CAR_Public/071212.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 12, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 246

                            Headlines


ADVANCED MICRO: GPU Antitrust Suit Plaintiffs Want to Amend Case
AMERIWOOD INDUSTRIES: Recalls Defective Entertainment Centers
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Pa. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Over “HDCP Ready” Graphic Cards Junked
BIOVAIL CORP: OTPP Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit for $138M

CHICAGO TITLE: Kan. Court Dismisses Suit Over Recording Fees
COMMERCE BANCORP: Faces Consolidated Suit in N.J. Over TD Merger
COMPREHENSIVE CARE: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Hythiam Merger
EI DUPONT: Ontario Court Certifies Resins Price Fixing Suit
ENTERGY CORP: Tex. Court Denies Power Price Suit Review Motion

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date Set for N.J. Securities Suit
FIRST CONSULTING: Sued in Calif. Over Computer Sciences Merger
FLORIDA: Trial Begins in Suit Over Broward Citrus Tree Cuttings
FLORIDA: Palm Beach Residents to Get Payment for Citrus Trees
GANNETT CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Colo.

GENERAL MOTORS: First Circuit Considers Appeal in Antitrust Case
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lawsuit in Canada Over U.S.-Made Vehicles
GENERAL MOTORS: 6th Circuit Affirms UAW Suit Settlement Approval
GENERAL MOTORS: Special Master Appointed in Securities Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Lawsuits Over Engine Cooling Systems

GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Consolidated ERISA Litigation in Mich.
GENESEE & WYOMING: Units Settle Suit Over Outremont Yard Noise
GENZYME CORP: Settles Tracking Stock Structure Suits for $64M
GEORGIA FARM: Settles Insurance Coverage Suit in Ga. for $18M
HERTZ CORP: Faces Georgia Suit Over Alleged Discrimination

LOUISIANA: Class Status of Suit Over Traffic Citations Affirmed
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Settles Md. Securities Fraud Suit for $6M
MEDTRONIC INC: Ontario Court Certifies Suit Over Defibrillators
MICROSOFT CORP: $180M Ia. Antitrust Suit Claims Filing Ends Fri.
QANTAS AIRWAYS: Admission Likely to Bolster Price Fixing Suit

QANTAS AIRWAYS: Slater & Gordon Wants Ban on "Override" Payments
SCOTIABANK: Toronto Law Firms Launch Second Unpaid Overtime Suit
UBS FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle SWX, QES Lawsuits for $23M
WAL-MART STORES: Denied Review of Class Certification in “Dukes”

              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Cohen & Malad Files Securities Fraud Suit
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Cal. Securities Suit
SECURITY CAPITAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ADVANCED MICRO: GPU Antitrust Suit Plaintiffs Want to Amend Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in antitrust actions over Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc.'s  pricing of graphics processing units (GPU) and cards,
seek to amend their complaints after a partial dismissal of the
case.

The company, its recent acquisition ATI Technologies, Inc., and
Nvidia Corp., were named as defendants in such suits, which were
filed in the Northern District of California, the Central
District of California, the District of Massachusetts, the
Western District of Wisconsin, the District of South Carolina,  
the District of Kansas and the District of Vermont.

According to the complaints, plaintiffs filed each of the
actions after reading press reports that the company and Nvidia
had received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division in connection with the DOJ’s investigation
into potential antitrust violations related to graphics
processing units and cards.

All of the actions appear to allege that the defendants
conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of
graphics processing units and cards in violation of federal
antitrust law and/or state antitrust law.

Further, each of the complaints is styled as a putative class
action and alleges a class of plaintiffs (either indirect or
direct purchasers) who purportedly suffered injury as a result
of the defendants’ alleged conduct.

The majority of the complaints propose a class period from
November or December 2002 to the present.

The court held a hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss in
September 2007.  On Sept. 27, 2007, the court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to
dismiss.  

Pursuant to the court’s order, plaintiffs filed motions to amend
their complaints on Oct. 11, 2007, and defendants filed
oppositions to plaintiffs’ motions on Oct. 18, 2007.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. -- http://www.amd.com/-- is a  
global semiconductor company with facilities worldwide.  It
provides processing solutions for the computing, graphics and
consumer electronics markets. During the year ended Dec. 31,
2006, the Company offered primarily x86 microprocessors, for the
commercial and consumer markets, which are used for control and
computing tasks, and embedded microprocessors for commercial,
commercial client and consumer markets.  On Oct. 25, 2006, the
Company acquired ATI Technologies Inc.   As a result of the
acquisition, the Company began to supply three-dimensional
graphics, video and multimedia products, and chipsets for
personal computers, including desktop and notebook PCs,
professional workstations and servers, and products for consumer
electronic devices, such as mobile phones, digital television
and game consoles.


AMERIWOOD INDUSTRIES: Recalls Defective Entertainment Centers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriwood Industries Inc., of Tiffin, Ohio, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 138,000 entertainment centers.

The entertainment centers can collapse if the back panel is not
secure, posing a risk of death or serious injury to consumers.

The firm has received a report of a fatality when the
entertainment center collapsed on a 19 month old child. The firm
has received three other reports of minor injuries involving the
entertainment center.

The recalled entertainment centers are black with two lower
miter-framed doors, two glass doors at the top, and CD storage
racks. They measure about 54 inches wide, 71 inches high, and 20
inches deep. They were sold under the Ridgewood/Charleswood
brand name. Model number 93956 is printed on the instruction
manual.

They were sold at mass merchandisers nationwide, including K-
Mart stores, from June 2000 through May 2005 for about $200. The
entertainment centers were manufactured in the United States.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled
entertainment centers and contact Ameriwood to receive a free
support panel repair kit.

For additional information, contact Ameriwood toll-free at (877)
732-8252 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday,
or visit http://www.ameriwood.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/prhtml08/08114.html


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Pa. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action pending against ATI Technologies, Inc., an acquisition of
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

In August and September 2005, five class actions were filed
against ATI and certain of its directors and officers on behalf
of shareholders who purchased ATI common shares between Oct. 7,
2004 and on or about June 23, 2005.  

The claims allege that ATI and certain of its directors and
officers violated U.S. securities laws by failing to disclose
material facts and making statements that contained
misrepresentations about its business and future outlook.  

It is alleged that as a result of the failure to disclose
material facts and the alleged misrepresentations, ATI's common
stock traded at artificially inflated prices until the stock
price dropped on the news of ATI's third quarter results in June
2005.  

The claims further allege that while in possession of material
undisclosed information, certain of ATI's directors and officers
sold a portion of their common shares at inflated prices.  

On May 23, 2006, the court dismissed one of the five actions
because the plaintiff failed to serve the summons and complaint.
The remaining four lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action, and on Sept. 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

ATI filed its motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on Dec. 4, 2006.  On Jan. 25, 2007 class plaintiffs
filed their opposition to ATI's motion to dismiss.

On Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss.

The suit is “Glass v. ATI Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-04414-TON,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Thomas N. Oneill,
Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert P. Frutkin, Esq.
         The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
         450 John Wanamaker Bldg., Juniper & Market Sts.,
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-561-3600
         Fax: 215-561-3000
         E-mail: rpf@bernardmgross.com

              - and -

         Trig Randall Smith, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         E-mail: TrigS@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Daniel Segal, Esq.
         Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
         One Logan Square, 27TH FL.
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-6933
         Phone: 215-568-6200
         E-mail: dsegal@hangley.com

              - and -

         Brian H. Polovoy, Esq.
         Shearman & Sterling
         599 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10022-6069
         Phone: 212-848-4000
         E-mail: bpolovoy@shearman.com


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Over “HDCP Ready” Graphic Cards Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in the
consolidated consumer fraud class action, “In Re: ATI
Technologies HDCP Litigation.”

In February and March 2006, two consumer class actions were
filed against ATI Technologies, Inc. -- an acquisition of
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., (AMD) -- and three of its
subsidiaries.  The complaints allege that ATI had misrepresented
its graphics cards as being “HDCP ready” when they were not, and
on that basis alleged violations of state consumer protection
statutes, breach of express and implied warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

On April 18, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating the
two actions.  On June 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint, alleging violations of California's consumer
protection laws, breach of express warranty, and unjust
enrichment.

On June 21, 2006, a third consumer class action that was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
in May 2006 alleging claims that are substantially the same was
transferred to the Northern District of California, and on July
31, 2006, that case was also consolidated into the consolidated
action pending in the Northern District of California.

ATI filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on Aug. 7,
2006.

On December 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification.  ATI filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Class Certification on March 29, 2007.

The class certification hearing was held on May 21, 2007.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the Court entered an order denying
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification without prejudice,
granting plaintiffs additional time to conduct class discovery
and granting plaintiffs certain fees and costs.

The suit is “In Re: ATI Technologies HDCP Litigation, Case No.
5:06-cv-01303-JW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge James Ware with
referral to Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4632
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212-362-5770
         Fax: 917-591-5227
         E-mail: abarnett@masonlawdc.com

         David C. Parisi, Esq.
         Parisi & Havens, LLP
         15233 Valleyheart Drive
         Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
         Phone: 818-990-1299
         Fax: 818-501-7852
         E-mail: dcparisi@msn.com

         Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
         Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
         2757 Leonis Blvd.
         Vernon, CA 90058
         Phone: 323-585-8696
         E-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net

              - and -

         Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
         19 Fulton Street, Suite 400
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 877-773-5469
         Fax: 212-202-6364
         E-mail: skamber@kolaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Jeffrey S. Facter, Esq.
         Shearman & Sterling, LLP
         525 Market Street, Suite 1500
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-616-1100
         Fax: 415-616-1199
         E-mail: jfacter@shearman.com


BIOVAIL CORP: OTPP Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit for $138M
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board (OTPP) reached a $138
million cash settlement agreement in a securities fraud class
action against Biovail Corp. and certain of its officers.

OTPP is the court-appointed co-lead plaintiff in the Biovail
Securities Litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. OTPP, with co-lead
plaintiff Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund, led the prosecution of
this litigation on behalf of a class of investors who purchased
Biovail common stock during the period February 7, 2003 through
March 2, 2004.

In late 2003 and early 2004, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York naming Biovail and certain
officers and directors as defendants.

On or about June 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, alleging among other matters, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The company responded to the complaint by filing a motion to
dismiss, which the court denied.  Thereafter, the company filed
its answer denying the allegations in the complaint.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second
amended class action complaint under seal.  The second amended
complaint alleges, among other matters, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

More specifically, the second amended complaint alleges that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements that
inflated the price of the company's stock between Feb. 7, 2003
and March 2, 2004.

Plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all
persons, other than the defendants and their affiliates, who
purchased the company's stock during that period.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The company has opposed that motion.

On Oct. 16, 2006, the company filed its answer denying the
allegations in the second amended complaint (Class Action
Reporter, Apr. 18, 2007).

The settlement was reached after nearly four years of intensive
litigation, and is the second largest settlement of a securities
case involving a Canadian issuer, behind only Nortel, another
class action in which OTPP served as co-lead plaintiff. The
settlement will also include corporate governance relief to be
negotiated.

Commenting on the settlement, President and Chief Executive
Officer of OTPP, Jim Leech, stated: "This is an excellent
recovery and reflects the impact that institutional investors
like OTPP can have in securities class actions. We are pleased
to obtain this recovery on behalf of the class and our more than
271,000 active and retired teachers, for whom we invest."

The settlement is subject to approval by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit is "In Re: Biovail Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 03-CV-8917," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Richard Owen.

Plaintiff firms named in case are:

          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY, 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1400
          Fax: 212-554-1444
          E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com

          - and -

          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY, 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300
          Fax: 212-868-1229
          E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com


CHICAGO TITLE: Kan. Court Dismisses Suit Over Recording Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum dismissed a class action
filed against Chicago Title for alleged overcharges in recording
fees, Dan Margolies of Kansas City Star.

Kansas residents James A. and Aimee Doll alleged that when they
refinanced the mortgage on their house in 2002, Chicago Title,
which acted as the settlement agent, overcharged them $6 in
recording fees for the mortgage and release.  They paid $45 when
the company paid only $39 to record the documents.  The Dolls
said the company failed to refund the excess charge.

The couple sought to have the case certified as a class action
on behalf of residents of Kansas, 17 other states and the
District of Columbia.  But Judge Lungstrum ruled that the Dolls’
claims were not typical of all claims in the would-be class.

The Dolls has exceeded the two-year statute of limitations
governing claims for breach of fiduciary duty and “conversion”
in Kansas when they filed the suit in September 2006.  They
relied on Kansas’ discovery rule, but many of the possible class
members had closed their mortgage deals within two years of the
filing of the suit.

“If Chicago Title were to succeed on its limitations defense to
plaintiffs’ tort claims,” Judge Lungstrum wrote, “other class
members with no limitations problem would be bound to the
adverse judgment against the plaintiffs.”

The Dolls’ attorney, Kirk May of Rouse Hendricks German May,
said his clients are contemplating an appeal.  He also said they
could file a suit with another plaintiff in a new jurisdiction
-- just like similar suits the law firm filed against title
insurance companies.

Chicago Title is represented by Rick Bien of Brian Fries and
Alok Ahuja of Lathrop & Gage.

For more information, contact:

          Alok Ahuja, Esq.
          Phone: (816) 460-5532
          Fax: (816) 292-2001
          E-mail: aahuja@lathropgage.com

          Kirk T. May, Esq.
          Kansas City, Missouri
          Phone: (816) 471-7700
          Fax: (816) 471-2221


COMMERCE BANCORP: Faces Consolidated Suit in N.J. Over TD Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complaints filed against Commerce Bancorp, Inc. with regards to
its agreement and plan of merger with Toronto-Dominion Bank have
been consolidated in the New Jersey Superior Court, Camden
County, Law Division.

On Oct. 2, 2007, the company and The Toronto-Dominion Bank
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.  

The Company’s Board of Directors approved the Merger Agreement
and has adopted a resolution recommending the approval of the
Merger Agreement by the Company’s shareholders.  

Since the announcement on Oct. 2, 2007 of the signing of the
Merger Agreement, ten 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.

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).


COMPREHENSIVE CARE: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Hythiam Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Care Corp. is seeking for a dismissal of purported
class actions that were filed against it in Delaware in
connection with the now mutually terminated Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Hythiam, Inc.

Initially, the company and nine current and former board members
were named as defendants in two class actions filed by two
shareholders on Jan. 23, 2007 and Feb. 1, 2007, respectively.

In the similar complaints, filed in the Chancery Court of
Delaware, the plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive and other
equitable relief to prevent Hythiam, Inc. from acquiring 49.95%
of  the company's outstanding common shares that it does not
currently own (either directly or through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Healthcare Investment Partners, LLP [Woodcliff])
from the remaining minority shareholders.

The plaintiffs allege that the consideration proposed to the
minority shareholders by Hythiam is inadequate, through coercive
means, without fair process and through material misleading
information.

On May 25, 2007, the parties mutually terminated the Agreement
and Plan of Merger.  The plaintiffs’ counsel has acknowledged
that the lawsuits are now moot and has agreed to dismiss them,
but has not yet done so.

On August 30, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss
their case without prejudice, with the court reserving
jurisdiction for their fee application.

On Oct. 10, 2007, the company requested that the court dismiss
the case with prejudice, and not allow legal fees to be awarded
to the plaintiff’s counsel.   

Comprehensive Care Corp. -- http://www.compcare.com/--  
primarily through its wholly owned subsidiary, Comprehensive
Behavioral Care, Inc., provides managed care services in the
behavioral health and psychiatric fields.


EI DUPONT: Ontario Court Certifies Resins Price Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class
action against E.I. DuPont Canada Co. on behalf of a group of
Canadian manufacturers of plastic parts supplying the automotive
industry. The case is the first of its kind in Canada to be
certified as a class action.

Axiom Plastics Inc. of Aurora, Ontario has sued DuPont Canada
for alleged breaches of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c. C-34
in relation to the manner in which prices of DuPont engineering
resins are established.

The plaintiff claims that DuPont Canada has utilized a system,
known as the Credit Upon Proof of Sale system, in order to
enhance and maintain the price of engineering resins sold to
moulders which manufacture parts for the automotive industry.

The lawsuit covers sales of resins to moulders directly by
DuPont Canada and indirectly through DuPont Canada's three
authorized distributors: Canada Colors and Chemicals Limited,
Ashland Canada Inc., which operates as General Polymers, and
PolyOne Distribution Canada Ltd. DuPont Canada denies the
plaintiff's claim. No court has ruled on whether the claim will
succeed at trial.

The claim alleges that DuPont Canada, through its pricing system
and its arrangements with its authorized distributors, set and
maintained the price of specialized resins, known as
'engineering resins', at artificially high prices.

DuPont's engineering resins include resins sold under the names:
Delrin, Zytel, Zytel HTN, Minlon, Hytrel, Rynite and Crastin.

"Engineering resins are the single largest component in our
sector's cost of goods" says Axiom's president, Perry Rizzo.

"We believe that DuPont Canada's actions have harmed the
competitiveness of Axiom and all Canadian plastics manufacturers
competing in the international automotive market."

In the ruling, Justice Alexandra Hoy of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice found that the main focus of the alleged
conspiracy involved a system of price concessions and rebates
granted by DuPont Canada to its authorized distributors which
allowed DuPont Canada to effectively control the resale price of
resins sold by its independent distributors.

The judge noted the evidence that many of the automotive parts
manufacturers are in dire financial straits and are required to
compete in a fiercely competitive market.

David Sterns, one of the lawyers for Axiom, pointed out that the
court's decision represents the first class action to be
certified involving the beleaguered Canadian auto parts
industry.

The lawsuit is brought by the law firms of Sotos LLP and
McCarthy Tetrault LLP.

DuPont Class Action on the net:
http://www.dupont-automotiveresins-classaction.ca

For more information, contact:

          David Sterns
          Sotos LLP
          Phone: (416) 977-0007
          E-mail: dsterns@sotosllp.com

          - and -

          Jonathan C. Lisus
          McCarthy Tettrault LLP
          Phone: (416) 601-7848
          E-mail: jlisus@mccarthy.ca


ENTERGY CORP: Tex. Court Denies Power Price Suit Review Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Supreme Court denied Entergy Corp.'s request for
reconsideration of a Court of Appeals order denying the
company's petition for review of a decision to remand the Texas
Power Price Lawsuit to the district court.

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of
Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a
purported class apparently of the Texas retail customers of
Entergy Gulf States Inc. who were billed and paid for electric
power from Jan. 1, 1994 to the present.

The named defendants are:

     * Entergy Corp.,
     * Entergy Services,
     * Entergy Power,
     * Entergy Power Marketing Corp.,
     * Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp., and
     * Entergy Arkansas.

Entergy Gulf States is not a named defendant, but is alleged to
be a co-conspirator.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a “price
gouging accounting scheme” to sell to plaintiffs and similarly
situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the
defendants while rejecting and/or reselling to off-system
utilities, less expensive power offered and/or purchased from
off-system suppliers and/or generated by the Entergy system.

In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated
and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation so that
power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources instead
of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs estimate that customers in Texas were charged at
least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power.   

Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages,
costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.  In
September 2003, the Entergy defendants removed the lawsuit to
the federal court in Galveston, and in October 2003, filed a
pleading seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.

In October 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.

In April 2006, the Court of Appeals denied a motion for
rehearing of the decision to remand the case to the district
court.  

In May 2006, Entergy filed a petition for discretionary review
with the Texas Supreme Court.  The Texas Supreme Court requested
full briefing from the parties before consideration of whether
to exercise its discretion to grant review of this matter.

In August 2007, the Texas Supreme Court denied Entergy's request
for reconsideration of the court's order denying Entergy's
petition for review.  

Entergy expects to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the decision.

Entergy Corp. -- http://www.entergy.com-- is an integrated  
energy company engaged primarily in electric power production
and retail electric distribution operations.  Entergy owns and
operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of
electric generating capacity and it is a nuclear power generator
in the U.S.  Entergy delivers electricity to 2.6 million utility
customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.  The
Company operates through two business segments: Utility and Non-
Utility Nuclear.  Entergy also operates the non-nuclear
wholesale assets business.  


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date Set for N.J. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to set a trial date for a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against Exide Technologies, Inc.

In June 2005, the company received notice that two former
stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, separately
filed purported class actions against the company and certain of
its current and former officers, alleging violations of certain
federal securities laws.

The cases were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the
company's stock between Nov. 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005.  

The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20 (a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and
misleading public statements made during this period by the
company and its officers.  The complaints did not specify an
amount of damages sought.  

On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva
Partners and Jarman cases as, “Aviva Partners v. Exide
Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098 (MLC).”

On March 24, 2006, Judge Cooper appointed as co-lead plaintiffs:

     * the Alaska Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust
       Fund, and

     * Lakeway Capital Management.

The judge also appointed the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoja
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as co-lead
counsel for the putative class.

On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint in which they reiterated the claims described
above but purported to state a claim on behalf of those who
purchased the company's stock between May 5, 2004 and May 17,
2005.

On June 22, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints briefing.  The court
has granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint and
permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, which it
did.  

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  On March 13,
2007, the Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss.  

Discovery in this litigation is proceeding and is expected to
continue throughout the remainder of 2007 and 2008.  No trial
date has been set in this matter.

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

The suit is “Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Mary L. Cooper,
with referral to Judge John J. Hughes.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq.
         Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
         163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
         Phone: (973) 775-8997
         E-mail: procco@lawssb.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Edward T. Kole, Esq.
         Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs.
         90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 - Box 10
         Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958
         Phone: (732) 636-8000
         E-mail: ekole@wilentz.com


FIRST CONSULTING: Sued in Calif. Over Computer Sciences Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a class
action has been filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California on behalf of shareholders of First Consulting Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ: FCGI) in connection with the agreement and Plan of
Merger with Computer Sciences Corp.

The purpose of the action is to seek the highest possible offer
for the public shares of First Consulting.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esquire
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Toll Free: 877-LEGAL-90


FLORIDA: Trial Begins in Suit Over Broward Citrus Tree Cuttings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a suit over Florida's citrus canker eradication program
in Broward County opened on Dec. 3, the South Florida Sun-
Sentinel reports.

The suit was filed against the state's Agriculture Department on
behalf of about 70,000 Broward County homeowners whose trees
were cut down because they were within 1,900 feet of infected
trees.

"This case is about the deprivation of private property rights
in violation of the state constitution," said Robert Gilbert,
lead attorney for the homeowners, in his opening statement
before Broward Circuit Judge Ronald Rothschild.  He said the
state settled on a policy of destroying hundreds of thousands of
residential citrus trees in South Florida without proper
compensation, because it was cheaper than inspecting them
regularly or undertaking eminent domain proceedings to pay a
fair price, according to the report.

The state maintains that all the trees that were destroyed were
within 1,900 feet of a canker-infected tree, so they were
exposed and had no value, according to Wes Parsons, attorney for
the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

For more than 20 years, the state tried unsuccessfully to stop
the spread of the tree disease from Southeast Florida into the
commercial citrus belt of Central Florida.  

Though canker is harmless to humans, it causes blemishes on
fruit.  Some experts say the disease weakens the tree and
decreases its production.

After spending nearly $500 million since 1995 and failing to
stop the disease, the federal and state governments gave up in
January 2006.

During the eradication effort, the state gave homeowners a $100
Wal-Mart voucher for the first tree cut, encouraging residents
to replant other trees, shrubs or plants.  The state also wrote
checks for $55 each for all other citrus trees removed from a
yard.

During the trial, the homeowners opened with the testimony of
Claudette Abrams, of Monroe Street in Hollywood.  It was
followed by that of John Harris, a certified arborist and tree
appraiser, who described his appraisals of citrus trees in
Deerfield Beach.  Mr. Harris acknowledged that if the trees he
appraised had citrus canker they would have no value.  Mr.
Gilbert also called to the stand Deputy Agriculture Commissioner
Craig Meyer.

Timothy Schubert, head of the department's Plant Pathology
Section, is testifying for the Agriculture Department.

For more details, contact:

          Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
          Robert C. Gilbert, P.A.
          220 Alhambra Circle, Suite 400, Miami
          FL 33134-5174
          Phone: (305) 529-9100


FLORIDA: Palm Beach Residents to Get Payment for Citrus Trees
-------------------------------------------------------------
A county circuit judge ruled that the state should compensate
Palm Beach county residents whose citrus trees were cut down as
part of a canker eradication program in 2001, reports say.  The
compensation order could benefit nearly 41,000 Palm Beach County
residents.

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Robin Rosenberg ruled on Dec. 7
that the destruction of the trees constituted a "taking" under
the Florida Constitution, "requiring full and just
compensation."  

The suit was filed on behalf of David and Lillian Mendez, of
Boca Raton against the state Agriculture Department.  State
Agriculture Commissioner Charles H. Bronson said the agency
plans to appeal.  

For more than 20 years, the state tried unsuccessfully to stop
the spread of the tree disease from Southeast Florida into the
commercial citrus belt of Central Florida.  

Though canker is harmless to humans, it causes blemishes on
fruit.  Some experts say the disease weakens the tree and
decreases its production.

After spending nearly $500 million since 1995 and failing to
stop the disease, the federal and state governments gave up in
January 2006.

During the eradication effort, the state gave homeowners a $100
Wal-Mart voucher for the first tree cut, encouraging residents
to replant other trees, shrubs or plants.  The state also wrote
checks for $55 each for all other citrus trees removed from a
yard.

Four similar suits are filed in Broward, Lee, Miami-Dade and
Orange counties.  Trial started for the Broward suit on Dec. 3.

A jury trial is set for March 31 to determine how much the state
owes the plaintiffs in the Palm Beach suit.  Plaintiffs' counsel
Robert C. Gilbert said his legal team will argue that homeowners
should at least receive $400 per tree on average, based on the
Department of Agriculture's own estimates. In Palm Beach County
alone that would total more than $25 million, he said.

For more details, contact:

          Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
          Robert C. Gilbert, P.A.
          220 Alhambra Circle, Suite 400, Miami, FL 33134-5174
          Phone: (305) 529-9100


GANNETT CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gannett Co. Inc. still faces a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Dec. 31, 2003, two employees of the company's television
station KUSA in Denver filed the suit against the company and
the Gannett Retirement Plan on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals who participated in the Plan
after Jan. 1, 1998, the date that certain amendments to the Plan
took effect.  

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the current pension
plan formula adopted in that amendment violated the age
discrimination accrual provisions of the ERISA.  They seek to
have their post-1997 benefits recalculated and seek other
equitable relief.

The court has granted the plaintiffs motion to certify a class.

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

The suit is “Wells, et al. v. Gannett Retire Plan, et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-02671-RPM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Richard P. Matsch.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John Hathaway Evans, Jr., Esq.
          Robert F. Hill, Esq.
          Hill & Robbins, P.C.
          1441 - 18th Street #100
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-296-8100
          Fax: 303-296-2388
          E-mail: johnevans@hillandrobbins.com
                  roberthill@hillandrobbins.com

               - and -

          Douglas R. Sprong, Esq.
          Korein Tillery, LLC
          701 Market Street #300
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: 314-241-4844
          Fax: 314-588-7036
          E-mail: dsprong@koreintillery.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Kerri Atencio, Esq.
          Michael S. Beaver, Esq.
          Parker Whitfield Dragovich, Esq.
          Holland & Hart, LLP
          Phone: 719-475-6474 and 303-290-1600
          Fax: 303-290-1606
          E-mail: kjatencio@hollandhart.com
                  mbeaver@hollandhart.com
                  pdragovich@hollandhart.com

               - and -   

          Margaret A. Clemens, Esq.
          Nixon Peabody, LLP
          Clinton Square, P.O. Box 31051
          Rochester, NY 14603
          Phone: 585-263-1453
          Fax: 585-263-1600
          E-mail: MClemens@nixonpeabody.com


GENERAL MOTORS: First Circuit Considers Appeal in Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral
arguments on General Motors Corp.'s consolidated appeal of an
order that certified a nationwide class of buyers and lessees in
the purported class action, “In re New Market Vehicle Canadian
Export Antitrust Litigation Cases.”

Initially, some 79 purported class actions were filed in various
state and federal courts on behalf of all purchasers of new
motor vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001 (Class Action
Reporter, April 16, 2007).  

The defendants include:

     -- General Motors Corp.,  
     -- General Motors of Canada Ltd. along with Ford,  
     -- Daimler Chrysler,  
     -- Toyota,  
     -- Honda,  
     -- Nissan and BMW,  
     -- their Canadian affiliates,  
     -- the National Automobile Dealers Association, and  
     -- the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

The federal court actions were consolidated for coordinated
pretrial proceedings in federal court under the caption “In re
New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases,”
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.  

The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant
manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired
among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to   
U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and
sold by dealers in Canada.   

The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10%
to 30% lower than those in the U.S. and that preventing the sale
of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of
supracompetitive prices by U.S. consumers.  In addition, the
complaints also alleged unjust enrichment and violations of
state unfair trade practices act.
   
The court ruled on March 21, 2007 that it will certify 20
separate statewide class actions for damages under various state
law theories under Federal Rule 23(b)(3), covering the period
from Jan. 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003.

General Motors has appealed the certification of the damages
classes following the entry of the class certification order and
anticipates that its appeal will be consolidated with its
pending appeal of a prior order certifying a nationwide class
for injunctive relief only.

On Oct. 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
heard oral arguments on the company's consolidated appeal of the
orders of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine
certifying 20 separate statewide class actions for damages under
various state law theories and certifying a nationwide class for
injunctive relief only.  

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily  
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lawsuit in Canada Over U.S.-Made Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. is facing a purported class action in
Ontario Superior Court of Justice that alleges defendants
conspired among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the
sale to Canadian citizens of lower-cost U.S.-made vehicles.  

On Sept. 25, 2007, a claim was filed on behalf of a purported
class of actual and intended purchasers of vehicles in Canada
alleging that a conspiracy was now preventing U.S. vehicles from
being sold to Canadians.   

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily  
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: 6th Circuit Affirms UAW Suit Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed an
approval of a settlement agreement in the putative class action
“UAW, et al. v. General Motors Corp.”

On Oct. 18, 2005, the United Automobile Workers (UAW) and two
hourly retirees filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of hourly retirees,
spouses, and dependents, seeking to enjoin unilateral
modifications by the company to hourly retiree health-care
benefits, claiming that such benefits are unalterably vested.

The company though maintains that retiree health-care benefits
are not vested and that it has expressly reserved the right to
make unilateral changes.  

On Oct. 29, 2005, the company and the UAW entered into a
memorandum of understanding that provided for a number of
changes to health care coverage for both UAW represented active
employees and UAW retirees.

On Oct. 31, 2005, plaintiffs' filed an amended complaint adding
four additional retirees and one surviving spouse as putative
class representatives.  

The lawsuit followed months of negotiations between the company
and the UAW regarding changes to retiree health-care benefits
and is the initial step in implementing this agreement.

On Dec. 16, 2005, the company, the UAW and the putative class
representatives finalized a settlement agreement and submitted
motions to the court for certification of the class, preliminary
approval of the final settlement and approval of the proposed
notice to class members.

On Dec. 22, 2005, the district court certified the class and
preliminarily approved the UAW Health Care Settlement Agreement,
among General Motors, the UAW, and the putative class
representatives.

The court's March 31, 2006 order approving the UAW Health Care
Settlement Agreement, on a class-wide basis has been appealed to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by a small
number of individual objectors.  

On Aug. 2, 2007, the Sixth Circuit issued an order, affirming
the lower court’s decision approving the settlement agreement.   

The suit is “United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, et al. v. General Motors Corp.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-73991-RHC-VMM,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Robert H.
Cleland with referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael F. Saggau, Esq.
          Daniel W. Sherrick, Esq.
          UAW International Union
          8000 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48214
          Phone: 313-926-5216
          Fax: 313-926-5240
          E-mail: msaggau@uaw.net

          John M. West, Esq.
          Bredhoff and Kaiser
          805 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-842-2600
          Fax: 22-842-1888
          E-mail: jwest@bredhoff.com
       
               - and -

          William T. Payne, Esq.
          1007 Mt. Royal Boulevard
          Pittsburgh, PA 15223
          Phone: 412-492-5797
          Fax: 412-492-8978
          E-mail: wpayne@stargate.net

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis
          200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 6000
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-861-2391

               - and -

          Edward W. Risko, Esq.
          Francis S. Jaworski, Esq.
          General Motors Corporation, Legal Staff
          300 Renaissance Center
          Phone: 313-667-2408
          Fax: 313-667-6323
          E-mail: edward.w.risko@gm.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Special Master Appointed in Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
appointed a special master for the purpose of facilitating
settlement negotiations in the case, “In re General Motors
Corporation Securities and Derivative Litigation.”

On Sept. 19, 2005, a purported class action complaint, “Folksam
Asset Management v. General Motors, et al.,” was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
naming as defendants:

     -- the company;
     -- GMAC;
     -- the company's chairman and chief executive officer, G.
        Richard Wagoner, Jr.;
     -- vice chairman, John Devine;
     -- treasurer, Walter Borst; and
     -- chief accounting officer, Peter Bible.

Plaintiffs purported to bring the claim on behalf of purchasers
of the company's debt and/or equity securities from Feb. 25,
2002 to March 16, 2005.  The complaint alleged that defendants
violated Section 10(b) and, with respect to the individual
defendants, Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.

The complaint also alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a),
and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 15 of
the Securities Act, in connection with certain registered debt
offerings during the class period.  

In particular, the complaint alleged that the company's cash
flows during the class period were overstated based on the
reclassification of certain cash items described in its 2004
Form 10-K.

The reclassification involves cash flows relating to the
financing of GMAC wholesale receivables from dealers that
resulted in no net cash receipts and the company's decision to
revise Consolidated Statements of Net Cash for the years ended
2002 and 2003.  

The complaint also alleged misrepresentations relating to
forward-looking statements of the company's 2005 earnings
forecast that were later revised significantly downward.

In October 2005, a substantially identical suit was filed and
consolidated with the Folksam case as, “Galliani v. General
Motors, et al.”  The consolidated suit is now called, “In re
General Motors Securities Litigation.”

On Nov. 18, 2005, plaintiffs in the Folksam case filed an
amended complaint, which added several additional investors as
plaintiffs, extended the end of the class period to Nov. 9,
2005, and named as additional defendants three current and one
former member of the company's audit committee, as well as its
independent accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP.  

In addition to the claims asserted in the original complaint,
the amended complaint also added allegations regarding the
company's Form SEC 8-K dated Nov. 8, 2005, which reported that
its 2001 earnings would be restated and added a claim against
defendants Wagoner and General Motors Acceptance Corporation
Devine for rescission of their bonuses and incentive
compensation during the class period.

It also included further allegations regarding the company's
accounting for pension obligations, restatement of income for
2001, and financial results for the first and second quarters of
2005.

Neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint specify
the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no means to
estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited
information available in the complaint.  Defendants have not yet
filed their response to the complaints, but intend to vigorously
defend these actions.

On Dec. 13, 2005, defendants in "In re General Motors Securities
Litigation," and in certain other litigation against the company
filed a Motion with the JPMDL to transfer and consolidate those
cases for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.

On Jan. 5, 2006, defendants submitted to the JPML an Amended
Motion seeking to add to their original Motion the cases:

     * "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al.;" and
     * "Gluckstern v. Wagoner, et al."

for consolidated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On April 17, 2006, the JPML entered an order transferring, “In
re General Motors Corp. Securities Litigation” to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with:

      -- "Stein v. Bowles, et al.;"

      -- "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al.;"

      -- "Gluckstern v. Wagoner, et al.;" and

      -- "Orr v. Wagoner, et al."

While the motion was pending, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
"Rosen."  

The case is now captioned as “In re General Motors Corp.
Securities and Derivative Litigation.”

In October 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan appointed a special master for the purpose
of facilitating settlement negotiations.   

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily  
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Lawsuits Over Engine Cooling Systems
------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. settled several purported class actions
related to alleged defects in engine cooling systems in GM
vehicles.   

In October 2007, the parties reached a tentative settlement that
would resolve certain claims in putative class actions related
to alleged defects in the engine cooling systems in GM vehicles.

The settlement as negotiated would apply to claims related to
vehicles sold in the U.S. with a 3.1, 3.4, or 3.8-liter engine
or to the use of Dexcool engine coolant in sport utility
vehicles and pickup trucks with a 4.3-liter engine from 1996
through 2000.

Once definitive settlement agreements have been executed, they
will be submitted for approval to the appropriate courts.

The tentative settlement does not include claims asserted in
several different alleged class actions related to alleged
gasket failures in certain other engines, including 4.3, 5.0 and
5.7-liter engines (without model year restrictions), or claims
relating to alleged coolant related failures in vehicles other
than those covered by the tentative settlement.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily  
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Consolidated ERISA Litigation in Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. reached a tentative settlement in the
matter “In re General Motors Corp. ERISA Litigation,” which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.   

In May 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan consolidated three related purported class actions
brought under Employee Retirement Income Security Act against
General Motors and other named defendants who are alleged to be
fiduciaries of the General Motors stock purchase programs and
personal savings plans for salaried and hourly employees, under
the case caption, “In re General Motors Corp. ERISA Litigation.”

In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint against General Motors, the Investment Funds Committee
of the General Motors board, its individual members, General
Motors's chairman and chief executive officer, members of
General Motors's Employee Benefits Committee during the putative
class period, General Motors's wholly owned subsidiary General
Motors Investment Management Corp., and State Street Bank.

The complaint alleged that the General Motors defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by, among
other things, investing their assets, or offering them the
option of investing, in General Motors stock on the ground that
it was not a prudent investment.

Plaintiffs purported to bring these claims on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the plans
from March 18, 1999 to the present, and sought to recover losses
allegedly suffered by the plans.

The complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, and
defendants have no means at this time to estimate damages the
plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information
available in the complaint.

On July 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
class action complaint, which principally added allegations
about General Motors' restated earnings and reclassification of
cash flows, but which did not name any additional defendants or
assert any new claims.

On Aug. 24, 2006, the General Motors defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  No determination has been
made that the case may be maintained as a class action.

In August 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan granted in part and denied in part the defendants’
motion to dismiss.  

In October 2007, the parties reached a tentative settlement.
Once a definitive settlement agreement has been executed, it
will be submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan for approval.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily  
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENESEE & WYOMING: Units Settle Suit Over Outremont Yard Noise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. along with Canadian  
Pacific Railway have reached a settlement in a class action over
noise at the Outremont rail yard to proceed.

In February 2002, Mr. Paquin, an individual living adjacent to
the Outremont rail yard, filed a motion for authorization of
class certification in the Quebec Superior Court in Canada in
connection with a claim against two of the company's
subsidiaries, Genesee Rail-One Inc., now Genesee & Wyoming
Canada Inc., and Quebec-Gatineau Railway Inc., as well as
Canadian Pacific.  

Mr. Paquin alleged that the noise from the Outremont rail yard
causes significant nuisance problems to the residents who live
near the rail yard.  Canadian Pacific owns the rail yard with
part of it being leased and operated by Quebec-Gatineau Railway
Inc.  

Plaintiff described the proposed class as comprised of all
owners and tenants of dwellings who have lived within a defined  
section of the Outremont neighborhood in Montreal, which
surrounds the rail yard.   

Mr. Paquin requested the issuance of an injunction in order to
limit the hours when the rail yard may operate.  Plaintiff has
not alleged any specific monetary claim with respect to the
damages of other members of the class, but is seeking to recover
for his “trouble and inconvenience” as well as for “potential
devaluation of the value of his property.”

Following a May 2007 settlement conference, the Parties agreed
on the terms of a settlement agreement whereby all outstanding
claims under the class action will be dropped.  

The settlement agreement remains subject to review and approval
by the class members and the Quebec Superior 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.   

Connecticut-based Genesee & Wyoming Inc. -- http://www.gwrr.com
-- is an owner and operator of short line and regional freight
railroads in the U.S., Australia, Canada and Mexico, and owns a
minority interest in a railroad in Bolivia.  It has interests in
48 railroads located in the United States (42), Canada (3),
Australia (1), Mexico (1) and Bolivia (1).  The Company also
leases and manages railroad transportation equipment in the
U.S., Canada and Mexico, and provides freight car switching and
ancillary rail services.


GENZYME CORP: Settles Tracking Stock Structure Suits for $64M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genzyme Corp. reached a $64,000,000 settlement that effectively
concludes all litigation against the company following a
consolidation of Genzyme's tracking stock structure in 2003,
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.   

Through June 30, 2003, the company had three outstanding series
of common stock, which we referred to as tracking stocks;
Genzyme General Stock (which we now refer to as Genzyme Stock),
Biosurgery Stock and Molecular Oncology Stock.

Four lawsuits were filed against the company regarding the
exchange of all of the outstanding shares of Biosurgery Stock
for shares of Genzyme Stock in connection with the elimination
of our tracking stocks in July 2003.

Each of the lawsuits was a purported class action on behalf of
holders of Biosurgery Stock.

                         First MSC Case

The first case, filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court (MSC)
in May 2003, alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing in our charter and a breach of our board
of directors' fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff in this case sought an injunction to adjust the
exchange ratio for the tracking stock exchange.  The MSC
dismissed the complaint in its entirety in November 2003.

Upon appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the
dismissal by the MSC of the fiduciary duty claim, but reversed
the earlier decision to dismiss the implied covenant claim.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) granted the
company's petition for further appellate review.  On June 4,
2007, the SJC reversed the Appeals Court's decision and affirmed
dismissal of the complaint in its entirety.

On July 25, 2007, the SJC denied the plaintiff's petition for
rehearing.  

               Other MSC Cases & N.Y. Litigation

Two substantially similar cases were filed in the MSC in August
and October 2003.  

These cases were consolidated in January 2004, and in July 2004,
the consolidated case was stayed pending disposition of a fourth
case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in June 2003.

As amended, this complaint alleged violations of federal
securities laws, as well as various state law claims, related to
the exchange, on behalf of a certified class of holders of
Biosurgery Stock as of May 8, 2003.

On Aug. 6, 2007, the company reached an agreement-in-principle
with counsel for the plaintiff class to settle and dismiss this
case for approximately $64 million.  A definitive settlement
agreement was approved by the court on Oct. 26, 2007.

Because the members of the class in the New York action released
all claims, the settlement has, as a practical matter, resolved
the consolidated case in the MSC.

                        Settlement Terms

Under the terms of the settlement, Genzyme will pay a total of
$64 million to a class of shareholders who held Genzyme
Biosurgery stock on May 8, 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10,
2007).

This settlement will result in the dismissal of the case in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, which, in
turn, Genzyme believes will result in the dismissal of a related
case currently pending in the Massachusetts Superior Court.  The
terms of the settlement are subject to court approval.

Genzyme Corp. -- http://www.genzyme.com-- is a biotechnology  
company.  The Company operates in five segments.  Renal
develops, manufactures and distributes products that treat
patients suffering from renal diseases, including chronic renal
failure.


GEORGIA FARM: Settles Insurance Coverage Suit in Ga. for $18M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP announced
that it has settled a complex insurance coverage suit against
the Georgia Farm Bureau for $18 million.

This class action was prosecuted by Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick,
Morrison & Norwood, LLP as local counsel on behalf of the Class,
styled “Bechtel v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
and Georgia Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Civil Action
No. 03-CV-62596,” filed in the Superior Court of Walker County,
Georgia.

The suit stems from a case that arose in February 2002, when
uncremated bodies were discovered on the property of Tommy Ray
and Clara Marsh in Northwest Georgia, which was insured under a
homeowner's policy issued by Georgia Farm Bureau. Tri-State
Crematories operated on the property, but bodies being delivered
to Tri-State were not being cremated. Instead, they were buried
or hidden around the property.

Lawsuits were filed by affected family members against Tri-
State, the Marshes and the funeral homes that contracted with
Tri-State to deliver bodies for cremation.

A class action resulted (Tri-State Crematory Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division).
The class settled with the funeral homes in February 2004 and
proceeded to trial in August 2004 against the Marshes. By the
trial date, Georgia Farm Bureau had entered into an agreement
with the Marshes, that, for consideration, the Marshes agreed
there was no coverage -- and therefore Georgia Farm Bureau did
not participate in the upcoming trial.

As the trial began in late August 2004, the class reached a
settlement against the Marshes for $80 million and the Court
approved the settlement, entered a Final Order and Judgment and
so notified the class. This settlement contemplated an action
against Georgia Farm Bureau to seek insurance proceeds to
satisfy the judgment.

Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP was brought
in for the class action litigation as local counsel on behalf of
the class. The case was vigorously prosecuted with appeals to
both the Georgia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Multiple
summary judgment motions were pending by both parties when the
Court ordered mediation. The class received $18 million even
though the homeowner's policy had a coverage limit of $100,000
per occurrence, and despite numerous and difficult coverage
defenses, exclusions and other defenses. Qualified class members
each received approximately $12,000.

About Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood

Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP maintains
offices in Atlanta and Columbus, Georgia. The firm specializes
in complex, class action and commercial litigation. Pope,
McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP also represents
individuals in catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death
litigation. For more information concerning this case, or for
other information, please contact us at in Atlanta at 404-523-
7706 or in Columbus at 706-324-0050 or visit http://www.pmkm.com

The suit is “Bechtel v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
Company and Georgia Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company,
Civil Action No. 03-CV-62596,” filed in the Superior Court of
Walker County, Georgia.

For more information, contact:

          Kay Delaney
          Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP
          Phone: 404-523-7706


HERTZ CORP: Faces Georgia Suit Over Alleged Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 6
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
alleging the company favors Muslims, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Ricky Menuel claims Hertz gives Muslim workers
paid breaks to pray several times a day, but doesn't give non-
Muslims similar breaks.

He brings this action pursuant to Title VII of The civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 USC
Section 2000e et seq, to secure protection of and redress
deprivation of rights secured by the above statutes providing
for injunctive and other relief against discrimination based on
religion.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class including all current and
former hourly paid Hertz employees, wheresoever located, who,
during the applicable limitations period, were not granted or
allowed to take paid breaks that adjusted their hourly rate of
pay in a manner equal to the Muslim hourly employees pursuant to
Hertz's Islamic-prayer policy.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant has a policy or practice of  
         permitting Muslim hourly employees to take paid prayer
         breaks;

     (b) whether defendant has a policy or practice of not
         permitting non-Muslim hourly employees to take paid
         breaks comparable to paid prayer breaks permitted for
         Muslim hourly employees;

     (c) whether defendant gave Muslim hourly employees an
         accommodation that constitutes an unlawful religious
         preference;

     (d) whether defendant has discriminated against non-Muslim
         employees because of their religion; and

     (e) whether non-Muslim hourly employees who were not
         permitted to take paid breaks similar to the paid
         Islamic prayer breaks taken by Muslim employees have
         been disadvantaged with respect to a term condition or
         privilege of employment.

Plaintiff prays that the court do the following:

     -- certify plaintiffs claims under Title VII as a class
        action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) and,
        pursuant to rule 23(b)(3), direct notice to all eligible
        class members who can be identified by reasonable effort
        on part of the defendant;

     -- issue a declaratory judgment that defendant has engaged
        in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title
        VII with respect to plaintiff and all similarly situated
        members of the class he seeks to represent;

     -- issue an injunction directing that defendant no longer
        engage in unlawful employment practices in violation of
        Title VII with respect to plaintiff and all similarly
        situated members of the class he seeks to represent;

     -- require defendant to pay plaintiff and all eligible
        members of the class compensation as a result of
        defendants discriminatory conduct covering the
        applicable limitations period;

     -- award plaintiff and all similarly situated members of
        the class he seeks to represent economic damages, pre-
        judgment interest, punitive damages and their reasonable
        attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of suit;

     -- permit a trial by jury on all issues so triable; and

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

The suit is "Ricky Menuel et al. v. The Hertz Corp., Case No.
1:07-CV-3031," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Alan H. Garber
         Marc N. Garber
         The Garber Law Firm, PC
         4994 Lower Roswell Road, Suite 14
         Marietta, GA 30068
         Phone: (678) 560-6685
         Fax: (678) 560-5067
         E-mail: ahgarer@garberlaw.net or mngarber@garberlaw.net


LOUISIANA: Class Status of Suit Over Traffic Citations Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Curtis Calloway of the Parish of East Baton Rouge
reaffirmed the class-action status of a suit against the
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Land
Line Magazine reports.

The suit was filed by Gary Ring, a member of Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Assoc., six years ago. Mr. Ring, who was
from Virginia, was issued a citation in Louisiana for passing
the scale in March 2000.  His suit challenges he
constitutionality of Louisiana’s on-the-spot fines at weigh
stations and the administrative review of state-issued traffic
citations.

The case could go to a jury by late summer 2008, Madro
Bandaries, Mr. Ring’s attorney, told Land Line Magazine.  Mr.
Bandaries believes as many as 15,000 truckers and motorists were
cited under the now defunct Louisiana State Act 32:388.

For more information, contact:

          N. Madro Bandaries, Esq.
          210 Huey P. Long Avenue
          Gretna, LA 70053
          Phone: (504) 361-4287
          Fax: (504) 362-1405
          E-mail: madro@att.net


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Settles Md. Securities Fraud Suit for $6M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martek Biosciences Corp. entered into a tentative settlement of
all claims in a securities class action litigation filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
alleging, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The proposed settlement of the class action will include a cash
payment to the settlement fund of $6 million, all of which will
be paid by the Company's insurer.

Since May 4, 2005, several other putative class actions making
similar allegations were filed against the company and certain
of its officers.

The court entered orders consolidating these cases, appointing
lead plaintiffs and approving lead plaintiffs' counsel and
liaison counsel.

On Nov. 18, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland in "In re Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224."

While the court has not made a determination of whether a
putative class can be certified, the consolidated complaint
claims to be filed on behalf of the purchasers of the company's
common stock during a purported class period beginning Dec. 9,
2004 and ending April 28, 2005.

At this time, plaintiffs have not specified the amount of
damages they are seeking in the actions.  The consolidated
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-
5, promulgated thereunder, and violations of Section 11 and 15
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the company
and the individual defendants made false or misleading public
statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding its
business and prospects in public statements the company made or
failed to make during the period and, in the case of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 claims, in the company's January 2005
prospectus.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on Feb. 3, 2006, and a hearing before the court on this motion
was held on May 22, 2006.

On June 14, 2006, the court denied our motion to dismiss and on
July 25, 2006, the court entered a scheduling order for further
proceedings in the case.  

Subsequently, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the
claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933, leaving only
the alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the action.

On Sept. 20, 2006, the court approved the dismissal of the 1933
Act claims. Additionally, on Sept. 21, 2006, the court approved
the parties' stipulation certifying a class to prosecute claims
under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Subject to certain exceptions, the stipulated class generally
consists of all persons who either purchased Martek common stock
during the class period of Dec. 9, 2004 through April 28, 2005,
inclusive or otherwise acquired, without purchasing, Martek
common stock during the class period from a person or entity who
purchased those particular shares of Martek stock during the
class period.

Proceedings are not expected to be complete until 2008 (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 8, 2007).

The settlement will result in the dismissal of the claims
against Martek and all other defendants, subject to final court
approval.

The parties anticipate filing in the near future a motion in the
federal court asking for approval of the proposed settlement,
which is required before the settlement becomes effective and
final. No assurances can be given that the settlement ultimately
will be approved by the court.

The suit is "In re Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Marvin
J. Garbis.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Christopher L. Nelson, Esq.
         Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 16108220262
         Fax: 16106677056
         E-mail: cnelson@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Charles J. Piven, PA
         The World Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 14103320030
         Fax: 14106851300
         E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Steven F. Barley, Esq.
         Hogan and Hartson, LLP
         111 S. Calvert St., Ste. 1600
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 14106592700
         Fax: 14105396981
         E-mail: sfbarley@hhlaw.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Ontario Court Certifies Suit Over Defibrillators
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Ontario judge certified as class action a suit filed by a
group of Canadians who claim Medtronic Inc. failed to warn
consumers of a defect in the batteries installed in its
defibrillators, Joe Schneider of Bloomberg News reports.

Ontario Superior Judge Alexandra Hoy made the ruling released
Dec. 6 in Toronto, allowing the plaintiffs to seek a portion of
Medtronic profits for damages.  Judge Hoy dismissed a part of
the lawsuit that claimed Medtronic conspired to keep the defect
hidden.

The case was filed by Frank Peter, Case No.: 05-CV-295910.

                   Lawsuits in Canada

The law firms Rochon Genova LLP and Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor LLP
are solicitors of record for the plaintiffs in a proposed class
action against Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic of Canada Ltd.  The
solicitors of record are working with Sutts, Strosberg LLP and
Lerners LLP.

The action concerns the design, development, testing,
manufacturing, licensing, assembly, distribution, marketing and
sale of certain Medtronic implantable cardiac defibrillators and
cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators.

On February 10, 2005, Medtronic provided notice that certain
implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization
therapy defibrillators manufactured between April, 2001 and
December, 2003 had a potential battery shorting problem which
could result in rapid battery depletion. If the battery in a
defibrillator shorts out, the device will not function and is
not able to deliver the therapy required if the user develops
potentially life-threatening arrhythmias. Since the batteries
are located within the implanted defibrillator, the device would
have to be surgically removed in order to eliminate the defect.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration characterized the notice
provided by Medtronic as a recall.

There are two proposed classes in this action. The first class
is comprised of all persons who were implanted in Canada with
the following Medtronic defibrillators manufactured between
April, 2001 and December, 2003:


      DEVICE FAMILY       MODEL NUMBERS
      Marquis VR             7230
      Marquis DR             7274
      Maximo VR              7332
      Maximo DR              7278
      InSync Marquis         7277
      InSync II Marquis      7289
      InSync III Marquis     7279
      InSync III Protect     7285

The second class is comprised of the family members of the Class
members.

For more information, contact:

         Sutts, Strosberg LLP
         Phone: 800.229.5323, extension 8296


MICROSOFT CORP: $180M Ia. Antitrust Suit Claims Filing Ends Fri.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iowans who bought Microsoft Corp. computer software or computers
with software preloaded since 1994 have until Dec. 14 to claim a
cash refund.

The Settlement on the Net: http://www.iowamicrosoftcase.com/

The Polk County District Court has granted final approval to the
$180 million settlement of the antitrust class action (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 6, 2007).

The suit was filed in 2000.  It claimed that Microsoft engaged
in illegal monopolization and anticompetitive conduct between
1994 and 2006 that caused customers to pay more for software.

Plaintiffs claimed that Microsoft violated Iowa antitrust laws.
Because of this, the lawsuit claims that consumers and
businesses paid more for Microsoft Software.  Microsoft denied
the claims and says it developed and sold high quality software
products at fair and reasonable prices.

The class includes all individuals and businesses that purchased
a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone
other than Microsoft between May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006.  
The class also includes Iowa State and its local governments
that purchased a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa
from someone other than Microsoft between July 1, 2002 and June
30, 2006.

Microsoft settled the case for about $179.95 million.

Class members are entitled to receive:

     - $16 for each copy of Windows or MS-DOS;
     - $25 for each copy of Microsoft Excel;
     - $29 for each copy of Microsoft Office; and
     - $10 for each copy of Microsoft Word, Works and Home
       Essential software.

Payment will be in the form of cash or vouchers that can be used
towards the purchase of computers, peripheral computer hardware,
and software from any manufacturer, not just Microsoft.

Half of any funds that are not claimed will be provided as
vouchers for hardware, software and technology services to Iowa
public schools.  One hundred percent of the volume license
vouchers claimed but not redeemed will also be provided to Iowa
public schools.

Lead plaintiffs in the suit are Joe Comes of Riley Paint Inc.,
an Iowa corporation, Skeffington's Formal Wear of Iowa Inc., and
Patricia Anne Larsen.

The case is "Joe Comes, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No.
CL82311" filed in Iowa District for Polk County.

Plaintiffs' lawyer information:
     
          Roxanne B. Conlin
          Roxanne B. Conlin and Associates, P.C.
          319 7th Street, Suite 600
          Des Moines, Iowa 50309-3826
          Phone: 515-283-1111
          Fax: 515-282-0477
          Web Site: http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David B. Tulchin, Esq.
          Sullivan and Cromwell LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2498
          Phone: (212) 558-4000
          Fax: (212) 558-3588
          Web Site: http://www.sullcrom.com


QANTAS AIRWAYS: Admission Likely to Bolster Price Fixing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Qantas Airways Inc.'s guilty plea to the U.S. Department of
Justice for fixing freight rates is believed to have
strengthened a class action in Australia, reports say.

In November, Qantas Airways agreed to pay $70 million in fines
for fixing freight rates with other airlines.  The charge was
for shipping freight on the Pacific route between Australia and
the U.S. between January 2000 and February 2006.

Maurice Blackburn's Kim Parker told The Daily Telegraph "Qantas'
admission that it has engaged in this illegal process is a key
development” in the class action.  The law firm has launched the  
AU$200 million class action against Qantas and other airlines.   

In a writ lodged by Maurice Blackburn in Australian Federal
Court, it is alleged that seven large international airlines
secretly agreed to use the rise in fuel prices and security
costs after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Iraq war, as an
excuse to over-inflate freight charges (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 1, 2007).

The airlines named in the suit are:

     -- Qantas Airways Ltd.,
     -- Lufthansa,
     -- Singapore Airlines,
     -- Cathay Pacific,
     -- Air New Zealand,
     -- Japan Airlines (JAL) and
     -- British Airways.

Maurice Blackburn Cashman on the net:
http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/.


QANTAS AIRWAYS: Slater & Gordon Wants Ban on "Override" Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Slater & Gordon has asked the Australian Federal Court to stop
Qantas Airways Ltd. from offering its travel agents improved
"override" payments to discourage them from pursuing an $80
million class action, Scott Rochfort of the Sydney Morning
Herald reports.

It has been alleged Qantas has targeted larger travel retailers
that would add important weight to the action.  The industry
trade journal Travel Today reported in September that Qantas had
offered to make improved "override" payments to Australia's
largest travel group, Stella, on the condition its subsidiaries
withdrew from the class action.

Qantas denied the claim.

Override payments are the extra commissions -- often based on
volume -- that a travel agent can receive from an airline on top
of the flat commission they get for each ticket sale.

Stella is reported to have warned its Harvey World Travel and
Travelscene subsidiaries that the sweetened deal would be
jeopardized if they did not withdraw from the action.

In a report by Peter Gosnell of news.com.au, a spokesman for
Jetset said the agency had publicly declined to join the class
action in November 2006 prior to Salter & Gordon's filing of a
notice of the class action.  The notice was filed December 15
last year.  

Meanwhile, the spokesman confirmed that the Jetset network earn
over-ride commissions.  

Qantas has pleaded guilty to the U.S. Department of Justice of
fixing freight rates. It agreed to pay a $70 million fine.  The
admission is believed to have strengthened a class action in
Australia over allegations it fixed freight rates with other
airlines.


SCOTIABANK: Toronto Law Firms Launch Second Unpaid Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers from two Canadian law firms, Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor
LLP and Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP are launching a second
unpaid overtime class action suit, this time against Scotiabank.

The action covers thousands of current and former non-
management, non-unionized employees of Scotiabank who are or
were personal bankers or other front-line customer service
employees (limited to personal bankers, commercial bankers and
account executives) working at Scotiabank retail branch offices
across Canada.

The representative of the class action is Cindy Fulawka, a
personal banking representative who has worked in several
Scotiabank branches in Saskatchewan and Ontario for over 15
years. Based on her own experience, she claims the unpaid
overtime situation is widespread at the bank among non
management employees.

"The average overtime I have been required to work ranges from
ten to fifteen hours a week, and often worse during RRSP season.
We are expected to be available 24/7 during this time, making
calls on the weekend and in the evenings, without overtime
payments," she said.

"Unpaid overtime appears to be widespread in the financial
services industry, affecting some of the lowest paid and most
vulnerable employees," said Louis Sokolov, Partner, Sack
Goldblatt Mitchell. "Because of a lack of effective enforcement
of federal labour laws, class actions, like this one can be an
effective means to compel employers to comply with the law."

Douglas Elliott, Partner, Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor said that
"since we launched our class action against Canadian Imperial
Bank Corp. last June, we have been able to get evidence from
employees of that bank in all provinces and two territories to
put before the Court - this is an extraordinary amount of
support and shows how frustrated bank employees feel.

"We said then that we suspected that CIBC was not the only
Canadian bank that was failing to pay its employees for the
hours they actually worked. This second case demonstrates that
the problem does not appear to be unique to one bank," Mr.
Elliott added.

The statement of claim alleges that class members are assigned
heavier workloads than can be completed within their standard
working hours. They are required or permitted to work overtime
to meet the demands of their jobs and Scotiabank fails to pay
for the overtime work in direct contravention of the Canadian
Labour Code under which they are regulated.

Bill Selnes, Partner, Kapoor, Selnes & Klimm in Saskatchewan and
member of the national legal team pointed out that "unpaid
overtime doesn't only happen in central Canada. It affects bank
employees in all regions of the country and in rural, as well as
urban areas."

On June 5, 2007, Elliott and Sokolov introduced the lead
plaintiff Dara Fresco and the details of her complaint against
CIBC for unpaid overtime (Class Action Reporter, June
7, 2007). Ms. Fresco represents current and former non-
management employees of CIBC in the largest employment-related
class action ever undertaken in Canada.

On November 15, 2007 plaintiff's lawyers filed evidence in
support of certifying the class action from current and former
CIBC employees representing every province and two territories.
This evidence confirms that Fresco's complaints are common among
CIBC employees across the country.

The action announced on December 10 against Scotiabank is an
entirely new class action lawsuit. However, it alleges many of
the same types of problems relating to unpaid overtime.

In order to facilitate other affected Scotiabank employees
across Canada joining this class action, REKO and SGM are
working with Camp Fiorante Matthews in British Columbia, Chivers
Carpenter Lawyers in Alberta, Kapoor, Selnes & Klimmin
Saskatchewan, Myers Weinberg LLP in Manitoba, Melancon, Marceau,
Grenier et Sciortino in Quebec and Pink Breen Larkin in Atlantic
Canada. Employees will have access to local counsel to determine
whether they qualify to be a member of the class.

The law firms will attach the Scotiabank case to their existing
web site: http://www.unpaidovertime.caand phone number 1-888-
687-2431 which allow other class members to request, in strict
confidence, more information about the class action.

Plaintiffs’ counsels are:

          Douglas Elliott, Esq.
          REKO LLP Barristers
          200 Front Street West, 23rd Floor
          P.O. Box #45
          Toronto, ON M5V 3K2
          Phone: 416 362 1989
          Fax: 416 362 6204
          E-mail: info@reko.ca
         
               -  and  -

          Steven Barrett, Esq.
          Louis Sokolov, Esq.
          Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
          20 Dundas Street West, Suite 1100
          Toronto, Ontario M5G 2G8
          Phone: 416-977-6070  
          Toll Free: 1-800-387-5422
          Fax: 416-591-7333


UBS FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle SWX, QES Lawsuits for $23M
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Hollister & Brace informed all claimants in the
suit "Sorrell, et al. v. Southwest Exchange, Inc., et al." that:

     (1) an early settlement has been negotiated;
      
     (2) the Sorrell class action has been transferred to Las  
         Vegas;

     (3) Hollister & Brace has moved the court to certify the
         class; and

     (4) the Medicor Bankruptcy has sent out a Proof of Claim
         form that must be sent in before Dec. 3, 2007.

        Settlement with Defendant UBS for $23 Million

On Oct. 2 and 3, 2007, a two-day court ordered mediation took
place before the court appointed mediator former federal judge
Layn Philips.  No settlements were reached at the mediation, but
productive settlement discussions continued after the mediation
with defendant UBS Financial Services, Inc.  As a result of the
continued talks, an actual settlement was negotiated pursuant to
which, subject to court approval, UBS has agreed to contribute
$23 million in exchange for a full release from any SWX and QES
related claims.  Claimants will receive a formal notice of a
settlement if it is preliminarily approved by Judge Robert C.
Jones of the U.S. Federal Court in Las Vegas.

        Transfer of Sorrell Class Action to Las Vegas

On Oct. 18, 2007, the U.s. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation in Washington D.C. ordered the transfer of the
Sorrell class action from Federal Court in Los Angeles,
California to Federal Court in Las Vegas, so that the class
action could be coordinated and consolidated with other
litigation filed in Las Vegas, including another class action
filed by a Qualified Exchange Services, Inc. claimant.  The SWX
litigation in Federal Court will now be referred to as In Re:
Internal Revenue Service S1031 Tax Deferred Exchange Litigation,
case number 2:07-cv-01394-RCJ-LRL.

                   Class Certification

On Oct. 22, 2007, Hollister & Brace filed the Motion to Certify
the Class.  A Memorandum of Law offered in support of the Motion
identifies a hearing date of Nov. 26, 2007.  Because the class
action was transferred to Las Vegas, that hearing will not take
place.  A new hearing date will be set so that the Motion can be
heard by Judge Jones at the U.S. Federal Court in Las Vegas.

            Medicor Bankruptcy Proceedings

On Oct. 23, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware handling the
bankruptcy of Medicor Ltd. (breast implant company in Las Vegas
of Medicor Ltd. founder Donald McGhan), issued an Order which
establishes a Dec. 3, 2007 deadline for filing claims with any
of the Medicor debtors.

                        Case Background

The founder of Medicor, Ltd. and several others were named as
defendants in a purported class action flied in Santa Barbara
Superior Court in California over an alleged ponzi scheme (Class
Action Reporter, March 15, 2007).

Donald McGhan is facing a suit filed by the law firm of
Hollister & Brace and led by attorneys Robert Brace and Michael
Denver.  The suit was brought on behalf of approximately 130
people residing in a dozen states who lost more than $80 million
entrusted to exchange accommodators.  They allege the money was
used in a Ponzi scheme masterminded by Mr. McGhan.  Marsha
Slotten, a real estate broker in Henderson, Nevada is one of the
lead plaintiffs in the case.

For more information, contact:

          Hollister & Brace
          1126 Santa Barbara St.
          P.O. Box 630
          Santa Barbara CA 93102
          Phone: 805 963 6711
          Fax: 805 965 0329

                 or

          2933 San Marcos Avenue
          Suite 201
          P.O. Box 206
          Los Olivos, CA 93441
          Phone: 805 688 6711
          Fax: 805 688 3587
          Web site: http://www.hbsb.com


WAL-MART STORES: Denied Review of Class Certification in “Dukes”
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed
the sexual discrimination case, “Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.”
to remain a class action, but limited the potential number of
plaintiffs.

The majority ruled that women who left the company before the
case became effective and could not benefit from changes to the
company's pay and promotion rules should be excluded. The
decision could exclude between 75,000 and 250,000 former
employees out of the more than 1.6 million members, Joseph M.
Sellers, plaintiffs' co-lead counsel and a partner at Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll told The Wall Street Journal.

The potential impact varies because the effective date of the
suit may change depending on what the court allows. Originally,
plaintiffs sought to include all women who worked at the company
between December 1998 and the present. The effective date may
change to when the case was filed in June 2001 or to October
1999, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accepted
the case, Mr. Sellers said.

The court said it would not reconsider its own decision
affirming class certification to the case, but would allow both
sides to appeal to the full court.

The class action was commenced in June 2001 and was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It
was brought on behalf of all past and present female employees
in all of the Company's retail stores and warehouse clubs in the
U.S.

The complaint alleges that the Company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments.

The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief,
front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The class, which was certified by the district court for
purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief,
punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions,
includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may
be subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies
and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6
million present and former female associates.

The Company believes that the district court's ruling is
incorrect.  

On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the Company's petition for discretionary review
of the ruling.

On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the Court of
Appeals issued a decision affirming the district court’s
certification order.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Company filed a petition asking that a
larger panel of the court reconsider the decision.  On Dec. 11,
the court allowed the case to remain a class action .

Wal-Mart said it would again appeal the decision to the full
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated  
in October 1969, operates retail stores in various formats
around the world.  The Company operates through three segments:
Wal-Mart Stores segment, which includes Supercenters, Discount
Stores and Neighborhood Markets, Sam’s Club segment and
International segment.  The Wal-Mart Stores segment segment
consists of three different traditional retail formats, all of
which operate in the United States, and Wal-Mart’s online retail
format, walmart.com.  The Sam’s Club segment consists of
membership warehouse clubs, which operate in the United States,
and the segment’s online retail format, samsclub.com.  Its
International segment consisted of retail operations in 12
countries and Puerto Rico.  

Wal-Mart's lead counsel is:

          Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA
          90071-3197
          Phone: 213-229-7804
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
          Web site: http://www.gdclaw.com

Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel is:

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500
          West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Cohen & Malad Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP filed a class action on
December 7, 2007 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on behalf
of persons who purchased shares of VeriFone Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE: PAY) between March 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007.

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

The complaint alleges that VeriFone and certain of its officers
and directors made a series of materially false and misleading
statements related to VeriFone’s business operations in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 3, 2007, VeriFone publicly announced accounting
errors that resulted in an overstatement of VeriFone’s
inventories and understated VeriFone’ s cost of net revenues,
resulting in a 45% drop in VeriFone s stock price. VeriFone
stated that investors could no longer rely on VeriFone’ s prior
financial statements.

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

For more information, contact:

          Scott D. Gilchirst
          Cohen & Malad, LLP
          Phone: 317-636-6481
          E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Cal. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of VeriFone Holdings, Inc. from September 1, 2006
through November 30, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges VeriFone and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

VeriFone is a provider of technology that enables electronic
payment transactions and value- added services at the point of
sale. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its
         inventory due to accounting errors;

     (2) that the Company had materially understated its cost of
         net revenues;

     (3) as such, the Company's gross margins were misstated;

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

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

     (6) that the Company's integration of Lipman Electronic was
         not proceeding according to plan;

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

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

On December 3, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that its financial statements for the three months
ended January 31, 2007, the three and six months ended April 30,
2007 and the three and nine months ended July 31, 2007 should no
longer be relied upon.

This was due to errors in accounting related to the valuation of
in-transit inventory and allocation of manufacturing and
distribution overhead to inventory. Each of these accounting
errors affected VeriFone's reported costs of net revenues. A
preliminary review revealed that these restatements would result
in reductions to the Company's previously reported inventory
levels of approximately $7.7 million, $16.5 million and $30.2
million as of January 31, 2007, April 30, 2007 and July 31,
2007, respectively. Additionally, the Company's previously
reported pre-tax income would be reduced by approximately $8.9
million, $7.0 million and $13.8 million for the three month
periods ended January 31, 2007, April 30, 2007 and July 31,
2007, respectively.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $22.00 per share, or
over 45.8 percent, to close on December 3, 2007 at $26.03 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact:

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


SECURITY CAPITAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Security Capital Assurance, Ltd. in the Company's secondary
public offering on or about June 6, 2007.

The complaint charges Security Capital and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

Security Capital, through its subsidiaries, provides financial
guaranty insurance, reinsurance, and other credit enhancement
products to the public finance and structured finance markets in
the United States and internationally.

On or about May 25, 2007, Security Capital filed a Form S-1/A
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") for the Secondary
Offering. On or about June 6, 2007, the Prospectus (the
"Prospectus") with respect to the Secondary Offering, which
forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and
more than 9.6 million shares of Security Capital common stock
were sold to the public at $31.00 per share, thereby raising
more than $300 million.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts because
they failed to disclose that:

     (i) the Company was materially exposed to extremely risky
         structured financial credit derivatives; and

    (ii) the Company was materially exposed to residential
         mortgage-backed securities relating to sub-prime real
         estate mortgages.

Interested parties may move the court within sixty days of
December 7, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jack Fruchter
          Ximena Skovron
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com or xskovron@aftlaw.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  * * *