---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, October 20, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 208
  
                            Headlines

24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in Calif. Court
ANTHEM INC: Faces $500MM Ohio Suit Over Demutualized Shares
ARCHWAY COOKIES: Sued by Employees for Alleged WARN Act Breach
BARR PHARMA: Appellate Upholds District Court's Cipro Suit Order
COUNTRYWIDE: Accused of Strong-Arming Tactics in Wash. Lawsuit

FEDEX CORP: California Drivers' Lawsuit Remanded to Trial Court
FEDEX CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Freight Fuel Surcharges
FEDEX GROUND: Faces Owner-Operators' Multidistrict Litigation
FEDEX GROUND: Mass. Court Certifies Class in "Tidd" FLSA Lawsuit
FEDEX GROUND: Ninth Circuit Denies Review Request in "Wiegele"

FEDEX GROUND: Oct. 2008 Trial Set for "Anfinson" Suit in Wash.
FEDEX GROUND: Faces Suit by Drivers of Independent Contractors
FIRE MOUNTAIN: La. Overtime Suit Stayed Due to Chapter 11 Filing
GILAT SATELLITE: Faces Lawsuit in Jerusalem Over Planned Merger
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Suit Over Intel P4 Processors

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Calif. Suit Over Laserjet Color Printers
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Illinois Suit Over EEPROM Chip
HOMETOWN BUFFET: Awaits Cal. Court OK of $7.2MM Suit Settlement
HOMETOWN BUFFET: Labor-Related Litigation in California Stayed
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Void Early Termination Fee

RYAN'S RESTAURANT: W.Va Wage, Hour Suit Stayed Due to Chapter 11
STERLING JEWELERS: Faces Sex Discrimination Lawsuit in N.Y.
TRAVEL PARTNERS: Faces Fla. Lawsuit for "Defrauding" Consumers
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Ill. Judge Certifies "Silent PPO" Lawsuit
WESTERN SUGAR: Shareholders File Lawsuit in Colorado

YELLOW TRANSPORTATION: Condones Racism, Ill. Lawsuit Alleges

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CHINA SHENGHOU: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
ELAN CORP: Coughlin Stoia Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
PRIMARY FUND: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York Court


                           *********


24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in Calif. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda,
alleging it breached contract by creating new categories of gyms
not available to all club members without expensive upgrades,
closing older gyms and opening the new ones in the same
neighborhoods, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is an action to remedy defendant's illegal and deceptive
practice of:

     (1) refusing members admission to gyms that they are
         entitled to use; and

     (2) closing older gyms and re-opening "new" gyms in the
         same or nearby locations for the purpose of forcing
         members to pay for costly membership upgrades.

This class action is maintained pursuant to California Civil
Code Section 1781 and/or California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 382.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's membership contracts are "health
         studio services contracts" subject to the Health Studio
         Services Act (HSSA);

     (b) whether defendant offered membership contracts
         entitling members to use all clubs;

     (c) what the meaning of the terms All Club, Active, Sport,
         Sporting, Super Sport and Ultra Sport are;

     (d) whether defendant's practice regarding limiting the use
         of memberships violates the HSSA;

     (e) whether the conduct complained of is a breach of
         contract;

     (f) whether the conduct complained of is a breach of the
         implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

     (g) whether the conduct complained of constitutes a
         violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil
         Code Section 1770 et seq);

     (h) whether the conduct complained of constitutes a
         violation of the HSSA (Civil Code Sections 1712.92 et
         seq); and

     (i) whether members of the class have sustained monetary
         damages and/or are entitled to equitable relief, and if
         so, the proper relief.

Plaintiffs request for relief as follows:

     -- for actual damages of the class in an amount to be
        proven at trial;

     -- for treble actual damages pursuant to Civil Code Section
        1812.94;

     -- for order requiring defendant to make restitution to
        plaintiffs and the class and all other persons similarly
        situated and disgorging all earnings, profits,
        compensation and benefit obtained by defendant as a
        result of defendant's conduct in violation of Business &
        Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.;

     -- an order requiring defendant to give its all club
        members access to all clubs;

     -- an order requiring defendant to give its Active, Express
        or Sport members access to Sport, Sporting or Super
        Sport clubs; or

     -- in the alternative, an order voiding class members
        contracts; and

     -- any and all other relief just and proper.

The suit is "Trevor McCardle et al. v. 24 Hour Fitness USA,
Inc., Case No. BCO8414888," filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Michael Von Loewenfeldt
          Ivo Labar
          Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
          100 Spear Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1528
          Phone: (415) 371-8500
          Fax: (415) 371-0500


ANTHEM INC: Faces $500MM Ohio Suit Over Demutualized Shares
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio demands $500 million from Anthem
Inc., nka Wellpoint Inc. and the City of Cincinnati, claiming
the city got 870,021 shares of Anthem when it demutualized in
2001, though the plaintiffs should have got it, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

This is a class action brought under the Court's diversity
jurisdiction as expanded by the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, asserting state common law claims for breaches of multiple
contracts, conversion and misappropriation, aiding and abetting
conversion and misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duties,
breach of agency agreement and fraudulent concealment, and
seeking compensatory and punitive damages and other appropriate
relief.

The Plaintiff Class consists of individuals who were named as
insured persons covered under the Group Policy, or who were
members of a named group of insured persons covered under the
Group Policy during the relevant period of time.

This action seeks to recover the value of 870,021 shares of
Anthem common stock that should have been paid to the Plaintiff
Class as demutualization compensation in 2001 upon the
conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual company to a stock
corporation in a process referred to as a demutualization.

The demutualization compensation consisting of 870,021 Anthem
shares was improperly paid to and kept by the City of Cincinnati
instead.

Plaintiffs request that the court grant the following relief:

     1. Issue an Order certifying the case as a class action,
        pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure, and certifying the Class as
        alleged and defined herein.

     2. Order the City to provide the Class members with an
        accounting of the Anthem shares sold and the net
        proceeds received from the stock sale(s).

     3. Modify and/or reform the provisions of the Merger
        Agreement, PJAM, Anthem Insurance's Articles of
        Incorporation, Anthem Insurance's Amended By-Laws, the
        Group Policy, the Guaranty Policy for Current Groups and
        the Plan of Conversion to comply with and conform to
        Ohio law, including without limitation the provisions of
        R.C. 3913.20(B), 3913.22(A) and 3913.22(D), to reflect
        Plaintiffs' membership interests for demutualization
        purposes in CMIC immediately prior to the 1995 Merger,
        and their entitlement to stock compensation as CMIC
        policyholders under policies of group health insurance
        in the event Anthem Insurance demutualized.

     4. Order Anthem (n/k/a WellPoint) to specifically perform
        its obligations under Ohio insurance law and under the
        relevant agreements between its predecessors-in-interest
        and the City, and thereupon issue, distribute and
        deliver approximately 1.74 million shares of WellPoint
        common stock to and among the Class members to account
        for the 2-for-1 stock split that occurred after April
        2002.

     5. Grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in
        favor of Plaintiffs and the Class members in the form of
        Orders requiring Defendants, and each of them, to
        conform their conduct to the terms of the specific
        performance order prayed for above.

     6. Award Plaintiffs and the Class members compensatory
        damages to be paid by Defendants and each of them,
        jointly and severally, with respect to each claim for
        relief in amounts ranging between $54.7 million and $155
        million to be determined from the evidence in accordance
        with law.

     7. Award Plaintiffs and the Class members punitive damages
        with respect to the Sixth, Eleventh, Twelfth,
        Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Seventeenth Claims
        for Relief against Defendants, and each of them, jointly
        and severally, as the case may be, in amounts ranging
        between $150 million and $500 million to be determined
        from the evidence in accordance with law.

     8. Award Plaintiffs and the Class members their costs and
        expenses of this action, including reasonable attorneys'
        fees, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment
        interest at the maximum rate allowed by law.

     9. Grant such other and further relief as the Court may
        deem just and proper.

The suit is "Ronald D. Mell, Sr. et al. v. City of Cincinnati,
Ohio et al, Case No. 1:08-cv-00715," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Eric H. Zagrans
          Zagrans Law Firm LLC
          474 Overbrook Road
          Elyria, Ohio 44035
          Phone: (440) 452-7100
          Fax: (440) 914-9601
          e-mail: eric@zagrans.com


ARCHWAY COOKIES: Sued by Employees for Alleged WARN Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Archway Cookies, LLC allegedly violated federal and California
labor laws when hundreds of employees at company facilities in
Ohio, Michigan and California were abruptly terminated earlier
this month, according to lawyers for a former company worker who
sued Wednesday in Delaware federal bankruptcy court.

Former Archway employee Jeffrey Austen, who worked as an oven
operator at the company's Ashland, Ohio plant, filed suit on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated former employees.

The lawsuit seeks WARN Act-required wages, salary, commissions,
bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and
401(k) contributions, and other benefits that would have been
paid or covered during the 60-day notice period, and attorneys'
fees and litigation-related costs.

According to the Complaint, Archway Cookies, and affiliated
companies, were required by the federal Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification (WARN) Act to give at least 60 days
advance written notice of the employee terminations and continue
paying certain wages, salary, and benefits during the notice
period in accordance with federal law.

Mr. Austen is represented by Adam T. Klein, Jack A. Raisner, and
Rene' S. Roupinian, of Outten & Golden LLP, of New York; and
Christopher D. Loizides, of Loizides, P.A., of Wilmington,
Delaware.

The workers' legal team will seek to have the lawsuit certified
as a class action that includes all persons who were terminated
without cause at company facilities on or about Oct. 3.

Attorney Rene' S. Roupinian, of Outten & Golden LLP, stated, "We
allege that the Archway Cookies employees are entitled to the
protections of the WARN Act. We also believe that the reasons
given for the company's lack of advance notice -- the rising
cost of fuel and ingredients -- do not meet the WARN Act's
'unforeseeable business circumstance' exception."

Mr. Austen stated, "We were notified of the shutdown by letter
delivered in overnight mail. It's hard to believe that this 60-
year-old company just vanished. We should have been given more
time to prepare for the closing. Because of the WARN Act, we
hope that this lawsuit will force companies like Archway Cookies
to follow the law when it comes to their employees."

     The defendants are:

     -- Battle Creek,
     -- Michigan-based Archway Cookies, LLC;
     -- Mother's Cake & Cookie Co.;
     -- private equity company Catterton Partners Corp., which
        bought Archway Cookies and Mother's Cake & Cookie Co. in
        2005; and
     -- Insight Holding, Catterton's management group.

The case is "Jeffrey Austen, et al., v. Archway Cookies, LLC, et
al., Case No. 08-12323 CSS," filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware.


BARR PHARMA: Appellate Upholds District Court's Cipro Suit Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit has upheld the 2005 decision of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which
rejected a challenge to the lawfulness of a 1997 patent
litigation settlement between its wholly owned subsidiary, Barr
Laboratories, Inc., and Bayer Corporation related to the
antibiotic Cipro(R).

In announcing its decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed "the
grant of summary judgment by the District Court for the Eastern
District of New York that the Agreements were not in violation
of section 1 of the Sherman Act because any anti-competitive
effects caused by the Agreements were within the exclusionary
zone of the patent. We further affirm the court's dismissal of
the state antitrust claims."

"[The] decision clearly upholds Barr's assertion that our
ciprofloxacin settlement with Bayer was a valid settlement to a
patent suit and cannot be used as the basis of an antitrust
claim," said Bruce L. Downey, Barr's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer. "The Appeals Court specifically noted that
'settlement of patent claims by agreement between the parties--
including exchange of consideration--rather than by litigation
is not precluded by the Sherman Act'."

"This ruling provides additional legal precedent that will allow
companies to settle patent challenge cases under terms that are
both pro-competitive and pro-consumer," Downey added. "Barr
continues to defend itself vigorously in a parallel appeal of
the district court's decision by direct purchasers that remains
pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, as well as similar cases in several state courts."

In 2000, approximately 38 class action complaints were filed by
direct and indirect purchasers of ciprofloxacin in state and
federal courts against Bayer, Barr, and Barr's litigation
partners in the 1997 settlement.

All of the federal complaints were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In 2005,
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted summary judgment in the Company's favor.

Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.barrlabs.com/-- is  
primarily a holding company.  The company's subsidiaries, Barr
Laboratories, Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develop,
manufacture and market generic and proprietary pharmaceutical
products, respectively.  It operates in two business segments.
In the generic pharmaceutical segment, it manufactures and
distributes approximately 150 different dosage forms and
strengths of approximately 75 different generic pharmaceutical
products, including 22 oral contraceptive products that
represent the largest category of its generic product portfolio.


COUNTRYWIDE: Accused of Strong-Arming Tactics in Wash. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Idaho appraisers filed a class action against
Countrywide (NYSE: CFC) claiming the company used strong-arming
tactics to intimidate appraisers to generate reports in line
with Countrywide's business objectives.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, claims
Countrywide forced appraisers to use improper appraisal
techniques that benefit the lender and punished those who did
not participate by blacklisting individuals and companies for up
to a year, denying them work.

Countrywide, the largest home mortgage lender, has the reach and
influence necessary to affect an appraiser's business if they
fail to follow the company's guidelines, the suit claims. The
lawsuit claims Countrywide's actions caused substantial damage
to thousands of appraisers on top of distorting real estate
prices in the marketplace.

"The integrity of real estate appraisals is more important than
ever and time and time again Countrywide is showing its
customers and partners that it only cares about profits and
market control," said Steve Berman, managing partner at Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro. "The bottom line is our nation's at a
breaking point where we can't take anymore corporate dishonesty
in the home market -- role Countrywide's becoming notorious
for."

The lawsuit claims Countrywide's interest lies in property
passing appraisals its way, rather than determining whether an
appraisal is fair and accurate and in accordance with industry
standards (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
or USPAP).

"We believe if an appraiser doesn't 'play ball' with Countrywide
and produce a report affirming the value Countrywide expects, it
places the appraiser on its 'Field Review List,' or blacklist,
which it then sends to mortgage brokers who hire appraisers,"
said Berman.

As of Aug. 28, 2008, more than 2,000 appraisers appeared on the
Field Review List and Countrywide's been using the blacklist
practice for more than four years, according to the complaint.

The suit claims that to further complicate matters, any
appraisal submitted to Countrywide from a blacklisted appraiser
automatically goes to LandSafe, a subsidiary of Countrywide, for
review. LandSafe's role is to find problems within the appraisal
and reconfirm to Countrywide the report isn't accurate --
rendering it unusable because it doesn't fall within
Countrywide's guidelines, the complaint claims.

The lawsuit alleges LandSafe is a captive puppet of Countrywide,
enabling the lending giant to push its alleged unethical
business practices into markets across the country.

The complaint states the plaintiff, Capitol West Appraisers,
refused to succumb to Countrywide's alleged pressure to
compromise its integrity and independence and refused to commit
fraud and violate federal and state laws -- as a result the
company made the Field Review List.

Since appearing on the list, the complaint claims Capitol West's
business declined and revenues plummeted -- losing $8,000 a
month. The impact goes beyond appraisers and affects the
marketplace as a whole, further damaging the industry, leading
to overvaluations and distorting home prices nationwide, they
claim.

Capitol West filed the lawsuit on behalf of its business and all
other appraisers nationwide who've been placed on the Field
Review List. The lawsuit cites violations of federal law under
the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act
(RICO).

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman (206) 623-7292
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101  
          e-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com


FEDEX CORP: California Drivers' Lawsuit Remanded to Trial Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit against FedEx Corp. -- which determined
that independent contractors in its subsidiary, FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., are direct employees -- was recently
remanded to a trial court, after an appeal in the matter was
denied by the California Supreme Court.

The case, "Estrada vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.," is a
class action suit involving single work area contractors in
California.

In Aug. 13, 2007, the California appellate court affirmed the
trial court's ruling in "Estrada" that a limited number of
California single work area contractors (most of whom have not
contracted with FedEx Ground since 2001) should be reimbursed as
employees for some of their operating expenses.

The Supreme Court of California has affirmed the appellate
court's liability and class certification decisions.

The case has been remanded to the trial court for
reconsideration of the amount of such reimbursable expenses and
attorneys' fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
19, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of  
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Freight Fuel Surcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corp. and its subsidiaries are still facing a consolidated
antitrust lawsuit in Georgia federal court over freight fuel
surcharges.

In July 2007, a purported antitrust class action was filed in
California federal court, naming FedEx Corp. (particularly FedEx
Freight Corp. and its LTL freight subsidiaries) and several
other major LTL freight carriers as defendants.  It alleges that
the defendants conspired to fix fuel surcharge rates in
violation of federal antitrust laws and seeks injunctive relief,
treble damages and attorneys' fees.  

Since the filing of the original case, numerous similar cases
have been filed against the company and other LTL freight
carriers, each with allegations of conspiracy to fix fuel
surcharge rates along with other related allegations.

According to the company's regulatory filing, the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated these cases
for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single
federal court -- the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
19, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of   
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.


FEDEX GROUND: Faces Owner-Operators' Multidistrict Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a major service line of FedEx
Corp., is involved in approximately 50 class actions (including
21 that have been certified as class actions) that claim that
the company's owner-operators should be treated as employees,
rather than as independent contractors.

Most of the class actions have been consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.

With the exception of recently filed cases that have been or
will be transferred to the multidistrict litigation, discovery
and class certification briefing are now complete.

In October 2007, the company received a decision from the court
granting class certification in a Kansas action alleging state
law claims on behalf of a statewide class and federal law claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on
behalf of a nationwide class.

In January 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit declined the company's request for appellate review of
the class certification decision.

In March 2008, the court granted class certification in 19
additional cases and denied it in nine cases.  

The court has not yet ruled on class certification issues in the
other cases that are pending in the multidistrict litigation.  

Motions for summary judgment on the classification issue (i.e.,
independent contractor vs. employee) are pending in all 20 of
the cases that have been certified as class actions.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
19, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of  
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.


FEDEX GROUND: Mass. Court Certifies Class in "Tidd" FLSA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
certified a class in a purported class action against Fedex
Ground Package System, Inc., Adecco USA, Inc., and Kelly
Services, Inc.

The suit was filed on filed June 29, 2008 by Kristi Gruhn and
Richard Tidd, who are alleging the defendants denied overtime
compensation to them, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

On Sept. 17, 2008, the court conditionally certified a class
limited to individuals who were employed by two temporary
employment agencies and who worked as temporary pick-up-and-
delivery drivers for FedEx Ground in the New England region
within the past three years.

Potential claimants must voluntarily "opt in" to the lawsuit in
order to be considered part of the class, and the conditional
class certification ruling does not address whether we will
ultimately be held liable.

In addition, in the same opinion, the court granted summary
judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the
plaintiffs' claims for unpaid overtime wages under FLSA and
Massachusetts law.  

Accordingly, the conditionally certified class of plaintiffs is
now limited to a claim of failure to pay regular wages due under
the FLSA.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
19, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Tidd et al. v. Adecco USA, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-11214-GAO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Shannon E. Liss-Riordan (sliss@prle.com)
          Pyle, Rome Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          18 Tremont Street, Suite 500
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-367-7200
          Fax: 617-367-4820


FEDEX GROUND: Ninth Circuit Denies Review Request in "Wiegele"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied a
request by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. -- a major service
line of FedEx Corp. -- that sought a review of a lower court's
certification of a class in the matter, "Wiegele v. Fedex
Ground, et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01330-JLS-POR."

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on June 26, 2006.  It alleges that FedEx
Ground has misclassified the managers as exempt from the
overtime requirements of California wage-and-hour laws and is
correspondingly liable for failing to pay them overtime
compensation and for failing to provide them with rest and meal
breaks.

The plaintiffs represent a class of FedEx Ground sort managers
and dock service managers in California from May 10, 2002, to
present.  

In February 2008, the case was certified as a class action by a
California federal court, which ruling the company sought a
review of.

In April 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
denied the company's petition to review the class certification
ruling.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
19, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Wiegele v. Fedex Ground, et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
01330-JLS-POR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Janis L. Sammartino,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James Jason Hill, Esq. (jhill@ck-lawfirm.com)
          Cohelan & Khoury
          605 C. Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-595-3001
          Fax: 619-595-3000

Representing the defendants is:

          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          (barbara.miller@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan Lewis and Bockius
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: 949-390-3000
          Fax: 949-390-3001


FEDEX GROUND: Oct. 2008 Trial Set for "Anfinson" Suit in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An October 2008 trial is scheduled for the purported class
action "Anfinson v. FedEx Ground," which was filed in a
Washington state court against FedEx Ground Package System,
Inc., a major service line of FedEx Corp.

In general, the lawsuit claims that the company's owner-
operators should be treated as employees, rather than
independent contractors.

The plaintiffs in "Anfinson" represent a class of FedEx Ground
single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Washington
from Dec. 21, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2005, and allege that the
class members should be reimbursed as employees for their
uniform expenses and should receive overtime pay.

In January 2008, the suit was certified as a class action.  The
Anfinson case is scheduled for trial in October 2008.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
19, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of  
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.


FEDEX GROUND: Faces Suit by Drivers of Independent Contractors
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a major service line of FedEx
Corp., is involved in three purported class actions brought by
drivers of the company's independent contractors.

These independent contractors are claiming that they were
jointly employed by the contractor and FedEx Ground.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
19, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of  
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.


FIRE MOUNTAIN: La. Overtime Suit Stayed Due to Chapter 11 Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action -- alleging failure to pay overtime
deficiencies to restaurant servers -- that was filed against
Fire Mountain Restaurants, LLC, which was owned by Buffets
Holdings, Inc., has been stayed due to a Chapter 11 Filing by
Buffets Holdings, according to the company's Sept. 30, 2008 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended July 2, 2008.

                  Voluntary Chapter 11 Filing

On Jan. 22, 2008, Buffets Holdings and each of its subsidiaries,
including Buffets, filed voluntary petitions for relief under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, Case Number 08-10141.  

On Jan. 29, 2008, the official committee of unsecured creditors
was appointed in the Bankruptcy.  The company is continuing to
operate the business as a debtor-in-possession under the
jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of
the Bankruptcy Court.  

In general, the company a debtor-in-possession, is authorized
under the Bankruptcy Code to continue to operate as an ongoing
business, but may not engage in transactions outside the
ordinary course of business without the prior approval of the
Bankruptcy Court.

                      Louisiana Litigation

In August 2008, a putative class action was filed against Fire
Mountain Restaurants, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana, alleging failures to pay overtime
deficiencies to restaurant servers.  

The complaint does not make a specific monetary demand.  Prior
to an answer being filed, the contested action was stayed
pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code.  The liability related to this
matter, if any, has not been established.

Buffets Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.buffet.com/-- is the   
holding company of Buffets, Inc.  It owns and operates a chain
of restaurants in the U.S. under the names of Ryan's, Fire
Mountain, North's, Old Country Buffet, Country Buffet, HomeTown
Buffet, Granny's Buffet and Tahoe Joe's Famous Steakhouse.  The
company operates primarily in the family dining segment.


GILAT SATELLITE: Faces Lawsuit in Jerusalem Over Planned Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd., a worldwide leader in satellite
networking technology, solutions and services, reported that a
lawsuit and a motion for its approval as a class action
proceeding was filed in the district court of Jerusalem by eight
individuals and Israeli companies against the Company, all of
its directors and its 20% shareholder, York Capital Management.

The plaintiffs claim damages based on the amounts they would
have been paid had the merger with a consortium of buyers
closed.

Gilat and its outside legal counsel believe the claims are
outlandish and completely without merit, and that the lawsuit is
without basis. The Company intends to use all legal means
necessary to protect and defend the Company and its directors.
  
The plaintiffs did not make any demands of the Company nor did
they provide notice prior to filing their lawsuit.

As has been previously announced, Gilat notified the consortium
of buyers that had signed a definitive agreement to purchase the
Company that it was terminating the Agreement and Plan of Merger
entered into on March 31, 2008, citing the buyer's intentional
breach of the merger agreement and failure to close the merger.

The definitive agreement provides for a termination fee in the
amount of $47.3 million, payable to Gilat, in the event of an
intentional breach of the agreement by the Purchasers. The
buyers have rejected claims that the payment is due. As has been
previously announced, Gilat intends to use all legal remedies
available to it to enforce all of its rights under the
definitive agreement and collect this fee.

Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. (TASE:GILT) is a leading provider
of products and services for satellite-based communications
networks. The Company operates three business units:

     (i) Gilat Network Systems ("GNS"), which is a provider of
         network systems and associated professional services to
         service providers and operators worldwide;

    (ii) Spacenet Inc., which provides managed services in North
         America for businesses and governments through its
         Connexstar service brand and for consumers through its
         StarBand service brand;

   (iii) Spacenet Rural Communications, which offers rural
         telephony and Internet access solutions to remote
         areas, primarily in Latin America.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Suit Over Intel P4 Processors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. is still facing a purported class action in
California with regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s
Pentium 4 processor.

The suit, "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard
Co.," generally alleges that the company along with Intel,
misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged
material fact that systems that use the Pentium 4 processor are
less powerful and slower than systems using the Pentium III
processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel.

The company was joined to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004.  It was
initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California,
based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois
cases.

The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a
nationwide class.  

The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in
Santa Clara County, California.

The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on March 27, 2008, but granted plaintiffs' leave
to file a new motion for class certification, according to its
Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of  
products, technologies, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large
enterprises.  Its offerings span personal computing and other
access devices, imaging and printing-related products and
services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and
multi-vendor customer services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Calif. Suit Over Laserjet Color Printers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. faces a purported class action in California
that contains allegations that HP employs a technology in its
LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts down
prematurely, preventing customers from using the toner that is
stranded in the cartridge.

On June 6, 2007, a separate consumer class action captioned,
"Baggett v. HP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The plaintiffs allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers
that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the
cartridge after the printer shuts down.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of
purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

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

The suit is "Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al.,
Case No. 8:07-cv-00667-AG-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge Andrew J.
Guilford.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com)
         Kabateck Brown Kellner
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-217-5000

              - and -

         Darren T Kaplan, Esq. (dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com)
         Chitwood Harley Harnes
         1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900

Representing the defendant are:

         Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. (sliversidge@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000

              - and -

         Robert Particelli, Esq. (rparticelli@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         1701 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-963-5000
         Fax: 215-963-5001


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Illinois Suit Over EEPROM Chip
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. is still facing a purported class action
alleging violations of Illinois state law in its inclusion of an
electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM)
chip in certain of its LaserJet printers that prematurely
advises the user that the drum kit needs replacing.

The suit, "Schorsch v. HP," was filed against HP on Oct. 28,
2003 in Illinois state court.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint seeking
to expand the class from purchasers of drum kits to purchasers
of all HP printer consumables that contain EEPROM chips.

The most current amended complaint seeks certification of an
Illinois-only class and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

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

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of  
products, technologies, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large
enterprises.  Its offerings span personal computing and other
access devices, imaging and printing-related products and
services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and
multi-vendor customer services.


HOMETOWN BUFFET: Awaits Cal. Court OK of $7.2MM Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The $7.2-million settlement of a labor class action filed
against HomeTown Buffet, Inc., a subsidiary of Buffets Holdings,
Inc., has yet to received final approval, according to the
company's Sept. 30, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 2, 2008.

                  Voluntary Chapter 11 Filing

On Jan. 22, 2008, Buffets Holdings and each of its subsidiaries,
including Buffets, filed voluntary petitions for relief under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, Case Number 08-10141.  

On Jan. 29, 2008, the official committee of unsecured creditors
was appointed in the Bankruptcy.  The company is continuing to
operate the business as a debtor-in-possession under the
jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of
the Bankruptcy Court.  

In general, the company a debtor-in-possession, is authorized
under the Bankruptcy Code to continue to operate as an ongoing
business, but may not engage in transactions outside the
ordinary course of business without the prior approval of the
Bankruptcy Court.

                     California Litigation

On Nov. 12, 2004, two former restaurant managers of the of
HomeTown Buffet, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a class action suit in California
Superior Court in San Francisco County.  

The lawsuit alleges that HomeTown Buffet violated California
wage and hour laws by failing to pay all of its California
managers and assistant managers overtime, and for making
deductions from bonus compensation based on the company's
workers' compensation costs.  

In March 2006, the plaintiffs amended the complaint in the
lawsuit to add OCB Restaurant Co., LLC, as a defendant, and to
limit the claims to those managers below the level of restaurant
General Manager.  

In April 2006, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  

The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, penalties,
restitution of unpaid overtime and deductions, pre-judgment
interest, cost of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.  The
complaint did not make a specific monetary demand.

During the course of discovery, but prior to a motion for
certification of a class, the parties reached a tentative
$7.2-million settlement of the case in mediation in late
February 2007.  

The settlement, which anticipated payments of approximately
$7.2 million, received preliminary court approval on Sept. 12,
2007, but final court approval was not obtained prior to the
time that the Buffets Holdings filed for bankruptcy.  

The matter represents a pre-petition unsecured claim subject to
resolution under the bankruptcy proceeding.

The suit is "Tiffany, et al. v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., Case No.   
4:06-cv-02524-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James F. Clapp, Esq. (jclapp@sdlaw.com)
          Dostart Clapp Gordon & Coveney, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: 858-623-4200
          Fax: 858-623-4299

Representing the defendants is:

          Paul R. Lynd, Esq. (plynd@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Phone: 415-433-1940
          Fax: 415-743-6653


HOMETOWN BUFFET: Labor-Related Litigation in California Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action against HomeTown Buffet, Inc., a
subsidiary of Buffets Holdings, Inc., has been stayed due to a
Chapter 11 Filing by Buffets Holdings, according to the
company's Sept. 30, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 2, 2008.

                  Voluntary Chapter 11 Filing

On Jan. 22, 2008, Buffets Holdings and each of its subsidiaries,
including Buffets, filed voluntary petitions for relief under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, Case Number 08-10141.  

On Jan. 29, 2008, the official committee of unsecured creditors
was appointed in the Bankruptcy.  The company is continuing to
operate the business as a debtor-in-possession under the
jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of
the Bankruptcy Court.  

In general, the company a debtor-in-possession, is authorized
under the Bankruptcy Code to continue to operate as an ongoing
business, but may not engage in transactions outside the
ordinary course of business without the prior approval of the
Bankruptcy Court.

                     California Litigation

Originally, the suit was filed on April 2, 2007 against HomeTown
Buffet, Inc.. and Buffets Holdings, Inc.. in California state
court in San Bernardino County.

The lawsuit alleges that HomeTown Buffet violated California
wage and hour laws by failing to pay its hourly employees
overtime, for failing to provide meal and rest period breaks as
provided by the California Labor Code, and for charging
employees for uniforms and equipment.  It does not make a
specific monetary demand.

The defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on June 28, 2007.   

This contested action has likewise been stayed by Buffets
Holdings' bankruptcy proceeding.  It was in a preliminary stage
at the time of the filing and the pre-petition liability has not
been established.

The suit is "Charles Frank et al. v. Hometown Buffet Inc. et
al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00798-VAP-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Virginia A.
Phillips, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Matthew John Matern, Esq. (mjm@rastegar-matern.com)
          Rastegar & Matern
          1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100
          Torrance, CA 90501-2056
          Phone: 310-218-5500

Representing the defendants is:

          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. (rfliegel@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson
          650 California Street
          20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-433-1940


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Void Early Termination Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two former internet service customers of Qwest Communications
International, Inc. filed a multi-state class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. The lawsuit seeks to void a $200 "Early Termination
Fee" Qwest charges customers who cancel their service before the
expiration of a purported term commitment, generally of two
years.

The class, if approved, would cover Qwest customers in Arizona,
Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and
Wyoming.

According to the Complaint, Qwest surprises customers with the
ETF when they seek to cancel service. The documents that Qwest
provides to customers state that the arrangement is month-to-
month, but Qwest contends that customers orally agreed to the
longer term. When plaintiff Robin Vernon asked for proof of this
supposed oral agreement, however, Qwest was unable to provide
it. Plaintiffs claim that the supposed oral agreements are
unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, a long-established
principle of contract law that requires that agreements for
periods of over one year must be set out in signed writings.

"It is shocking that a company as sophisticated as Qwest says in
writing that customers have committed to only a month, next
tries to spring the supposed term commitment and ETF on them
when they wish to cancel, and finally inflicts debt collectors
on them when they refuse to pay a $200 fee that is not payable
according to Qwest's own written document," said Dan Bryden of
Sprenger & Lang, one of the attorneys for plaintiffs. "We are
interested in talking with other Qwest customers who have faced
similar surprises."

Plaintiffs also claim that the $200 ETF is unenforceable because
Qwest has not even attempted to estimate its actual losses from
early termination of a contract. The fee is the same, regardless
of whether the contract is terminated after one month or 23
months. Thus, according to the Complaint, the fee is
unreasonably excessive for many consumers.

The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of customers who were
subjected to the fee and an order from the court prohibiting
Qwest from engaging in the same practices in the future.

"Consumers deserve better from a company that touts itself as
the 'premier' provider of high speed internet service," said co-
counsel Beth Terrell of Terrell, Marshall & Daudt.

Added co-counsel Kimberlee Gunning, "$200 is a lot of money to
these consumers, especially in these tough economic times.
Qwest's penalties prevent consumers from changing to a cheaper
service or canceling internet service completely to tighten
their belts."

For more information, contact:

          Michael Lieder
          Sprenger + Lang, PLLC
          310 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 600
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
          Phone: 202-772-1159

          or

          Beth Terrell
          Terrell Marshall & Daudt, PLLC
          3600 Fremont Avenue N.
          Seattle, Washington 98103
          Phone: 206-816-6605


RYAN'S RESTAURANT: W.Va Wage, Hour Suit Stayed Due to Chapter 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action against Ryan's Restaurant Group, which
is owned by Buffets Holdings, Inc., has been stayed due to a
Chapter 11 Filing by Buffets Holdings, according to the
company's Sept. 30, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 2, 2008.

                  Voluntary Chapter 11 Filing

On Jan. 22, 2008, Buffets Holdings and each of its subsidiaries,
including Buffets, filed voluntary petitions for relief under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, Case Number 08-10141.  

On Jan. 29, 2008, the official committee of unsecured creditors
was appointed in the Bankruptcy.  The company is continuing to
operate the business as a debtor-in-possession under the
jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of
the Bankruptcy Court.  

In general, the company a debtor-in-possession, is authorized
under the Bankruptcy Code to continue to operate as an ongoing
business, but may not engage in transactions outside the
ordinary course of business without the prior approval of the
Bankruptcy Court.

                    West Virginia Litigation

In June 2006, a lawsuit was filed in the Berkeley County (West
Virginia) circuit court on behalf of three plaintiffs alleging
wage and hour violations against Ryan's Restaurant Group, Inc.,
and certain of its executives.  It is a class action brought on
behalf of hourly employees who worked for Ryan's in West
Virginia since July 2001.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, penalties, restitution
of unpaid wages and deductions, pre-judgment interest, costs of
suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.  The complaint does not
make a specific monetary demand.

In July 2006, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.  The
plaintiffs wanted to remand the matter back to West Virginia
state court, but their request was denied by the court.  

At the time of the Buffets Holdings' bankruptcy filing, the West
Virginia action was in preliminary stages and the company's
liability, if any, was undeterminable.

The matter represents a contested pre-petition claim that is
stayed pursuant to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Buffets Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.buffet.com/-- is the   
holding company of Buffets, Inc.  It owns and operates a chain
of restaurants in the U.S. under the names of Ryan's, Fire
Mountain, North's, Old Country Buffet, Country Buffet, HomeTown
Buffet, Granny's Buffet and Tahoe Joe's Famous Steakhouse.  The
company operates primarily in the family dining segment.


STERLING JEWELERS: Faces Sex Discrimination Lawsuit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Jewelers Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging sex discrimination in promotions and salaries, Ms.
Magazine reports.

The suit is filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and alleges that female retail employees were "denied
promotional opportunities for which they were qualified, and
[were] paid less than men performing the same work."

Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge a pattern and practice
of sex discrimination in promotion and compensation committed
against current and former female employees of Sterling.

Sterling's promotion and compensation policies and practices
allegedly caused female employees with retail sales
responsibilities, which includes store-based employees up to and
including district managers to be denied promotional
opportunities for which they were qualified and paid less than
men performing the same work.  Allegedly, the employment
policies and practices of Sterling have had the effect and have
been undertaken with the purpose of denying promotional
opportunities and equal compensation to qualified female
employees because of their gender.

This action is brought by current and former female Sterling
retail sales employees on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated women as a class action challenging pay and
promotion discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Right Act
of 1964, 42 USC Section 2000(e) et seq.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Sterling's common operating practices and
         procedures discriminate against its female employees;

     (b) whether Sterling's policies have had an adverse impact
         upon the class, and if so, whether such impact can be
         justified by business necessity;

     (c) whether Sterling has acted intentionally to deny equal
         opportunities to female employees to obtain promotions
         into and within management jobs and to compensate
         female employees less than similarly situated male
         employees in violation of Title VII;

     (d) whether Sterling invests its managers with excessive
         discretion in making promotion and compensation
         decisions; and

     (e) whether the class may obtain an award of damages and
         obtain injunctive and other equitable remedies.

Plaintiffs request that the court to:

     -- declare that the practices described in the complaint
        exist at Sterling and that they are unlawful;

     -- grant certification of this action as a class action on
        behalf of the proposed class and designation of
        plaintiffs as representatives of the class and their
        counsel of record as class counsel;

     -- grant certification of this action as a collective
        action and designation of plaintiffs as representatives
        of the class and their counsel of record as class
        counsel;

     -- issue a permanent mandatory injunction requiring that
        defendant adopt employment practices in conformity with
        the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
        1964, 42 USC Section 2000e, et seq.;

     -- award liquidated damages pursuant to 29 USC Section 201,
        et seq.;

     -- award back pay and other job benefits sufficient to make
        the plaintiffs and the class whole;

     -- award compensatory and punitive damages appropriate to
        the proof at trial;

     -- award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including
        expert fees, pursuant to 42 USC Section 2000e and 42 USC
        Section 201 et seq;

     -- award monetary damages and any other relief sufficient
        to make plaintiffs whole; and

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

The suit is "Laryssa Jock et al. v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc.,
Case No. 08 CV 02875," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Lynda J. Grant
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          150 East  52nd Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 838-7797
          Fax: (212) 838-7745
          e-mail: lgrant@cmht.com


TRAVEL PARTNERS: Faces Fla. Lawsuit for "Defrauding" Consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travel Partners and VIP Travel Reservations are facing a class-
action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida alleging it defrauded
consumers by promising them gifts, then refusing to deliver
unless they paid money and signed a "Contract for Purchase of
Vacation Certificate," the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is an action for damages for violation of Section 501.201,
et seq., Florida Statutes (Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act), breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
wherein the aggregation of claims exceeds $15,000, exclusive of
costs, interest and attorneys fees.

Pursuant to Rule 1.220(a)(1),(2),(3), and (4) and Rule
1.220(b)(3), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff brings
this class action on behalf of all individuals who attended a
group travel seminar with Travel Partners and VIP.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether plaintiff and the class received gift
         solicitation;

     (b) whether plaintiff and the class attended Travel
         Partners' group travel seminar;

     (c) whether plaintiff and the class received their
         Registration Confirmation;

     (d) whether plaintiff and the class completed their
         contract for purchase of vacation certificate and paid
         their $75;

     (e) whether plaintiff and the class selected their travel
         plans;

     (f) whether plaintiff and the class completed were provided
         with the vacation package offered by the registration
         confirmation;

     (g) whether plaintiff and the class received a refund of
         the their $75 deposit;

     (h) whether the actions and conduct of VIP and/or Travel
         Partners constituted a violation of FDUTPA;

     (i) whether plaintiff and the class have been damaged
         within the meaning of FDUTPA;

     (j) whether plaintiff and the class agreements with VIP
         and/or Travel Partners were identical or virtually
         identical;

     (k) whether VIP and/or Travel Partners were unjustly
         enriched by plaintiff and the class members;

     (l) whether VIP and/or Travel Partners breached their
         agreements with plaintiff and the class;

     (m) the value of the benefits of the vacation certificate
         vs. the value of the benefits of the vacation package;

     (n) whether the benefits of the vacation certificate were
         due to plaintiff and the class when they completed
         attending the group travel seminar;

     (o) whether VIP and/or Travel Partners invited plaintiff
         and the class to attend the group travel seminar;

     (p) whether VIP and/or Travel Partners owed plaintiff and
         the class an obligation of good faith and fair dealing
         with respect to providing the benefits under the
         vacation certificate;

     (q) whether VIP and/or Travel Partners have been unjustly
         enriched by failing to provide the benefits of the
         vacation certificate and/or the $75; and

     (r) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to recover
         their reasonable attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff demands relief as follows:

     -- certifying this action as a class action under Rule
        1.220 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- certifying the proposed class and any appropriate sub-
        classes, or a class as determined by the court;

     -- appointing named plaintiff as class representative;

     -- appointing David H. Charlip, Esq. and Charlip Law Group,
        LC as class counsel;

     -- damages in an amount to be proven at trial or other
        alternative procedure approved by the court;

     -- appropriate injunctive relief;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class the costs of this
        action, together with pre-judgment interest and
        reasonable statutory attorneys' fees in accordance with
        prevailing factors and considerations for determination
        of class counsel fees in the State of Florida; and

     -- any and all further relief the court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is "Barry Hikin et al. v. Travel Partners USA LLC, et
al., Case No. 084853,"  filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          David H. Charlip, Esq.
          Charlip Law Group, LC
          1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208
          Hollywood, Florida 33020
          Phone: (9854) 921-2131
          Fax: (954) 921-2191
          e-mail: dcharlip@charliplawgroup.com


TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Ill. Judge Certifies "Silent PPO" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel J. Stack certified an
Illinois only "silent PPO" class action that was filed on the
eve of the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act, Steve
Gonzalez of the Madison County Record reports.

Named plaintiffs Richard Coy and Frank Bemis, both
chiropractors, claim Travelers lowered payments to them by
claiming preferred provider organization (PPO) agreements, but
without actually performing any of the associated obligations to
those agreements using a practice known in the insurance
industry as a silent PPO.

According to the report, a PPO is a network of healthcare
providers which agree to offer preferred pricing in return for
receiving patient referrals. Preferred providers are also board
certified and credentialed in the community where they live and
work.

The chiropractors allege the defendants improperly withheld
payments from them and the class for valid insurance claims.

Attorneys Brad Lakin and Jeffrey Millar asked Judge Stack to
certify a proposed class of all licensed Illinois healthcare
providers whose reimbursements for medical services relating to
work comp claims since March 28, 1996 were reduced by Travelers
pursuant to a PPO discount.

In his Oct. 15 certification order, Judge Stack named The Lakin
Law Firm as class counsel and Richard Coy and Frank Bemis as
class representatives in the case against Travelers Casualty and
Surety Company and The Travelers Indemnity Company.

Travelers, represented by Troy Bozarth of Edwardsville, asked
the judge to deny certification because "this case is fraught
with predominating indivualized issues" which are contrary to
the principals of Avery.

The report said, that Travelers argued that in Avery the
Illinois Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that
certified a nationwide breach of contract case finding material
differences in just four contract forms defeated the commonality
and predominance requirement of the Illinois class certification
rule.

It also argued that Avery showed that Illinois consumer fraud
claims are inappropriate for class treatment because whether a
class member was deceived requires examination of what the class
member knew and believed when hearing or seeing the allegedly
improper statements.

Travelers said that Judge Stack would have to determine numerous
individual questions as to each alleged contractual
relationship, beginning with whether any contract formed between
the class member and them.

According to Travelers, Mssrs. Bemis and Coy could not fairly
represent the class because the record lacks any evidence that
they even contracted with them. In addition, Travelers argues
that both violated their PPO contracts by directly billing
workers compensation patients.

Judge Stack scheduled the case for a case management conference
in late November.


WESTERN SUGAR: Shareholders File Lawsuit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------
Western Sugar Cooperative is facing a class-action complaint
filed Sept. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, Shaun Evertson reports for the Lingle Guide.

The suit alleges that the Western Sugar board of directors
unilaterally changed the standard growing agreement in 2003, one
year after the cooperative acquired the company.

The complaint states that while the cooperative promised to "…
conduct the business…substantially as it has been historically
operated," changes to grower contracts in 2003 ended the
previous three-year term limitation and substituted a clause in
which growers agreements would be automatically renewed annually
at the sole discretion of the cooperative, and without provision
for termination of the contract by the grower, except as
approved by the cooperative. Previous contracts allowed growers
to elect not to grow their contracted acres so long as they made
timely notification to the company.

The complaint further states that the contract changes for the
first time allowed the cooperative to assess liquidated damages
to shareholders who failed to grow the acres they had contracted
for, and that the cooperative board of directors claim absolute
discretion to amend contracts without consent of the growers.

Luft Farms LLC -- a farm business in Logan County, Colorado, and
Alan and Connie Reuter, farmers in Phillips County, Colo. --
claim that the present contract only allows growers to terminate
their contract through selling their patron preferred shares to
a producer approved by the cooperative. Liabilities of share
ownership are so onerous, claim the plaintiffs, that they've
been unable to find purchasers willing to acquire them.

The plaintiffs claim that the unilateral contract change locks
them into a perpetual production contract they cannot terminate,
and that damages assessed for failing to grow contracted acres
exceeds the value of the shares they own. These liabilities
exceed the value of owning shares in the cooperative, they
claim, making difficult to find purchasers should they desire to
terminate their agreement with the cooperative.

In a Sept. 25 written statement, Western Sugar said, "The
Cooperative intends to vigorously defend against the claims in
that lawsuit. In doing so, the Cooperative will be supporting
the overwhelming majority of Cooperative Shareholders who
understand that they will prosper by working together and
keeping the promises they have made to each other."

The suit is "Luft Farms LLC et al. v. Western Sugar Cooperative,
Case Number: 1:2008cv02014," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado, Judge Wiley Y. Daniel, presiding,
with referral to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer.


YELLOW TRANSPORTATION: Condones Racism, Ill. Lawsuit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Fourteen drivers have filed a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
Yellow Transportation Inc., alleging it condones vile racist
aggression at its Chicago Ridge hub, including hanging of
nooses, Klan symbols, and written and spoken racist threats and
intimidation, the Courthouse News Service reports.

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 to correct
unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and to provide
appropriate relief to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs allege that Yellow Transportation has created a
racially hostile work environment by:

     (1) failing to respond to Plaintiffs' repeated complaints
         about nooses hung in the workplace, failing to
         investigate, and failing to take disciplinary action
         against those individuals who hung the nooses;

     (2) failing to respond to Plaintiffs' repeated complaints
         about racially hostile graffiti written on bathroom
         walls, failing to investigate, and failing to take
         disciplinary action against those individuals who wrote
         the graffiti, and

     (3) failing to respond to Plaintiffs' repeated complaints
         that coworkers used racial slurs, wore racially hostile
         clothing, and exposed racially hostile tattoos, failing
         to investigate, and failing to take disciplinary action
         against those individuals who used racial slurs, wore
         racially hostile clothing, and exposed racially hostile
         tattoos.

Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant has subjected them to
disparate treatment on account of their race by:

     (1) subjecting Plaintiffs to more stringent disciplinary
         action than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and

     (2) promoting Caucasian workers who had worked for less
         time than Plaintiffs instead of and/or before promoting
         Plaintiffs.

Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant retaliated against
Plaintiffs for complaining about the hostile work environment
and racially disparate treatment.

The drivers say they were punished for complaining of this by
losing medical benefits and being fired.

Plaintiffs sue on behalf of all similarly situated African-
American employees and former employees employed by Defendant
between October 15, 2004 and the present.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     a. Whether Defendant created a racially hostile work
        environment or failed to remedy and prevent a racially
        hostile work environment;

     b. Whether there was a disparity between when full time
        employment is awarded to Plaintiffs and when it was
        awarded to similarly situated Caucasian employees;

     c. Whether there was a disparity between the extent and
        gravity of discipline imposed upon Plaintiffs and the
        extent and gravity of discipline imposed upon similarly
        situated Caucasian employees;

     d. Whether Defendant failed to address Plaintiffs'
        complaints about racial harassment and discrimination;
        and

     e. Whether Defendant failed to give Plaintiffs benefits
        such as overtime work, desirable work shifts and
        inclusion in the gift-certificate program yet granted
        these benefits to similarly situated Caucasian
        employees.

Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the following relief:

     -- Certification of a Class consisting of all African-
        American employees employed at Defendant's facility from
        October 15, 2004, to present;

     -- Enter judgment that Defendant's acts and practices as
        set forth herein are in violation of the laws of the
        United States;

     -- Enter preliminary and permanent relief enjoining the
        discriminatory conduct and requiring Defendant to take
        steps to end its discriminatory practices and prevent
        current and future harm to Plaintiffs and the Class,
        including, but not limited to:

        i. Revised procedures which would require that
           Defendant's managers use fair and objective criteria
           when promoting employees;

       ii. Revised procedures which would require that
           Defendant's disciplinary procedures to be applied in
           a non-discriminatory fashion;

      iii. Implementation of a meaningful system of oversight to
           ensure that Defendant managers are using objective
           criteria to assign overtime, shift schedules, job
           assignments, and benefits such as hiring and
           promotions; and

       iv. Implementation of meaningful procedures to ensure
           racial harassment in the workplace is eliminated.

     -- Award Plaintiffs and the Class lost wages, including
        back pay for failure to promote, and any lost benefits
        that would otherwise have been available to the
        Plaintiffs and Class without the discrimination;

     -- Award Plaintiffs and the Class compensatory and punitive
        damages;

     -- Award reinstatement to class members who resigned due to
        race discrimination;

     -- Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action, including the
        fees and costs of experts, together with reasonable
        attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- Grant Plaintiffs and the Class such other and further
        relief as this Court finds necessary and proper.

The suit is "Charles Brown et al v. Yellow Transportation, Inc.,
Case No. 08CV5908," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Randall D. Schmidt
          Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic
          6020 S. University Ave.
          Chicago, Illinois 60637
          Phone: (773) 702-9611
          Fax: (773) 702-2063


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


CHINA SHENGHOU: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A Shareholder has filed a securities class action in the United
States District Courts of Southern District of New York against
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. (AMEX: KUN) on
behalf of a all persons who purchased common stock of China
Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. between July 23, 2007
through August 20, 2008 over allegations that the company issued
materially false and misleading financial statements in
violation of the federal securities laws.

According to the complaint on August 20, 2008, the China
Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. announced that its
previously issued financial statements for the fiscal periods
ended June 30, September 30, and December 30, 2007 and fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2008, should no longer be relied upon
and would be restated due to certain accounting errors, internal
control issues and related matters. This adverse announcement
shocked the market causing the Company's stock to fall
approximately 25%.

The complaint charges that China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical
Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act by issuing
materially false and misleading statements pertaining to CSP''s
business prospects and condition, and filing materially false
financial statements with the SEC.

The news from August 20, 2008 that the Company''s financial
statements must be restated caused the Company''s stock price to
fall dramatically damaging investors.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 20,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.


ELAN CORP: Coughlin Stoia Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Elan Corporation
plc (NYSE:ELN) publicly traded stock or American Depository
Receipts ("ADRs") during the period between June 17, 2008 and
July 29, 2008.

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

Elan is a neuroscience-based biotechnology company.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements about
bapineuzumab, a drug Elan was developing in association with
Wyeth for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose unfavorable results from a Phase
II clinical study of bapineuzumab that Elan and Wyeth conducted.
When those results were finally disclosed, the price of Elan's
ADRs plunged from $33.75 to $19.63 in one day.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Elan publicly traded stock or ADRs during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


PRIMARY FUND: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Landskroner - Grieco - Madden, Ltd. announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or held the shares of the Primary Fund
(Nasdaq:RFIXX) money market mutual funds offered by The Reserve
Fund during the period from September 28, 2007 to September 16,
2008, inclusive, including purchasers and holders in connection
with its September 28, 2007 offering.

The complaint charges The Reserve Fund, its parent and
affiliates and certain of its officers and trustees with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

The Reserve Fund is a cash management vehicle for institutions,
banks, brokerages, advisors and individual investors and is an
open-end, management investment company.

On September 16, 2008, The Reserve Fund announced with respect
to the Primary Fund 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 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.

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

     (a) 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;

     (b) despite the fact that many observers believed Lehman
         would be the next Wall Street failure after Bear
         Stearns collapsed in March 2008, the Fund continued to
         hold large amounts of Lehman commercial paper; and

     (c) the Fund's internal controls were inadequate to prevent
         defendants from taking on excessive risk.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
or holders of the Primary Fund during the Class Period,
including purchasers and holders in connection with the
Offering.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
September 18, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jack Landskroner
          Landskroner - Grieco - Madden, Ltd.
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 866/522-9500 (toll free) or 216/522-9000
          e-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.lgmlegal.com


                            *********

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

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


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *