CAR_Public/071205.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 5, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 241

                            Headlines


[]
AON CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Litigation in Ill.
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in N.Y. Fees Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Motion to Dismiss Mass. Racial Bias Suit Junked
COUNTRYWIDE CAPITAL: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Named in Securities Suit

FIBERNET TELECOM: Service Disruption Suit Kept in Federal Court
JDSU: Wins Favorable Ruling in Securities Suit by Trust Fund
LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Nixing of Cal. Securities Suit Under Appeal
LENOX GROUP: Settles Pa. Lawsuit Over Alleged FACTA Violations
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Del. Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement

LIVE NATION: Cal. Antitrust Suit Stayed on Certification Appeal
MASTERCARD INT'L: Agrees to Settle Currency Conversion Fee Suit
MEDQUIST INC: Jan. 28 Conference Set for N.J. Labor Lawsuit
MEDQUIST INC: N.J. Court OKs $7.8M Securities Suit Settlement
MINNESOTA: FAA Approves $126M Settlement of Noise Pollution Suit

MISSISSIPPI MUTUAL: Mass. Lawsuit Accuses Insurer of Racial Bias
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.M. HMO Suit
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Responds to Amended Securities Suit in N.Y.
NATIONSCREDIT FINANCIAL: Mortgage Loan Discount Suit Revived
NEENAH PAPER: Still Faces Retirees' Suit After Terrace Bay Deal  

OAKLEY INC: Dec. 13 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Over Merger
OAKLEY INC: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
OLD DOMINION: Faces Suits Over Fuel Surcharges in LTL Shipments
SAILING (U.S.) INT'L: Recalls Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard
STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuit in Louisiana

TOBACCO LITIGATION: $1.2B Escrow Funds Released to Philip Morris
UNITED STATES: Health Dept. Accused of Seizing Medicare Money
VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Fraud Suit Over GPS in BlackBerries
XETHANOL CORP: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.


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


                            *********  


[]


AON CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Litigation in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corp. continues to face several purported class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging violations of the securities laws.

On Oct. 25, 2004, David Roth and other similarly situated
parties initiated a class action against Aon Corp. and certain
of its officers, alleging material misrepresentation of its
investors leading to stock losses.  

The complaint charges Aon Corp. and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Aon, through its various subsidiaries worldwide, serves
its clients through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance
Brokerage Services, Consulting and Insurance Underwriting.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Aon and its top
officers violated the federal securities laws by disseminating
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's results
and operations.

The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

       -- that the Company was receiving illegal and concealed
          "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal
          "contingent commission agreements";

       -- that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and
          such "contingent commission agreements," the
          defendants violated applicable principles of fiduciary
          law, subjecting the Company to enormous fines and
          penalties totaling potentially tens -- if not hundreds
          -- of millions of dollars; and

       -- that as a result, Company's prior reported revenue and
          income was grossly overstated.

The complaint further alleges that on Oct. 14, 2004, New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced he had charged several
of the nation's largest insurance companies and the largest
broker with bid rigging and pay-offs that he claimed violated
fraud and competition laws.

Upon revelation of these illegal acts, the Company's shares fell
to $23.03, a loss of 16%.  

Then on Oct. 19, 2004, The Wall Street Journal published an
article on A.G. Spitzer's investigation of Aon, which stated
that the reinsurance business, or insurance policies for
insurance companies, was the focus of the probe, because A.G.
Spitzer suspected Aon's insurance-buying clients may not have
received the best deal. On these revelations, the Company's
shares fell again, from $21.20 to $19.20, a drop of 9%.

On May 12, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.
On Nov. 14, 2006, Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

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 “David Roth, et al. v. Aon Corporation, et al., Case
No. 04-CV-6835,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs in the suit are:

          Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
          100 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10017
          Phone: 212.907.0800
          Fax: 212.684.6083

               - and -
     
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Phone: 206.749.5544
          Fax: 206.749.9978
          E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in N.Y. Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The counsel for plaintiffs in a suit against Astoria Financial
Corp. over mortgage loan preparation fees is asking a federal
court to reconsider a ruling granting the company's request for
summary judgment.

In 2004, David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated filed the suit
against Astoria Financial Corp., and other defendants in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The suit is claiming that the company's charging of attorney
document preparation fees, recording fees, and facsimile fees
for mortgage loans violate state laws.

The action, commenced as a punitive class action, alleges that
in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans
made by Astoria Federal, The Long Island Savings Bank, FSB,
which was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998, and their related
entities, customers were charged attorney document preparation
fees, recording fees and facsimile fees allegedly in violation
of:

     -- the federal Truth in Lending Act,
     -- the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA),
     -- the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA), and
     -- the New York State Deceptive Practices Act

The suit also alleges unjust enrichment and common law fraud.

Astoria Federal previously moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part,
dismissing claims based on violations of RESPA and FDCA.  The
Court further determined that class certification would be
considered prior to considering summary judgment.

On Sept. 19, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  Astoria Federal has denied the claims set
forth in the complaint.

Both the company and the plaintiffs have filed motions for
summary judgment.

The District Court, on Sept. 12, 2007, granted the company's
motion for summary judgment on the basis that all named
plaintiffs’ Truth in Lending claims are time barred.  

All other aspects of plaintiffs’ and defendant’s motions for
summary judgment were dismissed without prejudice.

The Court found the named plaintiffs to be inadequate class
representatives and provided plaintiffs’ counsel an opportunity
to submit a motion for the substitution or intervention of new
named plaintiffs.  

Plaintiffs’ counsel has moved the Court to reconsider its
decision, 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 is “McAnaney et al. v. Astoria Financial Corp. et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-01101-JFB-WDW,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Joseph F.
Bianco with referral to Judge William D. Wall.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         G. Oliver Koppell, Esq.
         99 Park Avenue, Suite 800
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-368-0400
         Fax: 212-973-9494
         E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com

              - and -

         Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
         Whalen & Tusa, P.C.
         90 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-786-7377
         Fax: 212-658-9685
         E-mail: joseph@whalen-tusa.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Alfred W.J. Marks, Esq.
         Day, Berry & Howard, LLP
         875 Third Avenue, 28th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-829-3634
         Fax: 212-829-3601
         E-mail: awjmarks@dbh.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Motion to Dismiss Mass. Racial Bias Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
cleared the way for the anti-discrimination class action to
proceed in Massachusetts against defendants Bank of America,
N.A. (BOA) and its subsidiary, Banc of America Investment
Services, Inc. (BAI).

The suit, "Turnley et al. v. Banc of America Investment
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10949-NG," was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May
18, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2007).

Listed as plaintiffs in the suit are:

      -- Richard Turnley, III,
      -- Baron H.C. Finlayson,
      -- Coleen Alecia Hinds,
      -- Mark Anthony Brown, and
      -- Timothy Johnson, II.

In general, the complaint is alleging that defendants
discriminated against African-American brokers and bankers in
promotion, compensation, mentoring and other employment
opportunities.

It specifically alleges that defendants regularly discriminated
against black bankers and financial advisers, teaming them with
other black bankers or advisers and steering more lucrative
clients to white employees.

As a result of this practice, allegedly, "African Americans face
greater difficulty in developing their business, career and
income," according to the complaint.

The complaint seeks cover people who worked as bankers or
brokers for the defendants from April 2003 to present.  It also
seeks a halt to the alleged improper practices, back pay, and
compensatory and punitive damages.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all African-Americans who
were or are employed at BOA or BAI as premier bankers and/or
financial advisors at any time from April 1, 2003 to the
present, and alleges that, among other things, BOA and BAI
discriminate against African-American premier bankers and
financial advisors on the basis of race with respect to, among
other things, compensation, work and territorial assignments,
promotion, training and mentoring, resources, and business
opportunities.

In response to the complaint, defendants BOA and BAI brought
motions to transfer the action to Georgia, to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims under the Massachusetts anti-discrimination
statute and to stay discovery in the action.

The Court denied each of defendants' motions in an Order dated
Nov. 29, 2007. Accordingly, plaintiffs may now begin prosecuting
this action in Massachusetts.

In addition, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a First Amended Class Action Complaint, which, among other
things, adds as a named plaintiff a Massachusetts resident who
worked for BAI in Boston and also adds claims under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq.
on behalf of class members.

The Amended Complaint includes previously filed allegations that
BOA and BAI regularly discriminate against African-American
bankers and financial advisors by, among other things, engaging
in "racial steering" with respect to work assignments, including
the allegations that BAI and BOA management told employees who
complained about the allegedly racist practices that clients are
more "comfortable" dealing with members of their own race. The
Amended Complaint also adds new allegations, including that BAI
and BOA management said that African-American client pools were
not a "lucrative market," and not "sophisticated," "competent,"
or "savvy."

The suit, is "Turnley et al. v. Banc of America Investment
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10949-NG," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
Judge Nancy Gertner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ellen J. Messing, Esq.
         Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky PC
         50 Congress Street, Suite 1000
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-742-0004
         Fax: 617-742-1887
         E-mail: mail@mrwemploymentlaw.com


COUNTRYWIDE CAPITAL: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Named in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
named New York state comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, and the New
York city Pension Funds as co-lead plaintiffs in a class action
filed against Countrywide Financial Corp., The Business Review
reports.

According to Global Pensions, the court found that the two,
together, suffered losses of as much as $100 million as a result
of mistatements made by the company.  The losses were the
largest of any investors who applied for lead plaintiff status
in the case.  The lawsuit accuses Countrywide of "misstatements
and omissions" about its lending practices that artificially
inflated stock prices.

Hon Mariana Pfaelzer on behalf of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, appointed
DiNapoli, as administrative head of the New York State and Local
Retirement Systems and as trustee of the New York State Common
Retirement Fund, and the New York City Pension Funds.  The court
also approved the state comptroller’s and New York City Pension
Funds’ choice of securities law firm Labaton & Sucharow as lead
counsel for the class.

The state retirement fund is worth about $154 billion. DiNapoli
is its sole trustee, the report said.

Mr. Thomas DiNapoli's counsel is:

          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Toll-free: 888-753-2796
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          E-mail: info@labaton.com


FIBERNET TELECOM: Service Disruption Suit Kept in Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Chief Judge Joseph Goodwin ruled that a lawsuit
filed against telecommunications company FiberNet Telecom Group
Inc. in Wood County Circuit Court belongs to federal court.

The lawsuit was filed in relation to the disruption of service
to customers caused by a computer glitch in the company’s
downtown office on July 10 (Class Action Reporter, July 23,
2007).  As a result of the computer problem, about 11,000 of
FiberNet's 24,000 customers in West Virginia were unable to
receive calls, make credit card transactions and send faxes for
at least a day due to the technical failure.  At least 500
limited video lottery machines at 50 to 60 of the state's
approximately 2,000 locations were also affected.

Those who filed the suit were Complete System Support Inc.;
Neurological Case Management Associates LLC, a Charleston-based
coordinator of rehabilitative services; and H.E. Gene Sigman, a
South Charleston private investigator.

The suit was filed by attorney Harry Deitzler.  The lawsuit
alleges breach of contract, fraud and negligence, and seeks
class-action status and unspecified punitive and compensatory
damages.

Plaintiffs had requested that the case be kept in circuit court
after Fibernet asked it come under federal jurisdiction.  
However, Judge Goodwin, in an opinion filed Nov. 14, maintained
that the lawsuit belongs in federal court since FiberNet's rates
are governed by Federal Communications Commission regulations.  
The court will not decide until June, however, on a motion for
class certification.

Jim Peterson of the Charleston law firm of Hill, Peterson,
Carper, Bee & Deitzler, has said that many more customers are
seeking compensation and has requested the lawsuit be granted
class-action status.

Attorney Anthony Majestro is co-counsel on the case.

For more information, contact:

          Jim Peterson, Esq.
          Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler
          500 Tracy Way
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Phone: (304) 345-5667
          Toll Free: (800) 822-5667
          Fax: (304) 345-1519


JDSU: Wins Favorable Ruling in Securities Suit by Trust Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
JDSU announced that a jury has ruled in favor of the Company 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.

JDSU -- http://www.jdsu.com-- enables broadband and optical  
innovation in the communications, commercial and consumer
markets. JDSU is a leading provider of communications test and
measurement solutions and optical products for
telecommunications service providers, cable operators, and
network equipment manufacturers. JDSU is also a leading provider
of innovative optical solutions for medical/environmental
instrumentation, semiconductor processing, display, brand
authentication, aerospace and defense, and decorative
applications.


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Nixing of Cal. Securities Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal against a dismissal of a consolidated securities
class action filed against Leadis Technology, Inc., and certain
of its officers and directors.

On March 2, 2005, a securities class action was filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the defendants.  

The complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false and
misleading statements in the company's registration statement
and prospectus filed on June 16, 2004 for the company's initial
public offering.  

Another similar action was filed on March 11, 2005.  On April
20, 2005, the court consolidated the two actions.   

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of a class of purchasers that acquired shares of the company
common stock pursuant to its registration statement and
prospectus.   

The claims appear to be based on allegations that at the time of
the IPO demand for the company's color organic light-emitting
diodes products was already slowing due to competition from one
of its existing customers and that the company failed to
disclose that it was not well positioned for continued success
as a result of such competition.   

On Oct. 28, 2005, the company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  

By a March 1, 2006 order, the court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss, with prejudice, and a judgment was entered in favor
of the company and all other defendants.  

On or about March 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The
parties have filed their respective appellate briefs and the
appeal is now pending.

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 “Safron Capital Corporation v. Leadis Technology,  
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00882-CRB,” filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Northern District of California under  
Judge Charles R. Breyer.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415/288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: patc@mwbhl.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Grant P. Fondo, Esq.
         Laura R. Smith, Esq.
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
         Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
         Phone: 650 843-5458
         Fax: 650 857-0663
         E-mail: gfondo@cooley.com
                 smithlr@cooley.com


LENOX GROUP: Settles Pa. Lawsuit Over Alleged FACTA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lenox Group, Inc. reached a tentative settlement in a purported
class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On April 12, 2007, Amanda Curiale filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which
is a purported class action alleging that the Company willfully
violated FACTA by continuing to print more than the last five
digits of the credit card number and/or the expiration date on
receipts provided to debit card and credit cardholders
transacting business with the Company.

The Company understands that similar complaints have recently
been filed against a large number of retailers.  

The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and the class,
statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000
for each violation, as well as unspecified punitive damages,
costs and attorneys’ fees and a permanent injunction from
further engaging in violations of FACTA.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the parties held an all-day meditation
session and reached a tentative settlement which is subject to
the parties signing a definitive settlement agreement and court
approval.

Under the terms of the settlement, Lenox denies all claims as to
liability, damages, penalties, interest, fees, restitution and
all other forms of relief sought in the FACTA Litigation.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company
will pay a non-material sum for attorney’s fees, a charitable
contribution and a plaintiff’s incentive fee, and will provide
participating claimants with a coupon off a future purchase or a
free product through Company-operated retail stores.

In return, the Company and its affiliates will be completely
released from any and all claims, demands and actions concerning
the FACTA Litigation and any claims that could have been alleged
in the FACTA litigation.

The suit is “Curiale v. Lenox Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-01432-RBS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
         Schiffin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         280 King Of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706

              - and -

         Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
         Carlson Lynch, Ltd.
         36 N. Jefferson Street
         P.O. BOX 7635
         New Castle, PA 16107
         Phone: 724-656-1555
         Fax: 724-656-1556
         E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Wilson M. Brown, III, Esq.
         Drinker Biddle And Reath L.L.P.
         One Logan Square
         18th And Cherry Streets,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-988-2700
         E-mail: wilson.brown@dbr.com


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Del. Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court approved a settlement of a purported
class action filed against Leucadia National Corp. with regards
to its 2005 acquisition of minority interest in MK Resources
Co., 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 case is “Special Situations Fund III, L.P., et al. v.
Leucadia National Corp., et al.,” a consolidated action
involving a petition for appraisal and a class action pending in
the Delaware Chancery Court.

The pending appraisal petition seeks a judicial determination of
the fair value of approximately 3,979,400 shares of MK
Resources' common stock as of Aug. 19, 2005, the date of the
merger of one of the company's subsidiaries into MK Resources.

The class action alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the former
MK Resources directors and the Company and seeks compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount, costs, disbursements and any
further relief that the court may deem just and proper and, in
the alternative, seeks rescissory damages, in each case taking
into account the $1.27 per share in Company stock paid in the MK
Merger to the minority stockholders of MK Resources who did not
seek appraisal.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement to settle
these lawsuits for complete releases and a dismissal with
prejudice in exchange for an aggregate settlement payment by the
Company of approximately $13,800,000, including a payment in the
appraisal proceeding of approximately $5,000,000 that the
appraisal petitioners would have received (based on the value at
the merger date of Company shares issued in the merger) had they
participated in the MK Merger.

The settlement agreement has been approved by the Chancery Court
and the payment is expected to be made during the fourth  
quarter of 2007 after the Chancery Court's opinion becomes final
and binding.

Leucadia National Corp. -- http://www.leucadia.com/-- is a  
diversified holding company engaged in a variety of businesses,
including manufacturing, real estate activities, medical product
development, winery operations, and residual banking and lending
activities that are in run-off.  Its segments include
Manufacturing, Domestic Real Estate, Medical Product Development
and Other Operations.  


LIVE NATION: Cal. Antitrust Suit Stayed on Certification Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
extended its stay of all proceedings in a consolidated antitrust
lawsuit filed against Live Nation, Inc. pending developments on
a motion to appeal a certification of the suit.

The suit alleges anti-competitive practices for concert
promotion services by the company caused artificially high-
ticket prices.

Originally, the company is a defendant in 22 putative class
actions filed by different named plaintiffs in various U.S.
District Courts throughout the country.

The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to
claims made in the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-04503-JES," except that the geographic markets
alleged are statewide or more local in nature, and the members
of the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased
tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged.  

The company filed its answers in all actions, and it has denied
liability.  

On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the above-listed
actions and any similar ones commenced in the future to a single
federal district court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  

On April 17, 2006, the Panel granted the company's motion and
ordered the consolidation and transfer of the actions to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On June 4, 2007, the Court conducted a hearing on the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  On June 25, 2007,
the Court entered an Order to stay all proceedings in the case
pending the Court’s ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification.

On Oct. 22, 2007, the Court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor,
granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and
certifying a class in the Chicago, New England, New York/New
Jersey, Colorado and Southern California regional markets.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the Company filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal from Order Granting Class Certification with the U.S.
District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

At a status conference conducted on Nov. 5, 2007, the U.S.
District Court extended its stay of all proceedings pending
further developments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

For more details, contact:

         [Plaintiffs] Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
         1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-7292
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         [Defendants] Paul Chalmers, Esq.
         Paul Chalmers Law Offices
         Two Lafayette Centre, 1133 21st Street NW #405
         New York, NY 920036
         Phone: 202-772-1834

         [Defendants] Sara B. Ciarelli, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
         12 East, 49th Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-999-5859

              - and -

         Renata Hesse, Esq.
         Renata Hesse Law Offices
         Two Lafayette Centre, 1133 21st Street, NW, #405
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-772-1834


MASTERCARD INT'L: Agrees to Settle Currency Conversion Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. and Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman &
Robbins LLP, Co-Lead and Co-Class Counsel for the plaintiffs in
the "In re Foreign Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation
(MDL 1409)” class action, announced that parties to the suit had
reached a $336,000,000 settlement.

The settlement will benefit people and entities who were Visa-,
Mastercard- and Diners Club-branded Credit and Debit/ATM
Cardholders who made made a foreign transaction between Feb. 1,
1996 and Nov. 8, 2006.  The settlement applies to those persons
or entities even if they did not make a foreign transaction, and
they will benefit from it.

The lawsuit claims that Visa, MasterCard, their member banks,
and Diners Club conspired to set and hide the price of foreign
transactions (including fees, typically 1-3%) in violation of
federal and state law, and that Visa and MasterCard inflated
their base exchange rates before applying these fees. The
Defendants are:

     -- Visa,
     -- MasterCard,
     -- Bank of America,
     -- Bank One/First USA,
     -- Chase,
     -- Citibank,
     -- Diners Club,
     -- HSBC/Household,
     -- MBNA and Washington Mutual/Providian

The defendants deny the claims.

                         Settlement Terms

The settlement provides $336,000,000 to pay claims, the costs of
administering the settlement and notice, and court-awarded
attorneys' fees (up to 27.5% of the estimated $313,000,000
expected to remain in the settlement fund after deducting costs
for administration and notice, plus interest and expenses) and
awards for the class representatives.

The Defendants also agree to certain disclosure-related
practices. If approved, the settlement will bind class members.

If persons and entities are eligible to make a claim and do not
opt out, they will release all claims related to any foreign
transaction, or the subject matters of the lawsuit, against the
Defendants, the member banks, and related entities and
individuals. Claims in other cases involving foreign
transactions will also be extinguished, but they can still make
a claim here, if eligible for a refund.

Settlement agreements have also been signed in some of these
other cases. These agreements include payment of fees and
expenses to attorneys, some of whom have represented the
Plaintiff in “Schwartz v. Visa (CA).” These payments will not
reduce the $336,000,000 settlement.
Class members do not need to go to court but may if they want
to. Class members may also hire an attorney, at their own cost,
if they want to. The court hearing to decide whether to approve
the settlement is on March 31, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. at the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY, 10007-1581. If class members plan to go,
they are advised to check with the court to confirm the time and
date.

All class members who made a foreign transaction with a Visa,
MasterCard, or Diners Club credit or debit/ATM card between
February 1, 1996 and November 8, 2006 are eligible for a refund.
The amount of the refund will depend on which claim form is
chosen, the amount of total claims, the dollar value of the
claim, the bank that issued their card, and the amount of money
available to pay claims. Class members might only get a partial
refund.

Class members also have other options. They may:

     -- Object. Class members must file a written objection and
        proof of class membership with the court. They do not
        have to go to court or hire an attorney. But can if they
        want to, at their own cost. The deadline is February 14,
        2008.

     -- Opt out. If class members are eligible for a refund from
        the settlement but do not want one, and they want to
        keep their right to sue for money, they must opt out by
        sending the opt-out form letter (available at:
        http://www.ccfsettlement.com,or by calling: 1-800-945-
        9890) to: P. O. Box 280, Philadelphia, PA 19105.

If they opt out, they cannot get money from the settlement.
Class members cannot opt out of the part of the settlement
involving agreed disclosure-related practices. The deadline is
February 14, 2008.

For more information, visit: http://www.ccfsettlement.com. For  
recorded information, call: 1-800-945-9890.

To ask for a refund, class members must file a claim for a
refund online at: http://www.ccfsettlement.com.Or file by mail  
(get a claim form at http://www.ccfsettlement.com,or by calling  
1-800-945-9890). The deadline is May 30, 2008.

                       Case Background

A number of federal putative class actions that allege, among
other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the
asserted one percent currency conversion "fee," were filed
against:

          -- MasterCard International, Inc.,
          -- Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
          -- Visa International Corp.,
          -- several member banks including:

               * Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.,
               * Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.,
               * Bank of America, N.A. (USA),
               * MBNA, and
               * Citicorp Diners Club Inc.

Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the federal complaints were consolidated in MDL
No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint adding MBNA Corp. and MBNA America Bank, N.A.
as defendants.

This pleading asserted two theories of antitrust conspiracy
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act:

      -- an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among
         MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
         with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and
         frequently more;" and

      -- two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby
         each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to            
         have conspired with its members to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to
         facilitate and encourage institution-and collection-of
         second tier currency conversion surcharges."

The MDL Complaint also asserted that the alleged currency
conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.

On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL
action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and
related matters.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard has paid
$72,480 to be used for defendants' settlement fund to settle the
MDL action.  

On Nov. 8, 2006, Judge William H. Pauley, III, granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreements.  The
settlement agreements were subject to final approval by Judge
Pauley, and resolution of all appeals.

The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William
H. Pauley, III.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David J. Bershad, Esq.
         Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9387
         Fax: 212-868-1229
         E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com

         Christopher Burke, Esq.
         Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP
         Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Sheldon V. Burman, Esq.
         Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC
         110 East 59th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 935-1600


MEDQUIST INC: Jan. 28 Conference Set for N.J. Labor Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 10, 2008 status conference is set for the consolidated
labor lawsuit “Myers et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al. Case No.
1:05-cv-04608-JBS-AMD,“ which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

                 Hoffmann Putative Class Action
  
A putative class action was filed against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  

The action, entitled, “Brigitte Hoffmann, et al. v. MedQuist,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-3452,” was filed with the Court
on Nov. 29, 2004 against the company and certain current and
former officials, purportedly on behalf of an alleged class of
current and former employees and statutory workers, who are
or were compensated on a “per line” basis for medical
transcription services from Jan. 1, 1998 to the time of the
filing of the complaint.  

The complaint specifically alleged that defendants
systematically and wrongfully underpaid the Class Members during
the Class Period.  

The complaint asserted the following causes of action: fraud,
breach of contract, demand for accounting, quantum meruit,
unjust enrichment, conversion, negligence, negligent
supervision, and RICO violations.  

Plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages, punitive
damages, disgorgement and restitution.   

On Dec. 1, 2005, the Hoffmann matter was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  On Jan. 12,
2006, the Court ordered this case consolidated with the Myers
Putative Class Action discussed below.  
  
                   Force Putative Class Action
  
A putative class action entitled, “Force v. MedQuist Inc. and
MedQuist Transcriptions, Ltd., Case No. 05-cv-2608-WSD,” was
filed against the company on Oct. 11, 2005, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  

The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of current
and former employees who claim they are or were compensated on a
“per line” basis for medical transcription services but were
allegedly underpaid due to the actions of defendants.  

The named plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract,
quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and for an accounting.  

Upon stipulation and consent of the parties, on Feb. 17, 2006,
the Force matter was ordered transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  

Subsequently, on April 4, 2006, the parties entered into a
stipulation and consent order whereby the Force matter was
consolidated with the Myers Putative Class Action discussed
below, and the consolidated amended complaint filed in the Myers
action on Jan. 31, 2006 was deemed to supersede the original
complaint filed in the Force matter.
  
                   Myers Putative Class Action
  
A putative class action entitled, “Myers, et al. v. MedQuist
Inc. and MedQuist Transcriptions, Ltd., Case No. 05-cv-4608
(JBS),” was filed against the company on Sept. 22, 2005 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  

The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of the
company's employee and independent contractor transcriptionists
who claim that they contracted with the company to be paid on a
65 character line, but were allegedly underpaid due to
intentional miscounting of the number of characters and lines
transcribed.   

The named plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, and request an accounting.
  
The allegations contained in the Myers case are substantially
similar to those contained in the Hoffmann and Force putative
class actions and, as detailed above, the three actions have now
been consolidated.  

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Jan. 31, 2006.  In
the consolidated amended complaint, the named plaintiffs assert
claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and demand an
accounting.  

On March 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the consolidated amended complaint.  The motion was
fully briefed and argued on Aug. 7, 2006.  The Court denied the
motion on Dec. 21, 2006.  

On Jan. 19, 2007, the company filed an answer denying the mutual
allegations pleaded in the consolidated amended complaint.  The
parties are now proceeding with discovery.  The deadline to
complete pretrial fact discovery is Oct. 30, 2007.   

On Oct. 11, 2007, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, ordering
plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification not
later than Dec. 14, 2007 and setting a deadline of Jan. 14,
2008, for the conclusion of factual discovery.  

A further status conference is set for Jan. 10, 2008, according
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 is “Myers et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al. Case No.
1:05-cv-04608-JBS-AMD,“ filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Jerome B. Simandle with
referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laura A. Feldman, Esq.
          Feldman & Pinto
          1604 Locust Street, 2R
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 546-2604
          Fax: (215) 546-9904
          E-mail: lfeldman@feldmanpinto.com

               - and -

          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC
          8 Kings Highway West
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 795-9002
          E-mail: donna@trrlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Marc J. Gross
          Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, LLP
          75 Livingston Avenue, Suite 301
          Roseland, NJ 07068-3701
          Phone: (973) 535-1600
          Fax: (973) 577-1785
          E-mail: mgross@greenbaumlaw.com


MEDQUIST INC: N.J. Court OKs $7.8M Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
final approval to a proposed settlement of the putative
shareholder class action, “William Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05487-JBS.”

The original complaint filed on Nov. 8, 2004 asserted claims
under Sections 10 (b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

Lead Plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Pension Fund subsequently,
on Nov. 15, 2005, filed the operative second amended complaint,
which asserts these same causes of action for violation of the
federal securities laws, and alleges that such violations
occurred from April 23, 2002, through Nov. 2, 2004.  The second
amended complaint names MedQuist and several former officers of
the company as defendants.  

On March 23, 2007, MedQuist entered into a memorandum of
understanding with lead plaintiff in which it agreed to pay
$7.75 million to settle all claims, throughout the class period,
against all defendants in the action.

On May 16, 2007, the Court issued an Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice.  The Court
conducted a final approval hearing and approved the settlement
on Aug. 15, 2007.

The suit is “Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
05487-JBS-JBR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Jerome B. Simandle with
referral to Judge Joel B. Rosen.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicole M. Acchione, Esq.
         Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP
         8 Kings Highway
         West Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Phone: (856) 795-9002
         E-mail: nicolem@trrlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         James S. Richter, Esq.
         Winston & Strawn, LLP
         The Legal Center, One Riverfront Plaza, 7th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Phone: (973) 621-2230
         E-mail: jrichter@winston.com


MINNESOTA: FAA Approves $126M Settlement of Noise Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Aviation Administration has signed off on the $126
million settlement in a noise mitigation lawsuit brought by the
cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan together with the
Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, according to Steve Brandt
of Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The Class Action Reporter reported on Nov. 6, 2007 that the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) board voted on Oct.
15 to approve the settlement.

The cities' lawsuit -- and a separate class action brought by
residents around the airport -- stemmed from disagreements over
the amount of mitigation appropriate in the 60 to 64 DNL
contours, which are outside the federal standard for noise
mitigation.

According to the report, the approval by the Federal Aviation
Administration is one of two hurdles that the settlement must
clear for the noise program to begin.  The other is approval by
those involved in a separate class-action lawsuit that sought
similar noise relief.  A court hearing on that matter is
scheduled for Jan. 15 in Hennepin County District Court.


               The Proposed Agreement

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the MAC would provide
mitigation to homes in the 60 to 64 DNL contours. Mitigation
activities would vary based on noise contour, with homes in the
most noise-impacted contours eligible for more extensive
mitigation than those in less impacted areas. Multi-family
dwellings (those with more than three living units) would
receive less extensive mitigation than single-family homes. The
total cost to MAC is uncertain until the program is complete,
but it is estimated the proposal could cost as much as $130
million to implement.

Four separate residential noise mitigation programs are included
in the agreement. Costs depicted in each of the four programs
are in 2007 dollars and will be adjusted annually for inflation
according to the Consumer Price Index:

(a) Single-family Homes in the Projected 2007 Mitigated 63-64  
    DNL Noise Contours

The approximately 432 homes in the most noise-impacted contours
would be eligible to receive the same level of noise mitigation
provided in the 65 DNL contour and greater. The program is
designed to achieve five decibels of noise reduction on average.
Depending on the improvements needed to reduce interior noise
sufficiently, modifications could include: central air
conditioning; exterior and storm window repair or replacement;
prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic
insulation; baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment.
Construction would be scheduled for completion by December 31,
2009.

(b) Single-family Homes in the Projected 2007 Mitigated 60-62
    Noise Contours

Owners of the approximately 5,344 homes in less noise-impacted
areas would be eligible for one of two mitigation packages:

     1.) The estimated 3,421 homes that did not have central air
         conditioning as of September 1, 2007 could receive it.

         In addition, homeowners would get up to $4,000
         (including installation costs) in other noise
         mitigation products and services they could choose from
         a menu provided by the MAC.

    2.) Owners of homes that already had central air
        conditioning installed as of September 1, 2007 or who
        choose not to receive central air conditioning would be
        eligible for up to $14,000 (including installation
        costs) of noise mitigation products and services they
        could choose from a menu provided by the MAC.

        Categories of products on the menu will include:

        (i) exterior and storm window repair or replacement;

       (ii) prime door and storm door repair or replacement;

      (iii) wall and attic insulation;

       (iv) baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment.

Construction is scheduled for completion by December 1, 2012.

(c) Multi-family homes in the projected 2007 mitigated 60-64 DNL
    Contours

Any of the approximately 1,931 multi-family units in the
projected 2007 mitigated 60-64 DNL contours that do not have air
conditioning would receive through-the-wall or equivalent
permanently installed air conditioners. The MAC also will
install an acoustical cover for each air conditioner in the
multi-family units. Installation is scheduled to be complete by
December 1, 2010.

(d) $7 Million Total for Opt-Out and 2005 Mitigated Single-
family Homes

Single-family homes whose owners opted out of the already
completed MAC noise-mitigation program but that now have new
owners would be eligible to "opt in" and receive noise
mitigation. If the total cost to MAC of opt-in mitigation is
less than $7 million, any remaining monies would be used to
reimburse owners of the approximately 1,835 single-family homes
in the 2005 Mitigated 60-64 DNL contours for purchase and
installation of products included on a menu provided by the MAC.

The amount each homeowner receives will be determined by
subtracting dollars spent for the opt-in program from the total
$7 million budget and dividing the remainder among the total
number of single-family homes within the 2005 60-64 DNL
contours. The MAC would begin to issue reimbursements by March
1, 2010 and would complete them by July 31, 2014. The total the
MAC will spend on the opt-out and 2005 program all together is
capped at $7 million.

The MAC would also pay the cities $2.5 million in attorney's
fees.

Owners of single-family homes participating in the program who
sell the home within two years of receiving mitigation could be
required to reimburse the MAC for twenty-five percent of the
cost of providing the mitigation, up to a maximum of $3,500 per
home.

People can identify where their home sits in relation to the
2007 noise contours through the MAC's noise program Web site,
http://www.macnoise.com/maps.


MISSISSIPPI MUTUAL: Mass. Lawsuit Accuses Insurer of Racial Bias
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi Mutual Farm Bureau Insurance Co., its affiliates and
associates are facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 28, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, accusing them of racially discriminating against
black policyholders by charging them more than similarly
situated white people, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Sixteen named plaintiffs claim the Farm Bureau profits unjustly
through deceptive and fraudulent "race-based pricing" of
property and auto insurance.

This is a class action seeking redress for a scheme of racial
discrimination and deceptive and wrongful practices by Farm
Bureau relating to the marketing, sale, formation and
administration of certain insurance policies.

Plaintiffs bring this as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
23 on behalf of all African American persons who have (or had at
the time of the time policies' termination) an ownership
interest in one or more policies issued, serviced or
administered by Farm Bureau.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Farm Bureau discriminated against the class
         members by charging them more in premiums for their
         insurance policies than similarly situated Caucasians;

     (b) whether Farm Bureau discriminated against the class
         members by offering substandard products compared to
         similarly situated Caucasians;

     (c) whether Farm Bureau's intent in its discriminatory
         policies and practices was racially motivated;

     (d) whether Farm Bureau maintained a corporate policy to
         sell its policies on a discriminatory basis by
         concealing from the plaintiffs and class members that
         the policies were not sold under the same terms and
         conditions as those offered to similarly situated
         Caucasians;

     (e) whether Farm Bureau trained or directed that its agents
         conceal or not disclose Farm Bureau's discriminatory in
         the sale and servicing of the policies;

     (f) whether Farm Bureau devised and deployed a scheme or
         common course of conduct which acted to defraud or
         deceive plaintiffs and the class members and/or
         extracted by taking advantage of its position of
         superior knowledge and otherwise;

     (g) whether Farm Bureau systematically failed to disclose
         to plaintiffs and the class members material
         information such as the actual basis on which premiums
         would be calculated;

     (h) whether Farm Bureau systematically discriminated
         against class members and engaged in a deceptive scheme
         and common course of conduct in targeting a vulnerable
         and unsophisticated segment of the population and its
         membership for the sale of policies;

     (i) whether Farm Bureau has a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs
         and the class members and/or owes them to duty to
         disclose the material facts detailed in the complaint;

     (j) whether plaintiffs and the class members are entitled
         to specific performance, injunctive relief and/or other
         equitable relief against Farm Bureau;

     (k) whether plaintiffs and the class members are entitled
         to an award of punitive damages against Farm Bureau;
         and

     (l) whether plaintiffs and the class members have sustained
         damages and the proper measure of those damages.

Plaintiffs demand judgment and orders as follows:

     -- an order determining that the action is a proper class
        action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- awarding plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages in
        an amount to be proven at trial for the wrongful acts
        complained of;

     -- awarding plaintiffs their costs and disbursements
        incurred in connection with this action, including
        reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and
        other costs;

     -- granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive
        relief as permitted by law or equity, including
        rescission, reformation, attaching, impounding or
        imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise
        restricting, the proceeds of Farm Bureau's ill-gotten
        funds to ensure plaintiffs and the class members have an
        effective remedy;

     -- granting the declaratory and injunctive relief sought;
        and

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

The suit is "Thelma Gamblin et al. v. Mississippi Farm Bureau
Mutual Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 3:07CV698HTW-LRA," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Mark T. McLeod
         Mitchell H. Tyner, Sr.
         Tyner Law Firm, PA
         5750 I-55 North
         Jackson, MS 39211
         Phone: (601) 957-1113 ext. 102
         Fax: (601) 957-6554
         E-mail: mmcleod@tynerLawFirm.com or
                 mtyner@tynerLawFirm.com


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.M. HMO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico pharmacies and pharmacists are appealing the
dismissal of a purported class action filed in the Second
Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico against Molina
Healthcare, Inc.'s New Mexico health management organization,
among others.

The lawsuit, “Starko, Inc., et al. v. NMHSD, et al., No. CV-97-
06599,” was originally filed in August 1997 against the New
Mexico Human Services Department (NMHSD).  

In February 2001, the plaintiffs named HMOs participating in the
New Mexico Medicaid program as defendants, including the
predecessor of the company's New Mexico HMO.

The plaintiffs assert that NMHSD and the defendant HMOs failed
to pay pharmacy dispensing fees under an alleged New Mexico
statutory mandate.  Discovery is currently underway.

On July 10, 2007, the court dismissed all damages claims against
Molina Healthcare of New Mexico, leaving only a pending action
for injunctive and declaratory relief.

On Aug. 15, 2007, the court held a hearing on the motion of
Molina Healthcare of New Mexico to dismiss the plaintiffs’
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.

At that hearing, the court dismissed all remaining claims
against Molina Healthcare of New Mexico.  The plaintiffs have
filed a Notice of Appeal of the court’s dismissal orders,
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.

Molina Healthcare, Inc. -- http://www.molinahealthcare.com/--   
is a multi-state managed care organization participating
exclusively in government-sponsored healthcare programs for low-
income persons, such as the Medicaid program and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Responds to Amended Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Worldwide, Inc. has filed an answer to an amended
complaint in a securities class action filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On or about March 15, 2007, a putative securities shareholder
class action was filed by Middlesex County Retirement System
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit
was designated as “In re Monster Worldwide Securities
Litigation, 07 Civ. 2237 (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR).”

The suit seeks an indeterminate amount of damages on behalf of
all persons or entities, other than defendants, who purchased or
acquired the securities of the Company from May 6, 2005 until
June 9, 2006.

On July 9, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
securities class action asserting claims against the Company,
Andrew McKelvey and Myron Olesnyckyj based on an alleged
violation of Section 10(b) the Exchange Act and against the
individual defendants based on an alleged violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

On Sept. 11, 2007, the Company filed an Answer to the amended
complaint.

The suit is “In Re: Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-02237,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Jed S.
Rakoff.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Goldman, Scarlato & Karon. P.C.
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 360
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 484.342.0700 or 888.668.4130
          Fax: 484.342.0701
          E-mail: info@gsk-law.com


NATIONSCREDIT FINANCIAL: Mortgage Loan Discount Suit Revived
------------------------------------------------------------
The Fifth Appellate Court has reversed a dismissal by Madison
County Circuit Judge Lola Maddox of a suit filed by the Lakin
Law Firm against Nationscredit Financial Services, Ann Knef of
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Madison County Circuit Judge Lola Maddox dismissed a purported
class action filed against Nationscredit Financial Services by
Gary Treadway over a mortgage loan made by his mother (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2007).

Mr. Treadway, as special representative of the estate of his
mother, Juanita Treadway, filed the suit last year.  He claimed
his mother paid a discount fee in order to reduce the interest
on a mortgage, but did not receive the privilege from
Nationscredit.   

The company removed the suit to the U.S. District Court in East
St. Louis, arguing that a plaintiff must bring a claim based on
the charging of interest in federal court under the National
Banking Act.  But the district court found that the National
Banking Act did not apply, and so remanded the suit.   

Nationscredit attorney Joe Whyte of Edwardsville moved in
October 2006 for the dismissal of the suit, which the court
heard on April 27.  On July 10, Judge Maddox said Mr. Treadway
did not allege that Nationscredit made fraudulent
representations to his mother.

In the report by Ms. Knef, it stated that Justice Stephen Spomer
-- in an opinion for a three-judge panel -- wrote that the
circuit court dismissed the case on the basis that it was
"completely" preempted by the National Bank Act.

"The circuit court also relied on Dannewitz v. EquiCredit Corp.
of America, 362 Ill. App. 3d 82 (2005), in making its finding
that the instant cause is preempted by the National Bank Act,"
Judge Spomer wrote. "In so holding, the court rejected the
plaintiffs' argument that because the loans at issue were made
by a nonnational bank and subsequently purchased by a national
bank, the National Bank Act did not apply.

"We find neither of the decisions relied upon by the trial court
determinative of the issue at hand," he wrote.

Judge Spomer remanded the case to Madison County.


NEENAH PAPER: Still Faces Retirees' Suit After Terrace Bay Deal  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neenah Paper, Inc. (NPI) continues to face a purported class
action in Canada over the alleged wrongful reduction and/or
elimination of certain retiree benefits following a transfer of
operations.

On Dec. 21, 2006, certain retirees of Neenah Paper Company of
Canada (NPCC) brought a proposed class action against the NPCC,
NPI, and Kimberly-Clark Inc. alleging the wrongful reduction
and/or elimination of certain retiree benefits following Neenah
Canada’s transfer of the Terrace Bay pulp and woodlands
operations to Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. and Eagle Logging Inc.  

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and Neenah Canada have
breached a contract to provide benefits, breached their
fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs and have made negligent
misrepresentations regarding retiree benefits.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages for the value of
the loss of retiree medical and health benefits (and/or
reinstatement of the reduced/eliminated benefits), plus punitive
damages in the amount of $5.0 million Canadian dollars.

The purported class has not been certified.

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.

Neenah Paper, Inc. -- http://www.neenah.com-- is a North  
American producer of fine papers and technical products.  Neenah
also produces bleached kraft market pulp in Canada, where the
Company owns approximately one million acres of timberlands and
has rights to harvest wood of approximately 4.8 million acres of
other timberlands.  


OAKLEY INC: Dec. 13 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 13, 2007 hearing is set for a purported shareholder class
action pending against Oakley, Inc. in the California state
court in connection to an agreement and plan of merger, dated
June 20, 2007, by and among Luxottica Group S.p.A., Norma
Acquisition Corp. and the company.

On June 26, 2007, Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan
filed a purported class action complaint, Case No. 07CC01306, in
the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, on behalf of
itself and all other shareholders of Oakley except those named
as defendants and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other
entity related to or affiliated with any defendant, against
Oakley and each of its directors.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
violated their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, candor
and independence by entering into a transaction without engaging
in a fair and reasonable sale process, insofar as they engaged
in self-dealing and obtained for themselves personal benefits,
including personal financial benefits not shared equally by
Oakley’s other stockholders and failed to make proper, timely
disclosures to Oakley’s shareholders concerning the merger.

It seeks, among other things, to

       -- class-action status;

       -- enjoin the defendants from consummating the proposed
          merger, unless and until the Company adopts and
          implements a fair sales process;

       -- declare that the merger agreement was entered into in
          breach of defendant’s fiduciary duties and is
          therefore unlawful and unenforceable;

       -- rescind, to the extent already implemented, the
          proposed merger; and

       -- award plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this
          action, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’
          fees.

On July 30 and July 31, 2007, Defendants filed demurrers to the
complaint.  On Aug. 30, 2007, the Court sustained Defendants’
demurrers and granted plaintiff 15 days’ leave to amend.

On Sept. 14, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
seeking the same relief as the original complaint.  

The amended complaint contains similar allegations as the
original complaint and also adds allegations for breach of
fiduciary duty based on a purported failure to disclose certain
information in the Company’s preliminary proxy statement filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 7,
2007 in connection with the Merger.

On Oct. 9, 2007, Defendants filed a demurrer to the amended
complaint, which is currently scheduled to be heard by the
Superior Court on Dec. 13, 2007.

Oakley, Inc. -- http://oakley.com/-- is engaged in the design,  
development, manufacture, distribution and worldwide marketing
of consumer products, including eyewear (sunglasses,
prescription eyewear, goggles and electronically enabled
eyewear), apparel, footwear, watches and accessories.  It sells
its products to retail accounts, through Oakley-owned O Stores,
Vaults, through more than 100 mall-based sunglass specialty
stores in the U.S, and through a mix of independent distributors
and licensees in more than 100 countries.


OAKLEY INC: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oakley, Inc. still faces a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, alleging violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The complaint was filed on Jan. 11, 2007, and is related to the
inclusion of credit card expiration dates on sales receipts.  It
has not been granted class-action status.

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

The suit is “Stephanie Leowardy v. Oakley Inc et al., Case No.
8:07-cv-00053-CJC-AN,” filed in the the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Cormac J. Carney
with referral to Judge Arthur Nakazato.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         James Mark Moore, Esq.
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468
         E-mail: mark@spiromoss.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
         Call Jensen and Ferrell
         610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Phone: 949-717-3000
         E-mail: sferrell@calljensen.com


OLD DOMINION: Faces Suits Over Fuel Surcharges in LTL Shipments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., along with other less-than-
truckload (LTL) carriers, face a purported class action that
accuses it and other LTLs of conspiring throughout four years or
more to fix fuel surcharges on LTL shipments.

On July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. d/b/a  
Water Tech, and C.B.J.T. d/b/a Agricultural Supply, on behalf of  
themselves and other plaintiffs, filed a putative class action  
against the Company and 10 other companies engaged in the LTL  
trucking business in the United States District Court for the  
Southern District of California.  

Named defendants in that complaint are:

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

Farm Water, doing business as Water Tech, and its subsidiary  
CBJT, doing business as Agricultural Supply contend that the  
practice dates back to 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29,  
2007).

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

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

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

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

     (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy;

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiffs pray that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since the filing of the above suit, other plaintiffs have filed  
similar cases in various courts across the nation.  Under  
federal court rules, the courts will likely consolidate these  
cases into a single proceeding.  

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

Representing plaintiffs are:

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

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

          - and -

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


SAILING (U.S.) INT'L: Recalls Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sailing (U.S.) International Corp., of Hackensack, N.J., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about about 8,000 of flashing pacifiers or 2-in-1
flashing pacifiers with whistle necklaces

The company said the nipple can detach from the base, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

No incidents/injuries have been reported.

The recalled pacifier necklace has a 28-inch multicolored
cord with a 3- inch plastic pacifier that comes in assorted
colors. A hole at the tip of the nipple is used as a blow hole
for the whistle.  The pacifier handle operates as the on-off
button for the flashing light on both pacifiers. "Flashing
Pacifier" or "2-in-1 Flashing Pacifier with Whistle Necklace" is
printed on the packaging of the pacifiers.

The pacifiers were made in China and sold at various retail
stores nationwide during the month of June 2007 for about $5 per
dozen.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the pacifiers
and return them to the store where purchased to receive a full
refund or discard the pacifiers.

For additional information, contact Sailing (U.S.)
International Corp. at (800) 643-6134 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.
ET Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.sailingusintl.com.

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the
recalled product, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08099.html


STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuit in Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Energy Corp. continues to face a derivative action that
was filed in the 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of
Lafayette, Louisiana by Gregory Sakhno, according 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 named the company as a nominal defendant.  David Welch,
Kenneth Beer, Peter Canty, James Prince, James Stone, John
Laborde, Peter Barker, George Christmas, Richard Pattarozzi,
David Voelker, Raymond Gary, B.J. Duplantis and Robert Bernhard
were named as defendants in the action.  

It alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against all
defendants, and claims of unjust enrichment and insider selling
against certain individual defendants.

On April 22, 2006, the complaint in the action was amended to
also be a class action brought on behalf of shareholders of the
company.

In addition to the above mentioned claims, the amended State
Court derivative action complaint purported to allege breaches
of fiduciary duty by the director defendants in connection with
the then proposed merger transaction with Plains Exploration and
Production Co., and seeks an order enjoining the director
defendants from entering into the then proposed transaction with
Plains.

Stone Energy Corp. -- http://www.stoneenergy.com/-- is an  
independent oil and gas company engaged in the acquisition and
subsequent exploration, development, operation and production of
oil and gas properties located in the conventional shelf of the
Gulf of Mexico, the deep shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, the
deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico, Rocky Mountain Basins and the
Williston Basin.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: $1.2B Escrow Funds Released to Philip Morris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA, the U.S. tobacco subsidiary of Altria Group,
Inc. confirmed that it received $1.2 billion in funds held in an
escrow account under the bond stipulation in the Engle smoking
and health class action in Florida.

PM USA also said it will immediately seek the discharge of a
$100 million appeal bond in the same case.
  
                       Case Background

Trial began in July 1998 in “Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co.,” a case filed in May 1994, and pending in Circuit Court,
Miami-Dade County, Florida, in which a class consisting of
Florida residents, or their survivors, alleges diseases or
medical conditions caused by their alleged “addiction” to
cigarettes.

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, seeking actual
damages and punitive damages in excess of $100 billion each and
the creation of a medical fund to compensate individuals for
future health-care costs.  

                   $145 Billion Damages Award

On July 7, 1999, the jury found against RJR Tobacco, B&W and the
other cigarette-manufacturer defendants in the initial phase,
which included common issues related to certain elements of
liability, general causation and a potential award of, or
entitlement to, punitive damages.

The second phase of the trial, which consisted of the claims of
three of the named class representatives, began on November 1,
1999. On April 7, 2000, the jury returned a verdict against all
the defendants. It awarded plaintiff Mary Farnan $2.85 million,
the estate of plaintiff Angie Della Vecchia $4.023 million and
plaintiff Frank Amodeo $5.831 million.

The trial court also ordered the jury in the second phase of the
trial to determine punitive damages, if any, on a class-wide
basis. On July 14, 2000, the jury returned a punitive damages
verdict in favor of the “Florida class” of approximately $145
billion against all the defendants, with approximately $36.3
billion and $17.6 billion being assigned to RJR Tobacco and B&W,
respectively.

               Reversal of Trial Court’s Judgment

On November 6, 2000, the trial judge denied all post-trial
motions and entered judgment. In November 2000, RJR Tobacco and
B&W posted appeal bonds in the amount of $100 million each and
initiated the appeals process. On May 21, 2003, Florida’s Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s final
judgment and remanded the case to the Miami-Dade County Circuit
Court with instructions to decertify the class.

                  Florida Supreme Court Review

The class appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court accepted the
case on May 12, 2004.  On July 6, 2006, the court issued its
decision. The court affirmed the dismissal of the punitive
damages award and decertified the class, on a going-forward
basis. The court preserved a number of class-wide findings from
Phase I of the trial, including that cigarettes can cause
certain diseases, that nicotine is addictive and that defendants
placed defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes on the
market, and authorized former class members to avail themselves
of those findings under certain conditions in individual
lawsuits, provided they commence those lawsuits within one year
of the date the court’s decision becomes final.

The court specified that the class is confined to those Florida
citizen residents who suffered or died from smoking-related
illnesses that “manifested” themselves on or before November 21,
1996 and that were caused by an addiction to cigarettes.  In
addition, the court reinstated the compensatory damages awards
of $2.85 million to Mary Farnan and $4.023 million to Angie
Della Vecchia, but ruled that the claims of Frank Amodeo were
barred by the statute of limitations.

Finally, the court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal’s
2003 ruling that class counsel’s improper statements during
trial required reversal.

                        Rehearing Motion

On August 7, 2006, RJR Tobacco and the other defendants filed a
rehearing motion arguing, among other things, that the findings
from the Engle trial are not sufficiently specific to serve as
the basis for further proceedings and that the Florida Supreme
Court’s decision denied defendants due process.

On the same day, the plaintiffs also filed a rehearing motion
arguing that some smokers who became sick after November 21,
1996, and who are therefore not class members, should
nevertheless have the statute of limitations tolled since they
may have refrained from filing suit earlier in the mistaken
belief that they were Engle class members.

                Supreme Court’s Revised Opinion

On December 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court withdrew its
July 6, 2006, decision and issued a revised opinion, in which it
set aside the jury’s findings of a conspiracy to misrepresent
and clarified that the Engle jury’s finding on express warranty
were preserved for use by eligible plaintiffs.

The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion and confirmed that
the class was limited to those individuals who developed alleged
smoking-related illnesses that manifested themselves on or
before November 21, 1996. The court issued its mandate on
January 11, 2007, which began the one-year period for former
class members to file individual lawsuits.

Afterwards, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court. On Oct. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court
rejected an appeal against the Florida Supreme Court's ruling.          

Companies named in the lawsuit include Philip Morris USA, a unit
of Altria Group Inc., Brown and Williamson Holdings Inc., a unit
of British American Tobacco PLC, Lorillard Tobacco Co., a unit
of Loews Corp.; and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a unit of
Reynolds American Inc.


UNITED STATES: Health Dept. Accused of Seizing Medicare Money
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Dept. of Health & Human Services is facing a
class-action complaint filed Nov. 30 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, accusing it of seizing money
from Medicare and Medicaid service providers, under a
"clandestine policy" that violates federal law and the
Constitution, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Also named as defendants are Trailblazer Health Enterprises and
Tricenturion Inc.

This is a civil action alleging violation of the U.S.
Constitution by federal employees. It concerns violation of the
statutory prohibition on recoupment of Medicare overpayments
during a pending administrative appeal.

Named plaintiff William Janacek brings this action as a class
action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
(b)(2) on behalf of healthcare providers participating in the
Medicare program whose Constitutional right to Due Process of
Law has been violated by defendants who have ignored the
Congressional directive and violated the prohibition by
illegally recouping Medicare payments and applying them to
reduce contested overpayments.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the provider has filed an administrative appeal
         of Medicare overpayments which are pending a decision
         on resoncideration;

     (b) whether defendants have violated 42 USC Section 1395ddd
         by recouping Medicare overpayments prior to "the date
         the decision on the reconsideration has been rendered"
         in the administrative appeal; and

     (c) whether defendants are recouping Medicare overpayments
         contrary to the statutory prohibition in 42 USC Section
         1395ddd under a clandestine policy and with deliberate
         indifference to the rights of the provider.

Plaintiff requests that he be granted the following relief:

     -- damages;

     -- exemplary and punitive damages;

     -- issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunctive
        relief from the acts, conduct and omissions described;

     -- a declaration that defendants and unknown and unnamed
        officials, employees, and agents are acting without
        lawful authority and ultra vires and have illegally
        recouped payments in violation of 42 USC Section 1395ddd
        from plaintiff and other similarly situated healthcare
        providers participating in the Medicare program;

     -- costs of suit and recovery of reasonable attorneys'
        fees; and

     -- such other and further relief, both at law and at
        equity, to which plaintiff may show themselves to be
        justly entitled.

The suit is "William Janacek et al v. Michael O. Leavitt et al.,
Case No. 307CV1996 G," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Mark S. Kennedy
          12225 Greenville Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75243
          Phone: (972) 479-8755
          Fax: (972) 479-8756
          E-mail: markskennedylaw@msn.com


VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Fraud Suit Over GPS in BlackBerries
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless is facing a class-
action complaint filed Nov. 30 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, alleging it defrauded
customers by selling them BlackBerry 8830 Smartphones and
misrepresenting them as having built-in, functional GPS systems,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Verizon and co-defendant Cellco Partnership allegedly disabled
the GPS system, then charged plaintiffs $240 to partially
restore only some of the functions they had disabled, the suit
claims.

Named plaintiff Teresa Wyatt brings this action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all
persons in California (and such other states as the court may
find appropriate) who purchased one or more BlackBerry 8830
Smartphones from Verizon Wireless and/or its authorized
retailers.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Verizon should be enjoined and required to make
         appropriate disclosures of the existence and  
         consequences of having tampered with and altered the
         BlackBerry 8830 Smartphone by disabling the GPS;

     (b) whether Verizon misrepresented and/or concealed that
         the BlackBerry 8830 smartphones they advertised,
         distributed and/or sold had the GPS disabled and the
         manner in which they were disabled;

     (c) whether Verizon represented that the BlackBerry 8830
         Smartphones had characteristics uses and/or benefits
         which they did not have;

     (d) whether Verizon represented that the BlackBerry 8830
         Smartphones it advertised, distributed and/or sold were
         new, brand-name BlackBerry 8830s and in original
         condition when, in fact, they had been altered;

     (e) whether Verizon inserted an unconscionable provision in
         its contacts;

     (f) whether Verizon should be enjoined to restore the
         BlackBerry 8830s Smartphones by re-activating the
         built-in GPS;

     (g) whether Verizon should be enjoined tampering with,
         altering and/or disabling the GPS on BlackBerry 8830
         Smartphones;

     (h) whether Verizon's representations stating BlackBerry
         8830 Smartphone has built-in GPS are false, misleading
         and/or likely to deceive or otherwise constitute a
         violation of California law;

     (i) whether Verizon's offering the blackBerry 8830 as new
         when it has in fact been altered is fales, misleading
         and/or likely to deceive or otherwise constitutes a
         violation of California law;

     (j) whether Verizon failed to disclose other necessary
         material facts in order to make its statements not
         misleading for want of disclosure of such omitted
         facts;

     (k) whether prohibiting use of a GPS service other than
         Verizon's fee-based proprietary GPS service, VZ
         Navigator, constitutes a violation of California law;

     (l) whether requiring subscription to Verizon's fee-based
         proprietary GPS software, VZ Navigator, in order to
         reactive the built-in GPS in the BlackBerry 8830
         Smartphones or restore them to their original condition
         is a violation of California law;

     (m) why and when Verizon began to disable the GPS for the
         BlackBerry 8830;

     (n) whether Verizon has improperly failed to notify actual
         and potential buyers of the true facts;

     (o) whether the gravity of the harm attributable to
         Verizon's conduct, as alleged, is outweighed by any
         benefits attributable thereto;

     (p) the amount of revenues and profits Verizon received or    
         saved and/or the amount of monies or other obligations
         imposed on or lost by plaintiffs as a result of such
         wrongdoing; and

     (q) whether plaintiffs are entitled to statutory, actual or
         exemplary damages, rescission or equitable relief and
         the appropriate measure of such relief.

Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:

     -- an order certifying that the action may be maintained as
        a class action and that appointing plaintiff and her
        counsel as class representative;

     -- compensatory damages and restitution in an amount to be
        proven at trial, including any damages or restitution as
        may be provided for by statute;

     -- punitive damages per class member on an individual
        basis;

     -- a temporary, preliminary and/or permanent order
        providing for equitable and injunctive relief,
        including, but not limited to, an order of the court
        prohibiting Verizon from refusing to immediately cease  
        all acts of unfair competition and enjoining Verizon
        from continuing to conduct business via the illegal acts
        or practices as alleged, refusing to engage in a
        corrective advertising and information campaign
        regarding their policies, and imposing an asset freeze
        or constructive trust over all illegally obtained
        monies;

     -- an order requiring disgorgement and/or imposing a
        constructive trust upon defendants' ill gotten monies
        and freezing defendants' assets and requiring defendants
        to pay restitution to plaintiff and all members of the
        class and to restore to the class all funds acquired by
        means of any act or practice declared by the court to be
        an unlawful, fraudulent or unfair business act or
        practice, a violation of laws, statutes or regulations,
        or constituting unfair competition or false, untrue,
        deceptive or misleading advertising;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to CCP.Sec. 1021.5,
        Cal.Civ.Code Sec. 1780(d), Cal.Civ.Code SEc. 1794 and/or
        any other statute or authority authorizing an award of
        attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- costs of this suit; and

     -- other relief that the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Teresa Wyatt et al v. Cellco Partnership," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jordan M. Cohen
          Roy E. LaFrancis, Jr.
          The Cohen Law Firm
          10650 Treena Street, Suite 203
          San Diego, California 92131
          Phone: 858-689-4736
          Fax: 858-689-9278
          E-mail: jcohen@thecohenlawfirm.net or
                  rlafrancis@thecohenlawfirm.net



XETHANOL CORP: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xethanol Corp. agreed in principle on Nov. 28, 2007 to settle
the suit “In Re Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:06-cv-10234-HB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On Oct. 23, 2006, a purported class action was filed by Milton
Ariail against Xethanol Corp., Lawrence S. Bellone, Christopher
d'Arnaud- Taylor and Jeffery S. Langberg (Civil Action No. 06-
10234).  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and
the individual defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's operations, management and
internal controls in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.

The individual defendants, Lawrence S. Bellone, Christopher
d'Arnaud-Taylor and Jeffery S. Langberg, are respectively the
company's chief financial officer and a member of its board of
directors; a member of its board of directors and its former
chairman, president and chief executive officer; and a former
member of its board of directors.

Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages and reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel
fees and expert fees, on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the period
between Jan. 31, 2006 and April 8, 2006.  

Six nearly identical class actions complaints were thereafter
filed in the same court, all of which have been consolidated
into one action, “In re Xethanol Corporation Securities
Litigation, 06 Civ. 10234 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.)”

The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on
March 23, 2007.

The recent settlement agreement was reached during a mediation
overseen by a retired United States District Court Judge in West
Palm Beach, Florida, and attended by counsel for plaintiffs,
counsel for the company and the individual defendants and
counsel for the company's insurance carriers.

The agreement remains subject to final negotiated writings
executed by the parties and approval by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit is “In Re Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-10234-HB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Harold Baer.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Kim Elaine Miller, Esq.
         Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
         12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 696-3730
         Fax: (504) 455-1498
         E-mail: kimmiller225@yahoo.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Katherine Blackwood Harrison, Esq.
         Paduano & Weintraub LLP
         1251 Avenue of The Americas, 9th Floor
         New York, NY 10020
         Phone: (212) 785-9100
         Fax: (212)-785-9099 (fax)
         E-mail: kh@pwlawyers.com


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


                           *********


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  * * *