CAR_Public/071128.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 28, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 236

                            Headlines


ALBERTSON'S INC: Sued Over “Illegal” Sales Tax on Bottled Water
ALFA CORP: Suits Over Alfa Mutual Buyout Offer Consolidated
AON CORP: Approval of Suit Over “Profit-Sharing” Under Appeal
AON CORP: Complaint of RICO Act Violations in N.J. Dismissed
ARKANSAS BEST: Faces Multiple Suits Over Price Fixing Conspiracy

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over “Illegal” Overdraft Charges
BDO SEIDMAN: Kershaw Cutter Files Suit for Overtime Laws Breach
BUY-RITE DESIGNS: Recalls Bracelets, Tack Pins on Lead Content
CHERRYDALE FUNDRAISING: Recalls Bracelets on High Lead Content
COLOSSAL JEWELRY: Recalls Kids' Jewelry on High Lead Content

FARMERS GROUP: Policyholders Claim “Xactimate” Miscalculates
GLOBAL CROSSING: Ill. Landowners' Rights-of-Way Suit Continues
JDS UNIPHASE: Jan. 2008 Conference Set for SDL Investor Lawsuit
LEAR CORP: 2008 Discovery Deadline Set in Mich. ERISA Suit
LEAR CORP: Dismissed from “Qualey” ERISA Lawsuit in Michigan

LEAR CORP: Hearing of Suits Over $2B Sale Set Late 2007
LITHIA MOTORS: No Class Yet in Suit Over Vehicle Data Disclosure
LYONDELL CHEMICAL: Discovery Begins in Suits Over Basell Offer
MARATHON OIL: W.Va. Court Certifies Class in Gasoline Lawsuit
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Lawsuit Over Illegal Workers in Discovery
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Ga. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit
TARGET CORP: Sued for Labeling Asian-Made Goods “Made in USA”
USANA HEALTH: Utah Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
VESTIN REALTY: Still Faces Litigation Over Vestin Fund II Merger

VESTIN REALTY: Still Faces Litigation Over Vestin Fund I Merger
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Sued Over Unauthorized “Balance Inquiry Fees”


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ACA CAPITAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
AETNA INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Penna.
CROCS INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Colo. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GIANT INTERACTIVE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
VIRGIN MOBILE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
                            

                            *********


ALBERTSON'S INC: Sued Over “Illegal” Sales Tax on Bottled Water
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's Inc. and New Albertson's Inc. are facing a class-
action complaint filed Nov. 20 in the Superior Court for the
State of California alleging it illegally charges sales tax and
bottle deposits on distilled water.

This is class action and private Attorney General action
instituted under the laws of California for damages,
restitution, injunctive and equitable relief for injuries
sustained as a result of defendants' deceptive and unfair
business practices involving the sale of certain brands of
distilled water and the adding of sales tax thereto both upon
the purchase price and upon the "California Redemption Value"
charged for the sale.

Named plaintiff Jonathan Nicholas brings this action pursuant to
Section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure on behalf
of all persons in California who, during the four years before
the filing of the complaint, have purchased distilled water of
Albertson's or Arrowhead brands from defendants and been
overcharged under the guise of sales tax on the purchase price
and upon the "CRV" thereon required by the State of California.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants committed and/or are responsible for
         the conduct complained of;

     (b) whether the alleged conduct violated Civil Code
         Sections 1750, et seq (and Section 1770(a)(9) in
         particular);

     (c) whether the alleged conduct violated Business &
         Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. (and Section
         17200 in particular);

     (d) whether plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief:

     (e) whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages and the
         appropriate measure of such damages;

     (f) whether plaintiffs are entitled to restitution and the
         appropriate measure of such restitution; and

     (g) whether plaintiffs are entitled to an order requiring
         disgorgement of all ill-gotten monies.

Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:

     -- that the court declare this a class action;

     -- that the court (if such notice is deemed necessary)
        order defendants to notify all purchasers of Albertson's
        brand and Arrowhead brand distilled water of the
        pendency of the claims set forth in this action for the
        purpose of providing relief to such purchasers;

     -- that the court order defendants to immediately cease all
        acts of unfair competition and enjoin defendants from
        continuing to conduct business via the unlawful and
        unfair business acts or practices as described;

     -- that the court order defendants to pay restitution to
        restore to all affected persons all funds acquired by
        means of any act or practice declared by the court to be
        an unlawful or unfair business act or practice;

     -- that the court award pre- and post-judgment interest;

     -- that the court award class members damages as provided
        by law;

     -- that the court award class members punitive damages as
        provided by law;

     -- that the court award plaintiff reasonable costs of suit
        and attorneys' fees; and

     -- that the court grant such other and further relief as
        may be just and proper.

The suit is "Jonathan C. Nicholas et al. v. New Albertson's Inc.
et al.," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California.

Representing plaintiffs is:

         Clark D. Nicholas
         6519 Sylvan Road, Unit 114
         Citrus Heights, CA 95610-5053
         Phone: (916) 560-8310


ALFA CORP: Suits Over Alfa Mutual Buyout Offer Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Purported class actions filed against Alfa Corp. in Delaware and
Alabama over a plan to privatize the company have been
consolidated in each jurisdiction.

On July 17, 2007, the Company received an offer from Alfa Mutual
Insurance Company, Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Alfa
Mutual General Insurance Company (referred to collectively as
the Mutual Group), which collectively own a majority of its
common stock, for a transaction that would result in the
privatization of the company.  

The Mutual Group proposes to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock that are not currently
owned by the Mutual Group.

Subsequent to the end of the second quarter, nine purported
class actions, seven in the Delaware Chancery Court and two in
the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, have been
brought against the Company, the Mutual Group and directors
and/or officers on behalf of the public shareholders of the
Company, to enjoin the defendants from causing the Company to
enter into an agreement to be acquired by the Mutual Group,
among other allegations.

On August 16, 2007 and on August 29, 2007, orders were entered
that consolidated the actions filed in Delaware into “In Re Alfa
Corp. Shareholders Litigation,” In the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 3104-
VCP.

On October 29, 2007, an order was entered that consolidated the
actions filed in Alabama into “In Re Alfa Corp. Shareholder
Litigation,” In the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama,
CV-07-900485.

The Mutual Group owns 54.8% of Alfa Corp.'s common stock.  Alfa
Specialty Insurance Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alfa
Mutual Insurance Co.  Alfa Corp. and its subsidiaries together
with the Mutual Group and Specialty comprise the Alfa Group.  
The Company's four operating segments are Property casualty
insurance, Life insurance, Noninsurance, and Corporate and
eliminations.  Effective Jan. 1, 2007, the Company completed the
previously approved plan of conversion and acquisition of
Virginia Mutual.


AON CORP: Approval of Suit Over “Profit-Sharing” Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties objecting to a $38 million settlement of the purported
class action, "Daniel v. Aon Corp.," continue to appeal a final
approval of the deal by the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Several suits were initially filed against Aon Corp. units
Affinity Insurance Services Inc. and K&K Insurance Group,
alleging that they entered into "profit-sharing" relationships
with the underwriters without disclosing the income to their
policyholder clients.

The suit seeks to determine whether the company's having
received or being eligible for receipt, without consent of its
clients, undisclosed commissions or 'kickbacks' in connection
with the placement of insurance, violates the fiduciary or
confidential obligations imposed under Illinois law.

The suit was filed on behalf of current or former policyholders
of the Aon Corp., Aon Group, and Aon Services Group as class
members alongside lead Plaintiffs Alan S. Daniel and the
Williamson County (Illinois) Agricultural Association.

On July 28, 2004, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On March 9, 2005, the court gave preliminary approval to a
nationwide class action settlement within the $38 million
reserve established in the fourth quarter of 2004.

The court granted final approval to the settlement in March
2006.  Parties that objected to the settlement have appealed.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 8,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Settlement Administrator’s contact:

         Daniel Settlement Administrator
         2807 Allen St., PMB #801
         Dallas, TX, 75204-4094
         Phone: 1-800-714-9815
         Web site: http://www.aon-daniel-settlement.com  

The suit is "Daniel v. Aon (Affinity), Case No. 1999-CH-11893,"
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, under Judge
Julia M. Nowicki.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Hartunian Futterman & How
         122 S. Michigan 1850
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 427-3600

Represented the company is:

         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 E. Randolph Dr.
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 861-2000


AON CORP: Complaint of RICO Act Violations in N.J. Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
claims of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
violations against Aon Corp.

Beginning in June 2004, a number of other putative class actions
were filed against Aon and other companies by purported classes
of clients under a variety of legal theories, including state
tort, contract, fiduciary duty, antitrust and statutory theories
and federal antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act theories.

The federal actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, and a state court collective
action was filed in California.

In the New Jersey actions, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’
federal antitrust and RICO claims in separate orders in,
respectively, August and October 2007. Plaintiffs are expected
to appeal.

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com-- through its various  
subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three
operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which
acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage
their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk
with insurance carriers through its global distribution network;
Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting,
communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource
consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting;
and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance
products.


ARKANSAS BEST: Faces Multiple Suits Over Price Fixing Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Best Corp. faces numerous class actions over fuel
surcharges that names it and other less-than-truckload (LTL)
carriers as defendants, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

These lawsuits allege that the carriers violated U.S. antitrust
laws regarding fuel surcharges and seek unspecified treble
damages allegedly sustained by class members, along with
attorney’s fees and costs.

                      California Litigation

One of those suits is “Farm Water Technological Services, Inc.
et al. v. Arkansas Best Corp. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01389-
BEN-RBB.”

The suit was filed by irrigation and farm equipment supplier,
Farm Water Technological Services, and its subsidiaries in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.  
The suit charges that the nations leading LTL carriers have
conspired throughout four years or more to fix fuel surcharges
on LTL shipments (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2007).

Named defendants in the complaint are:

          -- Arkansas Best Corp.,
          -- Averitt Express,  
          -- Con-Way, Inc.,
          -- Fedex Corp.,
          -- Jevic Transportation, Inc.,  
          -- Sun Capital Partners IV, LLC,  
          -- New England Motor Freight, Inc.,  
          -- R+L Carriers, Inc.,  
          -- Saia, Inc.,  
          -- United Parcel Service, Inc.,  
          -- YRC Worldwide Inc.,  
          -- Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc.

Farm Water, doing business as Water Tech, and its subsidiary
CBJT, doing business as Agricultural Supply contend that the
practice dates back to 2003.

They charge that the carriers agreed to impose identical or
nearly identical surcharges by linking them to diesel fuel
prices published by the U.S. Department of Energy and by listing
surcharges on their websites to communicate pricing.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchase LTL service directly to defendants or
their unnamed co-conspirators from July 30, 2003 through the
conclusion of the trial in this matter (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 2, 2007).

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed
         for LTL services sold in the United States;

     (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this
         complaint and the nature and character of the acts
         performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in
         furtherance of the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the
         Sherman Act;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused
         injury to the business and property plaintiffs and
         other members of the classes;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         LTL services sold in the United States during the class
         period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and other members of the damages class.

Plaintiffs pray that:

     -- the court determines that this action may be maintained
        as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure;

     -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts
        done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co-
        conspirators, b adjudged to have been in violation of
        Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of the
        damages class against defendants for three times the
        amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the
        damages class as allowed by law, together with the costs
        of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- defendants and their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to ac on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner:

        (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract,
            combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging
            in any other contract, combination or conspiracy
            having a similar purpose or effect, and from
            adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
            device having a similar purpose or effect; and

       (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the manufacture,
            distribution or sale of any product except to the
            extent necessary in connection with a bona fide
            sales transaction between the parties to such
            communications; and

     -- plaintiffs and members of the class have such other,
        further and different relief as the case may require and
        the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The plaintiffs and carriers agreed to set Oct. 31, 2007 as the
date for the carriers response to the complaint.

The suit is “Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. et al. v.
Arkansas Best Corp. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01389-BEN-RBB,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, under Judge Roger T. Benitez, with referral to Judge
Ruben B. Brooks.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Christopher M. Burke
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301

          Patrick J. Coughlin
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415)288-4545
          Fax: (415)288-4534
          E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com

          - and -

          Jeffrey Todd Thomas
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
          Irvine, CA 92614-8557
          Phone: (949)451-3967
          Fax: (949)475-4670
          E-mail: jtthomas@gibsondunn.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over “Illegal” Overdraft Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 21
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, accusing it of issuing ATM cards with withdrawals
limited to available funds, then approving overdrafts, and
charging fees for them, to maximize bank profits at the expense
of customers.

Named plaintiff Patty Blyleven brings this action seeking
damages and other relief for defendant's strategic imposition of
bank overdraft fees on debit/check card transactions in
derogation its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
and various California consumer protection laws.

She brings this action on behalf of all persons or entities who
have been issued a debit/check card by defendant for use with
their checking account and who were charged an insufficient
funds fee for debit/check card purchases.

Ms. Blyleven wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's rules and policies governing when      
         it will process debit/check card transactions when
         there are insufficient funds in the account for the
         transaction (and charge a $35 overdraft fee) violates
         the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
         the UCL and California consumer protection laws;

     (b) whether defendant's rules and policies governing the
         order of posting of debit/check card transactions based
         upon the size of the transaction such that it maximizes
         overdraft fees constitutes a violation of the implied
         covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the UCL and
         California consumer protection laws;

     (c) whether defendant has been unjustly enriched by its
         conduct; and

     (d) the nature and extent of damages, restitution and
         disgorgement, and other remedies to which plaintiff and
         the members of the class are entitled.

Plaintiff request that the court enter an order or judgment as
follows:

     -- an order certifying that the action may be maintained as
        a class action as defined and appointing plaintiff and
        their undersigned counsel of record to represent the
        class;

     -- restitution by defendant of all unlawfully and unfairly
        imposed account charges to plaintiff and other class
        members;

     -- an order temporarily and permanently enjoining defendant
        from imposing overdraft charges on their check card and
        checking account holders unless and until defendant
        fairly and accurately discloses to these account holders
        unless and until defendant fairly and accurately
        discloses to these account holders and members of the
        general public the nature and cost of such service and
        the account holder expressly consents to accept the
        same;

     -- an order requiring disgorgement of defendant's ill-
        gotten gains and to pay restitution to plaintiff and all
        members of the class and the general public and to
        restore to the public all funds acquired by means of any
        act or practice declared by the court to be an unlawful,
        fraudulent or unfair business act or practice, a
        violation of laws, statutes or regulations, or
        constituting unfair competition or false, untrue or
        misleading advertising;

     -- for distribution of any moneys recovered on behalf of
        the general public, or members of the class, via fluid
        recovery or cy pres recovery where necessary to prevent
        defendants from retaining the benefits of their wrongful
        conduct;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia, Code
        of Civil Procedure, Section 1021.5;

     -- cost of this suit;

     -- pre- and post-judgment interest; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem
        necessary or appropriate.

The suit is "Patty Blyleven et al. v. Bank of America, et al.,
Case No. CV07-07638 FMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Brian S. Kabateck
         Richard L. Kellner
         Reza Sina
         Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
         664 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, California 90017
         Phone: (213) 217-5000
         Fax: (213) 217-5010


BDO SEIDMAN: Kershaw Cutter Files Suit for Overtime Laws Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff filed a class-action complaint
against the nation's fifth largest accounting firm, BDO Seidman,
seeking to recover millions of dollars in overtime pay for its
past and present associate accountants.

The case against BDO Seidman alleges that it improperly
classified its unlicensed associate accountants as "exempt" from
receiving overtime pay and other benefits. Specifically, the
lawsuit claims that under California law, accountants must be
licensed in order to be properly classified as exempt.

The complaint also alleges that the work duties of young
associate accountants often consist of performing a wide variety
of menial tasks that are highly supervised and controlled by
accountants who are licensed. As such, the associates are not
able to exercise "independent discretion and judgment;" a
requirement under California law to be considered exempt.

Plaintiff's attorney, Stuart Talley, noted that: "These young
associates are often hired right out of college and are asked to
work around the clock; especially during busy season. Given
their lack of experience and the highly regulated environment in
which they work, there is simply no way they can be exercising
independent discretion and judgment on matters of significance
as is required under California law. There is no way these
accounting firms do not know they are violating the law."

This lawsuit was filed on the heels of several similar class
actions that have been pending against the four largest
accounting firms, PriceWaterhouse Coopers, Ernst & Young, KPMG,
and Delloite & Touche. This is the first action filed against
what is considered a "second tier" accounting firm; an
accounting firms that is large but not quite large enough to be
considered one of the "Big 4."

"This is just the first of many lawsuits we intend to file
against accounting firms that are violating the law. It is our
position that the law on this subject is very clear and that
these firms must be held to account for their actions," said
Talley.

The suit is “Nguyen v. B.D.O. Seidman, Case Number SACV07 1252,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

For more information, contact:

          William Kershaw
          Stuart Talley
          Kershaw, Cutter, & Ratinoff, Sacramento
          Phone: 916-448-9800
          E-mail: wkershaw@kcrlegal.com or stalley@kcrlegal.com


BUY-RITE DESIGNS: Recalls Bracelets, Tack Pins on Lead Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Buy-Rite Designs Inc., of Freehold, N.J., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
43,000 Sparkle City Charm Bracelets and Tack Pin Sets.

The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of
lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recalled charm bracelets have silver-colored star and
butterfly charms, and clear and pink beads that hang from a
silver-colored chain. The tack pins are silver butterflies or
stars with clear and pink beads.

The bracelets and tack pins were made in China and sold at Big
Lots stores nationwide from August 2005 through April 2007
for about $1.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled jewelry
away from children and return it to the store where purchased
for a full refund.  If unable to return it to the stores,
contact Buy-Rite for information on how to receive a refund.

For additional information, contact Buy-Rite at (888)
777-7952 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.buyriteinc.com.


CHERRYDALE FUNDRAISING: Recalls Bracelets on High Lead Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cherrydale Fundraising, of Allentown, Pa., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
45,000 of Decorative Stretchable Aqua Bracelets.

The company said the bracelets contain high levels of lead. Lead
is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse
health effects.

No incidents/injuries have been reported.

The recalled bracelets are stretchable, with silver-colored
square links and aqua-colored beads. SKU#5384706813 is printed
on the packaging.

The bracelets were made in China and sold at various dollar
stores, liquidators, and schools as part of fundraising,
nationwide from September 2003 through April 2007 for
between $1 and $12.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bracelets
and take them away from young children. Return them to the store
where purchased or contact the firm to receive a full refund.

For additional information, contact Cherrydale
Fundraising at (800) 333-2565 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.cherrydale.com.


COLOSSAL JEWELRY: Recalls Kids' Jewelry on High Lead Content
------------------------------------------------------------
Colossal Jewelry & Accessories Inc., of Maywood, N.J., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 10,400 Children's Metal Necklaces and Bracelets.

The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of
lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects.

No incidents/injuries have been reported.

The recalled metal necklaces and bracelets have silver-colored
charms. Some also have colored beads. "Awesome Boutique"
or "Share the Love" is printed on some of the jewelry's
packaging. The jewelry includes a necklace with a metal flower-
shaped charm that hangs from a pink cord, a metal heart charm
bracelet, a metal heart angel charm bracelet with colored beads,
a metal bracelet with four heart charms and ruby-colored beads,
necklaces with painted hearts that hang from a cord, and
necklaces with tiny purses in various colors.

The jewelry were made in China and sold at various discount and
dollar stores nationwide from January 2005 through June 2007 for
about $1.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled jewelry
away from children and return it to the store where purchased
for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Colossal Jewelry &
Accessories at (888) 808-5093 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, or e-mail colosssaljewelry@comcast.net.


FARMERS GROUP: Policyholders Claim “Xactimate” Miscalculates
------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers Group, its subsidiary Truck Insurance Exchange and
Xactware are facing a class-action complaint filed in Superior
Court alleging they conspired to cheat policyholders by using
"Xactimate" software that undervalues property damages and
replacement costs, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Michael and Denise Maguire claim that Farmers
knows the computer program, which includes prices on about
10,000 items, cheats policyholders, but "uses and pays claims
based on the estimates prepared by Xactimate" anyway.

They further claim Xactware's subsidiary, Xactnet, automatically
audits all claims submissions and flags any items that do not
match its estimates. They claim Farmers pressures its claims
adjusters to use the Xactimate estimates.

The class of California policyholders claims the defendants
conspired to fix prices, breached contract, breached faith and
do business unfairly.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          644 S Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3406


GLOBAL CROSSING: Ill. Landowners' Rights-of-Way Suit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Qwest Rights-of-Way Litigation faced by subsidiaries of
Global Crossing Ltd. continues in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois.  

In May 2001, a purported class action was commenced against
three of Global Crossing's subsidiaries in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  

The complaint alleges that the company had no right to install a
fiber-optic cable in rights-of-way granted by the plaintiffs to
certain railroads.

Pursuant to an agreement with Qwest Communications Corp., the
company has an indefeasible right to use certain fiber-optic
cables in a fiber-optic communications system constructed by
Qwest within the rights-of-way.  

The complaint alleges that the railroads had only limited
rights-of-way granted to them that did not include permission to
install fiber-optic cable for use by Qwest or any other
entities.

The action has been brought on behalf of a national class of
landowners whose property underlies or is adjacent to a railroad
right-of-way within which the fiber-optic cables have been
installed.  

It seeks actual damages in an unstated amount and alleges that
the wrongs done by the Company involve fraud, malice,
intentional wrongdoing, willful or wanton conduct and/or
reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiff landowners.   
As a result, plaintiffs also request an award of punitive
damages.

The company made a demand of Qwest to defend and indemnify the
company in the lawsuit.  In response, Qwest has appointed
defense counsel to protect the company's interests.

The company's North American network includes capacity purchased
from Qwest on an Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) basis.  Though
the amount of the claim is unstated, an adverse outcome could
have an adverse impact on the company's ability to utilize large
portions of the company's North American network.

This litigation was stayed against the company pending the
effective date of the Plan of Reorganization, and the
plaintiffs' pre-petition claims against the company were
discharged at that time in accordance with the Plan of
Reorganization.

By agreement between the parties, the Plan of Reorganization
preserved plaintiffs' rights to pursue any post- confirmation
claims of trespass or ejectment.  

If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the company could lose its
ability to operate large portions of its North American network,
although it believes that it would be entitled to
indemnification from Qwest for any losses under the terms of the
IRU agreement under which the company originally purchased this
capacity.

As part of a global resolution of all bankruptcy claims asserted
against the company by Qwest, Qwest agreed to reaffirm its
obligations of defense and indemnity to the Company for the
assertions made in this claim.  

In September 2002, Qwest and certain of the other
telecommunication carrier defendants filed a proposed settlement
agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.  

On July 25, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and entered an order enjoining competing class action
claims, except those in Louisiana.  

The settlement and the court's injunction were opposed by a
number of parties who intervened and an appeal was taken to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In a decision dated Oct. 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed
the approval of the settlement and lifted the injunction.  The
case has been remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Global Crossing Limited -- http://www.globalcrossing.com-- is a  
communications solutions provider, offering a suite of Internet
protocol and legacy telecommunications services worldwide.


JDS UNIPHASE: Jan. 2008 Conference Set for SDL Investor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sonoma Superior Court in California set a Jan. 25, 2008 case
management conference for a class action filed by plaintiffs
purporting to represent the former shareholders of SDL Ltd.

The suit is asserting that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the events alleged in a securities
litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp.

Plaintiffs in the SDL action, “Cook v. Scifres, Master File No.
CV814824,” purport to represent a class of former shareholders
of SDL who exchanged their SDL shares for JDS Uniphase shares
when the company acquired SDL.  Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on Nov. 20, 2006.

The complaint names the former directors of SDL as Defendants,
asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of the duty of disclosure, and seeks unspecified damages.

On March 6, 2007, the Court overruled Defendants’ demurrer to
that complaint.  A case management conference is scheduled for
Jan. 25, 2008.

JDS Uniphase Corp. (JDSU) -- http://www.jdsuniphase.com-- is a  
provider of broadband and optical products and solutions.  Its
products are used in communications, commercial and consumer
applications, including broadband and optical networks, brand
protection, biotechnology, semiconductor, aerospace and defense.


LEAR CORP: 2008 Discovery Deadline Set in Mich. ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan  
set an April 30, 2008 deadline for the completion of discovery
in a consolidated class action filed against Lear Corp., which
alleges violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act.

In April 2006, a former employee of the Company filed a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan against the company, members of its
Board of Directors, members of its Employee Benefits Committee
(EBC) and certain members of its human resources personnel
alleging violations of ERISA with respect to the Company’s
retirement savings plans for salaried and hourly employees.

In the second quarter of 2006, the Company was served with three
additional purported class action ERISA lawsuits, each of which
contained similar allegations against the Company, members of
its Board of Directors, members of its EBC and certain members
of its senior management and its human resources personnel.

At the end of the second quarter of 2006, the court entered an
order consolidating these four lawsuits as "In re: Lear Corp.
ERISA Litigation."

During the third quarter of 2006, plaintiffs filed their
consolidated complaint, which alleges breaches of fiduciary
duties substantially similar to those alleged in the four
individually filed lawsuits.

The consolidated complaint continues to name certain current and
former members of the Board of Directors and the EBC and certain
members of senior management and adds certain other current and
former members of the EBC.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants in
connection with the administration of the Company’s retirement
savings plans for salaried and hourly employees.

The fiduciary duty claims are largely based on allegations of
breaches of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and of
over-concentration of plan assets in the Company’s common stock.

The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of the
plans and all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the plans from Oct. 21, 2004, to the present and seek to
recover losses allegedly suffered by the plans.  The complaints
do not specify the amount of damages sought.

During the fourth quarter of 2006, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss all defendants and all counts in the consolidated
complaint.

During the second quarter of 2007, the court denied defendants’
motion to dismiss and defendants’ answer to the consolidated
complaint was filed in August 2007.

On Aug. 7, 2007, the court ordered that discovery be completed
by April 30, 2008.

The suit is “Malloy v. Lear Corp., et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
11735-JCO-VMM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge John Corbett O'Meara with
referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Stephen F. Wasinger, Esq.
         Stephen F. Wasinger, PLC,
         32121 Woodward Avenue
         300 Balmoral Centre
         Royal Oak, MI 48073-0999
         Phone: 248-554-6306
         E-mail: sfw@sfwlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Thomas G. McNeill, Esq.
         Dickinson Wright
         500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
         Detroit, MI 48226-3425
         Phone: 313-223-3500
         E-mail: TMcNeill@dickinsonwright.com


LEAR CORP: Dismissed from “Qualey” ERISA Lawsuit in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
dismissed without prejudice Lear Corp., members of its Board of
Directors, and members of the Employee Benefits Committee (Lear
Defendants) from the purported class action, “Qualey v. Jackson
et al. Case No. 2:07-cv-10910-GER-RSW.”

On March 1, 2007, a purported class action -– alleging
violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act --
was filed on behalf of participants in the company’s 401(k)
plans.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan and alleges that Lear Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the participants in the 401(k) plans
by approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger with AREP Car
Holdings Corp. and AREP Car Acquisition Corp., which are both
affiliates of Carl C. Icahn.

On March 8, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited
discovery to support a potential motion for preliminary
injunction to enjoin the Merger Agreement.

The Lear Defendants filed an opposition to the motion for
expedited discovery on March 22, 2007.  Plaintiff filed a reply
on April 11, 2007.

On April 18, 2007, the Judge denied plaintiff’s motion for
expedited discovery.  On March 15, 2007, the plaintiff requested
that the case be reassigned to the Judge overseeing, “In re:
Lear Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 5:06-cv-11735-JCO-VMM.”

The Lear Defendants sent a letter opposing the reassignment on
March 21, 2007.  On March 22, 2007, the Lear Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint against the Lear
Defendants.  

Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion on April 10, 2007,
and the Lear Defendants filed their reply in support on April
20, 2007.

On April 10, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction to enjoin the merger, which motion was denied on June
25, 2007.

On July 6, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  On Aug.
3, 2007, the court dismissed the AREP Entities from the case
without prejudice.  

On Aug. 31, 2007, the court dismissed the Lear Defendants
without prejudice, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 29, 2007.

The suit is “Qualey v. Jackson et al. Case No. 2:07-cv-10910-
GER-RSW,” filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen with referral to Judge
R. Steven Whalen.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Barry D. Adler, Esq.
         Adler and Assoc.
         30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 304
         Farmington Hills, MI 48334
         Phone: 248-855-5090
         E-mail: badler@adlerfirm.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Maya S. Hamie, Esq.
         Bodman
         1901 St. Antoine Street, 6th Floor
         Detroit, MI 48226
         Phone: 313-259-7777
         E-mail: mhamie@bodmanllp.com

              - and –

         Joseph Aviv, Esq.
         Honigman, Miller
         38500 N. Woodward Avenue, Suite 100
         Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5048
         Phone: 248-566-8400
         Fax: 248-566-8507
         E-mail: javiv@honigman.com


LEAR CORP: Hearing of Suits Over $2B Sale Set Late 2007
-------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery scheduled a late 2007 trial for
class actions that sought to block Lear Corp.’s acquisition by
billionaire investor Carl Icahn.

Previously, the company agreed to a $2.31 billion buyout offer
from Icahn-controlled American Real Estate Partners LP.  The
transaction involves Mr. Icahn paying $36 per share for the
shares he does not already own.

Between Feb. 9, 2007 and Feb. 21, 2007, certain stockholders
filed six purported class actions against the Company, certain
members of the Company’s Board of Directors and American Real
Estate Partners, L.P. and certain of its affiliates
(collectively AREP).

Three of the lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and have since been consolidated into a single action.
Three of the lawsuits were filed in Michigan Circuit Court;
those too have since been consolidated into a single action.

The class-action complaints, which are substantially similar,
generally allege that the merger agreement unfairly limits the
process of selling the Company and that certain members of the
Company’s Board of Directors have breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger agreement and have acted
with conflicts of interest in approving the merger agreement.

The lawsuits seek to enjoin the merger, to invalidate the merger
agreement and to enjoin the operation of certain provisions of
the merger agreement, a declaration that certain members of the
Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the Merger Agreement and an award of unspecified
damages or rescission in the event that the proposed merger with
AREP is completed.

On Feb. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

On March 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On June 15, 2007, the Delaware court issued an order entering a
limited injunction of Lear’s planned shareholder vote on the
Merger Agreement until the Company made supplemental proxy
disclosure.  

That supplemental proxy disclosure was approved by the Delaware
court and made on June 18, 2007.  

On June 26, 2007, the Delaware court granted the plaintiffs’
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.  On Sept.
11, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

A trial is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2007, according
to the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 29, 2007.

Lear Corp. -- http://www.lear.com-- is a worldwide supplier of  
automotive interior systems based on net sales.  It supplies
automotive manufacturers with complete automotive seat systems,
electrical distribution systems and various electronic products.  
Lear also supplies automotive interior components and systems,
including instrument panels and cockpit systems, headliners and
overhead systems, door panels and flooring and acoustic systems.


LITHIA MOTORS: No Class Yet in Suit Over Vehicle Data Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of Alaska at Anchorage has yet
to certify as a class action the lawsuit, "Jackie Lee Neese et
al. v. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., et al., Case No.
3AN-06-04815CI," which names as defendants several subsidiaries
of Lithia Motors, Inc.

On May 30, 2006, four of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries
located in Alaska were served with a lawsuit alleging that the
dealerships failed to comply with Alaska law relating to various
disclosures required during the sale of a used vehicle.  

The complainant seeks to represent other similarly situated
customers.  The court has not yet certified the suit as a class
action.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com-- is an operator  
of automotive franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles
and services.


LYONDELL CHEMICAL: Discovery Begins in Suits Over Basell Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in two shareholder class actions filed
against Lyondell Chemical Co., and its directors in relation to
a deal that the company entered with Basell Holdings.  

The Dutch chemical company Basell Holdings -- which is owned by
billionaire industrialist Leonard Blavatnik's Access Industries
-- offered more than $12 billion in cash for Lyondell, one of
the nation's largest chemical makers (Class Action Reporter,
July 30, 2007).

The offer equates to $48 per share, which was 20% higher than
Lyondell's stock price on July 16, 2007, the day before the deal
was announced.

The lawsuits are:

       -- “Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, On
          Behalf of Itself and Others Similarly Situated v.
          Lyondell Chemical Company, et al.,” (filed July 23,
          2007 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas);
          and

       -- “Walter E. Ryan Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All
          Other Similarly Situated v. Lyondell Chemical Company,
          et al.” (filed Aug. 20, 2007 in the Court of Chancery
          of the State of Delaware).  

The Ryan case also named as defendants Basell.  On Aug. 29,
2007, the Plumbers petition was amended to add as defendants
Basell.  

The complaints generally allege that:

       -- LCC’s board of directors breached their fiduciary
          duties in negotiating and approving the merger and by
          administering an unfair sale process that failed to
          maximize shareholder value, and engaged in self
          dealing by obtaining unspecified personal benefits in
          connection with the merger not shared equally by other
          shareholders; and
    
       -- LCC, Basell and Merger Sub aided and abetted the LCC
          board of directors in breaching their fiduciary
          duties.  

In addition, the complaints allege that LCC and its board of
directors failed to disclose in the preliminary proxy statement
certain information regarding the merger and the process leading
up to the merger.  

In the Delaware case, defendants have filed motions for summary
judgment, for dismissal for failure to state a claim and for
certification of the plaintiff class.  

In the Texas case, at the plaintiff’s request, a Nov. 9, 2007
hearing was set on a motion to be filed by plaintiff for a
preliminary injunction against the merger.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other things, to
enjoin the merger and to rescind the merger agreement.  

Discovery has commenced, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Lyondell Chemical Co. -- http://www.lyondell.com-- is a global  
manufacturer of chemicals and plastics, a refiner of heavy, high
sulfur crude oil and a producer of fuel products.  Lyondell’s
operations primarily comprise four business segments: the
ethylene, co-products and derivatives (EC&D) segment, the
propylene oxide and related products (PO&RP) segment, the
refining segment and the inorganic chemicals segment.


MARATHON OIL: W.Va. Court Certifies Class in Gasoline Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia granted class-action status to a purported lawsuit
against Marathon Oil Corp. over defective gasoline that it had
sold.

The lawsuit, “Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al.,” was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and alleges
that the company's Catlettsburg refinery sold defective gasoline
to wholesalers and retailers, causing permanent damage to
storage tanks, dispensers and related equipment, resulting in
lost profits, business disruption, and personal and real
property damages.  Plaintiffs seek class-action status.

In 2002, Marathon Petroleum Co. conducted extensive cleaning
operations at affected facilities but denies that any permanent
damages resulted from the incident.  

Class action certification was granted in August 2007, according
to the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00966,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia under Judge Robert C. Chambers.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory B. Breedlove, Esq.
         Cunningham Bounds Crowder Brown & Breedlove
         P.O. Box 66705
         Mobile, AL 36660
         Phone: 251/471-6191
         Fax: 251/479-1031
         E-mail: gbb@cbcbb.com

              - and -  

         James M. Cawley, Jr., Esq.
         Suite 2110, 440 Louisiana Street
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/426-1700
         Fax: 713/425-5325
         E-mail: jay@jaycawley.net

Representing the defendants are:

         Joseph S. Beeson, Esq.
         Robinson & Mcelwee
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, WV 25326-1791
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 344-9566

              - and -

         Jeffrey V. Mehalic, Esq.
         The Law Offices Of Jeffrey V. Mehalic
         P.O. Box 11133
         Charleston, WV 25339-1133
         Phone: 304/346-3462
         Fax: 302/346-3469


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
------------------------------------------------------------        
Merrill Lynch & Co. faces a purported securities fraud class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On or about Oct. 30, 2007, a purported class action was filed
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and certain individual
officers of the company on behalf of persons who purchased
Merrill Lynch shares between Feb. 26, 2007 and Oct. 23, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the failure to disclose additional
information about its collateralized debt obligations by the
beginning of the class period violated the federal securities
laws.

The suit has also named Stanley O'Neal, who was ousted as
Merrill chairman and chief executive, co-presidents Ahmass
Fakahany and Gregory Fleming and chief financial officer Jeffrey
Edwards as defendants (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007).

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was brought on
behalf of an institutional investor, Life Enrichment Foundation.

The suit is “Life Enrichment Foundation et al. v. Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-09633,” filed in the New
York Southern District Court under Judge Leonard B. Sand.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky
         60 East 42 Street
         New York, NY, 10021
         Phone: 212.687.6655

              - and -

         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY, 11747
         Phone: 631.367.7100
         Fax: 631.367.1173


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Lawsuit Over Illegal Workers in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the purported class action, “Shirley
Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc.,” which was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
against Mohawk Industries Inc.

Four plaintiffs filed the suit back in January 2004.  The case
purports that plaintiffs are former and current employees of the
company and that the actions and conduct of the company,
including the employment of persons who are not permitted to
work in the U.S., have damaged them and the other members of the
purported class by suppressing the wages of the company's hourly
employees in Georgia.

Plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including:

      -- treble damages;
      -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and
      -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

According to the original complaint, the company sent its
employees “to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville,
Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the
U.S. in violation of federal law,” and transport them to North
Georgia.

The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters
provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them
jobs with the company.  It even charges that although some of
the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped
others evade detection.

Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired
several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work
force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under
different names.  It claims that the company destroyed documents
in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal
workers.

One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to
inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers,
thereby depressing wages.   

Another was to reduce the number and expense of workers'
compensation claims, since “illegal employees are unlikely to
file,” the suit states.

In February 2004, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, which was denied by the District Court in April 2004.  

Following appellate review, the case has been returned to the
District Court and discovery is proceeding.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 29, 2007.

The suit is “Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Case No.
4:04-cv-00003-HLM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Georgia under Judge Harold L. Murphy.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Bobby Lee Cook, Esq.
         Cook & Connelly
         P.O. Box 370
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370
         Phone: 706-857-3421
         E-mail: LisaDodd@alltel.net

              - and -

         Ronan P. Doherty, Esq.
         John Earl Floyd, Esq.
         Nicole G. Iannarone, Esq.
         Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq.
         Bondurant Mixson & Elmore
         1201 West Peachtree St., N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Ctr.
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
         Phone: 404-881-4100
         E-mail: doherty@bmelaw.com
                 floyd@bmelaw.com
                 iannarone@bmelaw.com
                 thorpe@bmelaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Thomas Cottreau, Esq.
         Juan P. Morillo, Esq.
         Virginia A. Seitz, Esq.
         Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
         1501 K. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-736-8000
         E-mail: scottreau@sidley.com

              - and -

         R. Carl Cannon, Esq.
         Rosemary C. Lumpkins, Esq.
         Constangy Brooks & Smith
         230 Peachtree St., N.W., 2400 Peachtree Center Tower
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1557
         Phone: 404-525-8622
         E-mail: ccannon@constangy.com


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Ga. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
yet to rule on a motion seeking for a dismissal of an amended
complaint in the purported class-action and derivative case
against Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. (Piedmont REIT),
f/k/a/ Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (Wells REIT).

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a
purported class action and derivative complaint, “Washtenaw
County Employees Retirement System v. Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc., et al.,” in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells REIT, and
the officers and directors of Wells REIT prior to the closing of
the Internalization transaction.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf
of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT’s strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’
         fees.

On April 9, 2007, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for an
order enjoining the Internalization transaction.  

On April 17, 2007, the court granted the defendants’ motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, and the case was docketed in the Northern
District of Georgia on April 24, 2007.  

On June 7, 2007, the court granted a motion to designate the
class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of those
persons who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont
REIT proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007 and
derivative claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On July 9, 2007, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for
expedited discovery related to an anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 13, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed
and is currently pending before the court, according to Wells
Real Estate Investment Trust II Inc.'s Nov. 7, 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 Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under
Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
         Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500
         E-mail: nick@chimicles.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq.
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600
         E-mail: mcates@kslaw.com


TARGET CORP: Sued for Labeling Asian-Made Goods “Made in USA”
-------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 21,
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
alleging it defrauds its customers by advertising products and
selling them through its Web site as "Made in the U.S.A." though
they are made in China, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and
elsewhere, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Raymundo B. Sevidal claims these products are
often shipped with labels identifying them as made overseas.

He brings this complaint on behalf of all persons in the State
of California who purchased from defendants' website any product
or accessory sold and/or manufactured by defendants that was not
entirely manufactured and assembled in the United States but was
labeled as "Made in USA" within four year prior to the date this
class action was commenced.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants misrepresented the national origin
         of products manufactured and sold;

     (b) whether defendants are violating Section 17533.7 of the
         California Business and Professions Code by
         misrepresenting the national origin of parts of these
         products;

     (c) whether defendants are violating provisions of the
         Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 USC, Sections 45, 45a,
         by labeling products "Made in USA" when they are not
         all or virtually made here;

     (d) whether defendants engaged in unfair, deceptive and/or
         unlawful practices that violated the Unfair Competition
         Law Section 17200 et seq.;

     (e) whether defendants engaged in untrue and misleading
         advertising in violation of California business &
         Professions Code Section 17500; and

     (f) whether defendants engaged in unlawful conduct in
         violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil
         Code Section 1750 et seq.

Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

     -- certify this action as a class action;

     -- award damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

     -- order declaratory relief finding that defendants have
        engaged in unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business acts
        or practices in violation of California Business &
        Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     -- order that defendants be required to pay restitution,
        through disgorgement or otherwise, to all persons from
        whom defendants unlawfully, unfairly or fraudulently
        took money in the form of a full refund of all sales of
        products during the time of the false advertising,
        including accrued interest;

     -- issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary and
        permanent injunction enjoining defendants and their
        officers, directors, agents, distributors, servants,
        employees, attorneys, and all others in active concert
        or participation with defendants, or any of them,
        jointly and severally, during the pendency of this
        action and permanently thereafter from representing
        products as "Made in the USA" unless all or
        substantially all of the product was manufactured in the
        United States;

     -- for punitive damages, to be awarded to plaintiff and
        each class member;

     -- award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the
        maximum rate allowed by law and costs of suit;

     -- for plaintiff to be awarded attorneys' fees and all
        litigation expenses pursuant to the California Code of
        Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. Alternatively, for all       
        attorneys' fees and all litigation expenses to be
        awarded pursuant to the substantial benefit doctrine or
        other authority requiring defendants to pay plaintiff's
        attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. Alternatively,
        for attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses to be
        paid under the common fund doctrine or any other
        provision of law; and

     -- for such and further relief as the court may deem just
        and proper.

The suit is "Raymundo B. Sevidal et al. v. Target Corp., Case
No. 37-2007-00082193-CU-BT-CTL," filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, under Judge Michael M. Anello.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Matthew B. Butler
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, California 92101
          Phone: (619) 325-0492
          Fax: (619) 325-0496


USANA HEALTH: Utah Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah consolidated
three purported securities fraud class actions filed against
USANA Health Sciences, Inc.

During and subsequent to the first quarter, three class actions
were filed against the Company; Myron W. Wentz, chief executive
officer; David A. Wentz, president; and Gilbert A. Fuller, chief
financial officer.

The suits were brought on behalf of those who purchased the
company’s common stock on the open market during the period of
July 18, 2006 through March 14, 2007.

The suits that were consolidated are:

     -- "Ashok Kapur, et al., v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc. et.
         al.,"

     -- "Guerin Senter, et al., v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc.,
         et. al.,"

     -- "Edward Shaw, et al., v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc.,
         et. al."

The plaintiffs allege in each case that they were persons who
purchased shares of our common stock on the open market during
the period of July 18, 2006 through March 14, 2007, and each
complaint seeks certification as a class action on behalf of
other purchasers of our stock during that time period.

Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that we violated Sections
10(b) and 20 (a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 under the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly or recklessly failing to make
certain statements that the Plaintiff alleges should have been
made, including statements regarding the multi-level marketing
industry and anti-pyramid laws, sustainability of the company's
marketing plan, Associate sales to end-user customers, and
Associate turnover, income, and profitability.

Plaintiffs assert that because of such alleged omissions, the
company's statements about the company's future business
prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis and that the
company's reported results and financial statements were
misstated.  

The complaints seek damages, pre-judgment interest, costs,
attorney’s fees and other further relief deemed appropriate by
the court.

On Oct. 17, 2007 these three cases were consolidated into one
action, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 29, 2007.

The suit is “Ashok Kapur, et al. v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-CV-00177,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah under Judge Dale A. Kimball.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Dreier LLP
         499 Park Avenue
         New York, NY, 10022
         Phone: 212.328.6100   
         Fax: 212.328.6101
         E-mail: classlaw@dreierllp.com


VESTIN REALTY: Still Faces Litigation Over Vestin Fund II Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. (VRM II) and Vestin Mortgage,
Inc. remain defendants in a breach of contract action filed in
San Diego Superior Court by certain plaintiffs who allege, among
other things, that they were wrongfully denied appraisal rights
in connection with the merger of Vestin Fund II into VRM II.

The action is being brought as a purported class action on
behalf of all members of Vestin Fund II who did not vote in
favor of the merger.

Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. reported no development in the
matter in its Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. --
http://www.vestinrealtymortgage2.com-- operates as a real  
estate investment trust (REIT).  It was organized for the sole
purpose of effecting a merger with Vestin Fund II, LLC (Fund
II).  Fund II is engaged in investing in real estate loans.  On
March 31, 2006, Fund II merged into VRM II.   It invests in
loans secured by real estate through deeds of trust or
mortgages.


VESTIN REALTY: Still Faces Litigation Over Vestin Fund I Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. (VRM I) and Vestin Mortgage, Inc.
remain defendants in a breach of contract action filed in San
Diego Superior Court by certain plaintiffs who allege, among
other things, that they were wrongfully denied appraisal rights
in connection with the merger of Vestin Fund I into VRM I.

The action is being brought as a purported class action on
behalf of all members of Vestin Fund I who did not vote in favor
of the merger.

Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. reported no development in the
matter in its Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. --
http://www.vestinrealtymortgage1.com/-- formerly Vestin Fund I,  
LLC, is a real estate investment trust.  The Company primarily
invests in loans secured by first and second trust deeds on real
property. The loans categories include raw and unimproved land,
acquisition and development, construction, commercial and
residential.  The Company had loans in various states, such as
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.  The Company's manager is
Vestin Mortgage, Inc. (Vestin Mortgage), which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Vestin Group, Inc.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Sued Over Unauthorized “Balance Inquiry Fees”
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual Bank and Chase Manhattan Bank are facing a
class-action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Queens alleging both banks charge Washington
Mutual ATM customers $2 or $4 for a balance inquiry though they
do not request the service, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Solomon and Natalie Azose bring this class
action for breach of contract, fraud, violation of the Consumer
Protection Act, and violation of Section 205.16 of the
"Electronic Fund Transfer Act Regulation E."

They bring this action on behalf of all present and former
customers of defendants who were damaged as a result of
defendants charging "ATM Balance Inquiry Fees" on their
checking, savings or other consumer asset accounts.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants breached their duty of good faith
         and fair dealing by charging and/or collecting "ATM
         balance inquiry fees" without proper notice to the
         customer;

     (b) whether the "ATM balance inquiry fee" charged by
         defendants constituted a breach of their agreement with
         plaintiffs and other members of the class;

     (c) whether defendants breached their agreement with their
         customers by charging, collecting and retaining fees
         for "ATM Balance Inquiry Fees" without proper notice;

     (d) whether defendants engaged in fraudulent or unfair and
         deceitful practices by charging and collecting "ATM
         Balance Inquiry Fees;"

     (e) whether defendants are in violation of Section 205.16
         of the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations;

     (f) whether the members of the class have sustained damages
         as a result of defendants' wrongful conduct;

     (h) whether defendants have been unjustly enriched by their
         scheme of collecting, charging and retaining "ATM
         Balance Inquiry Fees;"

     (i) whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
         their unlawful practices; and

     (j) the appropriate measure of damages and/or other relief.

They demand judgment as follows:

     -- for an order certifying this action as a Class Action
        pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of the CPLR,
        with plaintiffs certified as representatives of the
        class;

     -- for compensatory damages in favor of plaintiffs and the
        class;

     -- for punitive damages on plaintiffs' fraud claim, in an
        amount not less than three times the total damages as
        determined at trial;

     -- for other damages as prescribed by law, including treble
        damages in excess of the statutory minimum under the
        General Business Law Section 349;

     -- for pre- and post-judgment interest; and

     -- enjoining defendants from continuing to implement its
        unlawful and illegal practices, and for such other and          
        further relief as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Solomon Azose et al. v. Washington Mutual Bank, et
al. Index No. 27099-07," filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Queens.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Victoria L. Weinman
          Harry I. Katz, PC
          61-25 Utopia Parkway
          Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
          Phone: 718-463-3700

   
                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

November 29 - 30, 2007
PREPARING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LIABILITY
American Conference Institute
New Orleans
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

December 10-11, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TRIAL STRATEGIES SEMINAR & EXPO
PREPARING AND DEFENDING THE ULTIMATE CATASTROPHIC PERSONAL
INJURY CASE
Mealeys Seminars
Sheraton City Center, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 10, 2007
MEALEY'S SECURITIZATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Marriott Financial Center, NYC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 10-11, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Madison, Washington, D.C.
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-12, 2007
MEALEY'S VIATICAL SETTLEMENTS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12-14, 2007
DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Waldorf Astoria, New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480


February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 10-11, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

October 23-24, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

December 13, 2007
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ACA CAPITAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
ACA Capital Holdings, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering on or about November 10, 2006.

The complaint charges ACA Capital and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. ACA
Capital is a holding company that provides financial guaranty
insurance products to participants in the global credit
derivative, structured finance capital, and municipal finance
capital markets.

On or about November 9, 2006, ACA Capital priced its IPO of
6,875,000 shares of newly issued common stock and 23,541 shares
of existing common stock at $13 per share, generating gross
proceeds of $89.4 million. The Registration Statement for the
IPO described positively ACA Capital's business and the
Company's collateralized debt obligation ("CDO") asset
management business.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the
IPO contained inaccurate statements of material fact because it
failed to disclose that the Company's CDO assets were materially
impaired and overvalued.

For more information, contact:

          Jack Fruchter
          Ximena Skovron
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


AETNA INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Penna.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Aetna Inc.  
common stock during the period between July 28, 2005 and July
27, 2006.

The complaint charges Aetna and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Aetna provides health care, dental, pharmacy, group life,
disability and long-term care benefits in the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects. Defendants told the market that Aetna's
results during the Class Period were favorable due to "continued
diligence around medical costs management."

In fact, those results were misstated. The true facts, which
were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the
investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) Aetna was losing Small Group policies, which had
         historically had favorable medical cost ratios
         ("MCRs"), and was moving to higher cost ratios with new
         members, which would cause increased MCRs in future
         quarters;

     (b) much of Aetna's earnings gains in 2005 and the first
         quarter of 2006 were due to understated incurred but
         not reported ("IBNR") accruals;

     (c) Aetna's earnings were misstated in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles due to
         defendants' failure to properly record IBNR costs;

     (d) the Company's MCR was misleading in that defendants had
         priced new policies so low that the MCR was certain to
         be much higher in future quarters; and

     (e) as a result of (a)-(d) above, the Company's projections
         for its 2006 earnings per share were grossly
         overstated.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Aetna stock
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, whereby the
Company's top officers and directors sold more than $83.4
million worth of their own shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Aetna common stock during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
October 24, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com


CROCS INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Colo. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, on behalf of all persons who acquired the securities
of Crocs, Inc. between July 27, 2007, and October 31, 2007,
inclusive, against defendants Crocs and certain of its officers
and directors alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous, positive press releases, statements
and financial reports filed with the SEC that failed to disclose
that the Company's sales were being negatively impacted by
seasonal conditions; that the Company's inventory levels were
building far beyond historic levels as sales began to slow; and
that Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company, its earnings and prospects.

On October 31, 2007, after the Market closed the Company issued
a press release announcing sales figures that fell well short of
analysts' expectations. These disclosures caused the Company's
stock to plummet $27.01 (36%) on over sixty million shares
traded.

Company insiders, however, faired far better than public
shareholders. While in possession of material, non-public
information, Crocs insiders sold approximately 963,163 shares
for proceeds of at least $64 million.

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading
statements set forth in the complaint, the market price of Crocs
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period.
Had plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known the
truth, they would not have purchased said securities, or would
not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

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

For more information, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Martin E. Restituyo, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (800) 575-0735
          E-mail at classmember@whafh.com


GIANT INTERACTIVE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Giant Interactive Group, Inc. American Depositary
Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering on or about November 1, 2007 through November 19, 2007.

This action concerns the initial public offering of Giant
Interactive ADSs which took place on or about November 1, 2007.

The complaint charges Giant Interactive and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933. Giant Interactive develops and operates online games in
the People's Republic of China. The Company's primary game is ZT
Online which is a free-to-play massive multi-player online game.

According to the complaint, on or about October 31, 2007, Giant
Interactive filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a
Form F-1/A Registration Statement, for the IPO. On or about
November 1, 2007, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which
forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and,
including the exercise of the over-allotment, more than 57
million shares of Giant Interactive's ADSs at $15.50 per ADS
were sold to the public, thereby raising more than $886 million.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and the
Prospectus failed to disclose that the Company had experienced a
decline in average concurrent users ("ACU") and peak concurrent
users for the third quarter of 2007 due to a significant rule
change for ZT Online.

On November 19, 2007, after the close of the market, Giant
Interactive issued a press release announcing its financial
results for the third quarter of 2007, the period ending
September 30, 2007. Among other things, the Company reported
that ACU for the third quarter was 481,000, a decrease of 6%
from the second quarter of 2007 and that PCU for the third
quarter was 888,000, a decrease of 17.2% from the second quarter
of 2007.

Then, on November 20, 2007, before the market opened, Giant
Interactive held a conference call with analysts and investors
to review the Company's earnings release. During the conference
call, Giant Interactive attributed the decline in the third
quarter ACU and PCU figures to a rule change to ZT Online that
was implemented to discourage gold farming activity. Following
the Company's earnings release and conference call, on November
20, 2007, the price of Giant Interactive ADSs dropped from
$14.88 per ADS to $11.10 per ADS on extremely heavy trading
volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Giant Interactive common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld          
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com


VIRGIN MOBILE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or
about October 12, 2007 through November 15, 2007.

This action concerns the initial public offering of Virgin
Mobile common stock which took place on or about October 12,
2007.

The complaint charges Virgin Mobile and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
Virgin Mobile provides wireless communications services,
offering prepaid services to the youth market in the United
States.

According to the complaint, on or about October 10, 2007, Virgin
Mobile filed a Form S-1/A Registration Statement (the
"Registration Statement") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") for the IPO. On or about October 11, 2007,
the Prospectus (the "Prospectus") with respect to the IPO, which
forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and,
including the exercise of the over-allotment, more than 27.5
million shares of Virgin Mobile's common stock were sold to the
public for $15 per share, thereby raising more than $412
million. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
and the Prospectus contained inaccurate statements of material
fact because they failed to disclose that the Company would
report a widening loss for the third quarter of 2007 and that
subscriber growth trends were slowing dramatically.

On November 15, 2007, after the close of the market, Virgin
Mobile issued a press release announcing its financial results
for the third quarter of 2007, the period ending September 30,
2007. For the third quarter, the Company reported a loss of a
loss of $7.3 million, or ($0.15) per share, as compared to a
loss of only $5.1 million, or ($0.10) per share, in the same
period the prior year.

As of November 26, 2007, Virgin Mobile stock was trading for
approximately $8.22 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Virgin Mobile common stock during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 22,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.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  * * *