CAR_Public/071204.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, December 4, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 240

                            Headlines


ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Pa. Securities Suit
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Cal. Securities Suit Over MoisturePlus
AMERICAN JUSTICE SCHOOL: Hiring of New Administrators Proposed
AVERY DENNISON: UPM-MACtac Merger Suit Plaintiffs Seek Discovery
AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Label Stock

AVERY DENNISON: Settles ERISA Violations Litigation in Calif.
CANADA: Former Lawyers of Woodlands School Victims File Appeal
CARDINAL HEALTH: Ohio Court Approves $40M ERISA Suit Settlement
CARDINAL HEALTH: Dismissal of Cal. ERISA Suit Still Under Appeal
CARRIER CORP: “High-Efficiency” Furnaces Suit Deal Notices Out

CHECKFREE CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
CHECKFREE CORP: Ga. Court Allows Proposed Acquisition by Fiserv
CHECKFREE CORP: Del. Court Allows Proposed Acquisition by Fiserv
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Lakin Firm Opposes Deposition in PPO Suit
DYNCORP INT'L: Still Faces D.C. Litigation Over “Plan Colombia”

ESURANCE INSURANCE: Lawsuit in Wis. Claim Credit Act Violations
FEDEX GROUND: Cal. High Court Denies Appeal in Drivers' Suit
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Suit by Crossett, Ark. Residents Decertified
ILLINOIS UNION: Mass. Litigation Over B Quotes Remains Stayed
INTEL CORP: High Court Rules Against Pentium 4 Suit Plaintiffs

MBNA CANADA: High Court Keeps Ruling in Suit Over Interest Rate
MERCK & CO: Dental Monitoring Sought in N.Y. Fosamax Litigation
NEW MEXICO: Albuquerque Faces Lawsuit Over Speed Camera System
SYNCOR INT'L: Court Refuses to Review Revival of Investors Suit
TD BANK: Court Certifies Suit Over “Illegal” Visa Card Fees

UNITED STATES: Parties in Data Theft Suit Enter Into Mediation
USANA HEALTH: Faces Suit by Former “Associates” in California
WAL-MART STORES: Wash. Employees to Get Notices, Law Firm Says


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

FORMFACTOR INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
LDK SOLAR: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.


                            *********  


ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Pa. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
fraud class action against ACE, Ltd.

ACE Ltd. was named in four putative securities class actions on
Oct. 14, 2004 following the filing of a civil suit against Marsh
& McLennan Cos. Inc. by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.  
Mr. Spitzer charged the insurance brokerage arm of Marsh &
McLennan with price fixing and collusion.   

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  

The court appointed as lead plaintiffs Sheet Metal Workers'
National Pension Fund and Alaska Ironworkers Pension Trust.  
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Sept.
30, 2005, naming the company, Evan G. Greenberg, Brian
Duperreault, and Philip V. Bancroft as defendants.  

Plaintiffs assert claims solely under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Act (control
person liability).

Plaintiffs allege that the company public statements and
securities filings should have revealed that insurers, including
certain company entities and brokers, allegedly conspired to
increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B"
quotes and contingent commissions and that the company's
revenues and earnings were inflated by these practices.

On Oct. 28, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities actions.
Defendants argued that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged any
actionable misrepresentations under the securities laws, and
that defendants could not be held liable for any failures to
disclose information.  

Defendants also argued that the individual defendants could not
be held liable for statements they did not make that plaintiffs
had not adequately pled scienter, and that plaintiffs had not
adequately pled loss causation.  

Plaintiffs filed a response and the motion to dismiss remains
pending.  

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

The suit is “In Re Ace Limited Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-md-01675-TJS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Timothy J. Savage.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tor Gronborg, Esq.
         Udoka Nwanna, Esq.
         Debra J. Wyman, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         401 B Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         E-mail: torg@lerachlaw.com
                 udokan@lerachlaw.com
                 debraw@lerachlaw.com


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Cal. Securities Suit Over MoisturePlus
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. faces purported securities fraud
class actions in the U.S. District Court of the Central District
of California.

On Aug. 24, 2007 and Sept. 13, 2007, two purported class-action
complaints were filed by Scott Kairalla and Barry Galison,
respectively, in the U.S. District Court of the Central District
of California on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities between Jan. 4, and May 25, 2007.  

The Actions allege claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the company and certain of its officers and
directors.  

The Actions allege that the company made material
misrepresentations concerning the company's Complete
MoisturePlus product.

Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. -- http://www.amo-inc.com/site/--  
is engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of
medical devices for the eye.  


AMERICAN JUSTICE SCHOOL: Hiring of New Administrators Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the American Justice School of Law have offered a
settlement to plaintiffs in a $120 million purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court in Paducah, The (KY)
Paducah Sun reports.

Paul Hendrick, the school's dean and founder; Jarrod Tuner,
associate dean; and Wayne Shelton, chairman of the board of
directors, are facing a suit filed by one of the owners of the
school (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2007).

The administrators are accused of engaging in criminal
activity that includes racketeering, conspiracy and abuse of
their offices "to enrich themselves at the expense of the
students."

Tom Osborne, a Paducah attorney, filed the class action on
behalf of students and himself as owner of 22.5 percent of the
school that opened two years ago.  The school in the Paducah
Information Age Park has about 200 students.  Mr. Osborne
resigned as board chairman two weeks ago after discovering what
he said were improprieties at the school.  His federal complaint
includes written details of verbal allegations he made
previously.

Specifically, according to the report, Mr. Osborne claims that:

     -- Messrs. Hendrick and Turner were involved in a scheme to
        delay distribution of student loan proceeds for living
        expenses to invest the funds and earn interest;

     -- Messrs. Hendrick and Turner applied for student loans of
        up to $20,000 without the student's knowledge;

     -- inaccurate information was intentionally included in the
        school's accreditation application filed with the
        American Bar Association;

     -- Mr. Turner was receiving a kickback for encouraging
        students to buy books from an Internet book company;

     -- grades were lowered to make students ineligible for
        scholarships and prevent them from transferring to other
        schools;

     -- Messrs. Hendrick and Turner improperly withdrew funds  
        from the school; and

     -- potential investors were given inaccurate information
        about the school's financial condition to entice them to
        invest in the school.

The suit says that students are being harmed because they've
taken out large loans and that the prospects of them receiving
law degrees are remote because it is unlikely it will even be
accredited by the American Bar Association.

Mr. Osborne said the law violations include theft, wire fraud,
mail fraud, racketeering, bank fraud, extortion and tax evasion
by failing to report income.

The suit seeks $120 million in damages, a restraining order to
prevent the school from filing bankruptcy, a full accounting of
financial records and other action to protect students,
according to the report.

Earlier, the deans' attorney, John Reed, proposed creation of a
new board of directors that would hire a new dean and associate
dean. When new administrators are hired, Hendrick and Turner
would resign as deans, but remain on the existing board with
control of the school's finances. They would provide quarterly
reports to the new board for review by an independent
accountant.

But Mr. Osborne said he doubted the plaintiffs would accept the
settlement offer. He said he had reviewed the settlement offer
with 10 of the 31 student plaintiffs.

Mr. Reed said the deans should retain financial oversight
because they are the ones who invested money to develop and
operate the school.

Mr. Reed had also filed a motion to disqualify Mr. Osborne as
the attorney in the lawsuit because he will be called as a
witness.  He expects U.S. District Judge Thomas Russell to rule
on that motion during a telephone conference this week.

Plaintiffs are Jamie L. Rust and American Justice School of Law,
Inc.  The suit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit is "Rust et al. v. Hendrick et al.. Case No. 5:2007-cv-
00191," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky under Judge Thomas B. Russell.


AVERY DENNISON: UPM-MACtac Merger Suit Plaintiffs Seek Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed against Avery
Dennison Corp. in relation to a proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene
and the Morgan Adhesives (MACtac) division of Bemis Co., Inc.,
moved to lift discovery stay in the case.  UPM is a supplier of
paper to Avery Dennison.

On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed the
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania against the company, UPM, Bemis, and
certain of their subsidiaries seeking treble damages and other
relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices.  Ten similar
complaints were filed in various federal district courts.

In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On Jan. 21, 2004, plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily
dismissed its complaint, leaving a total of 10 named plaintiffs.   
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Feb. 16, 2004,
which the company answered on March 31, 2004.

On April 14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to
class certification and merits discovery, and limited the
initial phase of discovery to the issue of the appropriateness
of class certification.

On Jan. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On Jan.
20, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended complaint.

On March 1, 2007, the court heard oral argument on the issue of
the appropriateness of class certification.

On Aug. 28, 2007, plaintiffs moved to lift the discovery stay,
which the Company opposed.

The suit is “Sentry Business Products, Inc. v. Avery Dennison
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-01999-TIV,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, under
Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
         39 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-357-0370
         E-mail: sweltman@cmht.com

Representing the company are:

         Joshua N. Holian, Esq.
         J. Thomas Rosch, Esq.
         Latham & Watkins LLP
         505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-646-8343
         Fax: 415-395-8095
         E-mail: joshua.holian@lw.com
                 Tom.Rosch@lw.com


AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Label Stock
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corp., UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary Raflatac
still faces several class actions filed on behalf of indirect
purchasers of label stock in various state courts.   

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class
action on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock.  The
suit asks treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful
competitive practices.  

Three similar complaints were filed in various California
courts.  In November 2003, on petition from the parties, the
California Judicial Council ordered the cases coordinated for
pretrial purposes.  

The cases were assigned to a coordination trial judge in the   
Superior Court for San Francisco County on March 30, 2004.  

A further similar complaint was filed in the Superior Court for  
Maricopa County, Arizona on Nov. 6, 2003.  Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Arizona complaint without prejudice on   
Oct. 4, 2004.  

On Jan. 21, 2005, American International Distribution Corp.
filed a purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers
in the Superior Court for Chittenden County, Vermont.  

Similar actions were filed by:

     -- Webtego on Feb. 16, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas
        for Cuyahoga County, Ohio;

     -- D.R. Ward Construction Co. on Feb. 17, 2005, in the
        Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona;

     -- Richard Wrobel on Feb. 16, 2005 in the District Court of
        Johnson County, Kansas; and

     -- Chad and Terry Muzzey, on Feb. 16, 2005 in the District
        Court of Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska.  

On Feb. 17, 2005, Judy Benson filed a purported multi-state
class action on behalf of indirect purchasers in the Circuit
Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.  

On Oct. 7, 2005, Webtego voluntarily dismissed its complaint.  
On Feb. 16, 2006, D.R. Ward voluntarily dismissed its complaint.

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

Avery Dennison Corp. -- http://www.averydennison.com-- is  
engaged in the production of pressure-sensitive materials,
office products and a variety of tickets, tags, labels and other
converted products.  It also manufactures and sells a variety of
office products, and other converted products and other items
not involving pressure-sensitive components, such as binders,
organizing systems, markers, fasteners, business forms, as well
as tickets, tags, and imprinting equipment for retail and
apparel manufacturers.  


AVERY DENNISON: Settles ERISA Violations Litigation in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corp. reached settlement in a class action that  
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act by the company.

The suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California also names as defendants the company's chief
executive officer, Philip M. Neal; vice president and treasurer,
Karyn Rodriguez; and vice president, compensation and benefits,
James Bochinski.

Ronald E. Dancer filed the suit on May 18, 2005, alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA to the company's Employee
Savings Plan and Plan participants.  

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that permitting
investment in and retention of company common stock under the
plan was imprudent because of alleged anticompetitive activities
by the company, and that failure to disclose such activities to
the plan and participants was unlawful.  

Plaintiff sought an order compelling defendants to compensate
the plan for any losses and other relief.   

Parties have stipulated to transfer the case to the judge in the
consolidated case, “In Re Avery Dennison Corp. Securities
Litigation.”   

The court approved the parties' stipulation to stay the matter
pending the outcome of the government investigation of alleged
anticompetitive conduct by the company.   

On Sept. 20, 2007, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with Ronald E. Dancer.  Pursuant to the agreement, Mr.
Dancer’s purported class action was dismissed with prejudice,
and the Company agreed, among other things, to not make certain
amendments to its Employee Savings Plan for at least three
years, and to pay certain immaterial expenses.

The suit is “Ronald Dancer v. Avery Dennison Corp. et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-03708-NM-FMO,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Nora M. Manella.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
         Robert A. Izard, Esq.
         Andrew M. Schatz, Esq.
         Schatz and Nobel
         20 Church Street, 17th Floor
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6292
         E-mail: wboulton@snlaw.net
                 firm@snlaw.net
  
         Michael D. Braun, Esq.
         Marc L. Godino, Esq.
         Braun Law Group  
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone: 310-442-7755
         E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

              - and -

         Joseph Gentile, Esq.
         Ronnen Sarraf, Esq.
         Sarraf Gentile
         485 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10018
         Phone: 212-868-3610
         E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com


CANADA: Former Lawyers of Woodlands School Victims File Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former lawyers of New Westminster's Woodlands School are
appealing after being taken off a class action launched by
survivors of the school, CKNW reports.  This means the lawsuit,
which is supposed to be heard in January, will be delayed, the
report said.

Class Action Reporter reported on Aug. 16, 2006 that CA$510 in
compensation is being distributed to each victim of  
abuse at the Woodlands School in New Westminster.  The
distribution was set July 31, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2006.  Almost 400  
former residents were eligible for the payout from the CA$2  
million BC Institutional Legacy Trust Fund established by the  
government for the victims in 2003.  

Poyner Baxter filed the class action in 2002.  Subsequently, the  
province's Public Guardian and Trustee commenced a similar suit,  
seeking to represent all victims in the class.  The court  
eventually awarded "carriage" to Poyner Baxter, designating this  
firm to represent all members of the class.  

In March 2005, Madam Justice Nancy Morrison of the British  
Columbia Supreme Court certified a class action brought against  
the Government of British Columbia on behalf of an estimated  
1,500 former residents of Woodlands School, most of whom are  
severely handicapped (Class Action Reporter, March 22, 2005).

The Supreme Court defined the class as follows: "All persons  
resident in British Columbia, who were confined to the  
provincial institution more recently known as Woodlands School  
and who, while so confined, suffered physical, sexual, emotional  
and/or psychological abuse and have suffered injury, loss or  
damage as a result thereof."   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jim Poyner, Esq.
          Poyner Baxter, LLP
          #408 - 145 Chadwick Court
          North Vancouver, B.C.  
          V7M 3K1
          Phone: (604) 988-6321
          Fax: (604) 988-3632
          E-mail: poyner.baxter@telus.net
          Web site: http://www.poynerbaxter.com  


CARDINAL HEALTH: Ohio Court Approves $40M ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio gave
final approval to a $40 million settlement of the matter, “In re
Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-00643-
ALM-NMK.”

Beginning July 2, 2004, several purported class-action
complaints have been filed by purported participants in the
Cardinal Health Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan,
collectively referred to as the Cardinal Health ERISA actions.  

The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought on
behalf of participants in the 401(k) Plan and the Syncor
Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership Plan, and also on behalf
of the Plans themselves.   

The complaints allege that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under ERISA, generally asserting that the
defendants failed to make full disclosure of the risks to the
Plans' participants of investing in the company's stock, to the
detriment of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries, and that
company stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative for the Plans' participants.   

The misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actions
significantly overlap with the misstatements alleged in the
Cardinal Health federal securities actions.   

The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable
relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.   

On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were
consolidated into one action captioned, “In re Cardinal Health,
Inc. ERISA Litigation.”

On Jan. 14, 2005, the court appointed lead counsel and liaison
counsel for the consolidated Cardinal Health ERISA action.   

On April 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended ERISA complaint naming the company, certain current and
former directors, officers and employees, the company's Employee
Benefits Policy Committee and Putnam Fiduciary Trust Co. as
defendants.  

The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and other
unspecified relief against the defendants.   

On Dec. 1, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.   

On March 31, 2006, the Court granted the defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss the consolidated complaint with respect to Putnam
Fiduciary Trust Co. (the former trustee of the Plan) and with
respect to plaintiffs’ claim for equitable relief.

The Court denied the remainder of the Motion to Dismiss filed by
the Company and certain defendants.

On Sept. 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification, seeking certification of a class of Plan
participants who bought or held Company shares in their Plan
accounts between Oct. 24, 2000 and July 2, 2004.

In May 2007, the Company reached an understanding with the
counsel for the plaintiffs regarding a proposed settlement of
the Cardinal Health ERISA litigation under which the litigation
would be terminated for a payment by the Company of $40 million.

On June 21, 2007, the Company entered into a class action
settlement agreement with counsel for the plaintiffs.  The
settlement agreement provides that the Cardinal Health ERISA
litigation will be terminated for a payment by the Company to
the Plan of $40 million, with the net proceeds of the settlement
to be apportioned to the Plan accounts of participants who
bought or held Company shares in their Plan accounts between
Oct. 24, 2000 and July 2, 2004.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June
28, 2007 and the Company transferred the $40.0 million into an
escrow account on June 29, 2007.

On Oct. 18, 2007, the Court conducted a final fairness hearing
as to the settlement.  

On Oct. 24, 2007, the Court entered a final order approving the
settlement and dismissing all claims asserted in the Cardinal
Health ERISA litigation against the defendants.

The suit is “In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case
No. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

        James Edward Arnold, Esq.
        Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
        471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
        Columbus, OH 43215,   
        Phone: 614-469-1400
        E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com

             - and -

        George E. Barrett, Esq.
        Barrett Johnston & Parsley
        217 Second Avenue N.
        Nashville, TN 37201
        Phone: 615-244-2202
        E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com

Representing the company are:

        J. Kevin Cogan, Esq.
        Jones Day
        325 John H. McConnell Blvd., P.O. Box 165017
        Columbus, OH 43216-5017
        Phone: 614-469-3939
        Fax: 614-461-4198
        E-mail: jcogan@jonesday.com;

             - and -

        Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq.
        Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter
        65 E. State Street, Suite 1800
        Columbus, OH 43215-4294
        Phone: 614-462-5400
        Fax: 614-462-5422
        E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Dismissal of Cal. ERISA Suit Still Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on a motion appealing a dismissal of a purported class action
filed against Cardinal Health, Inc., Syncor International Corp.
and certain officers and employees of the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Initially several class actions were filed against the company,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The suits are:

       -- "Pilkington v. Cardinal Health, et al.," which was
          filed on April 8, 2003, against the company, Syncor
          and certain officers and employees of the company by a
          purported participant in the Syncor Employees' Savings
          and Stock Ownership Plan.  

       -- "Donna Brown, et al. v. Syncor International Corp., et
          al.," which was filed on Sept. 11, 2003, against the
          company, Syncor and certain individual defendants.  

       -- "Thompson v. Syncor International Corp., et al.,"
          which was filed on Jan. 14, 2004, against the company,
          Syncor and certain individual defendants.   

Each of these actions was brought in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  

Later, a consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 24, 2004
against Syncor and certain former Syncor officers, directors
and/or employees alleging that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under ERISA based on the same underlying
allegations of improper and unlawful conduct alleged in the
federal securities litigation.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.  

On April 26, 2004, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On Aug. 24, 2004, the court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motions to Dismiss.

The court dismissed, without prejudice, all claims against
defendants Ed Burgos and Sheila Coop, all claims alleging co-
fiduciary liability against all defendants, and all claims
alleging that the individual defendants had conflicts of
interest precluding them from properly exercising their
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  

A claim for breach of the duty to prudently manage plan assets
was upheld against Syncor, and a claim for breach of the alleged
duty to “monitor” the performance of Syncor's Plan
Administrative Committee was upheld against defendants Monty Fu
and Robert Funari.  

On Jan. 10, 2006, the court entered summary judgment in favor of
all defendants on all remaining claims.  Consistent with that
ruling, on Jan. 11, 2006, the court entered a final order
dismissing this case.  

The lead plaintiff has appealed this decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

The suit is "Carol Pilkington v. Cardinal Health Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-02446-RGK-RC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge R. Gary
Klausner.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Christopher Kim, Esq.
         Lisa J. Yang, Esq.
         Lim Ruger & Kim
         1055 W 7th St, Ste 2800
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-955-9500
         Email: christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com
                lisa.yang@lrklawyers.com

              - and -  

         Edward Chang, Esq.
         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Schiffrin and Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         E-mail: echang@sbclasslaw.com
                 jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com
  
Representing the defendants is:

         Ted Allan Gehring, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000


CARRIER CORP: “High-Efficiency” Furnaces Suit Deal Notices Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
A notification program began Dec. 3, as ordered by the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington, to
alert people who own or owned a high efficiency gas furnace that
was made by Carrier Corporation ("Carrier") since January 1,
1989, about a proposed settlement of the litigation against
Carrier.

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.

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.

Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted preliminary approval to a
nationwide settlement of the class action filed by current and
past owners of high-efficiency furnaces manufactured by Carrier
Corp. equipped with polypropylene (plastic) laminated secondary
heat exchangers (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 29, 2007).

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.

Carrier denies that it did anything wrong, and the settlement is
not an admission of wrongdoing or an indication that any law was
violated.

The settlement will make payments to people who had a secondary
heat exchanger failure and offer an enhanced 20-year warranty on
their high- efficiency gas furnaces. Those included in the
settlement may send in a claim form to ask for a payment, or
they can exercise other legal rights such as asking to be
excluded from, or objecting to, the settlement.

Deadline for exclusions and objections is March 21, 2008.
Deadline to submit claims is August 1, 2008.

Notices informing people about their legal rights will be
mailed, and are scheduled to appear nationally in newspapers and
other publications, leading up to a hearing on April 22, 2008,
to determine whether to grant final certification of the
settlement class and final approval of the settlement agreement.

The Court appointed the law firms of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC
of Seattle, Washington and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP of New York, New York to represent the Class as Counsel.

The suit is "Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School et al. v.  
Carrier Corp., Case No. 3:05-cv-05437-RBL," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Western District of Washington under  
Judge Ronald B. Leighton.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.   
          Nancy A. Pacharzina, Esq.   
          Tousley Brain Stephens
          1700 Seventh Ave, STE 2200  
          Seattle, WA 98101-1332  
          Phone: 206-682-5600  
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  npacharzina@tousley.com

          - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.   
          Paulina do Amaral, Esq.
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
          780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-2024  
          Phone: 212-355-9500  
          Fax: 212-355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                  pdomaral@lchb.com

Representing defendants are:

          Bart L. Kessel, Esq.  
          Tucker Ellis & West
          1000 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 1800  
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2475  
          Phone: 213-430-3388  
          Fax: 213-430-3409
          E-mail: bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com

          Mark L. Levine
          Brian Swanson  
          Michael J. Valaik
          Andrew Polovin  
          Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott
          Courthouse Place
          54 W Hubbard St., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60610  
          Phone: 312-494-4400  
          E-mail: mark.levine@bartlit-beck.com
                  brian.swanson@bartlit-beck.com
                  michael.valaik@bartlit-beck.com
                  andrew.polovin@bartlit-beck.com

          - and -

          John Michael Silk
          Dennis Smith  
          Wilson Smith Cochran & Dickerson
          1700 Financial Center
          1215 4th Ave., Ste 1700
          Seattle, WA 98161-1007  
          Phone: 206-623-4100  
          Fax: 206-623-9273
          E-mail: silk@wscd.com
                  smithd@wscd.com


CHECKFREE CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CheckFree Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class action pending against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

On or about April 10, 2007, the first of two related shareholder
securities putative class actions was filed against CheckFree
Corp. and Messrs. Peter J. Kight and David E. Mangum in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The suits are:

       -- “Skubella v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civil
          Action No. 1:07-CV-0796-TWT,” and

       -- “Gattelaro v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civil
          Action No. 1:07-CV-0945-TWT.”

The actions were filed on behalf of a putative class of all
purchasers of CheckFree common stock between April 4, 2006 and
Aug. 1, 2006 and allege violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against CheckFree and the individual defendants, as
well as of Section 20(a) against the individual defendants,
related to CheckFree’s disclosures concerning its Electronic
Commerce and Payment Services business.  Plaintiffs seek
undisclosed damages.

On June 29, 2007, the Court entered an order that, among other
things, consolidated these two actions and appointed Southwest
Carpenters Pension Trust as the Lead Plaintiff.

On Oct. 11, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
claims, which is currently pending, 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 “Rudolf Skubella, et al. v. CheckFree Corporation,
et al., Case No. 07-CV-00796,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Thomas W.
Thrash Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          2300 Promenade II; 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.,        
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (888) 873-3999
          Fax: (404) 876-4476
          E-mail: attorney@chitwoodlaw.com

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA, 94598
          Phone: 925.945.0200
          Fax: 925.945.8792
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com

               - and -

          Scott & Scott LLC
          P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: 860.537.5537
          Fax: 860.537.4432
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


CHECKFREE CORP: Ga. Court Allows Proposed Acquisition by Fiserv
---------------------------------------------------------------
CheckFree Corp. faces a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia over the company's announcement
of its proposed acquisition by Fiserv, Inc.

Initially, a derivative action was filed on or about June 14,
2007, and styled as, “Borroni v. Peter Kight, et al., Civil
Action No. 1:07-CV-1382-TWT.”  

The complaint names as defendants, Peter Kight, Mark Johnson,
William Boardman, James D. Dixon, C. Kim Goodwin, Eugene F.
Quinn, Jeffrey M. Wilkins, and David Mangum.

The complaint also names CheckFree Corporation as a nominal
defendant.  It alleges breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting, and contribution and indemnification against the
individual defendants as well as unjust enrichment against one
of the individual defendants.

Following CheckFree’s announcement of its proposed acquisition
by Fiserv, Inc., the plaintiffs filed a Corrected Verified First
Amended Shareholder Derivative and Class Action Complaint on
Aug. 6, 2007, which added C. Beth Cotner as a defendant and also
added a claim on behalf of a putative class of all holders of
CheckFree common stock for breach of fiduciary duty against all
the individual defendants related to their approval of the
proposed acquisition.

On Oct. 9, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
claims, which is pending, 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.

On Oct. 18, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a
preliminary injunction regarding the proposed acquisition.

CheckFree Corp. -- http://www.checkfreecorp.com/-- is an  
electronic payment processing company and is a provider of
financial electronic commerce products and services.  


CHECKFREE CORP: Del. Court Allows Proposed Acquisition by Fiserv
----------------------------------------------------------------
CheckFree Corp. faces a consolidated shareholder's lawsuit in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County over the company's announcement of its proposed
acquisition by Fiserv, Inc.

Initially, on or about Aug. 30, 2007, the first of two related
derivative actions were filed, and styled as follows:

       -- “Tawil v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civ. Action
          No. 3193-CC;” and

       -- “Weil v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civ. Action
          No. 3260-CC.”

On October 10, 2007, the cases were consolidated as, “In re
CheckFree Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated Civ.
Action No. 3193-CC.”

The complaint names as defendants, CheckFree, Mark A. Johnson,
Eugene F. Quinn, William P. Boardman, James D. Dixon, Peter J.
Kight, C. Kim Goodwin, Jeffrey M. Wilkins, and Fiserv, Inc.

The action was filed on behalf of a putative class of the public
stockholders of CheckFree and seeks, among other things, to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of CheckFree by Fiserv or, in
the alternative, to rescind the transaction or award the class
rescissory damages.

On Sept. 26, 2007, defendant CheckFree filed its motion to
dismiss the claims, and on Oct. 2, 2007, the other defendants
filed their motion to dismiss the claims.  Those motions to
dismiss are pending.

On Oct. 18, 2007, the Court of Chancery denied Plaintiffs’
motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the proposed
acquisition.

CheckFree Corp. -- http://www.checkfreecorp.com/-- is an  
electronic payment processing company and is a provider of
financial electronic commerce products and services.  


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Lakin Firm Opposes Deposition in PPO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Millar of the Lakin firm filed an objection on Nov. 14 to a
notice from Cincinnati Insurance that its attorneys would depose
Gail Imel as corporate representative of plaintiff Frank Bemis,
Steve Korris of Madison County Record reports.

Mr. Bemis is claiming Cincinnati runs a secret scheme to reduce
payouts on medical bills through preferred provider
organizations. The complaint claims Cincinnati improperly
applied PPO discounts, withheld payment for valid insurance
claims and unfairly profited by their schemes.  It alleges
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment
and civil conspiracy.

Mr. Bemis seeks a judgment in damages not to exceed $75,000,
plus all costs, and further compensation as the Court sees fit.

The Lakin Law Firm had requested that Cincinnati Insurance  
produce documents dating at least more than a decade ago with
the words "silent PPO" in it.  At a Sept. 27, hearing, Dennis
Barton, who represents Mr. Bemis, asked for at least 17 years of
records in all lines of business across 35 states in addition to
every email and other documents with the letters PPO.

The insurer denied wrongdoing and said it doesn't know what
silent PPO means.

Previously, Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder took
the matter under advisement (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7,
2007).  Afterwards, on Nov. 9, Judge Crowder set broad
guidelines and telling attorneys to confer and "determine if it
would be necessary for the court to go through each objection to
each interrogatory and request to produce individually."

"If they are still unable to resolve their differences, counsel
are to contact the court for a setting dealing with each
individual interrogatory or request," she wrote.

Mr. Millar told the judge Mr. Bemis would produce records if
Cincinnati identified all the patients it has paid Mr. Bemis to
treat.  Cincinnati argued that Mr. Bemis should identify the
patients.

Mr. Millar objected to Cincinnati information requests as overly
broad and unduly burdensome.

The case is “Frank C. Bemis & Associates, et al. v. The
Cincinnati Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 05 L 178.”

Representing Mr. Bemis is:

          Dennis J. Barton, III, Esq.
          The Lakin Law Firm, P.C.
          300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, Illinois  62095-0229
          (Madison Co.)
          Phone: 618-254-1127
          Telecopier: 618-254-0193
          Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com

Representing Cincinnati Insurance is:

          Daniel G. Litchfield, Esq.
          Litchfield Cavo LLP
          Suite 300
          303 West Madison Street
          Chicago, Illinois  60606-3300
          (Cook Co.)
          Phone: 312-781-6669
          Fax: 312-781-6630
          Web site: http://www.litchfieldcavo.com


DYNCORP INT'L: Still Faces D.C. Litigation Over “Plan Colombia”
---------------------------------------------------------------
DynCorp International, LLC, continues to face a purported class
action, filed by about 10,000 citizens of Ecuador who are
alleging that the company's drug-crop eradication in neighboring
Colombia damaged the plaintiffs' health and property.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Ecuadorian Indians filed a suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging personal
injury, property damage and wrongful death as a consequence of
the spraying of narcotic crops along the Colombian border
adjacent to Ecuador, which is also known as “Plan Colombia.”

They allege that the Virginia-based company was contracted to
carry out fumigation of illicit crops in neighboring Colombia,
recklessly sprayed their homes and farms, causing illnesses and
deaths, and destroying food crops.

The company provided no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 28, 2007.

The suit is “Wood v. Dyncorp et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01616-
CKK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Nathan I. Finkelstein, Esq.
         Robert Jay Goldman, Esq.
         Finkelstein & Horvitz PC
         7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 400 East
         Bethesda, MD 20814
         Phone: (301) 951-8400
         Fax: (301) 951-8401
         E-mail: natf@fandhlaw.com
                 rgoldman@fandhlaw.com

Representing defendants are:

         Kevin Patrick Farrell, Esq.
         Yoora Pak, Esq.
         Robert Bruce Wallace, Esq.
         Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
         1341 G Street, NW, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005-3105
         Phone: (202) 626-7660 or (202) 626-7667
         Fax: (202) 628-3606
         E-mail: kevin.farrell@wilsonelser.com
                 yoora.pak@wilsonelser.com
                 wallacer@wemed.com


ESURANCE INSURANCE: Lawsuit in Wis. Claim Credit Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Co. and Esurance
Insurance Co. are facing a class-action complaint filed  Nov. 29
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
alleging it illegally obtains people's credit reports and uses
them to sell insurance, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff is Dennis J. Czerwinski who said he received a
letter from Esurance stating, "This 'pre-screened' offer of
insurance is based on information in your credit report."

He brings this claim on behalf of all persons in the United
States to whom defendants sent a solicitation after Feb. 1, 2006
through the date a class is certified in this case.

Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment as follows:

     -- appropriate damages;

     -- attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit;
        and

     -- such other further relief as is appropriate.

The suit is "Dennis J. Czwerwinski et al. v. Esurance Property &
Casualty Insurance Co., Case No. 07-C-1059," filed in the U.D.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Robert K. O'Reilly
          John D. Blythin
          David M. Victor
          Corey M. Mather
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, Wisconsin 53110
          Phone: (414) 482-8000
          Fax: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: roreilly@ademilaw.com


FEDEX GROUND: Cal. High Court Denies Appeal in Drivers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court denied FedEx Corp.'s (NYSE: FDX)
final appeal of lower court rulings determining that FedEx
Ground's independent contractors are direct employees.

In August, the California Court of Appeals upheld a lower court
ruling that the drivers are employees and not independent
contractors. FedEx, in an attempt to limit future liabilities,
responded in California by firing the drivers who were affected
by the court decisions.

As a result of the recent ruling, the 209 workers will receive a
share of more than $11 million in repayments for expenses
related to gas and insurance directly related to the execution
of their jobs.

In addition to the California case, 150 FedEx Ground workers in
South Bend, Indiana, are also challenging the company
classifying them as independent contractors. A federal judge
certified the class-action lawsuit in October that claims the
company denied the drivers benefits and proper wages.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters commended the ruling.  
Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa commended said: "Thanks to
the California Supreme Court, FedEx is going to have to
compensate these drivers for exploiting them for so many years
under its bogus independent contractor model," said Teamsters
General President Jim Hoffa. "FedEx's illegal model has been
exposed and drivers across the country are standing up for their
rights and proper compensation."

"It's game over for FedEx and its independent contractor scam,"
Mr. Hoffa said.

                    Case Background

The California Court of Appeal upheld on August 13, the trial
court's decision finding FedEx Ground drivers to be employees
and not independent contractors, thus denying the appeal of
FedEx in the landmark “Estrada vs. FedEx Ground Package System,
Inc.” (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 20, 2007).  

The appeals court also determined that the FedEx Ground drivers
were entitled to reimbursement for approximately $6 million in
additional expenses, bringing the total damages to about $11
million for 200 drivers.

In denying the appeal from the December 2005 decision, the
Appeals Court found that the California drivers are actually
employees, and that "... the work performed by the drivers is
wholly integrated into FedEx's operation.

The Court also commented that, "FedEx's control over every
exquisite detail of the drivers' performance, including the
color of their socks and the style of their hair, supports the
trial court's conclusion that the drivers are employees... "

Lynn Rossman Faris, Esq. is the lead trial lawyer in the
original lawsuit against FedEx alleging misclassification of the
drivers as a way to shift the burden for paying millions in
overhead expenses -- including fuel, insurance and uniforms --
from the company to the drivers, enabling FedEx Ground to
compete illegally.  

Plaintiffs were Tony Estrada and Jeff Morgan.


GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Suit by Crossett, Ark. Residents Decertified
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a limited class-action
certification granted by Ashley County Circuit Judge Bynum
Gibson in a pollution suit against Georgia-Pacific Corp.  The
court remanded the case to the Ashley County Circuit Court.

On April 20, 2004, the property owners filed a class-action
complaint against Georgia-Pacific and the City of Crossett for:

“damages and injunctive relief arising out of vapors, gasses,
odors, and other forms of hazardous, noxious, toxic and/or
harmful substances and contamination issued and emitted from the
industrial wastewater treatment system that the defendants
Georgia-Pacific Corporation and the City of Crossett, Arkansas,
have operated throughout the West Crossett community over a
period of many years, and which harmful substances and
contamination have migrated through the air to and into the
property, homes and persons of the plaintiffs, where such
substances and contamination have occasioned injury, harm and
inconvenience as set for[th] hereinafter.”

The complaint alleged six counts, including negligence, gross
negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability, and damages,
and requested injunctive relief.

Judge Gibson certified that the suit be tried as a private
nuisance and property damage claim.  

Georgia-Pacific appealed Judge Gibson's limited class-action
ruling.  It asserts three points on appeal: (1) that class
certification was improper because the property owners did not
show that common issues predominated over individual issues;
(2) that class certification was not the superior method to
adjudicate the controversy; and (3) that the property owners
failed to come forward with any evidence to support class
certification.

While the City of Crossett was also a defendant in this case,
the claim against it was not included in the class
certification. The City did file a brief in the instant case,
but only to state the City’s position that it was in agreement
with the circuit court’s order, as it pertained to the City. In
its order, the circuit court held in abeyance the property
owners’ claim against the City.  That decision was not appealed
by Georgia-Pacific.

On Oct. 11, 2007, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that it is
evident that from the property owners’ claims and from the sheer
nature of a claim for private nuisance, individual issues exist
in the instant case as to whether and to what extent Georgia-
Pacific’s operation of its waste water treatment system caused
consequences to, and constituted an unreasonable interference
with, the property owners’ use and enjoyment of their property.
For this reason, the court said it cannot say that a common
question of law or fact predominates over individual issues, and
it reversed and remanded the circuit court’s order granting
limited class certification.

If found no common question of law or fact, which predominates
over individual issues.

The suit was filed on behalf of James Allen Carter, Janice
Carter, David Bowie, Barbara Bowie, John L. Surrett, Rose
Surrett, and Marilyn Woods.

The suit was filed in the Ashley County Circuit Court, Case No.
04-109-2 before Hon. Robert Bynum Gibson, Jr.


ILLINOIS UNION: Mass. Litigation Over B Quotes Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The state court class action, “Van Emden Management Corp. v.
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., et al.,” which names Illinois Union
Insurance Co., a subsidiary of ACE Ltd., as defendant, remains
stayed, pending resolution of a consolidated proceeding in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The suit is Case No. 05-0066A, filed in the Superior Court of
Massachusetts on Jan. 13, 2005.  The allegations in this case
are similar to the allegations in a consolidated class action
pending against ACE, ACE INA Holdings, Inc. and ACE USA, Inc.,
in the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiffs allege that insurers, including certain ACE
entities, and brokers conspired to increase premiums and
allocate customers through the use of "B" quotes and contingent
commissions.  

In addition, the complaints allege that the broker defendants
received additional income by improperly placing their clients'
business with insurers through related wholesale entities that
act as intermediaries between the broker and insurer.

Plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase
of primary insurance with the placement of such coverage with
reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants' reinsurance
broker subsidiaries.  

In the commercial insurance consolidated complaint, plaintiffs
assert these causes of action against ACE: Federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, federal antitrust law,
state antitrust law, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Van Emden case has been stayed pending resolution of the
consolidated proceedings in the District of New Jersey or until
further order of the court

ACE reported no development in the case at its Nov. 7, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

ACE, Ltd. -- http://www.acelimited.com/AceLimitedRoot/-- is a  
Bermuda-based holding company.  ACE and its direct and indirect
subsidiaries are a global property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance organization, servicing the insurance needs of
commercial and individual customers in more than 140 countries
and jurisdictions.  The company operates through four business
segments: Insurance-North American, Insurance-Overseas General,
Global Reinsurance, and Life Insurance and Reinsurance.


INTEL CORP: High Court Rules Against Pentium 4 Suit Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed a decision of an appeals
court allowing a suit over the speed of Intel Corp.'s Pentium 4
processors to go forward.

In June 2002, plaintiff Barbara's Sales filed the putative class
action against Intel, Gateway Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and
HPDirect, Inc. in the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Madison
County, Illinois.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' advertisements and
statements misled the public by suppressing and concealing the
alleged material fact that systems containing Intel Pentium 4
processors are less powerful and slower than systems containing
Intel Pentium III processors and a competitor's microprocessors.

The suit sought unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

In July 2004, the court certified against Intel an Illinois-only
class of certain end-use purchasers of certain Pentium 4
processors or computers containing these microprocessors.

In January 2005, the Circuit Court granted a motion filed
jointly by the plaintiffs and Intel that stayed the proceedings
in the trial court pending review of the Circuit Court's class
certification order.

In July 2006, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District,
vacated the Circuit Court's class certification order and
remanded the case to the Circuit Court with instructions to
reconsider its class certification ruling applying California
law.

In August 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to review the
Appellate Court’s decision.  On Dec. 1, Agam Shah of IDG News
Service reported that the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the
decision of the appeals court.

The suit is "Barbara's Sales, et al. v. Intel Corporation,
Gateway Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and HPDirect, Inc., Docket No.
02-L-788," filed in the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Madison
County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
         Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
         Korein Tillery, LLC
         Gateway One on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 300
         St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1820  
         Phone: 314-241-4844
         Fax: 314-588-7036
         Web Site: http://www.koreintillery.com   

              - and -

         Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
         Robert L. King, Esq.
         Swedlow & King, LLC
         Three First National Plaza, 70 W. Madison St., Ste. 660          
         Chicago, Illinois 60603
         Phone: (312) 641-3750
         Fax: (312) 641-9751

Representing the company is:

         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive
         Chicago, Illinois 60606
         Phone: 312-407-0700
         Fax: 312-407-0411
         Web Site: http://www.skadden.com


MBNA CANADA: High Court Keeps Ruling in Suit Over Interest Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a certification of a suit
filed against the Ottawa-based MBNA Canada Bank, a unit of Bank
America Corp.

The lawsuit between Stephen Markson and MBNA Canada Bank, Court
of Appeal for Ontario (Toronto), Case No C45191, was originally
filed in 2003 in Ontario Superior Court after Mr. Markson got
charged 94% interest on a CAN$100 cash advance from the bank's
credit card.  He said the interest rate was way too high and he
believes the bank violated the Criminal Code, limiting the
interest rate up to 60% annually (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
17, 2003).

The claim is brought on behalf of all persons in Canada who at
any time prior to January 31, 2008 hold, or have held, an MBNA
credit card on which cash advances could be obtained.

It alleges that in certain circumstances the fee charged by MBNA
Canada Bank in respect of cash advances taken using an MBNA
credit card can result in MBNA Canada Bank receiving interest in
excess of an effective annual rate of 60%, which is alleged to
be in breach of s. 347 of the Criminal Code.

The claim seeks repayment to the Class of all interest received
by MBNA Canada Bank in respect of cash advances that exceeds an
effective annual interest rate of 60%. It also seeks a permanent
injunction to prohibit MBNA from continuing to receive interest
in excess of an effective annual rate of 60%.

On May 2, 2007 the Ontario Court of Appeal granted certification
of the class proceeding (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2007).

On November 15, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the
defendant's motion for leave to appeal, therefore the
certification order is now final.

MBNA Class Action on the net:
http://www.paliareroland.com/mbna.asp

For more information, contact:

          Margaret L. Waddell
          Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
          Phone: (416) 646-4329
          E-mail: marg.waddell@paliareroland.com

          - and -

          Kirk M. Baert
          Koskie Minsky LLP
          Phone: (416) 595-2117
          E-mail: kbaert@kmlaw.ca


MERCK & CO: Dental Monitoring Sought in N.Y. Fosamax Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for plaintiffs in several purported class actions
against Merck & Co. Inc. over its Fosamax drug asked a federal
judge to order Merck & Co. to provide a dental monitoring
program for the drug's users, The Associated Press reports.

Timothy M. O'Brien, a lawyer for plaintiffs, said as many as one
in every 296 patients who use Fosamax develop the severe damage
to the jaw, though Merck disputed the figure. He said jaws were
more susceptible to damage because they are used so frequently
and are under greater stress than most bones.

As of June 30, 2007, 225 cases, which include approximately 700
plaintiff groups, had been filed against Merck in either federal
or state court, including 5 cases which seek class action
certification, as well as damages and medical monitoring.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw, generally
subsequent to invasive dental procedures such as tooth
extraction or dental implants, and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax.

On August 16, 2006, the JPML ordered that the Fosamax product
liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be
transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation
(Fosamax MDL) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

The Fosamax MDL has been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  As a
result of the JPML order, over 190 of the cases are before Judge
Keenan.

Judge Keenan has issued a Case Management Order setting forth a
schedule governing the proceedings which focuses primarily upon
resolving the class action certification motions in 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 09, 2007).

Recently, lawyers asked Judge Keenan for dental monitoring as
they argued for the case to be certified as a class action.
According to the report, Mr. O'Brien, a lawyer for plaintiffs,
said hundreds of thousands of patients would benefit from a
dental monitoring program that would include regular dental
screenings, X-rays and lab tests, all aimed at preventing the
need for dental surgery.

Vance Andrus, another lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued a class-
action certification would allow for a trial where a jury could
decide whether Fosamax is toxic and hazardous and whether Merck
was negligent and should have warned users of dangers, the
report said.

Judge Keenan did not immediately rule after hearing arguments.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com-- is a global  
pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and markets a range of products to improve human and animal
health.


NEW MEXICO: Albuquerque Faces Lawsuit Over Speed Camera System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Paul Livingston filed a lawsuit on behalf of eight
people who are alleging they've been wronged by the city's
camera system, Kate Nash of Albuquerque Tribune reports.

The lawsuit alleges the city doesn't have the jurisdiction to
enforce, adjudicate or collect fines for violations of state and
city traffic laws.  It also alleges that the city has failed to
refund fines paid on cases that were later dismissed.

In addition, the suit says the administrative hearing process to
deal with red light tickets is biased because hearing officers
are also enforcement officers.

People who are represented by Mr. Livingston includes former
Albuquerque Police Department Capt. Sonny Leeper.  Mr.
Livingston is hoping a judge will certify the lawsuit as a class
action.

For more information, contact:

          Paul Livingston, Esq.
          P.O. Box 250
          Placitas, N.M. 87043
          Phone: 771-4000
          Fax: 771-2333
          E-mail: paul@flsapay.com


SYNCOR INT'L: Court Refuses to Review Revival of Investors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Syncor
International Corp.'s Petition for Rehearing with regards to a
decision that reversed a dismissal of a third consolidated
amended securities fraud class action filed against the company.

Several purported class actions were filed against the company
and certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims
under the federal securities laws.  All of these actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  

The Syncor federal securities actions purport to be brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Syncor shares during various
periods, beginning as early as March 30, 2000 and ending as late
as Nov. 5, 2002, all prior to Cardinal Health, Inc.'s
acquisition of the company.

The actions allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange
Act by issuing a series of press releases and public filings
disclosing significant sales growth in Syncor's international
business, but omitting mention of certain allegedly improper
payments to Syncor's foreign customers, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Syncor shares.

The lead plaintiff filed a third amended consolidated complaint
on Dec. 29, 2004.  Syncor filed a motion to dismiss the third
amended consolidated complaint on Jan. 31, 2005.  

On April 15, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  The lead plaintiff has appealed this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On June 12, 2007, the Ninth Circuit entered an order reversing,
in part, the District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’
claims and remanding the case to the District Court.

The order reversed the dismissal of the claims against Syncor
and certain individual defendants, including its former Chairman
and CEO, and affirmed the dismissal of all other defendants.

Syncor filed a petition for rehearing on June 26, 2007, which on
Oct. 9, 2007 was denied.  

On Oct. 23, 2007, Syncor filed a petition for rehearing en banc,
which on Oct. 30, 2007 was denied, according to Cardinal
Health'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 first identified complaint is “Richard Bowe, et al. v.
Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-08560-LGB-RC,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Lourdes G. Baird with referral to Judge
Rosalyn M. Chapman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
         Provost Umphrey Law Firm
         3232 McKinney Ave, Ste. 700
         Dallas, TX 75204
         Phone: 214-744-3000

             - and -

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
         Shapiro Grace Haber & Urmy
         75 State St.
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-439-3939
     
Representing the defendants are:

         Daniel S. Floyd, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         E-mail: dfloyd@gibsondunn.com

              - and -

         Robert F. LeMoine, Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
         300 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 3400
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
         Phone: 213-687-5000
         E-mail: lacefax@skadden.com


TD BANK: Court Certifies Suit Over “Illegal” Visa Card Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Court of Appeal has certified a class action against
the Toronto-Dominion Bank.  The case involves allegations that
the Toronto-Dominion Bank charged undisclosed and unauthorized
fees to Toronto-Dominion Visa cardholders when the cardholders
made purchases in foreign currencies from 1986-2003.

The plaintiffs are represented by Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Pape
Barristers.

According to John Jaffey of Lawyers Weekly, Chief Justice Warren
Winkler held that trial judge Maurice Cullity erred in law when
he concluded that the common issue requirement of the Class
Proceedings Act (CPA) could not be met because of difficulties
determining damages, and that, on that account, the action did
not meet the preferable procedure requirement.

He wrote, “It would hardly be sound policy to permit a defendant
to retain a gain made from a breach of contract because the
defendant estimates its costs of calculating the amount of the
gain to be substantial.”

The suit was filed on behalf of Dr. Paul Cassano whose TD Visa
card was charged $21.18 additional fees for foreign currency
transactions.  He and another another doctor filed a claim under
the CPA in July 1997.

In March 2005, Justice Cullity dismissed their motion to certify
the action as a class proceeding.  He said that certification
would be appropriate only if compensatory damages could be
determined on a class-wide basis. He concluded that because
compensatory damages could be determined on a class-wide basis,
the action did not meet the CPA’s preferable procedure
requirement. His decision was upheld by the Divisional Court.
Cassano appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Appeals court held that Justice Cullity was correct that the
question whether there had been a breach of contract was an
acceptable common issue. However, his ruling that the nature of
a breach required an individual assessment of cardholder
behavior in order to quantify damages, was erroneous.  The
bank's argument that the calculation of damages would be costly
and time-consuming was not a valid argument.

Representing the plaintiffs is Sutts, Strosberg LLP on the Net:
http://www.strosbergco.com.  

Representing Toronto-Dominion are:

          Lyndon Barnes, Esq.
          E-mail: lbarnes@osler.com
          Phone: (416) 862-6679
          Fax: (416) 862-6666

          Laura Fric, Esq.
          E-mail: lfric@osler.com
          Phone: (416) 862-5899
          Fax: (416) 862-6666

          Allan Coleman, Esq.
          E-mail: acoleman@osler.com
          Phone: (416) 862-4941
          Fax: (416) 862-6666

          Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
          Web site: http://www.osler.com


UNITED STATES: Parties in Data Theft Suit Enter Into Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal representatives for the parties in the purported class
action, “Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. et al v. Nicholson et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01038-JR,” which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, will begin
mediation in the coming weeks and will update the federal judge
overseeing the case in early 2008.

The suit was filed on June 6, 2006, by attorney Douglas Rosinski
of the law firm Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
on behalf of several national organizations and individual
veterans who are seeking judicial oversight and protection of
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) computer files with
personal information of about 26.5 million veterans that were
stolen last year.   The FBI eventually recovered the stolen
filed and said they were not accessed.

Plaintiffs in the case are:

     -- Citizen Soldier, Inc.,
     -- National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.,
     -- Radiated Veterans Of America, Inc.,
     -- Veterans For Peace, Inc.,
     -- Vietnam Veterans Of America, Inc.
     -- Charles L. Clark,  
     -- David Cline,
     -- James E. Malone, and
     -- John Rowan.

“It is appalling to all veterans that their personal information
-- information that is supposed to be held in confidence -- is
potentially in the hands of individuals who can wreak identity-
theft havoc,” said John Rowan, national president of Vietnam
Veterans of America and a plaintiff in the lawsuit (Class Action
Reporter June 7, 2006).

In general, plaintiffs alleged that the VA's failure to enact
such protocols “left their personal information unprotected
[and] caused them to suffer emotional and pecuniary harm.”  

If the suit is successful, each veteran impacted would get a
minimum of $1,000 in damages.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge James Robertson
dismissed several aspects of the case but said the handful of
plaintiffs sufficiently made the claim that the department
failed to safeguard their personal information, as required by
the Privacy Act.

The mediation must be verified by the court by Dec. 7, 2007, and
a status conference will be held after a 60-day work period,
according to Judge Robertson.  

The suit is “Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. et al v.
Nicholson et al, Case No. 1:06-cv-01038-JR,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Douglas J. Rosinski, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1320 Main Street, Suite 600
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Phone: (803) 252-1300
          E-mail: douglas.rosinski@ogletreedeakins.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Ori Lev
          U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 883
          Washington, DC 20044
          Phone: (202) 514-2395
          Fax: (202) 318-7589
          E-mail: ori.lev@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Heather R. Phillips, Esq.
          U.S. Department of Justice
          Federal Programs Branch
          20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 7222
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 616-0679
          E-mail: heather.phillips@usdoj.gov


USANA HEALTH: Faces Suit by Former “Associates” in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
USANA Health Sciences, Inc. faces a purported class action  
filed by two former company “Associates” in June 2007 in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego, North County Branch.

The lawsuit, “Johnson v. USANA,” accuse the company and several
of its officers and directors of fraud and deception.  It was
brought on behalf of all individuals or entities who at anytime
between Jan. 1, 1995, through the present, inclusive, were USANA
Associates.

Among other things, the suit alleges that USANA:

     -- exaggerated the business opportunity,
   
     -- failed to disclose that 87% of active distributors were
        losing money,

     -- misrepresented the credentials of its advisory board,
        and

     -- basically operated a pyramid scheme requiring a
        constant churn in its sales force.  

Plaintiffs seek damages for distributors left with thousands of
dollars of losses each after paying for business “kits” and
products they say they couldn’t sell.

Specifically, the suit states four causes of actions:

      -- Penal Code Section 327 (Endless Chain)

      -- Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (Unfair
         Business Practices)

      -- Fraud and Deceit (Concealment)

      -- Business and Professions Code Section 17500 (False
         Advertising

The named plaintiffs in the suit are Jeannette Johnson and
Christopher Crane.

They are suing:

      -- USANA Health Sciences, Inc.,
      -- Denis E. Waitley,
      -- Christine Wood,
      -- Ladd McNamara,
      -- Deborah Waitley-McNamara,
      -- Myron W. Wentz,
      -- David A. Wentz, and
      -- Gilbert A. Fuller.

Plaintiffs allege that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company, its
business relationships, and prospects.

They specifically claimed that Defendants failed to disclose and
fraudulently concealed the following:

      -- that the Company’s multi-level marketing model
         operated as a pyramid scheme;

      -- that the Company’s business model was unsustainable
         because it required the constant recruitment of new
         Associates due to a high level of attrition within the
         Company’s sales force;

      -- that the majority of the Company’s Associates did not
         actually sell to consumers, but rather to other
         Company Associates;

      -- that over 74 percent of the Company’s Associates were
         failing within the first year of joining the Company;
   
      -- that over 87 percent of the Company’s Associates were
         losing money instead of receiving compensation for
         their sales efforts;

      -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
         financial controls;

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s
         statements about its future business prospects and
         projections were lacking in a reasonable basis when
         made;

      -- that the Company’s representation of a 75% reduction
         in “middleman” costs because of its direct marketing
         system was false or misleading, as each tier of
         distribution received approximately 8% in commissions,
         resulting in prices which were 50% - 400% above
         standard retail prices; for example, a 28 day supply
         of premium vitamins sells at GNC for $17 and USANA’s
         premium multivitamin “Essentials” sells for $40;

     --  that Associates would be less, not more, profitable if
         they opened up more than one “business center” because
         the only true benefit inured in the Company’s favor
         because of the increased costs the Associates paid for
         additional business centers;

     -- that the qualifications of members of the Company’s
        Advisory Board were misrepresented and such members
        were biased and/or had conflicts of interest which
        precluded them from providing independent advice; and

     -- that the founder of the Company had renounced his U.S.
        Citizenship and moved substantial assets to the
        Caribbean tax havens of St. Kitts and Nevis, the Isle
        of Mann, and Liechtenstein.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the company filed its answer to the complaint,
which contained a general denial of the allegations in the
complaint and set forth its affirmative defenses.

For more details, contact:

         Law Offices of Alexander M. Schack
         16870 W. Bernardo Dr. Suite 400
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Phone: (858) 485-6535
         Fax: (858) 485-0608
         E-mail: info@amslawoffice.com


WAL-MART STORES: Wash. Employees to Get Notices, Law Firm Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than 75,000 current or former Wal-Mart employees in the
State of Washington will receive letters over the next several
days notifying them that they are part of a statewide class
action against the nation's largest private employer: Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., according to Seattle Law Firm Tousley Brain &
Stephens.

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2001, is believed to be the
largest class action in the State's history.

According to the notice that could arrive in the mail as early
as Nov. 30, hourly employees who worked "off the clock" (without
compensation) or worked through rest or meal breaks at Wal-Mart
or Sam's Club stores in Washington at any time from September
10, 1997, to the present are automatically considered Class
Members. Employees in the class will share in any money or
benefits that come from a trial or settlement.

The lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court nearly six
years ago and was certified as a class action in October of
2004. The case was put on hold when Wal-Mart appealed the class-
certification decision to both the State Court of Appeals and
the State Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals ruled against Wal-
Mart and affirmed class certification. The Supreme Court denied
review, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.

Trial is expected to begin in Spring of 2009. King County
Superior Judge Julie Spector will preside.

Attorney Beth Terrell of the law firm Tousley Brain Stephens
PLLC, Seattle, represents the employees.

Ms. Terrell says the court's decision to allow the case to
proceed as a class action "is a victory for Wal-Mart employees
who, like other hourly employees in Washington, deserve to
receive proper rest and meal breaks and to be paid for all hours
worked."

For a decade now, hourly employees of Washington Wal-Mart stores
have complained of missing their rest and meal breaks and having
to work off the clock. Georgie Hartwig, one of the plaintiffs in
the class action, will participate in today's press conference.

Mr. Hartwig worked for the Colville, Washington store for six
years, and estimates that she worked two to five hours over her
"clocked" time every week. "For hourly workers like Wal-Mart
employees, a few hours of pay a week can make a real difference
in their paychecks," Ms. Terrell stated. Hartwig's work load was
so heavy that she often skipped meal and rest breaks in order to
finish her work.

Mr. Hartwig's story is echoed by other Wal-Mart employees, not
only in Washington, but around the country. In California, a
judgment was entered against Wal-Mart for nearly $167 million
brought on behalf of 115,919 employees who said they did not
receive proper meal breaks. In Pennsylvania, a $151 million
dollar judgment was entered against Wal-Mart on behalf of
187,000 employees who made similar claims about breaks, and
worked off the clock without pay. A class action on behalf of
56,000 Minnesota Wal-Mart and Sam's Club employees is currently
in trial in that state. That trial is expected to be completed
by the end of the year.

Co-lead class counsel Rachel Geman, of the law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, New York, says, "Wal-Mart's
own documents show that it systematically deprived its employees
of hard-earned pay through widespread wage and hour violations.
Wal-Mart knew about these violations but did nothing to correct
them."

Wal-Mart class action on the net: http://www.walmartwageswa.com

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated  
in October 1969, operates retail stores in various formats
around the world.

For further information, contact:

          Beth Terrell
          Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206)682-5600
          Fax: (206)682-2992
          Email: bterrell@tousley.com
          Website: http://www.tousley.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


FORMFACTOR INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of FormFactor, Inc. from April 26, 2006 through
October 24, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges FormFactor and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. FormFactor designs, develops, manufactures, sells and
supports precision semiconductor wafer probe cards. 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 had improperly accounted for its
         obsolete inventory;

     (2) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

On October 24, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced its third quarter 2007 financial and operational
results. The Company stated that it was unable to release
further income statement data with respect to the third quarter
as it was reviewing its historic practices with respect to
inventory valuation in light of "issues."

Management further stated that it believed that adjustments to
inventory valuations "may be required with respect to periods
prior to the third quarter of 2007," potentially changing
inventory, gross margin, operating margin and net income from
the amounts previously reported for the affected periods.

Additionally, the Company disclosed that it could not determine
the magnitude of these adjustments, or whether the adjustments
would be reflected in the third quarter financial statements or
in a restatement of the affected periods. On this news, the
Company's shares fell $7.70 per share, or over 17.8 percent, to
close on October 25, 2007 at $35.54 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 31
2007 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


LDK SOLAR: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of LDK Solar Co. Ltd. (American Depositary Shares
during the period from August 1, 2007 to October 3, 2007.

The complaint charges LDK and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. LDK manufactures multicrystalline solar wafers, which are
the principal raw material used to produce solar cells.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants concealed the full extent of how badly flawed the
Company's internal controls were, preventing it from accurately
measuring or reporting its inventory. As a result, the Company's
inventories were overstated by an estimated 25%, causing
inflation in LDK's assets, earnings and earnings per share
("EPS") reported during the Class Period.

On October 3, 2007, LDK's share price fell almost 25% following
a report that LDK's financial controller had resigned, stating
that the Company lacked internal controls and that the Company's
reported 1,000 tonne inventory of polysilicon was overstated by
25%. LDK's former controller, Charley Situ, reported these
discrepancies to both the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Company's external auditor, KPMG. LDK could
not deny or confirm Situ's allegations on October 3, 2007, but
promised to investigate and issue a further statement. The
Company has since stated it will have an independent outside
auditor investigate Situ's allegations. The Company's ADSs,
which traded as high as $76.75 on September 27, 2007, plummeted
$16.66, or 24.39%, to close at $51.65 on October 3, 2007. The
ADSs continued to decline in after-hours trading, falling to
$47.49.

The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period statements
describing LDK's business fundamentals, financial results and
continued sales and earnings growth potential were false and
misleading as:

     (a) defendants had overstated LDK's inventory of
         polysilicon prior to and during the Class Period and
         those false statements remained alive in the market
         during the Class Period; and

     (b) due to the Company's inventory of polysilicon being
         overstated, the Company's reported earnings and EPS
         prior to and during the Class Period were false and
         those false statements remained alive in the market
         during the Class Period.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of LDK ADSs during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 10,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


                           *********


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *