:

   * the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
     Detroit,

   * the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
     System, and

   * the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement.

Aside from the company, other defendants named in the suit are:

   -- Edward W. Barnholt,
   -- H. Raymond Bingham,
   -- Robert T. Bond,
   -- Gary E. Dickerson,
   -- Richard J. Elkus, Jr.,
   -- Jeffrey L. Hall,
   -- Stephen P. Kaufman,
   -- John H. Kispert,
   -- Kenneth Levy,
   -- Michael E. Marks,
   -- Stuart J. Nichols,
   -- Kenneth L. Schroeder,
   -- Jon D. Tompkins,
   -- Lida Urbanek, and
   -- Richard P. Wallace.

The litigation was at an early stage and discovery had not
commenced, and the court had not yet determined whether the
plaintiffs may sue on behalf of any class of purchasers.

The company and all other defendants filed motions to dismiss
the case in June 2007.  However, the dismissal motions have been
taken off calendar and stayed due to an agreement between the
parties to resolve the suit.

On June 5, 2008, the court granted preliminary approval to the
parties' settlement deal.  Under the terms of the settlement,
the company will be required to make a payment of $65 million to
the settlement class.

The settlement, which is subject to final court approval at a
hearing now scheduled to occur in September 2008, provides for
the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a full
release of KLA-Tencor and the other named defendants in
connection with the allegations raised by the plaintiffs and all
members of the settlement class.

At the September hearing, lead plaintiffs' counsel in the KLA-
Tencor Corp. securities litigation are set to receive more than
$10 million in attorneys' fees.

Judge Breyer finalized the settlement, dismissing the case with
prejudice after confirming that there had been no objections to
the deal, which was initially announced in January.  He also
authorized a payday for lead plaintiffs' counsel, saying he
would approve the request for fees as proposed with one
exception.  "I've meted out the expenses and awarded fees on the
remaining amount," he said.  "You probably don't like it, but my
philosophy is that I don't think that you are entitled to a
percentage on your costs.  I understand there are risks, and
because you're at risk there should be some reward.  But in my
mind, that provides an incentive to spend more on costs."

The lead plaintiffs' counsel had asked the court to award them
attorneys' fees of $10,750,000, or 16.5 percent of the
settlement fund, as well as reimbursement of $212,647 in out-of-
pocket expenses, saying the percentage requested was not only in
line with the amount calculated in accordance with the agreement
between the lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, but resulted in an
award 34% lower than the 25% benchmark common fund percentage
adopted by the Ninth Circuit years ago.

On behalf of lead plaintiffs' counsel at the hearing, Joseph
Tabacco, Esq., of Berman Devalerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
pointed out that the fee requested was far less in percentage
terms than the average percentage paid in shareholder class
actions.

The suit is "In re KLA-Tencor Corp. Securities Litigation, No.
C06-04065," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

         Lesley Ann Hale, Esq. (lhale@bermanesq.com)
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         425 California Street, Suite 2100
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-433-3200
         Fax: 415-433-6382

Representing the defendants is:

         Benjamin P. Smith, Esq. (bpsmith@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         One Market, Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-442-1000
         Fax: 415-442-1001


MELT INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss California Franchisees' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Melt, Inc., is still facing a purported class-action lawsuit in
California that was filed on behalf of several of its
franchisees.

On Sept. 19, 2007, a punitive class-action lawsuit was filed
against the company, its affiliates, and its officers and
employees alleging damages and injunctive relief under state
Franchise Acts, restitution and injunctive relief under unfair
business practices act, damages and injunctive relief under the
"Cartwright" act, fraud, interference with prospective economic
advantage, and declaratory relief.

The suit, "David Gold, Elena Gold, EAOA, Inc., Steven Field, MMS
Management, LLC, MMS Coconut Point, LLC, Jong Han, Yon Ho Kim,
Young Suk Kim, Kang Won Lee, Yoo &  Lee Enterprises, Inc.,
Charindra Liyanage, Liyange Investments, LLC v. Melt, Inc., Melt
(California), Inc., Melt Franchising, LLC, Clive V. Barwin,
Brandon Barwin, Michael Zorehkey, Rick Zorehkey, Eddie Ollman,
Scott Miller, and Alin Cruz," purports to represent a class of
the company's franchisees.

As of June 30, 2008, the court tentatively dismissed five of the
six allegations contained in the complaint.  The plaintiffs
thereafter made an application to dismiss the action in its
entirety.  The company has filed a motion for attorneys' fees
and costs and expect a decision soon, according to the company's
Form Aug. 19, 2008 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.


MTC TECHNOLOGIES: Nov. 6 Hearing Set for Merger Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Montgomery County Common Pleas Court will hold a fairness
hearing on Nov. 6, 2008, at 1:00 p.m., to consider final
approval of the proposed settlement in the matter captioned
"Superior Partners, et al. v. Rajesh H. Soin, et al., Case No.
08-0872," which names MTC Technologies, Inc., as a defendant.

The hearing will be held before Judge Frances E. McGee at
Courtroom 9 of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, 41 N.
Perry St., in Dayton, Ohio.

                        Case Background

On Jan. 25, 2008, Superior Partners, an alleged MTC stockholder,
filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of all MTC
stockholders in the Court of Common Pleas for Montgomery County,
Ohio (General Division) against MTC, all of the members of the
Board of Directors of MTC, and BAE Systems.  The suit is in
connection with the the proposed merger of MTC with a wholly
owned subsidiary of BAE Systems, Inc. (Class Action Reporter,
June 11, 2008).

The shareholder action generally alleges that, in connection
with approving the merger, the MTC directors breached their
fiduciary duties of care, good faith, loyalty and disclosure
owed to the MTC stockholders, and that BAE Systems aided and
abetted the MTC directors in the breach of their fiduciary
duties.

In addition to nominal, compensatory and rescissory damages, the
plaintiff seeks a certification of the lawsuit as a class
action, a declaration that the plaintiff is a proper class
representative, a declaration that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and the other stockholders of
MTC and aided and abetted such breaches, an award of the costs
and disbursements of the lawsuit, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees and other costs, and such other and
further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On Feb. 22, 2008, counsel for the plaintiffs in the shareholder
action and counsel for the defendants entered into a memorandum
of understanding with regard to the settlement of the
shareholder action.

The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to the
execution by the parties of a definitive settlement agreement,
and the approval of that agreement by the Court after notice to
stockholders.  The settlement contemplated by the MOU is
conditioned upon the consummation of the merger.

For more details, contact

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-952-0602
                 877-495-1187
          Fax: 212-952-0608
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington consolidating several
purported securities fraud class-action suits against Northwest
Biotherapeutics, Inc.

On Aug. 13, 2007, a class action complaint was filed naming the
company; the chairperson of its board of directors, Linda
Powers; and its chief executive officer, Alton Boynton, as
defendants, and alleging violation of federal securities laws.

Five additional complaints were subsequently filed in other
jurisdictions asserting similar claims.  The complaints were
filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
between July 9, 2007, and July 18, 2007, and allege violations
of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses.

On Dec. 18, 2007, a consolidated complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington
consolidating the shareholder actions previously filed.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its Aug. 19, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Michael C. Rosenblat, et al. v. Northwest
Biotherapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-01254," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Bridget A. Baker-White, Esq. (bridgetbw@igc.org)
          Smith & Lowney PLLC
          2317 e. John St.
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Phone: 206-860-4102

               - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

          Dane H. Butswinkas, Esq. (dbutswinkas@wc.com)
          Williams & Connolly LLP
          725 Twelfth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-434-5110

               - and -

          Michael D. Hunsinger, Esq.
          (mike_hunsingerlawyers@yahoo.com)
          The Hunsinger Law Firm
          100 South King Street, Ste. 400
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-624-1177
          Fax: 206-624-1178


PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Lawsuits in Israel Over "Lights" Cigarettes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Philip Morris International, Inc., are
facing purported class-action lawsuits in Israel over the notion
that Lights cigarettes are safer than full flavor cigarettes,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

                       El-Roy Litigation

The first class-action complaint is entitled "El-Roy, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.," which was filed before the
District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, on Jan. 18, 2004,
against a subsidiary of the company, and and its indemnitees --
PM USA and its former importer, Menache H. Eliachar Ltd.

The suit was brought on behalf of a class of individual
plaintiffs who allege that the use of the term "lights"
constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.  The plaintiffs
claim that the class members were misled by the descriptor
"lights" into believing that Lights cigarettes are safer than
full flavor cigarettes.  The claim seeks recovery of the
purchase price of Lights cigarettes and compensation for
distress for each class member.

Hearings will take place in November 2008 for the court to
decide whether the case meets the legal requirements necessary
to allow it to proceed as a class action.

                        Navon Litigation

The second class-action proceeding is entitled "Navon, et al. v.
Philip Morris Products USA, et al.," which was filed in the
District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, on Dec. 5, 2004.

Its claims are similar to those in "El-Roy," and thus the case
is currently stayed pending a class certification ruling in "El-
Roy."

                       Numberg Litigation

The third class-action proceeding is entitled "Numberg, et al.
v. Philip Morris Products S.A., et al.," which was filed in the
District Court of Tel Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, on May 19, 2008.

The company's subsidiaries and its indemnitee (the company's
distributor M.H. Eliashar Distribution Ltd.) and other members
of the industry are named as defendants.

The plaintiffs filed a purported class-action lawsuit claiming
that the class members were misled by pack colors, terms such as
"slims" or "super slims" or "blue," and text describing tar and
nicotine yields.  They allege that these pack features misled
consumers to believe that the cigarettes are safer than full
flavor cigarettes.

The plaintiffs seek recovery of the price of the brands at issue
that were purchased from Dec. 31, 2004, to the date of filing of
the claim.  They also seek compensation for mental anguish and
punitive damages.

The company's subsidiary, Philip Morris Ltd. and its indemnitee,
M.H. Eliashar Distribution Ltd., have been served with the
claim.  The company's subsidiary, Philip Morris Products S.A.,
has not yet been served.

New York, New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: Seeks Further Review of Ruling in "Scott" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA, Inc. -- a subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. --
along with several others, is seeking a further review of an
earlier order in a class action suit, entitled "Gloria Scott, et
al. v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 96-8461."

The certified case is a statewide class-action lawsuit that was
filed in Louisiana state court.  The plaintiffs asked that the
defendants pay billions of dollars to fund a 25-year medical
monitoring program (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2007).

In July 2003, following the first phase of the trial in the
Scott class-action lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs sought the
creation of a fund to pay for medical monitoring and smoking
cessation programs, a Louisiana jury returned a verdict in favor
of the defendants, including PM USA, in connection with the
plaintiffs' medical monitoring claims, but also found that the
plaintiffs could benefit from smoking cessation assistance.

The jury also found that cigarettes, as designed, are not
defective but that the defendants failed to disclose all they
knew about smoking and diseases and marketed their products to
minors.

In May 2004, in the second phase of the trial, the jury awarded
the plaintiffs approximately $590 million and directed all
defendants jointly and severally, to fund a 10-year smoking
cessation program.

In June 2004, the court entered judgment awarding the plaintiffs
an approximately $590-million jury award plus prejudgment
interest accruing from the date the suit commenced.

As of Feb. 15, 2007, the amount of prejudgment interest was
approximately $444 million.  PM USA's share of the jury award
and prejudgment interest has not been allocated.  The
defendants, including PM USA, appealed the June 2004 order.

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the trial court
entered an order setting the amount of the bond at $50 million
for all defendants in accordance with an article of the
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and a Louisiana statute (Bond
Cap Law), fixing the amount of security in civil cases.

Under the terms of the stipulation, the plaintiffs reserved the
right to contest, at a later date, the sufficiency or amount of
the bond on any grounds including the applicability or
constitutionality of the bond cap law.

In September 2004, the defendants collectively posted a bond in
the amount of $50 million.

In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal issued a ruling
on the defendants' appeal that, among other things:

   -- affirmed class certification but limited the scope of the
      class;

   -- struck certain of the categories of damages that comprised
      the judgment, reducing the amount of the award by
      approximately $312 million;

   -- vacated the award of prejudgment interest, which totaled
      approximately $444 million as of Feb. 15, 2007; and

   -- ruled that the only class members who are eligible to
      participate in the smoking cessation program are those who
      began smoking before, and whose claims accrued by
      Sept. 1, 1988.

As a result, the Louisiana Court of Appeal remanded for
proceedings consistent with its opinion, including further
reduction of the amount of the award based on the size of the
new class.

In March 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal rejected the
defendants' motion for rehearing and clarification.

In January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs' and defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari.

PM USA then recorded a provision of $26 million in connection
with the case.

In March 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to execute the
approximately $279 million judgment plus post-judgment interest
or, in the alternative, for an order of the parties to submit
revised damages figures.

The defendants filed a motion to have judgment entered in their
favor based on accrual of all class member claims after Sept. 1,
1988, or, in the alternative, for the entry of a case management
order.

In April 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied a motion  by
the defendants' to stay proceedings and the defendants filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendant's
petition.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to enter judgment in
the amount of approximately $280 million (subsequently changed
to approximately $264 million) and defendants filed a motion to
enter judgment in their favor dismissing the case entirely or,
alternatively, to enter a case management order for a new trial.

In July 2008, the trial court entered an Amended Judgment and
Reasons for Judgment denying both motions, but ordering
defendants to deposit into the registry of the court the sum of
$263,532,762 plus post-judgment interest.

The Reasons for Judgment, however, state that the award may be
satisfied with something less than a full cash payment and that
the court would consider favorably a motion to return to
defendants a portion of unused funds annually.

PM USA intends to seek further review of the trial court's
order, 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.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc., and John Middleton, Inc.,
which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital Corp., another
wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a portfolio of leveraged and
direct finance leases.  In addition, at Dec. 31, 2007, the
company held a 28.6% economic and voting interest in SABMiller
plc, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various
beer products.  The company's segments are U.S. Tobacco;
European Union; Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa; Asia;
Latin America, and Financial Services.  In March 2008, the
company completed the spin-off of Philip Morris International
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  On Dec. 11, 2007, the company
acquired 100% of John Middleton, Inc., a manufacturer of
machine-made large cigar.


PHILIP MORRIS: Sup. Ct. Also Overturns $145BB Verdict in "Engle"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an earlier appellate court
decision overturning the $145 billion judgment in the Engle
class-action lawsuit, which named Philip Morris USA, Inc., a
subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., as a defendant.

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and
health class-action lawsuit in Florida, a jury returned a
verdict assessing punitive damages totaling approximately
$145 billion against various defendants, including $74 billion
against PM USA.  Following entry of judgment, PM USA posted a
bond in the amount of $100 million and appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing
that execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle
judgment will remain stayed against PM USA and the other
participating defendants through the completion of all judicial
review.

As a result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into
a separate interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of
the outcome of the judicial review, will be paid to the court
and the court will determine how to allocate or distribute it
consistent with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

In July 2001, PM USA also placed $1.2 billion into an interest-
earing escrow account, which was returned to PM USA in December
2007.  In addition, the $100 million bond related to the case
has been discharged.

In connection with the stipulation, PM USA recorded a
$500 million pre-tax charge in its consolidated statement of
earnings for the quarter ended March 31, 2001.

In May 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed
the judgment entered by the trial court and instructed the trial
court to order the decertification of the class.  The plaintiffs
petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the
punitive damages award be vacated, that the class approved by
the trial court be decertified, and that members of the
decertified class could file individual actions against
defendants within one year of issuance of the mandate.

The court further declared the following Phase I findings are
entitled to "res judicata" effect in such individual actions
brought within one year of the issuance of the mandate:

       -- that smoking causes various diseases;

       -- that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive;

       -- that defendants' cigarettes were defective and
          unreasonably dangerous;

       -- that defendants concealed or omitted material
          information not otherwise known or available knowing
          that the material was false or misleading or failed to
          disclose a material fact concerning the health effects
          or addictive nature of smoking;

       -- that all defendants agreed to misrepresent information
          regarding the health effects or addictive nature of
          cigarettes with the intention of causing the public to
          rely on this information to their detriment;

       -- that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information
          regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their
          addictive nature with the intention that smokers would
          rely on the information to their detriment;

       -- that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that
          were defective; and

       -- that all defendants were negligent.

The court also reinstated compensatory damage awards totaling
approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and
found that a third plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute
of limitations.

In February 2008, PM USA paid a total of $2,964,685, which
represents its shares of compensatory damages and interest to
the two individual plaintiffs identified in the Florida Supreme
Court's order, 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.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc., and John Middleton, Inc.,
which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital Corp., another
wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a portfolio of leveraged and
direct finance leases.  In addition, at Dec. 31, 2007, the
company held a 28.6% economic and voting interest in SABMiller
plc, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various
beer products.  The company's segments are U.S. Tobacco;
European Union; Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa; Asia;
Latin America, and Financial Services.  In March 2008, the
company completed the spin-off of Philip Morris International
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  On Dec. 11, 2007, the company
acquired 100% of John Middleton, Inc., a manufacturer of
machine-made large cigar.


PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Suits Over Lights/Ultra Lights Cigarettes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA, Inc., along with its parent, Altria Group,
Inc., or its subsidiaries, are facing 17 purported class-action
lawsuits in various U.S. courts over "Lights/Ultra Lights"
cigarettes.

The plaintiffs in these class action suits (some of which have
not been certified as such) allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or RICO
(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970)
violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including
restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages.

These class-action lawsuits have been brought against PM USA
and, in certain instances, Altria Group or its subsidiaries, 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.

The defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the
statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and implied preemption by
the policies and directives of the Federal Trade Commission,
non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct
that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First
Amendment.

A total of 17 cases are pending in Arkansas (2), Delaware (1),
Florida (1), Illinois (1), Maine (1), Massachusetts (1),
Minnesota (1), Missouri (1), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1),
New Mexico (1), New York (1), Oregon (1), Tennessee (1), and
West Virginia (2).

Altria Group, Inc. reported no 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.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc., and John Middleton, Inc.,
which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and
other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital Corp., another
wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a portfolio of leveraged and
direct finance leases.  In addition, at Dec. 31, 2007, the
company held a 28.6% economic and voting interest in SABMiller
plc, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various
beer products.  The company's segments are U.S. Tobacco;
European Union; Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa; Asia;
Latin America, and Financial Services.  In March 2008, the
company completed the spin-off of Philip Morris International
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  On Dec. 11, 2007, the company
acquired 100% of John Middleton, Inc., a manufacturer of
machine-made large cigar.


QUEST ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Is On Nov. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 3, 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm reminds
investors of the November 4, 2008, lead plaintiff application
deadline in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all
purchasers of Quest Energy Partners LP common units from the
date of the Company's initial public offering on or about
November 7, 2007, through August 25, 2008.

     The complaint charges Quest Energy and certain former and
present officers, and controlling entities, including Quest
Resource Corporation , with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on Quest Energy's issuance of a
materially inaccurate Registration Statement and Prospectus in
connection with Quest Energy's IPO.

     According to the Complaint, on November 7, 2007, Quest
Energy commenced its IPO raising over $150 million from
investors.  The Complaint asserts that Quest Energy's
Registration Statement was materially inaccurate because Quest
Energy failed to properly disclose related party transactions
between its former CEO and an entity controlled by him.  The
Complaint also asserts claims against Quest Resource as it was
the controlling entity of Quest Energy and is liable under
Section 15 of the Securities Act.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
          Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060
                 917-797-4425 or
                 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


QUEST RESOURCE: Nov. 11 Is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 3, 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm reminds
investors of the November 11, 2008, deadline to apply as lead
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all
purchasers of Quest Resource Corporation stock from May 2, 2005,
through August 25, 2008.

     The complaint charges Quest Resource and certain former and
present officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on Quest Resource's
failure to properly disclose related party transactions between
Quest Resource and its former CEO Jerry Cash.  On August 25,
2008, Quest Resource announced that Jerry Cash had resigned
following an inquiry by the Oklahoma Department of Securities in
connection with questionable transfers of funds between Quest
and an entity controlled by Mr. Cash.

     Quest Resource also announced that it had constituted a
special committee to conduct an internal investigation. As a
result of these adverse disclosures, the price of Quest Resource
shares dropped, damaging investors.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
          Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060
                 917-797-4425 or
                 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


REDDY ICE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Is On October 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW ORLEANS, Oct. 4, 2008 -- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC,
reminds shareholders that October 7, 2008, is the deadline for
them to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities fraud
class action suit pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.,
between August 10, 2005, and March 6, 2008, inclusive.

     Reddy Ice and certain of the Company's officers and
directors are charged with making a series of materially false
and misleading statements related to the Company's business and
operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     In particular, the complaint alleges that Reddy Ice
violated United States antitrust laws and recognized significant
revenues as the result of such illegal activities.  On March 6,
2008, Reddy Ice announced that "federal officials executed a
search warrant at the Company's corporate office in Dallas" the
day before.  On March 7, 2008, Reddy Ice shares fell by
approximately one-third, closing at $15.38, on extremely heavy
volume.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq. (Lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          New Orleans, LA
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100


SERVICE CORP: Faces Wage, Hour & Overtime Pay Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corp. International is facing a a purported class-action
lawsuit alleging violations of federal and state laws regulating
wage and hour overtime pay, 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 captioned "Ordaz, et al. v. Rose Hills Mortuary,
L.P., et al., Case No. BC 386500," which was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los
Angeles.

The suit was filed on Feb. 28, 2008, as a purported class-action
suit against the company's Rose Hills location, asserting claims
based on various violations of California law relating to the
payment of wages and work hours.

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


SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Baudino" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs are appealing a summary judgment ruling in the
matter entitled "Mary Louise Baudino, et al. v. Service Corp.
International, et al., Case No. BC324007," which names Service
Corp. International, as a defendant.

The suit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on
November 2004.  It was initially filed as a putative nationwide
class action brought on behalf of all persons, entities, and
organizations who purchased funeral services from SCI.

The plaintiffs allege that funeral related regulations and
statutes required the company to disclose its markups on all
items obtained from third parties in connection with funeral
service contracts and that the failure to make certain
disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract and other
legal claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking to recover an unspecified amount of
monetary damages as well as attorneys' fees, costs, and
interest.

On Sept. 15, 2006, the trial court granted the company's motion
for summary judgment on the merits.  The plaintiffs are
appealing the summary judgment ruling, according to the
company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

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


SERVICE CORP: Casket-Related Antitrust Suits Pending in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corp. International is still facing two related
antitrust class-action lawsuits that were both filed back in
2005 and are seeking billions in damages.

The first case is entitled "Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v.
Service Corporation International, et al., Cause No 4:05-CV-
03394," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

This is a purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of casket
consumers throughout the U.S. alleging that we and several other
companies involved in the funeral industry violated federal
antitrust laws and state consumer laws by engaging in various
anti-competitive conduct associated with the sale of caskets.

The second case is "Pioneer Valley Casket, et al. v. Service
Corporation International, et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV-03399,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

The second lawsuit makes the same allegations as the Funeral
Consumers Case and is also brought against several other
companies involved in the funeral industry.

Unlike the Funeral Consumers Case, the Pioneer Case is a
purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of all independent
casket distributors that are in the business or were in the
business any time between July 18, 2001, to the present.

The Funeral Consumers Case and the Pioneer Valley Case seek
injunctions, monetary damages, and treble damages.

The plaintiffs in the Funeral Consumers Case filed an expert
report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants
range from approximately $950 million to $1.5 billion, before
trebling.

Additionally, the plaintiffs in the Pioneer Valley Case filed an
expert report indicating that the damages sought from all
defendants would be approximately $99 million, before trebling.

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

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


SERVICE CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corp. International is still facing a consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit, captioned "Conley
Investment Counsel v. Service Corp. International, et al., Civil
Action 04-MD-1609," which is pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The suit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits:

     1. "Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corp. International,
        et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL," in the U.S.
        District Court for the District of Nevada;

     2. "Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corp. International,
        et. al., Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL," in the U.S.
        District for the District of Nevada; and

     3.- "Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corp. International,
        et al., Cause No. 04-CV-20114," in the U.S.
        District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The lawsuit names as defendants Service Corp. and several of its
current and former executive officers or directors.  It is a
purported class action alleging that the defendants failed to
disclose the unlawful treatment of human remains and gravesites
at two cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach,
Florida.  No discovery has occurred.

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

The suit is "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corp.
International et al., Case No. 4:04-md-01609," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lynn
N. Hughes, presiding.

Representing the lead plaintiff are:

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

              - and -

         Christopher L. Nelson, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         Three Bala Plz., E. Ste. 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 212-545-4600

Representing the defendants are:

         Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
         J. Clifford Gunter III, Esq.
         Bracewell and Giuliani LLP
         711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-221-1371
         Fax: 713-221-2144

              - and -

         Roger B. Greenberg, Esq.
         (rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com)
         Schwartz Junell et al.
         909 Fannin, Ste. 2000
         Houston, TX 77010
         Phone: 713-752-0017
         Fax: 713-752-0327


SERVICE CORP: FLSA Violations Lawsuit Still Pending in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corp. International is still facing a purported class-
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona.

The lawsuit is entitled "Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation
International, et al. Case No. 08-CV-83."  It was filed on
Jan. 17, 2008, against SCI and various related entities and
individuals asserting FLSA and other ancillary claims based on
the alleged failure to pay for overtime.

The plaintiffs seek the same class notice to SCI and related
entities that were rejected by the court in the matter "Prise,
et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
01641-JFC," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

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.

The suit is "Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation
International, et al. Case No. 08-CV-83," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge Mary H.
Murguia, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Tod F. Schleier, Esq. (tod@schleierlaw.com)
          Schleier Law Offices PC
          3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1090
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-277-0157
          Fax: 602-230-9250

               - and -

          Justin M. Cordello, Esq.
          (jcordello@theemploymentattorneys.com)
          Dolin Thomas & Solomon LLP
          693 East Ave.
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Phone: 585-272-0540
          Fax: 585-272-0574

Representing the defendants are:

          Amy E. Dias, Esq. (aedias@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          500 Grant St., Ste. 3100
          1 Mellon Ctr.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-391-3939
          Fax: 412-394-7959

               - and -

          David M. Daniels, Esq. (david@gurneelaw.com)
          Gurnee & Daniels LLP
          2240 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 150
          Roseville, CA 95648
          Phone: 916-797-3100
          Fax: 916-797-3131


SCI FUNERAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Valls" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit against SCI
Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., a subsidiary of Service Corp.
International, are appealing the dismissal of their case, which
alleged that SCI Funeral had improperly handled remains, did not
keep adequate records of interments, and engaged in various
other improprieties in connection with the operation of the
cemetery.

The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida on Dec. 5, 2005 ,
under the caption, "Maria Valls, Pedro Valls and Roberto Valls,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. SCI
Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Memorial Plan a/k/a
Flagler Memorial Park, John Does and Jane Does, Case No.
23693CA08."

The plaintiffs seek to certify as a class all family members of
persons buried at the cemetery.  They are also seeking monetary
damages and injunctive relief and have reserved the right to
seek leave from the court to claim punitive damages.

The court has dismissed the plaintiffs' class action allegations
with prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed the ruling, according
to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

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


SOTHEBY'S INC: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Concealed Interests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over
allegations it hides its economic interest in property it
auctions off, deceiving clients into bidding up the price,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is brought pursuant to New York General Business Law
Section 349 and other common law in effect.

Named plaintiff Halsey Minor -- who paid $8.6 million for the
painting "The Peaceable Kingdom with the Leopard of Serenity" --
claims Sotheby's Executive Vice President and Director of the
American Paintings Department, acting as his art consultant and
purchasing agent, advised him how much he should bid on the
"Peaceable Kingdom" painting.

Mr. Minor says the VP failed to mention that the seller owed
Sotheby's millions of dollars and that the advised bid greatly
exceeded Sotheby's own valuation of the work.  He further claims
Sotheby's scheme allows the largest fine art auctioneer in the
world to recoup debts and maximize returns by duping its
customers into making inflated bids.

Mr. Minor alleges fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.  He wants
his money back and he wants Sotheby's ordered to disclose its
interests in auctioned property.

Mr. Minor brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a), and 23(b), and the case law, on behalf of all
persons who purchased property at auctions conducted by
Sotheby's, in which Sotheby's held any economic interest in the
auctioned property other than disclosed fees and buyer
commissions, within the six-year period preceding the filing of
the plaintiff's complaint through the date notice is mailed to
the class.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Sotheby's auctioned and sold property without
         disclosing information concerning its economic
         interests in that property;

     (b) whether Sotheby's had a duty to disclose information
         concerning its economic interests in auctioned
         property;

     (c) whether Sotheby's pursued the common course of conduct
         complained of;

     (d) whether the failure of Sotheby's to disclose
         information concerning its economic interests in
         auctioned property constitutes an unfair deceptive
         consumer sales practice;

     (e) whether Sotheby's was unjustly enriched; and

     (f) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief.

The plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment for:

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring
        disclosure by Sotheby's, in its auction catalogs, of
        information concerning all economic interests Sotheby's
        holds in any auctioned property other than disclosed
        fees and buyer commissions;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring
        disclosure by Sotheby's, in its auction catalogs, of the
        identities of all counter-parties whose indebtedness to
        Sotheby's has resulted in an economic interest being
        held by Sotheby's in the auctioned property;

     -- disgorgement to plaintiff and the other class members of
        a sum determined to reflect the premium received by
        Sotheby's for those property auctioned by Sotheby's
        during the class period for which Sotheby's concealed
        information concerning economic interests it held in the
        auctioned property, along with any increased buyers'
        fees Sotheby's obtained as a result of that premium;

     -- compensatory damages for Sotheby's wrongful conduct in
        an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- punitive damages for Sotheby's wrongful conduct in an
        amount to be determined at trial;

     -- treble damages pursuant to NY Gen. Bus. Law Section 349;

     -- costs of this action, including reasonable attorney's
        fees;

     -- any applicable and appropriate pre- and post-judgment
        interest; and

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

The suit is "Halsey Minor, et al. v. Sotheby's Inc., Case No. C-
08-4568," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Eric M. George, Esq.
          Dreier Stein Kahan Browne Woods George LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, 24th Floor
          Century City, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-374-7100
          Fax: 310-275-5697


SYNCHRONOS TECH: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Is Nov. 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 3, 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm reminds
investors that November 7, 2008, is the deadline for them to
apply as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of all purchasers of Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.
common stock during the period from February 4, 2008, through
June 9, 2008.

     The complaint charges that Synchronoss and certain of its
officers violated the Securities Exchange Act by issuing
materially false and misleading statements about its contract to
provide in-store activation of iPhones.  On June 10, 2008, the
Company announced that it will not participate in the on-site,
retail store activations associated with the 3G iPhone and
acknowledged that it had been aware of this material development
since at least May 2008 when the Company had issued revised
financial guidance.  As a result of this adverse disclosure, the
price of Synchronoss stock has dropped, damaging investors.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
          Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060
                 917-797-4425
                 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


TALON INT'L: Files Reply Brief to Cal. Shareholder Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Talon International Inc., formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc., has
filed its reply brief with regard to an appeal in a purported
shareholder class action suit against the company.

On Oct. 12, 2005, a shareholder class action complaint --
"Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352"
-- was filed against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities during the period from
Nov. 14, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the court appointed Seth Huberman as lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's financial situation
and its relationship with certain of its large customers during
the purported class period.

The suit purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1,
2007, and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification.  The
plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also
sought to intervene for a new plaintiff to pursue class
certification.

Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007.  In
addition, the same day the Court granted the company's and the
other defendants' motion for summary judgment -- April 5, 2007
-- the court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and
his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007.  The
company's brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2007.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 19, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-7352," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California Judge Manuel L. Real,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

         Jules Brody, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl.
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq. (pavery@wolfpopper.com)
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq. (pbinkow@glancylaw.com)
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants is:

         Panteha Abdollahi, Esq.
         (pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com)
         Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
         695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-668-6200


VALERO ENERGY: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Undisclosed Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy Corp. and California Retail Sales are facing a
class-action complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
alleging it failed to disclose they charge 35 cents at the pump
for each debit-card gasoline purchase, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

CourtHouse News did not report on any other update or details
regarding the case.

Headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, Valero Energy Corporation
(NYSE: VLO) -- http://www.valero.com/-- is North America's
largest independent refining and marketing company, currently
owning 16 oil refineries with nameplate crude oil distillation
capacity of 2.6 barrels per day (bpd) and, including
intermediate feedstock, 3.1 million bpd.  VLO has one of the
largest deep conversion capacities in North America.  Its
current portfolio of refineries displays a somewhat above
average Nelson Complexity Index of 11.1.  Valero Energy is
evaluating strategic alternatives for one to three refineries
and each of the potential pro-forma scenarios would increase its
current Nelson index.  The pending major capital spending
programs would further increase Valero Energy Corporation value
adding capacity and complexity downstream from crude oil
distillation.  The company has operated an oil refinery in
Aruba.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CARTER'S INC: Glancy Binkow Files Ga. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Oct. 3, 2008 -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
representing investors who purchased Carter's, Inc., has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of a class consisting of
all purchasers of the securities of Carter's, Inc., between
February 21, 2006, and July 24, 2007, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Carter's and certain of the Company's
executive officers and directors with violations of federal
securities laws.  Among other things, the plaintiff claims that
the defendants' material omissions and dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's operations and prospects caused Carter's stock price
to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on
investors.

     Carter's designs, sources and markets apparel for babies
and young children in the United States, primarily under the
Carter's, Child of Mine, Just One Year, and OshKosh brand names.
In 2005, Carter's, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, The
William Carter Company, acquired all of the outstanding common
stock of the young children's apparel company OshKosh B'Gosh,
Inc.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Carter's financial performance and
prospects were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants'
public statements failed to disclose or indicate significant
setbacks the Company was experiencing in attempting to integrate
OshKosh into Carter's core business.  The Complaint further
alleges that the Company made positive but misleading statements
throughout the Class Period concerning problems with the
integration of OshKosh and the probability of resolving these
issues successfully.

     Investors were belatedly made aware of the failure of the
OshKosh integration, and on July 24, 2007, Carter's announced
that it was taking a write-down of $142.9 million on the
intangible assets/goodwill of its OshKosh subsidiary.  As a
result of this disclosure, the Company's stock fell from $24.87
per share to $22.75 per share on heavy volume.

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

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 18, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Toll Free: 888-773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com


FANNIE MAE: Entwistle Cappucci Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 3, 2008 -- Pursuant to Section
21(D)(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, a prominent New York law firm
specializing in securities litigation, filed a class action
complaint for violations of the federal securities laws against:

     -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.,
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
     -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.,
     -- UBS Securities LLC,
     -- Wachovia Capital Markets LLC,
     -- Stephen B. Ashley,
     -- Daniel H. Mudd,
     -- Stephen M. Swad and
     -- Robert J. Levin

in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Federal National Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae) 8.25% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series T
(NYSE:FNM-T) from May 13, 2008, through and including Sept. 6,
2008.

     The complaint alleges that the Defendants concealed and
misrepresented to investors the Company's overall financial
health as well as the adequacy of the Company's capital, which
had dramatically diminished as a result of its mortgage-related
losses, poor underwriting standards and risk management
procedures.  Such misrepresentations and omissions were
contained in the Company's information statements, quarterly and
annual reports and offering circular, which was issued to
investors in connection with the offering of the Series T
Preferred Stock on or about May 13, 2008.

     As alleged in the complaint, in 2007, U.S. Treasury
Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S.
Bernanke urged Fannie Mae to raise more money and bolster its
balance sheet in order to comply with existing and impending
regulations.  Accordingly, Fannie Mae embarked upon a capital
raising campaign, which was designed to reinforce the Company's
balance sheet for:

     (i) continued satisfaction of government mandated capital
         requirements, thus allowing the Company to continue
         purchasing mortgages from banks nationwide;

    (ii) to increase shareholder value; and

   (iii) to provide stability to the secondary mortgage market.

     The Offering, which was part of the Company's capital
raising campaign, involved the sale of approximately 80 million
shares, or $2 billion, of Series T Preferred Stock.  The
Offering Circular, issued in connection with the Offering, as
well as the Company's SEC filings and press releases,
misrepresented the Company's capital position by, inter alia,
postponing a series of asset write-offs that were mandated under
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.  The full extent of
Fannie Mae's capital deficiencies, if disclosed by the
Defendants, would have severely hindered the Company's ability
to raise the required amount of capital. Based upon these and
other materially false and misleading statements and omissions
during the Class Period, the complaint alleges that the
Defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933 as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

     Beginning on July 11, 2008, investors began to learn the
truth about Fannie Mae's actual financial condition through a
series of partial disclosures.  Specifically, a July 11, 2008
New York Times article stated the federal government was
considering taking over Fannie Mae and placing it in a
conservatorship due to growing financial stress on the Company.
As a result of this announcement, the Company's Series T
Preferred Stock declined $2.03 per share, or 10.6%, from $19.03
per share on July 10, 2008, to $17.00 per share on July 11,
2008.  Thereafter, on August 20, 2008, The New York Times
reported that a government bailout was increasingly likely.  On
this news, shares of the Company's Series T Preferred Stock
dropped an additional $2.79 per share, or 20%, from $13.78 per
share on August 19, 2008, to close at $10.99 per share on
August 20, 2008.

     On September 7, 2008, the United States Treasury Department
announced that the Federal Housing Finance Agency had been
appointed as conservator of Fannie Mae in accordance with the
Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008 and the
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act
of 1992.  The Treasury Department's announcement of the takeover
plan revealed Fannie Mae's inadequate capital management and
gross capital inflation, thereby causing the price of the
Company's Series T Preferred Stock to drop $10.70 per share, or
78%, from $13.70 per share on September 5, 2008 to $3.00 per
share on September 8, 2008.  In total, as a result of the
foregoing corrective disclosures, the value of the Company's
Series T Preferred Stock fell $22 per share, or 88%, from the
initial Offering price of $25 per share on May 13, 2008, to
$3 per share on September 8, 2008.

     The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

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

For more information, contact:

          Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
          (rcappucci@entwistle-law.com)
          Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
          280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-894-7200
          Fax: 212-894-7272


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Files New York Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 3, 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
General Electric Company common stock and call option during the
period beginning September 25, 2008, through and including
October 1, 2008.

     The complaint charges GE and certain of its officers with
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint asserts that during an
investor conference call on September 25, 2008, defendants
falsely stated that GE would not require any additional fund
raising through debt, equity, or otherwise during the fourth
quarter-ended December 31, 2008.

     According to the complaint, on October 1, 2008, GE
announced that it planned to offer at least $12 billion of
common stock in a public offering.  On October 2, 2008, before
market open, GE announced the offering was to be priced at
$22.25 per share, well-below the stock's prior day closing price
of $24.50 per share and below its 52 week low.  News that the
stock offering was priced at less than the current market price
caused GE's stock price to fall over 9% on October 2, 2008.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
December 2, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Rosen Law Files Ariz. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 3, 2008 --  The Rosen Law Firm has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all purchasers of Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp. stock during the period from October 30,
2003, through September 24, 2008.

     The complaint charges that Medicis and certain of its
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by issuing materially inaccurate financial statements to the
investing public.  On September 24, 2008, Medicis announced that
it intends to restate its financial statements for each of the
accounting periods beginning July 1, 2003, and ending June 30,
2008, and that investors can no longer rely on these financial
statements.  The restatement is necessary because Medicis
applied an improper accounting method in determining reserves
for sales returns during the Class Period.  News of the pending
restatement caused Medicis' stock price to fall significantly,
damaging investors.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
December 2, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          Phone: 212-686-1060
          Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *