CAR_Public/071120.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 20, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 230

                            Headlines


AMERICAN HOME: Allowed to Hire Allen & Overy as Special Counsel
APPLE COMPUTER: Calif. Court Junks Suit Over Options-Backdating
ATRAZINE CASES: Ill. Judge Yet to Decide on Dismissal Motions
AT&T INC: Hopes for “Hepting” Seen After Al-Haramain Suit Ruling
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Documents Supporting CA$600M Labor Suit Filed

GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Pontiac GTO Tires that Wear off Fast
GETRONICS WANG: Sued Over Federal, New York Labor Laws Breach
HEALTH NET: Sued Over “Unfair” Business Practices in California
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Still Faces OSB Antitrust Litigation in Pa.
MORTGAGE COS: OPFM Firms Accused of Keeping Borrowers' Money

NETFLIX INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Antitrust Suit
NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Securities Suits Consolidated in Calif.
NIKE INC: Recalls Helmet Chin Straps that can Break in Use
NISOURCE INC: Appeals $404.3M Judgment in W.Va. Royalties Suit
NISOURCE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Royalties Suit

NISOURCE INC: N.Y. Court Approves Royalties Lawsuit Settlement
OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Face Several Title Insurance Lawsuits
PELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Certification Application
PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers Want Abatement in Trojan Suit Lifted
PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Potential Suit Over Trojan Investment

PUBLIC SERVICE: Motion to Dismiss Transition Bond Suit Granted
RENT-A-CENTER INC: $3.6M Securities Suit Settlement Approved
ROBERT HALF: Cal. Court Stays Suit by “Inside Sales Persons”
ROBERT HALF: Account Executives, Staffing Managers File Suit
SHIPPING COS: Clamming Vessel Sues Over Cosco Busan Oil Spill

SOUTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Dismiss “Collins” Easements Lawsuit
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Suits in Pa., Ill.
TJX COS: Mass. AG Objects to Part of Data Breach Suit Settlement
UNITED STATES: AAFES Faces Suit Over “Treasury Offset Program”

* Italy Takes Step to Introduce "Class Action" to Legal System


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CROCS INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo.
FX ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
MICRUS ENDOVASCULAR: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit
SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Suit in Ariz.


                          *********


AMERICAN HOME: Allowed to Hire Allen & Overy as Special Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Wilmington has approved an application by American Home
(together with other affiliates in bankruptcy, The Debtors) to
employ Allen & Overy LLP as special counsel with respect to
certain regulatory securities and class action, effective nunc
pro tunc to September 7, 2007.

The bankruptcy court has overruled an objection filed by Kelly
Beaudin Stapleton, United States Trustee for Region 3.

     Application to Retain Allen & Overy as Special Counsel

James L. Patton, Jr., Esq., at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, related that the Debtors sought to
retain Allen & Overy as special counsel because of the firm's
significant experience in handling the types of complex disputes
to which the Debtors are currently a party.  Allen & Overy's
depth and breadth of litigation experience makes the firm
ideally suited to effectively handle the many disputes that have
arisen, and will likely continue to arise in the areas of
regulatory, investigative, and securities class action
litigation matters, Mr. Patton says.

The Debtors sought to engage Allen & Overy to:

  -- serve as counsel with respect to the Securities and
     Exchange Commission's inquiries regarding the company's
     activities immediately prior to and following its entrance
     into bankruptcy;

  -- handle issues arising with respect to other regulatory
     authorities, which issues may include, but are not limited
     to, the production of documents, interviews of witnesses,
     and the submission of factual and legal analysis; and

  -- to engage Allen & Overy in a number of currently pending
     securities class action litigations.

                     U.S. Trustee Objects

Kelly Beaudin Stapleton, United States Trustee for Region 3,
said that in the affidavit of Pamela Rogers Chepiga, a member of
Allen & Overy, supporting the application, Ms. Chepiga disclosed
that Allen & Overy currently represents Citibank and certain of
its affiliates in matters unrelated to the Debtors.

Ms. Stapleton noted that CitiCorp served as underwriter in
connection with the May 2007 public offering that is the subject
of securities class action lawsuits filed against the Debtors.  
Hence, she told the Court that she needed to receive additional
information regarding Allen & Overy's representation of Citibank
before making a judgment about its ability to meet the
requirement for employment under Section 327(e) of the
Bankruptcy Code.

Among the additional information that Ms. Stapleton sought were:

  -- the nature of Allen & Overy's representation of Citibank;

  -- the percentage of the firm's gross revenues, which are
     derived from representing Citibank; and

  -- whether Citibank has placed any restrictions on Allen &
     Overy's ability to take positions adverse to Citibank.

Ms. Stapleton further related that pursuant to the engagement
letter, the Debtors, going forward, are waiving any objections
to the firm's representation of adverse parties unless the New
York Code of Professional Responsibility requires their written
permission to consent to the representation.  

              Allen & Overy Becomes Special Counsel

The Court has approved the application pursuant to the terms set
forth in the amended engagement letter, nunc pro tunc to
September 7, 2007, provided that nothing in the order authorizes
Allen & Overy's employment in connection with certain securities
class action litigation matters disclosed in the application.  

However, Judge Sontchi has authorized the Debtors to employ the
firm in connection with the Class Action Litigation, nunc pro
tunc to a date to be determined by the Debtors in consultation
with Ms. Stapleton and the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors.

The Court also noted that if the Debtors seek to expand the
scope of Allen & Overy's employment beyond those set forth in
the application, then, the Debtors will have to file for a
separate or supplemental application on notice to parties-in-
interest, including the U.S. Trustee and the Creditors
Committee.


APPLE COMPUTER: Calif. Court Junks Suit Over Options-Backdating
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed a shareholder class action filed against Apple
Computer Inc. over improper accounting procedures, reports say.

Plaintiff filed the purported class action, "Vogel v. Jobs et
al." on Aug. 24, 2006 against the company and certain of the
company’s current and former officers and directors alleging
improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain
defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for those
grants and issuing false financial statements.

The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the company’s stock from Dec. 1, 2005 through Aug. 11, 2006,
and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act as well as control person claims.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the Court appointed the New York City
Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff.  On March 23,
2007, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
several classes of holders of the Company’s stock and asserts
claims under Section 14 (a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act as well as state law.  

The Consolidated Complaint seeks rescission of amendments to
various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an
accounting and damages in an unspecified amount.  

The Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint on June 8, 2007.  

This month, the court ruled that since Apple's stock price
didn't suffer, there was no injury to the shareholders, and thus
no basis for the lawsuit.

The ruling does allow the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint if they'd like to further clarify how the stock
options backdating directly injured them.  The order also limits
what type of claim the plaintiffs can include in any amended
filing, according to a report by Ars Technica.

The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
05208-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to
Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310/209-2468
          Fax: 310/209-2087
          E-mail: service@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Mary Sikra Thomas, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          1201 N. Market St., Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7000
          E-mail: mthomas@gelaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David Malcolm Furbush, Esq.
          O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
          2765 Sand Hill Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: (650) 473-2600
          Fax: (650) 473-2601
          E-mail: dfurbush@omm.com


ATRAZINE CASES: Ill. Judge Yet to Decide on Dismissal Motions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Knef of Madison County Record reports that after two years
under advisement in Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack's
court, six class actions against major chemical manufacturers
await action.

The Holiday Shores Sanitary District filed the suit in 2004,
alleging that atrazine runoff from nearby farms has contaminated
Holiday Lake, which provides water for the district.  The suit
also alleges that atrazine causes cancer.

Attorneys Steve Tillery and Courtney Buxner, representing the
district, argued that atrazine is broken down into “degradent
chemicals that are believed to be hazardous if consumed by
humans.”

The suit cites a study published in 2001 in "Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences" showing that atrazine caused
gonadal abnormalities in male African clawed frogs and another
the next year that showed similar abnormalities when North
American leopard frogs were exposed to low levels of atrazine.

The suit wants the district to be compensated for, among other
things, costs associated with a new charcoal filtration system
that would filter out atrazine "into the future until atrazine
no longer proves a risk."

The class action was filed against these six makers of atrazine
in the U.S.:

      -- Dow Agrosciences,
      -- Sygenta,
      -- Drexel,
      -- United Agri Products,
      -- Supcan Agro, and
      -- Makhteshinm Agan

The case was transferred to Circuit Judge Dan Stack in August
2005.  Since then, Judge Stack has spent much of his time
hearing motions to dismiss the case.  For months Stack has
indicated he is close to ruling on defense dismissal motions.

Ms. Knef's report noted a statement by Alex Avery, director of
research and education with the Center for Global Food Issues at
Hudson Institute in Virginia, saying there is no data to support
claims that atrazine is hazardous to human health.

Ms. Knef also noted a report issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency in October stating that atrazine does not harm
the reproductive health of amphibians.

For more details, contact:

         Korein Tillery LLC
         Gateway on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 300
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Phone: (314) 241-4844
         Fax: (314) 588-7036


AT&T INC: Hopes for “Hepting” Seen After Al-Haramain Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling by a federal appeals court in a suit over alleged
warrantless spying by the government into Al-Haramain Islamic
Foundation, an international nonprofit organization, bodes well
for a similar suit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
against AT&T, according to Timothy Lee of ars technica.

The U.S. Court of Appeals accepted an argument by the government
that a classified document -- inadvertently disclosed to the
Muslim charity accused of terrorist ties -- is still state
secret.  The document, according to the organization, proves
that the executive branch has been spying on their
communications without a warrant.  

However, in what Mr. Lee said a hopeful sign to the EFF's class
action, the court rejected the administration's argument that
the very existence of a surveillance program is a state secret.  
That suggests that the Ninth Circuit may be preparing the allow
EFF's lawsuit against AT&T to move forward, according to Mr.
Lee.  The Ninth Circuit had previously consolidated the two
cases, but has now separated them, finding that they raise
different legal issues.

In the Al-Haramain suit, though the appeals court rejected the
lower court's proposal to exclude the document itself from
evidence, it allowed members of the organization to testify from
memory regarding the contents of the document.  The case has
been remanded to the lower court for further consideration of
that issue.

EFF's class action against AT&T, "Hepting v. AT&T," was heard by
the Ninth Circuit on the same day as the Al Haramain case.  In
the suit, the government is similarly asserting that the very
existence of the NSA wiretapping program is a state secret.  
Judge Vaughn R. Walker rejected the argument last year.  That
matter is now before the Ninth Circuit.  

                   Case Background

Plaintiffs allege that AT&T Corp. and its holding company, AT&T  
Inc., are collaborating with the National Security Agency in a
massive warrantless surveillance program that illegally tracks
the domestic and foreign communications and communication
records of millions of Americans.    

The first amended complaint, filed on Feb. 22, 2006, claims that     
AT&T and AT&T Inc. have committed violations of:    

     -- the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution     
        (acting as agents or instruments of the government) by     
        illegally intercepting, disclosing, divulging and/or     
        using plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 109 of Title I of the Foreign Intelligence    
        Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 USC SS 1809, by     
        engaging in illegal electronic surveillance of     
        plaintiffs' communications under color of law;    

     -- Section 802 of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control     
        and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by section 101     
        of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act     
        of 1986 (ECPA), 18 USC SS 2511(1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d) and     
        (3)(a), by illegally intercepting, disclosing, using     
        and/or divulging plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 705 of Title VII of the Communications Act of    
        1934, as amended, 47 USC S 605, by unauthorized     
        divulgence and/or publication of plaintiffs'     
        communications;    

     -- Section 201 of Title II of the ECPA (Stored     
        Communications Act), as amended, 18 USC SS 2702(a)(1)     
        and (a)(2), by illegally divulging the contents of     
        plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 201 of the Stored Communications Act, as amended     
        by section 212 of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act, 18     
        USC SS 2702(a)(3), by illegally divulging records     
        concerning plaintiffs' communications to a governmental     
        entity and (7) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal     
        Bus & Prof Code SS 17200 et seq, by engaging in unfair,     
        unlawful and deceptive business practices.    

The complaint seeks certification of a class action and redress
through statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement and injunctive and declaratory relief.    

Since the filing of this complaint, additional class actions
have been filed in various jurisdictions that allege
substantially the same claims.     

The lawsuits have been consolidated under the jurisdiction of a
single court, namely the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of California.   

The suit is "In re National Security Agency Telecommunications
Records Litigation, MDL-1791" filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R.   
Walker.  Representing the plaintiffs are:           

          Cindy Ann Cohn
          Electronic Frontier Foundation
          454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110
          Phone: 415-436-9333 x 108
          Fax: (415) 436-9993
          E-mail: cindy@eff.org

          -- and --    

         Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com          

Representing the defendants are:

         Bruce A. Ericson, Esq.
         Jacob R. Sorensen, Esq.
         Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
         50 Fremont St., Post Office Box 7880
         San Francisco, CA 94120-7880
         Phone: (415) 983-1000
         Fax: (415) 983-1200
         E-mail: bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com
                 jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Documents Supporting CA$600M Labor Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing Dara Fresco, the lead plaintiff in a multi-
million unpaid overtime class action against CIBC, have filed
documents in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice which they
believe should persuade judges to certify the case as a class
action.

Douglas Elliott, Partner, Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor LLP and Louis
Sokolov, Partner, Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, filed testimony
from current and former CIBC employees across Canada describing
their unpaid overtime work for CIBC, which is similar to Dara
Fresco's complaint.

In June, Toronto bank teller Dara Fresco, sued the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of
10,000 current and former non-management employees across Canada
(Class Action Reporter, June 7, 2007).

Ms. Fresco, represented by Attorney Douglas Elliott, claims the
bank owes her about $50,000 for overtime work in the past 10
years.

The suit further alleges that CIBC assigns non-management
employees heavy tasks that are almost impossible to complete
within regular working hours and are discouraged to claim
overtime.

The action, which is considered to be the “largest unpaid class
action ever launched in Canada,” seeks approximately CA$600
million in damages.

"We have learned, through interviews with hundreds of current
and former CIBC employees that Dara's experience regularly
working overtime without pay is a common one across Canada,"
said Douglas Elliott. "We will argue that this strongly supports
certifying this case as a class action."

"I am grateful to my colleagues from across Canada who have had
the courage to come forward to testify in support of this case,"
said Dara Fresco, the representative plaintiff.

In addition to employee testimony, lawyers also filed evidence
from three experts who speak to the prevalence of unpaid
overtime in the Canadian banking industry, the lack of effective
enforcement of Canada's federal labour laws, and methods that
have been used for proving similar cases in the United States.

"The evidence is overwhelming that unpaid overtime is common
among Canadian bank employees and CIBC non-management employees
in particular. We will argue that a class action is the
preferred practical means to compensate the thousands of class
members for their unpaid overtime and to prevent these practices
in the future," said Louis Sokolov.

The statement of claim alleges that class members are assigned
heavier workloads than can be completed within their standard
working hours. They are required or permitted to work overtime
to meet the demands of their jobs and CIBC fails to pay for the
overtime work in direct contravention of the Canadian Labour
Code under which they are regulated.

In order to facilitate affected CIBC employees across Canada
joining this class action, REKO and SGM are working with Camp
Fiorante Matthews in British Columbia, Chivers Carpenter Lawyers
in Alberta, Kapoor Selnes in Saskatchewan, Myers Weinberg LLP in
Manitoba, Melanasson, Marceau, Grenier et Sciortino in Quebec
and Pink Breen Larkin in Atlantic Canada. Employees will have
access to local counsel to determine whether they qualify to be
a member of the class.

All lawyers now have current and former CIBC employees who have
asked to join the class action. CIBC is required to answer the
evidence now in the hands of the court by the end of March 2008.

Plaintiffs’ counsels are:

          Douglas Elliott, Esq.
          REKO LLP Barristers
          200 Front Street West, 23rd Floor
          P.O. Box #45
          Toronto, ON M5V 3K2
          Phone: 416 362 1989
          Fax: 416 362 6204
          E-mail: info@reko.ca
         
               -  and  -

          Steven Barrett, Esq.
          Louis Sokolov, Esq.
          Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
          20 Dundas Street West, Suite 1100
          Toronto, Ontario M5G 2G8
          Phone: 416-977-6070  
          Toll Free: 1-800-387-5422
          Fax: 416-591-7333


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Pontiac GTO Tires that Wear off Fast
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of
California alleging its Pontiac GTOs model years 2004-2006 are
equipped with oversize front tires that graze the struts,
resulting in uneven wear and premature tire failure, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Damon Mauro requests that the court certify this
case, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, on behalf of all current and former owners and
lessees of model year 2004, 2005 and 2006 Pontiac GTOs purchased
or leased in the State of Florida.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the subject vehicles are defective;

     (b) whether GM's conduct violated the FDUTPA;

     (c) whether GM breached its express warranty;

     (d) whether GM concealed the defect from plaintiff and
         class members; and

     (e) whether, as a result of GM's misconduct, plaintiff and
         the class members are entitled to damages, restitution,
         and equitable relief, and/or other damages or relief,
         and, if so, the amount and nature of such relief.

He prays for judgment providing the following relief:

      -- an order certifying this case as a class action and
         appointing plaintiff and his counsel to represent the
         class;

      -- restitution and disgorgement to the extent permitted by
         applicable law, together with interest thereon from the
         date of payment, to the victims of such violations;

      -- actual damages for injuries suffered by plaintiff and
         the class;

      -- to the extent that GM has continued to market and sell  
         the subject vehicles in the manner challenged in this
         action, an order requiring GM to immediately cease its
         wrongful conduct s set forth above, as well as
         enjoining GM from continuing to conduct business via
         the unlawful and unfair business acts practice
         complained of; an order requiring GM to engage in a
         corrective notice campaign; and an order requiring GM
         to refund to plaintiff and all members of the class the
         funds paid to GM for the defective product;

      -- reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of prosecuting
         this action;

      -- statutory pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and

      -- such other and additional relief as the court may deem
         just and proper.

The suit is "Damon Mauro et al. v. General Motors Corporation,
et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Mark F. Anderson
          Mattew Da Vega
          Kemmitzer, Anderson, Barron Ogilvie, & Brewer, LLP
          445 Bush Street, 6th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 961-2265
          E-mail: mark@kabolaw.com or matthew@kabolaw.com

          James E. Miller
          Karen M. Leser
          Shepherd,Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com or kleser@sfmslaw.com

          - and -

          James C. Shah
          Natalie Finkelman Bennett
          Nathan C. Zipperian
          Shepherd,Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com or nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com


GETRONICS WANG: Sued Over Federal, New York Labor Laws Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Getronics Wang LLC, which employs thousands of information and
communication technology (ICT) workers in the New York area and
elsewhere, allegedly violated federal and New York state labor
laws by misclassifying workers as exempt from overtime pay and
underpaying them, according to a lawsuit.

Former Getronics employee Kevin Hughes, of Rockaway Beach, N.Y.,
alleges in the lawsuit that Getronics misclassifies "desktop
support specialists" as exempt from coverage of the overtime
provisions of the FLSA and New York labor Law without reference
to the types of duties these workers performed.

According to the Complaint, "As part of its regular business
practice, the Defendant has intentionally, willfully, and
repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of
violating the FLSA and the New York Labor Law."

The law firms of Outten & Golden LLP, of New York, and Bruckner
Burch PLLC, of Houston, represent Hughes, and will seek to have
the case certified as a class action that includes "all persons
who work or have worked for Getronics as 'Desktop Support
Specialists' since Nov. 13, 2001. Hughes worked for Getronics
from approximately January 2006 through approximately June 2007.

Richard J. (Rex) Burch, of Bruckner Burch PLLC in Houston, said,
"We allege that Getronics failed to keep accurate records, that
these workers were not paid proper overtime wages, and that
Getronics' violation of the overtime laws was willful."

Justin M. Swartz, of Outten & Golden's New York office, said,
"This case could include thousands of workers, and we believe
that there are many similarly situated current and former
Getronics employees who have been underpaid in violation of the
law."

The case is "Hughes v. Getronics Wang LLC, (No. 07 CV 10356),”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

For more information, contact:

          Justin M. Swartz
          Outten & Golden LLP
          New York, 212-245-1000
          Website: http://www.outtengolden.com

          - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch
          Bruckner Burch PLLC
          Houston
          Phone: 713-877-8788


HEALTH NET: Sued Over “Unfair” Business Practices in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance litigator William Shernoff filed a class action
against Health Net Life Insurance Company, alleging that the
insurer's unlawful practice of retroactively canceling health
insurance policies has needlessly placed the lives of hundreds
of innocent policyholders in jeopardy.

The lawsuit comes one day after Health Net was hit by state
officials with a $1 million fine for lying to state
investigators this fall about its practice of setting goals for
cancellations and awarding bonuses to employees who rescind
individual policies.

In light of the fine, Mr. Shernoff, who has represented hundreds
of canceled policyholders over the past 2 years, has called upon
California Insurance Commissioner Steven Poizner to suspend
Health Net license to sell insurance. Mr. Shernoff said he will
also request that California state Attorney General Jerry Brown
explore the possibility of criminal charges.

"Many people who have lied to investigators have faced criminal
penalties," said Mr. Shernoff, the founding partner of Shernoff,
Bidart & Darras. "Maybe it's time state prosecutors get involved
in cleaning up this sordid practice of unlawful cancellations."

Health Net's efforts to mislead state investigators were exposed
last week when Mr.  Shernoff revealed internal Health Net
documents showing that the company set annual goals for its
employee handling rescissions investigations. In 2002, the
employee was given the goal of rescinding 15 policies per month.
If the employee reached the quota -- also identified in terms of
overall money saved -- the employee was awarded bonuses.

Mr. Shernoff submitted these documents to an arbitrator who is
hearing the case of Patsy Bates, a Los Angeles hair dresser,
whose health insurance was canceled by Health Net shortly after
she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Ms. Bates is suing Health
Net for lost coverage plus punitive damages to deter future
rescissions. The case is pending.

Mr. Shernoff, who represents Patsy Bates in a pending case
against Health Net, said that concealing information from state
investigators is tantamount to obstruction of justice.

"People from Martha Stewart to Barry Bonds have faced criminal
charges for lying to government investigators," Mr. Shernoff
said. "Fining Health Net $1,000,000.00 is like shooting a
slingshot at an armored tank. The amount is too insignificant to
address the serious nature of Health Net's actions."

Since 2001, Health Net has rescinded the individual policies of
more than 1,600 people. These rescissions have resulted in more
than $35.5 million in savings for the company. The insurer's
parent company, Health Net of California, has assets of more
than $1.8 billion, and is a subsidiary of Health Net, Inc, a
publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange.

Mr. Shernoff plans to use the performance evaluations in the new
class action to prove that Health Net's corporate practice of
rewarding employees for rescinding policies has threatened the
lives of everyone whose coverage has been wrongfully terminated
by the company.

The lead plaintiff in the class action is a Corona couple with
four young children, one of whom was born blind and with
Cerebral Palsy. After accepting the family's policy application
in 2003, Health Net rescinded coverage for the disabled infant
following year. Health Net justified the rescission by saying
the child's father, who filled out the application, incorrectly
stated the last menstrual period of his wife.

Mr. Shernoff said that Health Net's activities are just the tip
of the iceberg. He maintains that all insurers have been using
unlawful rescission practices to deprive people of health
insurance when they become very sick and need their coverage. In
cases against Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Shernoff has uncovered
thousands of rescissions that have put people's lives in
jeopardy.

Mr. Shernoff applauded state agencies for their recent efforts
to investigate the industry practice and said that these
lawsuits and the state investigations may bring an end to this
sordid chapter of canceling peoples' health insurance at a time
when they need it.

For more information, contact:

           Shernoff, Bidart & Darras
           Website: http://www.shernoff.com


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Still Faces OSB Antitrust Litigation in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. still faces multiple class-action
complaints filed on or after Feb. 26, 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the
company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

These complaints have been dismissed or consolidated into two
complaints as: “In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No.
06-CV-00826 (PD).”   

The first complaint is a consolidated amended class action
complaint filed on March 31, 2006 in which plaintiffs seek to
certify a class consisting of persons and entities who directly
purchased OSB from the defendants from May 1, 2002 through the
date the complaint was filed (the direct purchaser complaint).   

The second complaint is a consolidated amended class action
complaint, filed on June 15, 2006, in which the plaintiffs seek
to certify a class consisting of persons and entities who
indirectly purchased OSB from the defendants from May 1, 2002
through the date the complaint was filed (the indirect purchaser
complaint).

The plaintiffs, in both amended and consolidated complaints
described above, seek treble damages in unspecified amounts
alleged to have resulted from a conspiracy among the defendants
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices at which OSB is
sold in the U.S., in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
Rules 15 of the U.S. Civil Code.   

The plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser complaint also seek
similar remedies under individual state anti-trust and
competition laws as well as consumer protection laws.

The suit is “In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-
CV-00826 (PD),” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600
         E-mail: wbutterfield@cmht.com

              - and

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300
         E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq.
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq.
         James H. Schink, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144 and 312-861-2350
         E-mail: bechols@kirkland.com
                 jmutchnik@kirkland.com

              - and -   

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq.
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475
         E-mail: sswirsky@schnader.com


MORTGAGE COS: OPFM Firms Accused of Keeping Borrowers' Money
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm O'Keefe & Sher has added allegations to a suit it
filed on behalf of homeowners with mortgage-debt problems caused
by mortgage broker Personal Financial Management Inc. (OPFM
Inc.), Reading Eagle reports.

OPFM filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 18.  On Sept. 25, O'Keefe &
Sher filed the suit in Berks County court on behalf of more than
800 homeowners.  O'Keefe & Sher filed the suit against the
mortgage lenders, claiming they didn't follow standard banking
procedures when they did business with OPFM.  The case seeks to
void mortgages of 25 lenders named in the suit.  The company
allegedly brokered the mortgages without the knowledge of the
customers, who thought they were signing on for lower mortgages.

Recently, in a 29-page amended complaint filed in federal court,
attorney Joseph O'Keefe claimed that affiliates of OPFM, as
agents of the mortgage companies, did not turn over to the banks
nearly $30 million the customers had paid them, much of it
prepayments on mortgages, the report said.

Defendants in the suit are:

   -- ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc.,
      -- Chase Home Mortgage Corporation,
      -- Citimortgage, Inc.,
      -- Citicorp Home Mortgage Services, Inc.,
      -- Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
      -- Fifth Third Mortgage Company,
      -- Florida Capital Bank Mortgages,
      -- GMAC mortgage Corporation,
      -- GMAC Mortgage Asset Management, Inc.,
      -- GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc.,
      -- HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA),
      -- Indymac Financial Services Corp.,
      -- Moorequity Inc.,
      -- National City Mortgage Inc.,
      -- Nbank, NA,
      -- Provident Funding Group, Inc.,
      -- Saxon Home Mortgage,
      -- Sovereign Bank,
      -- Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.,
      -- U.S. Bank N.A., Wachovia Mortgage Corporation,
      -- Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc.,
      -- Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. and
      -- John Doe Mortgage Companies

U.S. District Judge James T. Giles in Philadelphia has granted a
request by the mortgage companies to move the case to federal
court (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2007).

OPFM Inc. operated as Personal Financial Management and Image
Masters Inc.

The suit is “Jone et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Corp. Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:2007cv04328,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge James T.
Giles.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph O'Keefe, Esq.
          O'Keefe & Sher PC
          15019 Kutztown Rd.
          Kutztown, PA 19530-9276
          Phone: 610) 683-0771
          Fax: (610) 683-0777


NETFLIX INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted a request that sought for a dismissal of a consolidated
class action alleging antitrust and unfair competition law
violations against Netflix Inc.

A customer, Dennis Dilbeck, filed the suit on Jan. 31, 2007.  It
alleges that the company violated antitrust and unfair
competition laws in seeking to enforce two of its patents
against Blockbuster, Inc. and other potential competitors, which
patents were allegedly obtained by deceiving the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.

It also alleges that the company's subscribers have paid
artificially inflated subscription prices because potential
competitors were allegedly deterred from entering the online DVD
rental market by the company's patents.

The complaint purports to be on behalf of existing and past
subscribers who allegedly would have paid lower subscription
rates but for the alleged anticompetitive conduct.  It seeks
injunctive relief, restitution and damages in an unspecified
amount.

Subsequently, two other consumer class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  
The suits are:

     -- “Melanie Polk-Stamps and Babacar Diene v. Netflix, Inc.,
        Civil Case C 07-01266,” and

     -- “Steven Dassa v. Netflix, Inc., Civil Case C 07 1978
        RS.”

Each of the suit alleged the same causes of actions and made the
same request for damages as those set forth in the Dilbeck case.

On March 17, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating all
of the class actions.  Netflix subsequently filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated case.

On June 14, 2007, the court entered an order granting Netflix’s
motion to dismiss but allowing plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint.

After conducting some discovery, the plaintiffs did not amend
their complaint and the parties requested that the case be
dismissed.  

On Oct. 22, 2007, the court granted the request that the case be
dismissed.

The suit is “Dilbeck v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00643-
WHA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California under Judge William H. Alsup.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Alan Himmelfarb Esq.
         The Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
         2757 Leonis Blvd.
         Vernon, CA 90058
         Phone: 323-585-8696
         Fax: 323-8585-8198
         E-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net

Representing the defendants is:

         Keith E. Eggleton, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100
         E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com


NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Securities Suits Consolidated in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. faces a consolidated securities
fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Initially, Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St.
Louis filed the suit on June 19, 2007, under the caption,
“Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.”

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the progress toward U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval and the potential for market success of
indiplon in the 15 mg dosage unit.

On June 26, 2007, a second purported class action with similar
allegations was filed in the same court.  That case was, “Gopal
Batra, Ph.D. v. Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.”

On Oct. 16, 2007, both purported class action lawsuits were
consolidated into one action under the caption, “In re
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, 07-cv-1111-
IEG-RBB.”

The court also selected a lead plaintiff and ordered the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint within 45 days of
Oct. 16, 2007.

The suit is “In re Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 07-cv-1111-IEG-RBB,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California under Judge Irma
E. Gonzalez.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Phone: 619.231.1058
          Fax: 619.231.7423


NIKE INC: Recalls Helmet Chin Straps that can Break in Use
----------------------------------------------------------
Nike Inc., of Beaverton, Ore., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling
about 235,000 football helmet chin straps.

The company said the chin strap's plastic cup can break as a
result of contact, exposing the player to facial or head
injuries.

Nike has received 18 reports of the chin strap breaking,
including two reports of concussions, two reports of facial
lacerations requiring stitches, and a report of a broken nose.

The recalled football helmet chin strap consists of a plastic
cup with a foam liner, straps and four metal snaps. They were
sold in both youth and adult sizes and come in black/gray and
white/gray color combinations. The Nike Swoosh trademark is
printed on the outside of the chin cup and DRI-FIT(tm) is
printed on the foam liner. "Made in China" and one of the
following four style numbers is printed on the inside of the
strap: FA0016 046, FA0016 130, FA0021 046, or FA0021 130.

The chin straps were made in China and sold at sporting good
stores nationwide and on the firm's Web site http://www.Nike.com
from April 2006 through October 2007 for about $20.

Consumers should stop using the chin strap immediately and
contact Nike for a product voucher redeemable at
http://www.nikestore.com

For additional information, contact Nike toll-free at
(888) 583-6453 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.nikebiz.com

    
NISOURCE INC: Appeals $404.3M Judgment in W.Va. Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource, Inc. is appealing to the West Virginia Supreme Court
of Appeals a $404.3 million judgment handed out by a West
Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County jury in the purported
class action, “Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.”

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in early 2003 against Columbia
Natural Resources (CNR) alleging that CNR underpaid royalties on
gas produced on their land by improperly deducting post-
production costs and not paying a fair value for the gas.  They
also claimed that the defendants fraudulently concealed the
deduction of post-production charges.

In December 2004, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to add
NiSource, Inc. and Columbia Energy Group as defendants.  CNR is
a former NiSource subsidiary, which was sold in 2003.

Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated
to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages
ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs.

On Jan. 27, 2007, the jury hearing the case returned a verdict
against all defendants in the amount of $404.3 million; this is
comprised of $134.3 million in compensatory damages and $270
million in punitive damages.

On Sept. 25, 2007, the Court issued an order which appears to
also be its final, appealable judgment.  The defendants can now
perfect their appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals, which may or may not accept the appeal, according to
the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.,” filed in West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County
under Judge Thomas Evans III.

Representing the plaintiffs is:
       
         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St., P.O. Box 1791         
         Charleston, West Virginia 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


NISOURCE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has
yet to rule on motions seeking a dismissal of the purported
class action, “John Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake Appalachia,
L.L.C.,” which names NiSource, Inc., as a defendant.

On Feb. 8, 2007, John Thacker filed the purported class action,
alleging that Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. failed to pay
royalty owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of
their oil and gas leases covering real property located within
the state of Kentucky.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2007, which,
among other things, added NiSource, Inc. as a defendant.  

All of the defendants’ motions to dismiss have been fully
briefed and await a ruling by the court.

The company reported no development in the matter on its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Case No.
7:07-cv-00026-GFVT,” filed in the U.S. District Court of the
Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge Gregory F. Van
Tatenhove.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Thomas E. Meng, Esq.
         Stites & Harbison PLLC
         250 W. Main Street, 2300 Lexington Financial Center
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-226-2300
         Fax: 859-425-7902
         E-mail: tmeng@stites.com


NISOURCE INC: N.Y. Court Approves Royalties Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chautauqua County Court, New York approved a settlement of a
purported class action over royalty payments filed against
subsidiaries of NiSource, Inc., according to the company's Nov.
2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Vivian K. Kershaw filed the suit on behalf of people who own an
interest in oil and gas leases.

Ms. Kershaw originally filed the complaint in 2000 against:

     -- Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., a former subsidiary;
     -- Columbia Transmission Corp.;
     -- Columbia Energy Corp.; and
     -- Columbia Energy Resources, Inc.  

The complaint alleged that plaintiffs own an interest in oil and
gas leases in New York and that the defendants have underpaid
royalties on those leases by, among other things, failing to
base royalties on the price at which natural gas is sold to the
end-user and by improperly deducting post-production costs.

Plaintiffs sought the alleged royalty underpayment and punitive
damages.  The complaint also sought class-action status on
behalf of all royalty owners in oil and gas leases owned by the
defendants.  

The parties filed a settlement agreement with the court which
the court approved.  The time for appeal expired on Nov. 2,
2007.

NiSource Inc. -- http://www.nisource.com/-- is an energy  
holding company whose subsidiaries provide natural gas,
electricity and other products and services to approximately 3.8
million customers located within a corridor that runs from the
Gulf Coast through the Midwest to New England.  


OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Face Several Title Insurance Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC), a principal
title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp.,
stills faces several class actions over title insurance in
Connecticut, New Jersey and Ohio, and Pennsylvania, according to
the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The company faces purported class action in state courts in
Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.  In
general, plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules
filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state
insurance regulators, ORNTIC was required to, but failed to give
consumers reissue credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions.   

Substantially similar lawsuits are also pending against other
unaffiliated title insurance companies in these and other states
as well.  

The actions seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/  
-- is an insurance holding company.  The Company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance
segments.  


PELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Certification Application
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telecom Paper is reporting that Israeli mobile operator
Pelephone Communications has received a financial claim and
application for certification as a class action filed in the
District Court of Tel-Aviv.  It's unclear whether Telephone
Paper is reporting about a new lawsuit or making reference to
previously disclosed mobile phone telephone number portability
litigation.  

In a Form 6-K posted at
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1096691/00011789130700209
8/zk74262.htm and dated Oct. 9, 2007, Partner Communications
disclosed:

"On January 25, 2007 a claim of NIS10.61 billion ($2.7 billion),
together with a request for a certification as a class action,
were filed against [Partner Communications Co., Ltd.,] Bezeq –
The Israeli Telecommunication Co. Ltd., Hot Cable Systems Media
Ltd., Cellcom Israel Ltd., Pelephone Communications Ltd.

"The claim is that the defendants have not implemented number
portability and are in violation of the Communication Law,
mandating the implementation of telephone number portability on
September 1, 2006. It is claimed that the defendants are thus
harming the claimants and consumers of telephone services in
general.

"The claimants are demanding NIS1,000 ($254) for each customer
and relate to the Company (a total of 2,626,000 customers). The
claimants reserve their right to increase the amount of the
lawsuit as long as the claimed violation continues."

Cellcom Israel, Ltd., stated at its latest Form 20-F posted at  
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385145/00009501030700062
4/dp04983e_20f.htm that in December 2002, a purported class
action was filed against Pelephone and the company in the
District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa in connection with incoming
call tariff to subscribers of other operators when calling our
subscribers during the period before the regulation of
interconnect fees.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS1.6 billion ($407
million).


PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers Want Abatement in Trojan Suit Lifted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electric service customers who are plaintiffs in two class
actions against Portland General Electric Co. are asking the
Marion County Circuit Court to lift the Order of Abatement it
issued in the matter.

On Jan. 17, 2003, two class actions were filed in Marion County
Circuit Court against Portland General on behalf of two classes
of electric service customers.

The suits are:

      -- “Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland
         General Electric Co., Marion County Circuit Court,
         Case No. 03C 10639;” and

      -- “Morgan v. Portland General Electric Co., Marion
         County Circuit Court, Case No. 03C 10640.”

The Dreyer case seeks to represent current Portland General
customers that were customers during the period from April 1,
1995 to Oct. 1, 2001 (Current Class) and the Morgan case seeks
to represent Portland General customers that were customers
during the period from April 1, 1995 to Oct. 1, 2001, but who
are no longer customers (Former Class, together with the Current
Class, the Class Action Plaintiffs).  

The suits seek damages of $190 million for the Current Class and
$70 million for the Former Class, from the inclusion of a return
on investment of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in the rates Portland
General charges its customers.

On April 28, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and on July 30, 2004, Portland General also
moved for Summary Judgment in its favor on all of class action
plaintiffs' claims.

On Dec. 14, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and partial summary judgment and denied
Portland General's motion for summary judgment.  Portland
General filed for an interlocutory appeal, which was rejected on
Feb. 1, 2005.

On March 3, 2005, Portland General filed a Petition for a Writ
of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court asking the Court to
take jurisdiction and command the trial judge to dismiss the
complaints or to show cause why they should not be dismissed.

On March 29, 2005, Portland General filed a second petition for
an Alternative Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court
seeking to overturn the class certification.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling on
Portland General's Petitions for Alternative Writ of Mandamus
abating these class action proceedings.

On Oct. 5, 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court issued an Order
of Abatement in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme
Court, abating the class actions for one year.

On Oct. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the
abatement.  PGE's response was due on Nov. 5, 2007.

Portland General Electric Co. -- http://www.portlandgeneral.com
-- is a single, integrated electric utility engaged in the
generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail
sale of electricity in the State of Oregon.  PGE also sells
electricity and natural gas in the wholesale market to utilities
and power marketers located throughout the western U.S.

    
PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Potential Suit Over Trojan Investment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Co. was served with a Notice of
Potential Class Action Lawsuit for Damages and Demand to Rectify
Damages from counsel representing Frank Gearhart, David Kafoury
and Kafoury Brothers, LLC (Potential Plaintiffs) stating that
Potential Plaintiffs intend to bring a class action  against the
Company.

The notice was received by the company on Feb. 14, 2005.  The
Potential Plaintiffs allege that for the period from Oct. 1,
2000 to the present, the Company's electricity rates have
included unlawful charges for a return on investment in Trojan
in an amount in excess of $100 million.

Under Oregon law, there is no requirement as to the time the
lawsuit must be filed following the 30-day notice period.  No
action has been filed to date, according to the company's Nov.
2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Portland General Electric Co. -- http://www.portlandgeneral.com
-- is a single, integrated electric utility engaged in the
generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail
sale of electricity in the State of Oregon.  PGE also sells
electricity and natural gas in the wholesale market to utilities
and power marketers located throughout the western U.S.


PUBLIC SERVICE: Motion to Dismiss Transition Bond Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted a request by Public Service Electric & Gas
Co. (PSE&G) to dismiss a class-action complaint filed against
the company in relation to a transition bond that the company
charges its customers.

On April 23, 2007, PSE&G and PSE&G Transition Funding LLC were
served with a copy of a purported class-action complaint
challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of
New Jersey’s Competition Act, seeking injunctive relief against
continued collection from PSE&G’s electric customers of the
transition bond charge (TBC) of PSE&G Transition Funding, as
well as recovery of TBC amounts previously collected.

Notice of the filing of the Complaint was also provided to New
Jersey’s Attorney General.  Under New Jersey law, the
Competition Act, enacted in 1999, is presumed constitutional.

On July 9, 2007, the same plaintiff filed an amended complaint
to also seek injunctive relief from continued collection of
related taxes as well as recovery of such taxes previously
collected and also filed a petition with BPU, requesting review
and adjustment to PSE&G’s recovery of the same charges.  

PSE&G and Transition Funding filed a motion to dismiss the
amended Complaint (or in the alternative for summary judgment)
on July 30, 2007 and PSE&G filed on Sept. 30, 2007 a motion with
the BPU to dismiss the petition.

On Oct. 10, 2007, PSE&G and Transition Funding’s motion to
dismiss was granted.  PSE&G’s motion to dismiss the BPU petition
is pending.

Public Service Electric and Gas Co. -- http://www.pseg.com/--  
is an operating public utility company engaged principally in
the transmission and distribution of electric energy and gas in
New Jersey.  


RENT-A-CENTER INC: $3.6M Securities Suit Settlement Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas gave
preliminary approval to a settlement of a purported securities
fraud class action filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc. and certain
of its current and former officers and directors, according to
the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

                         Case Background

Filed on Jan. 4, 2002, the putative class action, “Terry Walker,
et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.,” alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and
omitting material facts regarding the company's financial
performance and prospects for the third and fourth quarters of
2001 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007).

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's common stock from April 25, 2001
through Oct. 8, 2001 and sought damages in unspecified amounts.
The court later consolidated similar complaints with the
“Walker” suit in October 2002.

On Nov. 25, 2002, the lead plaintiffs in the “Walker” suit filed
an amended consolidated complaint, which added certain of the
company's outside directors as defendants to the Exchange Act
claims.

The amended complaint also added additional claims that the
company, and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, violated various provisions of the Securities Act as
a result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with an offering in May 2001 and also added the
managing underwriters in that offering as defendants.

On Feb. 7, 2003, the company, along with certain officer and
director defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the matter as
well as a motion to transfer venue.

In addition, the company's outside directors named in the matter
separately filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims
on statute of limitations grounds.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the underwriter defendants also filed a motion
to dismiss the matter.  The plaintiffs filed response briefs to
these motions, to which the company replied on May 21, 2003.  A
hearing was held by the court on June 26, 2003 to hear each of
these motions.

On Sept. 30, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss without prejudice, dismissed without prejudice the
outside directors' and underwriters' separate motions to dismiss
and denied the company's motion to transfer venue.

In its order on the motions to dismiss, the Court granted the
lead plaintiffs leave to replead the case within certain
parameters.

On July 7, 2004, the plaintiffs again repled their claims by
filing a third amended consolidated complaint, raising
allegations of similar violations against the same parties
generally based upon alleged facts not previously asserted.

The company, along with certain officer and director defendants
and the underwriter defendants, filed motions to dismiss the
third amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 23, 2004.  A
hearing on the motions was held on April 14, 2005.

On July 25, 2005, the court ruled on these motions, dismissing
with prejudice the claims against the outside directors as well
as the underwriter defendants, but denying the company's motion
to dismiss.

In evaluating this motion to dismiss, the court was required to
view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs
and to take the plaintiffs' allegations as true.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the company filed a motion to certify the
dismissal order for an interlocutory appeal, which was denied on
Nov. 14, 2005.

A hearing on class certification was held on June 22, 2006.  The
court has made no ruling on the motion for class certification.
Discovery is ongoing.

                           Settlement

On Oct. 29, 2007, the company announced that it had reached a
prospective settlement with the plaintiffs to resolve “Terry
Walker, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.,” a putative class
action filed in federal court in Texarkana, Texas, alleging that
the company violated various federal securities laws.

Under the terms of the settlement, which has now been documented
and was preliminarily approved by the court on Oct. 31, 2007,
the company anticipate its insurance carrier will pay an
aggregate of $3.6 million in cash, which will be distributed to
an agreed upon class of claimants who purchased the company's
common stock from April 25, 2001 through Oct. 8, 2001, as well
as used to pay costs of notice and settlement administration,
and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses.

The suit is "Walker, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, et al., Case No.
5:02-cv-00003-DF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bradley Earl Beckworth, Esq.
         Nix Patterson & Roach
         205 Linda Drive
         Daingerfield, TX 75638,
         Phone: 903-645-7333
         Fax: 19036454415
         E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlawfirm.com

              - and -

         Thomas Emerson Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner & Bilek, LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 17132279404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Anne Marie Rodgers, Esq.
         Darryl Wade Anderson, Esq.
         Fulbright & Jaworski, 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100,
         Houston, TX 77010-3095
         Phone: 713/651-5473
         Fax: 713-651-6652 and 17136515246
         E-mail: arodgers@fulbright.com
                 danderson@fulbright.com


ROBERT HALF: Cal. Court Stays Suit by “Inside Sales Persons”
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
stayed a lawsuit over unpaid overtime that was filed against
Robert Half International, Inc., according to its Nov. 2, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

On Aug. 9, 2005, plaintiff Lizette Greene, on behalf of herself
and a putative class of salaried “inside sales persons,” filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California naming the Company and three of its wholly owned
subsidiaries as Defendants.  

On Dec. 1, 2005, the Plaintiff amended the Complaint.  The
Amended Complaint alleges that purported “inside sales persons”
based in California have been misclassified under federal law as
exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid
overtime pay alleged to be due to them had they been paid as
non-exempt, hourly employees.

In addition, the Plaintiff also makes two claims under the
California Private Attorney Generals Act seeking an unspecified
amount for statutory penalties for alleged violations of the
California Labor Code arising from the alleged misclassification
of these employees as exempt employees.

Plaintiff also makes a claim under California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 for a putative nation wide class
of purported “inside sales persons.”

On Dec. 22, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
certification of their federal claims in which they seek to
represent a class of salaried employees who worked for the
Company and certain of its subsidiaries in California within
three years before the complaint was filed and seeking
permission to mail class members a notice regarding their right
to opt into the case as plaintiffs.

On June 7, 2007, the Court stayed this litigation pending
resolution of a litigation filed in the California Superior
Court against the company by Mark Laffitte.

The suit is “Greene v. Robert Half International Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03248-SC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California under Judge Samuel Conti.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Mark Andrew Chavez, Esq.
         Chavez & Gertler LLP
         42 Miller Avenue
         Mill Valley, CA 93941
         Phone: 415-381-5599
         Fax: 415-381-5572
         E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr., Esq.
         Seyfarth Shaw LLP
         560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-397-2823
         Fax: 415-397-8549
         E-mail: gdiekmann@seyfarth.com


ROBERT HALF: Account Executives, Staffing Managers File Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Half International, Inc., along with its subsidiaries
face a purported class action in California over unpaid
overtime, according to its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

On Sept. 24, 2007, Plaintiff Van Williamson, on behalf of
himself and a putative class of salaried Account Executives (AE)
and Staffing Managers (SM), filed a complaint in California
Superior Court naming the Company and three of its wholly owned
subsidiaries as Defendants.

The complaint alleges that salaried Account Executives and
Staffing Managers based in California were not provided meal
periods, paid rest periods, and accurate itemized wage
statements.

It seeks one hour of wages for each employee for each meal and
rest period missed during the statutory liability period.  

It also seeks an unspecified amount for statutory penalties for
alleged violations of the California Labor Code arising from the
alleged failure to provide the meal and rest periods and
accurate itemized wage statements.

The allegations in the complaint are substantially similar to
the allegations included in the complaint filed by Mark Lafitte
against the Company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries
on Sept. 10, 2004.

Robert Half International, Inc. -- http://www.rhi.com/--    
provides specialized staffing and risk consulting services.  The
Company, through its Accountemps, Robert Half Finance &
Accounting, and Robert Half Management Resources divisions, is a
specialized provider of temporary, full-time project
professionals in the fields of accounting and finance.


SHIPPING COS: Clamming Vessel Sues Over Cosco Busan Oil Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea LLC filed suit on Nov. 15 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against:

          -- Regal Stone Ltd.,
          -- Hanjin Shipping Co. and
          -- China Ocean Shipping Co.

accusing them of causing the Nov. 7 58,000-gallon fuel oil spill
from the Cosco Busan in San Francisco Bay, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Chelsea alleges that the oil spill caused by the three shipping
companies killed thousands of animals, ruined commercial
fishing, costing thousands of people their livelihood and caused
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to close commercial fishing in and
around the Bay.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of civil Procedure on behalf of "all commercial fishing
operations, including clam, crab and herring, which commercially
fish in and around, the coastal waters of the San Francisco Bay
Area."

Chelsea wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants negligently and/or fraudulently
         acted to cause the spill;

     (b) whether defendants conducted adequate supervision to
         determine whether the spill could be prevented;

     (c) whether defendants engaged in unconscionable,
         deceptive, and/or unreasonable business practices and
         conduct;

    (d) whether defendants knowingly, intentionally, or
        negligently concealed, suppressed, or omitted material
        information concerning the safety of their ship from the
        public;

    (e) whether the class has suffered injury by virtue of the
        defendants' negligence, recklessness, carelessness,
        and/or unconscionable and/or deceptive business
        practices and conduct;

    (f) whether defendants are strictly liable to the class.

Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment against the
defendants and in favor of the plaintiff and the class and award
the following relief:

     -- that this action be certified as a class action on
        behalf of the proposed class described and that counsel
        of record be appointed to represent the class;

     -- that a comprehensive court-supervised program be
        established;

     -- for general damages in an amount to be proven at the
        time  of trial;

     -- for special damages in an amount to be proven at the
        time of trial;

     -- for pre-jdugment and post-judgment interest on the above
        general and special damages;

     -- for restitution and disgorgement of all profits;

     -- for compensatory and other damages, as the court may
        determine;

     -- for exemplary and punitive damages, to the extent
        permissible by law and in an amount to be proven at the
        time of trial, and sufficient to punish defendant or to
        deter them and other from repeating the injurious
        conduct alleged or similar conduct;

     -- costs, including experts' fees and attorneys' fees and
        expenses, and the costs of prosecuting this action; and

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

The suit is "Chelsea, LLC at el. v. Regal Stone et al., Case No.
C 07 5800 JCS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Northern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          William M. Audet
          Michael McShane
          Adel A. Nadji
          Joshua C. Ezrin
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 982-1776
          Fax: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com, mmcshane@audetlaw.com,
                  anadji@audetlaw.com or jezrin@audetlaw.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Dismiss “Collins” Easements Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs’ counsel in, “Collins v. Duke Energy Corp., Progress
Energy Services Company, and South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company,” has filed a stipulation to dismiss the suit without
prejudice.

In August 2003, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&GC)
was served as a co-defendant in a purported class action,
“Collins v. Duke Energy Corp., Progress Energy Services Company,
and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,” in South Carolina's
Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit.  

The plaintiffs subsequently dismissed defendants Duke Energy and
Progress Energy and proceeded against SCE&G only. The plaintiffs
sought damages for the alleged improper use of electric
transmission and distribution easements but did not assert a
dollar amount for their claims.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the licensing of
attachments on electric utility poles, towers and other
facilities to nonutility third parties or telecommunication
companies for other than the electric utility’s internal use
along the electric transmission and distribution line rights-of-
way constituted a trespass.

On July 20, 2007, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Stipulation of
Dismissal Without Prejudice with the Lexington County Clerk of
Court’s Office.  This case can be re-filed.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. -- http://www.sceg.com/--  
generates and sells electricity to retail and wholesale
customers, and purchases, sells and transports natural gas to
retail customers.


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Suits in Pa., Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Roadhouse, Inc. continues to face two purported class
actions in Pennsylvania and Illinois that generally allege
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

The suits are:

      -- “Nicole M. Ehrheart v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. and Does 1
         through 10, Case No. CA 07-54,” which was filed against
         the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western
         District of Pennsylvania on March 26, 2007; and

      -- “Mario Aliano v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC, Texas
         Roadhouse, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 07cv4108,”
         which was filed against the Company in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
         July 20, 2007.

                       Ehrheart Litigation

The suit alleges liability under FACTA based on the alleged
practice of unlawfully including more information on the
electronically printed credit or debit card receipts provided to
customers than is permitted.  

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and a
permanent injunction against the alleged unlawful practice.  

Statutory damages range from $100 to $1,000 for each willful
violation.  

The Company has filed an answer to the complaint denying the
material allegations of the complaint.  Discovery has not yet
begun.

                        Aliano Litigation

The case alleges liability under FACTA.  The plaintiff seeks
statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses and costs.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint denying the
material allegations of the complaint.  Discovery has not yet
begun.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 25, 2007.  

Texas Roadhouse, Inc. -- http://www.texasroadhouse.com-- is a  
full-service, casual dining restaurant chain.  It offers an
assortment of seasoned and aged steaks hand-cut daily on the
premises and cooked to order over open gas-fired grills.  The
Company also offers its guests a selection of ribs, fish,
seafood, chicken and vegetable plates, and an assortment of
hamburgers, salads and sandwiches.


TJX COS: Mass. AG Objects to Part of Data Breach Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is opposing a part
of a proposed settlement of a consumer data breach class action
against TJX Cos., Evan Schuman of eWeek.com reports.

The objection is directed at a part of the settlement that says
TJX will hold a one-day public sale to help the consumers who
were victimized in the data breach.  Ms. Coakley's objection was
not so much with the sale itself, but with having it included as
a part of the official settlement, the report said.  The
inclusion of the sale in the official settlement would increase
the fees that consumer lawyers involved in the case would get.

The attorney general is heading a multi-state attorney general
probe of TJX, the report noted.  She sent her objection in a
letter dated Nov. 15.  Also signing the letter are attorney
generals for Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio,
Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont and California.  In March, there were
34 states involved in the probe. There was no word what happened
to the other 24 states and whether they endorse the letter's
comments, according to Mr. Schuman.

                   Case Background

In September, Class Action Reporter reported that the TJX
Companies, Inc. (NYSE: TJX) entered into a Settlement Agreement
with respect to the customer class actions in the United States,
Canada and Puerto Rico relating to customer claims arising from
the criminal intrusion(s) into TJX's computer system (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 25, 2007).

The settlement is subject to court approval and other
conditions.

The Settlement Agreement, which is subject to court approval and
other conditions, includes the following provisions:

     -- Those customers who returned merchandise without a
        receipt to our stores and to whom TJX sent letters
        reporting that their drivers’ license or other
        identification information may have been compromised in
        the intrusion(s), will be offered three years of credit
        monitoring along with identity theft insurance coverage
        (two years for those who previously accepted TJX's
        credit monitoring/identity theft insurance offer), paid
        for by TJX;

     -- TJX will also reimburse these customers for the
        documented cost of certain drivers’ license replacements
        and, if their drivers’ license or other ID numbers were   
        the same as their social security number, for certain
        losses from identity theft;

     --  For any customers who show they shopped at TJX stores
         located in the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico (excluding
         Bob’s Stores) during the relevant periods and incurred
         certain costs as a result of the intrusion, TJX will
         offer vouchers for use in these TJX stores in the
         country in which they reside.

TJX will hold a future, one-time, three-day Customer
Appreciation special event in which prices at all T.J. Maxx,
Marshalls, HomeGoods and A.J. Wright stores in the U.S. and
Puerto Rico and all Winners and HomeSense stores in Canada will
be reduced by 15%. The timing of this future special event will
be advertised, open to all customers and is expected to occur
sometime in 2008, at the earliest.

The settlement is contingent on completion of an evaluation by
plaintiffs’ independent security expert on the computer security
enhancements made and planned by TJX and acceptance by the
plaintiffs’ counsel of these enhancements.

Estimated costs to TJX related to this settlement were reflected
as part of the $107 million (after tax) reserve for estimated
potential losses from the intrusion(s) recorded in the Company’s
fiscal 2008 second quarter and previously reported estimated
future non-cash charges of $21 million (after tax) anticipated
to be taken in fiscal 2009.

This settlement covers all customer class actions in the United
States, Puerto Rico and Canada with respect to the intrusion(s)
and is subject to satisfaction of various conditions and final
court approval after notice to the plaintiff class and
expiration of the time for appeal from any order of the court
approving the settlement. While TJX denies the claims and
allegations underlying the putative class actions, TJX has
concluded that further legal activity would be time consuming
and expensive, making it desirable that the actions be settled.

JX has established a helpline in the U.S. (866) 484-6978 and
Canada (866) 903-1408 and is providing information on its
website, http://www.tjx.com,to  respond to customer questions  
regarding the Settlement Agreement.  

The TJX Companies, Inc. is the leading off-price retailer of
apparel and home fashions in the U.S. and worldwide. The Company
operates 841 T.J. Maxx, 767 Marshalls, 278 HomeGoods, and 128
A.J. Wright stores, as well as 34 Bob’s Stores, in the United
States. In Canada, the Company operates 186 Winners and 70
HomeSense stores, and in Europe, 214 T.K. Maxx stores.


UNITED STATES: AAFES Faces Suit Over “Treasury Offset Program”
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States and its Army and Air Force Exchange Service
are facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 14 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California over
alleged illegal collection old debts from veterans, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), an
instrumentality of the United States, issues credit cards, now
known as Military Star cards, to military personnel to buy
uniforms and make general purchases from the Post Exchange
stores it operates. When repayment of debt on these cards is
delinquent, the United States has the right to offset the
delinquent debt against monies it owes the debtor for benefits
and tax refunds.

Named plaintiff Julius Briggs claims the United States'
"Treasury Offset Program" illegally takes money, allegedly owed
on credit-card debt run up by service members on active duty,
from their tax refunds and veterans' benefits checks.

The veterans, some of whom are time-barred based on improper
finance charges and penalties, use their government-issued
Military Star cards to buy, among other things, uniforms.

Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Rule 23(A),
23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on behalf of two overlapping classes of persons similarly
situated:

     -- the Time Bar Class includes persons subject to TOP
        collections for debts outstanding for more than 10
        years, as alleged;

     -- the Overcharge Class includes persons subject to TOP
        collections whose debt was improperly calculated, as
        alleged.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) when a debt first becomes "outstanding" within the
         meaning of the 10-year time bar of 31 USC Section 3716
         (e)(1);

     (b) whether defendants have acted or refused to act on
         grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby
         making appropriate final injunctive relief or
         corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the
         class as a whole;

     (c) whether interest may be charged, pursuant to the AAFES
         credit Card Contract, on UC purchases, and, if not,
         whether defendants improperly included amounts based on
         such charges in claims referred to TOP;

     (d) whether the principal on which penalties are calculated
         may include prior penalties or administrative costs
         imposed on the debt, and, if not, whether the
         defendants improperly included such penalty amounts in
         claims referred to TOP;

     (e) whether finance charges exceeding 4.75% plus the prima
         rate (or such lower rate as the AAFES has chosen to
         impose) may be imposed on DPP purchases, and whether
         the defendants improperly included such excessive
         finance charges in claims referred to TOP;

     (f) whether the defendants have acted or refused to act on
         grounds generally applicable to the Overcharge Class,
         thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or
         corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the
         Overcharge Class as a whole.

He requests that the court:

      -- enjoin AAFES from making referrals of claims
         outstanding more than 10 years to TOP in violation of
         31 USC Section 3716(e);

      -- require defendants to make restitution of all illegal
         TOP collections to the Time-Bar Class;

      -- require defendants to make restitution of all illegal
         TOP collections to the Overcharge Class and to
         correctly state any delinquent balances of the
         Overcharge Class in claims referred to the TOP; and

      -- grant any additional relief, including attorney fees,
         expenses, and costs and including any appropriate
         relief under 28 USC Section 2412, to whcih the
         plaintiff may be entitled.

The suit is "Julius Briggs et al. v. United States of America,
et al., Case No. CV 07 5760," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          S. Chandler Visher
          Law Offices of S. Chandler Visher
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Phone: (415) 901-0500
          Fax: (415) 901-0504
          E-mail: chandler@visherlaw.com

          Marie Noel Appel
          Consumer Law Office of Marie Noel Appel
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Phone: (415) 901-0508
          Fax: (415) 901-0504
          E-mail: marie@consumerlaw.ws

          - and -

          Deepak Gupta
          Brian Wolfman
          Public Citizen Litigation Group
          1600 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Phone: (202) 588-7739
          Fax: (202) 588-7795
          E-mail: dgupta@citizen.org or brian@citizen.org


* Italy Takes Step to Introduce "Class Action" in Legal System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Italy's Senate has approved an amendment to
its 2008 budget that would introduce collective "class action"
to Italy's legal system for the first time.

The budget and its amendments are still subject to the approval
of both houses of parliament by the end of the year.  The
measure involving class actions would come into effect 180 days
after the budget's approval.

Reportedly, the Italian class action would be more restrictive
than its U.S. equivalent.  It would initially be available to
members of consumer associations and user groups.

It was not immediately clear whether shareholders and
bondholders could directly initiate such suits, according to the
report.

Italy's minister for economic development Pier Luigi Bersani
said that the approval by the senate of draft legislation to
enact class action is a 'step forward' for defending consumers'
rights, Thomson Financial reports.

The approval met mixed reactions.  Consumer groups hailed it.  
The chairman of the leading organization representing
manufacturing and service companies in Italy called it a measure
which is "mistaken and rough-edge, and will create further
problems for enterprises and workers, and for this reason is
negative in itself."

It will subject all Italian enterprises and in particular the
smallest ones to blackmail and problems with a judiciary in
which lengths of time waited are among the most negative aspects
of Italy," Confindustria chairman Luca Cordero di Montezemolo
added.

To companies concerned of the effects of class actions, Mr.
Bersani said: the measures can be modified to introduce a
framework and vetting system than ensures that any class action
claim is properly founded.  

Mr. Bersani said it is in the companies' interest to have
informed consumers, but also in people's interest to 'preserve
the reputation of a good company,' Thomson Financial reports.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


CROCS INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of CROCS Inc.(Nasdaq:CROX) between July 27, 2007 and
October 31, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges CROCS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. CROCS and its subsidiaries design, develop and manufacture
consumer products from specialty resins worldwide. The Company
offers footwear for men, women and children under the "CROCS"
brand.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that
misrepresented and failed to disclose:

     (i) that the Company was experiencing significant
         distribution problems in Europe as it had moved
         distribution facilities and was experiencing
         distribution problems in Japan with a third-party
         distributor, causing the Company to lose tens of
         millions of dollars in sales;

    (ii) that the Company's sales were being negatively impacted
         by seasonal conditions as consumers reduced purchases
         of the Company's products in cold weather climates;

   (iii) that the Company's inventory levels were building far
         beyond historic levels as sales began to slow and the
         Company's sales began to be impacted by seasonality;
         and

    (iv) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable
         basis for their positive statements about the Company,
        its earnings and prospects.

On October 31, 2007, CROCS issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the third quarter of 2007, the period
ending September 30, 2007. Following the earnings announcements,
CROCS held a conference call for analysts and investors. During
the call, Defendants discussed problems at its European and
Japanese distribution centers and its growing inventory, among
other things. In response to these announcements, the price of
CROCS stock declined from $74.75 per share to $47.74 per share
on extremely heavy trading volume. In the period leading up to
this shocking announcement, CROCS insiders took advantage of the
artificially inflated prices to sell 963,162 shares for proceeds
of $58,666,141.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 7,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

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


FX ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood, on November 13, 2007, filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Utah
against FX Energy, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The class period is from March 30, 2004 through January 5, 2006.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Email: wfederman@aol.com
          Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com


INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc.
stock during the period from November 14, 2006 through November
8, 2007.

The complaint charges that IEAM and certain of its present and
former officers, directors, and control persons violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by issuing materially false and misleading statements pertaining
to IEAM's business prospects and condition, and filing financial
statements with the SEC materially false financial statements.

On November 7, 2007 the Company announced that investors could
no longer rely on its historical financial statements and that
the Company had not properly followed generally accepted
accounting principles, necessitating a revision of reported
revenue, among other things. The Company also announced that it
had suspended its CFO pending a review. As a result of these
events, the Complaint asserts that the price of IEAM stock
dropped, damaging investors.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 15,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Tel:  (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


MICRUS ENDOVASCULAR: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Micrus Endovascular Corporation from February 12,
2007 through September 17, 2007 , inclusive.

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

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing increased competition
         and seasonal slowing, which led to slower sales in
         North America;

     (2) that the Company was encountering increased regulatory
         issues in China and Japan, which hampered its ability
         to obtain product approvals and offer certain products
         for sale in these markets; and

     (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendant's
         statements about the Company's financial well-being and
         future business prospects were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

The Company shocked investors on September 17, 2007 when it
revealed that it was experiencing regulatory approval delays in
China and Japan, and slow growth and decreased sales in North
America. Additionally, the Company significantly reduced its
2008 revenue guidance to between $65 million and $75 million, as
compared with the Company's previously issued revenue guidance
of between $80 million and $85 million for 2008. On this news,
the Company's shares fell $6.20 per share, or over 26.3 percent,
to close on September 18, 2007 at $17.37 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 3,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

Micrus develops, manufactures, and markets implantable and
disposable medical devices used in the treatment of cerebral
vascular diseases.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of purchasers of Syntax-Brillian Corp. securities between
May 1, 2007 and September 13, 2007.

The complaint charges that Syntax-Brillian, CEO Vincent F.
Solitto, Jr., and (now former) CFO Wayne Pratt misled
shareholders through false statements about the company's
business prospects, operations, demand for the company's
products, and adequacy of internal controls.

Purchasers of Syntax-Brillian securities between May 1, 2007 and
September 13, 2007 who wish to serve as lead plaintiff must file
a motion with the Court by January 15, 2008. Any member of the
purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

For more information, contact:

          Dustin Mansoor
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          E-mail: dmansoor@gardylaw.com
          Website: http://www.gardylaw.com


                           *********


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 Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  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  * * *