CAR_Public/081211.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 11, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 246

                            Headlines

AFNI INC: Court Orders Payment of Damages to Cingular Customers
ASHLAND INC: Petition for Certiorari in Vietnamese Suit Pending
ASHLAND INC: Unit Defends Agent Orange Personal Injuries Suits
BIG LOTS: Customers' Privacy Lawsuits in California Dismissed
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Lawsuit Returned for Further Consideration

DUPONT CO: Iowa Judge Denies Certification Bid in Teflon Suits
HEARST HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Inflated Distribution Numbers
HTH CORP: Former Waiter Files Suit in Hawaii Alleging Tip Fraud
JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in "Krichman"
MUELLER WATER: Claims in "Foundry Sand" Disposal Suit Proceed

NYSE EURONEXT: Sea Carriers Voluntarily Dismisses Suit in Aug.
OLIVE GARDEN: Settles Indiana Suit Over Norovirus Contamination
PETSMART INC: "Enabnit" Suit Settlement Pending in Calif. Court
PETSMART INC: Settlement of Suits Over Pet Food Recalls Approved
SUPERVISED LIFESTYLES: Still Faces $225M Suit by Former Patients

SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.Y. Municipal Derivatives Lawsuit
THIRD FEDERAL: Ohio Court Considers Appeal in "Greenspan" Case
WAL-MART STORES: Reaches $54M Settlement in Minn. Workers' Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Served with "Kottaras" Antitrust Complaint in Oct.
WMG ACQUISITION: Defends Appeal on Junked Pricing Suit in N.Y.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
SOUTHWEST WATER: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing
SOUTHWEST WATER: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in Calif.


                           *********

AFNI INC: Court Orders Payment of Damages to Cingular Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that
Afni, Inc., a debt collection company, must pay damages to 7,000
Cingular Wireless customers in Wisconsin for illegally charging
fees, Ryan J. Foley of BusinessWeek reports

The Bloomington, Ill.-based company allegedly charged customers
collection fees equaling 15 percent of the money they owed
Cingular, which has since been bought by AT&T.

The Seventh Circuit said that fee was not allowed under
Wisconsin law or their cell phone contracts and violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

That decision by the Seventh Circuit upholds a ruling last year
by U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Callahan, Jr. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Wisconsin, who had awarded
the customers $206,000 in damages, costs and attorneys fees,
according BusinessWeek.

With the recent ruling the plaintiffs' lawyers can ask for
additional costs and fees related to the appeal, reports
BusinessWeek.

Customers who received debt collection letters from Afni filed
suit in 2005, alleging the company's practice of charging
collection fees of 15 percent of their original balance was
illegal.

Judge Callahan later granted the case class-action status, for
all Wisconsin customers who received letters after July 7, 2004.
The class consists of about 7,020 customers.  The procedure for
compensating them has not yet been approved, according to
BusinessWeek.

Judge Callahan ruled the company had no authority to impose
collection fees since they were not authorized by the customers'
cell phone contracts with Cingular.  Wisconsin law only allows
third-party debt collectors to charge fees, Callahan added, and
not companies who "own" the debt such as Afni, which purchased
delinquent accounts from Cingular.

A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled that Judge
Callahan made the correct decision.  The judges rejected the
company's argument that its mistakes were unintentional, saying
company officials did not take enough steps to comply with
Wisconsin law.

Allowing the company to win, the court wrote, "would essentially
reward a business's ignorance of the law," BusinessWeek
reported.


ASHLAND INC: Petition for Certiorari in Vietnamese Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the rulings in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by several Vietnamese
against Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, Inc., is pending
with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Agent Orange is a defoliant that was manufactured by several
companies, including Hercules, at the direction of the U.S.
Government, and used by the U.S. Government in military
operations in both Korea and Vietnam from 1965 to 1970.

In January 2004, Hercules was sued in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York by The Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent
Orange/Dioxin and several individuals who claim to represent
between two and four million Vietnamese who allege that Agent
Orange used by the United States during the Vietnam War caused
them or their families to sustain personal injuries.

That complaint alleges violations of international law and war
crimes, as well as violations of the common law for products
liability, negligence and international torts.

On motion of the defendants, the District Court dismissed this
lawsuit and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal and denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en
banc.

The plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the rulings of the
trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, according to the company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Ashland Inc. -- http://www.ashland.com/-- is a diversified,
global chemical company, engaged in the manufacture of
chemicals, distribution of chemicals and plastics, and provision
of automotive lubricants, car-care products and quick-lube
services.  It operates in four segments: Ashland Performance
Materials, Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water
Technologies. Ashland Performance Materials is a manufacturer
and supplier of specialty chemicals and customized services to
the building and construction, transportation, metal casting,
marine, and packaging and converting markets.  Ashland
Distribution distributes chemicals, plastics and composite raw
materials. Valvoline is a marketer of packaged automotive
lubricants, chemicals, appearance products, antifreeze and
filters. Ashland Water Technologies supplies chemical and non-
chemical water treatment solutions for industrial, municipal and
commercial facilities.  On Nov. 13, 2008, Ashland completed the
acquisition of Hercules, Inc.


ASHLAND INC: Unit Defends Agent Orange Personal Injuries Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland, Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, Inc., continues to defend
lawsuits for various personal injuries brought by exposure to
Agent Orange, according to the company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Agent Orange is a defoliant that was manufactured by several
companies, including Hercules, at the direction of the U.S.
Government, and used by the U.S. Government in military
operations in both Korea and Vietnam from 1965 to 1970.

In 1984, as part of a class action settlement, Hercules and
other defendants settled the claims of persons who were in the
U.S., New Zealand and Australian Armed Forces who alleged injury
due to exposure to Agent Orange.

Following that settlement, all claims for alleged injuries due
to exposure to Agent Orange by persons who had served in the
Armed Forces of those countries were treated as covered by that
class action settlement.

On June 9, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a case
captioned "Dow Chemical Company, et al. v. Daniel Raymond
Stephenson, et al." where plaintiffs Stephenson and Isaacson (in
separate but consolidated cases) alleged that they were injured
from exposure to Agent Orange and that such injury did not
manifest until after exhaustion of the settlement fund created
through the 1984 class action settlement.

As a result of that decision, the claims of persons who allege
injuries due to exposure to Agent Orange and whose injuries
first manifest themselves after exhaustion of the settlement
fund created through the 1984 class action settlement may no
longer be barred by the 1984 class action settlement and such
persons may now be able to pursue claims against Hercules and
the other former manufacturers of Agent Orange.

Hercules is a defendant in approximately 31 lawsuits, including
two purported class actions, where plaintiffs allege that
exposure to Agent Orange caused them to sustain various personal
injuries.

On Feb. 9, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York issued a series of rulings, which held that
plaintiffs' claims against the defendant manufacturers of Agent
Orange that were brought in the state courts are properly
removable to federal court under the "federal officer removal
statute" and that such claims are subject to dismissal by
application of the "government contractor defense."  The
District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims in all of the
lawsuits that were before it at that time.

The plaintiffs appealed those dismissals to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's dismissal of these actions and also denied
the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc.

On Oct. 6, 2008, Plaintiffs in these actions filed Petitions for
Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of
the rulings of the trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Ashland Inc. -- http://www.ashland.com/-- is a diversified,
global chemical company, engaged in the manufacture of
chemicals, distribution of chemicals and plastics, and provision
of automotive lubricants, car-care products and quick-lube
services.  It operates in four segments: Ashland Performance
Materials, Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water
Technologies. Ashland Performance Materials is a manufacturer
and supplier of specialty chemicals and customized services to
the building and construction, transportation, metal casting,
marine, and packaging and converting markets.  Ashland
Distribution distributes chemicals, plastics and composite raw
materials. Valvoline is a marketer of packaged automotive
lubricants, chemicals, appearance products, antifreeze and
filters. Ashland Water Technologies supplies chemical and non-
chemical water treatment solutions for industrial, municipal and
commercial facilities.  On Nov. 13, 2008, Ashland completed the
acquisition of Hercules, Inc.


BIG LOTS: Customers' Privacy Lawsuits in California Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class-action lawsuits against Big Lots Inc. that
were filed in California have been dismissed, Dow Jones
Newswires reports.

According to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the suits alleged that the company violated
California law by requesting certain customer information in
connection with the return of merchandise for which the customer
sought to receive a refund to a credit card.

The plaintiffs in the case sought statutory penalties, costs,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief, the filing stated.

The company said both cases were stayed pending the ruling of a
California Court of Appeals in a similar case involving another
retailer.

The appellate court, Big Lots said, ruled in favor of the other
retailer holding that the California law at issue doesn't apply
to merchandise-return transactions.

As a result of that ruling, Big Lots said it stipulated with the
plaintiffs to the dismissal of the cases with prejudice, and the
court entered the dismissals.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Lawsuit Returned for Further Consideration
----------------------------------------------------------
     NETANYA, Israel, Dec. 10, 2008 -- Cellcom Israel Ltd. (the
"Company") announced today that the Israeli Supreme Court
partially accepted an appeal filed on March 2006 against the
denial of a purported class-action lawsuit by the District Court
of Tel Aviv-Jaffa and referred the purported class action for
further consideration in the District Court, in relation to
certain issues determined by the Supreme Court.

     The purported class action was filed in September 2000
against the Company in the District Court by one of the
Company's subscribers in connection with VAT charges in respect
of insurance premiums and the provision of insurance services
that were allegedly not provided in accordance with the law.

     If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount
of the claim is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 402
million. The Company is studying the decision and intends to
vigorously defend its position.


DUPONT CO: Iowa Judge Denies Certification Bid in Teflon Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald E. Longstaff of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa has denied class-action status for 23
lawsuits over DuPont Co.'s nonstick cookware coating Teflon, The
News Journal reports.

Consumers have alleged that DuPont made false claims about
health risks connected with nonstick cookware, including
"polymer fume fever," a flu-like condition linked to fumes from
heated Teflon.

The ruling means plaintiffs in separate statewide actions
nationwide need to pursue their own lawsuits against the
company, according to The News Journal.

The News Journal reported that Judge Longstaff said in his
ruling that plaintiffs had not adequately defined which
consumers should be included in the class.


HEARST HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Inflated Distribution Numbers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hearst Holdings, Inc., one of the owners of the Talking Phone
Book, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that
the company destroyed thousands of phone books instead of
delivering them in an effort to artificially inflate
distribution numbers that determine the cost to place an ad,
Eric Connor of Greenville News reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina against Hearst, several subsidiaries, and a
pair of Talking Phone Book employees.

Jon Newlon, an attorney for Greenwood chiropractor William B.
Gray III, said that the company devised a "deliberate plan to
discard and destroy phone books" to mislead potential
advertisers, according Greenville News.

The complaint alleges that beginning in 2005, representatives of
the Talking Phone Book solicited Mr. Gray to become an
advertiser and represented distribution numbers that exceed the
numbers of phone book competitors.

However, the complaint alleges thousands of phone books were
stored in Greenville, Anderson, and Greenwood counties with no
intention to distribute them and then were later dumped at
recycling centers or in one case on private property in
Greenville County in October 2007, reports Greenville News.

According to the complaint, "Defendants are knowingly having
phone books warehoused on crates still covered in cellophane,
left there for months without ever being distributed, and then
carried to waste centers for disposal or even dumped on public
or private land."

Greenville News reported that the company recently filed a
motion that sought for the dismissal of the complaint.  Judge
Ross Anderson is currently considering that request.

In its motion to dismiss the complaint, Hearst argues that Mr.
Gray signed a contract with the company even as he claims he
believed the company was engaging in fraud.  The defendants
argue in the motion that there is still time to distribute the
number of books promised for this year because this year's
contract has yet to end.


HTH CORP: Former Waiter Files Suit in Hawaii Alleging Tip Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Gurrobat, who worked as a Waikiki banquet waiter for
nearly eighteen years filed a purported class-action lawsuit
against the owners of the Pagoda and Pacific Beach hotels,
claiming he and other employees did not receive one hundred
percent of tips added to the bills of customers, Andrew Pereira
of Khon2 reports.

Attorney Scott Saiki, Esq., filed the lawsuit against HTH Corp.,
the company that owns and operates the two properties, in
Honolulu First Circuit Court.

Mr. Saiki told Khon2 that his client hopes to gain class-action
status with his complaint.  He also said, "In this situation we
have at least three dozen employees, former and current
employees, who have potential claims like Raymond's."

Under a Hawaii law passed eight years ago all tipped employees
are entitled to all gratuities charged to customers unless the
bill specifies a portion of the tips will go to someone else,
according to Khon2.


JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in "Krichman"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied a petition by JPMorgan Chase & Co. that sought for the
dismissal of the purported class-action suit, "Krichman et al v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case No. 1:2006-cv-15305," which
alleges violations under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York labor law.

The suit was filed on Dec. 19, 2006 by two former JPMorgan Chase
brokers, Alan Krichman, who worked at the bank as a financial
adviser from July 2004 to September 2005, and James Howell, who
worked in a similar role from August 2002 to April 2003,
according to Martha Graybow of Reuters.

The former financial advisers claim that their compensation was
awarded on a commission basis and that they were wrongly denied
pay for time worked beyond a 40-hour work week.

In their lawsuit, they also contend that when customers
challenged transactions executed by the brokers, the bank
improperly deducted the losses from the workers' commissions.

Reuters reported that the plaintiffs are seeking compensation
for unpaid overtime wages and for the deductions from the
commissions they say they deserve.  Their lawsuit seeks class-
action status on behalf of other employees at the New York-based
bank.

In a written decision dated Dec. 8, 2008, denied a petition by
JPMorgan to dismiss the lawsuit.  He said the plaintiffs could
bring claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York labor law.

The judge, however, threw out one of the plaintiffs' claims for
damages from alleged breach of their employment contract,
Reuters reported.

The denied a petition by JPMorgan Chase & Co. that sought for
the dismissal of the purported class-action suit,

The suit is "Krichman et al v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case
No. 1:2006-cv-15305," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge George B. Daniels,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John Halebian, Esq. (jhalebian@lshllp.com)
          Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: (212)608-1900
          Fax: (212) 719-4677

Representing the defendants is:

          Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq. (sshaulson@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          37th Floor
          New York, NY 10178
          Phone: (212)-309-6718
          Fax: (212)-309-6273


MUELLER WATER: Claims in "Foundry Sand" Disposal Suit Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claims of nuisance, wantonness, and negligence in a purported
civil class-action lawsuit in relation to the disposal of toxic
"foundry sand" by Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s U.S. Pipe
subsidiary are moving forward.

The suit was originally filed on April 8, 2005, in the Circuit
Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, and removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the
Class Action Fairness Act.

The putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint
with the U.S. District Court on Dec. 15, 2006.

The case was filed against U.S. Pipe and other foundries in the
Anniston, Alabama area alleging state law tort claims
(negligence, failure to warn, wantonness, nuisance, trespass and
outrage) arising from creation and disposal of "foundry sand"
alleged to contain harmful levels of polychlorinated biphenyls
and other toxins, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and
zinc.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for real and personal
property damage and for other unspecified personal injury.

On June 4, 2007, a motion to dismiss the case was granted to
U.S. Pipe and certain co-defendants as to the claims for
negligence, failure to warn, nuisance, trespass, and outrage.
The remainder of the complaint was dismissed with leave to file
an amended complaint.

On July 6, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, which dismissed prior claims relating to U.S. Pipe's
former 10th Street facility and no longer alleges personal
injury claims.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 27, 2007.
U.S. Pipe and the other defendants have again moved to dismiss
the third amended complaint.

On Sept. 24, 2008, the court issued an order on the motion,
dismissing the claims for trespass and permitting the plaintiffs
to move forward with their claims of nuisance, wantonness, and
negligence, according to the company's Nov. 25, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Atlanta, Georgia-based Mueller Water Products, Inc. --
http://www.muellerwaterproducts.com/-- is a manufacturer of a
range of water infrastructure and flow control products for use
in water distribution networks and treatment facilities.  It
acts as a distributor, especially in Canada, for products that
are manufactured by other companies.  Its product portfolio
includes engineered valves, hydrants, pipe fittings and ductile
iron pipe, which are used by municipalities, as well as the
commercial and residential construction, oil and gas, heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and fire protection
industries.  It manages its business Mueller Water operates
through three business segments: Mueller Co, U.S. Pipe and
Anvil.  Through Mueller Co., it sells its hydrants and valves
and other water and wastewater infrastructure and gas
distribution products.  Through U.S. Pipe, it sells ductile iron
pipe and related products.  Through Anvil, it sells its pipe
fittings and couplings, pipe hangers, pipe nipples and related
products.


NYSE EURONEXT: Sea Carriers Voluntarily Dismisses Suit in Aug.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Carriers Corp. and Sea Carriers, LP I., on Aug. 20, 2008,
voluntarily dismissed the class-action lawsuit styled, "Sea
Carriers, LP I et al v. NYSE Euronext, Case No. 1:07-cv-04658-
RWS," without prejudice.

The plaintiffs notified the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York that the case is voluntarily dismissed,
without prejudice against the defendants Bank of America
Corporation, NYSE Euronext, Banc of America Securities LLC,
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., UBS Securities LLC, LaBranche &
Co., Inc., Susquehanna International Group Inc., Goldman Sachs &
Co., Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, LP, Jeffries Execution
Services, Inc., LaBranche & Co., LLC, Van Der Moolen Specialists
USA LLC.

The class-action complaint asserted violations of federal
antitrust and securities laws and common law in connection with
the placing of market orders through NYSE's SuperDOT order
routing system, according to the company's Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 26, 2008.

NYSE Euronext -- http://www.nyse.com-- operates a liquid
exchange group.  The Company's family of exchanges, located in
six countries, include the New York Stock Exchange, a cash
equities market; Euronext, a cash equities market; Liffe, an
European derivatives exchange; NYSE Liffe, the Company's U.S.
futures business, and NYSE Arca Options, an U.S. options trading
platform.  NYSE Euronext offers an array of financial products
and services for issuers, investors and financial institutions
in cash equities, options, futures and derivatives, exchange
traded funds (ETFs), bonds, market data, and commercial
technology solutions. NYSE Euronext is home to approximately
4,600 listed issues. In October 2008, the Company announced that
it has completed its acquisition of the American Stock Exchange
(Amex).

  
OLIVE GARDEN: Settles Indiana Suit Over Norovirus Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olive Garden Restaurant, a Darden Restaurants, Inc. flagship
chain, has reached a $387,000 settlement for a lawsuit filed in
the Marion County Circuit in Indiana which claimed several
hundred people who ate at an Olive Garden restaurant in
Castleton became sick with norovirus, contracted from three
contaminated employees.

The Indianapolis Star reported that in November 2008, the
company reached a settlement n which it agreed to pay $387,000
split among 168 claimants, including about 30 children, plus
$315,000 in attorney's fees.

According to the plaintiffs' attorney the payments varied by
person based on the number of days each was ill, verified
medical expenses and lost wages.

Previously, Indystar.com's Susan Guyett reported that a
restaurant in Indianapolis, Indiana has been hit with a lawsuit
filed on behalf of about 50 customers, who got sick after eating
at the restaurant (Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2007).

The suit against Olive Garden was filed in Marion Circuit
Court., and was certified as a class-action suit in May 29,
2007.

It seeks compensation for those people who got sick within 72
hours after eating at the restaurant last year between Dec. 9,
2006 and Dec. 15, 2006.

The plaintiff attorney Patrick A. Elward said about 600 people
were affected.  He added the plaintiffs would be able to recover
medical costs or other expenses.  Each person would be
compensated with respect to the type of illness he suffered.

Plaintiffs counsel:

          Patrick A. Elward, Esq. (pelward@binghammchale.com)
          Bingham McHale LLP
          10 West Market Street, 2700 Market Tower
          Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-4900
          Phone: (317) 968-5374
          Telecopier: (317) 236-9907
          Web Site: http://www.binghammchale.com


PETSMART INC: "Enabnit" Suit Settlement Pending in Calif. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the "Enabnit" labor-related class-action suit
against PetSmart, Inc., is pending with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California.

In October 2006, two lawsuits were filed against the company in
California State Court, on behalf of putative classes of current
and former California employees.

The first suit, "Sorenson v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 3,
2006," wherein the plaintiff is a former dog groomer, alleges
claims on behalf of other non-exempt hourly workers as to
whether the employees received their required meal and rest
breaks.

The second suit, "Enabnit v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 12,
2006," seeks principally to represent employees providing pet
grooming services, for alleged meal and rest period violations,
and to represent a class of employees whose paychecks were
allegedly not compliant with the California Labor Code.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, penalties under the
California Labor Code, restitution, attorney fees, costs, and
prejudgment interest.

In November 2006, the company removed both actions to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle
both of these matters for an amount that will not be material to
our consolidated financial statements and has been accrued for.
The Sorenson settlement was preliminarily approved by the court
on Aug. 5, 2008, while the Enabnit settlement has been submitted
for preliminary approval, according to the company's Nov. 26,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2008.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty
provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North
America.  The Company has identified a group of pet owners that
the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets
and consider their pets family members.


PETSMART INC: Settlement of Suits Over Pet Food Recalls Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
A comprehensive settlement of several purported class-action
lawsuits arising from the pet food recalls announced by several
manufacturers beginning in March 2007, received final court
approval during the fourth quarter of 2008, according to
PetSmart, Inc.'s Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2,
2008.

The named plaintiffs have sued the major pet food manufacturers
and retailers claiming that their pets suffered injury and death
as a result of consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet
snack products.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of class actions in the
respective jurisdictions as well as unspecified damages and
injunctive relief.

The cases in which the company is a defendant are:

       -- "Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL,"
          (filed 3/23/07);

       -- "Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN," (filed
          4/9/07);

       -- "Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA," (filed
          4/23/07);

       -- "Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC,
          C.D. CA," (filed 4/10/07);

       -- "Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL," (filed
          4/23/07);

       -- "Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO," (filed
          4/11/07);

       -- "McBain v. Menu Foods, et al.," Judicial Centre of
          Regina, Canada (filed 7/11/07);

       -- "Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al.," Ontario
          Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07);

       -- "Esau v. Menu Foods, et al.," Supreme Court of
          Newfoundland and Labrador (filed 9/5/07);

       -- "Ewasew v. MenuFoods, et al.," Supreme Court of
          British Colombia (filed 3/23/07 );

       -- "Silva v. Menu foods, et al.," Canada Province of
          Manitoba (filed 3/30/07);

       -- "Powell v. Menu Foods, et al.," Ontario Superior Court
          of Justice (filed 3/28/07);

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl,
Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-
district litigation, under the caption, "In re Pet Food Product
Liability Litigation, Civil No. 07-2867."  The Canadian cases
have not been consolidated.

On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the
matter, "In re: Pet food Product Liability Litigation," and the
Canadian cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement
arrangement for court approval. Preliminary court approval was
received from the U.S. District Court on May 3, 2008, and from
all of the Canadian courts as of July 8, 2008. On Oct. 14, 2008,
the U.S. court gave final approval of the settlement, and the
Canadian courts gave final approval on Nov. 3, 2008.

With respect to "Blaszkowski v. Mars Inc., et al.," on Sept. 12,
2008, the court dismissed with prejudice all of the retailer
defendants, including the Company.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty
provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North
America.  The Company has identified a group of pet owners that
the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets
and consider their pets family members.


SUPERVISED LIFESTYLES: Still Faces $225M Suit by Former Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supervised LifeStyles, Inc., also known as SLS, is still facing
a purported $225 million federal class-action lawsuit filed by
two New Jersey residents and former patients who alleged that
they were physically and emotionally abused while patients of
SLS, Terence Corcoran of The Journal News reports.

In September 2008, the federal judge in the case fined SLS
$35,000 for trying to scare former patients away from
participating in the lawsuit.

Previously, Terence Corcoran of The Journal News reported that
two former residents of a private-mental health facility filed a
class action against the companies that run the facility (Class
Action Reporter, June 13, 2007).

Nicholas J. Romano and Deborah A. Morgan of New Jersey, both in
their early 20s, brought the suit on their behalf and several
unnamed patients.  It was filed in federal court in White
Plains, New York, Case No: 7:07-cv-02034-SCR under Judge Stephen
C. Robinson.

The defendants named in the suit are:

     - SLS Residential Inc.;
     - SLS Health;
     - SLS Wellness;
     - Supervised Lifestyles Inc.;
     - Chairmen Alfred Bergman and Joseph Santoro; and
     - a psychologist and other SLS employees.

The suit alleges that:

     1) residents suffer emotional and physical abuse from staff
        members;

     2) SLS violated the patients' rights under the American
        with Disabilities Act;

     3) SLS staff routinely restrained clients and kept them
        from making and receiving phone calls so they won't get
        the chance to complain to their families; and

     4) SLS staff would search patients, inspect their rooms and
        packages sent to them.

Contrary to SLS's advertisement that says it provides mentally-
ill patients compassionate and effective treatment, staff
members would taunt, ridicule, humiliate and sometimes assault
the residents, the suit says.

The suit further says that the lead plaintiffs' families pay
more than $200,000 for "treatment that was harmful and
exploitative."

The suit seeks $75 million in compensatory damages, $150 million
in punitive damages and an injunction that would prohibit SLS
from further violating patients' rights.

The suit is "Romano v. Morgan et al., Case No. 7:07-cv-02034-
SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Judge Stephen C. Robinson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael Howard Sussman, Esq.
          (sussman1@frontiernet.net)
          Sussman Law Offices
          40 Park Place P.O. Box 1005
          Goshen, NY 10924
          Phone: 845-294-3991
          Fax: 845-294-1623

Representing the defendants is:

          Margaret Joann Babb, Esq. (mbabb@proskauer.com)
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202)-416-5828
          Fax: (202)-416-6899


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.Y. Municipal Derivatives Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Syncora Holdings, Ltd. continues to face a purported class-
action lawsuit styled, "Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia
Bank N.A. et al.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On March 13, 2008, the class-action lawsuit was commenced in New
York, on behalf of all state, local and municipal government
entities that purchased municipal derivatives from the Company
or the other defendants in the period from Jan. 1, 1992 through
Dec. 31, 2006.

The complaint names 36 providers and brokers of municipal
derivatives, including the company, as defendants.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy among the defendants to fix,
raise, maintain or stabilize the price of, and to rig bids and
allocate customers and market for, municipal derivatives.

The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief,
according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 26, 2008.

Syncora Holdings Ltd. -- www.syncora.com -- is a Bermuda-
domiciled holding company whose common shares are listed on the
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE:  SCA). Syncora Holdings Ltd. Was
formerly known as Security Capital Assurance Ltd.


THIRD FEDERAL: Ohio Court Considers Appeal in "Greenspan" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet decided on the appeal filed
by Third Federal Savings & Loan Association of Cleveland, MHC,
TFS Financial Corp.'s mutual holding company, from the decision
of the Eighth District Court of Appeals on Gary Greenspan's
lawsuit.

On June 13, 2006, Dr. Greenspan filed a putative class-action
lawsuit against Third Federal, captioned, "Gary A. Greenspan v.
Third Federal Savings & Loan, Case No. CV 06 593882" in the
Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of Ohio residents in
connection with mortgage loans that the Company provided to the
plaintiff and the putative class members.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company:

       -- impermissibly charged a "document preparation fee"
          that included the cost of preparing legal documents in
          connection with the mortgages; and

       -- should disgorge the document preparation fee because
          the document preparation constituted the practice of
          law and was performed by Company employees who are not
          licensed to practice law in Ohio.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class of individuals who were
charged such a fee "anytime after June 13, 2001."

The Company answered the plaintiff's complaint and moved for
judgment on the pleadings.  The trial court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed the action.  The plaintiff
appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.

On June 25, 2008, the appellate court reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint as to claims arising
before Sept. 15, 2004, the date that the relevant statute was
amended to expressly give the Ohio Supreme Court exclusive
jurisdiction over claims for the unauthorized practice of law.

On Aug. 8, 2008, the Company appealed the decision of the Eighth
District Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Although
the parties have filed memoranda regarding jurisdiction, the
Ohio Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to accept or deny
this appeal, according to the company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Likewise, on Aug. 8, 2008, the Company filed a Complaint in
Mandamus with the Ohio Supreme Court asking that the Court
compel the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals to follow its own
local rules, which require it to abide by a prior Eighth
District panel decision absent an en banc hearing.  Respondent
has filed a Motion to Dismiss and Company has filed a Memorandum
in Opposition.  The Ohio Supreme Court has yet to rule on this
matter.

TFS Financial Corp. -- http://www.thirdfederal.com/-- is a
federally chartered stock holding company, conducts its
activities through its wholly owned subsidiaries.  The line of
business of the Company is retail consumer banking, mortgage
lending, deposit gathering and other financial services.  Third
Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, MHC, and its
federally chartered mutual holding company parent owns 71.82% of
the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company.  The
Company's operating subsidiaries include Third Federal Savings
and Loan Association of Cleveland and Third Capital, Inc.


WAL-MART STORES: Reaches $54M Settlement in Minn. Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. reached a tentative $54,000,000 settlement
in a purported class-action suit in Minnesota that alleged the
firm reduced workers' break times and let employees work off the
clock, Matthew Lynch of Footwear News reports.

The settlement -- announced by the company on Dec. 9, 2008 in a
joint statement released with plaintiffs in the case -- could be
shared by as many as 100,000 current and former hourly employees
who worked at Minnesota Wal-Marts and Sam's Clubs between Sept.
11, 1998, and Nov. 14, 2008.

It will also include a substantial payment to the state of
Minnesota, the parties said.  The deal is still subject to
approval from a trial court.

Plaintiffs' attorney Justin Perl of Maslon Edelman Borman &
Brand, told Footwear News, "We are satisfied with this
settlement, gratified that these hourly workers will now be paid
after seven years of litigation and happy that the State of
Minnesota will receive the largest wage and hour civil penalty
in its history."

Footwear News reported that Nancy Braun, a former hourly worker,
first filed the suit in 2001 and was later joined by other
employees.  Ms. Braun's initial complaint accused the retailer
of not allowing for sufficient breaks and meal periods.

In July, after a trial in Hastings, Minn., a district court
judge ordered Wal-Mart to pay $6.5 million to workers in the
class-action suit.

Following that decision, the discounter could have faced a jury
trial to determine civil penalties in the case -- as much as $2
billion -- had the two sides not reached a settlement, according
to Footwear News.

As part of the settlement, Wal-Mart will maintain electronic
systems, surveys and notices to further its compliance with
state wage and hour policies, the parties said.

The court has scheduled a hearing for preliminary approval of
the settlement on Jan. 14, 2008, reports Footwear News.

For more information, contact:

          Justin H. Perl, Esq. (Justin.Perl@maslon.com)
          Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand, LLP
          3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
          Phone: 612-672-8372


WHOLE FOODS: Served with "Kottaras" Antitrust Complaint in Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Markets, Inc. was served with the complaint
entitled, "Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.," on Oct. 27,
2008.

According to the company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, the putative class-action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks
treble damages, equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief.

The action alleges that the acquisition and merger between Whole
Foods Market and Wild Oats violates various provisions of the
federal antitrust laws.

The suit is "Ekaterini Kottaras et al v. Whole Foods Market,
Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-01832," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.

Representing plaintiff is:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq. (rak@katriellaw.com)
          The Katriel Law Firm
          1101 30th Street, NW Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 625-4342
          Fax: (202) 330-5593


WMG ACQUISITION: Defends Appeal on Junked Pricing Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
WMG Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of Warner Music Group Corp.,
intends to continue to defend against a consolidated class-
action suit over the pricing of digital music downloads,
including the appeal, according to its Nov. 25, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Originally, more than 30 putative class actions concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads have been filed.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the
caption, "In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:2006-md-01780."

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007,
alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release
of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing
of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads.  It seeks
unspecified compensatory, statutory, and treble damages.

All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007.  The Court
heard an argument on this motion on March 25, 2008.

On Oct. 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including the company.

On Nov. 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the
order of the District Court to the Circuit Court for the Second
Circuit.

The suit is "In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:06-md-01780-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Loretta A. Preska,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. (fbalint@bffb.com)
          Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.
          2901 N. Central, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-274-1100
          Fax: 602-274-1199

          Monique Alonso, Esq.
          Gross & Belsky LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Ste 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-544-0200
          Fax: 415-544-0201

               - and -

          Brian Joseph Barry, Esq. (bribarry1@yahoo.com)
          Law Office of Brian Barry
          1801 Ave. of The Stars, Suite 307
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-788-0831

Representing the defendant is:

          Chet Alan Kronenberg, Esq. (ckronenberg@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 310-407-7557


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, GA, Dec 09, 2008 -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
behalf of all purchasers of KV Pharmaceutical Company ("KV" or
the "Company") Class A Common Stock (NYSE: KV-A), Class B Common
Stock (NYSE: KV-B) and 7% cumulative convertible Preferred Stock
(Symbol: KVPHP or CUSIP: 482740305) who purchased the stock
between February 15, 2008 and November 12, 2008 (the "Class
Period").

     The complaint charges KV and certain of its current and
former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

     During the Class Period, the Complaint alleges the
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
about KV's compliance with federal regulations concerning the
manufacture and marketing of certain generic drug products as
well as the Company's current and future financial prospects.

     The complaint alleges these misrepresentations caused the
Company's stock to trade at artificially high prices.

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (ormdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


SOUTHWEST WATER: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Dec. 09, 2008 -- Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who purchased the
securities of Southwest Water Company ("Southwest Water" or the
"Company") between May 10, 2005 and November 7, 2008, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Southwest Water and certain of its
executive officers with violations of the federal security laws.

     On November 10, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that the Company's audit committee concluded that the
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2006
and 2007, and for each quarters therein, as well as for the
quarters ended March 31, 2008 and June 30, 2008, should no
longer be relied upon and would be restated to correct a number
of errors related to:

       -- the establishment of the rate of depreciation of
          assets acquired by acquisition; and

       -- the accounting for revenues and related costs
          associated with the installation of water and sewer
          taps.

     Upon the release of the news, the Southwest Water's shares
fell $2.97 per share, or 36%, to close on November 10, 2008 at
$5.25 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     No Class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com)
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          Phone: 212-697-6484


SOUTHWEST WATER: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec. 9, 2008 -- Kirby McInerney LLP announces
that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded securities of Southwest Water Company
("SouthWest Water" or the "Company") between May 10, 2005 and
November 7, 2008, inclusive, (Class Period).

     The Complaint charges SouthWest Water and certain of its
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.

     Among other things, plaintiffs claim that defendants'
material omissions and dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's business,
operations and prospects, caused SouthWest Water's stock price
to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on
investors. SouthWest Water provides water, wastewater and public
works services.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate the following:

       -- that in regard to certain acquired assets, the Company
          was improperly applying a rate of depreciation for
          financial reporting purposes that did not consider the
          length of time the assets were in service prior to
          being acquired;

      -- that the Company was improperly capitalizing and
         depreciating costs associated with installing water and
         sewer taps in Texas and Mississippi but recognizing the
         related tap fee revenue when received, instead of
         expensing the costs as incurred and recognizing the
         related revenue in the period the tap was actually
         installed;

      -- that, as a result of the above, depreciation expense
         related to assets acquired by acquisition since 2000
         had been understated on the Company's consolidated
         financial statements, expenses related to the
         installation of water and sewer taps in Texas and
         Mississippi had been understated, and certain assets
         and related depreciation were overstated;

      -- that as such, the Company misstated its financial
         results during the Class Period;

      -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared
         in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles;

      -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

      -- that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         statements were materially false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

     On November 10, 2008, SouthWest Water shocked investors
when it announced that the Company would be delaying the filing
of its Form 10-Q for the third quarter ended September 30, 2008.

     The Company revealed that SouthWest Water's audit committee
had concluded that the consolidated financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and for each of
the quarters therein, as well as for the quarters ended March
31, 2008 and June 30, 2008, should no longer be relied upon and
would be restated to correct a number of errors related to:

       -- the establishment of the rate of depreciation of
          assets acquired by acquisition; and

       -- the accounting for revenues and related costs
          associated with the installation of water and sewer
          taps.

     The Company disclosed that it would correct the errors in
its consolidated financial statements to bring them into
alignment with its rate filings.

     On this news, shares of SouthWest Water declined $2.97 per
share, more than 36%, to close on November 10, 2008, at $5.25
per share, on unusually heavy volume.

For more information, contact:

          Francisco Loya
          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 888-529-4787
          E-mail: floya@kmllp.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, 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  * * *