CAR_Public/071217.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Monday, December 17, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 249

                            Headlines

AMEREN CORP: Motions to Dismiss Ill. PPA-Related Cases Pending
AMERICAN TOWER: Settles Securities Fraud Case in Mass. for $14M
AMGEN INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
AMGEN INC: Faces Third-Party Payor Suits Over Anemia Medicines
AMGEN INC: Opposes Consolidation of Third-Party Payor Lawsuits

AMGEN INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Alleging ERISA Violations
APACHE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of “Comer” Katrina Suit
DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Suit
DUKE ENERGY: June 2008 Trial Set for S.C. ERISA, ADEA Litigation
JAPAN: War-Displaced Japanese Withdraws Lawsuit Against Gov't

KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Fraud Suit Over Insurance Cancellations
NEW MEXICO: Judge Nash Dismisses Lawsuit Against State Lottery
NEW YORK: Smithtown Accused of Bias in Issuing Housing Vouchers
NORSKE SKOG: Magazine Paper Market Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissed
PREMIERE GLOBAL: Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Junk Fax Suit  

PRESTIGE BRANDS: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Shareholder Suit
QC HOLDINGS: Request for Arbitration in Customer Suit Pending
QC HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans
RCI ENTERTAINMENT: Former Worker Files Suit Over Tip Pooling
SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Hears Appeals in Flash Memory Lawsuit

SANDISK CORP: Still Faces Calif. Suits by msystems Shareholders
SANDISK CORP: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Flash Memory Products
TELSTRA CORP: Federal Court Okays $5M Investor Suit Settlement
TORCHMARK CORP: Barbour Court to Oversee Policyholder Settlement
TRAVEL COS: Fresno Joins Lawsuit to Recover Lost Revenues


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

FX ENERGY: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Utah
GENESCO INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ISILON SYSTEMS: Cohen Milstein Files Wash. Securities Fraud Suit
SMITH & WESSON: Coughlin Stoia Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
UBS AG: Coughlin Stoia Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********

AMEREN CORP: Motions to Dismiss Ill. PPA-Related Cases Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has yet to rule on a motion filed by Ameren Corp. and other
defendants to dismiss lawsuits over the Illinois power
procurement auction (PPA) of 2006.

Two similar class actions filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois in March 2007 named as defendants:

     * Ameren Corp.,
     * Illinois Power Co. (IP),
     * Commonwealth Edison Co.,
     * Exelon Corp., and
     * 15 electricity suppliers, including Ameren Energy  
       Marketing Co.,

The defendants are selling power to the Illinois utilities
pursuant to contracts entered into as a result of the September
2006 power procurement auction.

The asserted class seeks to represent all customers who
purchased electric service from Commonwealth Edison Co. or the
Ameren Illinois Utilities.

Both lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Illinois
utilities and the power suppliers illegally manipulated prices
in the September 2006 power procurement auction.

Relief sought in both cases is actual damages to be determined
at trial and legal costs, including attorneys’ fees.  One of the
lawsuits also seeks punitive damages and recovery of illegal
profits and excludes the Ameren Illinois Utilities from the
requests for relief.

In April 2007, the defendants in these lawsuits filed notices
removing these cases to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  Defendants have pending motions to
dismiss.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 9,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Ameren Corp. -- http://www.ameren.com-- is a public utility  
holding company, whose subsidiaries operate rate-regulated
electric generation, transmission and distribution businesses,
rate-regulated natural gas distribution businesses, and non-
rate-regulated electric generation businesses in Missouri and
Illinois.  


AMERICAN TOWER: Settles Securities Fraud Case in Mass. for $14M
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Tower Corp. has reached a $14 million settlement
agreement in principle in the matter “In re American Tower
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 06 CV 10933 (MLW) (D.
Mass.).”

John S. Greenebaum filed the suit.  Also named plaintiff in the
case is Steamship Trade Association-International Longshoremen's
Association Pension Fund.

The complaint names the company, James D. Taiclet, Jr. and
Bradley E. Singer as defendants.  It alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws in connection with public
statements made relating to the company's stock option practices
and related accounting.  

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  Plaintiff seeks monetary
relief.

In December 2006, the court appointed the Steamship Trade
Association-International Longshoreman's Association Pension
Fund as the lead plaintiff.

On March 26, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which includes additional current and former officers
and directors of the company as defendants.

In May 2007, the company and individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the securities class action filed in May 2006
against the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

In July 2007, the plaintiff filed a brief opposing that motion,
and the company and individual defendants responded by filing a
reply brief.  

The company moved to dismiss the federal action based on the
plaintiffs’ failure to make demand of the company's Board of
Directors prior to filing these actions (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 21, 2007).

On Dec. 14, Labaton Sucharow LLP, as lead counsel in the
securities class action, and the Law Offices of Peter G.
Angelos, P.C., as counsel to Lead Plaintiff Steamship Trade
Association-International Longshoreman's Association Pension
Fund announced that they have reached a $14 million settlement
agreement in principle on behalf of the STA-ILA Fund and other
class members. The settlement is subject to formal documentation
and Court approval.

The Company has been and will continue to be in discussions with
its insurers concerning the amount of their contribution to the
settlement.

The Company expects to record an income statement charge for the
settlement amount plus all related legal fees and expenses
incurred subsequent to September 30, 2007, net of any expected
insurance proceeds in the three months and year ended December
31, 2007.

The suit is “In re American Tower Corporation Securities
Litigation, No. 06 CV 10933 (MLW),” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Mark L.
Wolf.

Representing plaintiff is:

         Jason B. Adkins
         Adkins, Kelston and Zavez, P.C.
         90 Canal Street, 5th Floor
         Boston, MA 02114
         Phone: 617-367-1040
         Fax: 617-742-8280
         E-mail: jadkins@akzlaw.com

              - and -

         David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
         Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017-5563
         Phone: 212-907-0700

Representing the company is:

         Michael T. Gass, Esq.
         Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP
         111 Huntington Avenue
         Boston, MA 02199
         Phone: 617-239-0100
         Fax: 617-227-4420
         E-mail: mgass@eapdlaw.com


AMGEN INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against Amegen Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

In 2007, several securities class actions were filed against
Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Willard H. Dere, Richard D. Nanula,
Dennis M. Fenton, Roger M. Perlmutter, Brian M. McNamee, George
J. Morrow, Edward V. Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn and Franklin P.
Johnson, Jr., in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The suits are:

       -- “Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc. et. al.,” and

       -- “Public Employees’ Retirement Association of Colorado
          v. Amgen Inc., et. al.”

       -- “Mendall v. Amgen Inc., et al.,”

       -- “Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.,” and

       -- “Eldon v. Amgen Inc., et al.”

The complaints allege that Amgen and the Individual Defendants
made false statements that resulted in a fraudulent scheme and
course of business operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers
of Amgen publicly traded securities in that:

       -- they temporarily deceived the investing public
          regarding Amgen’s prospects and business;

       -- they artificially inflated the prices of Amgen’s
          publicly traded securities; and

       -- they caused plaintiffs and other members of the class
          to purchase Amgen publicly traded securities at
          inflated prices.

The complaint also makes off-label marketing allegations and
allegations as to a failure to disclose negative results of
clinical studies.  Amgen has not been served with the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, legal
fees and other relief deemed proper.  All of the individual
securities class actions were filed with the California court.

The suits were later consolidated into one action captioned,
“Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds v. Amgen Inc. et
al.” before the U.S District Court for the Central District of
California.  The amended complaint was filed on Oct. 2, 2007.

The suit is “Connecticut Retirement v. Amgen Inc et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-02536-PSG-PLA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez with referral to Judge Paul L. Abrams.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-4297
          Phone: 619-231-1058

          Mark Arisohn, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-907-0840

               - and -

          Glen Abramson, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, PC
          1622 Locust Streetreet
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
          Phone: 215-875-3000

Representing the defendants is:

          Mack Anderson, Esq.
          Mayer Brown
          350 S. Grand Ave., 25th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Phone: 213-229-9500


AMGEN INC: Faces Third-Party Payor Suits Over Anemia Medicines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen, Inc. faces three third-party payor class actions in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over
its anemia medicines, according to its Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suits are:

       -- “Ironworkers v. Amgen Inc.,” filed on Aug. 8, 2007,

       -- “Watters (State of Michigan) v. Amgen Inc.,” filed on
          Aug. 15, 2007, and
       
       -- “Sheet Metal v. Amgen Inc.,” filed on Aug. 28, 2007.

In each action the plaintiff alleges that Amgen marketed its
anemia medicines, EPOGEN and Aranesp, for “off-label” uses, or
uses that are not approved by the FDA, and claims that, as a
result, the plaintiff paid for unwarranted prescriptions.

Specifically, the complaints allege that Amgen promoted EPOGEN
and Aranesp for:

        -- treating cancer patients who are not on chemotherapy;

        -- treating quality of life symptoms associated with
           anemia, such as fatigue; and

        -- reaching Hb targets above the FDA-approved level.

Each plaintiff asserts claims under California’s consumer
protection statutes and for breach of implied warranty and
unjust enrichment and plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide
class of individuals and entities.

Further, in “Sheet Metal v. Amgen,” plaintiff also name
privately owned dialysis centers DaVita and Fresenius as co-
defendants and includes a RICO claim.

Amgen Inc. -- http://www.amgen.com/-- is a global biotechnology  
company. It discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human
therapeutics based on advances in cellular and molecular
biology. It markets human therapeutic products in the areas of
supportive cancer care, nephrology, inflammation and oncology.


AMGEN INC: Opposes Consolidation of Third-Party Payor Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen, Inc. is opposing a consolidation of three third-party
payor class actions to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The disputed lawsuits are:

        -- “United Food & Commercial Workers Central
           Pennsylvania and Regional Health & Welfare Fund v.
           Amgen Inc.,” filed on June 5, 2007;
   
        -- “Vista Healthplan Inc. v. Amgen Inc.,” filed on June
           7, 2007; and

        -- “Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare
           Fund v. Amgen. Inc.,” filed on June 14, 2007.

In each action, the plaintiff alleges that Amgen marketed its
anemia medicines, EPOGEN and Aranesp, for “off-label” uses, or
uses that are not approved by the FDA, and claims that, as a
result, the plaintiff paid for unwarranted prescriptions.

Specifically, the complaints allege that Amgen promoted EPOGEN
and Aranesp for:

       -- treating cancer patients who are not on chemotherapy;         

       -- treating quality of life symptoms associated with
          anemia, such as fatigue; and

       -- reaching Hb targets above the FDA-approved level.

Each plaintiff asserts claims under California’s consumer
protection statutes and for breach of implied warranty and
unjust enrichment and plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide
class of individuals and entities.

On Oct. 29, 2007, a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer
each of the three cases were heard before the Court.

The Court also heard a motion to consolidate the three
aforementioned lawsuits which Amgen opposed, according to its
Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

Amgen Inc. -- http://www.amgen.com/-- is a global biotechnology  
company. It discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human
therapeutics based on advances in cellular and molecular
biology. It markets human therapeutic products in the areas of
supportive cancer care, nephrology, inflammation and oncology.


AMGEN INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Alleging ERISA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, generally alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Aug. 20, 2007, “Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al.,” an ERISA class
action was filed against Amgen and certain of its Board of
Directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and various Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to inform current and former
employees who participated in the Amgen Retirement and Savings
Manufacturing Plan and the Amgen Savings Plan of the alleged
off-label promotion of both Aranesp and EPOGEN while a number of
studies allegedly demonstrated safety concerns in patients using
ESAs.

The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 9,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007

The suit is “Steve Harris et al. v. Amgen, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-05442-PSG-PLA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Philip S. Gutierrez
with referral to Judge Paul L. Abrams.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
          Symphony Tower, 750 B St., Ste. 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-239-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Mack Anderson, Esq.
          Mayer Brown
          350 S. Grand Ave., 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Phone: 213-229-9500
          Web site: http://www.mayerbrown.com


APACHE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of “Comer” Katrina Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “Ned Comer, et al. v.
Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al.,” which names Apache Corp. as a
defendant, are appealing a dismissal of their case.  

Mississippi property owners whose homes and businesses were
damaged by Hurricane Katrina, are requesting class certification
for the case, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi.

Plaintiffs allege that hurricanes' meteorological effects
increased in frequency and intensity due to global warming, and
there will be continued future damage from increasing intensity
of storms and sea level rises.

They claim this was caused by the various defendants (oil and
gas companies, electric and coal companies, and chemical
manufacturers).

Plaintiffs claim defendants' emissions of "greenhouse gases",
cause global warming, which they blame as the cause of their
damages.

They also claim that the oil company defendants artificially
inflated and manipulated the prices of gasoline, diesel fuel,
jet fuel, natural gas, and other end-use petrochemicals, and
covered it up by misrepresentations.

They further allege a conspiracy to disseminate misinformation
and cover up the relationship between the defendants and global
warming.

Plaintiffs seek, among other damages, actual, consequential, and
punitive or exemplary damages.  

The District Court entered an order of dismissal, though the
Mississippi property owners have appealed the dismissal,
according to its Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         F. Gerald Maples, Esq.
         Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
         F. Gerald Maples, PA
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504/569-8732
         E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
                 mmayberry@geraldmaples.com

              - and -

         Randall Allan Smith and Stephen M. Wiles, Esqs.
         Smith & Fawer
         201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Phone: 504/525-2200
         Fax: 504/525-2205
         E-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net
                 smwiles@smithfawer.com


DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action “Comer, et al. v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,” are appealing the dismissal of
the case, which names Duke Energy Corp. as a defendant.

On April 19, 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy Corp., were named in
the third amended complaint of the purported class action, which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi.  

In the case, plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy and Cinergy,
along with numerous other utilities, oil companies, coal
companies and chemical companies, are liable for damages
relating to losses suffered by victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Plaintiffs also claim that defendants’ greenhouse gas emissions
contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms such as
Hurricane Katrina.

In October 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy were served with this
lawsuit.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the court dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs
have filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, according to its Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         F. Gerald Maples and Meredith A. Mayberry, Esqs.
         F. Gerald Maples, PA
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504/569-8732
         E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
                 mmayberry@geraldmaples.com

              - and -

         Randall Allan Smith and Stephen M. Wiles, Esqs.
         Smith & Fawer
         201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Phone: 504/525-2200
         Fax: 504/525-2205
         E-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net
                 smwiles@smithfawer.com

    
DUKE ENERGY: June 2008 Trial Set for S.C. ERISA, ADEA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative June 2008 trial is scheduled for a purported class
action filed against Duke Energy Corp. in the U.S. District
Court for the District Court of South Carolina, alleging
discrimination and violation of pension laws.

Allegations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Age
Discrimination in Employment Act violations against Duke Energy
and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan arose out of
the conversion of the Duke Energy Co. Employees' Retirement Plan
into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.   

The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging
errors in the application of Plan provisions (e.g., the
calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the
calculation of lump-sum distributions).  

Plaintiffs seek to represent present and former participants in
the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  This group is
estimated to include approximately 36,000 persons.  They also
seek to divide the putative class into sub-classes based on age.  

Six causes of action are alleged, ranging from age
discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to
allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.   

Plaintiffs seek a broad array of remedies, including a
retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants'/beneficiaries'
benefits under the revised and reformed plan.  Duke Energy filed
its answer in March 2006.

A second class action was filed in federal court in South
Carolina, alleging similar claims and seeking to represent the
same class of defendants.   The second case has been voluntarily
dismissed, without prejudice, effectively consolidating it with
the first case.

The matter is currently in discovery with a tentative trial date
of June 2008.

The suit is “George et al. v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00373-HFF,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina under
Judge Henry F. Floyd.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James Robinson Gilreath, Esq.
         Gilreath Law Firm
         P.O. Box 2147
         Greenville, SC 29602
         Phone: 864-242-4727
         Fax: 864-232-4395
         E-mail: jim@gilreathlaw.com

         Cheryl F. Perkins, Esq.
         Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young, LLC
         P.O. Box 8086
         Columbia, SC 29202
         Phone: 803-799-9400
         Fax: 803-799-2017
         E-mail: cperkins@attorneyssc.com

              - and -

         Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
         Wallace and Graham
         525 North Main Street
         Salisbury, NC 28144
         Phone: 704-633-5244
         Fax: 704-633-9434
         E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com


JAPAN: War-Displaced Japanese Withdraws Lawsuit Against Gov't
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Japanese who, as children, were abandoned in China
towards the end of World War II has withdrawn a class action
against the government, The (Tokyo) Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

The group of 40 people was among those 630 war-displaced people
who brought the first class action against the government in
2002.  They demanded that the government compensate them for the
hardships they have suffered as a result of being abandoned.  
They claimed the government failed to swiftly organize for them
to be brought to Japan and provide adequate support once they
returned.

They withdrew from the case at the first hearing of the appeal
trial at the Tokyo High Court.  Their move came after the  
enactment in late November of a revised law to provide new
support measures for war-displaced Japanese, including paying
them full pension benefits, the report noted.

The government is facing other similar lawsuits filed by about
2,200 war-displaced people at 15 district courts and high courts
across the nation.  The number represents nearly 90 percent of
the war-displaced people who resettled in Japan.  The plaintiffs
lost cases at seven district courts, only succeeding at the Kobe
District Court.  The Kobe court ordered in December 2006 that
the central government redress the plaintiffs.

The first group of plaintiffs, who filed a lawsuit with the
Tokyo District Court, also lost their case in January this year,
and have filed an appeal with the Tokyo High Court.

Plaintiffs' lawyers told Yomiuri Shimbun, that the other groups
that have filed lawsuits with the Tokyo District Court will also
withdraw their lawsuits.  The other plaintiff groups across the
nation also will withdraw their lawsuits by about March,
according to the lawyers.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Fraud Suit Over Insurance Cancellations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed Dec. 12 in the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda claiming it defrauds policyholders by
illegally rescinding and canceling insurance policies.

The suit claims that policyholders "failed to disclose" medical
conditions of which they were unaware when they signed up, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action to stop Kaiser's unfair, illegal and
fraudulent business practice of rescinding and canceling health
insurance coverage to its members.

Named plaintiff Jeffrey Gehring brings this action on behalf of
all citizens or residents of California to whom Kaiser issued a
policy of health insurance and whose policy Kaiser thereafter
rescinded or canceled at any time on or after Dec. 12, 2003
based upon statements contained in an application that was
neither attached to nor endorsed on the policy when the policy
was issued.

He demand judgment as follows:

     -- a judicial declaration that Kaiser was not permitted to
        rescind or cancel the health insurance policies of the
        members of the proposed class;

     -- an injunction requiring Kaiser to offer Mr. Gehring and
        all members of the proposed class full reinstatement
        (including retroactive reinstatement when requested by a
        class member) of their health insurance coverage;

     -- an injunction requiring that Kaiser comply with
        Insurance Code section 10381.5 and prohibiting Kaiser
        from rescinding or canceling any health insurance policy
        in the future based on a statement made in an
        application that was neither attached to nor endorsed on
        the policy;

     -- an injunction ordering Kaiser to properly train all of
        its employees who handle health insurance claims to
        ensure that they do not rescind or cancel a health
        insurance policy in the future based on statements made
        in an application that was neither attached to nor
        endorsed on the policy;

     -- disgorgement and restitution of the unjust enrichment
        wrongfully obtained by Kaiser through the use of its
        fraudulent, unfair, and illegal practices;

     -- attorneys' fees and costs associated with bringing this
        action; and

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

The suit is "Jeffrey Gehring et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health
Plan, Inc., Case No. RGO7360912," filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kenneth M. Seeger
          Brian J. Devine
          Seeger Salvas LLP
          455 Market Street, Suite 1530
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 981-9260
          Fax: (415) 981-9266


NEW MEXICO: Judge Nash Dismisses Lawsuit Against State Lottery
--------------------------------------------------------------
State District Judge Nan G. Nash dismissed a case filed by a
group of eastern New Mexico lottery ticket retailers against the
state lottery for pulling scratcher games before all prizes were
awarded, The (NM) Albuquerque Journal reports.

Lottery retailers filed the class action against New Mexico
Lottery in the state District Court in Albuquerque (Class Action
Reporter, July 6, 2007).

Named plaintiffs in the suit are Stansell’s Thriftway
Supermarket owner Randy Stansell, Kenneth Nut of three KC
Express stores, and Logan Super Stop employee Chris Channing.

The suit charges the lottery of engaging in unfair trade
practices and negligent misrepresentation.  It further states
that for several years it has been prematurely stopping games
despite the considerable prizes that are still up for grabs.

The lawsuit sought monetary damages and a permanent injunction
to stop the lottery from untimely withdrawing unsold scratch-off
games.

In addition, it also asked the court to specifically define the
conditions and circumstances when the lottery can stop unsold
games.

Attorney Warren Frost, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he will
appeal the dismissal of the case.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Warren F. Frost, Esq.
          Timothy L. Rose
          Warren F. Frost, P.C.
          401 South First Street
          Tucumcari, NM 88401-2708
          Phone: (505) 461-2488
          Fax: (505) 762-7738


NEW YORK: Smithtown Accused of Bias in Issuing Housing Vouchers
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action on behalf of Black and Hispanic persons seeking
federally assisted housing vouchers was filed against the Town
Smithtown, New York in Suffolk County on December 13, 2007.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law and individual attorneys who have committed to provide
their services on this matter pro bono publico.

The lawsuit challenges the use of a residency preference for
allocation of Section 8 vouchers by Smithtown.  It alleges that
it has the intent and effect of discriminating against
minorities in the allocation of Section 8 Housing Vouchers in
violation of the Fair Housing Act and the equal protection
clause of the United States Constitution.

Smithtown maintains an absolute preference for Town residents,
meaning that a person who does not live or work in Smithtown
cannot receive a Section 8 housing voucher through Smithtown's
Section 8 program until every person on the waitlist who lives
or works in Smithtown has received a voucher. Because Smithtown
is overwhelmingly white (over 93%), the result of Smithtown's
residency preference is that Section 8 housing vouchers are
effectively unavailable to minorities.

According to Barbara R. Arnwine, Executive Director of the
Lawyers' Committee, "Smithtown's decision to exclude minorities
from its Section 8 program results in government sponsored
housing segregation." She further stated that "cases such as
this one are critical to our mission of eradicating
segregationist housing policies and fostering residential racial
integration."

The complaint filed alleges that in implementing the
discriminatory residency preference, Smithtown has improperly
managed its Section 8 program to ensure that the waitlist always
has a sufficient number of white residents to preclude Section 8
vouchers from being given to minority non-residents.

For example, according to the complaint, in 2006, after a steep
decline in the number of whites on the Section 8 waitlist and a
corresponding increase in the amount of minorities obtaining
vouchers, Smithtown reopened its Section 8 waitlist and engaged
in a targeted advertising campaign to recruit more white
residents and to avoid serving the approximately 150 minorities
on the waitlist patiently awaiting the chance to receive a
Section 8 voucher.

"Nearly four decades ago after passage of a federal fair housing
law prohibiting discrimination, the Town of Smithtown continues
to dispense federal housing vouchers by giving preference to
local white residents," said Diane Houk, Executive Director of
the Fair Housing Justice Center. She added, "The legal challenge
brought today by African Americans and Latinos puts all suburban
communities on notice to discontinue their use of local
residency preferences that discriminate on the basis of race and
national origin."

The complaint further alleges that Smithtown's residency
preference and related discriminatory Section 8 practices and
policies are part and parcel of Smithtown's extensive history of
racially exclusionary housing practices, such as the Town's
decades-long opposition to affordable housing, which it fears
might attract and enable minorities to move to Smithtown. The
Town's discriminatory management of its Section 8 program is
also emblematic of its significant history of racism toward the
very few minorities who have been successful in finding
residence within the Town, including cross burnings, vandalisms,
and other intimidating notes, threats and tactics directed at
minorities living in the Town and nonminorities who sell or rent
to them.

The lawsuit seeks an order declaring that the residency
preference violates the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights
laws and enjoining Smithtown from utilizing the preference in
their Section 8 programs.

For more information, contact:

          Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under Law                 
          Website: http://www.lawyerscommittee.org


NORSKE SKOG: Magazine Paper Market Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norske Skogindustrier ASA and Norske Skog USA Inc. was named as
a defendant in 34 antitrust class actions in federal courts, in
a few state cases and in an individual federal case brought in
the United States in June 2004. The actions alleged
anticompetitive conduct in relation to publication paper.

On December 12, 2007, the plaintiffs in the 34 federal cases
voluntarily dismissed the class action brought against Norske
Skog. Norske Skog continues to believe that the remaining
individual federal case and the few state cases have no merit
and will continue to defend it self vigorously. No commitments
were made by Norske Skog in connection with the dismissal of the
34 federal cases.

Norske Skog said that the class action appeared to be based on
the investigations initiated by the EFTA Surveillance Authority,
European Commission and various other competition authorities in
Europe on 25 May 2004 (Class Action Reporter, June 14, 2004).


PREMIERE GLOBAL: Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Junk Fax Suit  
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of the
purported class action, “Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al.
v. The Quizno’s Corp., et al.”

On May 18, 2007, Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers served an amended
complaint upon Premiere Global Services, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Xpedite Systems, LLC, in relation to the purported
class action.

The underlying complaint alleges that Quizno’s sent unsolicited
facsimile advertisements on or about Nov. 1, 2005 in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended, and seeks damages of $1,500 per facsimile for alleged
willful conduct in sending of the faxes.

The court has also granted Quiznos’ motion to file a third party
complaint to add Premiere Global and Xpedite as defendants.  

On June 26, 2007, Premiere Global answered the plaintiff’s
amended complaint, including asserting cross-claims against the
Quizno’s defendants.

On June 29, 2007, the Quizno’s defendants filed their answer and
asserted cross-claims against the company and Xpedite.  

On July 31, 2007, the court entered an order in which it granted
certain Quizno’s defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the
motion with respect to other Quizno’s entities.

On Sept. 7, 2007, plaintiff proceeded to file another amended
complaint against the Quizno's defendants, Growth Partners
(Quizno's consultant),  Xpedite, and the company.  

On Sept. 21, 2007, the company filed its answer and affirmative  
defenses.  On Oct. 1, 2007, certain Quizno's defendants filed a
motion to dismiss which is under consideration by the Court,
according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The
Quizno’s Corp., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05849-PSG-PLA,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Philip S. Gutierrez with referral to
Judge Paul L. Abrams.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          C. Darryl Cordero, Esq.
          Payne and Fears
          660 South Figueroa, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-439-9911
          E-mail: cdc@paynefears.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Nancy M. Barnes, Esq.
          Thompson Hine, LLP
          3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-566-5578


PRESTIGE BRANDS: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
certified a class in a consolidated shareholder lawsuit filed
against Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc.

The first of the six cases that were later consolidated was
filed against the company and certain of its officers and
directors on Aug. 3, 2005.   

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of stockholders of the
company that purchased shares between Feb. 9, 2005 and Nov. 15,
2005.

Plaintiffs also name as defendants the underwriters in the
company's initial public offering and a private equity fund that
was a selling stockholder in the offering.  The district court
has appointed a lead plaintiff.

On Dec. 23, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint, which asserted claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The lead plaintiff generally alleged that the company issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements in
connection with its initial public offering and thereafter in
regard to:

      -- the accounting issues described in the company's press
         release issued on or about Nov. 15, 2005; and

      -- the alleged failure to disclose that demand for certain
         of the company's products was declining and that the
         company was planning to withdraw several products from
         the market.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint in February 2006.  In a pretrial ruling in July
10, 2006, the court dismissed claims that management acted
fraudulently.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in February 2006.  On July 10, 2006, the Court
dismissed all claims against the Company and the individual
defendants arising under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an Order certifying a class
consisting of all persons who purchased the common stock of the
Company pursuant to, or traceable to, the Company’s initial
public offering on or about Feb. 9, 2005 through Nov. 15, 2005,
and were damaged thereby.  

The suit is “In re Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-cv-06924-CLB,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Charles L. Brieant.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Samuel Howard Rudman and Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         50 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com
                 malba@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Todd R. David, Esq.
         Alston & Bird, L.L.P.
         One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
         Phone: (404) 881-7357
         Fax: (404) 527-8717

    
QC HOLDINGS: Request for Arbitration in Customer Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri has yet to rule
on QC Holdings, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration in a
purported class action filed against it over unsecured loans.

The suit was filed on Oct. 13, 2006 by one of the company's
Missouri customers as a purported class action.

It alleges violations of the Missouri statute pertaining to
unsecured loans under $500 and the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a declaratory judgment that
the arbitration agreement with the plaintiff is not enforceable
on a variety of theories.

The Company has not filed an answer, but has moved to compel
arbitration of this matter.  Plaintiff secured the right to have
discovery regarding the Company’s arbitration provision,
however, prior to the court’s ruling on the Company’s motion.

The court heard oral arguments on the Company’s motion in June
2007.  The Company is awaiting the court’s ruling on the
Company’s motion to compel arbitration.

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.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides  
short-term  consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. continues to face a putative consumer fraud
class action filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County,
North Carolina.

On Feb. 8, 2005, the Company, two of its subsidiaries, including
its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr. Don
Early, the Company’s Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County,
North Carolina in a putative class action filed by James B.
Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of a
Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the Company provided
certain services in connection with the bank’s origination of
payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the
Company’s North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance
Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina
Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and
the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by
the bank to the two plaintiffs through the Company’s retail
locations in North Carolina.

It alleges that the Company made the payday loans to the
plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes, and that if
the Company is not viewed as the “actual lenders or makers” of
the payday loans, its services to the bank that made the loans
violated various North Carolina statutes.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.

They have not sued the bank in this matter and have specifically
stated in the complaint that plaintiffs do not challenge the
right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North
Carolina residents at such rates as the bank’s home state may
permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law. The
case is in the preliminary stages.

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.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides  
short-term  consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


RCI ENTERTAINMENT: Former Worker Files Suit Over Tip Pooling
------------------------------------------------------------
A former employee of RCI Entertainment (Minnesota) Inc., d/b/a
Rick's Cabaret, and VCG Holding Corp., d/b/a Schiek's Palace
Royale, filed class actions against the companies on Dec. 10, in
Minnesota District Court in Hennepin County.

The lawsuit alleges that Rick's and Schiek's violated Minnesota
Statute Section 177.24 by not providing employees with the full
amount of the gratuities that patrons of the establishments
intended for them to receive. The statute states that any
gratuities received by an employee are the sole property of the
employee. Common law claims of conversion and unjust enrichment
were also brought.

Plaintiff's attorney Steven Andrew Smith explained, "These clubs
had a practice of selling 'dance dollars' to their patrons. The
patrons would in turn use the dance dollars to tip the
employees. When the employees sought to cash in the dance
dollars they had received as tips, the club would allegedly
apply a discounted rate and keep a percentage of the tips
received as dance dollars. If these facts are proven at trial,
the practice would violate Minnesota law. We hope to recover the
tips that rightfully belong to the employees. Employees in the
adult entertainment industry are just as entitled to the
protections of the law as anyone else."

Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven Andrew Smith
          E. Michelle Drake
          Heather O'Neil
          Nichols, Kaster & Anderson, PLLP
          Phone: (612) 256-3200 or (612) 256-3249 or
                 (612) 256-3200
          Website: http://www.nka.com


SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Hears Appeals in Flash Memory Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The First District of the California Court of Appeal heard oral
arguments on separate appeals against a final approval of a
settlement of a class action against Sandisk Corp., and a number
of other manufacturers of flash memory products.

The consumer class action was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the City and County of San Francisco,
under the caption, “Willem Vroegh, et al. v. Dane Electric Corp.
USA, et al.”

Filed on Feb. 20, 2004, the suit alleged false advertising,
unfair business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit,
misrepresentation and violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedy Act.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory products and claims that the defendants overstated
the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products.   
It sought restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified
amount.

The parties have reached a settlement of the case, which
received final approval from the Court on Nov. 20, 2006.  

Four objectors to the settlement filed appeals from the Court’s
order granting final approval.  The appeal is currently pending
in the First District of the California Court of Appeal, No.
A116242.

On Oct. 18, 2007, the case was argued before the Court of Appeal
and submitted.

SanDisk Corp. -- http://www.sandisk.com/-- designs, develops,  
markets and manufactures products and solutions in a variety of
form factors using its flash memory, controller and firmware
technologies.

    
SANDISK CORP: Still Faces Calif. Suits by msystems Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corp. continues to face purported class actions filed in
the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County,
California by shareholders of msystems Ltd., a venture partner
of the company.

The company and msystems each own 50% of U3, LLC, or U3, an
entity established to develop and market a next generation
platform for universal serial bus flash drives.

On Aug. 7, 2006, two purported shareholder class and derivative
actions were filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa
Clara County, California.  They are:

       -- "Capovilla v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068760," and

       -- "Dashiell v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068759,"

On Aug. 9, 2006, and Aug. 17, 2006, respectively, two additional
purported shareholder class and derivative actions were filed,
namely:

       -- "Lopiccolo v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068946," and

       -- "Sachs v. SanDisk Corp., No. 1-06-CV-069534."

These four lawsuits were subsequently consolidated as, “In re:
msystems Ltd. Shareholder Litigation, No. 106 CV 068759.”  On
Oct. 27, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed that
supersedes the four original complaints.

The suit is brought by purported shareholders of msystems.  It
names as defendants the company and each of msystems' directors,
including its president and chief executive officer, and its
former chief financial officer (now its chief operating
officer), and names msystems as a nominal defendant.  The
lawsuit asserts purported class action and derivative claims.

The alleged derivative claims assert, among other things, breach
of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, constructive fraud,
corporate waste, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement with
respect to past stock option grants.

The alleged class and derivative claims also assert claims for
breach of fiduciary duty by msystems’ board, which the Company
is alleged to have aided an abetted, with respect to allegedly
inadequate consideration for the merger, and allegedly false or
misleading disclosures in proxy materials relating to the
merger.

The complaints seek, among other things, equitable relief,
including enjoining the proposed merger, and compensatory and
punitive damages.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
11, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

SanDisk Corp. -- http://www.sandisk.com/-- designs, develops,  
markets and manufactures products and solutions in a variety of
form factors using its flash memory, controller and firmware
technologies.


SANDISK CORP: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Flash Memory Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corp. faces several purported class actions alleging a
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the pricing of
flash memory products.

                       Stuart Go Litigation

On or about Aug. 31, 2007, the Company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory products were sued in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California in a
purported class action captioned, “Stuart Go, et al v. Lexar
Media, Inc., et al, Civil Case No. C-07-4547,” alleging a
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the pricing of
flash memory, and concealment thereof, in violation of state and
federal laws.

The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory indirectly from defendants between Jan. 1, 1999
through the present.

It seeks restitution, injunction and damages, including treble
damages, in an unspecified amount, disgorgement of profits
obtained as a result of the acts alleged in the complaint,
interest on any damages awarded, attorneys fees and any other
relief the court may grant.

                         Thal Litigation

On Sept. 17, 2007, the Company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory products were sued in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, in a
purported class action captioned, “Thal v. Hitachi America,
Ltd., et al., Civil Case No. C-07-4785,” alleging a conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the pricing of flash
memory, and concealment thereof, in violation of federal laws.

The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory directly from defendants between January 1, 1999
through the date of class certification.  It seeks restitution,
injunction, and damages.

                      Juskiewicz Litigation

On Sept. 19, 2007, the Company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory products were sued in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California in a
purported class action captioned, “Juskiewicz v. Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., Civil Case No. C-07-4818,”
alleging a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
pricing of flash memory, and concealment thereof, in violation
of federal laws.  

The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory directly from defendants between January 1, 1999
through the present.  It seeks restitution, injunction, and
damages.

                        Kindt Litigation

On Sept. 24, 2007, the Company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory products were sued in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, in a
purported class action captioned, “Kindt et al v. Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Civil Case No. C07-04938,” alleging
a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the pricing of
flash memory, and concealment thereof, in violation of state and
federal laws.

The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory indirectly from defendants between January 1, 1999
through July 16, 2007.  It seeks restitution, injunction, and
damages.

                      Georgejon Litigation

On or about Oct. 26, 2007, the Company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory products were sued in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California in a
purported class action captioned, “Georgejon, Inc., et al. v.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Civil Case No. C-07-
5480,” alleging a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize the pricing of flash memory, and concealment thereof,
in violation of federal laws.  

The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory directly from defendants between January 1, 1999
through the present.

It seeks restitution, injunction and damages, including treble
damages, in an unspecified amount, disgorgement of profits
obtained as a result of the acts alleged in the complaint,
interest on any damages awarded, attorneys fees and any other
relief the court may grant.

                       Gentile Litigation

On or about Oct. 29, 2007, the Company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory products were sued in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California in a
purported class action captioned, “Fred J. Gentile, et al. v.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Civil Case No. C-07-
5349,” alleging a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize the pricing of flash memory, and concealment thereof,
in violation of federal and state laws.

The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of
NAND flash memory indirectly from defendants between January 1,
1999 through the present.

It seeks restitution, injunction and damages, including treble
damages, in an unspecified amount, disgorgement of profits
obtained as a result of the acts alleged in the complaint,
interest on any damages awarded, attorneys fees and any other
relief the court may grant.

SanDisk Corp. -- http://www.sandisk.com/-- designs, develops,  
markets and manufactures products and solutions in a variety of
form factors using its flash memory, controller and firmware
technologies.


TELSTRA CORP: Federal Court Okays $5M Investor Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's Federal Court approved a $5 million agreement to
settle a class action brought by Telstra Corp. investors against
the company.  

                      Case Background

On January 20, 2006, a representative proceeding was commenced
in the Federal Court of Australia against Telstra by Mr. Andrew
Taylor.

The Applicant claimed damages for himself and on behalf of group
members, for loss allegedly arising from the purchase of shares
in Telstra in the period commencing August 11, 2005 and
finishing on September 6, 2005. (The T3 public offer took place
after this period.)

The Applicant alleges that Telstra breached the Australian
Securities Exchange (ASX) Listing Rules and the Corporations Act
2001 (by failing to immediately disclose to the ASX information
that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect
on the price or value of Telstra's shares.

The parties have now settled.  Included in the class are people
who:

     (a) purchased shares in Telstra between (and including) 11
         August 2005 and 6 September 2005; and who did not on or
         before 6 September 2005 resell those shares at a price
         equal to or greater than the price for which the shares        
         were purchased;

     (b) did not opt out of the Proceeding by Friday 4 May 2007,
         being the date fixed by the Court before which a class
         member was required to opt out of the Proceeding.

The amount available for distribution to Eligible Claimants
after payment to Slater & Gordon of $1.25 million in respect of
the Applicant's costs, will be $3.75 million, less certain
administrative costs.

For more information, contact: Slater & Gordon on 1800 555 777
or telstrasettlementinfo@slatergordon.com.au.


TORCHMARK CORP: Barbour Court to Oversee Policyholder Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Supreme Court remanded to the Barbour County Circuit
Court the implementation of a settlement of a consolidated class
action filed against Torchmark Corp., and Liberty National Life
Insurance Co. over cancer policies.

The companies were parties to purported class action, “Roberts
v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Case No. CV-2002
009-B,” filed in the Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama on  
behalf of all persons who currently or in the past were insured  
under Liberty cancer policies, which were no longer being
marketed, regardless of whether the policies remained in force
or lapsed.   

The case was based on allegations of breach of contract in the
implementation of premium rate increases, misrepresentation
regarding the premium rate increases, fraud and suppression
concerning the closed block of business and unjust enrichment.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion
granting Liberty's and Torchmark's petition for a writ of
mandamus, concluding that the Choctaw Circuit Court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction and ordering that Circuit Court to
dismiss the action.  

Plaintiffs then filed their purported class action, “Roberts v.
Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Civil Action No. CV-03-
0137,” against Liberty and Torchmark in the Circuit Court of
Barbour County, Alabama on Dec. 30, 2003.  

On April 16, 2004 the parties filed a written Stipulation of
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement with the Barbour County,
Alabama Circuit Court seeking potential settlement of the
Roberts case.   

A fairness hearing on the potential settlement was held by the
Barbour County Circuit Court on July 15, 2004.  After receipt of
briefs on certain issues and submission of materials relating to
objections to the proposed settlement to the court-appointed
independent special master, the Court reconvened the previously
continued fairness hearing on Sept. 23, 2004.   

After the Sept. 23, 2004 hearing, the court, after hearing from
the objectors to the potential settlement, ordered the
appointment of an independent actuary to report back to the
Court on certain issues.  The report of the independent actuary
was subsequently furnished to the special master and the Court
on a timely basis.

On Nov. 22, 2004, the court entered an order and final judgment  
in Roberts whereby the court consolidated Roberts with
“Robertson v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, CV-92-
021,” for purposes of the Roberts stipulation of settlement, and
certified the Roberts class as a new subclass of the class
previously certified by that court in Robertson.   

The court approved the stipulation and settlement and ordered
and enjoined Liberty to perform its obligations under the
stipulation.   

Subject to the stipulation, Liberty and Torchmark were
permanently enjoined from:  

      -- instituting, engaging or participating in, maintaining,  
         authorizing or continuing premium rate increases  
         inconsistent with the Stipulation;  

      -- failing to implement temporary premium waivers in  
         accordance with the Stipulation;  

      -- failing to implement the new benefits procedure  
         described in the Stipulation; and  

      -- failing to implement the special schedules and special  
         provisions of the stipulation for subclass members who  
         have cancer and are receiving benefits and for subclass  
         members who have no other cancer or medical insurance  
         and/or are not covered by Medicare.  

The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims, released the defendants,
enjoined Roberts subclass members from any further prosecution
of released claims and retained continuing jurisdiction of all
matters relating to the Roberts settlement.   

In an order issued Feb. 1, 2005, the court denied the objectors'
motion to alter, amend or vacate its earlier final judgment on
class settlement and certification.   

The companies proceeded to implement the settlement terms.  On
March 10, 2005, the Roberts plaintiffs filed notice of appeal to
the Alabama Supreme Court.

In an opinion issued on September 29, 2006, the Alabama Supreme
Court voided the Barbour County Circuit Court's final judgment
and dismissed the Roberts appeal.   

The Supreme Court held that the Barbour County Court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction in Roberts to certify the Roberts
class as a subclass of the Robertson class and to enter a final
judgment approving the settlement since Roberts was filed as an
independent class action collaterally attacking Robertson rather
than being filed in Robertson under the Barbour County Court's
reserved continuing jurisdiction over that case.   

On Oct. 23, 2006, Liberty filed a petition with the Barbour
County Circuit Court under its continuing jurisdiction in
Robertson for clarification, or in the alternative, to amend the
Robertson final judgment.

Liberty sought an order from the Circuit Court declaring that
Liberty pay benefits to Robertson class members based upon the
amounts accepted by providers in full payment of charges.  

A hearing was held on Liberty’s petition on March 13, 2007.  On
March 30, 2007, the Barbour County Circuit Court issued an order
denying Liberty’s petition for clarification and/or modification
of “Robertson,” holding that Liberty’s policies did not state
that they will pay “actual charges” accepted by providers.

On April 8, 2007, the Court issued an order granting a motion to
intervene and establishing a subclass in “Robertson” comprised
of Liberty cancer policyholders who are now or have within the
past six years, undergone cancer treatment and filed benefit
claims under the policies in question.

Liberty filed a motion with the Barbour County Circuit Court to
certify for an interlocutory appeal that Court’s order on
Liberty’s petition for clarification in Robertson on April 17,
2007.  An appellate mediation of these issues was conducted on
Aug. 9, 2007.  

On Oct. 16, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court entered orders,
based upon the conclusion by the parties of the appellate
mediation, staying the proceedings for a writ of mandamus,
reinstating the cases on the appellate docket, and remanding the
cases to the Barbour County Circuit Court to implement the
parties’ settlement agreement, 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.

Torchmark, Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com-- is an  
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


TRAVEL COS: Fresno Joins Lawsuit to Recover Lost Revenues
---------------------------------------------------------
The City Council of Fresno voted on Dec. 11 to join other cities
that are suing Web-based hotel reservation companies over their
remittance of hotel taxes from the sale of rooms, The (CA)
Fresno Bee reports.

The suit was brought by the city of Los Angeles against 11
travel companies in 2005. It alleges that the online room
sellers buy rooms at a wholesale cost and charge customers more.
The room sellers, they say, only pay taxes on the wholesale
price, not the price their customers paid for the room.

The list of companies engaging in the alleged scheme against
Fresno and other communities includes Hotels.com, Hotwire, Cheap
Tickets Inc., Cendant Travel Distribution Group, Expedia Inc.,
Lodging.com, Lowest Fare.com, Maupintour Holding, Orbitz,
Travelweb, and Travelnow.com.

Fresno is hoping to recover lost revenues from as far back as
2001.  Fresno City Attorney James Sanchez estimates that Fresno
may be losing about $500,000 annually.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


FX ENERGY: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. has commenced a class action
in the United States District Court, District of Utah, on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of FX Energy, Inc. between
March 30, 2004 and January 5, 2006, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action
is pending before the Honorable Dale A. Kimball.

The complaint charges FX Energy and certain of its officers with
violations of the Federal Securities Laws. FX Energy operates an
independent oil and gas exploration and production company. As
alleged in the complaint, defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's oil and gas
reserve estimates in FX Energy's exploration areas located in
the western part of Poland in a geological zone known as the
Permian Basin.

During the Class Period, defendants represented to the market
that its gas reserve estimates exceeded one trillion cubic feet
of gas. These statements lacked any objective basis in fact and
were false and misleading when made by defendants. Then,
commencing late in the Class Period, on December 20, 2005,
defendants began to communicate to the market lowered
expectations and estimates for its yet-undrilled wells.

On January 4, 2006, the CEO of FX Energy admitted that the prior
estimates of oil and gas reserves were based on false and
misleading interpretations of the available data and were
falsely inflated. He then provided new estimates to the market
which were substantially lower. As a result of this startling
disclosure, the price of FX Energy common stock dropped more
than 26.5% to close at $6.07 per share, on abnormally heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased the common stock of FX Energy during the class period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 18,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Susan R. Gross, Esq.
          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600
          E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
                  debbie@bernardmgross.com
          Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


GENESCO INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of Genesco, Inc. (NYSE: GCO) between April 20, 2007
and November 26, 2007, inclusive.

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

Genesco is a retailer of branded footwear, licensed and branded
headwear, and a wholesaler of branded footwear.

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's business segments were significantly
         underperforming;

     (2) that, as a result of such underperformance, the
         Company's financial results and prospects had
         materially diminished;

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

     (4) that such diminished financial results and prospects
         would adversely impact the acquisition negotiations
         conducted by the Company, and the agreement reached
         with The Finish Line;

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

     (6) that the foregoing would constitute material adverse
         events to potential acquirers and The Finish Line.

On August 30, 2007, the Company announced extremely
disappointing second quarter 2008 financial and operational
results. For the quarter, the Company reported a loss before
discontinued operations of $2.9 million, or $(0.13) per diluted
share. In response to the Company's quarterly results, The
Finish Line stated that it was "disappointed with Genesco's
second quarter fiscal 2008 financial results. ... [and was]
evaluating its options in accordance with the terms of the
merger agreement." On this news, the Company's shares decreased
$5.15 per share, or over 10 percent, to close on August 30, 2007
at $44.95 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on September 14, 2007, The Finish Line reported that UBS,
who was providing The Finish Line with acquisition financing,
indicated that it was "extremely concerned about the apparent
deteriorating financial position of [Genesco]."

Additionally, UBS requested that The Finish Line cause Genesco
"to provide all financial and other information that we request
so that we may conclude whether a Material Adverse Effect has
occurred," and that Genesco grant an expert retained by UBS
"unfettered access to Genesco's books and records and other
financial information." On this news, the Company's shares
declined an additional $1.29, or 2.8 percent, to close on
September 14, 2007 at $44.53 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Then on November 16, 2007, UBS filed suit in New York against
The Finish Line and Genesco to be relieved of its obligation to
fund the transaction. UBS stated that due to "Genesco's
disastrous financial condition, the combined Finish Line-Genesco
entity would be insolvent."

In a Court filing, UBS said that "in an effort to sell their
company before everyone knew that its financial condition was
collapsing, Genesco's senior officers intentionally
misrepresented and failed to disclose material facts to Finish
Line, UBS and Genesco shareholders." On this news, the Company's
shares declined an additional $9.25 per share, or over 23.5
percent, to close on November 19, 2007 at $29.98 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Finally, on November 26, 2007, the Company disclosed that it had
received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for documents
relating to the Company's negotiations and merger agreement with
The Finish Line. This subpoena requested documents in connection
with the Company's alleged violations of federal fraud statutes.
On this news, the Company's shares declined $3.14 per share, or
over 9 percent, to close on November 26, 2007 at $30.17 per
share. The following day, the Company's shares declined an
additional $4.73 per share, or over 15.6 percent, to close on
November 27, 2007 at $25.44 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


ISILON SYSTEMS: Cohen Milstein Files Wash. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Isilon
Systems, Inc. common stock during the period between December
14, 2006 and October 3, 2007.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
acquired the common stock of Isilon pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with its December 14, 2006
initial public offering.

The complaint charges Isilon and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the Securities Act of 1933.

Isilon is a provider of clustered storage systems for digital
content.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on December 14, 2006,
Isilon completed its IPO of 8.9 million shares at $13.00 per
share (including 590,717 shares sold as part of an over-
allotment) for net proceeds of approximately $105.7 million,
pursuant to the Registration Statement.

The complaint further contends that the Registration Statement
failed to disclose the truth about Isilon's business operations,
finances, business metrics, and future business and financial
prospects. The complaint alleges that due to defendants'
positive, but false statements in the Registration Statement,
Isilon's stock immediately soared - its shares closing up over
77% on its first day of trading in the best debut of a
technology IPO in more than six years. Isilon's stock continued
to climb, closing as high as $27.37 per share on December 29,
2006.

Then on October 3, 2007, after the market closed, Isilon
announced disappointing preliminary results for its third
quarter 2007. On this news, Isilon's stock price collapsed from
$7 per share on October 3, 2007 to close at $5.66 per share on
October 4, 2007 - a decline of over 19% on volume of 3 million
shares (over five times the average previous trading volume for
the stock). This closing price represented an all-time trading
low for Isilon.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were omitted
from the Registration Statement or were known by certain of the
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) the Company was not on track, nor would it be able, to
         reach profitability by the second half of 2007;

     (b) the Company's clustered storage solutions did not
         provide a competitively differentiated business model
         which would enable the Company to effectively compete
         against the dominant players in the traditional storage
         market;

     (c) the Company's past results were not indicative of its
         future operations, including the amount of revenue it
         derived from its large customers, such as the Eastman
         Kodak Company ("Kodak"), the Company's ability to
         continue to sustain quarter over quarter revenue
         growth, and its ability to manage its cost structure;
         and

     (d) despite being able to grow and significantly diversify
         its overall customer base, the Company would remain
         highly dependent upon Kodak. Given that the clustered
         network attached storage market in which the Company
         operates is a highly competitive, high-growth emerging
         market, the Company had no reasonable basis to make
         projections about its 2007 results.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Isilon common stock during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 31,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Scott Evans
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
          Email: stoll@cmht.com or sevans2@cmht.com


SMITH & WESSON: Coughlin Stoia Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers
of Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. securities during the period
between June 15, 2007 and December 6, 2007.

The complaint charges Smith & Wesson and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Smith & Wesson, through its subsidiary, Smith & Wesson
Corp., manufactures handguns in the United States. The company
produces firearms, including revolvers, black powder fire arms,
pistols, rifles, and handcuffs.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued statements concerning the Company's performance and
prospects. As alleged in the Complain, these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which
were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (i) that the market for various lines of the Company's gun
         products was saturated with inventory which was causing
         customers to reduce orders and postpone purchases;

    (ii) that the Company's reported sales figures did not
         represent true growth for the Company's products but
         rather were simply inventory stocking transactions and
         as customer inventory levels increased, the Company's
         sales would suffer; and

   (iii) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable
         basis for their positive statements about the Company,
         its earnings and prospects.

On October 29, 2007, Smith & Wesson issued a press release
announcing its preliminary second quarter financial results for
the period ending October 31, 2007. Among other things, the
Company reduced its earnings guidance for fiscal 2008 to $23.5
million, or $0.53 per share, as compared to $28.5 million, or
$0.63 per share. In response to this announcement, the price of
Smith & Wesson common stock plummeted from $20.09 per share to
$12.12 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. Then, on
December 6, 2007, Smith & Wesson issued a press release
announcing its financial results for its second fiscal quarter,
the period ending October 31, 2007. The Company again reduced
its outlook for 2008 to $0.40 per share. In response to this
announcement, on December 7, 2007, the price of Smith & Wesson
common stock plummeted from $9.92 per share to $7.08 per share
on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Smith & Wesson securities during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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


SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all purchasers of securities of
Syntax-Brillian Corp. from May 3, 2007 and September 12, 2007,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges Syntax and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Syntax is engaged in designing, developing and
distributing high-definition televisions, liquid crystal display
and liquid crystal on silicon technologies. 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 was suffering from severe credit
         constraints;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate working capital to
         sufficiently keep pace with demand for its products;

     (3) that the Company had experienced increasing difficulty
         in collecting its outstanding receivables, particularly
         from its Asian distributor;

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

     (5) 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 September 12, 2007, the Company provided its business outlook
for Fiscal 2008. Citing a "tighter credit environment in Asia,"
the Company stated that it anticipated revenue in the range of
$170 million to $180 million for the fiscal first quarter. Later
on September 12, 2007, the Company announced that its Chief
Executive Officer ("CFO") was resigning.

Then on September 13, 2007, the Company shocked investors when
it filed its 2007 Annual Report and disclosed that it possessed
a number of internal control deficiencies. These "material
weaknesses" included the Company's controls over the inventory
process, its revenue recognition process, and its income tax
provision process. The Company further admitted that together
these control deficiencies "result in more than a remote
likelihood that a material misstatement to our annual or interim
financial statements could occur and not be prevented or
detected in a timely manner."

Additionally, the Company's independent accounting firm
identified a number of adjustments, in addition to those related
to the material weaknesses identified above. As a result, the
accounting firm concluded that "because of the effect of the
material weaknesses," the Company "has not maintained effective
internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2007."
On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.12 per share, or over
34.5 percent, to close on September 13, 2007 at $4.01 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 January 15,
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


UBS AG: Coughlin Stoia Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP  announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of UBS AG common stock during the period between
March 13, 2007 and December 11, 2007.

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

UBS is a global investment banking and securities firm which
provides a range of financial services, including advisory
services, underwriting, financing, market making, asset
management, brokerage and retail banking on a global level.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued numerous statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results. According to the complaint, these statements
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose the Company's failure to timely write-down impaired
securities containing subprime debt.

On October 30, 2007, UBS issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the third quarter of 2007. In the days
following this announcement, the price of UBS stock declined to
as low as $49.27 per share. Then, on December 10, 2007, UBS
announced writedowns of around $10 billion as a result of its
subprime mortgage related positions. Following this
announcement, the price of UBS stock declined to $48.78 per
share, a 26% decline from the Class Period high.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of UBS common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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


                           *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *