CAR_Public/081016.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, October 16, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 206
  
                            Headlines

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Dismissal Bid v. N.Y. Suit Still Pending
BACKYARD PLAY: Recalls Outdoor Playset Gliders Due to Fall Risk
BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
CHAMPION LABORATORIES: Faces Litigation in Canada Over Filters
CREDIT SOLUTIONS: Faces Suit Over Alleged "Credit Repair" Scam

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Suit by Former Red Lobster Managers
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Suit by Former Red Lobster Servers
DIAMOND FOODS: Court Nixes Certain Allegations in Calif. Lawsuit
GEHL COMPANY: Enters into MoU to Resolve Shareholder Lawsuit
GILMAN & CIOCIA: Del. Court Approves "Kosseff" Suit Settlement

HARRIS STRATEX: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Delaware
HASBRO INC: Recalls Nerf N-Strike Recon Blasters for Repairs
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Multiple Suits Over Sprint Fidelis Products
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit in Canada Over Over Defibrillators
MENU FOOD: Court Approves $24 Mln. Pet Food MDL Settlement

ORACLE CORP: March 30, 2009 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Suit
TULLY'S COFFEE: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Meals, Rest Periods
UNITED COMPONENTS: JPML Considers Motions on Suits Over Filters
VANGUARD HEALTH: Unit Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Nurse Pay
WAL-MART STORES: Appeals $188M Final Judgment in "Braun/Hummel"

WAL-MART STORES: April 6, 2009 Trial Slated for "Hale" Case
WAL-MART STORES: April 2009 Jury Trial Slated for "Carter" Case
WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Appeal $172M Award in "Savaglio"
WAL-MART STORES: Minn. Appeals Court Considers Appeal in "Braun"
WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Full Panel Review of "Sepulveda" Ruling

WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Review of Class Certification in "Dukes"
WSB FINANCIAL: Settles Securities Litigation in Washington
ZALE CORP: Nov. 21, 2008 Hearing Set for "Salvato" Settlement
ZALE CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tex. Now Closed

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTEC INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
BIOVAIL CORP: Brualdi Announces NY Securities Fraud Suit Filing
FANNIE MAE: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing in NY
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Izard Nobel Announces Ariz. Suit Filing


                           *********

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Dismissal Bid v. N.Y. Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action pending against
Authentidate Holding Corp. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the company and
certain of current and former officers and directors.  The
plaintiffs in these actions allege that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  

The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the
company failed to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service could
cancel its August 2002 contract with it if the company did not
meet certain performance metrics, and when it disclosed in 2005
that the USPS could cancel its contract because the company had
not met those performance metrics, the market price of its stock
declined.  The class-action complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages.

Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders filed motions
seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed a
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

On Oct. 5, 2005, the court consolidated the class actions as "In
re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No.
05 Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board of
Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in
January 2006, asserting the same claims as the prior complaints
and also alleged that the company violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting that it possessed certain
patentable technology.

In July 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety.  Certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and the
plaintiffs were given leave to replead those claims, which were
not dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which does not assert any claims relating to the company's
patents, but which otherwise is substantially similar to the
prior complaint.  The second amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages.

The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
Nov. 13, 2006.  The motion is pending before the court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
26, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-05323-LTS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Laura Taylor Swain, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard William Gonnello, Esq.
         (rgonnello@entwistle-law.com)
         Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
         (aentwistle@entwistle-law.com)
         Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
         (jwhitman@entwistle-law.com)
         Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-894-7200
         Fax: 212-894-7272

              - and -

         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants is:

         Irwin Howard Warren, Esq. (irwin.warren@weil.com)
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: 212-310-8000
         Fax: 212-833-3148


BACKYARD PLAY: Recalls Outdoor Playset Gliders Due to Fall Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Backyard Play Systems LLC, of Monroe, Mich., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
500 Heartland/ Yardline/ Backyard Play Systems Outdoor Playset
Gliders.

The company said some of the gliders were shipped with assembly
instructions that did not inform consumers to tighten all lock
nuts during assembly, including those attached by the
manufacturer. As a result, some lock nuts were not fully
fastened during assembly which could cause the glider to detach,
posing a fall hazard to children.

Backyard Play Systems has received one report of a lock nut
falling off. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves outdoor play set gliders designed to hang
from home play equipment. The green plastic gliders were sold as
an accessory to home play equipment marketed under the brand
names Heartland Play Systems, Yardline Play Systems and Backyard
Play Systems.

These recalled playset gliders were manufactured in China and
were being sold by Backyard Buildings and More and Lowe's stores
nationwide, and online at Costco.com, BettyMills.com, and
BackyardBuildings.com from February 2008 through July 2008 for
about $100.

Picture of the recalled playset gliders is found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09705.jpg  

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the gliders
until all lock nuts are securely fastened. Backyard Play Systems
is notifying all customers directly and is providing written
instructions indicating the location of all lock nuts that must
be securely fastened.

For additional information, contact Backyard Play Systems at
(866) 890-2211 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Saturday, or visit the
firm's Web site at BackyardBuildings.com. Consumers can also e-
mail: customerservice@backyard-play.com


BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington alleging
it shorted delivery drivers for overtime for three years, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action for overtime wages on behalf of drivers
who have worked at any time for defendant in Washington during
the three years prior to the filing of the complaint through the
present, or hereafter until the time of trial.

Plaintiff requests that the court enter an order certifying the
class and granting the following relief:

     -- damages for unpaid overtime pay in amounts to be proven
        at trial;

     -- exemplary damages in amounts equal to double the
        overtime pay due to class members, pursuant to Revised
        Code of Washington 49.52.070;

     -- attorneys fees and costs pursuant to RCW 49.46.090,
        49.48.030 and RCW 49.52.070;

     -- prejudgment interest; and

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

The suit is "Judy Lewis et al. v. Bimbo Bakeries, USA, Inc. Case
No. 08-2-35067-3 SEA," filed in the Superior Court of the State
of Washington.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Martin S. Garfinkel
          Rob Williamson
          Williamson & Williams
          1B7 Parfit Way SW, Suite 250
          Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
          Phone: (206) 780-4447
          Fax: (206) 780-5557


CHAMPION LABORATORIES: Faces Litigation in Canada Over Filters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Champion Laboratories, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of United
Components, Inc., is facing two purported class actions in
Canada over aftermarket filters, according to United Components'
Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

                       Quebec Litigation

The company, but not United Components, was named one of five
defendants in a class action filed in Quebec, Canada, on April
25, 2008, entitled, "Jean-Paul Perrault v. Champion Labs. et
al."  

This complaint alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian
Competition Act and violations of the obligation to act in good
faith (contrary to Art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related
to the sale of aftermarket filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five
defendants in the amount of $5.0 million in compensatory damages
and $1.0 million in punitive damages.

The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter
proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on.  There is an initial court return date of Aug. 29,
2008.

                       Ontario Litigation

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as one of 14
defendants in a class action filed in Ontario, Canada.

The action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference
with economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the
Canadian Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket
filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14
defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and
$15 million in punitive damages.  

The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter
proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,  
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 31, 2007, were made to vehicle
replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided
into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and
original equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up
40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for
cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management
products.


CREDIT SOLUTIONS: Faces Suit Over Alleged "Credit Repair" Scam
--------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Solutions of America, of Addison, Texas, is facing a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia alleging it runs an abusive and
incompetent "credit repair" scam, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a putative class action brought on behalf of  current
and prior residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who entered
into contracts with CSA.

Allegedly, CSA is a business that targets vulnerable consumers
who are overwhelmed by unmanageable debt and are being hounded
by creditors, and whose unpaid debt has affected their credit
ratings. Its business model and practices makes CSA a "credit
repair organization," a "debt collector," and a "credit services
business" subject to the federal and state laws governing such
business.

This action is brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of thousands of present and past
citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia who have entered into
contracts with CSA and paid services fees to it.

Named plaintiff Rebecca Lamb wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether CSA is a "credit repair organization" within
         the meaning of 15 USC Section 1679a(3);

     (b) whether CSA is a "debt collector" within the meanings
         of 15 USC Section 1692a(6);

     (c) whether CSA is a "credit services business" within the
         meaning of Virginia Code Section 59.1-335 et seq
         (Virginia Credit Services Businesses Act);

     (d) whether CSA violated 15 USC Section 1679a(3); 15 USC
         Section 1692a(6);

     (e) whether CSA's contracts with the class are void and
         unenforceable pursuant to the Virginia Credit Services
         Business Act;

     (f) whether CSA made fraudulent misrepresentations to the
         class;

     (g) whether CSA breached its fiduciary duty to the class;
         and

     (h) whether CSA breached its contracts with the class.

Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

     -- certification of this action as a class action pursuant
        to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

     -- that CSA return to plaintiffs all money plaintiffs paid
        to CSA;

     -- that CSA pay actual, compensatory and punitive damages
        to plaintiffs;

     -- that defendant CSA pay the plaintiffs' court costs;

     -- that defendant CSA pay plaintiffs' attorney fees; and

     -- such other relief as the court deems equitable and just.

The suit is "Rebecca C. Lamb et al. v. Credit Solutions of
America, Inc., Case No. 3:08CV654(RLW)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Representing plaintiff are:

          John M. Murdock
          Janine S. Benton
          Benton Potter & Murdock, PC
          150 S. Washington Street, Suite 202
          Falls Church, Virginia
          Phone: (703) 992-9255 or (703) 992-6950
          Fax: (703) 832-0211
          e-mail: jm@bentonpottermurdock.com


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Suit by Former Red Lobster Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., is facing a purported class action
filed against its Red Lobster restaurant concept and pending in
a California state court, according to the company's Sept. 24,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 24, 2008.

In July 2008, an action was filed in California state court by a
group of former Red Lobster managers alleging that the salaried
general managers of the restaurants were not paid minimum wage
for all hours worked because they were not paid for time spent
attending various seminars and conferences.

In addition, the managers claim that they were not provided with
rest and meal breaks pursuant to California law.  The complaint
seeks to have the suit certified as a class action.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Suit by Former Red Lobster Servers
------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., is facing a purported class action
filed against its Red Lobster restaurant concept and pending in
a California state court.

In August 2008, an action was filed in California state court by
a former Red Lobster server related to employment practices at
Red Lobster.

In general the suit is alleging that Red Lobster's scheduling
practices resulted in failure to properly pay reporting time
(minimum shift) pay as well as to pay minimum wage, to provide
itemized wage statements, and to timely pay employees upon the
termination of their employment.

The complaint seeks to have the suit certified as a class
action, according to the company's Sept. 24, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 24, 2008.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DIAMOND FOODS: Court Nixes Certain Allegations in Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Joaquin County Superior Court in California granted a
motion by Diamond Foods, Inc., effectively dismissing all class-
action allegations in a suit against the company over walnut
deliveries.

In March 2008, a former grower and an organization named Walnut
Producers of California filed suit against the company in San
Joaquin County Superior Court claiming, among other things,
breach of contract relating to alleged underpayment for walnut
deliveries for the 2005 and 2006 crop years.  

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of walnut growers
who entered into contracts with the company.

In May 2008, the company argued a motion in front of the judge
in the case requesting, among other things, that all class
action allegations be struck from the plaintiffs' complaint.  In
August 2008, the court granted the company's motion, according
to the company's Sept. 25, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2008.

Diamond Foods, Inc. -- http://www.diamondfoods.com-- is a  
branded food company specializing in processing, marketing and
distributing culinary, in-shell and ingredient nuts and snack
products.  The company's products are sold in over 60,000 retail
locations in the U.S. and in over 100 countries.  Diamond offers
all of its products in an array of packages to meet different
market needs.  The company's snack nut products are sold in
various on-the-go package styles, including resealable foil bags
and resealable plastic containers.  Diamond also offers snack
products in 20-ounce to 40-ounce polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) containers and bags for the club channel.  The company
offers its microwave popcorn products in various package sizes,
including 100-calorie snack size.  It has four product lines:
culinary; snack; in-shell, and ingredient/food service.  Sales
to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. accounted for approximately 22% of its
net sales during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2008 (fiscal
2008).


GEHL COMPANY: Enters into MoU to Resolve Shareholder Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gehl Company (NASDAQ GSM: GEHL), announced that counsel for the
Company's directors, the Company, Manitou BF S.A. and Tenedor
Corporation and counsel for the plaintiff in the purported class
action in the Circuit Court in and for Washington County,
Wisconsin docketed as "Chuck Kandel v. William D. Gehl, et al.,
Case No.2008-CV-000990" entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding in which the Company agreed to certain additional
disclosures, which disclosures are included in amendments to the
Tender Offer Statement, Rule 13e-3 Transaction Statement and
amended Schedule 13D Beneficial Ownership Statement on Schedule
filed by Manitou and Tenedor and the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company.

The disclosures were made in exchange for a settlement that will
include a release in favor of, among others, all defendants,
their agents, financial advisors and insurers of all claims,
including known and unknown claims (whether for damages or
equitable relief).

The settlement contemplated in the Memorandum is contingent
upon, among other things, confirmatory discovery as is
appropriate and necessary to confirm the fairness and
reasonableness of the terms of the settlement, the negotiation
of a definitive stipulation of settlement, the closing of the
proposed merger of Tenedor and the Company and the entry of an
order and judgment by the Circuit Court in and for Washington
County, Wisconsin (in substantially the form submitted by the
parties or as thereafter modified pursuant to an agreement of
the parties) approving the settlement and the stipulation and
dismissing the Action on the merits with prejudice, which shall
have become final and no longer subject to appeal or review.

Gehl Company (NASDAQ GSM: GEHL) is a manufacturer of compact
equipment used worldwide in construction and agricultural
markets. Founded in 1859, the Company is headquartered in West
Bend, Wisconsin.


GILMAN & CIOCIA: Del. Court Approves "Kosseff" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County approved a tentative settlement reached in the
purported stockholder class action filed against Gilman &
Ciocia, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 26, 2008 Form 10-
K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

On Feb. 4, 2004, the company was served with a summons and a
shareholder's class-action and derivative complaint filed by
Gary Kosseff against James Ciocia, Thomas Povinelli, Michael P.
Ryan, Kathryn Travis, Seth A. Akabas, Louis P. Karol, Edward H.
Cohen, Steven Gilbert and Doreen Biebusch, and Gilman & Ciocia,
Inc. (Civil Action No. 188-N).

The action accused the company, its board of directors and its
management of breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty in
connection with the sale of offices to Pinnacle Taxx Advisors,
LLC in 2002.

The action alleged that the sale to Pinnacle was for inadequate
consideration and without a fairness opinion by independent
financial advisors, without independent legal advice and without
a thorough evaluation and vote by an independent committee of
the board of directors.

The action sought:

     -- a declaration that the company, its board of directors
        and management breached their fiduciary duty and other
        duties to the plaintiff and to the other members of the
        purported class;

     -- a rescission of the Asset Purchase Agreement;

     -- unspecified monetary damages; and

     -- an award to the plaintiff of costs and disbursements,
        including reasonable legal, expert and accountants
        fees.

The case was scheduled for trial on June 4, 2007.  The trial was
postponed without a new date pending settlement negotiations.  

On Feb. 15, 2008, a Settlement Agreement was executed settling
the lawsuit.  At a hearing on Sept. 22, 2008, the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware approved the Settlement
Agreement and reserved decision on setting an award of
attorney's fees and expenses for plaintiff's counsel.

Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. -- http://www.gilcio.com/-- provides  
federal, state and local tax preparation services to
individuals, predominantly in the middle and upper income tax
brackets, and financial planning services, including securities
brokerage, insurance and mortgage agency services.


HARRIS STRATEX: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. is facing two purported securities
fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware, according to the company's Sept. 25, 2008 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended July 27, 2008.

The company and certain of its executive officers were named in
a federal securities class-action complaint filed on Sept. 15,
2008 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by
plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System on behalf of an
alleged class of purchasers of the company's securities from
Jan. 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of
Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks,
Inc. for the company's shares as part of the merger between
Stratex Networks and the Microwave Communications Division of
Harris Corp.

A similar complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware on Sept. 18, 2008.

Each complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other
relief, determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. -- http://www.harrisstratex.com/
-- together with its subsidiaries, is a global supplier of
turnkey wireless network solutions and network management
software, backed by a suite of professional services and
support.  The company offers a portfolio of wireless network
solutions, based on its microwave radio systems and network
management software.  It serves market segments, including
mobile network operators, public safety agencies, private
network operators, utility and transportation companies,
government agencies and broadcasters.  Products include point-
to-point digital microwave radio systems for mobile system
access, backhaul, trunking and license-exempt applications,
supporting network deployments, network expansion, and capacity
upgrades.  Harris Stratex offers a range of products and
services, delivering them through three segments: North America
Microwave, International Microwave and Network Operations.
Network Operations serves all markets worldwide.


HASBRO INC: Recalls Nerf N-Strike Recon Blasters for Repairs
------------------------------------------------------------
Hasbro Inc., of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
330,000 units of Nerf N-Strike Recon Blasters.

The company said the blaster's plunger can pull the user's skin
during firing of the toy blaster resulting in injury to the
face, neck, and/or chest.

Hasbro and CPSC have received 46 reports of injury to children
aged 4 to 12, resulting in bruising, abrasions, pinching/pinch
marks, blood blisters and welts.

This recall involves the Nerf N-Strike Recon CS-6 Blasters for
children age 6 and up. The toy blaster is yellow with a black
handle and orange plunger, trigger, and reload clip. The word
"NERF" in black lettering is on both sides of the blaster and
the word "ARMED" is indented on the orange plunger. "RECON CS-6"
is on the gray cocking mechanism. There are five interchangeable
parts including the shoulder stock, the flip-up sight, barrel
extension, quick re-load clip and dual-mode light beam. Model
number 63552 and UPC codes 653569272021 and 653569311218 can be
found on the packaging. Only blasters with an exposed orange
plunger are included in this recall.

Picture of the recalled Nerf blasters is found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09007.jpg

These recalled Nerf blasters were manufactured in China and were
being sold at Wal-Mart, Target, Toys "R" Us, discount stores and
toy stores nationwide from November 2007 through August 2008 for
about $20.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toy
blasters away from children and contact Hasbro for a free
cylindrical cover to prevent additional injuries.

For more information, contact Hasbro toll-free at (800) 245-0910
anytime or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.hasbro.com/nerf


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Multiple Suits Over Sprint Fidelis Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., is facing several purported class actions in
both U.S. state and federal courts and in Canada over its
recalled Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads,
according to the company's Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 25, 2008.

On Oct. 15, 2007, the company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation
leads.  This decision was based on a variety of factors that,
when viewed together, indicated that suspending distribution was
the appropriate action.

At the time, Sprint Fidelis lead viability was trending lower
than other company defibrillation leads, but had not then become
statistically significant.  

The leads are used to deliver therapy in patients with ICDs, but
are generally not used in pacemaker patients.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration subsequently classified
the company's action as a Class I recall.

As of Aug. 26, 2008, approximately 290 lawsuits regarding the
Fidelis leads have been filed against the company, including
approximately 33 putative class-action lawsuits reflecting a
total of approximately 760 individual personal injury cases.  

In general, the suits allege claims of product liability,
warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, emotional distress, and
consumer protection violations.

One lawsuit includes a claim by an individual purporting to act
as a surrogate for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, and one lawsuit has been brought by a third party
payor as a putative class-action suit.

In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada.  

Approximately 95 of the lawsuits have been filed in state court,
generally alleging similar causes of action.  Of those state
court actions, approximately 85 are consolidated before a single
judge in Hennepin County District Court in the state of
Minnesota.  

The federal court cases have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the MDL rules.

The MDL court has entered an Order staying all discovery pending
the outcome of an Oct. 30, 2008 hearing on Medtronic's motion to
dismiss the complaints.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com-- is engaged in  
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.  


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit in Canada Over Over Defibrillators
------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. is facing a purported class action in Canada
over a specific battery shorting mechanism that might manifest
itself in certain of its defibrillators, according to the
company's Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July
25, 2008.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise
physicians about the possibility that a specific battery
shorting mechanism might manifest itself in a subset of
implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac
resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds).  These
included certain Marquis VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain
InSync I/II/III CRT-D devices.  

                       Settled Litigation

Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of lawsuits
were filed against the company alleging a variety of claims,
including individuals asserting claims of personal injury and
third party payors, alleging entitlement to reimbursement.  Many
of these lawsuits were settled, and in the third quarter of
fiscal year 2008.

                      Canadian Litigation

In addition, class action product liability suits pending in
Canada are consolidated in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.  

That court certified a class proceeding on Dec. 6, 2007 and
denied Medtronic's leave to appeal certification on May 15,
2008.

The class was certified to include individual implant recipients
and their family members.  

In addition, the subrogated claims of the provincial health
insurers to recover costs incurred in providing medical services
to the implant class are claimed in the class proceeding.  

The case is at an early procedural stage during which notice of
the certification will be sent to class members and the parties
will engage in discovery.  Discovery is expected to be completed
during 2009.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com-- is engaged in  
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.  


MENU FOOD: Court Approves $24 Mln. Pet Food MDL Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey      
approved a $24 million settlement in the Pet Food Multi-
District Litigation against Menu Food Holdings Inc. and a dozen
other groups of defendants, NewsChannel 9 WSYR reports.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 8, 2007,
numerous class actions have been filed against Menu Food over
its recalled pet food, which has been blamed for numerous pet
deaths.  In the United States, dozens of cases against Menu
Foods and many of the companies that own private pet food labels
were consolidated in a federal court in Camden, New Jersey.

According to the CAR report, the mediated settlement of the
so-called multi-district litigation, which combined various
class actions filed in the United States, came just over a
year after dog and cat owners were panicked by news that
products from the maker of store-brand pet food had been tainted
by Chinese-supplied wheat gluten laced with poisonous melamine.

In April, Menu Foods announced a "comprehensive cross-border
agreement in principle" on litigation arising from its tainted
pet food scandal (Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2008).

The settlement, the company said, is to be funded by the income
trust and its insurer.

In June 2008, the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey preliminarily approved the comprehensive
Settlement Agreement in the Pet Food Multi-District Litigation
(Class Action Reporter, June 3, 2008).

The Settlement Agreement would resolve more than 100 class
actions filed in U.S. and Canadian courts.  Similar
motions for approval will soon be heard in the Canadian courts.

The Settlement Agreement creates a Settlement Fund of
$24 million that will allow a potential recovery of up to 100%
of all economic damages incurred by pet owners, subject to
certain limitations.  The Settlement Fund, administered by a
neutral claims administrator, will be available to persons in
the United States and Canada who purchased or obtained, or whose
pets used or consumed, recalled pet food.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Fund will
be funded by the defendants, including Menu Foods and its
product liability insurer.  Menu Foods' corporate contribution
to the settlement is within its previously published estimate
for recall costs of CDN$55 million.

A BizJournals report recounts that Menu Foods has already
distributed $8 million to some plaintiffs, who will not be
eligible to make claims in this settlement.  Two Chinese firms
and one American company, ChemNutra Inc. of Las Vegas, were
indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with the
contamination.

At an October 14, 2008 hearing, the judge approved the class
action settlement against Menu Foods, the company whose 100
brands of dog and cat food was contaminated with a chemical used
to make plastics.

Persons with potential claims should not contact Menu Foods, but
can contact the claims administrator at:

          In re Pet Food Products Liability Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          P.O. Box 890
          Philadelphia, PA 19105-0890
          Phone: 1-800-392-7785
          Web site: http://www.petfoodsettlement.com/


ORACLE CORP: March 30, 2009 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A March 30, 2009 trial is scheduled for a purported securities
fraud class action filed against Oracle Corp. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Initially, stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the company and its chief executive officer on and after March
9, 2001.

Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and
a revised second amended complaint.  The last dismissal was with
prejudice.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The revised second amended complaint named the company's chief
executive officer, its then chief financial officer (who
currently is chairman of the company's board of directors) and a
former executive vice president as defendants.

This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000, through
March 1, 2001.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's actual and expected
financial performance and the performance of certain of the
company's applications products, while certain individual
defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal
securities laws.

They further alleged that certain individual defendants sold
Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information.  In addition, they also allege that the defendants
engaged in accounting violations.

The suit seeks unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On July 26, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment against all defendants and a motion for summary
judgment against the company's CEO.

In August 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of these
motions.  The parties' summary judgment motions are fully
briefed.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default
judgment against the defendants or various other sanctions
because of the defendants' alleged destruction of evidence.  The
motion is fully briefed.  

A hearing on all these motions was held on Dec. 20, 2007.  The
court has not yet ruled on any of these motions.

On April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who
has scheduled a status conference for July 18, 2008.  

On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the
plaintiffs' sanctions motion.  

On Sept. 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment against all defendants.  The order
also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions.  The court denied plaintiffs' request that judgment
be entered in plaintiffs' favor due to the alleged destruction
of evidence, and the court found that no sanctions were
appropriate for several categories of evidence.  The court found
that sanctions in the form of adverse inferences were
appropriate for two categories of evidence:

       -- e-mails from the company's Chief Executive Officer's
          account, and

       -- materials that had been created in connection with a
          book regarding the company's Chief Executive Officer.  

The court then denied defendants' motion for summary judgment
and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer and directed the parties to
revise and re-file these motions to clearly specify the precise
contours of the adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to
take these inferences into account with regard to the propriety
of summary judgment.

The court also directed the parties to address certain legal
issues in the briefing.  A briefing scheduled for these revised
summary judgment motions has not yet been set.

A court-ordered mediation was scheduled for Oct. 13, 2008. A
trial date has been set for March 30, 2009, according to the
company's Sept. 22, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July
31, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-CV-0988," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. (jennie@libertylawoffice.com)
         Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
         1438 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Phone: 415-896-1000
         Fax: 415-896-2249

Representing the defendants is:

         Dorian Daley, Esq.
         500 Oracle Parkway
         Redwood City, CA 94065
         Phone: 650-506-5200
         Fax: 650-506-7114


TULLY'S COFFEE: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Meals, Rest Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tully's Coffee Corp. is still facing a purported class action
filed in a California State Court, alleging that the company
failed to provide meal and rest periods for its employees.

The suit was filed in December 2007 by a former store employee
who is seeking class-action certification of the suit.  The
plaintiff is seeking to include all hourly employees in Tully's
California stores as members of the proposed class.  

In general, the suit is seeking damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
17, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

Tully's Coffee Corp. -- http://www.tullys.com/-- is a specialty  
retailer in the fast-casual categories of specialty coffee,
snacks and non-alcoholic beverages, within the quick-service
restaurant industry.  


UNITED COMPONENTS: JPML Considers Motions on Suits Over Filters
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has heard oral
arguments on motions that sought for the transfer of several
purported class actions, which names United Components, Inc.,
and its wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories Inc., as
one of the defendants, and is alleging conspiracy violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, related to
aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.

                   Direct Purchaser Litigation

As of July 28, 2008, United Components and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., have been named as two
of multiple defendants in 18 complaints filed in the District of
Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the Middle District of
Tennessee and the Northern District of Illinois, alleging
conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and
transmission filters.  

Eight of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but those plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Carlyle
from each of those actions without prejudice.  

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as a
defendant in 12 virtually identical actions filed in the
Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the District of
New Jersey.

All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket
filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of
their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present.

Each case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an
injunction against future violations, costs and attorneys' fees.

                 Indirect Purchaser Litigation

United Components and Champion were also named as two of
multiple defendants in 13 similar complaints filed in the
District of Connecticut, the Northern District of California and
the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs who claim to be
indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters.

Two of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but the plaintiffs in both of those actions
voluntarily dismissed Carlyle without prejudice.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named in three
similar actions filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, the
Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of
California.

These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer
protection and unfair competition law. They are styled as
putative class actions on behalf of all persons or entities who
acquired indirectly aftermarket filters manufactured and/or
distributed by one or more of the defendants, their agents or
entities under their control, at any time between Jan. 1, 1999
and the present, with the exception of three complaints which
allege a class period from Jan. 1, 2002 to the present, and one
complaint which alleges a class period from the "earliest legal
permissible date" to the present.  

The complaints seek damages, including statutory treble damages,
an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of
profits, costs and attorneys' fees.

                          JPML Motions

Four motions are pending before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the U.S. direct and
indirect purchaser aftermarket filters cases above to a single
district for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.  The JPML heard argument on
those motions on July 31, 2008, according to United Components'
Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,  
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 31, 2007, were made to vehicle
replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided
into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and
original equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up
40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for
cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management
products.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Unit Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Nurse Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. is still facing a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, entitled, "Maderazo v. Hospital Corp.
of America, Inc., et al."

The suit was filed on June 20, 2006 against Vanguard Health
Systems, Inc.'s Baptist Health System subsidiary in San Antonio,
Texas and two other large hospital systems in San Antonio.  

In the complaint, which was amended on Aug. 29, 2006, the
plaintiffs allege that the three hospital system defendants
conspired with each other and with other unidentified San
Antonio area hospitals to depress the compensation levels of
registered nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within
the San Antonio area by engaging in certain activities that
violated the federal antitrust laws.

The complaint alleges two separate claims.  The first count
asserts that the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the
federal Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that
unreasonably restrain competition, by conspiring to depress
nurses' compensation.  

The second count alleges that the defendant hospital systems
also violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by participating in
wage, salary and benefits surveys for the purpose, and having
the effect, of depressing registered nurses' compensation or
limiting competition for nurses based on their compensation.   

The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is
alleged to comprise all registered nurses employed by the
defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002.    

The suit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage
amount pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and attorneys
fees.  

Currently, the parties are producing documents relating to the
company's efforts to defeat class certification in this suit.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
23, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Maderazo v. Hospital Corp. of America, Inc., Case
No. 5:06-cv-00535-OLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Judge Orlando L. Garcia, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Allyson B. Baker, Esq. (abaker@cmht.com)
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500, Wes Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699

               - and -

          John H. Bright, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback, L.L.P
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384

Representing the defendants are:

          Joseph Casseb, Esq. (jcasseb@goodelaw.com)
          Goode Casseb Jones Riklin Choate & Watson, P.C.
          2122 North Main Avenue, P.O. Box 120480
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Phone: (210) 733-6030
          Fax: 210/733-0330

               - and -

          David Marx, Esq.
          McDermott Will & Emery, LLP
          227 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 372-2000
          Fax: (312) 984-7700


WAL-MART STORES: Appeals $188M Final Judgment in "Braun/Hummel"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is appealing a $188 million judgment in
the matter, "Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc."

The case is containing class-action allegations in which the
plaintiffs are current and former hourly associates who allege
that the company forced or encouraged them to work "off the
clock," failed to provide rest breaks or meal periods, or
otherwise failed to pay them correctly.  It generally seeks
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both.  

A trial was commenced in the matter on September 2006, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs allege that the
company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and
prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest
breaks.  

On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded back-pay damages to the
plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-
the-clock work and missed rest breaks.  The jury found in favor
of the company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims.  

On Nov. 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in
the approximate amount of $188 million, which included the
jury's back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment
interest and attorneys' fees.

The company believes it has substantial factual and legal
defenses to the claims at issue, and on Dec. 7, 2007, the
company filed its Notice of Appeal, according to the company's
Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates  
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


WAL-MART STORES: April 6, 2009 Trial Slated for "Hale" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
An April 6, 2009 jury trial is slated for the purported class
action, "Hale v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," which was filed on 2002
in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.

The plaintiffs allege that class members worked off the clock
and were not provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with
Missouri law, and seek monetary damages in an unspecified
amount, plus interest and attorneys' fees.

The trial court granted class certification in November 2005 and
the certification was affirmed by the Missouri Court of Appeals
in June 2007.  

The matter is scheduled for jury trial beginning on April 6,
2009, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 31, 2008.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates  
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


WAL-MART STORES: April 2009 Jury Trial Slated for "Carter" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2009 jury trial is slated for the purported class
action, "Carter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," which was filed in
the Court of Common Pleas of Colleton County, South Carolina.

The plaintiffs allege that class members worked off the clock
and were not provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with
South Carolina law, and seek monetary damages in an unspecified
amount, plus statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees.

The trial court granted class certification in May 2005.  It is
scheduled for jury trial beginning in April 2009, according to
the company's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July
31, 2008.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates  
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Appeal $172M Award in "Savaglio"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is still appealing an award made in the
class action, "Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," a case in
which the plaintiffs allege that they were not provided meal and
rest breaks in accordance with California law, and seek monetary
damages and injunctive relief.

A jury trial on the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages
concluded on Dec. 22, 2005.  The jury returned a verdict of
approximately $57 million in statutory penalties and $115
million in punitive damages.

Following a bench trial in June 2006, the judge entered an order
allowing some, but not all, of the injunctive relief sought by
the plaintiffs.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the judge entered an order awarding the
plaintiffs an additional amount of approximately $26 million in
costs and attorneys' fees.

The company believes it has substantial arguments on appeal, and
on Jan. 31, 2007, the company filed its Notice of Appeal.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates  
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


WAL-MART STORES: Minn. Appeals Court Considers Appeal in "Braun"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal by
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in connection to a judgment issued by the
First Judicial District Court for Dakota County, Minnesota in
the matter, "Braun v. Wal-Mart Inc., 19-CO-01-9790," which
generally alleges violations of the state's labor laws.

The class action, "Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," was brought
by four women on behalf of 56,000 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club hourly
employees.

The plaintiffs listed in the suit are:

       -- Nancy Braun, who worked at a Wal-Mart store in Apple
          Valley, Minnesota;

       -- Debbie Simonson and Cindy Severson, who worked in
          Brooklyn Park; and
    
       -- Pamela Reinert, who worked at stores in the
          Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

It specifically alleges that Wal-Mart managers, with severely
understaffed stores and under pressure to cut costs, inserted
unused breaks on timecards and asked employees to start work
before clocking in and stay late after clocking out.  It also
alleges that the company tied bonuses for store managers to
store profitability.

The plaintiffs further claim that Wal-Mart allegedly committed
more than 14 million violations of company policies and
Minnesota wage and hour laws, amounting to $27 million in unpaid
wages.

They are seeking back pay to 1998 and as much as $1,000 each for
millions of missed breaks.  Punitive damages in the case will be
allowed if the judge finds against Wal-Mart, and thus damages
could total billions of dollars.

A trial commenced on Sept. 24, 2007, in the First Judicial
District Court for Dakota County, Minnesota, on the plaintiffs'
claims that class members worked off the clock and were not
provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with Minnesota law.
Testimony concluded on Dec. 11, 2007.  

On June 30, 2008, the trial judge issued an Order awarding the
class approximately $6.5 million in compensatory and liquidated
damages.  The judge also set the plaintiffs' claims for punitive
damages and statutory penalties for trial on Oct. 20, 2008, but
invited the parties to seek an immediate appeal of the findings
made thus far.  

On July 29, 2008, the company filed a petition with the
Minnesota Court of Appeals requesting immediate appeal.  No
ruling has been received, according to the company's Sept. 4,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008.

The case is "Braun v. Wal-Mart Inc., 19-CO-01-9790," which was
filed in the District Court, Dakota County, First Judicial
District, Minnesota (Hastings), Judge Robert King, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jonathan S. Parritz, Esq. (jon.parritz@maslon.com)
          Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP
          3300 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
          Phone: 612.672.8334
          Fax: 612.642.8334
          Web site: http://www.maslon.com


WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Full Panel Review of "Sepulveda" Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is seeking for a full panel review of an
earlier decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the matter, "Daniel Sepulveda,
et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al."

The suit was originally filed in filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California back in 2004.

Generally, the suit -- involving more than 2,750 assistant
managers -- is alleging violations of California's meal break
and overtime laws.  It seeks certification of a class of
salaried managers who challenge their exempt status under state
and federal laws (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2008).  

Class certification was denied by the trial court on May 5,
2006.  

On April 25, 2008, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling
in part and reversed it in part, and remanded the case for
further proceedings.  

On May 16, 2008, the company filed a petition seeking review of
that ruling by a larger panel of the court, according to the
company's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July
31, 2008.

The suit is "Daniel Sepulveda, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01003-DSF-E," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Dale Fischer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert J. Drexler, Jr., Esq. (rdrexler@quislaw.com)
          Quisenberry Law Firm
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2909
          Phone: 310-785-7966

               - and -

          Steven G. Pearl, Esq. (sgpearl@sgpearl.com)
          Pearl Law Offices
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 625
          Encino, CA 91436-2412
          Phone: 818-995-8300

Representing the defendants is:
          
          Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq.
          Jones Day
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 35
          Chicago, IL 60601-1692
          Phone: 312-782-3939


WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Review of Class Certification in "Dukes"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. filed Petition for Rehearing En Banc with
regards to a ruling in the matter, "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc."

The purported class action was commenced in June 2001 and was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. It was brought on behalf of all past and present
female employees in all of the company's retail stores and
warehouse clubs in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments.  It seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The class, which was certified by the district court for
purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief,
punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions,
includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be
subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies
and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6
million present and former female associates.

The company believes that the district court's ruling is
incorrect.  

On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the company's petition for discretionary review
of the ruling.

On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of
Appeals issued a decision affirming the district court's
certification order.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the company filed a petition asking that the
decision be reconsidered by a larger panel of the court.  On
Dec. 11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of
February 6, 2007, and issued a revised opinion.   As a result,
Wal-Mart's Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot.

Wal-Mart filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Jan. 8,
2008, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 31, 2008.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates  
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


WSB FINANCIAL: Settles Securities Litigation in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
WSB Financial Group, the parent company of Westsound Bank, said
that it has entered into a settlement agreement with the lead
plaintiff in a pending securities class action.

The class action settlement is subject to the approval of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The settlement agreement provides for the certification of a
class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock pursuant or traceable to its initial public
offering completed on December 21, 2006. The total amount of the
settlement is $4.85 million. The Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance policy will contribute
approximately $4.45 million towards the settlement amount and
has previously contributed approximately $350,000 towards the
Company's legal fees. The settlement agreement contains no
admission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company or the other
defendants.

"This settlement is a significant accomplishment and allows our
management team to focus on our future," said Terry A. Peterson,
President and CEO. "It further demonstrates our focus on
identifying and executing strategies to eliminate risk. While we
still believe we have strong defenses, we felt it was important
to get it behind us and eliminate the burden and expense of
protracted litigation. We continue to maintain adequate levels
of capital and liquidity, which are important measures of the
Bank's safety and soundness for both shareholders and
depositors."

WSB Financial Group, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Westsound Bank that provides various commercial banking services
to real estate developers, contractors, and small to medium-
sized businesses in Washington. The Company is based in
Bremerton, Wash.


ZALE CORP: Nov. 21, 2008 Hearing Set for "Salvato" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 21, 2008 fairness hearing was set for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Salvato v. Zale Corp., No. 3:06-CV-
1124 (SAF)."

Initially, the company was named as a defendant in the suit,
"Salvato v. Zale Corp., No. 3:06-CV-1124 (SAF)," which was filed
on March 5, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  The case was originally filed on June 26,
2006 and consolidated with "Connell v. Zale Corp."  Connel was
originally filed on Aug. 7, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  

Aside from the company, various current and former officers and
directors also are defendants.

In "Salvato," the plaintiffs alleged various violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 based upon the
investment by the Zale Corporation Savings and Investment Plan
in Company stock.

On July 28, 2008, the court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement in "Salvato."  A fairness hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement agreement and
dismissal of the case is anticipated to take place on or about
Nov. 21, 2008, according to the company's Sept. 26, 2008 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended July 31, 2008.

The suit is "Salvato v. Zale Corporation et al., Case No. 3:06-
cv-01124-D," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

          Michelle LeGrand Hartmann (michelle.hartmann@weil.com)
          Weil Gotshal & Manges
          200 Crescent Court
          Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214/746-7700


ZALE CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tex. Now Closed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zale Corp. reached settlements for a consolidated securities
fraud class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.

Initially, the company was named as a defendant in the matter,
"In re Zale Corporation Securities Litigation No. 3:06-CV-01470-
K," which was filed on Jan. 29, 2007 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.

The plaintiffs alleged various violations of securities laws
based upon the company's public disclosures.

On Feb. 29, 2008, a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement was
filed in "In re Zale Corporation Securities Litigation" that
resulted in the dismissal of that litigation on July 10, 2008,
without any direct cost to the company.  

The time to appeal the dismissal expired on Aug. 11, 2008 and
the case is now concluded, according to the company's Sept. 26,
2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re Zale Corporation Securities Litigation No.
3:06-CV-01470-K," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Judge David C Godbey, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joe Kendall, Esq. (kendalllawgroup@gmail.com)
          Kendall Law Group LLP
          3232 McKinney Ave
          Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Fax: (214) 744-3015

Representing the defendants is:

          M. Byron Wilder, Esq. (bwilder@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
          2100 McKinney Ave
          Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214/698-3231
          Fax: 214/698-3400


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


AUTHENTEC INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class
action has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of AuthenTec, Inc. (NASDAQ: AUTH) between April 28,
2008 and September 5, 2008.

The class action was filed in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of AuthenTec.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Toll free: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


BIOVAIL CORP: Brualdi Announces NY Securities Fraud Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Biovail
Pharmaceutical Corporation common stock during the period
between December 14, 2006 through July 19, 2007 for violations
of federal securities laws.

The Complaint charges that Biovail and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements about a drug in development called
BVF-033, a salt formulation of bupropion, an antidepressant
commonly known as Wellbutrin XL.

Specifically, defendants' statements failed to disclose that
while the FDA required a single dose study to demonstrate the
bioequivalence of generic Wellbutrin XL, defendants had
submitted a multiple-dose study to demonstrate the
bioequivalence of BVF-033. Thus, defendants' FDA application for
BVF-033 failed to meet the requirements set forth by the FDA
such that approval was likely to be materially delayed.

On July 20, 2007, before the market opened, Biovail issued a
press release announcing that it had received a non-approval
letter from the FDA for its new drug application for BVF-033. On
this news, Biovail's stock price dropped from $25.51 per share
to $20.03.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 8,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Sue Lee
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 (toll free) or (212) 952-0602
          e-mail: slee@brualdilawfirm.com
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


FANNIE MAE: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) (NYSE:
FNM-PT) offering of 8.25% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series
T (initially offered to the public on or about May 13, 2008) for
the period from May 13, 2008 through September 6, 2008.

The class includes investors who purchased shares on the
offering or afterwards, in the market.

The complaint charges Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Co. Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC, Wachovia Capital Markets
LLC (collectively, the Underwriter Defendants) and four senior
executives of the Company with violations under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in
offering for sale approximately 80 million shares of non-
cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate preferred
stock, at an offering price of $25 per share as part of the
Company's effort to raise new capital to shore up the Company's
balance sheet so that capital requirements could continue to be
satisfied, enhance shareholder value and provide stability to
the secondary mortgage market. After it was revealed that Fannie
Mae had overstated its capitalization, the value of the 8.25%
Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series T, declined
substantially.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Izard Nobel Announces Ariz. Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class-action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona on behalf of those who purchased the
securities of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (NYSE: MRX)
between October 30, 2003 and September 23, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Medicis and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by overstating
the Company's revenues and earnings. Specifically, Medicis
failed to account for returns in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

On September 24, 2008, Medicis announced that its Audit
Committee had concluded that the Company's financial statements
for the annual, transition and quarterly periods in fiscal years
2003 through 2007 and the first and second quarters of 2008,
will likely need to be restated. Medicis claimed the restatement
was related to a modification in the Company's technical
interpretation of the GAAP relating to sales return reserve
calculations. The Company's prior accounting method, with
respect to sales return reserves, accrued returns at replacement
cost rather than deferring the gross sales price, based on the
Company's view of the economic impact of returns on its
business.

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

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton
          Nancy A. Kulesa
          Izard Nobel LLP
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 800-797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.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  * * *