CAR_Public/071122.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 22, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 232

                            Headlines

CALPINE CORP: Creditors Want Fund's Abstention Motion Denied
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Subscriber Seeks $111M for Unauthorized Charges
COFFEE MASTERS: Recalls “Chipper” Biscotti with Undeclared Milk
CONMED CORP: Appeal Against N.Y. Labor Suit Certification Denied
CUTERA INC: Calif. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suit

GOODYEAR TIRE: To Pay $324M Settlement to Entran II Class
MICROSOFT CORP: “Halo 3” Destroys Xbox, Calif. Suit Claims
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Responds to Del. WARN Act Violation Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Objects to Taylor's Motion to File Class Claim
NEW YORK: Rights Group Accuses Educ. Dept. of Racial Bias

NEW YORK: County Settles Suit Over Services to Autistic Kids
PARMALAT SPA: Wants Court to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint
PROQUEST CO: Mich. Court Allows Securities Lawsuit to Go Forward
SEALED AIR: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SHIPPING COS: Fishermen File Suit Over Cosco Busan Oil Spill

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Kans.
STANDARD PACIFIC: Pensioners Want to Lead Suit Against Execs
SUPPORTSOFT INC: Cal. Court Oks $11M Securities Suit Settlement
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Ok for $19M Investor Suit Settlement Sought
UNUM LIFE: Awaits Ruling in “Rombeiro” Policyholders' Suit

UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Awaits Approval of $40M Securities Suit Deal
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Dec. Hearing Set for 401(k) Suit Settlement
VERISIGN INC: Still Faces Litigation Over Stock Option Grants
VERISIGN INC: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
VERISIGN INC: Seeks to Nix “Bentley” Suit Over TV Contest

VERISIGN INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Gambling Violations Suit
VERISIGN INC: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Gambling Violations Suit
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Still Faces Del. Consolidated Securities Suit
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: To Face Suit Over Former N.Y. Operation


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BIGBAND NETWORKS: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
UNITED RENTALS: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
                          

                            *********


CALPINE CORP: Creditors Want Fund's Abstention Motion Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the Official
Committee of Equity Security Holders in the bankruptcy of
Calpine Corp. (together with its affiliates in bankruptcy,
Debtors) support the Debtors' request to deny a request for
abstention filed by Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust
Fund.

Hawaii Structural has previously asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York to abstain from hearing
the Debtors' objection to Claim No. 5166 in favor of the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Santa
Clara, where Hawaii Structural's class action is pending.

The Bankruptcy Court has acknowledged that permissive abstention
is "appropriate only in certain narrowly tailored exceptional
circumstances" because federal courts have a virtually
unflagging obligation to exercise the jurisdiction given to
them, Richard M. Cieri, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, in New
York, notes.  Hawaii Structural has filed its claim in the
Bankruptcy Court, thus this Court is the appropriate forum to
determine the Debtors' liability, Mr. Cieri asserts.

Mr. Cieri further asserts that permissive abstention is
inappropriate in complex reorganization cases like the Debtors'.  
The Debtors have set January 31, 2008, as target deadline for
emergence.  The Hawaii Claim is one of the largest disputed
litigation claims pending against the Debtors and therefore will
have to be estimated or resolved before emergence to avoid
disproportionately large reserves of stock held back on account
of the Claim, Mr. Cieri points out.

Thus, the Debtors ask the Court to deny Hawaii Structural's
request for abstention.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the Official
Committee of Equity Security Holders support the Debtors'
request.

(Calpine Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 66; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or     
215/945-7000).


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Subscriber Seeks $111M for Unauthorized Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. was served with a lawsuit and a request for
certification of the lawsuit as a class action on November 19,
2007 in the District Court of Central Region.

The plaintiff, claiming to be a subscriber of the defendant,
claims that the Company charged its subscribers for content
services without obtaining from its subscribers a specific
consent, in a manner which complies with the provisions of its
general license.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be $111.17 million.

At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.
  
For more information, contact:

          Shiri Israeli
          Investor Relations Coordinator
          Phone: +972-52-998-9755
          E-mail: investors@cellcom.co.il

          - and -

          Ehud Helft
          Ed Job
          Investor Relations Contact
          CCGK Investor Relations
          Phone: +1-866-704-6710 (US) or +1-646-213-1914
          E-mail: ehud@gkir.com or ed.job@ccgir.com


COFFEE MASTERS: Recalls “Chipper” Biscotti with Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coffee Masters, Inc., a leading Midwest wholesale coffee
roaster, has issued a recall of all Chipper With Coffee
Biscotti, because it may contain undeclared protein derived from
milk, eggs, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and/or soybeans
allergens.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to any of these
allergens run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products. Coffee Masters
distributed this product on behalf of Chipper Gourmet Foods
during the months of January – Sept 2007.

Chipper With Coffee Biscotti was distributed wholesale
nationwide and could have been found in retail coffee shops.
Coffee Masters, Inc. discontinued the distribution in early
September, due to lack of sales and interest.

The product comes in a 1.75 ounce clear bag with hang tag.
Flavors include Apple Cinnamon, Apricot Almond, Banana Walnut,
Chocolate Chip, Chocolate Raspberry, Classic Almond, Mocha Chip,
Pistachio Orange, Snickerdoodle, Cranberry Orange, German
Chocolate, Maple Pecan, Triple Chocolate and Maple Walnut.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
allergen-containing product was distributed in packaging that
did not reveal the presence of the protein derived from milk,
eggs, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and/or soybeans. Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by a breakdown in
Chipper Gourmet Food’s production and packaging processes.

Production of the product has been suspended until FDA and
Coffee Masters are certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased any 1.75 ounce packages of Chipper
With Coffee Biscotti distributed by Coffee Masters are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions regarding this matter may contact the
Coffee Masters at 1-800-334-6485, ext 110.


CONMED CORP: Appeal Against N.Y. Labor Suit Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to
hear an appeal against a certification of a suit filed by a
group of former sales representatives of CONMED Corp.'s
operating unit, CONMED Linvatec.

On April 7, 2006, CONMED received a copy of a complaint filed in
the U.S. District for the Northern District of New York on
behalf of a purported class of former CONMED Linvatec sales
representatives.

The suit seeks to certify a class of all former sales
representatives terminated in March 2003 who did not receive
severance from the company

The complaint alleges that the former sales representatives were
entitled to, but did not receive, severance in 2003 when CONMED
Linvatec restructured its distribution channels.

The company believes that the maximum exposure related to this
complaint is $2.5 million to $3.0 million, not including any
interest, fees or costs that might be awarded if the five named
plaintiffs were to prevail on their own behalf as well as on
behalf of all members of the purported class.

The company said CONMED Linvatec did not generally pay severance
during the 2003 restructuring because the former sales
representatives were offered sales positions with CONMED
Linvatec's new manufacturer's representatives.

Other than three of the five named plaintiffs in the class
action, nearly all of CONMED Linvatec's former sales
representatives accepted such positions.

Four of the named plaintiffs submitted formal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act claims for severance, and said
claims were forwarded to the Plan Administrator for review and
action.

By letters dated June 9, 2006, the Plan Administrator denied the
claims.  Although the four named plaintiffs were able to appeal
the initial decision of the Plan Administrator, none of the
plaintiffs submitted appeals.

On June 5, 2006, CONMED filed a motion to dismiss certain counts
of the complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion, which was
submitted for decision on July 11, 2006.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
certify a class of all former sales representatives terminated
in March 2003 who did not receive severance.

The Company’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, which
were heard at a hearing held on Jan. 5, 2007, were denied by a
Memorandum Decision and Order dated May 22, 2007.  

The District Court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion to
certify a class of former CONMED Linvatec sales representatives
whose employment with CONMED Linvatec was involuntarily
terminated in 2003 and who did not receive severance benefits.

Although the Court’s ruling on the motions to dismiss, for
summary judgment and the motion to certify the class do not
represent final rulings on the merits, the Company has filed a
motion seeking reconsideration of the motions to dismiss and for
summary judgment, and sought to appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit from the class certification
ruling.   

The Second Circuit declined to consider the appeal by Order
dated Aug. 28, 2007, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Thompson, et al. v. Linvatec Corp., et al., Case
No. 6:06-cv-00404-NPM-GJD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York under Judge Neal P. McCurn
with referral to Judge Gustave J. DiBianco.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq.
          Ian O'Neil Smith Moukawsher, Esq.
          Walsh Law Firm
          21 Oak Street, Suite 209
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Phone: 860-278-7003 and 860-278-7005
          Fax: 860-548-1740
          E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com
                  ismith@mwlawgroup.com


CUTERA INC: Calif. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cutera, Inc., and two of its executive officers face a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Initially, two lawsuits were filed in April 2007 and May 2007,
respectively.  They were filed following declines in the
company's stock price.  

The plaintiffs claim to represent purchasers of the company's
common stock from Jan. 31, 2007 through May 7, 2007.  

The complaints generally allege that materially false statements
and omissions were made regarding the company's financial
prospects, and seeks unspecified monetary damages.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court ordered the two cases consolidated,
and gave the plaintiffs until Dec. 17, 2007 to file a
consolidated, amended complaint.  

The suit is “Doug Hamilton, et al. v. Cutera, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-02128,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0700
         Fax: 212-818-0477
         E-mail: info@labaton.com

         Paskowitz & Associates
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Phone: 212.685.0969
         Fax: 212.685.2306
         E-mail: classattorney@aol.com

              - and -

         Roy Jacobs & Associates
         350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000
         New York, NY 10118
         E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com


GOODYEAR TIRE: To Pay $324M Settlement to Entran II Class
---------------------------------------------------------
On Nov. 17, 2004, New Jersey District Court Judge Stanley
Chesler granted final approval to a settlement of the Entran II
Hose Amended Class Action against The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company.

The case, “Galanti v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,” was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey while the “Kelman v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company et al.” was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.

The amended settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether Goodyear
and Goodyear Canada Inc. made defective Entran II hose used in
radiant heating and snow-melting systems. The hose was sold and
distributed by Heatway Systems.

Entran II was also known as Twintran, Nytrace, Entran II Trace,
Entran II Wire, Entran 2, Entran 2 Trace, and Entran 2 Wire.

The settlement was approved in 2004. As a result, a $324 million
settlement fund was created for class members.

Pursuant to an amended settlement, cash payments will pay given
to people in the U.S. and Canada who are current or former
owners of property where the hose was, or still is, installed.

Claims filing deadline was Nov. 17, 2009.

        Info for Owners of Property in the United States

Current or former owner of property in the United States
including its territories and possessions in which Entran II
hose was or is used for radiant heating or snowmelting, may
obtain complete information about their legal rights and choices
under the Amended Settlement at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?258d

              Info for Owners of Property in Canada

Current or former owner of property in Canada in which Entran II
hose was or is used for radiant heating or snowmelting, may
obtain complete information about their legal rights and choices
under the Amended Settlement at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?258e

For further information on the proposed settlement, contact:

          Entran II Settlement
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 24
          Minneapolis, MN 55440-0024
          Tel: 1-800-254-9222
          http://www.entraniisettlement.com/

                       About Goodyear

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
(NYSE: GT) -- http://www.goodyear.com/-- manufactures tires,  
engineered rubber products and chemicals in more than 90
facilities in 28 countries. Goodyear Tire has marketing
operations in almost every country around the world including
Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Jamaica and Peru in Latin America.
Goodyear employs more than 80,000 people worldwide.


MICROSOFT CORP: “Halo 3” Destroys Xbox, Calif. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 20
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California alleging its "Halo 3" video game, made exclusively
for its Xbox 360, causes the Xbox to freeze or crash, the
CourtHouse Service reports.

Named as co-defendant in the suit is Bungie, LLC, which makes
Halo 3.  It was acquired by Microsoft in May 1991.  Bungie split
off from Microsoft on Oct. 1 and became a privately held LLC.  
The two continue to manufacture and sell the Halo 3," the suit
states.  Halo 3 was released in September.

Named plaintiff Randy Nunez says he paid $59.99 for his game. He
wants class certification and damages.

He brings this action on behalf of all California consumers who,
at any time from Aug. of 2007 and the date of class
certification, purchased the Halo 3 video game.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the implied warranty of merchantability under
         Cal.Civ.Code Section 1791.1 applies to Halo 3;

     (b) whether Halo 3 as sold by defendants is in fact
         merchantable within the meaning of Sec.Cal.Civ.Code
         Section 1791.1;

     (c) whether the implied warranty of fitness under
         Cal.Civ.Code Section 1791.1 applies to halo 3;

     (d) whether Halo 3 as sold by defendants is in fact fit for   
         a particular purpose within the meaning of
         Sec.Cal.Civ.Code Section 1791.1;

     (e) whether defendants breached the implied warranty of
         merchantability;

     (f) whether defendants breached the implied warranty of
         fitness;

     (g) whether purchasers of Halo 3 are entitled to damages
         under Cal.civ.Code Section 1794;

     (h) whether purchasers of Halo 3 are entitled to other
         alternative forms of relief under Cal.Civ.Code Section
         1794;

     (i) whether defendants' business acts and practices
         violated Cal.Bus.&PRof.Code Section 17200 et seq.; and

     (j) whether Mr. NUnez and the class are entitled to
         injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief
         under Cal.Bus.&Prof.Code Section 17200 et seq.

Plaintiff pray for judgment and relief as follows:

     -- for an order that this action may be maintained as a
        class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to Mr. Nunez's
        claims for equitable relief, and Rule 23(b)(3) of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to Mr.  
        Nunez's incidental claims for damages and other monetary
        relief, and declaring him as representative of the class
        and his counsel as counsel for his class;

     -- for an order determining that the conduct alleged
        violates the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and
        entering appropriate monetary and equitable relief
        pursuant to that law;

     -- for an order determining that the conduct alleged
        violates the California Unfair Competition Law, Section
        17200, et seq. of the California Business and
        Professions Code and entering appropriate monetary and
        equitable relief pursuant to that law;

     -- for costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
        pre- and post-judgment interest;

     -- for such other, further, and different relief as the
        nature of the case may require or as may be determined
        to be just, equitable, and or proper by the court.

The suit is " Randy Nunez, et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al.,
Case No. 07CV 2209," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

           Andrew S. Friedman
           Garrett W. Wotkyns
           Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC
           2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
           Phoenix, AZ 85012
           Phone: (602) 274-1100
           Fax: (602) 274-1199

           - and -

           Todd D. Carpenter
           Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC
           501 West Broadway, Suite 1450
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Phone: (619) 756-6978


MORTGAGE LENDERS: Responds to Del. WARN Act Violation Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc., tells the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware that the complaint of
Guiseppe Caccamo and Robie-Lyn Harnois, and each of their
purported cause of action against the Debtor, fail to state
facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief against the
Debtor.

Laura Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP,
in Wilmington, Delaware, relates that the Debtor admits that it
did not provide notice to the Plaintiffs and others under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act regarding the
Debtor's employee termination.  However, she contends, the
claims of the Plaintiffs, and all persons alleged to be
similarly situated, are barred on the grounds that as of the
time any notice under the WARN Act would have been required, the
Debtor was actively seeking capital or business which, if
obtained, would have enabled it to avoid or postpone the closure
of its business.

Ms. Jones asserts that Debtor reasonably and in good faith
believed that no prior WARN Act notice was required or
appropriate, because the notice would have precluded the Debtor
from obtaining the needed capital or business.  She adds that
the Claims are also barred because:

  -- closure of the Debtor's business was caused by business
     circumstances, which were not reasonably foreseeable at the
     time that any notice under the WARN Act would have been
     required;

  -- the Debtor was not an employer as defined under the WARN
     Act and applicable regulations;

  -- the Debtor at all time acted in good faith and had
     reasonable grounds to believe that its actions were in
     compliance with the law;

  -- to the extent that the Plaintiffs hold property, which is
     recoverable under Sections 542, 543, 550, 553 of the
     Bankruptcy Code, or avoidable under Sections 522, 544, 545,
     547, 548, 549 of the Bankruptcy Code; and

  -- to the extent that any payments are made to the Plaintiffs
     or for their benefit pursuant to Sections 507(4) and 507(5)
     of the Bankruptcy Code.

To the extent the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover sums from
the Debtor, Ms. Jones says, then, the Debtor is entitled to set
off or recoup against the amounts previously paid to the
Plaintiffs, including any voluntary or unconditional payments
not required by legal obligations, or payments made to third
parties or trustees on behalf or attributable to the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, the Debtor asks the Court that (i) the Plaintiffs
take nothing by reason of their Complaint, and (ii) the Debtor
be awarded its costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys'
fees.

(Mortgage Lenders Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 19; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or     
215/945-7000).


NEW CENTURY: Objects to Taylor's Motion to File Class Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
New Century Financial Corp. (together with affiliates in
bankruptcy, Debtors) and the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware to deny Joseph and Lavon Taylor's request to enlarge
their time to file a proof of claim, and to deem the Claim
timely filed.

Prior to the Petition Date of April 2, 2007, the Taylors
commenced a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County in
the State of Missouri against Home123 Corporation, which was
stayed pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In the Taylor Action, the Taylors assert that Home 123
improperly charged document preparation fees in connection with
home mortgage transactions in Missouri.  Pursuant to the
applicable law in Missouri, only an attorney can collect those
fees.

The Taylors, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, ask the Court to enlarge their time to file a proof of
claim, and to deem the Claim timely filed.

Laurie A. Krepto, Esq., at Montgomery, McCracken, Walker &
Rhoads, LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, maintains that the failure
to file the Claim prior to the Bar Date of August 31, 2007 was a
result of an oversight by the Taylors and their counsel, and
constitutes "excusable neglect."  The Taylors allege that they
believed the Bar Date to be October 2, 2007.

The Taylors also ask the Court to allow the Claim to be filed as
a class action claim.

                 Debtors and Committee Object

The Debtors and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
ask the Court to deny the Taylors' request, stating that they
have failed to meet the burden of establishing "cause" under
Rule 9006(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On the Debtors' behalf, Christopher M. Samis, Esq., at Richards,
Layton & Finger, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware, argues that the
Taylors' "excusable neglect" suggests bad faith.  The Taylors
had insisted that the delay was partly due to their attempts to
obtain the Debtors' consent for a late-filed claim.

According to Mr. Samis, the Taylors did not attempt to contact
the Debtors until October 12, 2007, and must have already
prepared their motion prior to contacting the Debtors.

Moreover, the Taylors fail to demonstrate entitlement to class
certification.  The Committee points out that the Taylors have
not even obtained class certification in the Taylor Action.

Mr. Samis maintains that granting the Taylors' request will
prejudice the Debtos, as well as their creditors who have
managed to timely file proofs of claim.

(New Century Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 25; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or     
215/945-7000).


NEW YORK: Rights Group Accuses Educ. Dept. of Racial Bias
---------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Individual Rights filed a class action against
the New York City Department of Education challenging the
Department’s policy of excluding Asian American and white
students from a test preparation course because of their race.

CIR is representing three Chinese American parents in Districts
20 and 21 (Brooklyn) whose children were denied admission to the
City’s “Specialized High School Institute,” a fifteen-month
course designed to prepare students to take the admissions exam
for such elite New York schools as Manhattan’s Stuyvesant High
School, Brooklyn Technical High School, and the Bronx High
School of Science.

The lawsuit seeks to open the course to students regardless of
race and seeks monetary damages for hundreds of white and Asian
students who were forced to pay as much as $2,000 for a private
test preparation course as a result of the City’s illegal racial
exclusion.

CIR is a public interest law firm that has challenged other
unconstitutional racial preferences in schools and colleges.
Most recently it successfully challenged a minorities-only
summer journalism workshop jointly sponsored by the Dow Jones
News Foundation and Virginia Commonwealth University. As in the
Dow Jones program, the Department has a policy of restricting
its test preparation program to students of certain races.

                        Suit's Allegations

White and Asian students are prevented from even applying to the
program. One parent, Stanley Ng (pron. “Ing”) was denied an
application by his daughter’s junior high school guidance
counselor. When Mr. Ng contacted the Office of Teaching and
Learning in November 2006, an official told him the program was
not open to white or Asian applicants.

Together with Mr. Ng, CIR is representing two other Chinese
American parents, Margaret Ching and Dennis Chen, both of whom
have children who were prevented from participating in the
examination prep course because of their race. In addition, CIR
is representing a parents’ organization called Parents Against
Discrimination, which Mr. Ng formed, consisting of parents of
white or Asian children who hope to participate in the
preparatory course once it is opened to students regardless of
race.

CIR President Terry Pell said, “The day is past when school
officials can automatically exclude students from desirable
programs solely because of the color of their skin. The Supreme
Court has made it clear that school officials may never
mechanically exclude students from any program because of one
feature and one feature only, namely their race.”

The suit is “Ng et al. v. New York City Department of Education,
1:2007-cv-04805,” filed in New York Eastern District Court
before Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry with referral to Magistrate-
Judge Marilyn D. Go.


NEW YORK: County Settles Suit Over Services to Autistic Kids
------------------------------------------------------------
Orange County and parents of children with autism and speech
delays reached an agreement to settle a purported class action
over the quality of educational services provided by the
government to these kids, Chris McKenna of Times Herald-Record
reports.  

The specific terms of the settlement was yet undisclosed as of
Nov. 20.  Michael Sussman, the parent's lawyer, revealed only
that one broad policy issue addressed in the settlement is the
county's decision to contract only with therapists who could
take five or more cases.  The parents had argued that the new
threshold caused a provider shortage, leaving the children
without therapy.

Six parents of children with autism and speech delays filed the
class action in June on behalf of all Orange County children
enrolled in county Health Department-funded early intervention
and preschool special education.  Those programs are for
children under age 5 with development disabilities.

The parents accuse the county of skimping on therapy hours and
shortchanging kids in other ways, presumably to contain costs.
They're seeking policy changes and compensatory services for
children who were underserved.

The government has previously argued that plaintiffs failed to
exhaust other remedies before going to court, and hence the suit
should be dismissed.  But U.S. District Judge William Conner
dismissed the argument on Nov. 16.

The suit is “S.W. et al. v. Warren et al., Case No. 7:2007-cv-
05708,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York before Judge William C. Conner.

Representing Orange County is:

         Sharon N. Berlin, Esq.
         Lamb & Barnosky, LLP
         534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 210, P.O. Box 9034
         Melville, New York  11747-9034
         (Suffolk Co.)
         Phone: 631-694-2300
         Telecopier: 631-694-2309
         http://www.lambbarnosky.com


Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael H. Sussman, Esq.
         40 Park Place, P.O. Box 1005
         Goshen, N.Y. 10924
         Fax: (845) 294-1623


PARMALAT SPA: Wants Court to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Reorganized Parmalat SpA tells the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York that a third amended
complaint filed against it should be dismissed, as it disallowed
the claims against its co-defendants, Grant Thornton, Deloitte &
Touche, Bank of America, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, and BNL.

Joseph Hammond, Esq., at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges
LLP, in New York states that the Foreign Plaintiffs offer no
U.S.-grounded conduct by Reorganized Parmalat or Old Parmalat
that constitutes a substantial act in connection with the
alleged fraud.

The District Court, Mr. Hammond relates, ultimately determined
that (i) the Foreign Plaintiffs' central allegations were
overwhelmingly foreign, (ii) any U.S. based conduct was merely
peripheral to the fraud, and (iii) the plaintiffs had not
demonstrated subject matter jurisdiction.

Mr. Hammond insists that, for those same reasons, the District
Court should dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

(Parmalat Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 93; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).  


PROQUEST CO: Mich. Court Allows Securities Lawsuit to Go Forward
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Avern Cohn of the Eastern District of Michigan refused to
junk a class action filed against ProQuest Company (NYSE: PQE)
and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the publicly traded common
stock of ProQuest between February 13, 2003 and February 8,
2006, Ron Zapata of the Securities Law 360 reports.

Filed in 2006, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial prospects, thus causing ProQuest's shares to trade
at artificially inflated prices (Class Action Reporter, April
17, 2006).

In particular, the complaint alleges that on February 9, 2006,
prior to the market opening, the Company issued a press release
titled "ProQuest Company to Restate Historical Financial
Statements."  The press release stated in part that "during a
review related to its internal controls assessment required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Company discovered material
irregularities in its accounting.

As a result, the Company intends to restate certain of its
previously issued financial statements . . . Based upon its
initial findings, the Company believes that its deferred income
and accrued royalty accounts are materially understated in
previously issued financial statements.  

The Company also believes that its prepaid royalty account is
materially overstated.  It anticipates that as a result it will
be required to recognize amounts of royalty and other expenses
as well as reduce a portion of revenues previously reported for
its Information and Learning business, the effect of which will
materially reduce earnings from continuing operations for many
of the affected periods."

The complaint alleges that the facts, known by the defendants
but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were that the Company's financial statements:

     (1) were materially misstated due to its failure to
         properly defer income and royalty payments and its
         improper capitalization of royalty expenses; and

     (2) were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted
         accounting principles (GAAP).

In his recent decision, Judge Cohn denied ProQuest and its
executives' motions to dismiss the case, ruling that the
company's shareholders had provided sufficient evidence to let
the case proceed.

The suit is “In Re: ProQuest Company Securities Litigation, Case
Number: 2:2006cv10619,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.


SEALED AIR: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification discovery is ongoing in a purported
securities fraud class action that was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sealed Air
Corp.

The suit, “Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372,” was
filed on Sept. 15, 2003.  It seeks class-action status on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
the company from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002.

It names the company and five current and former officers and
directors of the company as defendants.  The company is required
to provide indemnification to the other defendants, and
accordingly, the company's counsel is also defending them.

On June 29, 2004, the court granted plaintiff Miles Senn's
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of his
choice of lead counsel.

                        Amended Complaint

The plaintiff's amended complaint makes a number of allegations
against the defendants.  The principal allegations are that
during the above period, the defendants materially misled the
investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles by failing to properly account and accrue for the
company's contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from
past operations of W.R. Grace & Co.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief.  The
company is vigorously defending the lawsuit, since the company
believes that it properly disclosed its contingent liability for
Grace's asbestos claims and properly accounted for its
contingent liability for such claims under U.S. GAAP.

                       Motion to Dismiss

On March 14, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in "Senn" for
failure to state a claim.

On Dec. 19, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court determined that the
complaint failed adequately to allege scienter as to the four
individual defendants other than T.J. Dermot Dunphy, and
therefore dismissed the lawsuit with respect to these four
individual defendants, but adequately alleged scienter as to Mr.
Dunphy and the company.

Mr. Dunphy is a current director of the company and was formerly
chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the
company.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the Court
reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying
defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to the Company’s
arguments other than scienter, or, in the alternative, that the
Court certify the matter for interlocutory appeal.

On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint.   

On April 7, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on defendants’
reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006, the Court denied
the motion on the ground that issues of fact prevent the Court
from granting a motion to dismiss based on the Company’s
arguments other than scienter.

           Amended Motion for Class Certification

On Nov. 22, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended motion for class
certification, seeking to withdraw as a class representative and
to substitute a new class representative, the State of Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees Retirement System (MPERS).

On March 26, 2007, the Court entered an order permitting Miles
Senn to withdraw as Lead Plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be
substituted as Lead Plaintiff.

On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as Lead Plaintiff, filed a motion to
certify a class of all persons or entities that purchased Sealed
Air Corp. securities during the period from March 27, 2000
through July 30, 2002, both dates inclusive, and were damaged
thereby.

On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed their
memorandum of law in opposition to MPERS’s motion for class
certification.

On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy also filed a motion
for reconsideration or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing
that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in “Tellabs, Inc. v.
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,” and “Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly,” require dismissal of MPERS’s claims.

Both the class certification and reconsideration motions have
been fully briefed and the Company is awaiting decisions by the
Court.

Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.   

The suit is "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under
Dennis M. Cavanaugh with referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
         Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
         26 South Maple Avenue, Suite 202
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Phone: (856) 797-4611
         Fax: (856) 797-4612,
         E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Gregory B. Reilly, Esq.
         Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: (973) 597-2500
         E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com


SHIPPING COS: Fishermen File Suit Over Cosco Busan Oil Spill
------------------------------------------------------------
Two commercial fishermen -- John Tarantino of Corte Madera and
Steven Fitz of San Mateo --  have filed a class action over the
oil spill on Nov. 7 that fouled San Francisco Bay, The
Associated Press reports.

According to the Tri-Valley Herald, the lawsuit names as
defendants:

     -- Regal Stone Ltd., the owner of the Cosco Busan, the ship  
        involved in the spill;

     -- Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd.,

     -- Synergy Maritime; and

     -- John Cota, who was piloting the ship at the time of the
        accident.  

Plaintiffs in the complaint filed the suit in San Francisco
Superior Court on behalf of fishermen who claim they've suffered
economic injury as a result of the Nov. 7 58,000-gallon fuel oil
spill from the Cosco Busan in San Francisco Bay.  They seek
unspecified monetary damages.

Representing the plaintiffs is:  

          Frank Pitre, Esq.
          Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy
          840 Malcolm Road
          Suite 200
          Burlingame, California (CA) 94010  
          Phone: (650) 697-6000
          Fax: (650) 697-0577

Crab boat operator Chelsea LLC filed a similar 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 (class Action
Reporter, Nov. 20, 2007).

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.

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

       TRO Obtained to Arrest Vessel in SF Oil Spill

Audet & Partners, LLP attorneys representing the fisherman, boat
operators, and other victims of the oil spill who filed a class
action, successfully obtained a court order to "arrest" the
"Cosco Busan" and keep the vessel from leaving the San Francisco
Bay.

William M. Audet, of Audet & Partners, LLP; one of the lead
attorneys in the case, filed papers with the United States
District Court, asking the Court to issue an order seizing the
Vessel, and ordering the U.S. Marshalls to "arrest" the ship.

"Under well established maritime law, in these circumstances, it
is appropriate to make sure the vessel involved in the oil spill
does not leave the jurisdiction of the United States," said
William M. Audet of Audet & Partners, LLP.

On November 20, 2007, the District Court issued an order
granting the plaintiffs attorneys request to arrest the Cosco
Busan.

"We have been contacted by literally hundreds of ship owners and
others whose livelihood depend on clean ocean water and have
lost significant amounts of money directly due to the recent oil
spill," reported Mr. Audet, "we need to protect our client's
interest by making sure the vessel does not leave the
jurisdiction of the Untied States."

In addition to filing the motion, Audet & Partners, LLP was
joined by additional attorneys in the Class Action. Mr. Audet's
firm was joined by Anthony Urie, a well respected maritime
attorney. The attorneys also filed an amended class action to
name addition parties.

"Our goal is devote 100% our firm's attention to the needs of
our clients and the case" said Mr. Audet, a well known class
action trial attorney.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Kans.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. continues to face the
purported class action “Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et
al.,” which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas on Feb. 16, 2007.

The defendants were served with the suit in early April.  Spirit
AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., The Spirit AeroSystems Retirement
Plan for IBEW, WEU and WTPU Employees and The Spirit AeroSystems
Retirement Plan for IAM Employees, along with the Boeing Company
and Boeing retirement and health plan entities, were sued by 12
former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or are employees of
Spirit.

The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and general contract law
and purport to bring the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly-situated individuals.

The putative sub-class members who have asserted claims against
the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005,
were employed by Boeing Aircraft Company in Wichita, Kansas and
who were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had at least
10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in a job
represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55 and
who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.

Although there are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities are that the Spirit plans
wrongfully have failed to determine that certain plaintiffs are
entitled to early retirement "bridging rights" allegedly
triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing and that
the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully transferred
from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early retirement
"bridging rights" are not being afforded these individuals as a
result of their separation from Boeing, thereby decreasing their
benefits.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class, declaration that
they are entitled to the early retirement benefits, an
injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits,
damages pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 5,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 27, 2007.

The suit is “Harkness et al. v. Boeing et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-
01043-WEB-KMH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge Wesley E. Brown with referral to
Judge Karen M. Humphreys.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Hammond, Esq.
         Hammond, Zongker & Farris, L.L.C.
         727 North Waco, Ste. 200, P. O. Box 47370
         Wichita, KS 67201
         Phone: 316-262-6800
         Fax: 316-262-3770
         E-mail: tehammond1@yahoo.com

              - and -

         Keira M. McNett, Esq.
         Davis, Cowell & Bowe LLP
         1701 K. Street NW, Ste. 210
         Washington, DC 20006
         Phone: 202-223-2620
         Fax: 202-223-8651
         E-mail: kmcnett@dcbwash.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Gregory L. Ash, Esq.
         Spencer Fane Britt & Browne
         40 Corporate Woods, Ste. 700, 9401 Indian Creek Parkway
         Overland Park, KS 66210
         Phone: 913-345-8100
         Fax: 913-345-0736

              - and -

         James M. Armstrong, Esq.
         Foulston Siefkin LLP
         1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100
         Wichita, KS 67206-4466
         Phone: 316-291-9576
         Fax: 316-267-6345
         E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com


STANDARD PACIFIC: Pensioners Want to Lead Suit Against Execs
------------------------------------------------------------
Three retirees groups filed a Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiffs in a purported securities fraud class action filed
against Standard Pacific Corp. in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

On Aug. 16, 2007, a securities class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Andrew H. Parnes, the company's Executive Vice
President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer, by putative
plaintiff Vinod Patel.  The company was not named in the
complaint.

The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duties to the
company's stockholders, as well as violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, during the period between
Oct. 27, 2005 and Aug. 2, 2007.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company:

       -- issued materially false and misleading statements
          regarding our finances, business and prospects;
       
       -- lacked requisite internal controls over lending
          practices; and
   
       -- misrepresented the extent of risk in the Company’s
          loans.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages (including
interest), reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as
equitable, injunctive or other relief that the court may deem
just and proper.  The complaint has not been served.

On Oct. 19, 2007, putative class members Pinellas Park
Retirement System (General Employees), Plumbers Local No. 98
Defined Benefit Pension Fund, and City of Pontiac General
Employees’ Retirement System filed a Motion for Appointment as
Lead Plaintiffs.

In the Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs, the moving
parties seek appointment of themselves as lead plaintiffs, and
appointment of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as
lead counsel for the putative class.

The suit is “Vinod Patel v. Andrew H Parnes., Case No. 2:07-cv-
05364-MMM-SH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge Margaret M. Morrow with
referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         E-mail: darrenr@csgrr.com

              - and -

         Joon M. Khang, Esq.
         Lee Hong Degerman Kang & Schmadeka
         660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-623-2221
         Fax: 213-623-2211
         E-mail: jkhang@lhlaw.com


SUPPORTSOFT INC: Cal. Court Oks $11M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave final approval to a $10,700,000 settlement of the class
action “In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-5222.”

                       Case Background

Between Dec. 9, 2004 and Jan. 21, 2005, several purported
securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against SupportSoft,
Inc., the company's chief executive officer, Radha R. Basu, and
former chief financial officer, Brian M. Beattie.

These actions were consolidated on March 22, 2005 as "In re
SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222 SI."

The consolidated complaint alleges generally violations of
certain federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between Jan. 20, 2004 and Oct. 1, 2004.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning the company's
business and guidance for the third quarter 2004, purportedly
violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On June 1, 2006, the action was certified to proceed as a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of the company from Jan. 29,
2004 to Oct. 1, 2004 and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

In May 2007, SupportSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPRT) reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities
class action (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2007).   

The court approved the settlement and dismissed the consolidated
lawsuit with prejudice on Sept. 28, 2007, 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 “In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-5222 SI,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Susan Illston.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Peter A. Binkow
          Glancy &  Binkow, LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160
          E-mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com

Representing the company are:

          Sherry Hartel Haus
          David L. Lansky
          Peri Nielsen
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Rd.
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: (650) 493-9300
          E-mail: sherry.haus@wilmerhale.com or dlansky@wsgr.com  
                  or pnielsen@wsgr.com


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Ok for $19M Investor Suit Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in a shareholder lawsuit stemming from an
accounting scandal at New Jersey gourmet cheese retailer Suprema
Specialties asked a federal court to approve a $19 million
settlement with the defendants in the case, Elaine Chow of the
Securities Law360 reports.

Suprema is accused of inflating sales by $560 million in the
seven years before its collapse by entering into a series of
fake transactions with its major customers, boosting sales, and
allowing Suprema to borrow more and more money from lenders.  
The fraud also helped it sell some $41 million in stock to
investors during a November 2001 stock offering.

In September, the former auditor of the cheese company, as well
as several former company board members and underwriters, signed
a memorandum of understanding to pay $19 million to settle a
class action in relation to the collapse of the company (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2007).

Recent court documents show that the Teachers' Retirement System
of Louisiana asked the court to give preliminary approval to a
settlement between it and Suprema's underwriters Janney
Montgomery Scott LLC, Pacific Growth Equities Inc. and Roth
Capital Partners LLC, as well as former directors Rudolph Acosta
Jr., Paul Desocio and Barry S. Rutcofsky.

TRSL requested that, if the court should grant preliminary
approval of the settlement, it schedule a final approval hearing
during the week of Feb. 11, 2008.

Suprema Specialties, Inc., manufactures, shreds, grates and
markets gourmet all natural Italian variety cheeses under the
Suprema Di Avellinor brand name as well as under private label.
Suprema's product lines consist primarily of domestic
mozzarella, ricotta and provolone cheeses, grated and shredded
parmesan, romano cheeses, and imported parmesan and pecorino
romano cheeses, including "lite" versions of certain of these
products containing less fat, and fewer calories.

The Company operates facilities in New Jersey, New York,
California and Idaho. The Company supplies cheeses to
foodservice, retail, and food manufacturing companies. The
company filed for Chapter 11 protection on February 24, 2002, in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Southern District of New York.


UNUM LIFE: Awaits Ruling in “Rombeiro” Policyholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
has not yet ruled on, among others, motion for summary judgment
filed by Unum Life Insurance Company of America, in a purported
class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

On July 15, 2002, “Rombeiro v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of
America, et al.,” was filed in the Superior Court of California
and subsequently was removed to federal court, alleging that the
plaintiff was wrongfully denied disability benefits under a
group long-term disability plan.

On January 21, 2003, an Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of individuals that were denied or terminated
from benefits under group long-term disability plans, seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief and payment of benefits.  

On April 30, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.  On May 14,
2003, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint seeking
similar relief.

Between November 2002 and November 2003, six additional similar
putative class actions were filed in (or later removed to)
federal district courts in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.  

The complaints alleged that the putative class members’ claims
were evaluated improperly and allege that the Company and its
insurance subsidiaries breached certain fiduciary duties owed to
the class members under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, and/or
various state laws.  

The complaints sought various forms of equitable relief and
money damages, including punitive damages.

These actions all were transferred to the Eastern District of
Tennessee multidistrict litigation.  On Dec. 22, 2003, the
Tennessee Federal District Court entered an order consolidating
all of the above actions for all pretrial purposes under the
caption, “In re UnumProvident Corp. ERISA Benefit Denial
Actions,” and appointed a lead plaintiff.  A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on Feb. 20, 2004.  

Court ordered mediation has concluded with the settlement of all
individual claims brought by seven of the fifteen named
plaintiffs.

An eighth plaintiff has subsequently resolved her claims through
the process established under the regulatory settlement
agreements.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the District Court certified a (b)(2) class
consisting of:

     “all plan participants and beneficiaries insured under
      ERISA governed long-term disability insurance
      policies/plans issued by UnumProvident and the insuring
      subsidiaries of UnumProvident throughout the United States
      who have had a long-term disability claim denied,
      terminated, or suspended on or after June 30, 1999 by
      UnumProvident or one or more of its insuring subsidiaries
      after being subjected to any of the practices alleged in
      the complaint.”

The Company has filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit Court, seeking leave to appeal the
certification order now, without awaiting rulings on the merits
of the claims.  

The class as certified seeks, among other forms of relief, an
opportunity to have denied or terminated claims re-assessed by
so-called independent reviewers.  

Unum Life is a unit of Unum Group f/k/a UnumProvident Corp.

The court has yet to rule on pending motions by the Company for
judgment on the pleading, or for summary judgment, according to
the Unum Group's Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- formerly UnumProvident  
Corp., is a provider of group and individual income-protection
insurance products in the U.S., and the U.K.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Awaits Approval of $40M Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
has yet to approve a tentative $40 million settlement that was
reached in a consolidated securities class action against Unum
Group f/k/a UnumProvident Corp., according to Unum Group's Nov.
5, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

On Feb. 12, 2003, the first of six virtually identical putative
securities class actions was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

In two orders dated May 21, 2003, and Jan. 22, 2004, the court
consolidated these actions as “In re UnumProvident Corp.
Securities Litigation.”

On Jan. 9, 2004, the Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
UnumProvident stock between March 30, 2000 and April 24, 2003.

The amended complaint alleges that:

       -- the company issued misleading financial statements,

       -- improperly accounted for certain impaired investments,

       -- failed to properly estimate the company's disability
          claim reserves, and

       -- pursued certain improper claims handling practices.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  On
March 19, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On July 30, 2007, the company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with the plaintiffs to resolve the litigation.

Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to, among
other things, approval by the court, the company has agreed to
pay $40.0 million to settle all claims that were or could have
been asserted by the class in the action.

The suit is “In Re: UnumProvident Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-CV-00049,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Milberg, Weiss LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-8590
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              - and -

         George E. Barrett, Esq.
         Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
         217 Second Avenue North
         Nashville, TN 37201-1601
         Phone: N615-244-2202
         E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com

Representing the defendants are:

         John P Konvalinka, Esq.
         Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, PC
         633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 One Republic Centre
         Chattanooga, TN 37450
         Phone: 423-756-8400
         Fax: 423-756-6518
         E-mail: jkonvalinka@gkhpc.com

              - and -

         Michael A. Anderson, Esq.
         Horton, Maddox & Anderson, PLLC
         835 Georgia Avenue, Suite 600 One Central Plaza
         Chattanooga, TN 37402
         Phone: 423-265-2560
         E-mail: manderson@chattanooga-law.com


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Dec. Hearing Set for 401(k) Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 19, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for
a proposed $5,000,000 settlement of a class action filed against
Unum Group f/k/a UnumProvident Corp. on behalf of participants
and beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) Retirement Plan.

On April 29, 2003, the first of two identical putative class
actions, “Gee v. UnumProvident Corporation, et al.,” was filed
on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of UnumProvident's
401(k) Retirement Plan (Plan), and the actions were later
consolidated.

On Jan. 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the company, several of the company's officers
and directors, and several alleged Plan fiduciaries on behalf of
a putative class of individuals that held UnumProvident stock in
their 401(k) retirement accounts subsequent to Nov. 17, 1999.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by making misrepresentations and
omissions regarding investment in UnumProvident stock and by
acting imprudently in failing to take action to protect
participants from losses sustained from investments in the
Plan's UnumProvident Stock Fund.

On Feb. 26, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
contending that the complaint failed to state a valid claim
under ERISA.

On Jan. 13, 2005, the court denied that motion.  The defendants
filed an answer to the complaint denying all material
allegations on Feb. 28, 2005.

On March 10, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
class.  The defendants filed an opposition on June 10, 2005, and
the matter is under submission with the court.

On Nov. 30, 2005, the court entered a schedule providing for the
completion of pretrial discovery by Oct. 17, 2006.  No trial
date has been set for the action.

During the first quarter of 2007, the company executed a
settlement agreement resolving the case.   The settlement
agreement, the net cost of which is immaterial, is subject to
notice to the proposed settlement class and Court approval
following a fairness hearing.

On Sept. 19, 2007, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and ordered that notice be sent to the proposed
settlement class.  A fairness hearing is scheduled for December
19, 2007.

The suit is “Gee v. Unumprovident Corp., et al., Case No. 1:03-
cv-00147,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier with
referral to Judge C. Clifford Shirley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tony R. Dalton, Esq.
         Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter
         P.O. Box 900
         Knoxville, TN 37901-0900
         Phone: 865-215-1000
         Fax: 865-215-1001
         E-mail: daltont@wmbac.com

         Andrew L. Berke, Esq.
         Ronald J. Berke, sq.
         Berke, Berke & Berke
         P.O. Box 4747
         Chattanooga, TN 37405-4747
         Phone: 423-266-5171
         Email: andrew@berkeattys.com
                ronnie@berkeattys.com

              - and -

         Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Katherine Bornstein, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         Three Bala Plaza East Suite 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Email: eciolko@sbclasslaw.com
                jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com
                kbornstein@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the Company is:

         John P. Konvalinka, Esq.
         Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, PC
         633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 One Republic Centre
         Chattanooga, TN 37450
         Phone: 423-756-8400
         Fax: 423-756-6518
         Email: jkonvalinka@gkhpc.com


VERISIGN INC: Still Faces Litigation Over Stock Option Grants
-------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in
federal court that alleges false representations and disclosure
failures regarding certain historical stock option grants.

On May 15, 2007, a putative class action, “Mykityshyn v. Bidzos,
et al., and VeriSign, Inc.,” was filed in state court naming the
company and certain current and former officers and directors.  

The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned
VeriSign common stock between April 3, 2002 and Aug. 9, 2006.

The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and
2006 Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the
1998 Option Plan.

It also seeks to enjoin defendants from granting any stock
options and from allowing the exercise of any currently
outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006 Option
Plans.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, costs and attorneys fees.  The matter was removed to
federal court on June 25, 2007.

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

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com-- is a provider of  
intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect
billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks
worldwide.


VERISIGN INC: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California certified a class in a consumer
fraud lawsuit that accuses VeriSign, Inc. of false and
misleading advertisement with regards to its Internet-security
software.

On Feb. 14, 2005, Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP filed
a putative class action in the Superior Court of California,
alleging violations of the unfair competition laws, breach of
express warranty and unjust enrichment relating to the company’s
Secure Site Pro SSL certificates.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased the Secure Site Pro certificate from February 2001 to
present.  On April 17, 2006, the class was certified and class
notice was issued on May 21, 2007.

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

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com-- is a provider of  
intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect
billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks
worldwide.


VERISIGN INC: Seeks to Nix “Bentley” Suit Over TV Contest
---------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported
consumer fraud class action that was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

On June 5, 2007, plaintiffs Cheryl Bentley, et al., on behalf of
themselves and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a
complaint against VeriSign, Inc., m-Qube, Inc., and other
defendants.

The plaintiff is alleging that defendants collectively operate
an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing
viewers of the NBC television show “The Apprentice” to incur
premium text message charges in order to participate in an
interactive television promotion called “Get Rich With Trump.”

Aug. 15, 2007, VeriSign filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint,
according to the 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.

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com-- is a provider of  
intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect
billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks
worldwide.


VERISIGN INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Gambling Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported
consumer fraud class action that was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California over alleged  
gambling laws violation by the company in its promotion of the
“Deal Or No Deal” show.

Also named defendants in the complaint are:

     -- Endemol USA,
     -- Verisign, Inc.,
     -- M-Qube, Inc., and
     -- Don Jagoda Associates, Inc.

Named plaintiffs -- Karen Herbert, Judy Schenker, Jodi Eberhart
and Cheryl Bentley -- claim the Internet promotion, known as the
“Lucky Case Game,” which costs 99 cents per text message, is a
game of chance that offers a winner a shot at “Deal or no Deal”
Program, which offers a $1 million grand prize (Class Action
Reporter, June 5, 2007).

At a predetermined time during each broadcast, six gold
briefcases (different from the in-studio contestants' cases) are
displayed on-air and an announcer invites home viewers to
participate in the Promotion by submitting the number one
through six that they believe corresponds to the winning gold
briefcase.  The game ends when one briefcase is opened on-air to
reveal that night's “Lucy Case.”

It involves the three elements of illegal gambling:
consideration, chance and prize.  Viewers of the program enter
the promotion via text message for which they incur a premium
text message fee, or via the internet.  Potential winners among
eligible entrants are chosen at random, and have the opportunity
to win cash and other prizes.

The alleged illegal gambling game is broadcast during the show,
plaintiffs say.

Plaintiffs further claim the show, broadcast nationwide from
California, violates California and Massachusetts laws against
gambling.

Defendants operate the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, as follows:

     (a) Endemol produces the "Deal or No Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (b) Don Jagoda designe the "Lucky Case Game," including its
         rules and conditions;

     (c) NBC broadcasts the "Deal or NO Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (d) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" during the broadcasr of "Deal or No Deal";

     (e) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" in advertisements for "Deal or No Deal" and the              
         "Lucky Case Game";

     (f) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda solicit thext message
         entries to the "Lucky Case Game";

     (g) NBC levies charges for premium text messages sent by
         entrants in the promotion;

     (h) VeriSign and M-Qube act as the billing agent for the
         promotion;

     (i) VeriSign and M-Qube aggregate all entrie, and randomly
         select and contact the potential prize winner amongst
         the entries correctly identifying the "Lucky Case";
  
     (j) VeriSign and M-Qube award and distribute prizes to
         winning entrants; and

     (k) Endemol, NBC, VeriSign and M-Qube sponsor the "Lucky
         Case Game."

Plaintiffs brought the nationwide class action, pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of
themselves and as a representative of a class consisting of all
persons in the U.S. who paid or incurred premium text message
charges in connection with entrance into the "Lucky Case Game,"
and who did not win a prize.

They brought the action in their individual capacities, and for
the First and Second Causes of Action, as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
persons and entities who have paid or incurred premium text
message charges in connection with entering the "Lucky Case
Game" Promotion, and who have not won any prize.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     1. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constitutes illegal
         gambling;

     2. the extent of each defendants' participation in
         conducting the promotion;

     3. whether defendants' conduct violated California
         Business and Professions Section 17200;

     4. whether defendants' violations directly and proximately
         caused injury to plaintiffs and the class;

     5. the extent to which the injuries suffered by plaintiffs
         and the class are entitled to damages, restitution,
         disgorgement, or other monetary remedies;

     6. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constituted a gaming or
         related activity covered by Massachusetts General Laws
         ch. 137, Section 1:

     7. whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         recover the amount of premium text messages paid to
         enter the "Lucky Case Game" in contract; and

     8. whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
         the "Lucky Case Game."

Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment against defendants as
follows:

     -- order certifying the class;

     -- judgment for plaintiffs and the class for restitution;

     -- judgment for plaintiffs and the class for damages;

     -- judgment for plaintiffs for treble damages;

     -- preliminary and permanent injunction against conducting
        the "Lucy Case Game" Promotion;

     -- declaration that the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion
        constitutes an illegal lottery and illegal gambling;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the
        class as may be just and proper; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

On Aug. 15, 2007, VeriSign filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, according to the 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 “Karen Herbert et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case
No. CV 07 3537FMC,” filed in the U.s. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: (310) 854-4444
          Fax: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

          William A. Pannell, Esq.
          William A. Pannell, P.C.
          3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 353-2283
          E-mail: billpannell@mindspring.com

          - and -

          Kevin T. Moore, Esq.
          Kevin T. MOore, P.C.
          6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, N.E.
          Building C, Suite 201
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: (770) 396-3622
          E-mail: kaw30328@aol.com


VERISIGN INC: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Gambling Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported
consumer fraud class action that was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia with regards to
accusations that the company along with several others were
violating gambling laws in the promotion of the “Deal Or No
Deal” show.

On June 7, 2007, plaintiffs Michael and Michele Hardin, on
behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers, filed
a complaint against VeriSign, Inc. and other defendants alleging
that defendants collectively operate various “gambling games” in
violation of Georgia state law.

Plaintiffs allege that interactive television promotions
contained in various broadcasts, including NBC’s “Deal or No
Deal,” wrongly permit participants to incur premium text message
charges in order to participate in the promotions to win a
prize.

On Aug. 17, 2007, VeriSign filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint.  On Sept. 20, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on
VeriSign’s Motion to Dismiss, according to the 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 “Hardin et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00064-WCO,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge William C. O'Kelley.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Dustin Thomas Brown, Esq.
         Daughtery, Crawford, Fuller & Brown, LLP
         P.O. Box 1118
         Columbus, GA 31902
         Phone: 706-320-9646
         Fax: 706-494-0221
         E-mail: dustin@dcfblaw.com

              - and -

         Jerry Alan Buchanan, Esq.
         Buchanan & Land
         P.O. Box 2848, 1425 Wynnton Road
         Columbus, GA 31902
         Phone: 404-323-2848
         E-mail: jab@buchananland.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
         King & Spalding, LLP-ATL
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600
         E-mail: jchally@kslaw.com


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Still Faces Del. Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
VERITAS Software Corp., which was acquired by Symantec Corp.,
continues to face a consolidated securities fraud class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint, “Paul Kuck,
et al. v. Veritas Software Corp., et al.” was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with company's announcement on July 6, 2004 that it
expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2004 to fall below earlier estimates.  The complaint
generally seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have
been filed in Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the
court entered an order consolidating these actions and
appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005,
expanding the class period from April 23, 2004 through July 6,
2004.

The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as
a defendant and added allegations that the company and the named
officers made false or misleading statements in the company's
press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings regarding the company's financial results, which
allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were
unsigned or lacked essential terms.

Defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in July 2005, which was denied by
the court in May 2006.

Symantec Corp. reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 28, 2007.

The suit is “Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
00831-SLR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware under Judge Sue L. Robinson.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
         Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess
         Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070
         Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
         Phone: (302) 656-4433
         E-mail: CKeener@rmgglaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Erica Niezgoda Finnegan, Esq.
         Cross & Simon, LLC
         913 North Market Street, 11th Floor, Suite 1001
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302) 777-4200 and (302) 777-4224
         E-mail: efinnegan@crosslaw.com

              - and -

         Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
         Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
         1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, P.O. Box 951
         Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
         Phone: (302) 984-6037
         Fax: (302) 658-1192
         E-mail: pwalsh@potteranderson.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: To Face Suit Over Former N.Y. Operation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications Inc. could face a class action over the
ill effects of its former nuclear-fuel plant in Hicksville.

Five employees of a magazine distribution company once located
at Cantiague Rock Road are filing a class action to force the
company to pay expenses on a medical monitoring program, Newsday
(Melville, N.Y.) reports.  Lawyers for employees at Magazine
Distributors Inc. said last week the suit will be filed in State
Supreme Court in Brooklyn.  

The workers are claiming that Verizon and its predecessor
companies recklessly and negligently operated the facility that
made nuclear fuel rods from uranium and other materials.  
Exposure to toxic substances allegedly increased the risk that
they develop "multiple forms of cancer and other serious life-
threatening diseases."  These toxins are primarily
tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethene and heavy metals such as
nickel.

Verizon Communications operated the plant between 1952.  In
1966, Verizon predecessor Sylvania Electric Products Inc.,
routinely incinerated uranium scrap into the open air and dumped
chemical toxins into the ground.  Magazine Distributors operated
the plant from 1991 to 2002 and has since moved to Farmingdale.  
Magazine Distributors is not named as a defendant.

Mitchell Breit, an attorney with Whatley Drake & Kallas in
Manhattan, said the class action will focus on testing and
monitoring the health of potentially more than 1,000 of workers
at several companies formerly located there.

Mr. Breit said the suit will focus on chemical, not nuclear,
contamination.  He declined to explain why, according to the
report.

Also to represent plaintiffs is attorney Troy Rosasco.

For more information, contact:

          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC
          1540 Broadway
          37th Floor
          New York, New York  10036
          (New York Co.)
          Phone: 212-447-7070
          Fax: 212-447-7077
          Web site: http://www.wdklaw.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on behalf of shareholders
against BigBand Networks, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who acquired BigBand securities
between March 14, 2007 through September 27, 2007, inclusive,
including those who purchased common stock pursuant or traceable
to the Company's March 14, 2007 Initial Public Offering.

Shares of BigBand stock fell 30% on September 28, 2007, after
BigBand revealed that BigBand's largest customer had reduced
orders of BigBand's products until it worked off excess
inventory of those products, and other customers were having
difficulty customizing BigBand's products. The true facts
disclosed by defendants at the end of the Class Period were in
sharp contrast to defendants' public statements in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus, and throughout the Class
Period, regarding the state of BigBand's business and
operations.

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

For more information, contact:

          Joseph White, Esq.
          Greg Stone
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Tel: (561) 394-3399
          Fax: (561) 394-3382
          Website: http://www.saxenawhite.com


UNITED RENTALS: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP commenced a Class Action in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired
securities of United Rentals, Inc. between August 29, 2007
through and including November 14, 2007 inclusive.

On July 23, 2007, URI announced that it had entered into a
definitive merger agreement under which affiliates of Cerberus
Capital Management, L.P. would acquire all of the outstanding
shares of URI common stock for $34.50 per share.

On September 19, 2007, URI filed its Schedule 14A Proxy
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
anticipation of the shareholder vote to approve the Merger. On
October 19, 2007, URI announced that its stockholders approved
the Merger Agreement.

On November 14, 2007, URI publicly announced that Cerberus had
informed the Company that Cerberus was not prepared to proceed
with the purchase of URI on the terms set forth in the Merger
Agreement.

On the news that Cerberus was backing out of the Merger, the
Company posted its biggest drop since it went public in 1997 and
plunged 31%, or $10.51, from $34.01 per share to a closing price
of $23.50 per share.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose that, several weeks after
the Merger Agreement was signed, Cerberus contacted URI
management and expressed its concern about its ability to
proceed with the Merger given the changes in the credit and
financial markets, on which its financing for the deal depended.

It was not until November 14, 2007, when the Company filed a
Form 8-K that included letters, dated August 31, 2007 and
September 6, 2007 which demonstrated that the Merger had been at
risk since August 29, 2007, and that Cerberus sought to
renegotiate the terms of the Merger Agreement.

Defendants' failure to disclose this information materially
mislead investors and caused the market for URI's shares to
trade at prices artificially inflated by the belief that the
Merger would proceed. Had the August correspondence between
Ceberus and URI been disclosed to the public in the Proxy, URI's
shareholders would have been alerted to the risk of the
transaction not going forward.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired URI securities during the Class
Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 19,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Susan Lee
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 (Toll Free)
          E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.com or
                  nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.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  * * *