CAR_Public/071206.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 6, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 242

                            Headlines




ABB LTD: Workers' Lawsuit over 401(k) Fees in MO Certified
ADECCO SA: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces CA Suit Over Brakes in 2006-2008 Acura RLs
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Fla.
BEUSA ENERGY: Faces Lawsuit Over Interstate 10 Closure

COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Four Law Firms Sued Over 2003 Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Judge OKs 1991-2001 Model Explorers Suit Settlement
ILLINOIS: Suit Alleges $2.2 Mandatory Arbitration Fund Stolen
KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit
KOPPERS INC: Faces Somerville Residents' Lawsuits in Pa., Tex.

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Amended Complaint in NY Securities Suit Junked
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit in North Dakota Over Defibrillators
MEDQUIST INC: Parties in AAMT Line Billing Suit in Mediation
MICROSOFT CORP: Philippine Schools to Get Settlement Vouchers
MOLSON COORS: Continues to Face Lawsuits Related to 2005 Merger

MORGAN STANLEY: N.Y. Judge Awards $300T to "Silberblatt" Lawyers
MURPHY OIL: Continues to Face Litigation Over 2003 La. Fire
NATIONAL WESTERN: Faces Suits Over Sale of Annuities to Elders
NAVARRE CORP: Minn. Court Considers Approving Lawsuit Settlement
NORTHERN MARIANAS: GOB Lays Out Plan to Distribute $2.1 Million

NUVELO INC: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Transferred to California
OFFICEMAX INC: Illinois Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Some Defendants in Suit
OPTIONABLE: KLD Investment is Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Reach Settlement in N.Y. Litigation

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Illinois
PENN NATIONAL: Faces Pa. Litigation Over PNG Merger Agreement
PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit
PEOPLES ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Connections Fees
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Faces Lawsuit in Colo. Over Royalties

POLO RALPH: Faces Labor-Related Lawsuit in California
SILICON IMAGE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Complaint
SOURCEFIRE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Md.
TEMPLE-INLAND: California Lawsuit Over Home Loans Dismissed
TEMPLE INLAND: Working to Settle Suits Over On-Duty Meal Breaks

UNITED KINGDOM: Faces Suit Over "Maltreatment" of Indian Workers
WESTERN REFINING: Subsidiaries Face "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit in Kans.
WORLD SAVINGS: Faces Fraud Lawsuit in S.C. Over "Option ARM"
ZURN-PEX INC: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Faulty Fittings

BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Wolf Haldenstein Files AZ Securities Fraud Suit
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Girard Gibbs Files CA Securities Fraud Suit



                            *********  


ABB LTD: Workers' Lawsuit over 401(k) Fees in MO Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri  
granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed filed by
employees and retirees of a unit of Swiss engineering group ABB
Ltd. against the firm and two units of Fidelity Investments,
Reuters reports.

In 2006, ABB Ltd. employees and retirees charged ABB Inc and the
units of money manager Fidelity with breaching their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants allowed Fidelity to steer
ABB's 401(k) plan "toward expensive Fidelity funds" and caused
"plan participants to incur unnecessary and improper fees in
connection with the plan."

Jerome Schlichter, partner at law firm Schlichter, Bogard &
Denton, told Reuters that, "The court has determined that the
case will proceed as a class action on behalf of all employees,
retirees who are in the plan."

Ronald Kurtz, ABB Inc's director for media and community
relations, said the firm was aware of the decision but could not
comment any further as the matter was in litigation, the report
said.

Fidelity spokesman Vin Loporchio said the firm would
"vigorously" defend itself in the suit. "We disagree with the
complaint and specifically disagree that the plan has overpaid
or that Fidelity has violated any Fiduciary duty," he said.

To contact Mr. Schlichter:

          Jerome J. Schlichter
          Schlichter, Bogard & Denton
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 621-6115
          Fax: (314) 621-7151

ADECCO SA: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeals court affirmed the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California's summary dismissal of an
amended securities fraud suit, ruling the plaintiffs had failed
to prove their case, Christine Caulfield of the Securities
Law360 reports.

Several lawsuits were filed against Adecco early in 2004 after  
the Company revealed it would delay the announcement of its  
audited results for 2003.  In a statement, the Company said the  
reasons for the delay in completion of the audit are:

      (1) the identification of material weaknesses in internal  
          controls in the Company's North American operations of  
          Adecco Staffing;

      (2) the resolution of possible accounting, control and  
          compliance issues in the Company's operations in   
          certain countries; and

     (3) the completion of the Company's efforts to address  
         these matters and determine their effect on the  
         Company's consolidated financial statements.  

On this news, Adecco's stock price dropped from a close of  
$16.93 on January 9, 2004 to below $10 per share.

In a consolidated amended complaint the plaintiffs claimed
Adecco, and four named executives, knew and hid the fact that
millions of dollars in the company's accounts receivable were
uncollectible and improperly recorded in its reports of bad-debt
reserves.

Early this year, the U.S. District Court for the Southern  
District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice  
and without further leave to amend, and directed that judgment  
be entered in favor of the defendant (Class Action Reporter,
Apr. 6, 2006 ).

In its recent decision, the appeals court affirmed a California
district judge's decision to toss the lawsuit with prejudice for
its inadequate showing of claims that the company and its
executives scammed investors by understating its bad debts.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year in
Tellabs Inc. v Makor Issues & Rights Ltd, the circuit judges
found the shareholders' allegations were insufficient to satisfy
the heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

Adecco S.A. -- http://www.adecco.com/-- is registered in  
Switzerland.  It offers Human Resource services worldwide.


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces CA Suit Over Brakes in 2006-2008 Acura RLs
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co. is facing a class-action complaint
filed Dec. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California alleging it markets its 2006-2008 Acura RLs
through misrepresentations, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Michael and Janet Mazza and Deep Kalski claim
Honda's Collision Mitigation Braking System "is a collision
avoidance assist system" that "'works in three stages' to help
'reduce the likelihood of rear-ending the vehicle ahead' or
'obstacles on the road ahead.'"

Plaintiffs say the system may and does fail at any of the three
stages and does not respond to "some obstacles on the road
ahead."

They bring this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), or alternatively (b)(2), on behalf
of all persons or entities in the United States who purchased or
leased, not for resale, vehicles manufactured by Honda equipped
with the Collision Mitigation Braking System, including but not
limited to 2006-2008 Acura RLs.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether, by the misconduct set forth, defendant has
         engaged in unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading
         advertising of the Subject Vehicles and CMBS Sytem;

     (b) whether defendant knew, or should have known, that its
         representations and statements about the Subject
         Vehicles and the CMBS System were false and/or
         misleading;

     (c) whether, by its conduct, defendant violated Consumer
         Legal Remedies Act (Cal.Civ.Code Section 1750, et seq),
         Unfair Competition Law (Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code Section
         17200, et seq.), and/or False Advertisement Law
         (Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code Section 17500, et seq.);

     (d) whether defendant omitted material facts from its
         communications and disclosures to the class and public
         at large regarding the Subject Vehicles equipped with
         the CMBS Sytem;

     (e) whether defendant knew, or was reckless in not knowing,
         that its statements about the Subject Vehicles equipped
         with the CMBS System were false and/or misleading;

     (f) whether defendant concealed or failed to disclose class
         members that in response to a collision, the CMB System
         may fail to deploy or deploy late with any or all
         three separate stages of visual, audible, and tactile
         warning, including the mitigation stage to minimize
         collision impact;

     (g) whether defendant concealed or failed to disclose to
         class members that Subject Vehicles equipped with the
         CMBS System will fail to respond to some obstacles on
         the road ahead;

     (h) whether defendant issued false and misleading
         statements of fact and/or concealed material facts
         regarding the Subject Vehicles equipped with the CMBS
         System that were likely to deceive th public;

     (i) whether the information defendant concealed or failed
         to disclose was material;

     (j) whether defendant engaged in unfair, fraudulent, or
         unlawful business practices with respect to the
         marketing and sale of the Subject Vehicles equipped
         with the CMBS System;

     (k) whether and when defendant knew of the defective nature
         of the CMBS System;

     (l) whether, as a result of defendants misconduct,
         plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory, exemplary,
         equitable relief, and/or other relief, and, if so, the
         nature of such relief; and

     (m) whether defendant should be ordered to disgorge, for
         the benefit of the class, all or part of the ill-gotten
         profits it received from the sale of the Subject
         Vehicles equipped with the CMBS System.

Plaintiffs pray:

     -- that this matter be certified as a class action under
        Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), or in alternative  Fed.R.Civ.P.
        23(b)(2), and that the plaintiffs be appointed class
        representatives, and their attorneys be appointed class
        counsel;

     -- that the court enter an order requiring defendant to
        immediately cease the wrongful conduct as set forth;
        enjoining defendant from continuing to falsely advertise
        or conceal material information and conduct business via
        the unlawful and unfair business acts and practices
        complained of;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendant in an amount
        undetermined for Unjust Enrichment, including
        disgorgement of profits received by defendant as a
        result of said purchases, appropriate equitable relief
        and costs of suit including attorneys' fees;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendant for damages,
        statutory damages, punitive damages, cost of suit, and
        attorneys' fees, and injunction; and

     -- for such other damages, equitable relief and pre- and
        post-judgment interest as the court may deem just and
        proper.

The suit is "Michael Mazza et al. v. American Honda Motor, Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV07-07857," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
          Marc Primo, Esq.
          Monica Balderrama, Esq.
          Payam Shahihan, Esq.
          Orlando Arellano, Esq.
          Initiative Legal Group, LLP
          1800 Century Park, East, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-5637
          Fax: (310) 861-9051
          E-mail: MBalderrama@InitiativeLegal.com


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and four of its current and former
officers face a purported securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
according to the company's Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

On Oct. 29, 2007, Joseph C. Hubbard filed a purported class-
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, against BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and four of its
current and former officers.

The complaint is styled, "Joseph C. Hubbard, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc., James A. White, Valerie C. Toalson, Jarrett S.
Levan and Alan B. Levan, Case No. 07-61542-Civ."

It alleges that during the purported class period of Nov. 9,
2005 through Oct. 25, 2007, BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and the
named officers knowingly and/or recklessly made
misrepresentations of material fact regarding BankAtlantic and
specifically BankAtlantic's loan portfolio and allowance for
loan losses.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages.

The suit is "Joseph C. Hubbard, et al. v. BankAtlantic Bancorp,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-61542," filed in the U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-915
          Fax: (310) 201-916
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

          Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
          830 Third Avenue 10th Floor
          New York Ave, NY 10022
          Phone: 212.317.2300

          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215.638.4847
          Fax: 215.638.4867

          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 310.209.2468
          Fax: 310.209.2087
          E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

               - and -

          Vianale & Vianale LLP
          The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Phone: 561.391.4900
          Fax: 561.368.9274
          E-mail: info@vianalelaw.com


BEUSA ENERGY: Faces Lawsuit Over Interstate 10 Closure
------------------------------------------------------
BEUSA Energy Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
Nov. 20 in the 16th Judicial District Court in St. Martinville
on behalf of Silver's Travel Center, Kevin Blanchad of The
Advocate reports.

BEUSA Energy whose oil well blowout caused the closure of
Interstate 10 for 10 days, Mr. Blanchad said.  While the I-10
closure rerouted traffic around St. Martin Parish to U.S. 190,
many of those businesses complained about a severe downturn in
business.

Silver's Travel Center is one of several businesses along the I-
10 corridor in St. Martin Parish geared to cater to interstate
travelers, the report said.

The suit, filed by Lafayette attorney Randy P. Angelle, alleges
that the blowout occurred because of BEUSA's negligence and that
the closure caused "loss of business, loss of economic
opportunity, loss of profits and/or mental anguish."

The suit asks that an expedited hearing be called to establish
the class, followed by a jury trial.

To contact Mr. Angelle:

          Randy P. Angelle
          1039 Spanish Moss Lane
          Breaux Bridge, LA 70517
          Phone: (337)332-5280


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Four Law Firms Sued Over 2003 Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Computer Associates investors led by Texas
billionaire Sam Wyly are suing the law firms that negotiated a
2003 settlement of civil accounting fraud charges against the
company, Mark Harrington of Newsday reports.

The group filed the suit in state Supreme Court in Manhattan.  
It accuses four class action law firms of legal malpractice,
fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty, for
prematurely settling a 2002 action.  According to the suit, the
firms sacrificed potential billion of dollars in claims recovery
by entering into a settlement that earned them exorbitant legal
fee payments.

The law firms that are defendants in the suit are:

     -- Milberg Weiss LLP,
     -- Stull, Stull & Brody,
     -- Schiffrin, Barroway Topaz & Kessler, and
     -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins

One significant detail in the suit is a previously undisclosed
meeting between company board member Alfonse D'Amato and Melvyn
Weiss, the principal of Milberg Weiss, that allegedly led to an
agreement favorable to the lawyers and the company's board
members and executives.  In exchange, the company agreed to
support the law firms' request for attorneys' fees of up to
$1,000 per hour, according to the suit. The law firms received
some $40 million.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, access to all legal papers
previously withheld in the suits, and disgorgement of the
$40 million in fees.  

Also, the plaintiffs raises an issue on the law firms' decision
to drop the 2002 case, one of two sets of shareholders suits
filed against the company.  The 2002 suit follows revelations of
federal probes of Computer Associates' accounting.  The other
suit was filed in 1998 following a sharp drop in the company's
share price.

Mr. Wyly's attorney, William Brewer, called the law firms'
decision to effectively drop the claims in the 2002 suit a
malpractice.  

Mr. Wyly's suit claims that if allegations in the latter suit
had been properly researched and argued, the settlement would
have been much larger. It also notes that while the settlement
was being reached, officials at Milberg Weiss were under federal
investigation for an alleged plaintiff kickback scheme.  The
Milberg Weiss firm and Melvyn Weiss have since been indicted on
those charges, to which they have pled not guilty.

For more information, contact:

          William E. Brewer, Jr., Esq.
          619 N. Person Street
          Raleigh, N.C. 27604
          Phone: (919) 832-2288
          Toll Free Number:  1-800-899-DEBT(3328)
          Fax: (919) 834-2011


FORD MOTOR: Judge OKs 1991-2001 Model Explorers Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge David De Alba tentatively
accepted a deal to settle a class action claiming Ford Motor
Co.'s Explorer sport utility vehicles were prone to rollovers,
the AP WorldStream reports.

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

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

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

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

                    The Settlement

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

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

Ford, which admits no wrongdoing, will also be required to limit
the safety claims in its advertising, and the company will pay
as much as $25 million (A?17 million) in costs and attorneys'
fees.

Judge De Alba said the settlement is in the best interest of all
the parties. He is expected to give his final approval to the
deal in April.

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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


ILLINOIS: Suit Alleges $2.2 Mandatory Arbitration Fund Stolen
-------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Illinois is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging it stole
$2 million from attorneys, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Attorneys claim the state unconstitutionally swept $2 million
from attorneys' Mandatory Arbitration Fund and $198,200 from the
Lawyers' Assistance Program and put it into the General Fund, in
violation of the separation of powers.

Plaintiffs file this suit to recover damages and order
replenishment of certain public funds unlawfully taken from
various appropriations approved by the General Assemble,
including but not limited to fees collected through the Illinois
Lawyers' Assistance Program, and fees collected for use by the
courts designated the Mandatory Arbitration Fund.

They further seek and accounting, asking to recover damages
cause to these plaintiffs and others by the illegal and
unauthorized acts of defendants.

Plaintiffs request that the court grant the following relief:

     -- that the court find that this matter may proceed as a
        class action and certify it as well as the class;

     -- declare Public Act 94-91 provision transferring
        segregated funds into the general revenue fund as a
        violation of the Constitution of the State of Illinois;

     -- order defendants to return to the plaintiff and the
        plaintiff class all sums transferred into the General
        Revenue Fund since the inception of a segregated fund
        for LAP fees and expenses since the first transfer of
        those funds from the special fund and their sweep into
        the General Revenue Fund, as well as appropriate
        interest reflecting the loss of use and interest by the
        public and the plaintiff class of those funds;

     -- enjoin defendants in their official capacity from
        further taking of these funds as described;

     -- award plaintiffs their costs in pursuing this action and
        award plaintiffs' counsel and class counsel the
        appropriate fees and costs for recovery of these sums on
        behalf of the class and the public.

The suit is "Jeffrey B. Sussman, et al. v. Daniel Hynes et al.,"
filed in the Circuit court of Cook County, Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David A. Novoselsky
          Novoselsky Law Offices
          120 North LaSalle Street - suite 1400
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Phone: (312) 346-8930

          - and -

          Joseph R. Curcio
          Curcio Law Offices
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 2550
          Chicago, Illinois 60601
          Phone: (312) 321-1111


KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc. is appealing a ruling that granted class-
action status to a lawsuit brought on behalf of the company's
employees working in the State of California.

The claims in the lawsuit relate to alleged misclassification of
personal attendants as exempt and entitled to overtime under
state law and alleged technical violations of a state law
pertaining to information furnished on employee pay stubs.

A hearing relating to plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was held on March 5, 2007, and on April 30, 2007, the Court
certified the class.  

As to the April 30 order, the Company has both filed with the
trial court a motion for reconsideration and a writ with the
California Court of Appeal seeking an interlocutory appeal.

The company reported no new 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.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a  
global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and
territories throughout the world.


KOPPERS INC: Faces Somerville Residents' Lawsuits in Pa., Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers, Inc. faces purported class actions in the Pennsylvania
and Texas that were brought on behalf of residents of
Somerville, Texas, 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.

                    Pennsylvania Litigation

Koppers, Inc. also is defending a putative class action, which
seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring program and the
costs of periodic health screening and diagnostic testing for a
class of approximately 7,500 people who have lived or currently
live in Somerville, but who have not experienced any diseases.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania in October 2007.  

Plaintiffs allege that they have been exposed to harmful levels
of various toxic chemicals from the Somerville wood treatment
plant. They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

                        Texas Litigation

In addition to the lawsuit mentioned above, an additional
complaint was filed in the District Court of Burleson County,
Texas in October 2007.

The complaint is a putative class action filed on behalf of
current and former residents of Somerville, Texas who live or
lived within a one mile radius of the Somerville wood treatment
plant.

Plaintiffs estimate the putative class to number in excess of
2,500 people.  Koppers Inc. and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway Co. are defendants.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, relocation
expenses, injunctive relief, punitive damages in an unspecified
amount, the costs of developing a notice plan to notify members
of the putative class and attorneys' fees.

The complaints contains counts relating to private nuisance,
trespass, negligence, negligence per se and gross negligence
arising from alleged emissions of toxic chemicals from the
Somerville plant.

Plaintiffs' also filed an application for a temporary injunction
seeking, among other things, temporary injunctive relief from
alleged further releases of chemicals from the Somerville plant,
the temporary relocation of all class members and reimbursement
for certain personal and relocation expenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, Koppers filed a notice of removal removing
this case from the District Court of Burleson County, Texas, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Koppers Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.koppers.com/-- is an  
integrated global provider of carbon compounds and commercial
wood treatment products.  The Company's products are used in a
variety of applications in a range of end markets, including the
aluminum, railroad, specialty chemical, utility, rubber and
steel industries.  It serves its customers through a global
manufacturing and distribution network, including 33
manufacturing facilities located in North America, Australasia,
China, Europe and South Africa. The Company operates two
principal businesses: Carbon Materials & Chemicals, and Railroad
& Utility Products.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Amended Complaint in NY Securities Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shirley Wohl Kram of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed a Third Amended
Complaint for securities fraud claims alleging proxy statement
omissions against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC)  for
failure to state claim, the New York Law Journal reports.

The suit was brought on behalf of individuals and entities who
purchased or acquired MMC's publicly-traded securities during
the purported class period of Oct. 14, 1999 to Oct. 13, 2004
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 5, 2007).

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that MMC artificially
inflated its share price by making misrepresentations and
omissions relating to Marsh's market service agreements and
business practices.

They allege that MMC also failed to disclose alleged anti-
competitive and illegal practices at Marsh, such as "bid-
rigging" and soliciting fictitious quotes.

The complaint includes factual allegations similar to those
asserted in the New York Attorney General Lawsuit, as well as
factual allegations concerning alleged misconduct at MMC's
subsidiaries, and alleged conflicts of interest associated with
MMC's former private equity subsidiary, MMC Capital.

The complaint includes claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on MMC's
allegedly false or incomplete disclosures.

On March 13, 2007, Plaintiff M.F. Henry (Henry) filed a Third
Amended Complaint (the 'TAC') alleging that MMC, as well as
various MMC directors violated section 14 (a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Securities & Exchange Commission ('SEC') Rule
14a-9.

The defendants have moved for dismissal pursuant to principles
of res judicata, Rules 12 (b) (6) and 9 (b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 ('PSLRA').

Recently, the Court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion
and dismisses the TAC with prejudice. In sum, the Court
concluded that each of Henry's accusations fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

Henry has asked for leave to amend the TAC in order to correct
any legal insufficiencies. Because, however, it is not possible
to remedy the defects in the TAC by pleading with more
particularity, the TAC is dismissed with prejudice.

The suit is "In Re: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-8144," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shirley
Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

             Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP
             10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
             New York, NY, 10016
             Phone: 800.217.1522
             E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
             Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com/

                  - and -

             Grant & Eisenhofer PA
             1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
             Wilmington, DE, 19801
             Phone: 302.622.7000
             Fax: 302.622.7100
             E-mail: info@gelaw.com
             Web site: http://www.gelaw.com/


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit in North Dakota Over Defibrillators
-------------------------------------------------------------
Winnifred Leverson of Bismarck filed a suit seeking class-action
status against Medtronic Inc., among others, over worries about
problems with her implanted defibrillator.

The medical malpractice suit was filed against Medtronic Puerto
Rico, Inc. and Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co. in U.S.
District Court in Bismarck on Nov. 26.

According to Ms. Leverson's attorney Mike Miller of Fargo, his
client's defibrillator lead is working, but living with it is
"like living with a ticking time bomb in your chest."

Miller said he also is representing 15 other North Dakotans who
have the implanted defibrillator leads.

The lawsuit alleges emotional distress, negligence, and it seeks
restitution and medical monitoring.

On Oct. 15 Medtronic Inc. recalled its Sprint Fidelis
Defibrillator Leads model numbers 6930, 6931, 6948 and 6949
manufactured from September 2004 through October 15, 2007.

Leads are thin wires that connect an implantable cardioverter
defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy
defibrillator (CRT-D) directly to the heart. ICDs and CRT-Ds are
devices that are used to treat abnormal heart rhythms that can
cause the heart to stop suddenly.

These leads are being recalled because a small number of
fractures have been detected. When the lead breaks (fractures),
it may cause inappropriate shocks or result in a loss of
therapy, such as pacing or shocking.

The suit is "Leverson v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:2007-cv-00090," filed in the North Dakota District Court
before Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland with referral to Magistrate
Judge Charles S. Miller Jr.

Ms. Leverson is represented by:

          Mike Miller, Esq.
          Solberg Stewart Miller Johnson
          1129 5th Ave. S., Fargo, ND 58103
          Phone: (701) 237-3166
          E-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com


MEDQUIST INC: Parties in AAMT Line Billing Suit in Mediation
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a putative class action, "South Broward Hospital
District, d/b/a Memorial Regional Hospital, et al. v. MedQuist,
Inc. et al., Case No. CV-04-7520-TJH-VBKx," entered into court-
sponsored mediation, 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 was filed on Sept. 9, 2004 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against the company, and
certain of its present and former officials.  

It was purportedly brought on behalf of an alleged class of non-
federal governmental hospitals and medical centers that the
complaint claims were wrongfully and fraudulently overcharged
for transcription services by defendants based primarily on our
use of the AAMT line billing unit of measure.

The complaint charged fraud, violation of the California
Business and Professions Code, unjust enrichment, conversion,
negligent supervision and violation of RICO.

Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, plus costs and
interest, an injunction against alleged continuing illegal
activities, an accounting, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Named as defendants, in addition to the company, were one of its  
senior vice presidents, its former executive vice president of
marketing and new business development, its former executive
vice president and chief legal officer, and its former executive
vice president and chief financial officer.

On Dec. 20, 2004, the company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and
improper venue, or in the alternative, to transfer the putative
action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

On Feb. 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
both adding and deleting named plaintiffs in an attempt to keep
the putative action in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  

On March 30, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California issued an order transferring the putative
action to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey.

On Aug. 1, 2005, the company and the individual defendants filed
their respective Answers denying the material allegations
contained in the Second Amended Complaint.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim and a motion to dismiss in favor of
arbitration, or in the alternative, to stay pending arbitration.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an Amendment to the
Second Amended Complaint.  On Dec. 13, 2005, the Court issued an
order requiring plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint on Jan. 4, 2006.
The Third Amended Complaint expands the claims made beyond
issues arising from contracts based on AAMT line billing and
beyond customers billed based on an AAMT line, alleging that we
engaged in a scheme to inflate customers' invoices without
regard to the terms of individual contracts and even in the
absence of any written contract.

The Third Amended Complaint also limits plaintiffs' claim for
fraud in the inducement of the agreement to arbitrate to the
three named plaintiffs whose contracts contain an arbitration
provision and a subclass of similarly situated customers.

On Jan. 20, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint for failure
to state a claim and a motion to compel arbitration of all
claims by the arbitration subclass and to stay the case in its
entirety pending arbitration.

On March 8, 2006 the Court held a hearing on these motions, and
took the matter under submission.  On March 30, 2007, the Court
issued an order holding that plaintiffs could not make out a
claim that it had violated the federal RICO statute, thus
eliminating any claim against the company for treble damages.

The Court also found that plaintiffs could not make out a claim
that the company had engaged in any unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in violation of state law, or that the company had
made any negligent misrepresentations to plaintiffs.

In its ruling, the Court, without reaching a decision of whether
any wrongdoing had occurred, allowed plaintiffs to proceed with
their claims against us for fraud, unjust enrichment and an
accounting.

In its order, the Court denied our motion to compel arbitration
regarding those customers whose contracts contained an agreement
to arbitrate.

The company has appealed that decision to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, and it moved the district court to stay the
matter pending that appeal.  The district court heard oral
argument on the company's motion to stay on May 30, 2007 and
took the motion under submission.

On June 8, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Action
with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the Court to
dismiss plaintiffs who did not enter into arbitration agreements
with us from the appeal.

The company filed its opposition to this motion on June 25,
2007.  The Court has referred the motion to the merits panel for
decision after full briefing.  

On Aug. 1, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited review
on appeal.   The company did not oppose this motion, and the
Third Circuit granted the request for expedited treatment,
adopting the briefing schedule agreed to by the parties.

The appeal will be fully briefed by Nov. 16, 2007, and the Third
Circuit has tentatively set oral argument for Dec. 13, 2007.  

The Third Circuit ordered the parties to court-sponsored
mediation.  The parties participated in an initial session with
the mediator on Sept. 12, 2007 and a second session on Oct. 12,
2007.  An additional telephonic conference is scheduled for Nov.
9, 2007.

The suit is "South Broward Hospital District et al. v. MedQuist
Inc., et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-02206-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 plaintiffs is:

          Roger B. Kaplan, Esq.
          Greenberg Traurig LLP
          200 Campus Drive, P.O. BOX 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Phone: (973) 360-7957
          Fax: (973) 301-8410
          E-mail: kaplanr@gtlaw.com

Representing defendants is:

          Marc J. Gross, Esq.
          Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, & Davis, LLP
          6 Becker Farm road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 535-1600
          E-mail: mgross@greenbaumlaw.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Philippine Schools to Get Settlement Vouchers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manila School Board Superintendent Pam Castor announced that the
district had received notification of a settlement in a class
action judgment from Microsoft Corp., Revis Blaylock of Town
Crier News reports.

Manila joined the suit earlier this year, according to the
report.  Ms. Castor said the district received an $84,969
settlement in terms of vouchers to be used for Microsoft
hardware and software.

The settlement was the outcome of a class action against
Microsoft filed in 2003.  It accused the company of using its
software dominance to arbitrarily increase its prices.

Under terms of the deal, class action members will receive
vouchers for future technology purchases.


MOLSON COORS: Continues to Face Lawsuits Related to 2005 Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Co., formerly Adolph Coors Co., still faces
several purported class actions in both the U.S. and Canada in
relation to its 2005 merger with Molson Inc., according the
company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

Beginning in May 2005, several purported class actions were
filed against the company in the U.S. and Canada, including
federal courts in Delaware and Colorado and provincial courts in
Ontario and Quebec.  

The suits allege, among other things, that the company,
including Molson Inc., and certain officers and directors misled
stockholders by failing to disclose first quarter (January-
March) 2005 U.S. business trends prior to a merger vote in
January 2005.

The Colorado federal case has been transferred to the Delaware
federal court.  The Delaware federal lawsuits also allege that
the company failed to comply with U.S. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.  

The Qu‚bec Superior Court heard arguments in October 2007
regarding the plaintiffs' motion to authorize a class in that
case.  The company opposed the motion.

Molson Coors Brewing Co. (MCBC) - http://www.molsoncoors.com/--  
formerly known as Adolph Coors Co., is principally a holding
company, and its operating subsidiaries include Coors Brewing
Company, operating in the U.S.; Coors Brewers Limited, operating
in the United Kingdom; Molson Canada, operating in Canada, and
its other corporate entities.  MCBC, through its subsidiaries
are engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling of malt
beverage products.  MCBC has three operating segments: Canada,
the United States and Europe.  Each segment manufactures,
markets and sells beer and other beverage products.


MORGAN STANLEY: N.Y. Judge Awards $300T to "Silberblatt" Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel found class counsel's
request for 63% of the cash settlement in a suit filed by
previous metal purchasers against Morgan Stanley Dean Witter &
Co. "flawed and grossly inflated" and "unfair."

Judge Castel awarded legal fees of $300,000 plus $150,000 in
expenses, according to Courthouse News.

A Sept. 24, 2007 hearing was previously set in "Silberblatt v.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Case No. 1:05-cv-07569-PKC" in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

                        Case Background

The suit was filed in August 2005 by Selwyn Silberblatt, on
behalf of himself and others, who bought precious metals from
Morgan Stanley DW Inc. and its predecessors and paid fees for
their storage.  

It accuses Morgan Stanley of fraudulently telling clients it was
selling them precious metals that they would own in full and
that the company would store when in truth it was making either
no investment specifically on behalf of those clients or making
an entirely different investment of lesser value and security.

The settlement includes a cash component of $1.5 million and
economic and remedial benefits valued at about $2.9 million.

For more details, contact:

         Samuel P. Sporn, Esq.
         Joel P. Laitman, Esq.
         Kurt Hunciker, Esq.
         Ashley Kim, Esq.
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: (212) 964-0046
         Fax: (212) 267-8137

              - and -

         Silberblatt v. Morgan Stanley Litigation
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 9168 Dublin, OH 43017-4168
         Phone: (888) 205-7870
         Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com


MURPHY OIL: Continues to Face Litigation Over 2003 La. Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corp. continues to face a consolidated class action
in connection to a June 10, 2003 fire that severely damaged the
Residual Oil Supercritical Extraction (ROSE) unit at the
Company's Meraux, Louisiana refinery.

The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the heavy fuel oil stream
for conversion into gasoline and diesel.  

Subsequent to the fire, numerous class actions have been filed
seeking damages for area residents.  All the lawsuits have been
administratively consolidated into a single legal action in St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana, except for one action filed in
federal court.  

On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action in St.
Bernard Parish amended their petition to include a direct action
against certain of the Company's liability insurers.  

The St. Bernard Parish action has since been removed to federal
court where a class certification hearing is scheduled for Nov.
20, 2007.

Murphy Oil Corp. -- http://www.murphyoilcorp.com/-- is a global  
oil and gas exploration, and production company with refining
and marketing operations in North America and the United
Kingdom.  The Company's operations are classified into two
business activities: Exploration and Production, and Refining
and Marketing.  


NATIONAL WESTERN: Faces Suits Over Sale of Annuities to Elders
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Co. is facing several purported
class actions in California, which alleges elder abuse and other
state code violations over the sale of certain deferred fixed
annuities to seniors, 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 Company is a defendant in three such class actions.  The
court certified a class consisting of certain California
policyholders age 65 and older alleging violations under
California Business and Professions Code section 17200.  

The court has additionally certified a subclass of 36
policyholders alleging fraud against their agent, and
vicariously, against NWL.  

One of the suits is targeting National Western, for selling a
deferred annuity to an Oceanside senior that was allegedly an
"unsuitable" investment, since its payouts began well past the
buyer's life expectancy (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2005).

The legal action puts in the spotlight the increased scrutiny
being given to the sales practices of certain types of
annuities, investment vehicles offered by insurance companies
and designed to provide an income stream and tax benefits to
investors, usually during retirement.

San Diego lawyer Ronald Marron and the law firm of Finkelstein &
Krinsk brought the state court case charging the Texas firm of
selling deferred fixed annuities with steep surrender charges to
seniors.  They are seeking class action status for California
seniors who were sold similar products by National Western.

Austin, Texas-based National Western Life Insurance Co. --
https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- is a stock life
insurance company doing business in 49 states, the District of
Columbia and four U.S. territories or possessions.


NAVARRE CORP: Minn. Court Considers Approving Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to
grant final approval to a settlement of a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against Navarre Corp., and
certain of its officers and directors, 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.

Several purported class-action lawsuits were commenced in 2005
by various plaintiffs against Navarre Corp., and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

Plaintiffs cite to alleged violations of Sec. 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)(5), promulgated
under the Act, and as to the individual defendants only,
violation of Sec. 20(a) of the Act.

Plaintiffs sought certification of the actions as a class action
lawsuit, compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly
sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs,
counsel fees and experts fees.

The actions are identified as:  

      -- "AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case
         No. 05-1151 (PAM/RLE);"  

      -- "Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-01211   
         (MJD/JGL);" and  

      -- "Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-  
         1260 (DWF/JSM)."

By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 12, 2005, the
Court appointed "The Pension Group," comprised of the Operating
Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Funds
and Ms. Grace W. Lai, as Lead Plaintiff, and appointed the
Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield law firm as liaison counsel and
the Lerach, Coughlin law firm as lead counsel.

The Court also ordered that the cases be consolidated under the
caption, "In re Navarre Corporation Securities Litigation," and
further ordered that a Consolidated Amended Complaint be filed.

On Feb. 3, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint with the Court.  This Consolidated Amended Complaint
reiterates the allegations made in the individual complaints and
extends these allegations to the Company's restatements of its
previously issued financial statements that were made in
November 2005.

A hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss was held on May 10,
2006 and by an order dated June 27, 2006, the Court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
without prejudice.

The Court allowed Plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended
complaint in an effort to cure the identified pleading
deficiencies.

On July 28, 2006 Plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint against Defendants.  Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the renewed complaint on Sept. 22, 2006, asserting,
among other things, that Plaintiffs had not sufficiently cured
the defects present in the original Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

By a Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 21, 2006, the Court granted
Defendants' motion in part, denied it in part, and specifically
removed Cary L. Deacon, Brian M.T. Burke and Charles Cheney as
individual defendants. Defendants answered the Complaint on Jan.
26, 2007 and typical disclosure requirements and discovery
proceeded.

The Company and Plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle this
litigation.  This settlement remains subject to the satisfaction
of various conditions, including the negotiation and execution
of a final stipulation of settlement and approval by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

However, the Company anticipates that it will not be required to
contribute any funds to the settlement beyond the already
exhausted retention under its insurance policy.

A hearing for preliminary approval of this settlement has been
scheduled for Nov. 15, 2007.

The suit is "In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
0:05-cv-01151-PAM-RLE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge Paul A. Magnuson with referral
to Judge Raymond L. Erickson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Laura M. Andracchio, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W Broadway Ste 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-338-3829 or 619-231-1058 or 619-338-3858
         E-mail: lauraa@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants is:

         David A. Davenport, Esq.
         Winthrop & Weinstine, PA
         225 S. 6th St., Ste. 3500,
         Mpls, MN 55402-4629
         Phone: 612-604-6716
         Fax: 612-604-6816
         E-mail: ddavenport@winthrop.com


NORTHERN MARIANAS: GOB Lays Out Plan to Distribute $2.1 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garment Oversight Board chair Timothy H. Bellas told the Saipan
Tribune that the GOB plans to distribute more than $2.1 million
to about 600 additional garment workers who claim they did not
get any checks from a settlement of a class action against the
garment industry.

The plan is subject to the approval by the Chief judge of the
U.S. District Court for the NMI Alex R. Munson.

Class Action Reporter reported on Nov. 27 that the GOB is
drawing out plans on how to distribute the money amounting to
$2.15 million that the plaintiffs' counsel turned over to the
GOB.

Under the plan, Mr. Bellas said, the amounts that these 600
people will get are the same as those checks issued before to
29,000 people.

"And then whatever is left over after that are going to be
distributed equally to the rest of the workers," the former
judge said.

The GOB chair said the last step of the plan is how to deal with
part of the $2.1 million that will come back.  He also mentioned
a plan to establish a garment worker trust fund that is intended
to  help people affected by closure of garment factories.  
Ultimately, he said, after a certain period of time that could
last up to three years, the money that will remain undistributed
will be donated to a charitable institution, closing the
settlement process.

San Francisco-based claims administrator Gilardi and Co. has the
task of distributing the money to eligible garment workers.

For more details, contact:    

          Pamela M. Parker
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 231-1058
          Fax: (619) 231-7423
          
          Steven P. Pixley
          2nd Floor, CIC Centre
          Beach Rd., Garapan
          P.O. Box 7757
          SVRB, Saipan, MP 96950
          Phone: (670) 233-2898/5175
          Fax: (670) 233-4716
          E-mail: sppixley@aol.com


NUVELO INC: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Transferred to California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted a motion seeking for the transfer of several purported
securities fraud class actions against Nuvelo, Inc. to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Feb. 9, 2007, the company and certain of its former and
current officers and directors were named as defendants in a
purported securities class action.

The suit alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase,
which the company announced on Dec. 11, 2006.  

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which
the company announced on Dec. 11, 2006, and seeks damages on
behalf of purchasers of company's common stock during the period
between Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec. 8, 2006.

Specifically, the suit alleges that we misled investors
regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood
of success.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of
New York on Feb. 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007,
respectively.

On April 10, 2007, three separate motions to consolidate the
cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and appoint lead plaintiff's
counsel were filed.

On April 18, 2007, the company filed a motion to transfer the
four cases to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  

The New York Court granted the company's motion to transfer the
cases to the Northern District of California in July 2007,
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 first identified complaint is "Electrical Workers Pension
Fund, Local 103, IBEW, et al. v. Nuvelo, Inc., et al.," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross
         1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102
         Phone: 215-561-3600
         Fax: 215-561-3000
         E-mail: bmgross@bernardmgross.com

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY, 11747
         Phone: 631-367-710
         Fax: 631-367-1173

              - and -

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


OFFICEMAX INC: Illinois Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois
granted OfficeMax Inc.'s motion to dismissal an amended
securities fraud complaint filed against the company, 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. 29, 2007.

The company and several former officers and/or directors of the
company or its predecessor are defendants in a consolidated
class action proceeding, alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges, in summary, that the company failed to
disclose:

      -- that vendor income had been improperly recorded;

      -- that the company lacked internal controls necessary to
         ensure the proper reporting of revenue and compliance
         with generally accepted accounting principles; and

      -- that the company 's 2004 and later results would be
         adversely affected by the company's allegedly improper
         practices.

The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.  On Sept. 21,
2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, which is pending.  

On Sept. 12, 2006, the court granted the defendant group's joint
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On Nov.
9, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a purported amended complaint.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Sept. 26, 2007, the court granted the
motion to dismiss and terminated the case.

The suit is "Roth v. Officemax Inc, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00236," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Joan B. Gottschall.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         William J. Doyle, Esq.
         William S. Lerach, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058

Representing the defendants are:

         Phillip M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Foley & Lardner
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
         Chicago, IL 60610
         Phone: 312-832-4500

         John William Rotunno, Esq.
         Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, LLC
         70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300
         Chicago, IL 60602-4207
         Phone: (312) 372-1121
         E-mail: jrotunno@bellboyd.com

             - and -

         Patrick Thomas Stanton, Esq.
         Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberg & Krauss
         180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 516-4489
         E-mail: pstanton@scgk.com


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Some Defendants in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed certain defendants from a shareholder lawsuit filed
against Openwave Systems and nine former executives over an
alleged stock-option backdating scheme, 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.

Between Feb. 21, and March 27, 2007, four substantially similar
securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Openwave and four current and former officers of the Company.

The complaints purport to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Openwave stock from Sept. 30, 2002
through Oct. 26, 2006, and allege that during the Class Period,
the defendants engaged in improper stock options backdating and
issued materially false and misleading statements in the
Company's public filings and press releases regarding the manner
in which Openwave granted and accounted for the options.

Based on these allegations, the complaints assert two causes of
action-one against all defendants for violation of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and a
second against the individual defendants for violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On April 25, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a joint motion to transfer the actions to the Northern
District of California where the related shareholder derivative
class actions are pending.

On May 18, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating the
four securities class actions into a single action captioned,
"In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-
1309 (DLC))," and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  

On June 14, 2007, the court entered an order denying the motion
to transfer.

On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint. The consolidated and amended
complaint adds 17 additional defendants, including:

     * several current and former Openwave officers and
       directors,
     * KPMG LLP, and
     * Merrill Lynch,
     * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
     * Lehman Brothers Inc.,
     * J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and
     * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

The consolidated and amended complaint alleges claims for
violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, as well as claims for violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising out of the
Company's 2005 public offering. The complaint seeks money
damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company is required under contracts with the individual
defendants to indemnify them under certain circumstances for
attorneys' fees and expenses.  

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System is appointed lead
plaintiff; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP shall serve
as lead counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated actions
and the class.

On Aug. 10, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated and amended class action complaint.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the court entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.  

The court granted the motions to dismiss claims asserted under
the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants against whom
those claims were asserted, and granted the motion to dismiss
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims against certain
of the officer and director defendants, but denied the motion to
dismiss the Exchange claims asserted against Openwave and
certain of the other director and officer defendants.

As a result of the court's decision, KPMG LLP, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Lehman Brothers Inc., J.P. Morgan
Securities, Inc., and Thomas Weisel Partners LLC have all been
dismissed as defendants from the litigation.

The remaining defendants are the Company, certain former
officers of the Company, and certain former and current
directors of the Company.

The suit is "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation
(Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Denise L.
Cote.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212.279.5050
         Fax: 212.279.3655
         E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com

         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         One Liberty Square
         Boston, MA 2109
         Phone: 617.542.8300
         Fax: 617.230.0903
         E-mail: info@bermanesq.com

              - and -  

         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212.554.1400
         Fax: 212.554.1444
         E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com


OPTIONABLE: KLD Investment is Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
KLD Investment Management LLC has been appointed lead plaintiff
in the consolidated shareholder litigation filed against
Optionable, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Sam Schulz of the Securities
Law360 reports.

Early this year, Optionable and certain of its officers and
directors are charged with including, or allowing the inclusion
of, materially false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 (Class
Action Reporter, May 24, 2007).

The complaint alleges that, unbeknownst to investors, defendants
failed to conduct an adequate due diligence investigation into
the company prior to the IPO, and failed to disclose at the time
of the IPO that:

     (1) two of the company's board members, including Chairman
         Mark Nordlicht, and its only purported independent
         director, Albert Helmig, were actually related parties
         and board members of a company called Platinum Energy;

     (2) the company's customer base suffered from greater
         concentration than previously reported, with Bank of
         Montreal directly connected to over 80% of revenues,
         higher than the 20% to 30% reported; and

     (3) defendants had conspired with Bank of Montreal ("BMO")
         brokers to provide false trade data that was designed  
         to avoid reporting hundreds of millions of dollars in
         trading losses -- losses that, if disclosed, would have
         terminated the BMO trading relationship.

It was only beginning in late April 2007 -- after defendants
sold $28.94 million of their own shares to NYMEX Holdings in a
private sale -- that investors learned the truth about the
company.  On April 30, 2007, BMO's announcement of over $300
million in options-related losses shed light on the magnitude of
Optionable's reliance on BMO for a large portion of its
revenues.  Days later on May 10, 2007, BMO suspended trading
through Optionable and announced that its private forensic
accountants had discovered that its own brokers -- who by then
had been terminated -- had conspired to under-report trading
losses, in order to maintain trading and avoid accountability to
BMO.

On this news, Optionable's shares collapsed from just under
$5.00 per share on April 30, 2007 to just over $1.00 per share
on May 10, 2007 -- a decline of almost 80% in two trading days,
on huge volume of tens of millions of shares.  Subsequent news
has continued to shock investors.  On May 12, 2007, CEO Kevin
Cassidy resigned, after revelations surfaced that he failed to
disclose that he was sentenced to 30 months for a felony
conviction on credit card fraud in 1997 and 6 months for income
tax evasion in 1993.  Days later, on May 14th, NYMEX, owners of
19% of Optionable shares, announced that it was giving up its
board seat "to avoid potential conflicts of interest."  

Optionable shareholders have only 54 days or until July 10, 2007
to request to be appointed as a lead plaintiff in this case.  

In Nov., Judge Lewis Kaplan, appointed KLD lead plaintiff after
determining that it had the greatest financial interest in the
allegedly fraudulent energy trader.

KLD claimed a loss of over $3.7 million - more than three times
greater than any other movant's claimed loss, Judge Kaplan said.

The first identified suit is "Fleiss v. Optionable Inc. et al.,
Case Number: 1:2007cv03753," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan.


OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Reach Settlement in N.Y. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action, "In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW," have
reached a tentative settlement for the matter, 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.

                        Case Background

On or about Dec. 16, 2004, several purported shareholder class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against the company, certain of its current
and former executive officers, and the members of its Board of
Directors.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's common stock during certain
periods in 2004, which periods differed in the various
complaints.  

The court appointed a lead plaintiff who, on Feb. 17, 2006,
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint seeking to
represent a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's common stock during the period from April
26, 2004 through Nov. 22, 2004.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
material misstatements and omissions concerning the survival
benefit associated with company's product, Tarceva and the size
of the potential market of Tarceva upon FDA approval of the
drug.

It alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

On April 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Briefing on this motion was
completed on June 21, 2006.

In an opinion dated March 31, 2007 (and entered on the docket on
April 4, 2007), the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss.   

The Court dismissed claims against some of the individual
defendants and dismissed the Section 11 and 15 claims, but
granted the plaintiff 30 days leave to replead the Section 11
claim in accordance with the Court's order and to renew the
Section 15 claim.

Plaintiff did not amend, and thus those claims were dismissed
with prejudice.  The parties have now informed the Court that
they have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
action.  The parties are in the process of finalizing the
settlement papers, which will then be subject to Court approval.

The suit is "In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge
Joanna Seybert with referral to Judge William D. Wall.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com

             - and -

         Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, PC.
         19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 212-964-0046
         Fax: 212-267-8137
         E-mail: frank@spornlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
         Dechert LLP
         Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19104
         Phone: (215) 994-4000


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. face a purported class action in Illinois,
alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Transaction Act,
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 plaintiff alleges that, because the Company followed an
industry practice of displaying to the customer on a
confirmation page the expiration date of the customer's credit
card while the customer was online and logged into the
customer's own account, the Company has violated certain
provisions of the Act which prohibit a merchant from printing
the credit card expiration date on a receipt.  

Filed on Oct. 5, 2007, the case is styled as a class action
lawsuit on behalf of the nominative plaintiff and all others
similarly situated.

Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online  
closeout retailer offering discount brand name merchandise,
including bed-and-bath goods, home decor, kitchenware, watches,
jewelry, electronics and computers, sporting goods, apparel,
designer accessories and travel services, among other products.


PENN NATIONAL: Faces Pa. Litigation Over PNG Merger Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Penn National Gaming, Inc. faces a purported class action in
Pennsylvania over an announcement that it had entered into a
merger agreement that would ultimately result in the Company's
shareholders receiving $67.00 per share, 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 company made such an announcement on June 15, 2007. It
specifically stated that the Company, PNG Acquisition Co., Inc.
(Parent) and PNG Merger Sub Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent (Merger Sub), had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of June 15, 2007, that provides, among other
things, for Merger Sub to be merged with and into the Company,
as a result of which the Company will continue as the surviving
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.  Parent is
owned by certain funds managed by affiliates of Fortress
Investment Group LLC and Centerbridge Partners, L.P.

In reaction to the announcement on August 2007, a complaint was
filed on behalf of a putative class of public shareholders of
the Company, and derivatively on behalf of the Company, in the
Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania.

The Complaint names the company's Board of Directors as
defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant.  It alleges,
among other things, that the Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the proposed transaction with
Fortress and Centerbridge for inadequate consideration, that
certain members of the Board of Directors have conflicts with
regard to the Merger, and that the Company and its Board of
Directors have failed to disclose certain material information
with regard to the Merger.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a court order:

       -- determining that the action is properly maintained as
          a class action and a derivative action;

       -- enjoining the Company and its Board of Directors from
          consummating the proposed Merger; and

       -- awarding the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Penn National Gaming Inc. -- http://www.pngaming.com/-- is a  
diversified, multi-jurisdictional owner and operator of gaming
properties, as well as horse racetracks and associated off-track
wagering facilities.  


PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Court has yet to rule on a motion
seeking for a dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses Peoples Energy
Corp., which was recently acquired by Integrys Energy Group,
Inc., of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act in relation to matters at issue in the
utilities' fiscal year 2001 Gas Charge reconciliation
proceedings.

In February 2004, customers of The Peoples Gas Light and Coke
Co. and North Shore Gas Co. (NSG) filed a purported class action
in Cook County Circuit Court against Peoples Energy, Peoples
Gas, North Shore.

The suit, "Alport et al. v. Peoples Energy Corp.," seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.  Peoples Gas and
North Shore have been dismissed as defendants and the only
remaining counts of the suit allege violations of the Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and that Peoples
Energy acted in concert with others to commit a tortious act.  

Peoples Energy denies the allegations and is vigorously
defending the suit.

On Sept. 25, 2006, the court granted in part Peoples Energy's
motion to dismiss the case by limiting the potential class
members in the suit to those persons who were customers during
the time that Peoples Energy's joint venture with Enron was in
operation and did not receive part of the settlement proceeds
from the reconciliation cases.

However, the court denied Peoples Energy's motion to dismiss the
case to the extent that the complaint seeks punitive damages
(regardless of whether such customers received part of the
settlement proceeds from the reconciliation cases).

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a motion for
class certification and on April 25, 2007 the Court denied,
without prejudice, plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On June 29, 2007, Peoples Gas and North Shore filed a motion to
dismiss the proceeding for failure to join a necessary party.  
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2007.  

Subsequently, Peoples Gas' and North Shore's motion to delay
responding to the amended complaint until the court rules on the
motion to dismiss was granted.

Integrys Energy 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.

Peoples Energy Corp. -- http://www.pecorp.com-- is a holding  
company and does not engage directly in any business of its own.
It operates through its regulated utility subsidiaries, The
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., and North Shore Gas Co.  Peoples
Energy's other subsidiaries are Peoples Energy Resources Co.,
LLC, Peoples Energy Services Corporation, Peoples Energy
Production Co. and Peoples District Energy Corp.  It has five
segments: Gas Distribution, Oil and Gas Production, Energy
Marketing, Energy Assets, and Corporate and Other.


PEOPLES ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Connections Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Energy Corp., which was recently acquired by Integrys
Energy Group, Inc., along with its utility subsidiaries are
seeking for the dismissal of an amended class action complaint
that accuses them of improperly charging connection and
disconnection fees to several Chicago-based builders.

In June 2005, the purported class action was filed against the
company by Birchwood Builders, LLC in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.  It named as defendants:

       -- Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co.; and
       -- North Shore Gas Co.

The suit generally accuses defendants of fraudulently and
improperly charging fees to customers with respect to utility
connections, disconnections, reconnections, relocations,
extensions of gas service pipes and extensions of distribution
gas mains and failing to return related customer deposits.

Peoples Gas and North Shore filed two motions to dismiss the
lawsuit.  On Jan. 25, 2007, the judge entered an order
dismissing the complaint, but allowing the plaintiffs the option
of filing an amended complaint, except as to the plaintiffs'
seeking of declaratory relief, which was dismissed with
prejudice.  

The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs could file their claims
directly with the Illinois Commerce Commission.  

On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the
Circuit Court.  Peoples Gas and North Shore responded by filing
a motion to dismiss and are awaiting a decision on this motion.

Integrys Energy 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.

Peoples Energy Corp. -- http://www.pecorp.com-- is a holding  
company and does not engage directly in any business of its own.
It operates through its regulated utility subsidiaries, The
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., and North Shore Gas Co.  Peoples
Energy's other subsidiaries are Peoples Energy Resources Co.,
LLC, Peoples Energy Services Corporation, Peoples Energy
Production Co. and Peoples District Energy Corp.  It has five
segments: Gas Distribution, Oil and Gas Production, Energy
Marketing, Energy Assets, and Corporate and Other.


PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Faces Lawsuit in Colo. Over Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Development Corp. is facing class-action complaint
filed Dec. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado accusing it of not paying enough royalties on natural
gas production from wells in Colorado, the Daily Mail reports.

The four plaintiffs, Colorado and Montana residents, claim
Petroleum Development has been paying out royalties after
deducting costs of getting the natural gas into marketable
condition, rather than making payments based on what the gas
would fetch on the commercial market.

According to the complaint, at least $5 million was believed to
be at issue.

The suit is "Amsbaugh et al v. Petroleum Development
Corporation, Case Number: 1:2007cv02508," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge John L.
Kane.


POLO RALPH: Faces Labor-Related Lawsuit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. faces a purported class action in
California that is alleging violations of California wage and
hour laws, 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. 29, 2007.

On Aug. 21, 2007, eleven former and current employees of the
company's Club Monaco stores in California filed a lawsuit in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging violations of the state's
wage and hour laws by improperly classifying employees as exempt
and by failing to pay overtime work and granting meal breaks to
workers

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, attorney's fees and punitive damages.

Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com-- is a  
global player in the design, marketing and distribution of
lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's
apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings.  The
Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and
Licensing.


SILICON IMAGE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action against Silicon Image,
Inc. are appealing to the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit the dismissal of their fourth consolidated amended
securities fraud complaint in the matter, which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Commenced on Jan. 31, 2005, the lawsuit, "Curry v. Silicon
Image, Inc., Steve Tirado, and Robert Gargus," alleged that the
company and certain of its officers and directors made alleged
misstatements of material facts and violated certain provisions
of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The case was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock from Oct. 19, 2004 to Jan. 24, 2005.

On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing lead
plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.  On July
27, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.   
The consolidated amended complaint no longer named Mr. Gargus as
an individual defendant, but added Dr. David Lee as an
individual defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint also expanded the class
period from June 25, 2004 to April 22, 2005.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Sept.
26, 2005.  

Plaintiffs subsequently received leave to file, and did file, a
second consolidated amended complaint on Dec. 8, 2005.  The
second consolidated amended complaint extends the end of the
class period from April 22, 2005 to Oct. 13, 2005 and adds
additional factual allegations under the same causes of action
against the company, Mr. Tirado and Dr. Lee.  The complaint also
adds a new plaintiff, James D. Smallwood.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 9, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on April 10, 2006
and defendants filed a reply to plaintiffs' opposition on May
19, 2006.

On June 21, 2006 the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint with leave to amend.  

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended
complaint (by the court established deadline of July 21, 2006.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
on Sept. 1, 2006 and subsequent pleadings by the parties
followed in November and December of 2006 and January of 2007.

On Feb. 23, 2007, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint with leave to amend.  

Plaintiffs filed a fourth consolidated amended complaint on
March 30, 2007.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint on May 25, 2007.

Following subsequent pleading by both parties, on Sept. 21,
2007, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Fourth
CAC, without further leave to amend.  Final judgment was entered
in favor of defendants on Sept. 25, 2007.

On Oct. 19, 2007, plaintiffs filed notice of appeal of the
court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, 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 is "In Re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Maxine M.
Chesney.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Aaron H. Darsky Esq.
         Schubert & Reed, LLP
         Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-788-4220
         Fax: 415-788-0161
         E-mail: adarsky@schubert-reed.com

         Merrick Scott Rayle, Esq.
         Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP
         212 Wood Street
         Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227
         Phone: 831-333-0309
         Fax: 831-333-0325
         E-mail: mrayle@lshllp.com

              - and -

         Richard A. Speirs, Esq.
         Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
         41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
         New York, NY 10010
         Phone: 212-223-3900

Representing the defendants is:

         Emmett C. Stanton, Esq.
         Fenwick & West, LLP
         Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street
         Mountain View, CA 94041-2008
         Phone: 650-988-8500
         Fax: 650-938-5200
         E-mail: estanton@fenwick.com


SOURCEFIRE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sourcefire, Inc. continues to face a  consolidated securities
fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland, 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.

On May 8, 2007, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, against the
company and certain of its officers and directors, captioned,
"Howard Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
01210-WMN."

Since then, two other putative class actions were filed in the  
U.S. District Court of Maryland against the company and certain
of its  officers and directors and other parties making similar
allegations, captioned:

       -- "Mark Reaves v. Sourcefire, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:07-
          cv-01351-JFM," and

       -- "Joan Raveill v. Sourcefire, Inc. et al, Case No.
          1:07-cv-01425-WMN."

In addition, a fourth putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against us and certain of our officers and directors and other
parties making similar allegations, captioned, "Barry Pincus v.
Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-04720-RJH."

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, in an order entered on
or about June 29, 2007 by the U.S,. District Court of the
Southern District of New York, the court ordered that the Pincus
case should be transferred to the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland.

These actions claim to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased our common stock pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering.

These lawsuits allege violations of Section 11, Section 12 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in
connection with allegedly material misleading statements and/or
omissions contained in the registration statement and
prospectus.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a determination of
class action status, compensatory and rescission damages, a
rescission of the initial public offering, as well as fees and
costs on behalf of a putative class.

On July 13, 2007, Sandra Amrhein filed a motion to consolidate
the four cases, to appoint her lead plaintiff and to approve her
choice of lead and liaison counsel.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the Court granted a motion to consolidate the
four putative class action lawsuits into a single civil action.
In that same Order, the Court also appointed Ms. Amrheim as lead
plaintiff, the law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead
counsel, and Tydings & Rosenberg LLP as liaison counsel.

On Oct. 4, 2007, Ms. Amrheim filed an Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint asserting legal claims that previously had been
asserted in one or more of the four original actions.

Pursuant to a Stipulated Motion filed on Oct. 22, 2007, the
Company and the Individual Defendants will file a motion to
dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or
before Nov. 20, 2007.

The suit is "Howard Katz, et al. v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY, 10022
          Phone: 212.687.1980
          Fax: 212.687.7714
          E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
          100 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD, 21202
          Phone: 410.752.9700
          Fax: 410.757.5460
          E-mail: webmaster@tydingslaw.com


TEMPLE-INLAND: California Lawsuit Over Home Loans Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Orange County, Calif. recently granted
Temple-Inland Mortgage Corp.'s motion to dismiss a class action
that is accusing it of failing to timely reconvey home loans

On July 5, 2007, a class was certified in the suit, "Soriano v.
Temple-Inland Mortgage Corp.," (Class Action Reporter, July 11,
2007).    

The suit is generally alleging defendant violated that state's
laws related to the time in which a mortgage company is required
to file a release of lien following payment of a mortgage on
residential real estate.

The lead plaintiff in the case used to be a customer of Temple-
Inland Mortgage Corp.  He claims his title was not properly
reconveyed by the company after his loan was refinanced,
violating California Civil Code Section 2941.

The statute stipulates that lenders must timely reconvey title
to homeowners' properties after loans are paid in full.  In
addition, the statute requires a $300 to $500 penalty each time
it is violated.

The company  exited the mortgage loan servicing business in late
2004.  

The court recently granted the company's  motion to dismiss this
case, which the plaintiff may appeal, according the company's
Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 29,
2007.

Temple-Inland, Inc. -- http://www.templeinland.com/-- is a  
holding company, which through its subsidiaries operates four
business segments: corrugated packaging, forest products, real
estate and financial services.


TEMPLE INLAND: Working to Settle Suits Over On-Duty Meal Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Temple Inland, Inc. is working to settle several class actions
filed against the company in California state court that were
alleging violations of that state's on-duty meal break laws.

All in all, a total of four class action claims in California
state court were filed against the Company.

In second quarter 2007, the company reached agreements to settle
two of these cases, both of which have been approved by the
courts in which these cases are pending.

However, following one of the settlements a new case regarding
the same plant and class in one of the settled cases was filed
regarding an extended statute of limitations period as a result
of a recent California Supreme Court decision.

The company is currently defending the remaining active cases
and are pursuing reasonable settlements, according the company's
Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 29,
2007.

Temple-Inland, Inc. -- http://www.templeinland.com/-- is a  
holding company, which through its subsidiaries operates four
business segments: corrugated packaging, forest products, real
estate and financial services.


UNITED KINGDOM: Faces Suit Over "Maltreatment" of Indian Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnic Indians have filed a class action against the British
government for bringing Indians to Malaysia as indentured
workers, it emerged in reports about the group's protests in
Kuala Lumpur.

According to the New Straits Times, the suit was filed on
Aug. 30 in Britain.  It was brought against the British
government for its alleged exploitation of Indian workers for
150 years and for failing to protect their rights.

In November, some 10,000 ethnic Indians protested in Kuala
Lumpur against the Malaysian government's racial discrimination
policies.   The Hindu Rights Action front (Hindraf) is taking a
petition to the British High Commission "seeking the support of
Queen Elizabeth II for a Queen's Counsel to argue the case for
the Indian community in the suit, according to a report by The
Times of India.

Hindraf has also asked for a compensation of $4 trillion from
the British government.

The lawsuit demands compensation from the U.K. for transporting
Indians to Malaysia during the colonial era, according to
another report by The Times of India.  The report states that
While Malays form about 65% of Malaysia's population and Chinese
about 25%, Indians form 10% of the population.


WESTERN REFINING: Subsidiaries Face "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit in Kans.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Western Refining, Inc. face a consolidated class
action entitled, "In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, 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.

Initially, on March 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed in
New Mexico naming numerous retail suppliers of motor fuel as
defendants, including subsidiaries of the Company.  

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that, by consciously
selling gasoline at a temperature greater than 60ø Fahrenheit,
the defendants are depriving consumers of the full amount of
energy that should be delivered when gasoline is delivered at a
cooler temperature.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and also seek
to require the defendants to install temperature-adjustment
devices at the pumps.  

Similar class action lawsuits have been filed in several other
jurisdictions.

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated the actions and unsigned them under the title, "In
re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket
No 1840," to Judge Kathryn Vratil of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007).

Western Refining, Inc. -- http://www.westernrefining.com/-- is  
an independent crude oil refiner and marketer of refined
products based in El Paso, Texas, and operates in the Southwest
region of the U.S., including Arizona, New Mexico and West
Texas.  


WORLD SAVINGS: Faces Fraud Lawsuit in S.C. Over "Option ARM"
------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Mincey of Hanahan of Berkeley County is suing her
mortgage lender over its adjustable rate mortgage called an
"Option ARM."

Ms. Mincey filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Charleston
on Nov. 16 against World Savings Bank FSB, its former parent
company Golden West Financial Corp., and its present owner
Wachovia Corp.

The suit claims borrowers were offered multiple monthly payment
options, such as paying only a minimum amount, paying interest
only, or payments based on either a 30- or 15-year period.  The
lawsuit states that about 80 percent of borrowers with these
types of loans make only the minimum payment each month.  

However, by paying only the minimum, he unpaid interest is added
to the balance of the mortgage, a process called "negative
amortization."  The suit says the borrowers were not properly
informed about this.  Once the balance reaches a set amount,
usually 125 percent of the original principle, the loan
automatically resets to a higher interest rate.

The suit claims defendants violated the federal Truth in Lending
Act.

Ms. Mincey is seeking unspecified damages.  She is represented
by attorney, Daniel O. Myers, who is seeking class-action status
for the suit.    

The suit is "Mincey v. World Savings Bank FSB et al., Case No.
2:2007-cv-03762," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
District of South Carolina before Honorable Patrick Michael
Duffy.

Representing Ms. Mincey is:

         Daniel O. Myers, Esq.
         Mount Pleasant, South Carolina
         Phone: 843-727-6579
         Toll Free: 888-293-6883
         Fax: 843-216-6509
         E-mail: dmyers@rpwb.com


ZURN-PEX INC: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Faulty Fittings
-----------------------------------------------------
Zurn-Pex Inc., an acquisition of RBS Global, Inc., faces
purported class actions in Minnesota and North Dakota over the
failure of the Zurn brass crimp fittings on the Pex plumbing
systems, 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. 29, 2007.

                         Cox Litigation

In July 2007, Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries, Inc., were
named as defendants in a class action lawsuit entitled, "Denise
and Terry Cox, et al. vs. Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries,
Inc."  

The suit was filed in Minnesota state court and subsequently
removed to federal court in Minnesota under Case No. 0:07-cv-
03652-ADM-RLE.

                        Barnes Litigation

In October 2007, Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries, Inc., were
named as defendants in a class action lawsuit entitled, "Beverly
Barnes and Brian Johnson, et al. vs. Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn
Industries, Inc."  

The suit was filed in federal court in North Dakota.  This suit
was filed by the same law firm that filed the Cox action above
and the allegations are substantially the same.

                      General Allegations

The plaintiffs are home owners in Minnesota and North Dakota,
respectively, who have allegedly suffered damages due to the
failure of the Zurn brass crimp fittings on the Pex plumbing
systems in their homes.

They seek certification of the cases as class actions,
alternatively seeking Minnesota and North Dakota classes,
respectively, or a national class.

The complaints assert various causes of action, including but
not limited to negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, and a
violation of the Magnuson Moss Act, and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, and damages in unspecified amounts.

Zurn-Pex Inc. -- http://www.zurnpex.com/-- has long been a   
forerunner in providing cutting edge technology for your
plumbing and heating needs. It manufactures and distributes one
of the largest plumbing products packages in the world.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
announced that a class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of securities of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.
(NYSE:BBX) from November 9, 2005 through October 25, 2007,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges BankAtlantic and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. BankAtlantic is a financial services holding company that,
through its subsidiaries, provides a full line of products and
services encompassing consumer and commercial banking. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company had granted a $27 million loan without
         having obtained an adequate appraisal of the underlying
         collateral;

     (2) that the Company had failed to properly classify this
         under-collateralized $27 million loan as an impaired
         loan;

     (3) that the Company's exposure to "at-risk" loans was
         significantly understated;

     (4) that the Company had significantly under-reserved for
         loan losses in its portfolio, which had the effect of
         understating the Company's loan loss reserves and
         overstating its net income;

     (5) that the Company had deferred the recognition of losses
         associated with certain non-accrual loans rather than
         taking timely writedowns on such loans;

     (6) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         statements were materially false and misleading at all
         relevant times;

     (7) that the defendants had failed to comply with the
         Company's policies relating to collateral based
         lending, underwriting and risk management;

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

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

On October 25, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
reported its third quarter 2007 financial and operational
results. For the quarter, the Company announced a net loss of
$29.6 million, or ($0.52) per diluted share, as compared to net
income of $2.5 million, or $0.04 per diluted share, for the
third quarter of 2006. Additionally, the Company disclosed that
its non- performing loans had increased from $21.8 million at
June 30, 2007 to $165.4 million at September 30, 2007, and that
its loss experience for the quarter was a net charge-off of
$11.3 million, as compared to a net recovery of $0.2 million for
the quarter ended September 30, 2006. Included in the $11.3
million net charge-off was $8.8 million related to the write-
down of one "builder land bank loan." On this news, the
Company's shares fell $2.93 per share, or over 38.3 percent, to
close on October 26, 2007 at $4.72 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 28,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action in the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the preferred securities or
common stock of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. during the expanded
Class Period of November 3, 2006 through November 2, 2007,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Merrill and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that Merrill had
gone aggressively into Collateralized Debt Obligations ("CDOs"),
securities backed by pools of assets including mortgages, which
generated higher yields in the short term but which would be
devastating to the Company as the real estate market continued
to soften and the risky loans led to losses.

According to the Complaint, the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) Merrill was exposed to more CDOs containing subprime
         debt than it disclosed; and

     (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times because they failed to
         disclose to the market the extent of the Company's
         exposure to losses arising from its investments in CDOs
         and other subprime loans due to the deteriorating
         subprime mortgage market which caused the Company's
         portfolio to be impaired.

On October 5, 2007, Merrill acknowledged that it would have to
take a $4.5 billion charge for the third quarter 2007 for
mortgage and credit problems. Then, on October 24, 2007, Merrill
issued a press release before the market opened announcing that
the Company would take an $8 billion charge for the third
quarter, instead of the $4.5 billion previously announced. In
reaction to this news of its largest quarterly loss in its 93
year history, Merrill's stock closed at $63.22 on October 24,
2007, down from the previous day's close of $67.12. Following
what it characterized as Merrill's "startling" announcement, on
October 24, 2007, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its
credit ratings on Merrill from A+/A-1 to AA-/A-1+, with a
negative outlook. Subsequently, on October 25, 2007, Merrill's
stock closed at $60.90. Then, on November 2, 2007, it was
reported that Merrill may have engaged in hedge fund deals
designed to cover up and delay the reporting of losses to its
CDO portfolio. Upon this news, Merrill's stock dropped even
further to close at $57.28 on November 2, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 2,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Eva Hromadkova
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          E-mail: evah@murrayfrank.com
          Website: http://www.murrayfrank.com


SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Wolf Haldenstein Files AZ Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of
Arizona, on behalf of all persons who acquired the common stock,
sold put options, or bought call options of Syntax-Brillian
Corporation (NASDAQ:BRLC) between May 3, 2007 and September 12,
2007, inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a) and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder by the SEC, including Rule
10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

During the Class Period, Defendants issued to the investing
public false and misleading financial statements and press
releases concerning the Company's publicly reported revenues,
earnings, business operations and prospects, and true state of
internal controls over financial reporting.

On September 12, 2007, after the market closed for trading, BRLC
announced that calendar year revenues would be several hundreds
of millions of dollars below previously issued guidance, that
the Company suffered failures in its accounting systems
requiring it to revise certain expense items, and that it
identified a material weakness in controls related to the
Company's inventory process, revenue process, reserves and
allowances process, income tax provision process and financial
statement close procedures. The Company further disclosed that
it was experiencing trouble securing sufficient supplies of
panels, it did not have adequate financing to meet demand, and
was experiencing difficulty in collecting its receivables in a
prompt manner.

These disclosures, which contradicted much of the information
Defendants issued to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's reported revenues and results, caused
the Company's stock to drop the next day from $6.13 to $4.01, or
35% on volume of 36 million shares (nearly 14 times the average
daily volume).

As detailed in the complaint, BRLC insiders, however, faired far
better than public stockholders. Indeed, while in possession of
material, non-public information, defendants sold nearly $170
million worth of stock at inflated prices.

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading
statements set forth in the complaint, the market price of BRLC
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In
ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described above, and the deceptive and manipulative devices and
contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs and the
other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the
integrity of the market price of BRLC securities. Had plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would
not have purchased said common stock, or would not have
purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 15,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Website: http://www.whafh.com


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Girard Gibbs Files CA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit on
December 4, 2007, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. (NYSE:PAY) between March 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007,
inclusive.

The class action alleges that VeriFone and certain of its
present and former officers violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  It is brought against defendants VeriFone Holdings,
Inc., Douglas G. Bergeron and Barry Zwarenstein.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations in its filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and press releases. According to the
Complaint, Defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) VeriFone overstated previously reported inventories in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

     (2) VeriFone understated the cost of net revenues in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;
         and

     (3) as a result, VeriFone' s financial results were
         unreliable.

The Complaint also alleges that, as a result of the inflated
share price, the individual defendants were able sell their
personal shares of VeriFone stock for tens of millions of
dollars during the Class Period.

On December 3, 2007, VeriFone announced that it was restating
its financial statements for the first three fiscal quarters of
2007, and that the previous statements could no longer be relied
upon. In reaction to this news, VeriFoneA' s share price fell by
45%--or $22 per share--on nearly 35 times its average trading
volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 4,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

         Aaron M. Sheanin
         601 California Street, 14 th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Phone number: (866) 981-4800
         Email: ams@girardgibbs.com
         Website: http://www.girardgibbs.com/pay.html

                           *********


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  * * *