CAR_Public/081202.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 2, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 239

                            Headlines

ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Faces Suit in Nova Scotia Over Scratch-Offs
CHINA SHENGHUO: Faces Suit by Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
COMPASS GROUP: Faces $200M Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Pa.
ENTERPRISE GP: ETP's Bid to Junk Consolidated Complaint Pending
ENTERPRISE GP: ETP's Motion to Dismiss Complaint in Tex. Pending

ENTERPRISE GP: TEPPCO Defends "Brinckerhoff" Amended Complaint
FCSTONE GROUP: Faces Stockholders' Suit Over Failure to Disclose
HORTI-PAK INC: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over 2002 Fire
HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. Suit Over Interest in Mortgages
INFOSONICS CORP: Settlement of Securities Suit Under Submission

MAUI HOTELS: Law Firm Files Several Lawsuits Over Withheld Tips
MELT INC: Faces "Jong Han" State Franchise Acts Violations Suit
MELT INC: Faces "Lee" Suit Over State Franchise Acts Violations
MELT INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Junked California Franchisees' Suit
MENU FOODS: Canadian Courts Approves $24M Pet Food MDL Agreement

THE RESERVE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit From Yield Plus Fund Investors
TRI-S SECURITY: In Talks to Settle Unschuld Suit Over IPO in Ga.
WSB FINANCIALL: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement


                           *********

ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Faces Suit in Nova Scotia Over Scratch-Offs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Lottery Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit
in Nova Scotia that accuses it of selling scratch-off lottery
tickets after the top prizes have been won, The Chronicle-Herald
reports.

The lawsuit was filed by Laura Trowell on behalf of anyone who
purchased or was given a scratch ticket in Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland/Labrador since
Nov. 1, 2001, according to The Chronicle-Herald.

In addition to stopping the practice of selling tickets after
the big prize has already been won, the suit seeks a return of
money to people who bought the tickets, reports The Chronicle-
Herald.


CHINA SHENGHUO: Faces Suit by Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., on Sept. 22, 2008,
announced that it filed a class-action lawsuit against China
Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on behalf of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll's client and on behalf of other similarly situated
purchasers of China Shenghuo common stock during the period
between July 23, 2007 through Aug. 20, 2008, inclusive.

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll's Sept. 22 press release states
that the complaint charges CSP and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. is primarily
engaged in the research, development, production and marketing
of pharmaceutical, nutritional supplement and cosmetic products.
The company's core offering, Xuesaitong Soft Capsules, is a
pharmaceutical product developed to treat the symptoms of
cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. This drug is
designed to invigorate the circulation of blood and improve
microcirculation. Nearly all of Shenghuo's products are derived
from the medicinal herb Panax notoginseng, also known as Sanqi,
Sanchi or Tienchi. Shenghuo's research and development efforts
focus on pharmaceutical products and over-the-counter (OTC)
products that are based on traditional Chinese medicines.


COMPASS GROUP: Faces $200M Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Compass Group USA, Inc. is facing a $200 million class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging systemic racial discrimination against
black workers,  Sean Farrell of The Independent reports.

The suit, which was brought by 11 current and former employees
in Compass's catering operation at Philadelphia's Comcast
Center, is accusing the company of allowing managers at its
business in Philadelphia to racially abuse, discriminate against
and harass African-American employees.

The world's biggest catering company is accused of failing to
stop its black employees at the Comcast Center, Phildelphia's
tallest building, from being called names such as "nigger",
"monkey," and "gorilla,"  according to The Independent.

Among other claims, it is alleged that black staff were forced
to eat lunch in the locker room and to clean up after white
workers.

The Independent reported that at the center of the complaints is
Derek Vogelman, Compass' executive chef at the landmark tower,
which opened in June.  It is alleged that Mr. Vogelman routinely
used racist language towards black employees, including
referring to them as "Chim-Chim," the name of a pet chimpanzee
in the film Speed Racer.

Mr. Vogelman is also accused of referring to fast-working black
employees as "Carl Lewis," the name of the former black Olympic
sprint champion.  The plaintiffs claim Mr. Vogelman carried on
using racist language when asked to stop and that his managers
refused to take action to change his behavior.

The lawsuit also alleges that Compass's Flik division, which has
the Comcast Center contract, only allows white employees to work
in front of guests at private catering functions at the tower,
with black staff consigned to the kitchen or excluded entirely,
reports The Independent.

Compass allegedly brought in white employees from another of its
subsidiaries to work front of house at events at the Comcast
Center to avoid African-Americans serving guests directly.

According to The Independent, the plaintiffs claim they and
other black employees complained to Compass's management and
human resources about the alleged discrimination.  They allege
that the company's investigations were "inadequate and
superficial" and that Compass failed to put in place procedures
to detect and correct discriminatory practices.


ENTERPRISE GP: ETP's Bid to Junk Consolidated Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the second consolidated complaint filed
against Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.'s subsidiary, Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P., and certain affiliates remains pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

A consolidated class action complaint has been filed against ETP
and certain affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

This action alleges that ETP engaged in intentional and unlawful
manipulation of the price of natural gas futures and options
contracts on the NYMEX in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act (CEA).

It is further alleged that during the class period December 2003
to December 2005, ETP had the market power to manipulate index
prices, and that ETP used this market power to artificially
depress the index prices at major natural gas trading hubs,
including the Houston Ship Channel, in order to benefit its
natural gas physical and financial trading positions and
intentionally submitted price and volume trade information to
trade publications.

This complaint also alleges that ETP also violated the CEA
because ETP knowingly aided and abetted violations of the CEA.

This action alleges that the unlawful depression of index prices
by ETP manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural gas futures and
options contracts to artificial levels during the period
stipulated in the complaint, causing unspecified damages to the
plaintiff and all other members of the putative class who
purchased and/or sold natural gas futures and options contracts
on the NYMEX during the period.

According to Enterprise GP's Nov. 14 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, this class action complaint consolidated
two class actions, which were pending against ETP. Following the
consolidation order, the plaintiffs who had filed these two
earlier class actions filed a consolidated complaint. They have
requested certification of their suit as a class action,
unspecified damages, court costs and other appropriate relief.

In January 2008, ETP filed a motion to dismiss this suit on the
grounds of failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim.

In March 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated class
action complaint. In response to this new pleading, ETP filed a
motion to dismiss this second consolidated complaint in May
2008.

In June 2008, the plaintiffs filed a response opposing ETP's
motion to dismiss. ETP filed a reply in support of its motion in
July 2008.

Enterprise GP Holdings L.P -- http://www.enterprisegp.com/--
engages in the  ownership of general and limited partner
interests of publicly traded partnerships engaged in the
midstream energy industry and related businesses. The company
owns Enterprise Products GP, which is the general partner of
Enterprise Products Partners. Enterprise Products Partners is a
publicly traded North American midstream energy company
providing a range of services to producers and consumers of
natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and certain
petrochemicals. In addition, Enterprise Products Partners is
engaged in the development of pipeline and other midstream
energy infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf
of Mexico. Enterprise Products Partners operates in four
business lines: NGL Pipelines & Services; Onshore Natural Gas
Pipelines & Services; Offshore Pipelines & Services, and
Petrochemical Services.


ENTERPRISE GP: ETP's Motion to Dismiss Complaint in Tex. Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.'s motion to dismiss the class
action complaint filed against ETP in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas in March 2008, remains
pending.

ETP is an Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. subsidiary.

According to the company's November 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, this action alleges that ETP engaged in
unlawful restraint of trade and intentional monopolization and
attempted monopolization of the market for fixed-price natural
gas baseload transactions at the Houston Ship Channel from
December 2003 through December 2005 in violation of federal
antitrust law.

The complaint further alleges that during this period ETP
exerted monopolistic power to suppress the price of these
transactions to non-competitive levels in order to benefit from
its own physical natural gas positions.

The plaintiff has, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated sellers of physical natural gas, requested
certification of its suit as a class action and seeks
unspecified treble damages, court costs and other appropriate
relief.

In May 2008, ETP filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. In
July 2008, the plaintiffs filed a response opposing ETP's motion
to dismiss. ETP filed a reply in support of its motion in August
2008.

Enterprise GP Holdings L.P -- http://www.enterprisegp.com/--
engages in the  ownership of general and limited partner
interests of publicly traded partnerships engaged in the
midstream energy industry and related businesses. The company
owns Enterprise Products GP, which is the general partner of
Enterprise Products Partners. Enterprise Products Partners is a
publicly traded North American midstream energy company
providing a range of services to producers and consumers of
natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and certain
petrochemicals. In addition, Enterprise Products Partners is
engaged in the development of pipeline and other midstream
energy infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf
of Mexico. Enterprise Products Partners operates in four
business lines: NGL Pipelines & Services; Onshore Natural Gas
Pipelines & Services; Offshore Pipelines & Services, and
Petrochemical Services.


ENTERPRISE GP: TEPPCO Defends "Brinckerhoff" Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.'s subsidiary, TEPPCO Partners, L.P.,
continues to defend the amended complaint in Peter
Brinckerhoff's putative class action in the Court of Chancery of
New Castle County in the State of Delaware, according to the
company's Nov. 14 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In September 2006, Mr. Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of
TEPPCO, filed a complaint in Delaware, in his individual
capacity, as a putative class action on behalf of other
unitholders of TEPPCO, and derivatively on behalf of TEPPCO,
concerning, among other things, certain transactions involving
TEPPCO and Enterprise Products Partners or its affiliates.

In July 2007, Mr. Brinkerhoff filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint names as defendants (i) TEPPCO, certain of its
current and former directors, and certain of its affiliates;
(ii) Enterprise Products Partners and certain of its affiliates;
(iii) EPCO; and (iv) Dan L. Duncan.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants caused TEPPCO to enter into certain transactions that
were unfair to TEPPCO or otherwise unfairly favored Enterprise
Products Partners or its affiliates over TEPPCO.

These transactions are alleged to include:

       -- the joint venture to further expand the Jonah system
          entered into by TEPPCO and Enterprise Products
          Partners in August 2006;

       -- the sale by TEPPCO of its Pioneer natural gas
          processing plant to Enterprise Products Partners in
          March 2006; and

       -- certain amendments to TEPPCO's partnership agreement,
          including a reduction in the maximum tier of TEPPCO's
          IDRs in exchange for TEPPCO common units.

The amended complaint seeks:

       -- rescission of the amendments to TEPPCO's partnership
          agreement;

       -- damages for profits and special benefits allegedly
          obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged
          wrongdoings in the amended complaint; and

       -- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees
          and expenses of his attorneys and experts.

Enterprise GP Holdings L.P -- http://www.enterprisegp.com/--
engages in the  ownership of general and limited partner
interests of publicly traded partnerships engaged in the
midstream energy industry and related businesses. The company
owns Enterprise Products GP, which is the general partner of
Enterprise Products Partners. Enterprise Products Partners is a
publicly traded North American midstream energy company
providing a range of services to producers and consumers of
natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and certain
petrochemicals. In addition, Enterprise Products Partners is
engaged in the development of pipeline and other midstream
energy infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf
of Mexico. Enterprise Products Partners operates in four
business lines: NGL Pipelines & Services; Onshore Natural Gas
Pipelines & Services; Offshore Pipelines & Services, and
Petrochemical Services.


FCSTONE GROUP: Faces Stockholders' Suit Over Failure to Disclose
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed against FCStone Group,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri is in its early stages, according to the company's Nov.
14, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

The company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008.

The action, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock between Nov. 15,
2007 and July 9, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under §§
10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged
false statements and failure to disclose adverse facts relating
to an interest rate hedge and the company's bad debt reserve.

FCStone Group, Inc. -- http://www.fcstone.com/-- is an
integrated commodity risk management company providing risk
management consulting and transaction execution services to
commercial commodity intermediaries, end users and producers. It
assists primarily middle market customers. In addition, to its
risk management consulting services, the Company operates an
independent clearing and execution platforms for exchange-traded
futures and options contracts.


HORTI-PAK INC: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over 2002 Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Horti-Pak, Inc., site of a three-day fire in Kingsville in 2002,
settled a class-action suit leveled against it by an organic
farmer, greenhouse operator and residents in an area evacuated
during the blaze, Sarah Sacheli of the The Windsor Star reports.

The CDN800,000 settlement, approved Nov. 27, 2008 by Superior
Court Justice John Brockenshire, outlines who can make claims,
specifying the streets evacuated during the fire, according to
The Windsor Star.

                        Case Background

According to the July 9, 2007 edition og the Class Action
Reporter, Horti-Pak faces an $80 million class action as a
result of the plastics factory fire, which occurred in
Kingsville, Ontario, on June 20, 2002.  The suit also names as
defendants 1099029 Ontario Limited

The plaintiffs, Jim Ludwig, Alison Causton, Sere Farms, August
Keller and Ilse I. Keller launched the suit on behalf of all
persons, other than the defendants and their employees, who
owned property or owned or occupied lands and premises within
the Town of Kingsville on June 20, 2002.

In the late evening of June 20, 2002, a fire occurred at 106
Wigle Avenue in Kingsville where the Company operated an
industrial plastic manufacturing business from premises owned by
1099029 Ontario Limited. For the next several days, smoke
emanated from the fire and spewed combustion-produced chemicals
and other material over the Town of Kingsville.  Residents in
the immediate area of the fire were evacuated from their
residences in the early morning hours of June 21st and a second
time on June 22nd along with additional residents who were more
removed from the site of the fire.

The suit alleges that the fire and the consequent wrongful
release of smoke vapours and toxins into the air, water, soil,
vegetation and lands and premises in the Town of Kingsville
constituted both a private and public nuisance for which the
defendants are responsible.  The suit further alleges that the
fire and the consequent damages in the Town of Kingsville were
caused by the negligence of the defendants.

"Fires fueled by plastics, rubber and polymerized materials
always present an unknown toxic threat. Residents may not know
that there are likely over 200 combustion-produced chemicals
possible from this fire," said Harvey T. Strosberg, class
counsel.

"We know that the provincial environment ministry is testing for
the presence of chemical classes. We know already that three
certain carcinogens - styrene and vinyl chloride monomers plus
the chemical class known as PAHs - were present in some
concentration. What we don't know is whether the ministry's
testing addresses the actual biological damage and hazard
assessment data available from bioassay information," added Mr.
Strosberg.

Mr. Strosberg's legal team is consulting with experts to attempt
to ensure that testing is being done to understand the actual
threat from the organic chemicals produced in the fire.
"However, regardless of the results of the testing, there is no
disputing that residents' lives have been disrupted and their
property affected as a result of the fire, redress for which is
sought in this action," added Mr. Strosberg.

The suit is a method for persons with common issues to join in a
single court proceeding rather than each bringing an individual
lawsuit.

For more details, contact:

          Harvey T. Strosberg
          Phone: (519) 561-6228 or (416) 362-7272
          Fax: (519) 561-6203
          e-mail: hts@strosbergco.com
          Website: http://www.fireclassaction.com
                   http://www.strosbergco.com


HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. Suit Over Interest in Mortgages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Household Financial Services faces a purported class-action
lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court claiming that the
company improperly added interest when borrowers prepaid
mortgages.

Steve Korris of The Madison County Record reported that the suit
was filed in 2003 by Paul Wratchford and Ladonna Wratchford, who
calculated their damage at $79.28.  It alleged unjust enrichment
and breach of contract, and they proposed to certify a class of
borrowers in Illinois and other states for loans since 1993.

Household Financial didn't answer, and the Wratchfords moved for
default judgment.  Circuit Judge Philip Kardis granted the
motion in 2003, and in 2004 he certified a class and entered
summary judgment in its favor.  Judge Kardis ruled that class
members would calculate damage the way the Wratchfords did.

Finally, Household Financial appeared, and moved to vacate
judgment.  It claimed it never received a summons or a copy of
the complaint.  However, Judge Kardis retired in 2005, without
ruling on the motion to vacate, according to The Madison County
Record.

Circuit Judge Don Weber took the case, and in 2006 the
plaintiffs' attorneys moved for substitution.  The case was then
reassigned to Judge Lola Maddox, but retired without holding a
hearing or taking any other action on the case.

Since then the case has stagnated until recently when Mark Brown
of The Lakin Law Firm, which represented the Wratchfords, served
interrogatories and document requests on Household Financial
Services on Nov. 14, 2008, reports The Madison County Record.

Mr. Brown filed a certificate of service for his information
requests, but he did not file the requests in the court record.

He identified Brad Lakin, Paul Marks of the Lakin firm, Timothy
Campbell of Godfrey, and Chicago lawyers Paul Weiss, Phillip
Bock and Robert Hatch as plaintiff counsel.

Mr. Brown also identified William Lucco of Edwardsville and
Chicago lawyers Nathan Eimer, Adam Deutsch and Vanessa Jacobsen
as defense counsel, The Madison County Record reports.


INFOSONICS CORP: Settlement of Securities Suit Under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
on Oct. 30, 2008, took under submission the request for an order
preliminarily approving a settlement in the consolidated class
action lawsuit "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation,
Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231."

Six securities action complaints, originally filed between June
and July 2006, were consolidated as "In Re: InfoSonics Corp.
Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231."

The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14,
2007, asserting claims for violation of section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A in
connection with the company's restatement announced June 12,
2006, and allegedly false and misleading statements and
accounting related to the company's distribution agreement with
VK Corp.

The suit seeks a declaration that it is a proper class action
pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as unspecified
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, expert witness fees, other costs, and other unspecified
relief.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006, to Aug. 9, 2006.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended consolidated complaint. In April 2008, the Court
issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' dismissal motion.

In June 2008, the Court dismissed without prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims based on the defendants' restatement of first
quarter 2006 earnings and dismissed without prejudice all claims
against a certain individual defendant (Class Action Reporter,
June 27, 2008).

On Aug. 8, 2008, prior to defendants filing a motion to dismiss
or other responsive pleading to the third amended consolidated
complaint, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to resolve the case.

On Oct. 17, 2008, the parties entered a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the Securities Settlement) of the case,
which provides the securities class action settlement is
contingent on preliminary and final Court approval (after
appropriate notice), as well as settlement of the derivative
action against the company, among other contingencies, and
provides for, among other things, a dismissal with prejudice of
the lawsuit, releases of the defendants, and a payment by the
Company or its insurer of $3.8 million to plaintiffs (inclusive
of any plaintiffs' attorneys fees, to be determined by the
Court). It is anticipated that the settlement payment will be
funded entirely by the Company's insurer.

The Securities Settlement further provides that defendants deny
any liability or responsibility for the claims made and make no
admission of any wrongdoing.

On Oct. 30, 2008, the Court took under submission without oral
argument the request for an order preliminarily approving the
Securities Settlement, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead
Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-201-9150
Fax: 310-201-9160
e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com)
Latham and Watkins
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101-3375
Phone: 619-236-1234
Fax: 619-696-7419


MAUI HOTELS: Law Firm Files Several Lawsuits Over Withheld Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Boston law firm has filed federal class-action lawsuits in
Honolulu against five Maui hotels for allegedly violating state
law by not distributing tips to banquet food servers, The
Associated Press reports.

The lawsuits allege that the hotels kept preset service charges
from banquet bills, or used the revenue to pay managers or other
non-tipped employees who didn't serve food and beverages.

The five hotels are the Fairmont Kea Lani Hotel & Resort, the
Grand Wailea Resort Hotel & Spa, The Ritz-Carlton in Kapalua,
the Wailea Marriott Resort, and the Four Seasons Resort,
according to the Associated Press.


MELT INC: Faces "Jong Han" State Franchise Acts Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melt, Inc. faces a lawsuit styled, "Jong Han v. Melt, Inc., Melt
(California), Inc., Melt Franchising, LLC, Clive V. Barwin,
Brandon Barwin, Michael Zorehkey, Rick Zorehkey, Eddie Ollman,
and Alin Cruz."

On Aug. 22, 2008, Jong Han filed a Complaint against the company
similar to the purported class action suit filed on behalf of
several of Melt, Inc.'s franchisees that was dismissed by the
California court.

According to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, Han seeks damages in an unspecified amount
and injunctive relief under state franchise acts, restitution
and injunctive relief under the unfair business practices act,
damages and relief under the Cartwright Act, fraud, interference
with prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief.

In October 2008, the company filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

Headquartered in Temecula, Calif., Melt Inc. operates as a
holding company for its operating subsidiaries.  Its wholly
owned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and Melt
Franchising LLC. Melt (FA) is responsible for selling franchises
to allow franchisee's to own and operate stores trading under
the name of Melt – gelato italiano, Melt – café & gelato bar and
Melt – gelato & crepe café as well as the sale and distribution
of product to franchisees, marketing and the collection of
royalties.


MELT INC: Faces "Lee" Suit Over State Franchise Acts Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melt, Inc. faces a lawsuit styled, "Kang Won Lee and Yoo and Lee
Enterprises v. Melt, Inc., Melt (California), Inc., Melt
Franchising, LLC, Clive V. Barwin, Rick Zorehkey, and Eddie
Ollman. "

On Aug. 22, 2008, Kang Won Lee and Lee Enterprises filed a
Complaint against the company similar to the purported class
action suit filed on behalf of several of Melt, Inc.'s
franchisees that was dismissed by the California court.

Lee seeks damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief
under state franchise acts, restitution and injunctive relief
under the unfair business practices act, damages and relief
under the Cartwright Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In October 2008, the Company filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

Headquartered in Temecula, Calif., Melt Inc. operates as a
holding company for its operating subsidiaries.  Its wholly
owned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and Melt
Franchising LLC. Melt (FA) is responsible for selling franchises
to allow franchisee's to own and operate stores trading under
the name of Melt – gelato italiano, Melt – café & gelato bar and
Melt – gelato & crepe café as well as the sale and distribution
of product to franchisees, marketing and the collection of
royalties.


MELT INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Junked California Franchisees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by the plaintiffs in a dismissed purported class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of several of Melt, Inc.'s
franchisees is pending in California.

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

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

As of June 30, 2008, the court tentatively dismissed five of the
six allegations contained in the complaint.  The plaintiffs
thereafter made an application to dismiss the action in its
entirety. The company has filed a motion for attorneys' fees and
costs.

On June 30, 2008, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit.

On Aug. 26, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, according
to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Headquartered in Temecula, Calif., Melt Inc. operates as a
holding company for its operating subsidiaries.  Its wholly
owned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and Melt
Franchising LLC. Melt (FA) is responsible for selling franchises
to allow franchisee's to own and operate stores trading under
the name of Melt – gelato italiano, Melt – café & gelato bar and
Melt – gelato & crepe café as well as the sale and distribution
of product to franchisees, marketing and the collection of
royalties.


MENU FOODS: Canadian Courts Approves $24M Pet Food MDL Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
     ORONTO, ONTARIO, Nov. 27, 2008 -- Menu Foods Income Fund
announced today that the Canadian courts have given final
approval of the comprehensive Settlement Agreement in the Pet
Food Multi-District Litigation.

     The Settlement Agreement had been orally approved by the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 14,
2008 and the final order was signed and filed on November 17,
2008.

     The Settlement Agreement, the terms of which have been
previously disclosed, resolves more than 100 class action
lawsuits filed in U.S. and Canadian courts relating to the
recall of pet food and is binding on all members of the
Settlement Class, except for those individuals who have validly
opted out of the settlement.

     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 (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 16, 2008).

For more details, contact:

          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/


THE RESERVE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit From Yield Plus Fund Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Reserve and TD Ameritrade face a purported class-action suit
in New York for allegedly misleading investors who lost money in
the Yield Plus fund, United Press International reports.

Federal authorities stepped in to prop up The Reserve's Primary
Fund after its shares fell below $1 and its investment in Lehman
Brothers Holding Inc. was erased by Lehman Brothers declaring
bankruptcy in September 2008, according to the United Press
International report.

The temporary federal insurance program did not cover Yield
Plus, USA Today reported.

According to Nov. 27, 2008 edition of the Class Action Reporter,
on Nov. 25, 2008, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
("Coughlin Stoia") today announced that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers or entities who
purchased or held the shares of certain mutual funds offered by
the Reserve Short-Term Investment Trust, including the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund ("Reserve Yield Plus Fund" or the "Fund") during
the period from July 27, 2007 to September 16, 2008 (the "Class
Period"), including purchasers and holders of the Reserve Yield
Plus Fund in connection with the July 27, 2007 offering.

The complaint charges the Reserve Short-Term Investment Trust,
its parent and affiliates, certain of its officers and trustees
and TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the Investment Company Act of 1940.  The Reserve Short-Term
Investment Trust is an open-end, diversified management
investment company.

On July 27, 2007, the Reserve Short-Term Trust filed with the
SEC a Registration Statement on Form N-1A, a Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (collectively the
"Prospectus").

The Prospectus emphasized the Fund's focus was to "seek as high
a level of current income as is consistent with the preservation
of capital and liquidity" and a "stable $1.00 share price."

The Fund later issued reports characterizing the Fund as being
an "enhanced cash fund[]" and emphasizing the Fund's focus on
"safety of principal, liquidity and soundness of sleep."

The complaint alleges that many of the Fund's purchasers were
sold their interests in the Fund by TD Ameritrade and its
employees who consistently represented to investors that the
Fund was just like a money market fund.  Due to defendants'
positive, but false, statements, investors purchased and/or
continued to hold shares in the Fund.

On September 16, 2008, The Reserve Fund, an entity related to
the Reserve Short-Term Trust, issued a release concerning the
Primary Fund, one of its money market funds, stating that the
value of the debt securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings,
Inc. (face value $785 million) and held by the Primary Fund had
been valued at zero and, as a result, the net asset value
("NAV") of the Primary Fund was $0.97 per share.

This was major news, as this was only the second time in history
that a money market fund had "broken the buck" – that is,
reported a share's value was less than a dollar.

In addition, on September 16, 2008, the NAV of the Reserve Yield
Plus Fund also collapsed from $1.00 per share to close at $0.97
due to its investment in debt securities issued by Lehman.

Thereafter, the Reserve Short-Term Trust suspended providing a
daily NAV on the Reserve Yield Plus Fund.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were omitted
from the Prospectus and other statements made by defendants
during the Class Period, were as follows:

       -- the Fund was no longer adhering to the stated
          objectives of preserving capital, but in an effort to
          achieve greater yields was pursuing riskier
          instruments;

       -- despite the fact that many observers believed Lehman
          would be the next Wall Street failure after Bear
          Stearns collapsed in March 2008, the Fund purchased a
          large amount of Lehman commercial paper in April 2008;

       -- the Fund was not designed to protect the $1.00 NAV, as
          were traditional money market funds, and was thus
          significantly riskier than money market funds;

       -- the Fund's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent defendants from taking on excessive risk; and

       -- the Fund failed to disclose the extent of its
          relationship with TD Ameritrade.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers or holders of certain mutual funds offered by the
Reserve Short-Term Investment Trust during the Class Period (the
"Class").


TRI-S SECURITY: In Talks to Settle Unschuld Suit Over IPO in Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tri-S Security Corp. is engaged in settlement discussions with
the parties to a purported class action lawsuit before the State
Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, in connection with its
initial public offering.

On Nov. 1, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Tri-S Security, its chief executive officer, its former
chief financial officer, and the lead underwriters in Tri-S
Security's initial public offering, alleging, among other
things, violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act.

The suit is entitled, "Unschuld v. Tri-S Security Corp., et
al.," and specifically alleges that the registration statement
relating to the company's IPO was materially inaccurate and
misleading because it failed to disclose certain problems with
the operations and financial condition of Paragon Systems of
which the complaint alleges the company was aware.

The suit seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages or rescission, as appropriate, and costs and
disbursements relating to the lawsuit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.

On Dec. 1, 2006, Tri-S Security removed the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiff moved to remand the case back to the state court,
which motion was granted on Sept. 14, 2007.

Tri-S and the other defendants each filed answers in response to
the Complaint on Aug. 13, 2008.  On that same date, they also
filed a joint motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion
for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for a stay of
discovery pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff opposed the Motion for Stay on Oct. 8, 2008 and the
Motion to Dismiss on Oct. 16, 2008.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the parties filed a joint motion requesting
that the court stay all proceedings in the action for 45 days,
until Dec. 8, 2008 to facilitate the parties' settlement
discussions and to avoid the need to incur additional attorneys'
fees and other expenses, according to the company's Nov. 14 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Tri-S Security Corp. -- http://www.trissecurity.com/-- is an
aggregator of guard services, providing equipment and security
services to various government agencies and private sector
through its two direct, wholly owned subsidiaries, Paragon
Systems and Cornwall.  The Company's services include uniformed
guards, electronic monitoring systems, personnel protection,
access control, crowd control and the prevention of sabotage,
terrorist and criminal activities.  In connection with providing
these services, the Company assumes responsibility for a variety
of functions, including recruiting, hiring, training, arming and
supervising guards deployed to the customers.


WSB FINANCIALL: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement entered into by WSB Financial Group,
the parent company of Westsound Bank, in the case captioned, "In
RE: WSB Financial Group Securities Litigation," remains subject
to the approval of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In October 2007, a purported securities fraud class-action suit
was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington against the Company and certain of its
directors and current and former officers alleging violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeking an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief in
connection with the Company's initial public offering.

Since then four additional, similar actions have been filed in
the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington.

As is typical in these cases, all the actions have been
consolidated into a single action, "In RE: WSB Financial Group
Securities Litigation, Master File No. CO7-1747 RAJ."

On Oct. 14, 2008 the Company reported it has entered into a
settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in the pending
securities class action. The class action settlement is subject
to the approval of the U.S. 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 Dec. 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. Third quarter expenses include approximately
$800,000 in legal costs associated with the settlement of the
securities class action lawsuit.

WSB Financial Group, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Westsound Bank hat provides various commercial banking services
to real estate developers, contractors, and small to medium-size



                            *********

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, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, 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  * * *