CAR_Public/071129.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 29, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 237

                            Headlines

ALLIED CAPITAL: Still Faces Amended D.C. Securities Fraud Suit
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Suit Appealed
AMVAC CHEMICAL: Settles Suit Over Pollution at Fairburn, Ga.
AQUILA INC: Awaits Final Approval of $10M ERISA Suit Settlement
BROADWING INC: Firms Sued Over Anthem Insurance Demutualization

CARRIER CORP: Settles Suit Over “High-Efficiency” Furnaces
DEVRY INC: Wins Favorable Ruling in Suit by Former Student
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Dismissal of Securities Suit on Appeal
DREW INDUSTRIES: Enters Mediation in Lawsuit Over Kinro Bathtubs
ELECTRONIC COS: Accused of Cathode Ray Cartel in Calif. Suit

FORD MOTOR: Settles Lawsuit Over 1991-2001 Model Explorers
ISOTEC INC: Still Faces Suit Over Nitric Oxide Plant Accident
JDS UNIPHASE: Jury Favors Firm in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
MARYLAND: Murphy & Falcon to Sue Over Fly Ash Dump Contamination
METROPOLITAN LIFE: “Fiala” Suit Certification Still on Appeal

OHIO: Accused of Cheating Prison Nurses of Overtime Wage
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Services
PEMSTAR INC: Settles Securities Suit Over Mexican Accounting
RAYMOND GEDDES: Recalls Pencil Pouches on Zipper's Lead Level
REGAL CINEMAS: Still Faces FATA Violations Lawsuit in California

SECURE COMPUTING: Still Faces Calif. Securities Fraud Complaint
SIERRA HEALTH: Approval of Nev. Investor Suit Settlement Pending
SOUTH AFRICA: Student Nurses Oppose “Community Service” Schedule
STARTEK INC: Ruling on Motion to Junk Securities Suit Pending
TELLABS INC: Illinois Court Certifies Class in ERISA Litigation

TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Calif. Wage, Hour Lawsuits
TENET HEALTHCARE: Dismissal of RICO Violations Suit Under Appeal


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CROCS INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Colo.
CROCS INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
FEDERAL HOME: Charles H. Johnson Announces N.Y. Securities Suit
FOCUS MEDIA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
GIANT INTERACTIVE: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit

LEAP WIRELESS: Schoengold Sporn Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ALLIED CAPITAL: Still Faces Amended D.C. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Capital Corp. continues to face an amended securities
fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia.

On Feb. 26, 2007, Dana Ross filed a class action complaint in
which she alleges that the company and certain members of
management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  

The complaint, "Dana Ross v. Walton, et al., CV 00402," claims
that, between March 1, 2006, and Jan. 10, 2007, Allied Capital
either failed to disclose or misrepresented information
concerning the loan origination practices of Business Loan
Express, LLC, an Allied Capital portfolio company.

Thereafter, the court appointed new lead counsel and approved
new lead plaintiffs.  On July 30, 2007, plaintiffs served an
amended complaint.

Plaintiffs claim that, between Nov. 7, 2005, and Jan. 22, 2007,
Allied Capital either failed to disclose or misrepresented
information about its portfolio company, Business Loan Express,
LLC.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and other damages, as
well as other relief.

The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 8
form 10-Q filing.

The suit is "Ross v. Walton, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00402-
EGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Steven Richard Freeman, Esq.
          Freeman, Wolfe & Greenbaum, P.A.
          409 Washington Avenue, Suite 300
          Towson, MD 21204
          Phone: (410) 321-8400
          Fax: 410-321-8407
          E-mail: srf@fwglaw.com


AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action
against Amkor Technology, Inc. appealed a dismissal of the case
to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On Jan. 23, 2006, a purported securities class action entitled,
“Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc., et al.,” was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Amkor and certain of its current and former
officers.

Subsequently, other law firms filed two similar cases, which
were consolidated with the initial complaint.

In August 2006 and again in November 2006, the plaintiffs
amended the complaint.

The plaintiffs added additional officer, director and former
director defendants and allege improprieties in certain option
grants.

The amended complaint further alleges that defendants improperly
recorded and accounted for the options in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles and made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures in
violation of the federal securities laws, during the period from
July 2001 to July 2006.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23, compensatory damages, costs
and expenses, and such other further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

On Dec. 28, 2006, pursuant to motion by defendants, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
transferred this action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

On Sept. 25, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed this case with prejudice.  

On Oct. 23, 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
dismissal in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit, “Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et
al.,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         P.O. Box 30132
         Elkins Park, PA 19027
         Phone: 215-782-8235
         E-mail: jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com

         Evan J. Smith, Esq.
         Brodsky & Smith, LLC
         Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-6200
         E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Patrick Loftus, Esq.
         Duane Morris, LLP
         30 South 17th Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396
         Phone: 215-979-1367
         E-mail: loftus@duanemorris.com

              - and -

         Karen T. Stefano, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-849-3405
         E-mail: kstefano@wsgr.com


AMVAC CHEMICAL: Settles Suit Over Pollution at Fairburn, Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action “McLendon et al. v. Philip
Services Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01770-CAP,” have reached
a tentative settlement for the matter, which names as defendant,
a registered agent of AMVAC Chemical Corp.

On July 19, 2006, AMVAC Chemical Corp.’s registered agent was
served with a complaint entitled, “Latrice McLendon, et al. v.
Philip Service Corp. etc. et al.”  

The suit was filed in the Superior State Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia (No. 2006CN119863), but was subsequently
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Case No. 1:06-CV-1770-CAP).

The purported class of plaintiffs seeks damages, including
punitive damages, in an unspecified amount for personal injuries
and diminution in property value allegedly arising from the
airborne release of propyl mercaptan and ethoprop from a waste
treatment facility operated by PSC Recovery Services in
Fairburn, Georgia.

Plaintiffs, residents living in the vicinity of the PSC plant,
allege trespass, nuisance and negligence on behalf of defendants
in handling, storing and treating waste, which was generated by
AMVAC’s Axis, Alabama facility.

After having completed class certification discovery, and prior
to a ruling from the court on certification of the class, the
parties engaged in mediation on Sept. 19, 2007 before a neutral
mediator.  

Working in conjunction with their insurance carriers at the
mediation, defendants AMVAC and PSC have agreed in principle to
settle the matter with a settlement class of approximately 2,000
households for payment of cash consideration.  

The settlement process involves multiple steps to be taken over
several months and requires both preliminary and final court
approval.

As currently proposed, the settlement would not have an adverse
effect upon the Company’s financial condition and operating
results.

However, the settlement is not yet final, members of the
settlement class remain free to opt out of the settlement and to
preserve their individual rights, and it is not anticipated that
the settlement will include mutual releases between co-
defendants.

In addition, each co-defendant’s insurance carrier has reserved
all rights under applicable insurance policies, including rights
to subrogation and contribution.

The suit is “McLendon et al. v. Philip Services Corp. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01770-CAP,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Charles A.
Pannell, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Charles M. Goetz, Jr., Esq.
         Goetz Allen & Zahler
         2859 Paces Ferry Road, Overlook III, Suite 1740
         Atlanta, GA 30339
         Phone: 770-431-1000
         E-mail: cmgoetz@goetz-zahler.com

Representing the company is:

         Cari K. Dawson, Esq.
         Alston & Bird LLP
         1201 West Peachtree Street, One Atlantic Center
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
         Phone: 404-881-7000
         E-mail: cari.dawson@alston.com


AQUILA INC: Awaits Final Approval of $10M ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri has
yet to give final approval to a proposed $10.5 million
settlement of the consolidated class action, “In re Aquila ERISA
Litigation.”

On Sept. 24, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company
and certain members of the company's board of directors and
management.

The suit is alleging that defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and were responsible for losses
that participants in the company's 401(k) plan experienced as a
result of the decline in the value of their Aquila common stock
held in the 401(k) plan.

A number of similar lawsuits alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants in
violation of ERISA by concealing information and/or misleading
employees who held the company's common stock through the
company's 401(k) plan were subsequently filed against the
company.

The suits also seek damages for the plan's losses resulting from
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On Jan. 26, 2005, the
court ordered that all of these lawsuits be consolidated into a
single case captioned, "In re Aquila ERISA Litigation."

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in March
2005, which largely repeats each of the allegations in the first
complaint.

The case has been certified as a class action and set for trial
in December 2007.

In April 2007, the company settled the case for $10.5 million,
which will be paid by its insurance carrier.

The settlement is subject to final court approval, 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 “Itteilag v. Aquila, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:04-cv-
00865-DW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri under Judge Dean Whipple.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael Jaffe, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 545-4600

              - and -

         Bruce Keplinger, Esq.
         Norris & Keplinger, LLC
         6800 College Blvd., Suite 630
         Overland Park, KS 66211
         Phone: (913) 323-3185
         Fax: (913) 663-2006
         E-mail: bkeplinger@k-c-lawyers.com

Representing the company is:

         Stanley Daryl Davis, Esq.
         Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
         2555 Grand Boulevard
         Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
         Phone: (816) 474-6550
         Fax: (816) 421-4066
         E-mail: sddavis@shb.com


BROADWING INC: Firms Sued Over Anthem Insurance Demutualization
---------------------------------------------------------------
Broadwing, Inc., a/k/a Cincinnati Bell Telephone, and affiliates
are facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging it defrauded
policyholders of 459,223 shares of Anthem common stock when
defendant Anthem Insurance Cos. demutualized, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Also named in the suit are:

          -- Broadwing IT Consulting, Inc.
          -- BRCOM Inc.
          -- Cincinnati Bell Any Distance, Inc.
          -- Cincinnati Bell Long Distance, Inc.
          -- Cincinnati Bell Directory, Inc.
          -- Cincinnati Bell Public Communications, Inc.
          -- Zoomtown.com, Inc.
          -- Cincinnati Bell Entertainment, Inc.
          -- Cincinnati Bell Wireless Company
          -- Cincinnati Bell Wireless, LLC
          -- Cincinnati Bell Technology Solutions, Inc.
          -- Cincinnati Bell Telecommunications Services, Inc.
          -- Cincinnati Bell Telecommunications Services, LLC
          -- Cincinnati Bell Supply Company
          -- Enterprise IT Consulting, LLC
          -- Anthem Inc. n/k/a Wellpoint, Inc.
          -- Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. and
          -- Community Insurance Co. f/k/a Community Mutual
             Insurance, Co.

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

Policyholders bring this action on behalf of individuals who
were named as insured persons covered under the Group Policy, or
who were members of a named group of insured persons covered
under the Group Policy, to recover the value of 459,223 shares
of Anthem common stock that should have been paid to them upon
the demutualization of Anthem Insurance, but which shares of
stock were improperly paid to and kept by Broadwing and/or its
subsidiaries and affiliates instead.

Plaintiffs pray that the court:

     -- issue an order certifying the case as a class action
        pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Fed.R.civ.P., and
        certifying the class as alleged and defined;

     -- order broadwing and/or its subsidiaries to provide the
        class members with an accounting of the Anthem shares
        sold and the net proceeds received from the stock sales;

     -- order Anthem to specifically perform its obligations
        under insurance law and under the relevant agreements
        between its predecessors in interest and CBI's
        predecessors in interest, and thereupon issue,
        distribute and deliver 918,446 shares of WellPoint
        common stock to and among the class members to account
        for the 2-for-1 stock split that occurred after Jan.
        2002;

     -- grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in
        favor of plaintiffs in the form of orders requiring
        defendants, and each of them, to conform their conduct
        to the terms of the specific performance order prayed
        for above;

     -- award plaintiffs compensatory damages to be paid by
        defendants and each f them, jointly and severally, with
        respect to each claim for relief in amounts ranging
        between $23.4 million and $75 million to be determined
        from the evidence in accordance with law;

     -- award plaintiffs punitive damages in amounts ranging
        between $50 million and $150 million to be determined
        from the evidence in accordance to law;

     -- award plaintiffs their costs and expenses of this action
        including reasonable attorneys' fees, together with pre-
        judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate
        allowed by law; and

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

The suit is "Wayne Stapp et al. v. Broadwing, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00970," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

Representing plaintiffs are:

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

          - and -

          Dennis P. Barron
          582 Torrence Lane
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45208
          Phone: (513) 871-2369
          E-mail: DennisPBarron@aol.com


CARRIER CORP: Settles Suit Over “High-Efficiency” Furnaces
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted preliminary approval to a
nationwide settlement of a class action filed by current and
past owners of high-efficiency furnaces manufactured by Carrier
Corp. equipped with polypropylene (plastic) laminated secondary
heat exchangers.

Approximately three million U.S. consumers purchased the
furnaces covered under the settlement since January 1989.
Carrier sold the furnaces under the Carrier, Bryant, Day &
Night, and Payne brand-names. The settlement also resolves
companion cases in Canada and will be presented to courts there
for approval as well.

"After several years of hard-fought litigation in four different
U.S. courts, the parties engaged in extensive negotiations that
have resulted in an outstanding resolution of the case," stated
Kim D. Stephens, counsel for plaintiffs with the Seattle law
firm of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC.

"The settlement offers a cash payment for the tens of thousands
of consumers and others who paid to repair or replace their
furnaces as a direct result of the alleged defect. Perhaps most
importantly, the settlement also provides an enhanced 20-year
warranty for consumers whose furnaces have not yet failed that
will cover parts and labor for failures caused by the alleged
defect."

"We believe this is a terrific result for consumers," stated
Jonathan D. Selbin, of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
in New York, also counsel for plaintiffs, adding "We are proud
of what we have accomplished with this settlement, and Carrier
has really stepped up to the plate to take care of its
customers."

The complaint, originally filed in June 2005, charges that
starting in 1989, Carrier began manufacturing and selling high
efficiency condensing furnaces manufactured with a secondary
condensing heat exchanger (CHX) made of inferior materials.

Plaintiffs allege that as a result, the CHXs, which Carrier
warranted and consumers expected to last for 20 years, fail
prematurely. Carrier has denied these allegations and has
vigorously contested the litigation. The Court has not made any
ruling on the merits of plaintiffs' allegations.

For the purpose of effectuating the proposed settlement, the
Court has granted conditional certification of a settlement
class consisting of all individuals and entities in the United
States who currently own a Carrier 90% high efficiency
condensing furnace manufactured between January 1, 1989 and the
date of final approval of the Settlement and equipped with a
polypropylene-laminated secondary heat exchanger, and former
owners of such furnaces whose furnaces experienced CHX failure.

The Court will set a hearing to determine whether to grant final
certification of the settlement class and final approval of the
settlement agreement for April 22, 2008. Prior to the hearing
notice will be provided to class members by first class U.S.
mail and other means as to their rights under the settlement,
including how to submit a claim or opt out or object to the
settlement.

For more information, contact:

          Jonathan D. Selbin
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          Phone: 212-355-9500
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

          - or -

          Kim D. Stephens
          Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC
          Phone: 206-682-5600
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com


DEVRY INC: Wins Favorable Ruling in Suit by Former Student
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted motions for summary judgment filed by DeVry, Inc. and
DeVry Universtiy, Inc. in a lawsuit that accuses them of
violating state education laws.

Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University
campus, filed a lawsuit over defendants' alleged violations of
state education laws.

Originally, Ms. Daghlian brought the putative class action in
the California state district court for the County of Los
Angeles.   

Plaintiff alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to students
did not comply with California state statutes including a
California Education Code requirement to provide a specified
statement to prospective students concerning the transferability
of credits.   

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  A motion to dismiss was filed, but it
was later denied.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the
court denied without prejudice, and the plaintiff has filed a
new motion for class certification.

On June 11, 2007, the District Court issued an Order certifying
a class under the California Unfair Competition Law, California
Business & Professions Code, section 17200 (UCL), comprised of
students who enrolled and paid tuition at a California DeVry
school in the four years prior to the date when the suit was
filed.  

On July 16, 2007, DeVry filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on
the grounds that the statutory provisions of the California
Education Code underlying Daghlian's claims unconstitutionally  
discriminated against out-of-state regionally accredited
universities, in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause and
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  

DeVry also argued that the California Education Code compelled
speech in violation of the First Amendment.    

On Oct. 9, 2007, the Court granted DeVry’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and entered  judgment dismissing all of Mr. Daghlian's
class claims under the UCL.  

The Court also entered judgment in DeVry’s favor on Daghlian's
individual claim under the California Education Code.  

Additionally, the Court vacated the existing trial schedule and
granted DeVry leave to file a second motion for summary judgment
directed to Mr. Daghlian’s remaining individual claims under the
UCL and False Advertising Law.

The suit is “Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge
Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Patrick J. Walsh.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael D. Braun, Esq.
         Braun Law Group
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone:  310-442-7755
         E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

              - and -

         Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
         Janet L. Spielberg Law Offices
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone: 310-392-8801
         E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Van T. Lam, Esq.
         Reed Smith
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
         Phone: 213-457-8000


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Dismissal of Securities Suit on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a motion appealing a dismissal of a second
consolidated amended complaint in a securities fraud class
action filed against Discovery Laboratories, Inc.

On May 1, 2006, Hal Unschuld filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
individually and purportedly on behalf of a class of the
company's investors who purchased its publicly traded securities
between Dec. 28, 2005 and April 25, 2006 (Class Action Reporter,
June 15, 2006).

The suit was filed against the company and company Chief
Executive Officer Robert J. Capetola.  This action alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act in connection with various public statements
made by the company.

Plaintiff sought an order wherein the suit may proceed as a
class action and an award of compensatory damages in favor of
the plaintiff and the other class members in an unspecified
amount, together with interest and reimbursement of costs and
expenses of the litigation and other equitable or injunctive
relief.
     
The company was notified that two additional class actions
seeking the same relief have since been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
although the company has not been served with a complaint in
these actions.

On July 25, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued an order appointing the Mizla
Group, as lead plaintiff in “In re Discovery Laboratories
Securities Litigation, No. 06-1820 (SD).”

The court also approved the appointment of Chimicles & Tikellis
LLP as lead counsel.  The court directed that a consolidated
amended complaint be filed, and on Aug. 10, 2006, the company
filed the consolidated amended complaint.

On Sept. 14, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and, in an order dated Nov. 1,
2006, the district court granted that motion while giving
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

On Nov. 30, 2006, the second consolidated amended complaint was
filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, Robert
J. Capetola, and its former Chief Operating Officer, Christopher
J. Schaber.  

It sought an order that the action proceed as a class action and
an award of compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and
the other class members in an unspecified amount, together with
interest and reimbursement of costs and expenses of the
litigation and other equitable or injunctive relief.

On March 19, 2007, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint.  On April 10,
2007, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs filed an opening brief on July 2, 2007 and defendants
filed their opening brief on Aug. 6, 2007, and Plaintiffs filed
their reply brief on Aug. 20, 2007.

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.

The suit is “In re Discovery Laboratories Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:06-cv-01820-SD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Stewart
Dalzell.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         James R. Malone, Esq.
         Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
         Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue
         Haverford, PA 19401
         Phone: 610-642-8500
         E-mail: jamesmalone@chimicles.com
                 josephsauder@chimicles.com

Representing defendants are:

         Michelle M. Crimaldi, Esq.
         Robert L. Hickok, Esq.
         Christopher J. Huber, Esq.
         Gay Barlow Parks Rainville, Esq.
         Pepper Hamilton LLP
         3000 Two Logan Square, 18th and Arch Streets
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
         Phone: 215-981-4000 or 215-981-4583 or 215-981-4446
         Fax: 215-981-4750
         E-mail: crimaldim@pepperlaw.com
                 hickokr@pepperlaw.com
                 huberc@pepperlaw.com
                 rainvilleg@pepperlaw.com


DREW INDUSTRIES: Enters Mediation in Lawsuit Over Kinro Bathtubs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit alleging that certain bathtubs sold under the
name “Better Bath” fail to comply with certain fire spread
control standards are in voluntary non-binding mediation.

On or about January 3, 2007, an action was commenced in the
United States District Court, Central District of California
entitled, “Gonzalez vs. Drew Industries Inc., Kinro, Inc., Kinro
Texas Limited Partnership d/b/a Better Bath Components; Skyline
Corporation, and Skylines Homes, Inc. (Case No. CV06-08233).”

The case purports to be a class action on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all others similarly situated.

Plaintiff alleges that certain bathtubs manufactured by Kinro
Texas Limited Partnership, a subsidiary of Kinro, Inc., and sold
under the name “Better Bath” for use in manufactured homes, fail
to comply with certain safety standards relating to fire spread
control established by the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Plaintiff alleges that sale of these
products is in violation of various provisions of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Sec. 1770 et seq.), the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act (Sec. 2301 et seq.), and the California Song-
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Sec. 1790 et seq.).

Plaintiffs seek to require defendants to notify members of the
class of the allegations in the proceeding and the claims made,
to repair or replace the allegedly defective products, to
reimburse members of the class for repair, replacement and
consequential costs, to cease the sale and distribution of the
allegedly defective products, and to pay actual and punitive
damages and plaintiffs’ attorneys fees.

Defendant Kinro has conducted a comprehensive investigation of
the allegations made in connection with the claims, including
with respect to the HUD safety standards, prior test results,
testing procedures, and the use of labels. In addition, multiple
tests were recently conducted by independent laboratories at
Kinro’s initiative.

Although discovery by plaintiff and by Kinro is continuing, at
this point, based on the foregoing investigation and testing,
Kinro believes that plaintiff may not be able to prove the
essential elements of her claim. As a result, defendants intend
to vigorously defend against the claims, as well as against
plaintiff’s ability to pursue the claims as a class action.

Moreover, Kinro believes that, because test results received by
Kinro confirm that it is in compliance with HUD safety
standards, no remedial action is required or appropriate.

In October, the parties participated in voluntary non-binding
mediation in an effort to reach a settlement. Although no
settlement was reached, the parties agreed to continue
discussions. The outcome of such discussions cannot be
predicted.  

If settlement is not reached and plaintiff pursues its claims,
protracted litigation could result, and the outcome of such
litigation cannot be predicted.


ELECTRONIC COS: Accused of Cathode Ray Cartel in Calif. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
An antitrust class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California accuses electronics
companies of leading an illegal cathode ray cartel, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named in the suit are:

          -- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.,
          -- Samsung Electronics,
          -- LP Displays International,
          -- MT Picture Display Co.,
          -- Toshiba Corporation,
          -- LG Philips LCD Company Ltd.,
          -- LG Philips LCD America, Inc.,
          -- LG Electronics Inc.,
          -- Royal Philips Electronics N.V.,
          -- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.,
          -- AU Optronics Corporation,
          -- AU Optronics Corporation America,
          -- Chi Mei Optoelectronics,
          -- Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.,
          -- Sharp Corporation,
          -- Sharp Electronics Corporation,
          -- Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd.,
          -- Hitachi Ltd.,
          -- Hitachi Displays, Ltd.,
          -- Hitachi America Ltd.,
          -- Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.,
          -- Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation,
          -- NEC Corporation,
          -- NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd.,
          -- IDT International Ltd.,
          -- International Display Technology Co., Ltd.,
          -- International Display Technology USA Inc.,
          -- Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD. and,
          -- Hannstar Display Corporation

The suit accuses the companies of conspiring to inflate the
price of cathode ray tube computer monitors since 2003.

It is filed on behalf of all persons and entities residing in
the United States who, from May 1, 1998 through the present,
purchased CRT Products in the United States directly from the
Defendants.

The suit is “Kovacevich v. LG Philips LCD Company Ltd. et al.,  
Case Number: 3:2007cv05372,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, under the Hon. Susan
Illston.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, 58th Floor
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: 212-608-1900
          Fax: 212-719-4677


FORD MOTOR: Settles Lawsuit Over 1991-2001 Model Explorers
----------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. agreed to settle a class action claiming its
Explorer sport utility vehicles were prone to rollovers,
Associated Press reports.  

The class action was brought on behalf of all people and
entities residing in California who bought, owned or leased, a
new or used 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorer in California
between 1990 and August 9, 2000, and who either still own their
Explorer or who sold, ended their lease, or otherwise disposed
of it after August 9, 2000.

Filed in 2003, plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that defendant,
Ford Motor Co., violated California's statutory Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs say that Ford knew about a dangerous design flaw that
made the Explorer unsafe and too likely to roll over, yet
concealed it, and instead marketed and sold the Explorer as a
safe vehicle.

The plaintiffs want class members to get compensation from Ford
for the excess money they say they paid for their Explorers, as
well as money from the profits Ford earned on California
Explorer sales, and other legal costs.

                    The Settlement

The Associated Press learned from a New Jersey attorney and co-
counsel for the SUV owners who brought the lawsuit that the
settlement applies to about one million people in California,
Connecticut, Illinois and Texas.

It will allow vehicle owners to apply for $500 vouchers to buy
new Explorers or $300 vouchers to buy other Ford or Lincoln
Mercury products, Kevin P. Rodd said. The settlements apply to
Explorers from model years 1991 through 2001, he said.

The settlement is still subject to the approva of the Sacramento
judge. The parties plan to ask Superior Court Judge David De
Alba
to give final approval during a hearing in April.


Ford Explorer Cases on the net: http://www.explorercasuit.com

The case is "Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4226 and 4270."

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Henry Rossbacher, Esq.
          The Rossbacher Firm
          611 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 895-6500
          Fax: (213) 895-6161
          E-mail: hhr@rossbacher.xhost.com
          Web site: http://www.rossbacherlaw.com


ISOTEC INC: Still Faces Suit Over Nitric Oxide Plant Accident
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of the Sigma-Aldrich Corp. continues to face a
purported class action in Ohio over a Sept. 21, 2003 explosion
at an Isotec, Inc. plant that it owns.

A class-action complaint was filed against a subsidiary of the
Sigma-Aldrich Corp. in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of
Common Pleas related to a 2003 explosion in a column at the
Company’s Isotec facility in Miamisburg, Ohio.

The plant had an explosion at its nitric oxide operations in
2003 that caused the evacuation of surrounding neighborhoods.  
Following the explosion, the purported class action, which is
representing 3,000 individuals, was filed against the company in
December 2003.

The case was separated into the following four phases: phase one
–- existence of liability, phase two –- quantification of any
compensatory damages, phase three –- existence of any punitive
damages and phase four –- quantification of any punitive
damages. Class certification was granted to phases one, three
and four, but denied to phase two.

Compensatory damages for all plaintiffs must be established
before the case can proceed to the punitive damages phases.

The Company has accepted responsibility for phase one, existence
of liability.  

The case is currently in the compensatory damages phase, where,
because no class status exists, each plaintiff must individually
establish actual damages.

The initial phase two, compensatory damages trial, for 31
plaintiffs was completed on April 27, 2007 with a jury verdict
establishing actual damages of approximately two hundred dollars
per plaintiff.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of interlocutory appeal staying
further action on the case until the appeal has been resolved.
The Company has answered the appeal.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Sigma-Aldrich Corp. -- http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/-- develops,  
manufactures, purchases and distributes a range of biochemicals
and organic chemicals.  



JDS UNIPHASE: Jury Favors Firm in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A jury has ruled in favor of JDS Uniphase Corp. (Nasdaq: JDSU;
and TSX: JDU) on all claims in a securities class action filed
by Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland, California.

"We are extremely gratified by the jury's verdict, as we have
always believed that the plaintiffs' claims were without merit,"
said Kevin Kennedy, JDSU's President and Chief Executive
Officer. "We will continue focusing our full attention on
developing innovative products and delivering on the significant
potential of our business model to create shareholder value."

The Company noted that while the jury's decision in this case is
a significant positive milestone, it continues to defend itself
in the securities class action and related litigation.

                       Case Background

On July 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated all the securities actions
then filed in or transferred to that court as, "In re JDS
Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-02-1486
CW," and appointed the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust
Funds as lead plaintiff.

The complaint in "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities
Litigation" purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of those who acquired the company's securities from
Oct. 28, 1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of
subclasses consisting of those who acquired the company's common
stock pursuant to its acquisitions of The Optical Coating
Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI), E-TEK Dynamics, Inc., and SDL Ltd.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made material misstatements
and omissions concerning demand for the company's products,
improperly recognized revenue, overstated the value of
inventory, and failed to timely write down goodwill.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  

In January 2005, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims
against the company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and
Charles Abbe, and granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss claims against Kevin Kalkhoven.  

Defendants subsequently filed answers denying liability for the
claims asserted against them.  On Dec. 21, 2005, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Fact discovery in the case is substantially complete.  Each
party has noticed and taken depositions of both party and non-
party witnesses.  

On Aug. 24, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' motions for summary judgment and deferred ruling on
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

On Nov. 27, the company said in a press release that a jury has
ruled in favor of the company on all claims in the securities
class action.

The suit is "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, C-
02-1486," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken with referral
to Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
         Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         Phone:  415-288-4545 and 619-231-1058
         Fax: 415-288-4534 and 619-231-7423
         E-mail: reedk@lerachlaw.com
                 e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         John Frith Stewart, Esq.
         Segal, Stewart, Cutler, Lindsay, Janes & Ber
         1400-B Waterfront Street, 325 West Main Street
         Louisville, KY 40202-4251
         Phone: 502-568-5600

Representing the defendants are:

         Philip T. Besirof, Esq.
         Jordan David Eth, Esq.
         Morrison & Foerster, LLP
         425 Market St.
         San Francisco, CA
         Phone: 94105-2482
         Fax: (415) 268-7000 and 415-268-7522
         E-mail: PBesirof@mofo.com
                 jeth@mofo.com


MARYLAND: Murphy & Falcon to Sue Over Fly Ash Dump Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Murphy & Falcon P.A. of Baltimore is filing the
first class action over fly ash dump contamination on behalf of
Gambrills, Md. residents of Anne Arundel County.

The claim alleges that the defendant Fortune 500 energy
corporation knew about groundwater leaks but never warned
residents.

The firm will hold a conference today (Thursday, Nov. 29, 2007)
at 1:30 p.m., at 2401 Queen Mitchell Rd, Gambrills, MD 21054,
where former Prince Georges County Executive Wayne Curry will
detail how Maryland property owners are affected by groundwater
contaminated with toxins including arsenic, lead and cadmium,
which are linked to cancer and other serious health effects.

So far, 34 residential wells have been polluted by the energy
company's reckless negligence. The dump sites also sit atop the
deep aquifer that supplies Crofton's municipal wells, which
residents fear may be threatened by future contamination.

By filing this suit, the victims and the Murphy Firm legal team
are at the vanguard of citizens trying to solve a national
health and environmental crisis. Under-regulated fly ash dumps
are scattered throughout the U.S. and many of them are badly
polluting groundwater, surface water and the air with
contaminated dust.

Regulations are not protecting nearby residents, so people must
bring suit to protect themselves.

For more information, contact:

          Scott Broom
          Murphy & Falcon, P.A. By Redzone News
          Phone: 410-318-8911
          Cell: 443-562-0112
          E-mail: broom.scott@gmail.com

          or

          Lisa Fasold
          Phone: 703-509-1124
          E-mail: lfasold@gmail.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: “Fiala” Suit Certification Still on Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
An order certifying a class in, "Fiala, et al. v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., et al.," which is one of several lawsuits
challenging the fairness of the company's plan of
reorganization, is under appeal.

Generally, the action names as defendants Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co., MetLife, Inc., the individual directors, the
superintendent and the underwriters for MetLife, Inc.'s initial
public offering, Goldman Sachs & Co. and Credit Suisse First
Boston.

Initially, the Superior Court, N.Y. County, certified a class in
“Fiala,” which was filed back in March 17, 2000.  Another
putative class action filed in New York State court in Kings
County was consolidated with “Fiala.”

Plaintiffs in the consolidated state court class actions seek
compensatory relief and punitive damages.  In 2003, the trial
court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss these two
putative class actions.  

In 2004, the appellate court modified the trial court's order by
reinstating certain claims against Metropolitan Life, MetLife
and the individual directors.  Plaintiffs in these actions have
filed a consolidated amended complaint.  

On January 30, 2007, the trial court signed an order certifying
a litigation class for plaintiffs’ claim that defendants
violated section 7312 of the New York Insurance Law, but denying
plaintiffs’ motion to certify a litigation class with respect to
a common law fraud claim.  

Plaintiffs and defendants have filed notices of appeal from this
order.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn has ordered
notification of the class.

The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 5,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.  

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the United States and the regions of Latin America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and
international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life
insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance,
retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as
well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings
products, and services to corporations and other institutions.
The Company is organized into five operating segments:
Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and
Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


OHIO: Accused of Cheating Prison Nurses of Overtime Wage
--------------------------------------------------------
The state of Ohio and its Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections are facing a labor class-action complaint filed Nov.
23 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The suit claims the defendants systematically cheat nurses who
are hired through staffing agencies to work in penal
institutions by requiring them to bill all hours over 40 a week
through a second staffing agency, to deny them overtime, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Allan Dunkle, Christopher Dove and Bobbi Wilson
bring this action on behalf of a class of workers who were
engaged in providing nursing and healthcare services to
incarcerated individuals at correctional facilities owned and
operated by defendants throughout the State of Ohio.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of
         requiring Agency Nurses to affiliate with a second
         Staffing Agency in order to be eligible to work
         overtime;

     (b) whether defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of
         requiring Agency Nurses to bill all overtime hours
         through a second Staffing Agency in order to be
         eligible to work overtime;

     (c) whether defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of
         failing to pay plaintiffs overtime wages for all hours
         worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as required
         by FLSA; and

     (d) whether plaintiffs and members of the proposed class
         are entitled to actual or liquidated damages and the
         other requested relief.

Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

     -- certification of the case as a collective action in
        accordance with 29 USC, Section 216(b) with respect to
        the FLSA claims;

     -- ordering defendants to disclose in computer readable
        format, or in print if no computer readable format is
        available, the names and addresses of all those
        individuals who are similarly situated, and permitting
        plaintiffs to send notice of this action to all those
        similarly situated individuals;

     -- declaring that the defendants willfully violated the
        Fair Labor Standards Act and their attendant
        regulations;

     -- granting judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against
        defendants on the plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act
        claim and awarding each of them the amount of his/her
        unpaid overtime wages, along with an equal amount as
        liquidated damages;

     -- awarding plaintiffs the costs of the action;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs a reasonable attorney's fee with
        regard to their claims under the Fair Labor Standards
        Act; and

     -- whatever additional relief the court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is "Allan Dunkle et al. v. The State of Ohio et al.,
Case No. 2:07 cv 1211," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Michael P. Giertz
          J. Zachary Zatezalo
          Hartley & O'Brien, PLLC
          The Wagner Building, Suite 600
          2001 Main Street
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Phone: (304) 233-0777
          Fax: (304) 233-0774
          E-mail: mgiertz@hartleyobrien.com or  
                  zzatezalo@hartleyobrien.com


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd., a leading Israeli mobile
communications operator, announced that it was served on
November 26, 2007, with a lawsuit requesting certification as a
class action.

The suit was filed against Partner in the District Court of
Central District by plaintiff claiming to be a subscriber of the
Defendant.

The claim alleges that Partner charged consumers for various
content services without obtaining their prior consent which is
claimed to be contrary to the requirements of the general
license of Partner.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed from Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately $98.45 million.

Partner said it will contest this lawsuit vigorously. Partner is
considering the merits of this claim and is unable to assess the
extent of the validity of the claim against it.

For more information contact:

          Mr. Emanuel Avner - Chief Financial Officer
          Mr. Oded Degany - Carrier, Investor and International
                            Relations
          Partner Communications Company Ltd.
          Tel: +972-54-7814951 or +972-54-7814151
          Fax: +972-54-7815961 or +972-54 -7814161
          E-mail: emanuel.avner@orange.co.il or
                  oded.degany@orange.co.il
          Website: http://www.orange.co.il/investor_site/


PEMSTAR INC: Settles Securities Suit Over Mexican Accounting
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in a purported securities
fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District Court of Minnesota against PEMSTAR, Inc., a recent
acquisition of Benchmark Electronics, Inc.

On June 16, 2005, an individual shareholder filed a putative
class action against the company and certain of its current
officers and directors.  

The lawsuit, "The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. PEMSTAR,
Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-01182 - JMR/FLN," alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  

An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 28, 2005, which set forth
the claim and established that the action was going forward with
a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the plaintiff class.

Plaintiff alleges, in essence, that the defendants defrauded the
company's shareholders by failing to timely disclose the
circumstances around the discrepancies in the accounting of the
Mexico facility that generated a restatement.

The suit also alleges that the registration statement filed by
the company in connection with a secondary offering contained
false, material misrepresentations.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased
company stock from Jan. 30, 2003 to Jan. 12, 2005, inclusive.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed Jan. 9, 2006.  The
amended complaint does not specify an amount of damages.

The parties have reached a settlement which is subject to court
approval, according to the Benchmark Electronics' Nov. 8, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. PEMSTAR, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 0:05-cv-01182-JMR-FLN,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James
M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
         Murray Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Ave., Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-5434
         E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com

         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
         332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Phone: 651-287-2100
         E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

              - and -

         Michael Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9160
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Theresa M. Bevilacqua, Esq.
         Peter W. Carter, Esq.
         Bryan C. Keane, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-7883 and 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2868
         E-mail: bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com
                 carter.peter@dorsey.com
                 keane.bryan@dorsey.com


RAYMOND GEDDES: Recalls Pencil Pouches on Zipper's Lead Level
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Geddes & Co., of Baltimore, Md., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
84,200 Children's Pencil Pouches.

The company said the paint on the pencil pouches' zipper pulls
contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead
paint standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recall includes "Stuff Keepers" pencil pouches and
"Bear Pencil Pouches." The "Stuff Keepers" pencil pouches are
clear vinyl, measure 9 inches by 6 inches, and have a green,
orange, pink or blue-colored zipper. Style number 63525 is
printed on the packaging. The "Bear Pencil Pouches" have soft
fabric with a stuffed bear face, and measure 9 inches by 3
inches. Style number 67221 is printed on the packaging.

The pouches were made in China and sold by school supply
distributors in schools nationwide from September 1997 through
October 2007 for between 50 cents and $2.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled pencil
pouches away from children and return them to the store where
purchased for a full refund. If unable to return to the store
where purchased, contact Raymond Geddes & Co. directly.

For additional information, contact Raymond Geddes & Co. at
(800) 533-6273 x1124 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, visit http://www.raymondgeddes.com/psa.htmlor
E-mail the firm at consumeraffairs@raymondgeddes.com.


REGAL CINEMAS: Still Faces FATA Violations Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Cinemas, Inc. continues to face a purported class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate
Transaction Act for allegedly printing expiration dates and
credit card numbers on customer receipts.

The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2007, under the caption, “Bateman,
et al. v. Regal Cinemas, Inc. and United Artists Theatre
Circuit, Inc., et al.”  It seeks to represent a class of
individuals allegedly harmed by the alleged practice.  

The complaint seeks actual damages and/or statutory damages of
at least one hundred dollars or up to one thousand dollars per
violation, and attorney fees and costs.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 27, 2007.

The suit is “Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess
with referral to Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         Ira Spiro, Esq.
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468
         E-mail: greg@spirmoss.com
                 ira@spiromoss.com

Representing the defendants is:

         David E. Novitski, Esq.
         Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
         333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
         Phone: 213-576-8097
         Fax: 213-576-8080


SECURE COMPUTING: Still Faces Calif. Securities Fraud Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Computing Corp. and certain directors and officers of the
company continue to face a putative securities class action
complaint filed by Rosenbaum Capital, LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 19, 2007.

The alleged plaintiff class includes persons who acquired the
company's stock between May 4, 2006 through July 11, 2006.
Rosenbaum Capital was appointed Lead Plaintiff in the action.  
It filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007.

The amended complaint alleges generally that defendants made
false and misleading statements about our business condition and
prospects for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages.  The
company intends to file a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in mid-August, and anticipate that the motion will be
heard late in 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00392-SC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Samuel Conti.

Representing the plaintiff is:

           Elizabeth C. Guarnieri, Esq.
           Green Welling, LLP
           595 Market Street, Suite 2750
           San Francisco, CA 94105
           Phone: 415-477-6700
           Fax: 415-477-6710
           E-mail: ecg@classcounsel.com

Representing the defendants is:

           Michael L. Charlson, Esq.
           Heller Ehrman LLP
           275 Middlefield Road
           Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506
           Phone: 650/324-7000
           Fax: 650 324-0638
           E-mail: michael.charlson@hellerehrman.com


SIERRA HEALTH: Approval of Nev. Investor Suit Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada in and
for the County of Clark has yet to give final approval to a
proposed settlement of shareholder lawsuit filed against Sierra
Health Services, Inc. in connection to a proposed acquisition by
UnitedHealth Group Inc.

The complaint was filed March 19, 2007 by a purported
stockholder of the company, Edward Sara, on behalf of himself
and a class of all others similarly situated, against Sierra
Health Services, Inc., and its directors.  It was filed in the
8th Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada in and for
the County of Clark.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached and/or aided the other defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith
and fair dealing in connection with the merger contemplated by
the merger agreement; the defendants breached their fiduciary
duty to secure and obtain the best price reasonably available
for the company and shareholders; and the defendants are
engaging in self-dealing and unjust enrichment (Class Action
Reporter, May 03, 2007).

The complaint sought, among other relief:

      -- an injunction prohibiting the defendants from
         consummating the merger unless and until the company
         adopt and implement a procedure or process to obtain
         the highest possible price for shareholders; and
   
      -- the imposition of a constructive trust upon any
         benefits improperly received by the defendants as a
         result of the alleged wrongful conduct.

On June 4, 2007, the Company and the defendants reached an
agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit.   The settlement
will be subject to certain conditions, including court approval
following notice to members of the proposed settlement class and
consummation of the merger.  

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties have
agreed that, subject to approval of the court, the Company will
pay plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees and expenses in the
amount of $485,000.  

The merger may be consummated prior to final court approval of
the settlement.  The settlement will not affect the amount of
merger consideration to be paid in the merger or any other
provision of the merger agreement.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Sierra Health Services, Inc. -- http://www.sierrahealth.com--  
is a managed healthcare organization that provides and
administers the delivery of healthcare programs.  The Company
focuses on developing and offering a portfolio of managed
healthcare products to employer groups and individuals.  


SOUTH AFRICA: Student Nurses Oppose “Community Service” Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of South African student nurses is planning to file a
class action against the country's health minister for not being
timely informed of their community service assignment,
AllAfrica.com reports.

Final-year nurses would know about their community service
postings for next year on Christmas Eve and then be expected to
start work anywhere in the country a week later, on January 1.  

Stellenbosch nursing student Allison Borchardt, said the late
notification was unacceptable because most students had already
made career plans for 2008.

The group of more than 170 students has already asked for a
legal opinion about filing a case against Health Minister Manto
Tshabalala-Msimang to halt the implementation of community
service as scheduled.  Previously, Ms. Borchardt and her fellow
students asked the minister to review the introduction of
community service for nurses from January, but failed to get a
satisfactory response.  

Now, Ms. Borchardt is opposing suggestions that her group were
not timely in filing their complaint.  She said the regulations
had been signed by Mr. Tshabalala-Msimang on August 24, while
her challenge on the issuing of draft regulations was filed in
2006.  

Reportedly, she was advised that no one has the right to issue
draft regulations prior to the relevant Act.  

But the department of health has responded that their
interpretation of the law is that this is in fact within the
power of the minister.

The local nurses are also complaining of unfairness because
their Gauteng counterparts have already been told about their
postings, albeit, unofficial.  Further, Ms. Borchardt said it
was also unfair that they were notified about the Aug. 24
signing of the regulations months after, on Oct. 4.


STARTEK INC: Ruling on Motion to Junk Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
StarTek, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors continue to seek for the dismissal of a consolidated
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado.

Initially, the company and others were named as defendants in
two purported class actions in the U.S. District Court, District
of Colorado.  

The suits are:

      -- “West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. StarTek,
         Inc., et al.,” filed on July 8, 2005; and

      -- “John Alden v. StarTek, Inc., et al.,” filed on July
         20, 2005.

The federal court later consolidated those actions.  The
consolidated action is a purported class action brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the company's
common stock in a secondary offering by certain of the company's
stockholders in June 2004, and in the open market between Feb.
26, 2003, and May 5, 2005.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements about the company and its
business and prospects in the prospectus for the secondary
offering, as well as in filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and in press releases issued during the
class period, and that the market price of the company's common
stock was artificially inflated as a result.

It also alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

Plaintiffs in both cases seek compensatory damages on behalf of
the alleged class and award of attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation.

On May 23, 2006, the company and the individual defendants moved
the court to dismiss the action in its entirety.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
Startek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01265-PSF-OES,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, under
Judge Phillip S. Figa.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Matthew M. Wolf, Esq.
         Allen & Vellone, P.C.
         1600 Stout Street, #1100
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-534-4499
         E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com  

Representing the company are:

         James E. Nesland, Esq.
         Matthew Voss, Esq.
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         380 Interlocken Crescent, #900
         Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
         Phone: 720-566-4000
         Fax: 720-566-4099
         E-mail: neslandje@cooley.com
                 mvoss@cooley.com


TELLABS INC: Illinois Court Certifies Class in ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
certified a class in the purported lawsuit, “Brieger v. Tellabs,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01882.”

On April 5, 2006, a class-action complaint was filed in the
court against:

     -- Tellabs;

     -- Michael Birck, Richard Notebaert, the company's former
        chief executive, president and director; and

     -- current or former Tellabs employees who, during the
        alleged class period of Dec. 11, 2000 to July 1,
        2003, participated on the Tellabs Investment and
        Administrative Committees of the Tellabs, Inc. Profit
        Sharing and Savings Plan.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  Thereafter, two similar complaints were
filed in the same court.

The complaints allege that during the alleged class period, the
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among other things,
continuing to offer Tellabs common stock as a Plan investment
option when it was imprudent to do so and allegedly
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material information
necessary for Plan participants to make informed decisions
concerning the Plan.

Further, certain of the defendants allegedly failed to monitor
the fiduciary activities of the fiduciaries they appointed and
certain of the defendants allegedly breached their duty of
loyalty by trading Tellabs stock, while taking no protective
action on behalf of Plan participants.  The complaints seek
restitution, damages and other relief.

On June 28, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions and
on Aug. 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint.  

On Sept. 15, 2006, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in
the Alternative, for Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims in the consolidated amended class action
complaint.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the court denied defendants' motion.  Based on
the court's decision, the defendants have requested that the
court certify an issue for interlocutory appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit; the court denied
defendants’ request.

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class, discovery was conducted to
determine the propriety of class certification, and Tellabs
opposed class certification.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to
certify a class.

The suit is “Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01882,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Norman Rifkind, Esq.
         Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
         350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
         Chicago, IL 60610
         Phone: (312) 634-0057
         Fax: (312) 634-0059
         E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Charles Clark Jackson, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         77 West Wacker Drive, 5th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 324- 1000
         E-mail: charles.jackson@morganlewis.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Calif. Wage, Hour Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corp. still faces class actions alleging that
Tenet hospitals violated certain provisions of the California
Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders.

Tenet Healthcare is defending a proposed class action alleging
that its hospitals violated certain provisions of the California
Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders with respect to (a) meal breaks, (b) rest
periods, (c) the payment of compensation for meal breaks and
rest periods not taken, (d) “rounding off” practices for time
entries on timekeeping records, (e) the information shown on pay
stubs and (f) certain overtime payments.

Plaintiffs are seeking back pay, statutory penalties and
attorneys’ fees, and seek to certify this action on behalf of
virtually all nonexempt employees of our California
subsidiaries. Another proposed class action pending in Southern
California also involves allegations regarding unpaid overtime.

The lawsuit alleges that the company's pay practices since 2000
for California-based 12-hour shift employees violate California
and federal overtime laws by virtue of the alleged failure to
include certain payments known as Flexible (or California)
Differential payments in the regular rate of pay that is used to
calculate overtime pay. This case has been provisionally
certified as a collective action under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act for the purpose of giving notice to potential
class members.  Plaintiff is seeking back pay, statutory
penalties and attorneys’ fees.  The company opposes class
certification in each case.

Tenet reported no development on this matter in its Nov. 5, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is  
engaged in the provision of healthcare services, primarily
through the operation of general hospitals.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Dismissal of RICO Violations Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCHI) is appealing a
dismissal of a federal case accusing Tenet Healthcare Corp. of
violating Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit is principally alleging that Tenets past pricing
policies and receipt of Medicare outlier payments violated the
federal RICO Act, causing harm to plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts of damages (including treble
damages under RICO), restitution, disgorgement and punitive
damages.

In December 2006, the district court denied plaintiffs motion
for class certification, which decision the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declined to review.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the district court granted the company's motion
for summary judgment on all claims, thereby dismissing this
case.  Plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal to the Eleventh
Circuit.

The suit is "Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. v. Tenet   
Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 05-80183-CIV," filed in the   
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under   
Judge Patricia A. Seitz.  

Representing the plaintiff are:  

         Greenberg Traurig, P.A
         1221 Brickell Avenue
         Miami, Florida 33131
         Phone: 305-579-0500
         Fax: 305-579-0717
         Web site: http://www.gtlaw.com  

             -and -

         Melvyn I. Weiss, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         Tower One, 5200 Town Center Road, Suite 600
         Boca Raton, Florida 33486
         Phone: 561-361-5000
         Telecopier: 561-367-8400
         Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com  

Representing the defendant are:   

         Kenny Nachwalter, Esq.
         Seymour Arnold Critchlow & Spector, P.A.
         1100 Miami Center, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard,   
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: (305) 373-1000
         Fax: (305) 372-1861

              -and

         Holland & Knight, LLP
         701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
         Miami, Florida 33131
         P.O. Box 015441, Florida, 33101
         Phone: 305-374-8500
         Fax: 305-789-7799
         Web site: http://www.hklaw.com  


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


CROCS INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Colo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of
all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Crocs, Inc. from July 27, 2007 through October 31, 2007 against
Crocs and certain of its officers for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that during the Class Period,
Crocs portrayed itself as a Company with continuing growth in
demand for its products that was expanding its business into
Europe, Asia and South America. However, it is alleged that,
unknown to investors, the Company was experiencing the following
material adverse trends during the course of its expansion of
its business:

     (a) the Company was experiencing material distribution
         problems in Europe, as it had moved distribution
         facilities to the Netherlands and was experiencing
         distribution problems in Japan with a third-party
         distributor;

     (b) that the Company's sales were being negatively impacted
         by seasonal conditions as consumers materially reduced
         purchases of the Company's products in Europe; and

     (c) that the Company's inventory levels were materially
         building far beyond historic levels.

It is further alleged that on October 31, 2007, after the close
of trading, Crocs issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 in
which the Company disclosed an increase in inventory of
approximately 300% during the quarter and disclosed for the
first time certain material difficulties in opening its
Netherlands distribution center and certain other material
difficulties in product distribution.

As alleged in the Complaint, the following trading day, Crocs
shares declined from a closing price on October 31, 2007 of
$74.75 per share, to close at $47.74 per share, a decline of
$27.01 per share or approximately 36%.

The Complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
Crocs' CEO Ronald R. Snyder sold approximately 345,000
artificially inflated Crocs shares for proceeds of approximately
$22.6 million.

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

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox
          Joel B. Strauss
          Donald R. Hall
          Jeffrey P. Campisi
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, New York  10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714

          - and -

          Laurence D. King
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, California  94104
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax: (415) 772-4707


CROCS INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP has
filed a class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of Crocs Inc. from July 27, 2007 through October 31, 2007,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges Crocs and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Crocs is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of footwear
for men, women and children under the "crocs" brand. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing significant product
         distribution problems in Europe and Asia;

     (2) that these distribution problems were causing the
         Company to be unable to capitalize on tens of millions
         of dollars in sales of its products due to their
         seasonal nature and changing weather conditions in
         certain markets;

     (3) as a result, the Company's inventory levels were
         significantly increasing due to such distribution
         problems and seasonal product sales; and

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

On October 31, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced disappointing third quarter earnings. Following this
announcement, the Company held a conference call where it
disclosed that it had experienced a significant slowdown in
sales during the quarter. The Company admitted that it had
missed sales opportunities in Europe and Asia due to an
inability to fulfill orders, and that it had "only shipped about
50% of the orders" in these markets. As a result of distribution
problems, the Company was unable to capitalize on over $20
million of sales in Europe, as well as on an additional $10 to
$15 million of sales in Asia.

Further, the Company disclosed that its sales were being
negatively impacted as the weather turned colder throughout
Europe and Asia. These distribution problems were particularly
devastating for the Company's sales during the quarter as its
products are subject to seasonal variations and are
significantly impacted by weather conditions, and because over
75 percent of the Company's revenues during a quarter are
attributable to its fair-weather footwear.

As a result of the distribution problems, the Company's
inventories increased to $195.3 million for the quarter, as
compared to $49.1 million for the prior year's quarter. Most of
the increased inventory position for the quarter was as a result
of the Company's problems in Europe and Asia, where it
admittedly "struggle[d] to keep up with their torrid growth and
orders early in the quarter." On this news, the Company's shares
fell $27.01 per share, or over 36 percent, to close on November
1, 2007 at $47.74 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact:

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


FEDERAL HOME: Charles H. Johnson Announces N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces 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 Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation  publicly traded securities
during the period August 1, 2006 through November 19, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning Freddie Mac's
business, its risk management and the procedures it put in place
to protect the Company from problems in the mortgage industry.

During the Class Period, Freddie Mac was not adequately
implementing risk control measures. The Company's procedures for
appraisals led to many inflated appraisals, increasing the risk
of defaults. Ultimately, the Company reported billions of
dollars in losses, has been mentioned in investigations by the
New York Attorney General and announced it must raise new
capital to meet regulatory requirements. On this news, Freddie
Mac stock fell over $10 per share to close at $26.74 on November
20, 2007.

During the Class Period, Defendants concealed the following
information, which caused their statements to be materially
false and misleading:

     1) Defendants were not implementing sufficient risk
        management controls to protect the Company from
        acquiring billions of dollars worth of mortgages with
        poor underwriting standards, causing the Company to have
        an unsustainable amount of risky loans;

     2) Defendants were not implementing controls to ensure that
        appraisals were done appropriately and to prevent
        collusion between lenders and appraisers, increasing the
        risk of defaults;

     3) the Company was not adequately reserving for
        uncollectible loans, causing its financial results to be
        misleading; and

     4) the Company had billions of dollars of bad loans which
        it would eventually have to write off, causing losses  
        and capital deficiencies.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 21,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq.
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN  55112
          Phone: (651) 633-5685
          E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com


FOCUS MEDIA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud 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 the American Depositary Shares of Focus Media
Holding Limited in the Company's secondary public offering on or
about November 7, 2007.

The complaint charges Focus Media and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Exchange Act of 1933. Focus
Media operates out-of-home advertising network using audiovisual
television displays in the People's Republic of China.
According to the complaint, on or about November 1, 2007, Focus
Media filed a Form F-1/A Registration Statement (the
"Registration Statement") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") for the Secondary Offering. On or about
November 6, 2007, the Prospectus (the "Prospectus") with respect
to the Secondary Offering, which forms part of the Registration
Statement, became effective and more than 13.5 million shares of
Focus Media's ADSs at $64.75 per ADS were sold to the public,
thereby raising more than $888 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 had made
numerous acquisitions in its Internet advertising business
division which were depressing its gross margins in that
important division. On November 19, 2007, after the close of the
market, Focus Media 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 its gross margins for the third quarter of 2007
had declined due to several recent acquisitions. Following the
Company's earnings release, on November 20, 2007, the price of
Focus Media ADSs dropped from $57.15 per ADS to $52.00 per ADS
on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Focus Media ADSs in the Company's Secondary Offering.

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


GIANT INTERACTIVE: 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 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.

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
("MMO") game.

According to the complaint, on or about October 31, 2007, Giant
Interactive filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") a Form F-1/A Registration Statement (the "Registration
Statement"), for the IPO. On or about November 1, 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 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 ("PCU") 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.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from  
November 26, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jack Fruchter
          Ximena Skovron
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


LEAP WIRELESS: Schoengold Sporn Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. filed a class action
lawsuit against Leap Wireless International, Inc., certain of
its officers and its independent auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.

This action has been brought on behalf of all purchasers of Leap
securities during the period between May 16, 2004 through
November 9, 2007.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects to artificially inflate the
value of Leap stock.

It is alleged that throughout the Class Period, the defendants
made material misrepresentations and omissions of fact regarding
the Company's revenues beginning in fiscal year 2004 and
continuing through the second quarter of fiscal 2007. The
Company reported revenues of $826 million for fiscal year 2004;
$914.7 million for fiscal year 2005; $1.136 billion for fiscal
year 2006; $389.4 million for the first quarter of fiscal year
2007; and, $393.2 million for the second quarter of fiscal 2007.
As a result of the defendants' misrepresentations, Leap stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period,
trading as high as $99.00 in July 2007.

The Company shocked the market on November 9, 2007 when it
announced, "it will restate its financial statements for fiscal
years 2004, 2005 and 2006 and for the first and second quarters
of 2007 to correct for errors in previously reported service
revenues, equipment revenues, and operating expenses." As a
result, on November 9, 2007, Leap's common stock closed at
$36.72 per share, declining 37% from the previous trading day's
close of $58.10, on very heavy trading volume of 11,377,500
shares, over six times the prior trading days' volume, and
representing a loss of market capitalization of over $240
million.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
November 27, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jay P. Saltzman, Esq.
          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, New York 10038
          Tel:  (212) 964-0046
          Fax: (212) 267-8137
          Toll Free: (866) 348-7700
          Website: http://www.spornlaw.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  * * *