CAR_Public/071211.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Tuesday, December 11, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 245

                            Headlines


APPLICA CONSUMER: Recalls Toasters that can Overheat, Ignite
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Automatic Renewal of Elders' CDs
BASIC RESEARCH: Faces Fraud Suit Over Akavar Dietary Supplement
CHICAGO MERCANTILE: Del. Court OKs $7.4M LAMPERS Suit Settlement
CHOICEPOINT INC: Awaits Final Approval of DPPA Suit Settlement

CHOICEPOINT INC: “Taylor” Privacy Violations Lawsuit Pending
CHOICEPOINT INC: Ga. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
CHOICEPOINT INC: 11th Circuit Considers Appeal in Ga. ERISA Case
CKX INC: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Merger
COMMERCE BANCORP: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over TD Bank Merger

CROCS INC: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Colorado Federal Court
EMERY WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face WARN Violations Suit in Ohio
FIFIELD COS: Ocean Marine Condo Buyers File Fraud Suit in Fla.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Recalls Combo Wall Ovens Posing Fire Hazard
GLASS-TUBE MAKERS: Princeton Display Files Price Fixing Lawsuit

HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: N.Y. Court Keeps $3B Tribal Court Order
HCA INC: Tenn. Court OKs $20M Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
HCA INC: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tenn.
HCA INC: Awaits Tenn. Court's Approval of Merger Suit Settlement
HCA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Kans. Understaffing Suit

HCC INSURANCE: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
HOSPIRA INC: Still Faces Ill. Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
HOSPIRA INC: Faces Suits in Tex., Hawaii Over Drug Pricing
MEMORY CARD MAKERS: $2.4M Legal Fee in Flash Memory Suit Upheld
NEW MEXICO: City Bus Drivers File Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages

NURSING HOMES: Cal. Court Junks Suit Over Nurse “Understaffing”
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: N.Y. Suit Over 11% Global Notes Certified
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Suit Over 9.75% Global Notes Certified
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: N.Y. Suit Over L+0.8125 Bonds Certified
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Court Certifies Suit Over 7% Global Notes

REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: N.Y. Suit Over 11% Global Notes Certified
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Suit Over 8.375% Global Notes Certified
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Suit Over 12.375% Global Notes Certified
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Suit Over 11.75% Global Notes Certified
SECURITY PLAN: Court Rules Out Flooding Coverage in Katrina Suit
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Faces Fraud Lawsuit Over Satellite Notebooks


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

VERIFONE HOLDINGS: KGS Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.


                            *********  


APPLICA CONSUMER: Recalls Toasters that can Overheat, Ignite
------------------------------------------------------------
Applica Consumer Products Inc., of Miramar, Fla., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 70,000 Black & Decker(r) brand Infrawave(tm) Toasters.

The company said an electrical component in the toaster can
overheat and ignite the circuit board, posing a fire hazard.

Applica has received two reports of the toasters
igniting, including one report of fire that damaged a kitchen
countertop and cabinets. There have been no reported injuries.

The recalled two-slice toaster is black with stainless steel
trim and has a digital display below the toaster lever.  The
Black & Decker(r) brand name is on the top of the toaster. Model
number ST2000 is printed on the rating plate on the bottom of
the toaster.

The toasters were made in China and sold at Home improvement and
discount department retailers nationwide from March 2007 through
November 2007 for about $50.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled toaster, unplug
it immediately, and contact Applica to receive a refund.

For additional information, contact Applica at (800)
556-9439 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday,
or log on to http://www.acprecall.com.

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including a picture of
the recalled product, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08111.html


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Automatic Renewal of Elders' CDs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America, N.A. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
alleging it defrauded elderly people by automatically renewing
their Certificate Deposits (CDs) under "Premier" and "Plus"
banking services at significantly lower interest rates than it
offers other customers, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Dr. Sheldon and Ruth Kriegel allege the bank
engages in a deceptive scheme, in breach of fiduciary duties and
contract obligations, whereby the bank purported to offer and
provide to plaintiffs -- as holders of substantial bank
certificates of deposits or time deposit accounts  -- "Premier"
and "Plus" banking services when, in fact, the opposite of such
services were provided.

Specifically, the bank allegedly took affirmative steps to
ensure that their "Premier" or "Plus" clients, reasonably relied
on their Premier or Plus status with the bank in allowing Bank
of America to automatically renew their CDs at maturity,
received rates of interest well below market rates and even
below rates Bank of America offered to other customers for
renewal of CDs of the same amount and term.

Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil procedure 23(a) and 23(b) on behalf of
all Premier bank holders whose CDs or time deposit account was
automatically renewed by the bank at a rate and the Annual
Percentage Yield (APY) that was less than the interest rate
offered to other bank customers at the time for the same CD
amount and term, since on or about April 1, 2004 up to the
present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants violated Massachusetts Consumer
         Protection Act c. 93A through their deceitful and
         improper conduct as alleged;

     (b) whether defendants violated the NYSE and NASD rules and
         regulations through the improper conduct alleged;

     (c) whether defendants breached their fiduciary duties, and
         engaged in prohibited self-dealing and undisclosed
         conflicts of interest by failing to disclose adequately
         their conflicts of interest or the alternatives
         available to the customers and by automatically
         renewing CDs at low interest rates;

     (d) whether defendants' disclosures to plaintiffs and other
         members of the class in account agreements, account
         statements, mailings web pages, brochures, bank
         displays, bank boards, advertisements, and other
         uniform disclosures during the class period, were
         materially false and misleading, including that
         customers could have obtained higher rates through
         other investments alternatives, and the CDs into which
         defendants placed customers' money were more profitable
         to defendants but not to the customers;

     (e) whether defendants had a duty to discloe material
         facts, such as the special meaning of terms used in
         disclosures regarding rate offered upon renewal of CDs,
         or the need to call in and specifically request a
         better rate to avoid obtaining a lower rate upon
         automatic renewal of a certificate of deposit;

     (f) whether defendants' conduct complained of constituted
         negligent misrepresentation, fraud, or deceit;

     (g) whether defendants breached their contracts with
         customers, including the implied covenant of good faith
         and fair dealing;

     (h) whether plaintiffs suffered damages, and to what
         extent;

     (i) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by their
         misconduct and violations of law;

     (j) to what extent defendants were unjustly benefited by
         and should be held to account for their wrongful
         conduct;

     (k) whether defendants' contracts with plaintiffs and othe
         members of the class should be rescinded or voided; and

     (l) should defendants be directed to disgorge profits.

Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment as follows:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action,
        certifying plaintiffs as class representatives under
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- awarding compensatory and punitive damages in favor of
        plaintiffs and the other class members against
        defendants for all damages sustained as a result of
        defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be determined at
        trial, including pre- and post-judgment interest
        thereon;

     -- requiring defendants to account for and/or pay in
        damages to plaintiffs and the other class members the
        amount by which defendnats benefited due to defendants'
        wrongful conduct;

     -- deeming monies obtained through the defendants'
        fraudulent, unfair, and unconscionable conduct, in
        breach of their duties, which caused defendants to be
        unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiffs and
        the other class members, to be held in constructive
        trust for the plaintiffs and the class members;

     -- entering a Declaratory Judgment that defendants'
        agreements with plaintiffs and the other class members
        are void, and awarding equitable relief, including
        rescission, restitution and disgorgemnt of all monies
        and profits obtained by defendants pursuant to or as a
        result of those agreements;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the other class members their
        reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
        including counsel fees and costs, and expert fees and
        costs; and

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

The suit is "Dr. Sheldon Kriegel et al. v. Bank of America
Corp., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Scott L. Lopez
          Law Office of Scott P. Lopez
          24 School Street, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: (617) 742-5700
          Fax: (617) 742-5715

          - and -

          Samuel P. Sporn
          Joel P. Laitman
          Frank R. Schirripa
          Daniel B. Rehns
          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: (212) 964-0046
          Fax: (212) 267-8137


BASIC RESEARCH: Faces Fraud Suit Over Akavar Dietary Supplement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Research, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento claiming it defrauded consumers by selling Akavar and
claiming that 100% of its lucky takers will "see excess fat
'pulled from bulging parts of your body,'" the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The complaint also names the following as defendants:

     -- Dynakor Pharmaceutical,
     -- Western Holdings,
     -- Dennis Gay,
     -- Daniel Mowrey Ph.D., and
     -- Mitchell Friedlander.

The complaint claims defendants fraudulently manufactured,
advertised, marketed and sold the dietary supplement Akavar
20/50.  During the class period, defendants have, allegedly,
knowingly engaged in a deliberate campaign of widespread fraud
and deception intended to dupe unsuspecting consumers into
purchasing millions of dollars worth of Akavar, purportedly
designed to cause weight loss and improve bodily appearance.

Named plaintiff Mary Tompkins asserts claims for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Act (Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200); False Advertising Act (Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500)
and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code Section 1780).

She brings this action, in accordance with Civ. Code Section
1781, Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 382 and Rule 1850 et seq. of the
California Rules of Court, on behalf of all residents of the
State of California who purchased, not for resale or assignment
Akavar 20/50.

Ms. Tompkins wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants violated California law;

     (b) whether defendants' misrepresented the efficacy of
         Akavar to consumers' financial detriment;

     (c) whether defendants fraudulently concealed from and/or
         failed to disclose to plaintiffs the true nature of
         Akavar;

     (d) whether the facts concealed and/or not disclosed by
         defendants to plaintiffs are material facts;

     (e) whether, as a result of defendants' concealment of
         and/or failure to disclose material facts, plaintiffs
         justifiably acted to their detriment by purchasing
         Akavar;

     (f) whether defendants engaged in unfair competition or
         unfair, unlawful or deceptive acts or practices when
         they represented, through advertising, warranties and
         other express representations, that Akavar had
         characteristics that it does not actually have;

     (g) whether Akavar failed to perform in accordance with the
         reasonable expectations of ordinary consumers;

     (h) whether defendants should be enjoined from the
         continued unlawful marketing, advertising, promotion,
         distribution and sale of Akavar;

     (i) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by their acts
         and omissions, at the expense of plaintiffs;

     (k) whether plaintiffs have sustained damages and loss
         thereby;

     (l) whether plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory,
         injunctive or other equitable relief;

     (m) whether the defendants should be declared financially
         responsible for notifying all class members of the true
         nature of Akavar and for the costs and expenses of a
         recall or buy-back;

     (n) whether plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory
         damages, and the amount of such damages; and

     (o) whether defendants should be ordered to disgorge, for
         the benefit of the class and the general public, all or
         part of their ill-gotten profits received from the sale
         of Akavar, and whether defendants should be ordered to
         make full restitution to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

     -- certification of the class and any subclasses the court
        deems appropriate, appointment of plaintiff as class
        representative, and appointment of plaintiff's counsel
        of record as class counsel;

     -- restitution for the plaintiff and class of the monies
        defendants unjustly received and retained from the
        purchase of Akavar in accordance with proof;

     -- disgorgement of defendants' revenues or profits
        attributable to its unjust enrichment as to plaintiffs
        and members of the class;

     -- prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as appropriate
        and at the maximum legal rate;

     -- reasonable costs and attorney fees, as allowed by law,
        and/or from the common fund, and for all costs
        associated with administration of the common fund;

     -- a declaration of financial responsibility on the part of
        defendants' for the costs of class notification;

     -- punitive damages; and

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

The suit is "Mary Tompkins et al. v. Basic Research LLC, Case
No. 34-2007-00882581-CU-MC-GDS," filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, for the County of Sacramento.

Representing plaintiffs are:

           Tracey Buck-Walsh
           Law Offices of Tracey Buck-Walsh
           6 Reyes Court
           Sacramento, CA 95831
           Phone: (916) 392-8990
           Fax: (916) 393-1757
           E-mail: tracey@tbwlaw.com

           - and -

           Tom Mauriello
           Law Offices of Thomas D. Mauriello
           22 Battery Street, Suite 1000
           San Francisco, CA 94111
           Phone: (415) 677-1238
           Fax: (415) 677-1233
           E-mail: tomm@maurlaw.com


CHICAGO MERCANTILE: Del. Court OKs $7.4M LAMPERS Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware approved a
proposed settlement in the purported class action, “Louisiana
Municipal Employees’ Retirement System v. CBOT Holdings, Inc.,
et al. Case No. 2803.”

LAMPERS filed the suit against CBOT Holdings, its directors and
Chicago Mercantile Exchange Holdings, Inc. (CME Holdings) on
March 16, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that CBOT Holdings
and its directors breached their fiduciary duties related to the
sale of CBOT Holdings by approving allegedly improper deal
protection devices including a $240.0 million termination fee
and a no-shop/no-talk provision.

It further alleges that CME Holdings aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The plaintiff sought to
enjoin the CBOT Holdings/CME merger.

Based on revisions to the merger providing for the special
dividend of $9.14 payable to each shareholder of CBOT Holdings
Class A common stock at the effective time of the merger and the
granting appraisal rights to holders of shares of CBOT Holdings,
the company and LAMPERS reached a memorandum of understanding
for the settlement of this litigation.

As part of the settlement, the company agreed to pay the fees
and expenses of plaintiff’s counsel approved by the court in an
amount not to exceed $7.4 million.

The terms of the settlement were approved by the court on Sept.
25, 2007 and provided for the payment of fees and expenses of
plaintiff’s counsel of $6.3 million.

The suit is "Louisiana Municipal Employees’ Retirement System v.
CBOT Holdings, Inc., et al. Case No. 2803," filed in the Court
of the Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 554-1282 and (212) 554-1400
         Fax: (212) 554-1444
         E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
         Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com
       
              - and –

         Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
         Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
         1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302) 622-7070
         Fax: (302) 622-7100
         E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
         Web site: http://www.gelaw.com/stuartm_grant.cfm


CHOICEPOINT INC: Awaits Final Approval of DPPA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, Inc. has yet to report that the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida has granted final approval
to a proposed settlement of the class action, “Fresco, et al. v.
Automotive Directions Inc., et al.,” which alleges violation of
the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and names ChoicePoint, Inc.,
as a defendant.

The class action was filed on Aug. 11, 2003 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  It alleges that the
company obtained, disclosed and used information obtained from
the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
(DHSMV) in violation of DPPA.

The plaintiffs seek to represent classes of individuals whose
personal information from Florida DHSMV records has been
obtained, disclosed and used for marketing purposes or other
allegedly impermissible uses by the company without the express
written consent of the individual.

A number of the company's competitors have also been sued in the
same or similar litigation in Florida.  This complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive and other relief.

The company has joined with the other defendants in a motion for
judgment on the pleadings as to the plaintiffs' "obtaining"
claim.  To date, the court has not ruled on the pending motion.

After vigorously defending against the action, the defendants
engaged in court ordered mediation beginning in February 2006.  
A proposed settlement agreement was filed with the court on Dec.
20, 2006 on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all but two of the
named defendants.

On May 11, 2007, the District Court entered orders which, among
other things:

       -- granted preliminary approval of the proposed class
          action settlement;

       -- certified the conditional nationwide class;

       -- denied the motion of the Texas plaintiffs (referenced
          below) to intervene in Fresco;

       -- and granted an injunction to maintain the status quo,
          which prohibits the Texas action (referenced below)
          from moving forward.

On May 11, 2007, the Texas intervenors and the putative class
members in the Texas case filed a notice of appeal with respect
to the denial of the motion for limited intervention and the
granting of the temporary injunction.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, then, issued
an order dated June 6, 2007, questioning whether it has
jurisdiction over the appeal.  

The interested parties have submitted briefs to the Court of
Appeals responding to this question.  To date, the Court of
Appeals has not ruled on the issue.

On June 13, 2007, the Texas intervenors filed a motion to stay
asking that the District Court stay implementation of the
settlement approval process until the Court of Appeals has had
time to evaluate the appeal.  

On July 26, 2007, the District Court denied the Texas
intervenors’ motion.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the District Court held the final approval
hearing on the proposed class action settlement.  The Court has
not yet issued a ruling, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions,
Inc., et al., Case No. CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
under Judge Jose E. Martinez with referral to Judge Ted E.
Bandstra.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
          Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
          150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-372-2772
          Fax: 305-375-0243
          E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq.
          Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells
          777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-374-8200
          Fax: 374-8208
          E-mail: lgoodman@devinegoodman.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Alan Graham Greer, Esq.
          Richman Greer Weil Brumbaug Mirabito & Christensen
          201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-373-4000
          Fax: 305-373-4099
          E-mail: agreer@richmangreer.com

               - and -

          Deanna Kendall Shullman, Esq.
          Holland & Knight
          1 E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 1300
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4811
          Phone: 954-525-1000
          Fax: 463-2030
          E-mail: deanna.shullman@tlolawfirm.com


CHOICEPOINT INC: “Taylor” Privacy Violations Lawsuit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action, “Taylor v. Acxiom Corp.,” which is pending
against ChoicePoint, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas remains enjoined from proceeding.

The suit was filed on Jan. 5, 2007 against the company and
certain of its competitors on behalf of each and every
individual in the State of Texas whose name, address, driver
identification number, and certain other identifiers are
contained in motor vehicle records obtained by the defendants
from the Texas Department of Public Safety without the express
consent of the individual during the period from June 1, 2000
through the date of judgment.

Plaintiff also filed pleadings seeking to intervene in “Richard
Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions, Inc., et al., Case No.
CIV-03-61063- Martinez/Klein.”  Plaintiff is objecting to a  
proposed settlement agreement for the case, which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  

Such plaintiff also filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in the
“Fresco” litigation pending the outcome of the Texas Court's
class certification determination in “Taylor.”

On Feb. 8, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Taylor litigation based on the fact that Fresco was first-filed,
the nationwide class in “Fresco” encompasses the Texas class,
and reasons of judicial economy and fundamental fairness dictate
against duplicative class actions in federal courts.

The Taylor litigation is currently enjoined from proceeding
pursuant to the District Court’s order issued in the Fresco
litigation.

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

The suit is “Taylor et al. v. Acxiom Corp. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00001-TJW,” filed in the in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas under Judge T. John Ward.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeremy Reade Wilson, Esq.
          The Corea Firm, PLLC
          The Republic Center, 325 North St. Paul St., Ste. 4150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-953-3900
          Fax: 214-953-3901
          E-mail: jwilson@corealaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          David J. Beck, Esq.
          Beck Redden & Secrest
          1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500, One Houston Center            
          Houston, TX 77010-2020
          Phone: 713/951-3700
          Fax: 713/951-3720
          E-mail: dbeck@brsfirm.com

          George Barton Butts, Esq.
          DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP
          12221 S. MoPac Expressway, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78746
          Phone: 512/457-7068
          Fax: 512/457-7001
          E-mail: george.butts@dlapiper.coml

               - and -

          James Patrick Kelley, Esq.
          Ireland Carroll & Kelley
          6101  S. Broadway Ste. 500
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Phone: 903-561-1600
          Fax: 903-581-1071
          E-mail: patkelley@icklaw.com


CHOICEPOINT INC: Ga. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
yet to rule on a renewed motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against ChoicePoint, Inc.

On March 4, 2005, a purchaser of the company's securities filed
a lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading information in
connection with the fraudulent data access.

Additional similar complaints were filed by other purchasers of
the company's securities in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 10, 2005 and in the
Northern District of Georgia on March 11, 2005, March 22, 2005
and March 24, 2005.

By court order, the cases pending in the California were
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia.  

By order dated Aug. 5, 2005, the court consolidated the pending
cases into a single consolidated action, “In re ChoicePoint Inc.
Securities Litigation, 1:05-CV-00686.”

On Nov. 14, 2005, the court entered an order appointing the
Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff for
the proposed plaintiff class.  

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Jan. 13, 2006,
seeking certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief.

On March 14, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On Nov. 21, 2006, the court entered an order denying the
defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Thereafter, defendants moved the
court to certify its order for immediate review.  The court
granted that motion on Jan. 10, 2007.  

On Jan. 25, 2007, the defendants filed a petition asking the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to allow
them to appeal on an interlocutory basis.

On May 3, 2007, the defendants’ petition was denied.  As a
result, the District Court re-opened the case.

Based on the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision in “Tellabs,
Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,” which requires District
Courts to consider competing inferences of scienter rather than
just those most favorable to a plaintiff, the Company filed a
renewed motion to dismiss which is currently pending before the
District Court.

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

The suit is “In re ChoicePoint Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:05-
CV-00686,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Jack T. Camp.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq.
          Chitwood & Harley, Esq.
          1230 Peachtree Street, N.E. 2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          E-mail: mdc@classlaw.com

          Edward P. Dietrich, Esq.
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          Suite 1900, 655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423
          E-mail: edd@lerachlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher Kim, Esq.
          Lim Ruger & Kim
          Suite 2800, 1055 West 7th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-955-9500

Representing the defendants is:

          Tracy Cobb Braintwain, Esq.
          King & Spalding, LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Phone: 404-572-2714
          Fax: 404-572-5139
          E-mail: tbraintwain@kslaw.com


CHOICEPOINT INC: 11th Circuit Considers Appeal in Ga. ERISA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has yet to
rule on plaintiffs' appeal with regards to a dismissal of their
Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations lawsuit
against ChoicePoint, Inc.

The class action was filed May 20, 2005 in the in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the
company and certain individuals who are alleged to be
fiduciaries under the ChoicePoint, Inc. 401 (K) Profit Sharing
Plan.  

The suit alleged violations of ERISA fiduciary rules through the
acquisition and retention of ChoicePoint stock by the Plan on
and after Nov. 24, 2004.   

Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, injunctive and equitable
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 14, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
which the court granted on March 7, 2007, disposing of the case
in its entirety.

On March 21, 2007, a motion for reconsideration was filed by the
plaintiffs, which was eventually denied on June 18, 2007.  

On July 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which was docketed on
July 16, 2007.

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

The suit is “Curtis R. Mellot v. ChoicePoint Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-01340-JTC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Jack T. Camp.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gainey & McKenna, 4th Floor, 295 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-1300
          Fax: 212-983-0383
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com

          Lisa T. Millican, Esq.
          Greenfield Millican, P.C.
          800 The Grant Building, 44 Broad Street
          NW Atlanta, GA 30303
          Phone: 404-522-1122
          E-mail: lisa.millican@lawofficepc.com

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile, LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005, Suite 1005
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-868-3610
          E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-4750
          Fax: 561-392-4775
          E-mail: kvianale@vianalelaw.com


CKX INC: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Court, New York County granted a motion that
sought for a dismissal of a purported class action against CKX,
Inc. over a merger agreement with 19X, Inc., and 19X Acquisition
Corp.

On June 1, 2007, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (as amended on Aug. 1, 2007 and Sept. 27, 2007) with
19X, Inc. (Parent), and 19X Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub).  Robert F.X. Sillerman,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CKX, and Simon R.
Fuller, a director of CKX and the Chief Executive Officer of 19
Entertainment Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of CKX, are the
sole current stockholders of 19X.

The lawsuit was filed against the Company and its directors in
New York State Court, New York County on June 1, 2007, the same
day that the Company announced the Merger.  

The complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of the
Company and sought class-action status to represent all of the
Company’s public stockholders.  

It alleges that the sale price is too low and that the Company’s
directors have therefore breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the transaction.

Plaintiffs seeks to enjoin the transaction and compel the
defendants (the Company and the members of its board of
directors) to find alternate bidders to obtain the highest price
for the Company.  They seek no money damages, but instead seek
attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses.

On July 12, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on behalf of itself and the members of its board of
directors on the grounds that the plaintiff and its attorneys
failed to conduct any pre-filing investigation and that every
element of relief sought by the complaint has already been
addressed by the Company and is already being provided through
several procedures implemented to maximize stockholder value,
including, but not limited to:

       -- the inclusion in the Merger Agreement of a “go shop
          period,” a 45-day period during which a special
          committee of independent directors of the Company’s
          board of directors and its financial advisor were
          authorized to solicit competing proposals, and

       -- an agreement between the Company and the holders of a
          substantial percentage of the Company’s outstanding
          shares of Common Stock, including the Company’s
          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and other members
          of senior management, to vote for any superior
          proposal recommended by the special committee of the
          board of directors.

The motion further notes that additional information will be
forthcoming from the Company, including through the filing of a
definitive proxy statement to be filed well in advance of any
stockholder vote.  

At a hearing on Sept. 20, 2007, the court granted the motion to
dismiss and dismissed the complaint.

CKX, Inc. -- http://ir.ckx.com/-- is a company founded on Feb.  
7, 2005 that owns and develops entertainment content and
intellectual property.  CKX holds, among other assets, the
rights to the name, image and likeness of Elvis Presley; the
operations of Graceland; and an 80% interest in the name,
likeness, trademarks, and licensing agreements of Muhammad Ali
including Ali's “Greatest Of All Time” (or G.O.A.T.) slogan


COMMERCE BANCORP: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over TD Bank Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancorp, Inc. faces purported class actions in New
Jersey over an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Toronto-
Dominion Bank.

On Oct. 2, 2007, the Company and The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD)
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which
TD will acquire the Company and the Company will become a
wholly-owned subsidiary of TD.

Since the announcement on Oct. 2, 2007 of the signing of the
Merger Agreement by TD, Cardinal Merger Company and the Company,
10 putative shareholder class actions related to the merger have
been filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Camden and
Essex Counties.  

All of the complaints name as defendants the Company and certain
of the Company’s directors and officers, and seven of the ten
complaints name TD as a defendant.  

The complaints have been consolidated in the New Jersey Superior
Court, Camden County, Law Division.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the consideration
agreed to in the Merger Agreement is inadequate and unfair to
the Company’s shareholders and that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger
Agreement and pursuing the plan of merger as described therein
by failing to maximize shareholder value, creating deterrents to
other offers and shareholder dissent (including by agreeing to
pay a termination fee to TD under certain circumstances set
forth in the Merger Agreement), and by putting the personal
interests of certain of the Company’s directors ahead of the
interests of the shareholders.  

The complaints further allege that TD aided and abetted the
directors in breaching their respective fiduciary duties.

All of the lawsuits seek injunctive, declaratory and other
equitable relief as well as monetary damages.  

Commerce Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.commerceonline.com-- is a  
bank holding company.  The Company operates through a nationally
chartered bank subsidiary, Commerce Bank N.A. (Commerce N.A.),
and a New Jersey state-chartered bank subsidiary, Commerce
Bank/North (collectively, the banks). As of Dec. 31, 2006, these
two bank subsidiaries had 428 full-service retail stores located
in the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York,
Connecticut, Virginia, Maryland and Florida, as well as the
District of Columbia.  


CROCS INC: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Colorado Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Crocs Inc. shareholder filed a lawsuit against the company in
U.S. District Court for the District Court of Colorado on Nov.
26.

Daryl Swanson is accusing four executives of misleading
shareholders about operations while selling their own stock for
at least $64 million between July 27 and Oct. 31, according to
the Associated Press.  The suit also named six board members as
defendants.  It seeks class-action status.

The plaintiff claims the executives failed to inform
shareholders about overseas distribution problems that cost the
company about $30 million in third-quarter sales; and did not
timely inform shareholders that inventory of Crocs' rubber-like
shoes was building as sales began to slow due to cooler weather.

The shareholders only learned of the high inventory on its third
quarter report revealed on Oct. 31.  

The suit is "Swanson v. Crocs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-
02454," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado before Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham.


EMERY WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face WARN Violations Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emery Worldwide Airlines, a subsidiary of Con-way Inc., still
faces a labor-related class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio.  

The suit alleges violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act in connection with employee layoffs
and ultimate terminations due to the August 2001 grounding of
Emery Worldwide's airline operations and the shutdown of the
airline operations in December 2001.

The court subsequently certified the lawsuit as a class action
on behalf of affected employees laid off between Aug. 11, and
Aug. 15, 2001.  

The WARN Act generally requires employers to give 60-days
notice, or 60-days pay and benefits in lieu of notice, of any
shutdown of operations or mass layoff at a site of employment.

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

The suit is “Bledsoe, et al. v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, et
al., Case No. 3:02-cv-00069-WHR-SLO,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Walter H.
Rice.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         David Gerard Torchia, Esq.
         Tobias & Kraus
         414 Walnut Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-241-8137
         Fax: 513-241-8137
         E-mail: davet@tktlaw.com

Representing the company are:

         Michelle R. Arendt, Esq.
         Thomas H. Barnard, Jr., Esq.
         Ulmer and Berne
         Penton Media Building, 1300 E. Ninth Street, Suite 900
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 216-931-6056
         Fax: 216-931-6057
         E-mail: marendt@ulmer.com

              - and -

         Jacqueline Schuster Hobbs, Esq.
         Cinergy Services, Inc.
         139 East Fourth Street 25ATII
         Cincinnati, OH 45201-0960
         Phone: 513-287-1238
         Fax: 513-287-2996
         E-mail: Jacqueline.Hobbs@Cinergy.com


FIFIELD COS: Ocean Marine Condo Buyers File Fraud Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beck & Lee Business Trial Lawyers in Miami and the Wright Law
Office in West Palm Beach have filed a federal class action in
the Southern District of Florida against a Chicago-based
developer on behalf of condo buyers at the Ocean Marine Yacht
Club, a 283-unit condominium still under construction in
Hallandale Beach, Broward County, Florida.

The lawsuit asserts that Chicago-based developer Fifield
Companies failed to notify the buyers, at the time they signed
their purchase agreements, that Fifield had not secured all of
the necessary governmental permits for the condominium’s key
selling point –- a planned 48-slip marina on the famed
Intracoastal Waterway.

While the project reportedly sold out within three weeks of its
offering to the public in 2004, purchasers were not informed
that the marina was a no-go until October of 2007, when Fifield
told them that they would have to buy space at a yet-to-be-built
dry storage facility at another location to store their boats,
because various governmental agencies had nixed the marina.

“These purchasers paid substantial deposits –- in some cases,
hundreds of thousands of dollars –- with the expectation that
they were buying units at an oceanfront Yacht Club which would
sport a spacious and picturesque marina with room for 48 boats,”
the buyers’ attorney Jared H. Beck said.

“Many of these buyers have asked for their money back before
having to close on their units. Fifield’s response was ‘no
dice,’ because it doesn’t consider the lack of the marina to be
a big enough change to the contract,” he continued.

“But federal and Florida condominium law requires complete
disclosure from the developer to the buyer of all necessary
permits – whether obtained or not obtained –- for a planned
marina facility before the buyer signs the contract, and there’s
no question that Fifield failed to make that disclosure to these
buyers. Fifield violated the law, and it now needs to be held
accountable to all these people who aren’t going to get what
they’re paying for.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Fifield made last-minute, sweeping
changes to the Yacht Club’s common facilities, including cutting
the heated pool down to half its size, and raised the unit
owner’s assessments substantially from the originally provided
budget.

While Florida courts have seen an increasing number of lawsuits
filed by disgruntled condo buyers in the declining Florida real
estate market, this lawsuit stands out as presenting a
particularly compelling set of facts and in seeking relief for
an entire class of buyers, Mr. Beck noted. “And a class action
is truly the most effective, efficient, and appropriate means to
seek justice in this situation, because the failure to build the
marina affects the value of every single unit in the building,”
he added.

The suit, “Katz et al. v. Fifield Realty Corp. et al., Case No.
0:2007-cv-61626,” was filed by Ira Katz, Mark Liss, Dora Arena,
Umberto Arena, Andrea Hauptman-Perez and Valentin Perez on Nov.
13.  It was filed in Florida Southern District Court before
Judge Patricia A. Seitz.

For more information, contact:

          Beck & Lee Business Trial Lawyers
          Courthouse Plaza Building
          28 West Flagler Street Suite 555
          Miami, Florida 33130
          Web site: http://www.beckandlee.com
          E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
          Phone: 305-789-0072
          Fax: 786-664-3334


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Recalls Combo Wall Ovens Posing Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
GE Consumer & Industrial, of Louisville, Ky., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 92,000 built-in combination wall and microwave ovens.

The company said the door switch in the microwave oven can
overheat and ignite plastic components in the control area,
posing a fire hazard to consumers. The lower thermal oven does
not pose a hazard.

GE is aware of 35 incidents of minor property damage
and one incident in which a fire damaged adjacent kitchen
cabinets. No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes GE combination microwave and conventional
built-in wall ovens sold under the following brand names:
GE, GE Profile(r) and Kenmore. The ovens were sold in white,
black, bisque and stainless steel. The brand name is printed on
the lower left corner on the front of the microwave door. The
following model and serial numbers can be found inside the
microwave oven on the left interior wall.

Recalled GE/GE Profile Models:

JKP85B0A3BB, JKP85B0D1BB, JKP85W0A3WW, JKP85W0D1WW,
JKP86B0F1BB, JKP86C0F1CC, JKP86S0F1SS, JKP86W0F1WW,
JT965B0F1BB, JT965C0F1CC, JT965S0F1SS, JT965W0F1WW,
JTP85B0A2BB, JTP85B0A3BB, JTP85B0A4BB, JTP85B0A5BB,
JTP85B0D1BB, JTP85W0A2WW, JTP85W0A3WW, JTP85W0A4WW,
JTP85W0A5WW, JTP85W0D1WW, JTP86B0F1BB, JTP86C0F1CC,
JTP86S0F1SS, JTP86W0F1WW, JTP95B0A2BB, JTP95B0A3BB,
JTP95B0A4BB, JTP95B0A5BB, JTP95B0D1BB, JTP95W0A2WW,
JTP95W0A3WW, JTP95W0A4WW, JTP95W0A5WW, JTP95W0D1WW

Serial number begins with:

AZ, DZ, FZ, GZ, HZ,
LZ, MZ, RZ, SZ, TZ,
VZ, ZZ, AA, DA, FA,
GA, HA, LA, MA, RA,
SA, TA, VA, ZA, AD,
DD, FD, GD, HD, LD,
MD, RD, SD, TD, VD,
ZD, AF, DF, FF, GF,
HF, LF, MF, RF, SF,
TF, VF, ZF

Recalled Kenmore Models: (All model numbers start with 911)

41485991, 41485992, 41485993, 41485994, 41489991, 41489992,
41489993, 41489994, 49485992, 49489992, 47692100, 47699100,
47862100, 47869100, 47812200, 47813200, 47814200, 47819200,
47792200, 47793200, 47794200, 47799200

Serial number begins with:

0, 1, 2, 3

The ovens were made in the United States and sold at Department
and appliance stores from January 2000 to December 2003 for
between $1,500 and $2,000.

Consumers are advised to stop using the microwave oven
immediately.  Consumers should contact GE regarding their GE/GE
Profile micro-oven combo or Sears for their Kenmore unit. GE is
offering a free repair or rebate on a new product, a $300 rebate
toward the purchase of a new GE brand unit, or a $600 rebate
toward the purchase of a new GE Profile brand unit. Sears is
offering a free repair or $300 rebate toward the purchase of a
new Kenmore brand unit. Consumers can continue using the
lower thermal oven.

For additional information on GE /Profile units,
contact General Electric toll-free at (888)-240-2745 from 8 a.m.
to 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. ET
Saturday, or visit http://www.geappliances.com.

For additional information on Kenmore units, contact Sears toll-
free at (888) 679-0282 from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. ET Monday through
Saturday, or visit http://www.sears.com

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the
recalled product, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08110.html


GLASS-TUBE MAKERS: Princeton Display Files Price Fixing Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Princeton Display Technologies Inc., a supplier of cathode ray
tubes and monitors, has accused a dozen of the world's top
glass-tube manufacturers of antitrust activities, Hugh R. Morley
of NorthJersey.com reports.

The suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on Nov. 29 accuses these companies of conspiring to
illegally set the price of cathode ray tubes:

     -- Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.,
     -- Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.,
     -- LG Electronics, Inc.,
     -- LP Displays,
     -- Royal Philips Electronics N.V.,
     -- Toshiba Corp.,
     -- Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd.
     -- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.,
     -- MT Picture Display,
     -- Hitachi Ltd.,
     -- Hitachi America Ltd.,
     -- Hitachi Asia Ltd.
     -- Panasonic Corp. of North America,
     -- Samtel Color Ltd.

The suit says the company "paid higher prices for CRT products
than it would have paid absent the conspiracy." The suit, which
was filed as a class action, accuses the companies of fixing
prices and allocating markets and customers in violation of U.S.
antitrust laws.

The suit is "Princeton Display Technologies, Inc. v. Chunghwa
Picture Tubes, Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv05713," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before
Judge Katharine S. Hayden with referral to Magistrate Judge
Patty Shwartz.


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: N.Y. Court Keeps $3B Tribal Court Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
denied a motion by Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., a
subsidiary of Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., to dismiss a
judgment enforcement action commenced by the Catskill Litigation
Trust against Harrah’s in June 2007.

The action seeks to collect approximately $3 billion under class
action judgments of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Court issued in
March 2001 for $1.787 billion against Harrah’s predecessor,
Caesars Entertainment Corp., and in July 2007 against Harrah’s
for accrued interest of approximately $1 billion.

Harrah’s acquired Caesars in June 2005. The July 2007 judgment
amended the caption of the case to reflect Harrah’s as the
proper judgment debtor on the original judgment and award of
accrued interest. Harrah's Entertainment Inc., the world's
largest casino company, accepted a $17.1 billion offer from
Apollo Management LP and Texas Pacific Group in the fourth-
biggest private-equity buyout ever.

Commenting on the decision, former New York State Attorney
General and Catskill Litigation Trust trustee, Dennis C. Vacco
stated, “We are pleased with this ruling denying Harrah’s motion
to dismiss the complaint. The Tribe deserves to have its
institutions respected and also deserves to have the decisions
of the Tribal Court honored by the federal courts.”

In August 2007, Harrah’s filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in the enforcement action, principally claiming that the
Trustees had no standing to enforce the March 2001 judgment and
that a prior federal lawsuit seeking to enforce the same
judgment against Caesars had been settled.

Harrah’s initially maintained in its public disclosures that:
"Prior to our acquisition of Caesars in June 2005, each of the
above matters was settled, pending final court approval and
execution of documents and mutual releases", but in March 2007
amended this disclosure to state that: “Prior to our acquisition
of Caesars in June 2005, it was believed that this matter was
settled pending execution of final documents and mutual
releases. However, these documents were never executed.”

In denying Harrah's motion to dismiss the complaint, the court
did not preclude the issue of standing or settlement to enforce
the judgment from being raised in a new application.

About the Catskill Litigation Trust

The Catskill Litigation Trust was established in January of 2004
by Empire Resorts, Inc. (NASDAQ: NYNY) to pursue claims against
Park Place (at the time known as Caesars Entertainment, Inc.),
subsequently acquired by merger by Harrah's Operating Company,
Inc., a subsidiary of Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE:HET)),
on behalf of shareholders and other owners of various business
entities who had entered into agreements with the St. Regis
Mohawk Tribe in connection with an effort to develop a Native
American casino at the Monticello Raceway in the Catskills
region of New York.

Additional information concerning the Catskill Litigation Trust
and its claims against Harrah's can be obtained from its web
site at http://www.catskilltrust.com/or

          Dennis C. Vacco, Esq.
          Catskill Litigation Trustee
          Phone: 518-426-0606
          Fax: 518-463-6148
          E-mail: dvacco@cranevacco.com

          Joseph E. Bernstein, Esq.
          Catskill Litigation Trustee
          Phone: 917-365-3651
          Fax: 847-589-3877
          E-mail: VMl438@aol.com

In addition, the Trust is a publicly registered entity, and
information about the Trust is available on the SEC web site, at
http://www.sec.gov/.


HCA INC: Tenn. Court OKs $20M Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
granted final approval to a $20,000,000 settlement of the matter
“In re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-CV-00981,”
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.

In November 2005, two putative federal securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee seeking monetary damages on behalf of
persons who purchased the company stock between Jan. 12, 2005
and July 13, 2005.

These substantially similar lawsuits assert claims pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against us and our Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer, and
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, related to
our July 13, 2005 announcement of preliminary results of
operations for the quarter ended June 30, 2005.

On Jan. 5, 2006, the court consolidated these actions and all
later-filed related securities actions under the caption, “In re
HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, case number 3:05-CV-00960.”

Pursuant to federal statute, on January 25, 2006, the court
appointed co-lead plaintiffs to represent the interests of the
asserted class members in this litigation.  Co-lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 21, 2006.

These cases have now been settled for $20,000,000, with final
approval by the court granted on Oct. 12, 2007.

The class covered by the settlement consists of all persons or
entities who bought or acquired common stock of HCA Inc. from
Jan. 12, 2005 through July 12, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
14, 2007).

Details on the settlement are available free of charge at:

            http://www.hcasettlement.com/index.php3

The suit is “In re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:05-CV-00981,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge William J. Haynes.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul Kent Bramlett
          Bramlett Law Offices
          P.O. Box 150734
          Nashville, TN 37215-0734
          Phone: (615) 248-2828
          E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas
          Tamara Skvirsky
          Marc A. Topaz
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 667-7706
          Fax: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          James N. Bowen
          Amy E. Neff
          Steven Allen Riley
          Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, PLC,
          1906 West End Avenue
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 320-3700
          E-mail: jimbowen@bowenriley.com
                  aneff@bowenriley.com
                  sriley@bowenriley.com

    
HCA INC: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------
HCA, Inc. still faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Nov. 22, 2005, Brenda Thurman, a former employee of an HCA,
Inc. affiliate, filed the complaint in Tennessee federal court
on behalf of herself, the HCA Savings and Retirement Program,
and a class of participants in the Plan who held an interest in
the company's common stock, against the company's chairman and
chief executive officer, president and chief operating officer,
executive vice president and chief financial officer, and other
unnamed individuals.

The lawsuit, filed under sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of
ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) and (3), alleged that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and to plan
participants.

On Jan. 13, 2006, the court signed an order staying all
proceedings and discovery in this matter, pending resolution of
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the
related federal securities class action against the company.  

On Jan. 18, 2006, the magistrate judge signed an order:
  
      -- consolidating Ms. Thurman's cause of action with all
         other future actions making the same claims and arising
         out of the same operative facts;

      -- appointing Ms. Thurman as lead plaintiff; and

      -- appointing Ms. Thurman's attorneys as lead counsel and
         liaison counsel in the case.

On Jan. 26, 2006, the court issued an order reassigning the case
to Judge William J. Haynes, Jr.

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

The suit is “Thurman v. HCA, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
01001,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee under Judge William J. Haynes.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
         Bramlett Law Offices
         P.O. Box 150734
         Nashville, TN 37215-0734
         Phone: (615) 248-2828
         E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gainey & McKenna
         485 Fifth Ave., 3rd Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 983-1300
         Fax: (212) 983-0383
         E-mail: tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com

         Samuel K. Rosen, Esq.
         Wechsler Harwood, LLP
         488 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 935-7400
         Fax: (212) 753-3630
         E-mail: srosen@whesq.com

              - and -

         Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
         Vianale & Vianale, LLP
         2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Phone: (561) 392-4750
         Fax: (561) 392-4774
         E-mail: kvianale@vianalelaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         James N. Bowen, Esq.
         Amy E. Neff, Esq.
         Steven Allen Riley, Esq.
         Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, PLC
         1906 West End Avenue
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Phone: (615) 320-3700
         E-mail: jimbowen@bowenriley.com
                 aneff@bowenriley.com
                 sriley@bowenriley.com


HCA INC: Awaits Tenn. Court's Approval of Merger Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee has yet to
approve a proposed settlement in a consolidated class action
against HCA Inc. that was filed in in relation to its merger
with a subsidiary of Hercules Holding II, LLC.

In August 2006, HCA and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in six purported class actions filed in Tennessee and
Delaware courts in relation to the merger it entered with
Hercules Holding and its wholly owned subsidiary, Hercules
Acquisition Corp. on July 24, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Aug.  
21, 2006).

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Hercules Acquisition
will be merged with and into the company, with HCA continuing a
the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Hercules Holding, which is owned by a consortium of private
investment funds affiliated with Bain Capital Partners LLC,
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and Merrill Lynch Global
Private Equity, collectively known as the Sponsors.  

The complaints are substantially similar and allege, among other
things, that the merger is the product of a flawed process, that
the consideration to be paid to the company's shareholders in
the merger is unfair and inadequate, and breach of fiduciary
duty.   

They further allege that the Sponsors abetted the actions of the
company's officers and directors in breaching their fiduciary
duties to the company's shareholders.   

The complaints seek, among other relief, an injunction
preventing completion of the merger.  

On Aug. 3, 2006, the Chancery Court consolidated these actions
and all later-filed actions as “In re HCA Inc. Shareholder  
Litigation, Case No. 06-1816-III.”

On Nov. 8, 2006, the company and the other named parties entered
into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs’ counsel in
connection with these actions.

Under the terms of the memorandum, HCA, the other named parties
and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the lawsuit subject to
court approval.  

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, Hercules Holding II,  
LLC, the entity formed by the private equity sponsor group in  
connection with the proposed transaction, has agreed to waive  
that portion in excess of $220 million of any termination fee  
that it has a right to receive under the merger agreement.   

Also, HCA and the other defendants have agreed not to assert  
that a shareholder's demand for appraisal is untimely under  
Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the State of  
Delaware (DGCL) where such shareholder has submitted a written  
demand for appraisal within 30 calendar days of the shareholders  
meeting held to adopt the merger agreement (with any such  
deadline being extended to the following business day should the  
30th day fall on a holiday or weekend).  

HCA and the other defendants also have agreed not to assert  
that:

      -- the surviving corporation in the merger or a  
         shareholder who is entitled to appraisal rights may not  
         file a petition in the Court of Chancery of the State  
         of Delaware demanding a determination of the value of  
         the shares held by all such shareholders if such  
         petition is not filed within 120 days of the effective  
         time of the merger so long as such petition is filed  
         within 150 days of the effective time;

      -- a shareholder may not withdraw such shareholder's  
         demand for appraisal and accept the terms offered by  
         the merger if such withdrawal is not made within 60  
         days of the effective time of the merger so long as  
         such withdrawal is made within 90 days of the effective  
         time of the merger; and  

      -- that a then current shareholder may not, upon written
         request, receive from the surviving corporation a
         statement setting forth the aggregate number of shares      
         not voted in favor of the merger with respect to which
         demands for appraisal have been received and the
         aggregate number of holders of such shares if such
         request is not made within 120 days of the effective
         time of the merger so long as such request is made
         within 150 days of the effective time.

The company and the other parties’ counsel also agreed to a
payment of attorney fees, as awarded by the court, of up to
$12.4 million.  

Court approval of the settlement and attorney’s fees is pending,
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.

HCA Inc. -- http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is a holding  
company whose affiliates own and operate hospitals and related
health care entities.


HCA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Kans. Understaffing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing a dismissal of a case against HCA, Inc.
that is alleging that to maximize profits the Company
compromises patient care by deliberately understaffing
registered nurses at its hospitals.

On April 10, 2006, a class-action complaint was filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas
alleging, among other matters, nurse understaffing at all of the
company's hospitals, certain consumer protection act violations,
negligence and unjust enrichment.

Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died at the
Company's Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, filed the suit.  She
claims that her husband died because the hospital did not have
enough nurses working to care for him when he was hospitalized
in 2004 (Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2006).

Lawrence Williamson, Mrs. Spires' attorney, claims in the
lawsuit that the Company set out in about 1996 to become a $50
billion company and has tried to reach that goal by reducing
costs, primarily by cutting staff.  The company reported
revenues of $24.5 billion in 2005.

According to the lawsuit, “The defendant's reduction of staffing
of registered nurses is the evil and the fuel that led to the
revenues that has allowed the defendant to expand into all its
markets.”

Mr. Williamson filed the lawsuit on behalf of Mrs. Spires, whose
husband, Joseph, died at Wesley on April 22, 2004.  However, he
is also seeking to include millions of patients at the Company's
other hospitals since 1996.

The complaint is seeking, among other relief, declaratory relief
and monetary damages, including disgorgement of profits of
$12.250 billion.

A motion to dismiss this action was granted on July 27, 2006,
but the plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal, according to
the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Spires v. Hospital Corp. of America, Case No. 2:06-
cv-02137-JWL-JPO,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum with referral
to Judge James P. O'Hara.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
          Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq.
          Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC
          301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Phone: 316-261-5400
          Fax: 316-261-5404
          E-mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com
                  l.williamson@swolawfirm.com


HCC INSURANCE: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
purported securities fraud class action filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The suit, “Bristol County Retirement System v. HCC Insurance
Holdings Inc et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00801,” was filed on March
8, 2007.  The company is named as a defendant in the putative
class action along with certain current and former officers and
directors.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company’s securities between May 3, 2005
and Nov. 17, 2006, inclusive.

The action purports to assert claims arising out of improper
manipulation of option grant dates, alleging violation of
Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, as
well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Plaintiff also purports to assert a claim for violation of
Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rules 14a-
1 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

Plaintiff seeks recovery of compensatory damages for the
putative class and costs and expenses.  

On Sept. 21, 2007, jointly with the other defendants,  the
company filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  That motion is
currently pending before the court, according to the company’s
Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

The suit is “Bristol County Retirement System v. HCC Insurance
Holdings Inc. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00801,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge
Sim Lake.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Damon Joseph Chargois, Esq.
         Chargois & Heron LLP
         2201 Timberloch Place, Ste. 110
         The Woodlands, TX 77380
         Phone: 281-444-0604
         Fax: 281-440-0124
         E-mail: damon@cmhllp.com

              - and –

         Alan I. Ellman, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0813
         Fax: 212-818-0477

Representing the defendant is

         Barry F. McNeil, Esq.
         Haynes and Boone
         901 Main St., Ste. 3100
         Dallas, TX 75202-3789
         Phone: 214-651-5580
         Fax: 214-200-0535
         E-mail: barry.mcneil@haynesboone.com


HOSPIRA INC: Still Faces Ill. Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. continues to face a class action in Illinois
alleging that the spin-off of the company from Abbott
Laboratories adversely affected employee benefits in violation
of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned, “Myla
Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories
and Hospira, Inc.”

On Nov. 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an
additional claim against Abbott and the company for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA.  The company has moved to dismiss
the new claim.

By Order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class-action
status to the lawsuit.  The new claim in the amended complaint
is not subject to the class certification ruling.

As to the sole claim against the company in the original
complaint, the court certified a class defined as:

        “all employees of Abbott who were participants in the
        Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with Abbott
        was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30,
        2004, as a result of the spin-off of the HPD/creation of
        Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003, and who
        were eligible for retirement under the Abbott Benefit
        Plans on the date of their terminations.”

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

The suit is “Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.
    
Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Paul William Mollica, Esq.
         Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica
         208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: (312) 263-0272

Representing the company is:

         James F. Hurst, Esq.
         Winston & Strawn LLP
         35 West Wacker Drive
         41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 558-5230
         E-mail: jhurst@winston.com


HOSPIRA INC: Faces Suits in Tex., Hawaii Over Drug Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. was named as a defendant in a number of purported
class actions on behalf of individuals or entities, including
healthcare insurers and other third-party payors, that allege
generally that pharmaceutical companies reported false or
misleading pricing information in connection with federal, state
and private reimbursement for certain drugs.   

Many of the products involved in these investigations and
lawsuits are Hospira products.  

It is specifically named as defendant in two such lawsuits:

       -- “The State of Texas ex rel. Ven-A-Care of the Florida
          Keys, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., Abbott
          Laboratories and Hospira, Inc, Case No. GV-04-001286,”
          pending in the District Court of Travis County, Texas;
          and

       -- “State of Hawaii v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
          Case No. 06-1-0720-04,” pending in the Circuit Court
          of the First Circuit, Hawaii.

The company denies all material allegations asserted against it
in these two lawsuits.   

Hospira, Inc. -- http://www.hospira.com/-- is a global  
specialty pharmaceutical and medication delivery company.  It is
engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of
specialty injectable pharmaceuticals and medication delivery
systems that deliver drugs and intravenous (I.V.) fluids.


MEMORY CARD MAKERS: $2.4M Legal Fee in Flash Memory Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal's First
District upheld a settlement of a suit filed against Kodak,
Sandisk, Lexar Media, and other memory card makers accused of
intentionally misrepresenting the capacity of their flash
memory, Declan McCullagh of CNET News.com reports.

The suit centers on the use by defendants of decimal
definitions, in which a megabyte is 1,000,000 bytes, to market
their flash memory devices.   The suit says a binary definition
is appropriate, meaning that one megabyte equals 1,048,576
bytes.  

The suit claims the memory card sizes were overstated by 4
percent to 5 percent as a result, making a buyer's new terabyte
drive smaller in capacity than it was claimed to be.  It thus
raises claims of breach of contract, fraud, and violations of
California's unfair competition laws.

Attorneys have reached a settlement in the case, according to
the report.  As part of the settlement, some customers would get
a 5 percent refund, while all would get a 10 percent discount
from the companies' online stores.  The company was required to
disclose to the public that decimal prefixes were being used.
The deadline to make claims was December 20, 2006.

Kendrick & Nutley and the San Diego firm of Kendrick, Bonas &
Nutley got a check for $2.38 million under the settlement.  

Four people objected to the settlement and filed appeals roughly
a year ago, claiming, among others, that the 5 percent refund
amounts to only a few dollars and was insignificant while fees
handed to the class action lawyers were too high.

But the court of appeals rejected those arguments on Nov. 30 and
upheld the settlement.


NEW MEXICO: City Bus Drivers File Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Sam Bregman has filed a lawsuit against the City of
Santa Fe in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
claiming city bus drivers have been “denied overtime wages to
which they are entitled under the provision of the Federal Labor
Standards Act,” David Alire Garcia of Santa Fe Reporter reports.

Mr. Bregman filed the suit on behalf of full-time Santa Fe
Trails bus drivers Adrian W. Dalton, Joe Gorman, Quentin Harris,
Octavio Sahagun, Christopher Sena and Pete Velarde.  The
plaintiffs argue that the owed overtime wages are a result of
thousands of changes made to their punch-in and punch-out times.  
It seeks class-action status, meaning that many non-transit
employees might also be eligible for recovery of lost wages,
according to the report.

Mr. Bregman believes his case is supported by city officials’
“own public admissions” in a September report by the Santa Fe
Reporter on the back dispute.  For one, Transit Director Jon
Bulthuis acknowledged to SFR that “there were a lot of
adjustments made,” but noted that in some instances employees
were actually overpaid.

An investigation into the nature and extent of the problem is,
apparently, still ongoing, according to the report.

The suit was filed after unsuccessful attempts to resolve the
dispute with Transit Department managers.  Named plaintiff
Adrian Dalton, a union steward with AFSCME Local 3999 says
employees have no choice but to pursue litigation.  He describes
the shaving of employee minutes as “calculated.”

Co-counsel in the case is Paul Livingston.

The suit is “Dalton et al. v. City of Santa Fe, Case No.
6:2007cv01217,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico under Judge Robert Brack with referral to
Magistrate Judge William P. Lynch.

For more information, contact:

          Sam Bregman, Esq.
          Street Address
          111 Lomas Blvd. NW
          Suite 230
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Web site: http://www.bregmanlawfirm.com
          Phone: (505) 761-5700
          Fax: (505) 761-8280
          E-mail: tblf@bregmanlawfirm.com


NURSING HOMES: Cal. Court Junks Suit Over Nurse “Understaffing”
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Sacramento Superior Court judge rejected a suit alleging
understaffing in numerous Sacramento-area nursing homes, The
(CA) Sacramento Bee reports.

The court said it is in no position to evaluate staffing
conditions because the state has ignored a key portion of a law
asking state health officials to write regulations relating to
minimum-staffing requirements in nursing homes.

Without basis, courts are in no position to determine whether a
skilled nursing facility is meeting the law's standard,
according to the report.  The law requires 3.2 nursing hours per
patient day.

Judge McMaster did not rule on Ms. Adams' accusations.  

                    Case Background

Twenty-two Horizon West nursing homes in California are named in  
a class action alleging unlawful business practices, unfair and  
fraudulent business practices, violations of health and safety  
codes, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Class
Action Reporter, June 16, 2006).

The suit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, was on behalf of  
Hazel Adams by and through her attorney in Fact Judy Wilken and  
the thousands of other citizens of the State of California who  
have or do reside in a Horizon West skilled nursing facility.

The allegations of the complaint covers June 10, 2002 to June  
10, 2006 and alleges that the defendants:

     -- Horizon West, Inc.,  
     -- Horizon West Healthcare, Inc.,  
     -- Horizon West Healthcare of California, Inc., and  
     -- 26 of the skilled nursing facilities it owns, operates,  
        or manages in California  

are knowingly not providing the minimum level of direct patient  
care mandated by the State of California and Federal  
regulations.  

Yet these elderly residents, their insurance companies, and even  
Medicare and MediCal, are being billed as if the lawfully  
required care is being provided, a statement from the plaintiff  
lawyer states.  

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the corporation and  
facilities are advertising on their Web sites, in brochures, and  
during site visits that they are meeting all California laws and  
regulations when, in fact, they are not doing so.

According to Long Beach plaintiff attorney Stephen M. Garcia of  
Garcia Law, inadequate staffing leads to elder abuse.  The  
California Legislature realized this reality back in 1999 when  
it implemented the law that as of Jan. 1, 2000, all skilled  
nursing facilities must comply with providing residents 3.2  
nursing hours per patient per day.

                     Recent Ruling

According to the report, briefs in the Adams case argued that
failure to write interpreting regulations left many questions
unanswered, such as whether dietary, social service and other
activities should count in calculating nursing hours.

Judge McMaster, citing a ruling similar to that of a Los Angeles
appellate court in a separate suit against nearly two dozen
nursing homes, said the Legislature clearly intended state
health officials, not judges, to fill any gaps.

The Adams suit, he wrote, is asking "courts to resolve disputes
that should have been resolved by the timely enactment of
regulations."

For additional information about the suit, call Ms. Adams'
attorney, Stephen Garcia at Garcia Law Firm at (800) 281-8515 or
visit http://www.lawgarcia.com.


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: N.Y. Suit Over 11% Global Notes Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proskauer Rose LLP announced that a lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all holders of Republic of Argentina 11%
global notes dues on Oct. 9, 2006 ISIN US04114AN02 who purchased
those bonds prior to Jan. 16, 2004 and have held them
continuously.

This litigation has been certified as a class action against the
Republic of Argentina alleging breach of contract. The Court has
certified a plaintiff class in the litigation which is defined
above.

The suit is “Silvia Seijas et al. v. The Republic of Argentina,
Case No. 04 Civ. 400,” filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under  Judge Thomas P.
Griesa.

For more information, contact:

          Bertrand Sellier, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, New York 10036
          Phone: (212)-969-3000)


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Suit Over 9.75% Global Notes Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proskauer Rose LLP announced that a lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all holders of Republic of Argentina 9.75%
global notes dues on Sept. 19, 2027 ISIN US04114AV28 who
purchased those bonds prior to Jan. 22, 2004 and have held them
continuously.

This litigation has been certified as a class action against the
Republic of Argentina alleging breach of contract. The Court has
certified a plaintiff class in the litigation which is defined
above.

The suit is “Cesar Raul Castro al. v. The Republic of Argentina,
Case No. 04 Civ. 506,” filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under  Judge Thomas P.
Griesa.

For more information, contact:

          Bertrand Sellier, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, New York 10036
          Phone: (212)-969-3000)


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: N.Y. Suit Over L+0.8125 Bonds Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proskauer Rose LLP announced that a lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all holders of Republic of Argentina
floating rate L+0.8125 bonds due March, 2005 who purchased those
bonds prior to March 17, 2004 and have held them continuously.

This litigation has been certified as a class action against the
Republic of Argentina alleging breach of contract. The Court has
certified a plaintiff class in the litigation which is defined
above.

The suit is “Ruben Daniel Chorny et al. v. The Republic of
Argentina, Case No. 04 Civ. 2118,” filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under  
Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

For more information, contact:

          Bertrand Sellier, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, New York 10036
          Phone: (212)-969-3000)


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Court Certifies Suit Over 7% Global Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proskauer Rose LLP announced that a lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all holders of Republic of Argentina 7%
global notes dues on Dec. 19, 2008 ISIN US04114GF14  who
purchased those bonds prior to Jan. 16, 2004 and have held them
continuously.

This litigation has been certified as a class action against the
Republic of Argentina alleging breach of contract. The Court has
certified a plaintiff class in the litigation which is defined
above.

The suit is “Silvia Seijas et al. v. The Republic of Argentina,
Case No. 04 Civ. 401,” filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under  Judge Thomas P.
Griesa.

For more information, contact:

          Bertrand Sellier, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, New York 10036
          Phone: (212)-969-3000)


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: N.Y. Suit Over 11% Global Notes Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proskauer Rose LLP announced that a lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all holders of Republic of Argentina 11%
global notes due Dec. 4, 2005 ISIN US040114AZ32 who purchased
those bonds prior to Feb. 4, 2004 and have held them
continuously.

This litigation has been certified as a class action against the
Republic of Argentina alleging breach of contract. The Court has
certified a plaintiff class in the litigation which is defined
above.

The suit is “Elizabeth Andrea Azza et al. v. The Republic of
Argentina, Case No. 04 Civ. 937,” filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under  
Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

For more information, contact:

          Bertrand Sellier, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, New York 10036
          Phone: (212)-969-3000)


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Suit Over 8.375% Global Notes Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proskauer Rose LLP announced that a lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all holders of Republic of Argentina
8.375% global notes dues on Dec. 20, 2003 ISIN US04114AH34 who
purchased those bonds prior to Jan. 16, 2004 and have held them
continuously.

This litigation has been certified as a class action against the
Republic of Argentina alleging breach of contract. The Court has
certified a plaintiff class in the litigation which is defined
above.

The suit is “Elizabeth Andrea Azza et al. v. The Republic of
Argentina, Case No. 04 Civ. 1085,” filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under  
Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

For more information, contact:

          Bertrand Sellier, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, New York 10036
          Phone: (212)-969-3000)


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Suit Over 12.375% Global Notes Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Proskauer Rose LLP announced that a lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all holders of Republic of Argentina
12.375% global notes dues on Feb. 21, 2012 ISIN US04114GD65  who
purchased those bonds prior to Mar. 17, 2004 and have held them
continuously.

This litigation has been certified as a class action against the
Republic of Argentina alleging breach of contract. The Court has
certified a plaintiff class in the litigation which is defined
above.

The suit is “Eduardo Puricelli et al. v. The Republic of
Argentina, Case No. 04 Civ. 2117 (TPG),” filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under  Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

For more information, contact:

          Bertrand Sellier, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, New York 10036
          Phone: (212)-969-3000)


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Suit Over 11.75% Global Notes Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proskauer Rose LLP announced that a lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all holders of Republic of Argentina
11.75% global notes dues on June 15, 2015 ISIN US040114GA27 who
purchased those bonds prior to Feb. 4, 2004 and have held them
continuously.

This litigation has been certified as a class action against the
Republic of Argentina alleging breach of contract. The Court has
certified a plaintiff class in the litigation which is defined
above.

The suit is “Hickory Securities Ltd. et al. v. The Republic of
Argentina, Case No. 04 Civ. 936,” filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under  
Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

For more information, contact:

          Bertrand Sellier, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, New York 10036
          Phone: (212)-969-3000)


SECURITY PLAN: Court Rules Out Flooding Coverage in Katrina Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana  
has ruled that specific named peril policies that do not list
flooding as one of the named perils, do not provide coverage for
flooding.  The ruling came in the case “In Re: Katrina Canal
Breaches Consolidated Litigation.”

SPFIC, is Citizens, Inc.'s wholly-owned Louisiana property and
casualty insure.  It was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, asserting allegations on behalf of a purported class.

The suit was filed on Aug. 28, 2006, and was initially styled,
“Connie Abadie, et al. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., et al.”
Most of the property and casualty insurers in Louisiana were
also named in this lawsuit.

The suit sought payments for claims denied by SPFIC and other
declaratory relief related to Hurricane Katrina.  It is
presently unclear how many plaintiffs are insureds of SPFIC.

In order to expedite the handling of all the litigation related
to Hurricane Katrina, the court consolidated Connie Abadie into
an action styled, “In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated
Litigation,” or the “Katrina Consolidated Litigation.”

On March 15, 2007, a Master Class Action Insurance Complaint was
filed in the Katrina Consolidated Litigation.  

On March 27, 2007, Connie Abadie was administratively closed by
the Court and superseded by the Master Class Action Insurance
Complaint.  Presently, the Master Class Action Insurance
Complaint is stayed by order of the Court.

One of the defenses that certain defendants in the Katrina
Consolidated Litigation have asserted is that their insurance
policies excluded claims for flood damage, even though the
floods resulting from Hurricane Katrina may have been caused by
negligence.

On Aug. 2, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
ruled in the Katrina Consolidated Litigation that the flood
exclusion language in certain property insurance policies was
effective to preclude claims for flood damage by policyholders
whose policies include such an exclusion.

Although SPFIC was not a party to that lawsuit, its policies do
exclude flood damage claims.

On Sept. 30, 2007, the judge presiding over the Katrina
Consolidated Litigation issued a ruling holding that specific
named peril policies that do not list flooding as one of the
named perils, do not provide coverage for flooding.

SPFIC’s policies are named peril policies that do not list
flooding as one of the named perils. SPFIC intends to continue
to vigorously defend any claims resulting from flood damage on
the grounds, among others, that its policies do not cover such
damage.

The deadline for filing claims against insurers arising out of
property damage from Hurricane Katrina was Aug. 29, 2007.  

Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com-- is an insurance  
holding company serving the life insurance needs of individuals
the U.S. and around the world.  


TOSHIBA AMERICA: Faces Fraud Lawsuit Over Satellite Notebooks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toshiba America, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
Dec. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, claiming it defrauds consumers by falsely claiming
its Satellite notebook computers can be upgraded to 4 gigabytes
of RAM, though the true capacity is only 2 gigabytes, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Michael Simon brings this action as a consumer
class action that seeks damages, restitution and injunctive
relief associated with defendants' unfair, unlawful and
fraudulent marketing and sale of Toshiba Satellite notebook
computers.

Plaintiff alleges:

     (1) violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA);

     (2) violations of California's False Advertising Law,
         Business Section 17500 et. Seq.;

     (3) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law,
         Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.
         (UCL);

     (4) breach of express warranty; and

     (5) unjust enrichment.

He brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons and entities in the
United States who purchased, other than for resale, Toshiba
Satellite notebook computers that are advertised as having a
maximum memory capacity of 4 gibabytes but are not upgradeable
to that capacity.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Toshiba Satellite notebooks were marketed,
         promoted and sold by defendants as having a maximum
         memory capacity of 4096 megabytes;

     (b) whether Toshiba satellite notebooks, in fact, do not
         possess a maximum memory capacity of 4096 megabytes;

     (c) whether defendants withheld information from and/or
         omitted to inform consumers that their notebooks have a
         maximum memory capacity of 2048 megabytes;

     (d) whether defendants' withholding of information and/or
         failure to inform consumers of the true maximum memory
         capacity of their notebooks resulted from negligents,
         reckless or intentional behavior;

     (e) whether defendants represent that their Toshiba
         Satellite notebooks have characteristics or benefits
         that they do not have;

     (f) whether defendants intend not to sell their Toshiba
         Satellite notebooks as marketed or advertised;

     (g) whether defendants' practices deceive or have the
         capacity to deceive consumers;

     (h) whether defendants practices are immoral, unethical,
         oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to
         consumers;

     (i) whether defendants expressly warranted that its Toshiba
         Satellite notebooks possess a maximum memory capacity
         of 4096 megabytes;

     (j) whether defendants have violated California's Unfair
         Competition Law; and

     (k) whether defendants have been unjustly enriched through
         the conduct complained of.

Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

     -- for an order certifying the class under Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure 23, and appointing plaintiff and his
        counsel to represent the class under Federal Rule of
        Civil Procedure 23(g);

     -- for declaratory and equitable relief requested;

     -- for compensatory, equitable and/or restitutionary
        damages according to proof and for all applicable
        statutory damages;

     -- for an award of attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- for prejudgment interest and the costs of suit; and

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

The suit is "Michael Simon et al. v. Toshiba America, Inc., et
al., Case No. CV 07 6202," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stuart C. Talley
          Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, California 95864
          Phone: (916) 568-1100
          Fax: (916) 669-4499

          - and -

          Mark J. Tamblyn
          Wexler Toriseva Wallace, LLP
          1610 Arden Way, Suite 290
          Sacramento, California 95815
          Phone: (916) 568-1100
          Fax: (916) 568-7890


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: KGS Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) has filed a class action against
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock of VeriFone between August 31,
2006 and December 3, 2007.

KGS' filing now extends shareholder claims back to August 31,
2006, almost 6 months earlier than another case's class period.
No class has yet been certified in this action.

VeriFone and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with making a series of materially false and misleading
statements related to the Company's business and operations in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

On December 3, 2007, Defendants shocked and alarmed investors
after they published a release that revealed, for the first
time, that the Company's previously reported financial
statements and reports could no longer be relied upon and that
these results for at least the previous three quarters would
require to be restated. Particularly, the Complaint alleges that
VeriFone failed to disclose improper valuation of products in
its inventory, which would result in close to a $30 million
reduction in pretax income for the first nine months of the
fiscal year.

The revelations that Defendants had materially misrepresented
the Company's financial and operational condition, its controls
and procedures and its results of operations, belatedly revealed
on December 3, 2007, decimated shares of VeriFone. As evidence
of this, that day, shares of the Company collapsed over 45.8% in
the single trading day -- falling over $22.00 per share to close
at $26.03 on very high trading volume of over 49.228 million
shares traded.

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

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com


                           *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *