CAR_Public/081023.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, October 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 211

                            Headlines

ALBERTSON'S INC: Court Approves "Ward" Suit Deal on Final Basis
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Antitrust Suits in Pennsylvania Over Eggs
CLASSIFIED VENTURES: Faces Illinois Suit Over Cars.com Over Ads
CRITICAL THERAPEUTICS: Settles Del. Suit Over Cornerstone Merger
DELTA ENTERPRISE: Infant Death Prompts Recall of Drop Side Cribs

E.I. DUPONT: W.Va. Court Denies Class Status in PFOA Lawsuit
GN NETCOM: Wireless Headset Batteries Recalled Due to Fire Risk
HAARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Rawhide Chips for Possible Health Risk
HONEYWELL INT'L: Still Faces Several Automotive Filters Lawsuits
JACK ALLEN: Ex-Patients Allege Sexual Misconduct and Molestation

KALISPELL REGIONAL: Workers Sue Over Illegally Withdrawn Benefit
MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY: Sued Over Fast Lane Discounts
NEXTWAVE INC: Class Period Expanded in Securities Fraud Lawsuit
OPTIONABLE INC: Shareholders' Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
PLAYKIDS USA: Infant Death Prompts Recall of Convertible Cribs

SOCIAL SECURITY: Sued for Halting Benefits to Assumed Felons
SONY CORP: Faces New York Lawsuit Over Rear-Projection HDTVs
SUPERVALU INC: Calif. Court Gives Final OK to Labor Lawsuit Deal
UST INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of West Virginia Lawsuit
VISA INC: Court Affirms Dismissal of Interchange Fees Lawsuit

VISA INC: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Calif. Over "Chargeback"
VISA INC: N.Y. Court Extends Fact Discovery in MDL-1720 Matter
VISA INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Conversion Fee Lawsuit Deal


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SPECTRANETICS CORP: Charles Johnson Files Colo. Securities Suit



                           *********


ALBERTSON'S INC: Court Approves "Ward" Suit Deal on Final Basis
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California granted
final approval to the proposed settlement in the matter, "Joanne
Kay Ward et al. v. Albertson's, Inc. et al.," which was filed
against Albertson's Inc., an entity owned by Supervalu, Inc.

The suit, filed on Oct. 13, 2000, alleges that the company and
its subsidiaries -- Lucky Stores and Sav-on Drug Stores -- paid
terminated employees their final paychecks in an untimely
manner.  The suit sought statutory penalties.

On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class-action
lawsuit.

In December 2007, however, the parties agreed to settle the
matter.  On Sept. 19, 2008, the court granted final approval to
that settlement, according to the company's Oct. 15, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 6, 2008.

Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S.
grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three
retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food
and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores.  The
company's business is classified into two segments: Retail food
and Supply chain services.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Antitrust Suits in Pennsylvania Over Eggs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., is facing several purported class-action
lawsuits in Pennsylvania alleging that it and several others
have unlawfully conspired to fix the prices of shell eggs and
egg products in violation of antitrust laws, according to the
company's Oct. 20, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 15, 2008.

On Oct. 15, 2008, Cal-Maine Foods was served with process in a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania by T.K. Ribbing's Family
Restaurant, Falconer, New York, on behalf of itself and "all
others similarly situated."

The complaint, "T.K. Ribbing's Family Restaurant v. Untied Egg
Producers, Inc. et al., Case Number: 2:2008cv04653," was filed
on Sept. 25, 2008.  It named 16 defendants, including other egg
producers and companies part of the egg industry, and industry
cooperatives.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief,
as well as attorneys' fees and costs, under the U.S. Antitrust
laws against defendants.

The complaint alleges that the company and all other defendants,
by various means and alleged activities, conspired to reduce the
supply of eggs and egg products in the U.S., in order to
artificially raise the price of eggs and egg products above
competitive levels.

The plaintiff is seeking certification of a class of all
entities that purchased eggs or egg products in the U.S.
directly from the defendants from Jan. 1, 2000, through the
present.

The company also has been named as a defendant in six other
suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, but has not yet been formally served with
process in those cases.  The allegations in the other lawsuits
are similar to the allegations in the T.K. Ribbing's case.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. -- http://www.calmainefoods.com/-- is the
producer and marketer of shell eggs in the U.S.  The company's
primary business is the production, grading, packaging,
marketing and distribution of shell eggs.  The company sells
shell eggs in 29 states, primarily in the southwestern,
southeastern, mid-western and mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S.
The company is also the producer and marketer of specialty shell
eggs in the U.S.  Specialty shell eggs include reduced
cholesterol, cage free and organic eggs.  During the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008), specialty shell eggs
represented approximately 14% of the company's shell egg dollar
sales.  The company markets its specialty shell eggs under two
brands: Egg-Land's Best and Farmhouse.  The company also
produces, markets and distributes private label specialty shell
eggs to several customers.  On June 27, 2008, the company
completed the acquisition of the assets of Zephyr Egg Co.,
located in Zephyrhills, Florida.


CLASSIFIED VENTURES: Faces Illinois Suit Over Cars.com Over Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Classified Ventures, LLC, owner of Cars.com, is facing a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois claiming the Internet business is
stealing the newspaper's customers and confidential business
information after canceling a franchise agreement, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

According to the report, the remedies requested by this action
are narrow: injunctive relief pending arbitration of certain
disputes between Journal and CV.  This relief is necessary to
halt CV's improper campaign to harvest exclusive advertising
customers of Journal and convert them to become CV's own
customers while the parties' contractual relationship (which
made Journal and exclusive dealer and franchisee of CV) remains
in place and while Journal still has exclusive rights to the
sales territory granted to it by CV.

Journal asks that the court:

     A. enter a temporary restraining order, to immediately
        prevent Defendant from contacting any of Journal's
        automotive dealership customers and otherwise using or
        disclosing any of Journal's confidential business
        information, including Journal's customer list;

     B. enter a preliminary and permanent injunction, until
        arbitration to determine arbitrable claims in the
        underlying dispute between the parties is finally
        resolved or settled, to:

        (1) extend the above temporary restraining order
            (precluding Defendant from contacting any of
            Journal's dealership customers and otherwise using
            any Journal confidential business information) for
            the pendency of any arbitration; and

        (2) prohibit Defendant from terminating Journal's rights
            under the Cars.com Affiliate Agreement; and

     C. award such other and further relief as the Court may
        deem appropriate in the circumstances.

The suit is "Journal Sentinel, Inc., et al. v. Classified
Ventures, LLC, Case No. 08CV5998," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          R. Rene Friedman, Esq.
          Katherine K. Ivers, Esq.
          Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP
          225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60606-1229
          Phone: 312-201-2000
          Fax: 312-201-2555


CRITICAL THERAPEUTICS: Settles Del. Suit Over Cornerstone Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Therapeutics, Inc., settled a purported class-action
lawsuit in Delaware regarding Critical Therapeutics, Inc.'s
proposed merger with Cornerstone BioPharma Holdings, Inc.,
according to the company's Oct. 20, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Sept. 17, 2008, a purported shareholder class-action lawsuit
was filed by a single plaintiff against Critical Therapeutics
and each of its directors in the Court of Chancery of The State
of Delaware.

The lawsuit is captioned, "Jeffrey Benison IRA v. Critical
Therapeutics, Inc., Trevor Phillips, Richard W. Dugan,
Christopher Mirabelli, and Jean George, Case No. 4039," and was
filed in Court of Chancery, State of Delaware.

The plaintiff, which claims to be a stockholder of Critical
Therapeutics, brought the lawsuit on its own behalf, and is
seeking certification of the lawsuit as a class action on behalf
of all stockholders of Critical Therapeutics, except the
defendants and their affiliates.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith, including a
fiduciary duty of candor, by failing to provide Critical
Therapeutics' stockholders with a proxy statement/prospectus
adequate to enable them to cast an informed vote on the proposed
merger, and by possibly failing to maximize stockholder value by
entering into an agreement that effectively discourages
competing offers.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an order:

       -- enjoining the defendants from proceeding with or
          implementing the proposed merger on the terms and
          under the circumstances as they presently exist,

       -- invalidating the provisions of the proposed merger
          that purportedly improperly limit the effective
          exercise of the defendants' continuing fiduciary
          duties,

       -- ordering defendants to explore alternatives and to
          negotiate in good faith with all bona fide interested
          parties,

       -- in the event the proposed merger is consummated,
          rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
          rescissory damages,

       -- awarding compensatory damages against defendants,
          jointly and severally, and

       -- awarding the plaintiff and the purported class their
          costs and fees.

On Oct. 17, 2008, Critical Therapeutics and the other defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiff
regarding the settlement of the lawsuit.

In connection with the settlement, the parties agreed that
Critical Therapeutics would make certain additional disclosures
to its stockholders, which are contained in a supplement to the
proxy statement/prospectus that has been mailed to Critical
Therapeutics' stockholders.

Subject to the completion of certain confirmatory discovery by
counsel to the plaintiff, the memorandum of understanding
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval.

If the court approves the settlement, the settlement will
resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought
in the action being settled, including all claims relating to
the merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will petition the court for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Critical
Therapeutics, the amount of which will either be agreed to by
the parties or awarded by the court.

Lexington, Massachusetts-based Critical Therapeutics, Inc. --
http://www.criticaltherapeutics.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical
company focused on the development and commercialization of
products designed to treat respiratory, inflammatory and
critical care diseases linked to the body's inflammatory
response.  Critical Therapeutics' marketed product is ZYFLO CR,
an extended-release formulation of zileuton, which the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in May 2007 for the
prevention and chronic treatment of asthma in adults and
children 12 years of age or older.  The company licensed from
Abbott Laboratories exclusive worldwide rights to ZYFLO CR,
ZYFLO, an immediate-release tablet formulation of zileuton, and
other formulations of zileuton for multiple diseases and
conditions.  Critical Therapeutics began selling ZYFLO CR in the
U.S. in September 2007.


DELTA ENTERPRISE: Infant Death Prompts Recall of Drop Side Cribs
----------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), in cooperation with Delta Enterprise Corp.,
of New York, New York., announced the voluntary recall to
replace missing safety pegs involving 985,000 drop side cribs.
Failure to use or install safety pegs can cause an entrapment
and suffocation risk to infants and toddlers.

     When the safety pegs in the base of each leg of the crib
are missing from the lower track, the crib locks can disengage
and detach if lowered below the peg hole, creating a hazardous
gap.  This gap can lead to the entrapment and suffocation of an
infant or toddler.

     CPSC staff is aware of a death of an 8-month-old child who
became entrapped and suffocated when the drop side of the crib
detached in a reassembled crib where the safety pegs were not
installed.  CPSC is also aware of two entrapments and nine
disengagement incidents in cribs where the safety pegs were
missing.

     The recall involves all Delta cribs manufactured in Taiwan
or Indonesia, with the "Crib Trigger Lock with Safety Peg" drop
side hardware design.  These model numbers and country of origin
can be located on the mattress support board label: 4320, 4340,
4500, 4520, 4530, 4532, 4540, 4542, 4550, 4551, 4580, 4600,
4620, 4624 (production dates 01/06 thru 11/07), 4640, 4660,
4720, 4735, 4742, 4750 (production dates 01/95 thru 12/00),
4760, 4770, 4780, 4790, 4820, 4840, 4850, 4860, 4880, 4890,
4892, 4900, 4910, 4920, 4925-2, 4925-6, 4930, 4940, 4943, 4944,
4947, 4948, 4949, 4950, 4958, 4963, 4968, 4969, 4980.

     The recalled cribs have date codes ranging from 1995
through December 2005 and one model (4624) was made in 2007.
The model numbers are located on the top of the mattress support
board.

Pictures of the recalled cribs is found at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09016a.jpg

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09017.jpg

     The cribs, which were made in Taiwan and Indonesia, were
sold at major retailers, including Walmart, Kmart and Target.com
from January 1995 through September 2007 for about $100.  These
cribs have also been found to be sold secondhand.  Cribs
currently sold at retail are not involved.

     CPSC and Delta urge parents and caregivers to immediately
stop using cribs that are missing a safety peg on any leg of the
crib and contact Delta to receive a free, easy-to-install repair
kit.  The kit will include safety pegs in a bold color and
warning labels to be affixed to the mattress board.  Consumers
with cribs that have all safety pegs installed may continue to
use the cribs; however, CPSC recommends that these consumers
contact Delta for the repair kit for future assembly purposes.
Call Delta toll-free at (1-800-816-5304) anytime after 5pm today
or log on to http://www.cribrecallcenter.comto order the free
replacement kit.

     Parents and caregivers are encouraged to find a safe,
alternative sleep environment for their child if their recalled
crib is missing safety pegs.

     CPSC would like to remind parents not to use any crib with
missing, broken, or loose parts.  Make sure to tighten hardware
from time to time to keep the crib sturdy.  When using a drop
side crib parents should check to make sure the drop side or any
other moving part operates smoothly.  Always check all sides and
corners of the crib for disengagement.  Any disengagement can
create a gap and entrap a child.  In addition, do not try to
repair any side of the crib, especially with tape, wire or rope.


E.I. DUPONT: W.Va. Court Denies Class Status in PFOA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin has ruled that Parkersburg
residents could sue E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. over the
contamination of the city's water individually, but not as a
class, The Herald-Dispatch reports.

According to the report, thousands of Parkersburg residents want
to sue DuPont as a group, claiming the city's water was
contaminated by perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA or C8.

The Class Action Reporter explained in a report on Aug. 8, 2008,
that PFOA is a synthetic chemical that does not occur naturally
in the environment.  Companies use PFOA to make fluoropolymers,
substances with special properties that have thousands of
important manufacturing and industrial applications.

According to Herald-Dispatch, DuPont uses the chemical at its
nearby Washington Works plant to manufacture Teflon.  The
residents were asking that DuPont clean up the water and fund a
medical monitoring program.

The CAR report mentioned that the case was originally filed in
the West Virginia state court on behalf of customers of the
Parkersburg City Water District, but was removed, on DuPont's
request, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia.

Herald-Dispatch relates that in September, Judge Goodwin ruled
that the residents could individually sue the company, but they
had failed to meet the requirements to be certified as a class,
in part because they could not prove that all were affected the
same way and because they were not "sufficiently cohesive" to be
a class.  Judge Goodwin suggested residents to pursue other
approaches.

                    Residents Seek to Appeal

The report says that a group of residents are asking a federal
appeals court for permission to pursue its effort to
collectively press the water contamination lawsuit against the
company.

According to Herald-Dispatch, lawyers representing the residents
have asked the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to
appeal now rather than wait for a final outcome of the case,
which is still pending before Judge Goodwin.

The residents argued they should be allowed to obtain class-
action status because DuPont settled a state-filed class-action
lawsuit involving the same chemical in February 2005.  That
lawsuit involved Ohio and West Virginia residents who lived in
six water districts near the Washington Works plant.  As part of
the 2005 settlement, DuPont agreed to fund a health screening
project to determine if there are any long-term health issues
related to C8.

The report says that the request to appeal Judge Goodwin's
ruling was filed the same day a three-member science panel
released the first of its findings from a health screening.  The
panel noted that people who lived closest to the plant had the
highest levels of C8 in their blood, and those with the highest
levels also had high cholesterol levels.  Given the data, the
panel could not make a link between C8 and diabetes.

DuPont spokeswoman Robin Ollis told Herald-Dispatch that Judge
Goodwin "made an appropriate ruling in denying class
certification.  We believe that plaintiff's request for
permission to appeal is without merit."


GN NETCOM: Wireless Headset Batteries Recalled Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
GN Netcom Inc., of Nashua, New Hampshire, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
525,000 GN9120 Wireless Headsets.

The company said an internal short circuit can cause the
lithium-ion polymer batteries to overheat, posing a fire hazard.

GN Netcom has received 10 reports of incidents involving
overheating, including three reports of open flames and property
damage to furniture on which the headsets were resting. An
additional 37 reports of overheating, three reports of open
flames and one report of second degree burns, requiring medical
attention, was received outside the U.S.

This recall involves GN9120 wireless headsets with ATL lithium-
ion polymer batteries.  The headsets are intended primarily for
professional use in offices and call centers.  The product is
sold with three components: a base station, headset and power
adapter.  "GN Netcom" or "GN9120" is printed on the base station
and headset.  The affected batteries have part number 603028 and
have a white plastic enclosure.  The batteries are labeled "Made
by ATL (Amperex Technology Ltd.)" and "(ATL P/N 603028)."
Batteries sold as a replacement part are labeled "GN9120 battery
replacement kit."

These recalled wireless headsets were manufactured in China and
were being sold through GN Netcom, authorized distributors and
resellers nationwide from January 2005 through September 2008
for between $150 and $350 as part of the GN9120 headset and
about $20 as a replacement part.

A picture of the recalled wireless headsets is found at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09010.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using and unplug the
recalled headsets.  Consumers should contact GN Netcom to
receive a replacement battery.

For additional information, contact GN Netcom at 877-803-6467
between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday ET, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.jabra.com/


HAARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Rawhide Chips for Possible Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
     October 20, 2008 -- The Hartz Mountain Corporation,
Secaucus, NJ is voluntarily recalling one specific lot of Hartz
Chicken-Basted Rawhide Chips due to concerns that one or more
bags within the lot are potentially contaminated with
Salmonella.  Hartz is fully cooperating with the US Food and
Drug Administration in this voluntary recall.

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

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

     The product involved is 4,850 - 2 pound plastic bags of
Hartz Chicken-Basted Rawhide Chips, lot code JC23282, UPC number
3270096463 which were distributed to a national retail customer.
While the normal testing that Hartz conducts through an
independent outside laboratory did not detect the presence of
Salmonella in any Hartz rawhide products, sample testing
conducted by another laboratory did indicate the presence of the
bacteria in a sample bag of the Chicken-Basted Rawhide Chips.
Hartz is aggressively investigating the difference in test
results and the potential source of the problem.

     Although Hartz has not received any reports of animals or
humans becoming ill as a result of coming into contact with this
product, Hartz is taking immediate steps to remove the product
from all retail stores and distribution centers.  Dog owners who
purchased this product should check the lot code on their bag,
and, if the code is not visible, or if the bag has lot code
JC23282 imprinted thereon, they should immediately discontinue
use of the product and discard it in a proper manner.

     Consumers can contact Hartz at 1-800-275-1414 with any
questions they may have and to obtain reimbursement for
purchased product.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Still Faces Several Automotive Filters Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., continues to face several
purported class-action lawsuits in the U.S. And Canada over
allegations that 12 filter manufacturers, including Honeywell,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate
U.S. customers for after-market automotive filters, according to
the company's Oct. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

Initially, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut on March 31, 2008, by S&E Quick Lube, a
filter distributor, under the caption, "S&E Quick Lube
Distributors Inc. v. Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:2008cv00475."  It is a purported class-action lawsuit brought
on behalf of direct purchasers who bought filters from the
defendants.

Parallel purported class-action lawsuits, including those on
behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by
other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the U.S. and
Canada.

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-
district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The consolidated lawsuit is "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v.
Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00475,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kerry R. Callahan, Esq. (krcallahan@uks.com)
          Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
          One State St., Po Box 231277
          Hartford, CT 06123-1277
          Phone: 860-548-2600


JACK ALLEN: Ex-Patients Allege Sexual Misconduct and Molestation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against a Louisville
doctor already on probation over alleged sexual misconduct,
WHAS11 reports.

According to the report, the complaint alleges that Dr. Jack
Allen sexually embraced female patients and made suggestive
remarks to them.  Moreover, the class action suit claims that
the doctor prescribed inappropriate drugs to a number of female
patients while sexually harassing and molesting them.

It's not the first time Dr. Allen's drawn attention, the report
relates.  In 2007, he was ordered by the Kentucky Board of
Medical Licensure to only treat female patients in the presence
of a chaperone.

In the recently filed class action lawsuit, some of his past
patients are seeking damages, WHAS11 notes.

According to court documents, one former patient described Dr.
Allen grabbing her around the waist, rubbing his groin against
her and remarking you are what every guy wants and that in other
visits, similar incidents occurred.


KALISPELL REGIONAL: Workers Sue Over Illegally Withdrawn Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three Kalispell Regional Medical Center employees filed a
lawsuit against the hospital and its parent company, Northwest
Healthcare, over a benefit that they say was illegally taken
away, Montana's News Station reports.

According to the report, the benefit was part of a severance pay
plan that allowed some employees to cash in on unused sick
leave.  KRMC said that the hospital has the authority to modify,
add to, or discontinue the employee benefits it offers.

Joe Bottomly, Esq., the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, is
planning to file a motion to make the case a class action
lawsuit.  This means that the three plaintiffs could be joined
by up to 1,000 of their fellow KRMC colleagues.

"An employer can give sick leave, not give sick leave, but once
they do, and then people act on it and work on it, and have
accrued benefits, you can't just take it away," Mr. Bottomly
told Montana's News Station.

With over 2,000 employees, Northwest Healthcare is the valley's
largest employer, the report notes.


MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY: Sued Over Fast Lane Discounts
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against the
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority over the discount that users of
the Fast Lane electronic toll paying system get that E-ZPass
users do not, The Associated Press reports.

According to AP, the suit charges that offering the discount to
one group of toll payers but not the other violates
Constitutional protections of interstate commerce.

Plaintiffs attorney Matthew Pawa, Esq., told The Boston Globe
that the Turnpike cannot charge more for interstate transactions
on E-ZPass -- which is used around the Northeast -- than it does
for transactions in Massachusetts' intrastate Fast Lane program.

Mr. Pawa added that the suit could involve thousands of people
and millions of dollars in damages.

The AP report says that the Turnpike Authority declined comment
regarding the matter.

AP notes that about a third of electronic toll users on the Mass
Pike use E-ZPass.


NEXTWAVE INC: Class Period Expanded in Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 21, 2008 -- A class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of
California, Civil Action No. 08-1934, alleging an expanded class
period, on behalf of the purchasers of the common stock of
NextWave Wireless, Inc. (Nasdaq:WAVE) between November 27, 2006,
through August 7, 2008.

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

     The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and
failed to disclose that:

     (1) NextWave did not have adequate liquidity to continue
         operations as it executed its growth strategy and
         continued making aggressive worldwide acquisitions;

     (2) NextWave did not have the wherewithal to launch its new
         WiMAX semiconductor products in the first six months of
         2008;

     (3) NextWave did not have financial resources to continue
         as a going concern;

     (4) NextWave did not have the financial resources to
         continue to operate its world-wide operations through
         the end of 2008;

     (5) NextWave had invested all of its marketable securities
         in high-risk and illiquid auction rate securities and
         had misrepresented these investments on its balance
         sheet included in its financial statements; and

     (6) defendants had no reasonable basis to make favorable
         statements that the Company's WiMAX semiconductor
         products would be available for commercial sale in the
         first half of 2008.

     On August 7, 2008, after the market closed, NextWave issued
its second quarter 2008 financial results, announcing it had
only $71.1 million in cash and similar instruments available as
of June 30, 2008 and, unless it raised money, its cash would run
out at the beginning of October 2008.  Upon this news, shares of
the Company's stock fell by more than 90%, to close at $0.95 per
share.

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

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 17, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (susang@bernardmgross.com)
          Susan R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          Phone: 866-561-3600
                 215-561-3600
          Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com/


OPTIONABLE INC: Shareholders' Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
     VALHALLA, N.Y., Oct. 21, 2008 -- Optionable Inc. announced
that a federal judge has dismissed a shareholder class action
lawsuit against the Company.

     On May 11, 2007, two lawsuits were initially filed before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
These suits are:

      -- "Alexander Fleiss v. Optionable Inc., Mark Nordlicht,
         Kevin Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig and
         Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," and

      -- "Robert Rastocky v. Optionable, Inc., Kevin Cassidy
         and Edward O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3755 (CLB),"

     Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:

     1. "Jagdish Patel v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, and
        Edward J. O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3845 (LAK)," filed
        on May 16, 2007;

     2. "Peters v. Optionable, Inc., Mark Nordlicht, Kevin P.
        Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc-
        Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3877 (LAK)," filed on
        May 17, 2007;

     3. "Manowitz v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Edward J.
        O'Conner, and Mark Nordlicht, Case No. 07 CV 3884
        (UA)," filed on May 17, 2007;

     4. "Glaubach v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 4085 (LAK)," filed
        on May 24, 2007; and

     5. "Bock v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 5948 (LAK)," filed
        on June 22, 2007.

     Each of the lawsuits names the company as a defendant and
some of the lawsuits name as defendants all or certain of the
directors and officers of the company.

     The directors and officers of the company that were named
as defendants include:

   * Mark Nordlicht, former Chairman of the Board of Directors
     of the Company;

   * Kevin Cassidy, former Chief Executive Officer and Vice-
     Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company;

   * Edward J. O'Connor, President of the Company and member of
     the Board of Directors; and

   * Marc-Andre Boisseau, the Chief Financial Officer of the
     Company.

     By order dated May 24, 2007, the Rastocky matter was
voluntarily dismissed.

     By Orders dated June 20 and July 3, 2007, the Fleiss,
Patel, Peters, Manowitz, and Glaubach cases were consolidated
under the caption, "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case
07-CV-3753 (LAK)."

     By Order Nov. 20, 2007, Judge Kaplan granted the motion of
KLD Investment Management, LLC, to serve as lead plaintiff and
approved its choice of counsel, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC.

     On Jan. 17, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages arising from alleged violations of the federal
securities laws, including the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. ss. 78a et seq., and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act, 17 C.F.R. ss. 240.10b -5.

     The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the
class period of Jan. 22, 2007, to May 14, 2007, defendants
failed to disclose certain information in public filings and
statements, made materially false and misleading statements and
misrepresentations in public filings and statements, sold
artificially inflated stock and engaged in improper deals, had
an improper relationship with and "schemed" with its customer
Bank of Montreal, and understated the company's reliance on its
relationship with BMO.

     The complaint alleges that while the company's stock was
trading at artificially inflated prices, certain defendants sold
shares of common stock of the company.

     On Feb. 15, 19, and 20, 2008, the company and the
individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint,
which motions were opposed by the plaintiffs.

     On April 3, 2008, Judge Kaplan ordered the individual
defendants to file only a single joint reply memorandum in
response to the plaintiffs' oppositions.  Thus, in April 2008,
the company filed its reply memorandum of law in support of its
motion to dismiss the complaint, and the individual defendants
filed their joint reply memorandum of the same.

     Earlier, Optionable, Inc., sought the dismissal of the
consolidated shareholder lawsuit entitled "In re Optionable
Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV 3753 (LAK)" (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008).

     U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern
District of New York issued his ruling on Monday noting that the
shareholder lawsuit, which claimed that Optionable had misled
investors, was deficient.

     The dismissal is subject to possible appeal by the
plaintiffs.

     The suit is "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case
07 CV 3753 (LAK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-1980

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P.
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 212-230-8800
          Fax: 212-230-8888

               - and -

          Paul Edouard Dans, Esq. (pdans@eapdlaw.com)
          Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, LLP
          750 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-912-2736
          Fax: 212-308-4844


PLAYKIDS USA: Infant Death Prompts Recall of Convertible Cribs
--------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), in cooperation with Playkids U.S.A. of
Brooklyn, N.Y. announced a voluntary recall of about 2,000
convertible cribs.  The sides of the convertible crib are made
of a mesh that expands, creating a gap between the mattress and
the side through which an infant can slip.  This poses
suffocation and entrapment hazards for young children.

     CPSC is aware of the death of a 5-month-old child on
August 31, 2008, in Brooklyn, N.Y.  The child became entrapped
between the mattress and the stationary side rail of the
convertible crib and suffocated.

     This recall involves the Playkids U.S.A. convertible
crib/playpen/bassinet/bed with model number PLK-909.  "Playkids
U.S.A." can be found on the packaging and on a label sewn into
the side of the crib.  The model number can be found on the
packaging.  The convertible cribs have a drop side rail, a
stationary side rail, a canopy assembly, and a bassinet.  The
sides of the convertible crib, the mattress support, the
bassinet, the canopy and the bedskirt are covered in fabric and
mesh.  The fabric and the mesh come in a variety of colors and
patterns.

     The convertible cribs, which were made in China, were sold
in juvenile product retailers in New York from March 2007
through September 2008 for about $100.

     A picture of the recalled cribs is found at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09015.jpg

     Consumers should stop using the recalled convertible cribs
immediately and contact Playkids USA to receive a full refund.

For additional information, consumers should contact Playkids
USA collect at 718-797-0302 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday.


SOCIAL SECURITY: Sued for Halting Benefits to Assumed Felons
------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit was filed against Social Security
Commissioner Michael Astrue contending that more than 100,000
people have had their benefits unjustly halted by the federal
government, San Mateo County Times reports.

According to the report, one of the two plaintiffs, Rosa
Martinez, said that the Social Security Administration informed
her that the monthly $870 check she depended on would be cut off
because there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest on drug
charges, issued in 1980 by the Miami-Dade Police Department.

However, Ms. Martinez said that the SSA's letter did not make
any sense because she had never been to Miami, had never used
illegal drugs and had never been arrested for a crime.

According to the report, the suit was recently filed in federal
court in San Francisco.  It asks a judge to prohibit the federal
agency from stopping any more Social Security payments to people
"fleeing to avoid prosecution" for a felony, which makes
beneficiaries ineligible under a 1996 law.

Attorneys for Ms. Martinez and another plaintiff, Jimmy Howard,
of Santa Maria, said that the agency has ceased sending benefit
checks to people simply because there is an outstanding warrant
in their name, without verifying whether the person is fleeing
prosecution or is even aware of the warrant, the report notes.

In some cases, the administration doesn't even have the right
person, the plaintiffs contended.  Ms. Martinez, who is disabled
and gets Supplemental Security Income, had the same name and
birth date as the Miami drug criminal, but that is where the
similarities end, her attorneys said.

"They're not looking at anything.  They're just doing it
strictly on this computer matching," Gerald McIntyre, directing
attorney for the National Senior Citizens Law Center and one of
Ms. Martinez's attorneys, told San Mateo County Times.

Ms. Martinez is about 4 feet 6 inches tall, not 5 feet 4 inches
like the drug suspect, said Christopher Douglas, a staff
attorney for the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, the
nonprofit that Ms. Martinez first turned to for help.  In
addition, the plaintiff was born in Mexico City, not in Denver
like the drug suspect.  She became a U.S. citizen in 2000.

Still, the administration sent Ms. Martinez the letter in
December 2007 and cut off her benefits for two months, the
report notes.  She had to scrape by with loans from her brother
and friends, according to court documents.

According to the report, benefits were reinstated in February
with some help from Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, but then in
August, the administration cut off the payments again, and Ms.
Martinez missed getting her October check, according to the
lawsuit.

San Mateo County Times relates that Social Security officials
have demanded that Ms. Martinez get proof that she is not the
person listed in the warrant, but Mr. Douglas said Miami-Dade
police have destroyed the original warrant and "proving a
negative was incredibly difficult."

A letter by the Social Security Administration's Redwood City
district advised Ms. Martinez: "If you believe the warrant was
issued in error, Social Security must have an original document
that states the warrant was issued in error and does not pertain
to you at all.  It must state the date the warrant was
rescinded.  This is the only way this case can be resolved."

The report points out that the suit demands that the agency
reconsider the eligibility of anyone who gets any of several
types of Social Security payments and has been cut off under the
"fleeing to avoid prosecution" rule.

Mr. McIntyre told San Mateo County Times that the agency must do
more investigation to ensure that people with warrants are also
actively evading prosecution before cutting off their benefits,
as the law requires.  Or, in Ms. Martinez's case, make sure that
the person has ever been to the place the crime was committed.

The report says that along with Mr. McIntyre and the local Legal
Aid Society, the plaintiffs are represented by Munger, Tolles &
Olson, a firm with offices in San Francisco that took the case
pro bono; Disability Rights California; and the Urban Justice
Center.


SONY CORP: Faces New York Lawsuit Over Rear-Projection HDTVs
------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
Manhattan Federal Court alleging that its rear-projection HDTVs
display yellow stains and green haze instead of the promised
clear pictures and that Sony refuses to fix them, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Allegedly defective models include the XBR2, A2000 and Grand
WEGA SXRD.

Tokyo-based Sony Corporation is the ultimate parent company of
the Sony Group.  The Company is primarily focused on
Electronics, such as audiovisual/ information technology
products & components; Game, such as PlayStation; Entertainment,
such as motion pictures and music, and Financial Services, such
as insurance and banking sectors.  It has five segments:
Electronics, Games, Pictures, Financial Services and All Other.


SUPERVALU INC: Calif. Court Gives Final OK to Labor Lawsuit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego
granted final approval to the proposed settlement in a purported
class-action lawsuit against Supervalu, Inc., and its
acquisition, Albertson's Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to pay wages for
time worked during meal breaks by its non-exempt employees
working in key carrier positions.

Sally Wilcox and Dennis Taber filed the complaint with the court
in August 2004.  It was later certified as a class action.

The lawsuit also alleges that Albertson's failed to provide
itemized wage statements as required by California law and that
Albertson's failed to timely pay wages of terminated or resigned
employees as required by California law.  It further alleges a
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

The lawsuit seeks recovery of all wages, compensation and
penalties owed the members of the class certified, including
compensation of one hour of pay for rest or meal period
violations and wages for all time worked while employees were
clocked out for meal periods or required to remain on the
premises during meal periods.  It also seeks to recover all past
due compensation and penalties for failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements and to pay all wages due at time of
termination for members of the class certified with interest
from Aug. 6, 2000, to the time of trial.

In December 2007, the parties agreed to settle the matter,
subject to Court approval.

On Aug. 8, 2008, the court granted final approval to the
parties' settlement agreement, according to the company's
Oct. 15, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 6, 2008.

Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S.
grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three
retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food
and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores.  The
company's business is classified into two segments: Retail food
and Supply chain services.


UST INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of West Virginia Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit against UST,
Inc., are appealing the dismissal of their case, which was filed
in a West Virginia federal court, 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.

The company has been served with a purported class action
complaint filed in federal court in West Virginia, attempting to
challenge certain aspects of a prior settlement approved by the
Tennessee state court and seeking additional amounts purportedly
consistent with subsequent settlements of similar actions,
estimated by plaintiffs to be between $8.9 million and $214.2
million, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

In May 2008, the court granted a motion by the defendants to
dismiss the case, thereby throwing out the action with
prejudice.  In June 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal.

UST, Inc. -- http://www.ustinc.com/-- a holding company for its
wholly owned subsidiaries: U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co., and
International Wine & Spirits Ltd.  The company is engaged in the
manufacturing and marketing of consumer products in three
operating segments: Smokeless Tobacco Products, Wine and All
Other Operations.  The Smokeless Tobacco Products segment
manufactures and markets smokeless tobacco products.  The Wine
segment produces and markets varietal and blended wines, and
imports and distributes wines from Italy.  UST Inc.'s
international operations, which market moist smokeless tobacco,
are included in the All Other Operations segment.


VISA INC: Court Affirms Dismissal of Interchange Fees Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the class-action suit entitled "Kendall, et al. v.
Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW," which
names subsidiaries of Visa, Inc., as defendants, 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 purported class action suit was filed by a group of
merchants on Oct. 8, 2004, before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against MasterCard
International, Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa International Corp. and
several member banks in California.  The suit alleges, among
other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's interchange fees
contravene the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction against MasterCard
(and Visa) setting interchange and engaging in "joint marketing
activities," which plaintiffs allege include the purported
negotiation of merchant discount rates with certain merchants.

The defendants moved to dismiss the claims in the complaint for
failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, also moved for
summary judgment with respect to certain of the claims.

On July 25, 2005, the court issued an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with
prejudice, which decision the plaintiffs have appealed.

Oral argument on the appeal was held on June 11, 2007.  On
March 7, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint.  The
court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to plead facts
sufficient to establish a conspiracy, and that no amendment
could cure the pleading defect.

In doing so, the Ninth Circuit also held that the plaintiffs
were "indirect purchasers" of Visa U.S.A. and could not recover
antitrust damages for their claims.

The suit is "Kendall, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Jeffrey S. White,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard Joseph Archer, Esq. (archerdic@aol.com)
          Archer & Hansen
          3110 Bohemian Highway
          Occidental, CA 95465
          Phone: 707-874-3438
          Fax: 707-874-3438

               - and -

          James Archer Kopcke, Esq. (jameskopcke@yahoo.com)
          Golden & Kopcke, LLP
          22 Battery Street, Suite 610
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-399-9995
          Fax: 415-398-5890

Representing the company are:

          Jay Neil Fastow, Esq. (jay.fastow@weil.com)
          Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Phone: 212-310-8644
          Fax: 212-310-8007

          Gianluca Morello, Esq.
          (gianluca.morello@fowlerwhite.com)
          Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A.,
          501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-769-7867

               - and -

          Wesley Railey Powell, Esq. (wpowell@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: 212-309-1013
          Fax: 212-309-1100


VISA INC: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Calif. Over "Chargeback"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc., is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
entitled, "Robert Smith v. VISA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-
03660-CAS-CT," 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.

Robert Smith, individually and doing business as Hill Country
Custom Cycles, filed a putative class-action suit against Visa,
Inc., several banks, and a processor in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on June 4, 2008.

The plaintiff alleges that, due to fluctuations in currency
conversion rates, a transaction disputed by a cardholder and
ultimately charged back to a merchant by its acquiring bank (a
"chargeback") may result in a debit to a merchant's account in
excess of the original transaction amount.

The lawsuit asserts claims under federal and state antitrust law
and a variety of common law claims, including fraud and breach
of contract.

The suit is "Robert Smith v. VISA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:08-
cv-03660-CAS-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. (gmb@cglaw.com)
          Casey Gerry Reed and Schenk
          110 Laurel St.
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-238-1811
          Fax: 619-544-9232

               - and -

          Hunter Thomas Hillin, Esq. (hhillin@muellerlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Mueller
          404 West 7th Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: 512-478-1473

Representing the defendants are:

          Lawrence P. Ebiner, Esq. (larry.ebiner@hro.com)
          Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5826
          Phone: 213-572-4300
          Fax: 213-572-4400

               - and -

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


VISA INC: N.Y. Court Extends Fact Discovery in MDL-1720 Matter
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
issued an order extending fact discovery to Nov. 21, 2008 with
regards to the matter, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, 1:05-md-01720-
JG-CLP," which names subsidiaries of Visa, Inc., as defendants,
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.

                       Georgia Litigation

On May 6, 2005, a purported class action was filed by a
merchant, Animal Land, Inc., against Visa U.S.A. with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging
that Visa U.S.A.'s no-surcharge rule violates Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2008).

The plaintiff alleges that under the no-surcharge rule,
merchants are not permitted to pass along to cardholders a
discrete surcharge to account for the fees that the merchant
pays in connection with Visa-branded payment card transactions.
The plaintiff alleges that this rule causes the fees paid by
merchants to be supracompetitive.

The suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount,
attorneys fees and injunctive relief.

The Animal Land case has been transferred to the multidistrict
litigation proceedings and is included in the First Amended
Class Action Complaint discussed below.

                     Connecticut Litigation

On June 22, 2005, a purported class action was filed by a group
of merchants with the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against
MasterCard, Visa U.S.A., Visa International, and a number of
Visa U.S.A., and Visa International member financial
institutions alleging, among other things, that Visas and
MasterCards purported setting of interchange fees violates
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In addition, the complaint alleges Visas and MasterCards
purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also
constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

                        Other Litigation

Since the filing of this complaint, there have been
approximately 48 similar complaints, all but 10 of which were
styled as class actions, filed on behalf of merchants against
Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard, and in some cases, certain Visa
U.S.A. and Visa International member financial institutions, in
U.S. federal courts.

Visa International was named as a defendant in more than 30 of
these complaints.

                    Multidistrict Litigation

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of
pre-trial proceedings (Multidistrict Litigation 1720).

On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint.  Taken together, the
claims in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the 10
complaints brought on behalf of individual merchants are
generally brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

In addition, some of these complaints contain certain state
unfair competition law claims.

These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages
in an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints
allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the
tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys fees and
injunctive relief.

Visa U.S.A., and Visa International answered the First
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint and the individual
merchant complaints on June 9, 2006.

On July 10, 2007, pursuant to a joint request by the parties,
the court entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for
completion of fact discovery to June 30, 2008 and expert
discovery to Feb. 20, 2009, and for filing all summary judgment
and other pretrial motions by March 27, 2009.

On Sept. 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation to the District Court recommending that the
District Court grant the defendants motion to dismiss the class
plaintiffs claims for damages incurred prior to Jan. 1, 2004.

On Oct. 12, 2007, the Magistrate Judge granted putative class
plaintiffs request to brief the issue of whether the Report and
Recommendation would affect the claims of non-party members of
the putative class that opted out of the "In re Visa Check/
MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation."

Following the submissions, the Magistrate Judge declined
plaintiffs request to advise on that issue.

Putative class plaintiffs filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation on Nov. 14, 2007, and defendants filed their
responses to those objections on Dec. 13, 2007.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the court adopted the Magistrate Judges Report
and Recommendation without modification, dismissing the class
plaintiffs claims for damages incurred prior to Jan. 1, 2004.

As part of the Retrospective Responsibility Plan, Visa, Inc.
entered into a judgment sharing agreement with Visa U.S.A., Visa
International, and certain member financial institutions of Visa
U.S.A. on July 1, 2007.

On May 8, 2008, putative class plaintiffs served on defendants a
motion seeking to certify a class of merchants.  Once briefing
on the class certification issue is complete, all briefs will be
filed with the court.

On May 23, 2008, putative class plaintiffs filed a pre-motion
letter seeking leave of court to file a Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint.

Among other things, this complaint would:

       -- add new claims for damages and injunctive relief
          against Visa and the bank defendants regarding
          interchange fees for Visa online/PIN debit cards;

       -- add new claims for damages and injunctive relief
          against Visa and the bank defendants since the time of
          Visa's Initial Public Offering regarding interchange
          fees for Visa's credit, offline debit, and online/PIN
          debit cards;

       -- eliminate claims for damages relating to the so-called
          "no-surcharge" rule and "anti-steering" rule; and

       -- eliminate claims for damages based on the alleged tie
          of network processing services and payment guarantee
          services to the payment card system services.

All defendants, but one bank defendant have agreed not to oppose
putative class plaintiffs' request.

The court entered a revised case management schedule on Aug. 6,
2008, setting deadlines for class certification briefing, expert
discovery and dispositive motions and extending fact discovery
to Nov. 21, 2008.

Visa, Inc. -- http://www.corporate.visa.com/-- is a retail
electronic payments network.  The company facilitates global
commerce through the transfer of value and information among
financial institutions, merchants, consumers, businesses and
government entities.  Its primary customers are financial
institutions, for which it provides processing services and
payment product platforms, including platforms for consumer
credit, debit, prepaid and commercial payments.  The company has
three business operations: transaction processing services,
product platforms and payments network management.  In October
2007, the company completed the series of transactions, in which
Visa U.S.A., Visa International, Visa Canada and Inovant became
direct or indirect subsidiaries of Visa Inc. Visa Europe did not
become a subsidiary of Visa Inc., but rather remained owned and
governed by its European member financial institutions and
entered into a set of contractual arrangements with the company
in connection with the reorganization.


VISA INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Conversion Fee Lawsuit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to grant final approval to a settlement reached in a
consolidated class-action suit in connection to currency
conversion "fees," which names subsidiaries of Visa, Inc., as
defendants.

MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa International
Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.
(USA), MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are defendants in a
number of federal putative class action complaints that allege,
among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based
on the asserted one percent currency conversion "fee" (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 25, 2008).

Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL
No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint adding MBNA Corp. and MBNA America Bank N.A.
as defendants.  This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust
conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act:

      (i) an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among
          MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
          with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
          conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
          "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and
          frequently more;" and

     (ii) two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby
          each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to
          have conspired with its members to fix currency
          conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
          "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to
          facilitate and encourage institution?and collection?of
          second tier currency conversion surcharges."

The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency
conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act.

On July 20, 2006, the defendants in the MDL action entered into
agreements settling the MDL action and related matters.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard has paid
$72,480 to be used for the defendants' settlement fund to settle
the MDL action and $13,440, which is expected to be paid in the
third quarter of 2007, to settle the matter "Schwartz v. Visa
Int'l Corp., et al.," which was brought in the Superior Court of
California in February 2000, purportedly on behalf of the
general public over the conversion fee.

On Nov. 8, 2006, Judge Pauley granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreements.  The settlement agreements are
subject to final approval and resolution of all appeals.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New York state
court cases appealed the preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On June 6, 2007, the appellate court granted MasterCard's motion
to defer briefing until a final settlement is approved in the
MDL action.

On Feb. 14, 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an
objection on behalf of the U.S. to the settlement.  Among other
things, the objection states that the U.S. is not a member of
the class covered by the settlement.  Thus, any claims that the
U.S. may have against Visa or its member banks relating to
foreign transactions will not be released by the settlement.  On
May 20, 2008 and June 4, 2008, the Department of Justice
submitted letters to the court related to its pending objection.

On March 31, 2008, the court held a hearing on whether to
approve the settlement and enter the Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal.  The matter remains under submission, 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 "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge William H.
Pauley, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David J. Bershad, Esq. (dbershad@milbergweiss.com)
          Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
          (mbuchman@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300
                 212-946-9387
          Fax: 212-868-1229

          Christopher Burke, Esq.
          Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP
          Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Sheldon V. Burman, Esq.
          Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC
          110 East 59th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-935-1600


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SPECTRANETICS CORP: Charles Johnson Files Colo. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     MINNEAPOLIS, Oct. 17, 2008 -- Charles H. Johnson &
Associates commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of
purchasers of Spectranetics Corporation publicly traded
securities during the period April 19, 2007, through Sept. 4,
2008.

     The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and misleading statements about the
Company's business operations and financial performance.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that:

     1) the Company was improperly promoting its own products
        and the products of third parties;

     2) the Company was improperly compensating personnel,
        including personnel involved in two post-market studies
        of Spectranetics' products from 2002-2005; and

     3) the Company was receiving parts from an international
        source in violation of customs laws.

     On September 4, 2008, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it had been served by the Food and Drug
Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with
a search warrant issued by the United States District Court,
District of Colorado.  The search warrant requested information
and correspondence relating to the promotion, use, testing,
marketing and sales of certain of the Company's products, among
other things.  As a result of this disclosure, Spectranetics'
closing stock price dropped from $9.00 per share on September 3,
2008, to $4.73 the next day and trading was halted.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 24, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

           Neal Eisenbraun, Esq.
           Charles H. Johnson & Associates
           2599 Mississippi Street
           New Brighton, MN  55112
           Phone: 651-633-5685
           e-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.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  * * *