CAR_Public/071226.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 26, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 254

                            Headlines


AAFES: Recalls "Soldier Bear" Toys Violating Lead Paint Standard
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Snowmobiles Due to Crash Hazard
CARE INVESTMENT: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
CONSTAR INT'L: Files Objections in Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CROCS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Colorado Federal Court

DISCOUNT SUPPLY: Recalls Charts For Lead Paint Standard Breach
DRUG COS: Defrauded Medicare with Price Fixing Plan, Judge Says
ECHOSTAR COMMS: August 2008 Trial Set for Colo. Retailers' Suit
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE: Faces Subscribers' Antitrust Suit in Calif.
ENERGY FUTURE: Nixing of Securities Suit Remanded to Lower Court

ENERGY FUTURE: Finalizes Documents of $7.25M ERISA Suit Deal
ENERGY FUTURE: 5th Cir. Drops Appeals on Settlement of 2002 Suit
ENERLUME ENERGY: Jan. 28, 2008 Set Hearing on Settlement
EQUITY MEDIA: Defendants, Plaintiffs Added to Ark. Investor Suit
FGX INT'L: Recalls Kids' Sunglasses on Paint's High Lead Level

ILLINOIS: Chicago Sued Over Ban of Cellphones while Driving
MERCHANDISE CORP: Recalls Christmas Candle Sets for Fire Hazard
MGA INSURANCE: Faces Litigation Over MRI Reading Reimbursements
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit Over Illegal Cell Sites
SALLIE MAE: Faces Lawsuit in Conn. Alleging Bias In Lending

SCOPE APPAREL: Recalls Boys' Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings
SPORT SUPPLY: Lawsuit Over Old SSG Shares Purchase Dismissed
SPRINT NEXTEL: Preliminarily Settles Tax Litigation in Miss.
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Recalls lab921 Mugs Due To Burn Hazard
TYCO INT'L: $3B Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval

UST INC: Lawyers in Wisc. Smokeless Tobacco Suit to Get $16M


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INTERACTIVE GROUP: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Alfred Yates Jr. Files N.Y. Securities Suit


                            *********


AAFES: Recalls "Soldier Bear" Toys Violating Lead Paint Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Army & Air Force Exchange Service, of Dallas, Texas, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 11,400 soldier bear toys.

The company said the surface paint on the toys contains
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported so far.

The recall involves wooden toys made by First Learning Company
Ltd., of Hong Kong and plastic military vehicle toy play sets
made by Toy World Group Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong.

The style number, UPC codes and "Soldier Bear" logo are printed
on the toy's packaging.

Toy Description                            Style        UPC

Wooden Pull-Along Learning Blocks Wagon   
(alphabet blocks in a wooden wagon)         6320  834162002158

Time Teacher
(magnetic shapes & clock in pull cart)      6231  834162002646

Wooden Riding Horse                         6349  834162003698

Vehicle Playset
(blue military vehicle with
action figures                              1007  4895130810072

The toys were made in China and sold at AAFES stores worldwide
from August 2006 through October 2007 for between $5 and $20.

To see pictures of the recalled toys:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08141a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08141b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08141c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08141d.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from children and return them to the nearest AAFES store for a
full refund.

For additional information, contact AAFES at (800) 866-3605
anytime, or visit http://www.AAFES.com


BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Snowmobiles Due to Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., of Quebec, Canada, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 480 Ski-Doo Model Year 2008 MXZ X 600 RS
Snowmobiles.

The company said a defect in the carburetor can prevent the
throttle from freely returning to the idle position.  This can
result in an unexpected loss of control leading to a collision
and cause serious injuries or death.

The firm has received three reports of snowmobiles with stuck
throttles.  No injuries reported.

The recall involves Ski-Doo model year 2008 MXZ X 600 RS
snowmobiles.  The model name is located on the side panels. The
snowmobiles were sold in yellow or black/slate.

The recalled snowmobiles were manufactured in Canada and were
sold at Ski-Doo dealers nationwide during November 2007 for
about $9,500.

Picture of recalled snowmobiles are available at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08527.jpg

Consumers should stop using the vehicles immediately and contact
any Ski-Doo dealer to schedule a free repair.  Consumers with
recalled snowmobiles are being sent direct notices from
Bombardier.

For more information, call Bombardier Recreational Products
toll-free at (888) 638-5397 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.ski-doo.com


CARE INVESTMENT: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Care Investment Trust, Inc. faces a purported securities fraud
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit was filed on Sept. 18, 2007, alleging that the
Registration Statement relating the initial public offering of
shares of Care Investment Trust Inc.'s common stock, filed on
June 21, 2007, failed to disclose that certain of the assets in
the contributed portfolio were materially impaired and
overvalued and that Care was experiencing increasing difficulty
in securing its warehouse financing lines.

The suit is "Briarwood Investments, Inc., et al. v. Care
Investment Trust Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-08159," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Louis L. Stanton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY, 10119
          Tel: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com

               -- and --

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Tel: (631) 367-7100
          Fax: (631) 367-1173


CONSTAR INT'L: Files Objections in Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Constar International, Inc. filed objections to the Report and
Proposed Order of the Special Master in the consolidated
securities class action filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The company and certain of its present and former directors,
along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various underwriters
were named defendants in a consolidated putative securities
class action, "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020."  The class action is
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Edmund V. Ludwig.

Two lawsuits have been consolidated into In re Constar:

      -- "Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et
         al., Case No. 03-5020," filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and

      -- "Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al.,
         Case No. 03-5166," filed on Sept. 15, 2003.

The consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004,
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on
Nov. 14, 2002, contained material misrepresentations or
omissions.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants in the lawsuits
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
Plaintiffs seek class-action certification and an award of
damages and litigation costs and expenses.

Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
the lawsuit.

The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted on June 7, 2005,
and the Company's answer was filed on Aug. 8, 2005.

On Nov. 14, 2005, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  The court denied the Company's motion on May 24,
2006.  

On June 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The motion was referred to the Special Master,
and, on May 9, 2007, the Special Master issued a Report and
Proposed Order granting the motion.

The defendants filed objections to the Report and Proposed Order
of the Special Master on May 17, 2007.  Those objections are
currently pending, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephanie M. Beige, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
         10 East 40th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414
         E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com

         Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes & Lerach, LLP
         401 B. Street, STE. 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         E-mail: andrewb@lcsr.com

              -- and --

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         E-mail: dcheck@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven B. Feirson, Esq.
         Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
         Scott A. Thompson, Esq.
         Dechert, Price & Rhoads
         1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
         Phone: 215-994-2749 and
                215-994-2390
         Fax: 215-994-2222
         E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com
                 michael.kichline@dechert.com
                 scott.thompson@dechert.com


CROCS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Colorado Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
CROCS, Inc., and two of its executive officers face a purported
securities fraud class action before the U.S. District Court for
the District Court of Colorado.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased the company's stock in the market between
July 27, 2007, and Oct. 31, 2007.

The suit alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
public statements about the company, and the business and
prospects, in press releases and at investor conferences during
the Class Period, and that the market price of the company's
stock was artificially inflated as a result.

The suit alleges claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It seeks compensatory
damages on behalf of the alleged class in an unspecified amount,
interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation.

The suit is "Dhingra, et al. v. CROCS, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:2007-cv-02351," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado before Judge Robert E. Blackburn.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          200 Broadhollow, Suite 406
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631.367.7100
          Fax: 631.367.1173
          E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com


DISCOUNT SUPPLY: Recalls Charts For Lead Paint Standard Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discount School Supply, of Monterey, California, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 13,000 Giant Measuring Chart.

The company said the paint on the grow chart contains excess
levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No
injuries have been reported.

The Giant Grow Chart measures a child's growth with a giant
yellow ruler-shaped plastic chart. The grow chart also has a
picture of a bean stalk painted on it from top to bottom.

The recalled giant measuring charts were manufactured in China
and were sold by Discount School Supply catalogs and the
company's Web site from August 2000 through August 2007 for
about $10.

Picture of recalled giant measuring charts are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08528.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the chart immediately and
contact Discount School Supply to receive a credit or refund.

For more additional information, contact Discount School Supply
at (800) 919-5242 between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday; visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.discountschoolsupply.comor e-mail:   
chartrecall@discountschoolsupply.com


DRUG COS: Defrauded Medicare with Price Fixing Plan, Judge Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patti Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts ruled that three pharmaceutical companies
artificially marked up their prices to defraud Medicare and
encourage doctors to prescribe their drugs over those of
competitors.

The decision came in a class-action lawsuit against AstraZeneca,
Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson and Warwick
Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Schering-Plough Corp.  U.S.
District Judge Patti Saris ruled against AstraZeneca, Bristol-
Meyers Squibb and Warwick, while clearing Johnson & Johnson of
"egregious misconduct."

However, the judge described even Johnson & Johnson's actions as
"troubling."

Judge Saris agreed with the plaintiffs' complaint that the drug
companies deliberately inflated their average wholesale prices
in 2003, when those prices were still used to determine Medicare
reimbursements.

This created a gap between the prices Medicare was paying and
the (lower) prices charged to doctors and pharmacies.  As a
result, doctors would actually be reimbursed more than they had
paid for the drugs, creating a profit incentive for doctors to
prescribe certain products.

Judge Saris ruled that AstraZeneca had overcharged for its
prostate cancer drug Zoladex and ordered the company to pay
nearly $4.5 million to one of the two groups of plaintiffs.  
Likewise, Judge Saris found that Bristol-Meyers Squibb had
overcharged for cancer drugs Blenoxane, Cytoxan, Rubex, Taxol
and Vepesid, and ordered the company to pay $183,454.

Judge Saris requested more information to set damages amounts
for the other group of plaintiffs.

While the court did not decide on the damages Warrick must pay,
Judge Saris ruled that Warrick had overcharged for the generic
asthma medication albuterol sulfate -- the same medicine sold by
GlaxoSmithKline under the brand name Ventolin.

One of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Steve Berman, Esq., at Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, said that his clients were very happy
with the ruling.

"We are also grateful that she found [that] the biggest victims
were the patients who had to pay these outrageous prices out of
pocket as a result of the defendants' wrongful conduct," Mr.
Berman said.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Steve W. Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 268-9320
          Fax: (206) 623-0594
          Web site: http://www.hagens-berman.com


ECHOSTAR COMMS: August 2008 Trial Set for Colo. Retailers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An August 2008 trial has been scheduled for a purported class
action filed by retailers against EchoStar Communications Corp.
in the Arapahoe County District Court, Colorado.

During 2000, the retailers commenced lawsuits in Arapahoe County
and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of
the company's satellite hardware retailers.

The plaintiffs ask the courts to declare certain provisions of,
and changes to, alleged agreements between the company and the
retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for
lost incentives and payments, charge backs, and other
compensation.  

EchoStar Communications says it is vigorously defending against
the suits and has asserted a variety of counterclaims.  The
federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of the
state court action.

EchoStar Communications has filed a motion for summary judgment
on all counts and against all plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed
a motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them
to respond to the company's motion.

The state court granted limited discovery, which ended during
2004.  The plaintiffs argued that the company did not provide
adequate disclosure during the discovery process.  The court
agreed, denying the company's motion for summary judgment as a
result.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

EchoStar Communications Corp. -- http://www.echostar.com-- is  
primarily a holding company.  Through its subsidiaries, the
Company operates two interrelated business units: the DISH
Network and EchoStar Technologies Corp. (ETC).  The DISH Network
provides a direct broadcast satellite (DBS) subscription
television service in the U.S. DISH Network services include
hundreds of video, audio and data channels, interactive
television channels, digital video recording, high-definition
television, international programming, professional installation
and around-the-clock customer service.  ETC designs and develops
DBS set-top boxes, antennae and other digital equipment for the
DISH Network -- collectively referred to as EchoStar receiver
systems.  ETC also designs, develops and distributes similar
equipment for international satellite service providers.


ECHOSTAR SATELLITE: Faces Subscribers' Antitrust Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Echostar Satellite, LLC, a unit of EchoStar Communications Corp.
faces a purported antitrust class action in California that was
filed by cable and satellite subscribers.

On Sept. 21, 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite
subscribers filed an antitrust action against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to
bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the
ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2007).

The complaint names 12 media companies as defendants:

          -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
          -- Viacom Inc.,
          -- The Walt Disney Company,
          -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
          -- Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
          -- Comcast Corporation,
          -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
          -- Cox Communications, Inc.,
          -- The DirecTV Group, Inc.,
          -- Echostar Satellite LLC,
          -- Charter Communications, Inc.,
          -- Cablevision Systems Corp.

The named plaintiffs are:

          -- Rob Brantley,
          -- Darryn Cooke,
          -- William and Beverly Costley,
          -- Christiana Hills,
          -- Michael B. Kovac,
          -- Michelle Navarrette,
          -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and
          -- Joseph Vranich.

The suit states that the bundling conspiracy restrains trade,
suppresses and eliminates competition, fixes and elevates prices
and forces consumers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for
channels they do not want.

The lawsuit challenges the collective conduct of defendants
which was eliminated, in material part, competition among and
between the content providers or programmers for cable or
satellite television distribution and the cable and satellite
providers by the practice of offering only prepackaged tiers of
bundled programs and refusing to offer cable programming to
consumers on an "a la carte" basis.

The class action sees to terminate the practice of offering
consumers only bundled or prepackaged bundled tiers, and to
require programmers and cable providers to offer channels on an
"a la carte" or individual choice basis.

The plaintiffs brought the action under Sections 4 and 16 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26, for treble damages,
injunctive relief, costs of suit and a reasonable attorneys'
fee, against defendants for the injuries sustained by the
plaintiffs and class members by reason of defendants' violations
of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2.

The lawsuit was brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons
residing in the U.S. who subscribe to "expanded basic cable"
provided by one of the cable television or direct broadcast
satellite television provider defendants within four years of
the date of the filing of the complaint.

The plaintiffs ask the court to find:

     (a) whether the defendants have engaged in collaborative
         activity to preclude cable or satellite subscribers
         from securing "a la carte" programming apart from
         "basic" cable service;

     (b) whether, as a result of the antitrust violation as set
         forth in the complaint, the plaintiffs and the class
         are entitled to damages, equitable relief or other
         relief, and the amount and nature of the relief;

     (c) whether the defendants acted on grounds generally
         applicable to the class, making injunctive relief
         appropriate;

     (d) whether a class can be certified pursuant to
         Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3); and

     (e) whether, alternatively, a class can be certified
         pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, ask the Court:

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

     -- to enter judgment against the defendants for treble
        damages as a result of the defendants' violations
        of Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and that the
        plaintiffs be awarded a reasonable attorneys' fee and
        the costs of suit as required by Section 4 of the
        Clayton Act;

     -- to enter an order requiring the defendants to
        immediately cease the wrongful conduct; enjoining
        the defendants from unlawfully bundling expanded basic
        cable channels; and ordering the defendant cable
        providers and direct broadcast satellite providers to
        notify subscribers that they each can purchase "a la
        carte" (separately) except for "basic cable"; and

     -- for other and further relief as to the court may seem
        just and proper.

The suit is "Rob Brantley et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al,
Case No. CV07-06101," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
          David W. Kesselman, Esq.
          Blecher & Collins, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, California 90071-3334
          Phone: (213) 622-4222
          Fax: (213) 622-1656
          E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com or
                  dkesselman@blechercollins.com


ENERGY FUTURE: Nixing of Securities Suit Remanded to Lower Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded the
dismissal of a purported securities fraud class action commenced
by Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Fund Incorporated
against Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH Corp.), formerly TXU
Corp., to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

On Sept. 6, 2005, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against the company and
C. John Wilder.  

The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of the plaintiffs and a
putative class of owners of certain TXU Corp. securities who
tendered such securities in connection with a tender offer
conducted by TXU Corp. in 2004.  

The complaint alleged violations of the provisions of Sections
14(e), 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
purported to assert a claim for alleged breach of fiduciary
duty.  

An amended complaint dropped the claim for breach of fiduciary
duty.  The allegations relate to a tender offer conducted in
September and October 2004 for certain equity-linked securities
in which it was expressly disclosed that TXU Corp. management
was evaluating whether it should recommend to the TXU Corp.
board of directors that the board reevaluate TXU Corp.'s
dividend policy.  

After the tender offer was closed, and consistent with the
disclosure, TXU Corp. management did make a recommendation to
the board to reevaluate TXU Corp. dividend policy and the board
elected to increase the quarterly dividend.   

Plaintiffs in the litigation contend that the disclosure in
connection with the tender offer was inadequate.   

A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, and the District
Court entered an order granting the Motion to Dismiss and
dismissing the litigation with prejudice on Aug. 30, 2006.  

The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal, and on appeal,
the Fifth Circuit remanded the dismissal to the District Court
in light of the decisions in "Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues &
Rights, Ltd.," according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Fund
Incorporated, et al. v. TXU Corp., et al., Case No. 05-CV-
1784," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael C. Dodge, Esq.
         Dodge & Associates
         3710 Rawlins, Suite 1600
         Dallas, TX 75219
         Phone: 214-273-3280
         Fax: 214-273-3281
         E-mail: miked@texasatty.com

         Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint
         2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com

              -- and --

         Rosemary J. Shockman, Esq.
         Shockman Law Offices
         8170 N 86th Place, Suite 102
         Scottsdale, AZ 85258-4308
         Phone: 480-596-1986
         E-mail: rshock@aol.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Richard S. Krumholz, Esq.
         Fulbright & Jaworski
         Texas Commerce Bank Tower, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2800
         Dallas, TX 75201-2784
         Phone: 214-855-8000
         Fax: 214-855-8200
         E-mail: rkrumholz@fulbright.com


ENERGY FUTURE: Finalizes Documents of $7.25M ERISA Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH Corp.), formerly TXU Corp., is
in the process of preparing documents in the settlement of a
consolidated class action commenced by the Hargrave plaintiffs
filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas over alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In November 2002, February 2003 and March 2003, three lawsuits
were filed, asserting claims under ERISA on behalf of a putative
class of participants in and beneficiaries of various employee
benefit plans of EFH Corp.

The ERISA lawsuits were consolidated, and a consolidated
complaint was filed in February 2004 against EFH Corp., the
directors of EFH Corp. serving during the putative class period
as well as certain officers of TXU Corp. who were the members of
the TXU Thrift Plan Committee.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of participants in the  
employee benefit plans during the period between April 26, 2001
and Oct. 11, 2002.

The plaintiffs filed an initial motion for class certification
and, after class certification discovery was completed, the
District Court denied plaintiffs' initial class certification
motion without prejudice and granted plaintiffs' leave to amend
their complaint.

The plaintiffs' second class certification motion, filed on the
basis of their amended complaint, was denied and the case was
ordered dismissed without prejudice on Sept. 29, 2005.  They
filed an appeal of the dismissal to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  

While on appeal, the matter was referred to the 5th Circuit's
alternative dispute resolution program and subsequently to
mediation.

While mediation was unsuccessful, further discussions led to an
agreement in principle to settle this litigation on Dec. 24,
2006, for $7.25 million, before attorney's fees, to be paid by
EFH Corp. to the thrift plan pursuant a court approved
allocation.

A Memorandum of Understanding confirming the agreement in
principle was signed on Jan. 24, 2007 and the settlement is in
the process of being confirmed with final settlement documents
after which the settlement will be submitted to the District
Court for approval.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

The suit is "Hargrave v. TXU Corp., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-
02573," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gary B. Lawson, Esq.
         Godwin Pappas Langley Ronquillo
         1201 Elm St., Suite 1700
         Dallas, TX 75270-2084
         Phone: 214-939-4870
         Fax: 214-760-7332
         E-mail: glawson@godwinpappas.com

              -- and --

         Jeffrey W. Chambers, Esq.
         Ware Jackson Lee & Chambers
         America Tower, 2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor
         Houston, TX 77019
         Phone: 713-659-6400
         Fax: 713-659-6262

Representing the defendants are:

         David P. Poole, Esq.
         TXU Legal Dept.
         1601 Bryan St., 21st Floor
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Phone: 214-812-6001
         Fax: 214-812-6032
         E-mail: dpoole@txu.com

              -- and --

         Robert K. Wise, Esq.
         Hunton & Williams
         1601 Bryan St., 30th Floor
         Dallas, TX 75201-3402
         Phone: 214-979-3071
         Fax: 214-880-0011
         E-mail: bwise@hunton.com


ENERGY FUTURE: 5th Cir. Drops Appeals on Settlement of 2002 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed
certain appeals regarding the approval of a settlement in a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Energy
Future Holdings Corp. (EFH Corp.), formerly TXU Corp., in 2002.  

In October, November and December 2002 and January 2003, a
number of lawsuits were filed against EFH Corp. (then known as
TXU Corp.) and certain of its former officers and directors.  

The lawsuits were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were
appointed by the District Court.  The consolidated complaint
alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, Rule 10b-5 and the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.  

On January 20, 2005, EFH Corp. executed a memorandum of
understanding settling the litigation.  After preliminary
certification of a settlement class and notice to such class,
the District Court conducted a hearing and thereafter on Nov. 8,
2005 granted final approval of the settlement.  

Certain members of the settlement class who objected to the
settlement appealed the orders approving the settlement to the
Fifth Circuit.  

The appeal was dismissed on June 11, 2007 and as a result, the
District Court's Judgment is final and not subject to further
appeal, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Energy Future Holdings Corp., -- http://www.txucorp.com--  
formerly TXU Corp., is an energy company that is a holding
company conducting its operations principally through its TXU
Energy Company LLC, TXU Electric Delivery Company and TXU
Generation Development Company LLC subsidiaries.  TXU Energy
Holdings segment includes the activities of TXU Energy Company
and TXU DevCo., and also includes the activities of a lease
trust holding certain natural gas-fueled combustion turbines.  
TXU Electric Delivery segment includes the activities of TXU
Electric Delivery, and its wholly owned bankruptcy-remote
financing subsidiary.


ENERLUME ENERGY: Jan. 28, 2008 Set Hearing on Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut set a
Jan. 28, 2008 fairness hearing on the settlement of purported
securities fraud and derivative lawsuits against EnerLume Energy
Management Corp., formerly Host America Corp., according to the
company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

                  Securities Fraud Litigation

In August 2005 and September 2005, 12 putative class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company,
Geoffrey W. Ramsey, and David J. Murphy.  

One or more of the complaints also named Gilbert Rossomando,
Peter Sarmanian, Roger D. Lockhart and EnergyNsync, Inc.  

On Sept. 21, 2005, as amended on Sept. 26, 2005, the Court
issued a Consolidation and Scheduling Order, consolidating the
actions under , "In re Host America Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 05-cv-1250 (VLB)."

On Feb. 12, 2007, lead plaintiffs filed an amended Consolidated
Complaint for Violations of the Securities Laws, which named as
defendants Host, Geoffrey W. Ramsey, David J. Murphy, Peter
Sarmanian and Roger D. Lockhart, and purported to be brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of the Company from July 12, 2005 to Sept. 1, 2005.

In general, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company's July 12,
2005 press release contained materially false and misleading
statements regarding Host's commercial relationship with Wal-
Mart.

The complaint alleged that the statements harmed the purported
class by artificially inflating the price of Host's securities
through close of trading on July 22, 2005, and that certain
defendants personally benefited from the inflated price by
selling stock during the alleged class period.  

The Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages based on alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
under Section 20A.  

On March 27, 2007, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Class Action.

                       Derivative Actions

The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in two
shareholder derivative actions filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut:

       -- "Michael Freede v. Geoffrey Ramsey, et al., Civil
          Action No. 05-01326 (JBA)" (filed Aug. 19, 2005); and

       -- "Joella W. Cheek v. Geoffrey Ramsey, et al., Civil
          Action No. 05-01326 (JBA)" (filed Sept. 13, 2005).

The plaintiffs did not make pre-suit demand on the Board of
Directors.  By order dated Oct. 20, 2005, the court consolidated
the derivative actions -- Federal Derivative Action -- and
administratively consolidated that action with the Class Action
under "In re Host America Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 05-cv-1250 (VLB)."

On June 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Amended
Derivative Complaint, which named as defendants Geoffrey Ramsey,
David Murphy, Anne Ramsey, Peter Sarmanian, Gilbert Rossomando,
Roger Lockhart,  Host directors C. Michael Horton, Nicholas M.
Troiano, Patrick J. Healy, and John D'Antona, and Host itself as
a nominal defendant.

The Verified Amended Derivative Complaint was based on
substantially the same allegations as the Class Action
Consolidated Complaint, asserting causes of action for breach of
fiduciary duty, gross negligence, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
insider trading. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of
damages and other relief purportedly on behalf of Host.  On
March 27, 2007, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Federal Derivative Action.

                           Settlement

On May 22 and 23, 2007, the Company and its past and present
directors and officers named as defendants in the Class and
Derivative Actions, and the plaintiffs filed agreements to
settle and fully resolve all claims against the Host America
defendants in both actions.  

The Class Action settlement calls for a gross payment of $2.45
million, of which $1.7 million will be funded by defendants'
insurer, to the class in exchange for a release of all claims
against the Host America defendants based on the July 12, 2005
press release.  

Under the Derivative Action settlement, the Company has agreed
to adopt certain therapeutic corporate governance policies and
to payment of plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs of $140,000.

On Oct. 18 and 19, 2007, the District Court granted preliminary
approval of the Class and Derivative settlements.  The Court has
scheduled fairness hearings on the settlements for Jan. 28,
2008.  

The suit is "In Re: Host America Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-01250," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond
Arterton.

Representing the plaintiffs:

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

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

          Sarraf Gentile LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005
          New York, NY, 10018
          Phone: 212.868.3610
          Fax: 212.918.7967

          Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
          330 Main Street
          Hartford, CT, 06106
          Phone: 800.797.5499
          Fax: 860.493.6290
          E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com

          Scott & Scott LLC
          P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT, 06415
          Phone: 860.537.5537
          Fax: 860.537.4432
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: 877.891.9880
          E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com

               - and -

          Wofsey Rosen Kweskin & Kuriansky LLP
          600 Summer Street
          Stamford, CT, 06901-1490
          Phone: (203) 327-2300
          Fax: (203) 967-9273
          E-mail: info@wrkk.com


EQUITY MEDIA: Defendants, Plaintiffs Added to Ark. Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three new plaintiffs and three new defendants were added to a
purported shareholder class action filed against Equity Media
Holdings Corp., formerly known as Equity Broadcasting Corp., in
the circuit court of Pulaski County, Arkansas in relation to a
merger agreement.

Equity Media was incorporated in Delaware on April 29, 2005 as
Coconut Palm Acquisition Corp. to serve as a vehicle for the
acquisition of an operating business through a merger, capital
stock exchange, asset acquisition or other similar transaction.  

On March 30, 2007, Coconut Palm merged with Equity Broadcasting
Corp., with Coconut Palm remaining as the legal surviving
corporation.  Immediately following the merger, Coconut Palm
changed its name to Equity Media Holdings Corp.

In connection with the merger between EBC and Coconut Palm, EBC
and each member of EBC's board of directors was named in a
lawsuit filed by an EBC shareholder on June 14, 2006.  

As a result of the merger between EBC and Coconut Palm, pursuant
to which EBC merged into Coconut Palm, Coconut Palm, which was
renamed Equity Media Holdings Corp., is a party to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit contains both a class action component and
derivative claims.  The class action claims allege various
deficiencies in EBC's proxy used to inform its shareholders of
the special meeting to consider the merger.

These allegations include:

      -- the failure to provide sufficient information regarding
         the fair value of EBC's assets and the resulting fair
         value of EBC's Class A common stock;

      -- that the interests of holders of EBC's Class A common
         stock are improperly diluted as a result of the merger
         to the benefit of the holders of EBC's Class B common
         stock;

      -- failure to sufficiently describe the further dilution
         that would occur post-merger upon exercise of Coconut
         Palm's outstanding warrants;

      -- failure to provide pro-forma financial information;

      -- failure to disclose alleged related party transactions;

      -- failure to provide access to audited consolidated
         financial statements during previous years;

      -- failure to provide shareholders with adequate time to
         review a fairness option obtained by EBC's board of
         directors in connection with the merger; and

      -- alleged sale of EBC below appraised market value of its
         assets.

The derivative components of the lawsuit allege instances of
improper self-dealing, including through a management agreement
between EBC and Arkansas Media, LLC.

In addition to requesting unspecified compensatory damages, the
plaintiff also requested injunctive relief to enjoin EBC's
annual shareholder meeting and the vote on the merger.

An injunction hearing was not held before EBC's annual meeting
regarding the merger so the meeting and shareholder vote
proceeded as planned and EBC's shareholders approved the merger.

On Aug. 9, 2006, EBC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied.

On Feb. 21, 2007, the plaintiff filed a "Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement" with the court alleging the parties
reached an oral agreement to settle the lawsuit.

The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to withdraw the motion
to settle and filed a "Third Amended Complaint" on April 10,
2007.  This motion added two additional plaintiffs and expanded
on the issues recited in the previous complaints.

On July 31, 2007, the plaintiff filed a "Fourth Amended
Complaint".  This motion added three new plaintiffs and three
new defendants to the proceedings.  The three additional
defendants bear a fiduciary relationship to three previously
named defendants.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Equity Media Holdings Corp., formerly Coconut Palm Acquisition
Corp. (Coconut Palm), is an owner and operator of television
stations in the U.S.


FGX INT'L: Recalls Kids' Sunglasses on Paint's High Lead Level
--------------------------------------------------------------
FGX International Inc., of Smithfield, R.I., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
260,000 children's sunglasses.

The company said surface paint on the sunglasses can contain
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported so far.

The recall involves 15 styles of children's sunglasses. The
style name is printed on the product inside the left temple arm.
The name "Foster Grant" may also appear on the temple arm of
some styles.  The styles included in the recall are:

     Balloon        Encompass Jr. IK
     Bond           Fade IK
     Boom           Gadget IK
     Bubble Gum     Iceman
     Bullseye       Lily
     Buzz           Outer Space
     Conqueror Jr.  Pluto
     Curly Q

No other styles are included in the recall.

The sunglasses were made in China and sold at various stores
nationwide from January 2007 through November 2007 for between
$3 and $11.

Pictures of the recalled sunglasses are available at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08087a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08087b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08087c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the sunglasses away
from children and return them to FGX International for a free
replacement or refund, including shipping and handling.

For more information, contact FGX International toll-free at
(877) 277-0104 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.fgxi.com


ILLINOIS: Chicago Sued Over Ban of Cellphones while Driving
-----------------------------------------------------------
The City of Chicago, Illinois, is facing a class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging the City has issued more than
25,000 citations for using cell phones while driving, imposing
$2 million in fines, and did it without adequately informing
drivers of the new law, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

On May 11, 2005, the Chicago City Council passed Municipal
Ordinance 9-40-260, which prohibits the use of mobile telephones
and similar devices while operating a motor vehicle. The
Ordinance imposes a substantial fine on alleged violators.

CourtHouse News Service says named plaintiff Chris Yarusso filed
the action on behalf of:

     (1) relative to the federal false arrest claim, all persons
         who, at any time on and after two years preceding the
         filing of the lawsuit until the date of entry of
         judgment, were issued citations under the Ordinance by
         defendant officers;

     (2) relative to the state false arrest claim, all persons
         who, at any time on and after one year preceding the
         filing of the lawsuit until the date of entry
         judgment, were arrested by the defendant officers based
         on the utilization of mobile telephones while operating
         a motor vehicle; and

     (3) relative to the state malicious prosecution claims, all
         persons who received citations solely for utilizing
         mobile telephones while operating motor vehicles.

Mr. Yarusso, according to CourtHouse News Service, asks the
court to:

     -- enjoin Chicago Police Officers from issuing citations
        regarding the Ordinance until such time as signs are
        posted as required by Illinois law;

     -- order the City of Chicago to immediately drop all
        charges against any individual cited for violating the
        Ordinance;

     -- order the City of Chicago to post signs providing notice
        of the Ordinance as required by Illinois law;

     -- declare that the practice of the City of Chicago in
        regards to arresting and citing people under the
        Ordinance is unconstitutional; and

     -- order the City of Chicago to return all money collected
        from individuals cited or arrested under the Ordinance.

The suit is "Chris Yarusso et al v. Mayor Richard Daley et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Blake Horwitz
          The Law Offices of Blake Horwitz, Ltd.
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 723
          Phone: (312) 616-4433
          Fax: (312) 565-7173


MERCHANDISE CORP: Recalls Christmas Candle Sets for Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Specialty Merchandise Corporation, of Simi Valley, California,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling about 13,000 Christmas Candle Sets.

The company said the snowman candle could tip over and the
exterior coating on both candles can ignite, posing a fire
hazard. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the 2-pieced Snowman and Christmas tree
candle set.  The snowman candle measures roughly 6 inches in
height and the Christmas tree candle measures 7 inches high.

The recalled candle sets were manufactured in China and were
sold through SMC's catalog from October 2003 through September
2007 for between $4 and $13.

Picture of recalled candle sets is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08144.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the candles immediately and
contact SMC to return the candle for a refund of the original
purchase price.

For additional information, contact SMC at (888) 839-8757 or
visit the company's Web site: http://www.smcorp.com/recall


MGA INSURANCE: Faces Litigation Over MRI Reading Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
MGA Insurance Co., Inc., a unit of GAINSCO, INC., faces a
purported class action styled, "MD Readers, Inc. (a/a/o Jose
Asensi) and all others similarly situated v. MGA Insurance
Company, Inc.," according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The Complaint, as amended, alleges that MGA has failed to pay
the named Plaintiff the appropriate amounts in reimbursements
for MRI reading, and that MGA should be liable to all similarly
situated MRI providers.

GAINSCO, INC. -- http://www.gainsco.com-- is engaged in the  
property and casualty insurance business, focusing on the
nonstandard personal auto market.  The Company writes minimum
and slightly higher coverage limits, nonstandard auto insurance
in Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas
and California. The Company's insurance operations, which
include its ongoing nonstandard personal auto insurance and the
runoff of its commercial lines business, are conducted through
two insurance companies: General Agents Insurance Company of
America, Inc. (General Agents) and MGA Insurance Company, Inc.
(MGAI).


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit Over Illegal Cell Sites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. (TASE:PTNR), an Israeli
mobile communications operator, was served on Dec. 17, 2007,
with a lawsuit requesting certification as a class action.

The suit was filed against Partner in the Tel-Aviv District
Court by a purported subscriber.

The Plaintiffs allege that cell sites were erected near their
properties illegally, causing environmental damage. They seek
various remedies, including the removal of all allegedly illegal
communications devices, including the Company's and the other
operators' 3G communication devices (for which relevant building
permits have been obtained under National Zoning Plan 36),
wireless access devices (which were deployed pursuant to a
waiver from obtaining building permits under the Communication
Law), and communication devices which have been "concealed" in
another structure.

The plaintiffs estimate the class damages against all 3 cellular
operators together at NIS 1 billion, which amount, if awarded,
is to be given to a fund managed by environment and
communications specialists.

Some of the plaintiffs' claims have been raised lately by
several local planning and building authorities while the
validity of the waiver for wireless access devices is pending in
an appeals court decision, Partner Communications said in a news
statement.

The Company believes it has strong legal arguments against those
claims and intends to contest the lawsuit vigorously. At this
preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's
chances of success.

For more information contact:

          Mr. Emanuel Avner - Chief Financial Officer
          Mr. Oded Degany - Carrier, Investor and International
                            Relations
          Partner Communications Company Ltd.
          Tel: +972-54-7814951 or +972-54-7814151
          Fax: +972-54-7815961 or +972-54 -7814161
          E-mail: emanuel.avner@orange.co.il or
                  oded.degany@orange.co.il
          Web site: http://www.orange.co.il/investor_site/


SALLIE MAE: Faces Lawsuit in Conn. Alleging Bias In Lending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sallie Mae Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that the
lender discriminates against minority students in underwriting
student loans, charges them higher interest rates and fees than
similarly situated white applicants, and steers minority
students into substandard loans, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

CourtHouse News Service says named plaintiffs Sasha Rodriguez
and Cathelyn Gregoire brought the action pursuant to Rule 23(a)
and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that  
Sallie Mae has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
applicable to the class through Sally Mae's company-wide
underwriting and disclosure policies as generally applied to all
minority applicants.

The Plaintiffs allege that through its company-wide
discriminatory policy, Sallie Mae intentionally violated civil
rights laws, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Truth in
Lending Act in  the origination or underwriting of private
student loans with the goal of increasing its earnings at the
expense of minorities, CourtHouse News Service says.

The Plaintiffs also allege that Sallie Mae deceptively concealed
its discriminatory underwriting practices from minority students
in order to continue its exploitation of minority applicants.

The Plaintiffs, according to CourtHouse News Service, ask the
court to rule on:

     (a) whether Sallie Mae discriminated against plaintiffs by
         charging them disproportionately higher interest rates
         and fees on private student loan than those charged to
         similarly situated Caucasians depending on the school
         the plaintiffs attended;

     (b) whether Sallie Mae discriminated against plaintiffs by
         charging them disproportionately higher rates and fees
         than those charged to similarly situated Caucasians
         depending on plaintiffs' credit history or their
         cosigners credit history;

     (c) whether Sallie Mae's intent in its discriminatory
         policies and practices were racially motivated;

     (d) whether Sallie Mae maintained a corporate policy to
         extend private student loans on a racially
         discriminatory basis by concealing material information
         from plaintiffs such as the fact that the loans were
         not extended under the same terms and conditions as
         those offered to similarly situated Caucasians;

     (e) whether Sallie Mae trained, directed or determined that
         its agents conceal or not disclose Sallie Mae's
         discriminatory lending practices;

     (f) whether Sallie Mae devised and deployed a scheme or
         common course of conduct which acted to defraud or
         deceive plaintiffs or exacted unreasonable,
         unconscionable or discriminatory rates and fees on
         private student loans by taking advantage of its
         position of superior knowledge and otherwise;

     (g) whether Sallie Mae systematically failed to disclose to
         plaintiffs material information such as the actual
         basis on which loan terms would be determined;

     (h) whether Sallie Mae systematically discriminated against
         class members and engaged in a deceptive scheme and
         common course of conduct in targeting an economically
         disadvantaged segment of the population for the lending
         of private student loans;

     (i) whether defendant violated the Truth in Lending Act and
         Regulation Z by failing to make accurate disclosures
         clearly and conspicuously in writing in a form that the
         consumer may keep, prior to consummation of the
         transaction;

     (j) whether Sallie Mae knew or should have known that its
         underwriting practices were discriminatory and in
         violation of the ECOA and the TILA;

     (k) whether plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance
         injunctive relief or equitable relief against Sallie
         Mae;

     (l) whether plaintiffs are entitled to award of punitive
         damages against Sallie Mae; and

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

The Plaintiffs ask the Court:

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

     -- to award them their costs and disbursements incurred in
        connection with the action, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs;

     -- to grant extraordinary equitable or injunctive
        relief as permitted by law or equity, including
        rescission, reformation, attaching, impounding or
        imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise
        restricting, the proceeds of Sallie Mae's ill-gotten
        funds to ensure that plaintiffs have an effective
        remedy;

     -- to award punitive damages to plaintiffs;

     -- to grant declaratory and injunctive relief and all
        relief that flows from the injunctive and declaratory
        relief;

     -- to appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives and
        designating the undersigned counsel as counsel for the
        class; and

     -- to grant other and further relief as the court deems
        just and proper including, but not limited to,
        recessionary relief and reformation.

The suit is "Sasha Rodriguez et al. v. Sallie Mae (SLM)
Corporation, Case No. 3:07CV1866(WWE)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          M. Hatcher Norris, Esq.
          Butler, Norris & Gold
          254 Porspect Avenue
          Hartford, CT
          Phone: (860) 236-6951
          Fax: (860) 236-5263
          E-mail: rnorris@bnglaw.com

           -- and --

          Christina Collins, Esq.
          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          Nicole C. Mayer, Esq.
          James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, PA
          4830 west Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 550
          Tampa, FL 33609-2589
          Phone: (813) 286-4100
          Fax: (813) 286-4174


SCOPE APPAREL: Recalls Boys' Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scope Apparel L.P., of Houston, Texas, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
72,000 boys' hooded sweatshirts.

The garments have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a
strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting
entangled on the neck and waist by drawstrings in upper
garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported so far.

The boys' small and medium sized hooded zip-up sweatshirts have
various designs on the front, and were sold in charcoal, navy
blue and brown colors. "Whatever" and "RN#39209" are printed on
the tag sewn into the jacket.

The sweatshirts were made Bangladesh, India, China and Pakistan
and sold at mass merchandise and specialty children's clothing
retailers nationwide from August 2007 through November 2007
between $20 and $40.

To see picture of the sweatshirts:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08121.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings to
eliminate the hazard, or return the sweatshirts for a full
refund to either the place of purchase or Scope Apparel.

For additional information, contact Scope Apparel toll-free at
(888) 692-7129 ext. 0 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT, or visit
http://www.scopeimp.com

SPORT SUPPLY: Lawsuit Over Old SSG Shares Purchase Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Sport Supply Group, Inc. f/k/a Collegiate Pacific, Inc.
announced that Jeffrey S. Abraham, as Trustee of the Law Offices
of Jeffrey S. Abraham Money Purchase Plan, dated December 31,
1999, f/b/o Jeffrey S. Abraham, voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice, the complaint filed on September 21, 2006, in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County, C.A. No. 2435-VCS.

On Sept. 21, 2006, Jeffrey S. Abraham, as Trustee of the Law
Offices of Jeffrey S. Abraham Money Purchase Plan, dated Dec.
31, 1999, f/b/o Jeffrey S. Abraham, filed a complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County, C.A. No. 2435-N against:

     -- the Company,
     -- Michael J. Blumenfeld,
     -- the four directors of Old SSG:

        * Arthur J. Coerver,
        * Harvey Rothenberg,
        * Robert W. Philip, and
        * Thomas P. Treichler, and
   
     -- Old SSG, as a nominal defendant

The plaintiff is a former stockholder of Old SSG and brought the
action as a class action on behalf of all Old SSG minority
stockholders.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the $8.80 cash
price per share of Old SSG common stock paid to the minority
stockholders in the merger was unfair in that the purchase price
failed to take into account the value of Old SSG, its improved
financial results and its value in comparison to similar
companies.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the process by which the merger
agreement was arrived at could not have been the product of good
faith and fair dealing because the Company and Mr. Blumenfeld
acted in bad faith by taking various actions to depress the
price of Old SSG common stock and dry up the market liquidity in
such shares, all in an effort to effect the merger.

In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the directors of Old SSG
breached their fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty to the
plaintiff and the other minority stockholders in the merger
agreement negotiations.

The plaintiff requested that the merger be enjoined or in the
alternative, damages be awarded to the Old SSG minority
stockholders.

On January 31, 2007, the plaintiff amended his complaint and is
requesting that the court certify plaintiff as the class
representative of the proposed class and award plaintiff and the
class compensating or rescissory damages.

The plaintiff also seeks the costs of bringing the action,
including reasonable attorneys fees and experts' fees.

Sport Supply Group, Inc. -- http://www.sportsupplygroup.com/--   
formerly Collegiate Pacific Inc., is a marketer, manufacturer
and distributor of sporting goods equipment, physical education,
recreational and leisure products, and a marketer and
distributor of soft good athletic apparel and footwear products
(soft goods), primarily to the institutional market in the U.S.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Preliminarily Settles Tax Litigation in Miss.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel has reached a preliminary settlement of tax
litigation involving more than 350 municipal governments across
Missouri.

Under the terms of the agreement, which must be approved by St.
Louis County Circuit Judge Bernhardt C. Drumm, Jr. as well as
the cities themselves, Sprint Nextel will pay $52.2 million in
back taxes and legal fees.  In turn, the cities will end all
litigation against Sprint Nextel and its subsidiaries. In
addition, Sprint Nextel will dismiss all tax protest litigation
against the cities.

If approved by Judge Drumm and the city council of the municipal
governments who participated in the class action litigation, the
agreement would end six years of litigation between Sprint
Nextel and Missouri's local governments. The settlement follows
the announcements of agreements with St. Louis and Springfield,
Missouri.  Final approval of the settlement is expected by May
2008.

"While many believe the attempts by Missouri local governments
to expand local telephone taxes to the wireless industry violate
the state constitution, Sprint Nextel recognizes that it's in
the interest of our customers, our shareholders and the cities
to resolve these disputes on terms that are reasonable and fair.
That's why we've arranged a settlement with the cities involved
in this case," commented Mark Beshears, vice president, Sprint
Nextel.

As a result of the settlement, Sprint Nextel customers in
Missouri will see an increase in their monthly invoices in the
first quarter of 2008.  The first customers to be impacted with
a bill increase will be notified with a bill message included in
their Jan. 2008 invoice. Their invoices will increase in Feb.
2008. Other customer groups will be notified in Feb. for a Mar.
2008 increase.

According to a recent study by CTIA - The Wireless Association,
Missouri consumers pay an average of approximately 16.36 percent
of their invoices in taxes, surcharges and fees. This means
Missouri consumers bear the 16th highest wireless tax burden
among the 50 states.

For more information, contact:

          John B. Taylor
          Sprint Nextel Media Contact
          Phone: 571-437-4685
          E-mail: john.b.taylor@sprint.com


STARBUCKS COFFEE: Recalls lab921 Mugs Due To Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Coffee Co., of Seattle, Wash., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
167,000 Starbucks Fusion Coffee Mugs made by lab921 of Seattle,
Wash.

The plastic handle can detach from the body of the mug when
filled with hot liquids, posing a minor burn hazard to
consumers.

Starbucks has received 23 reports of handles detaching from the
mug, including nine that resulted in minor burns.

The recall involves two styles of Starbucks 14-ounce Fusion
Coffee Mugs. The mugs are white and have a black plastic handle,
and a stainless steel base. The cups have "Starbucks Coffee"
printed on a black stamp or a brown original Starbucks logo
stamp.

The mugs were made in China.  Mugs with the "Starbucks Coffee"
stamp were sold at Starbucks stores nationwide from February
2007 through November 2007 for about $11. Mugs with the original
logo stamp were sold only at Starbucks Pike Place store in
Seattle, Washington during the same period and for the same
price.

To see picture of the recalled mug:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08123.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the mugs and
contact Starbucks for instructions on returning the cups for a
full refund. Starbucks is also offering a free beverage as an
incentive to return the recalled mugs.

For additional information, contact Starbucks at (800) 624-8678
anytime or visit http://www.starbucks.com


TYCO INT'L: $3B Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire,
following the Nov. 2 final approval hearing, granted final
approval to the $3.2 billion settlement of a consolidated
securities class action filed against Tyco International Ltd.,
certain of the company's former directors and officers and its
former auditors, the Accountancy Age reports.

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquire Common Stock, Notes or Options on Common Stock of Tyco
from December 13, 1999 to June 7, 2002, inclusive.

Deadline to file claims is December 28, 2007.

                        Case Background

The company and certain of its former directors and officers
were named as defendants in over 40 securities class actions.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire most
of the securities class actions for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

On Jan. 28, 2003, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the New
Hampshire securities actions filed, "In re Tyco International,
Ltd., Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335,
Master Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," a consolidated securities
class action complaint against the company certain of the
company's former directors and officers and its former auditors.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire.

As to the company and certain of its former directors and
officers, the complaint asserts causes of action under Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 14(a) of that Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Claims against the company's former directors and officers are
also asserted under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

The complaint asserts that the Tyco defendants violated the
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning, among others:

      -- Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting  
         therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed  
         acquisitions;  

      -- misstatements of Tyco's financial results;  

      -- the impact of a new accounting standard (SAB 101,  
         promulgated in 1999) on the company's earnings  
         performance;  

      -- compensation of certain of the company's former  
         executives;  

      -- their improper use of the company's funds for personal  
         benefit and their improper self-dealing real estate  
         transactions;  

      -- their sales of Tyco shares;  

      -- payment of $20 million to one of the company's former  
         directors and a charity of which he is a trustee; and  

      -- the criminal investigation of the company's former  
         chief executive officer.

On June 12, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class
"consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tyco securities between Dec. 13, 1999 and
June 7, 2002, and who were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants, all of the officers, directors and partners thereof,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in
which any of the foregoing have or had a controlling interest."

In May, Tyco agreed to immediately fund $2.975 billion in cash
to settle securities and accounting fraud claims relating to the
Kozlowski era (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2007).  

In July, Tycos auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, agreed to pay
$225 million to settle securities and accounting fraud claims
relating to Tycos securities class action (Class Action
Reporter, July 9, 2007).

Consequently, Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire has given preliminary approval
to the $3.2 billion settlement (Class Action Reporter, Jul 18,
2007).

The case caption is: In re: Tyco International, Ltd.
Multidistrict Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No.  1:02-md-
01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.

For more information, contact:

          Katharine Ryan, Esq.
          Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
          Darren Check
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (Toll Free) or 1-610-822-2223
or           
                 1-610-822-2203 or 1-610-822-2235
          E-mail: kryan@sbtklaw.com or myarnoff@sbtklaw.com or
                  dcheck@sbtklaw.com


UST INC: Lawyers in Wisc. Smokeless Tobacco Suit to Get $16M
------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Michael Dwyer awarded the
lawyers, who brought a purported class action against UST Inc.
over its smokeless tobacco products, $16 million in legal fees,
the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

The legal fees in the suit brings the settlement of the case to
an estimated $83.5 million, according to the report.

In 2002 a Wisconsin lawsuit was brought on behalf of Jason
Feuerabend, a snuff user, and all others who bought UST products
between January 1990 and May 7, 2004.  Mr. Feuerabend's lawsuit
contended that he paid too much for his snuff because of UST's
monopolistic tactics.

In May, UST settled purported class actions over smokeless
tobacco products that were filed in California and Wisconsin
(Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2007).

Under the settlement, Wisconsin snuff users could each receive
$816 in coupons that will enable them to buy the smokeless
tobacco at a huge discount over the next 20 years. To get the
coupons, consumers must be adults and prove that they bought UST
snuff between 1990 and 2004.

UST coupons will be either $6 off for three-pack of tins or
$1.50 off single tins.  Mr. Feuerabend will receive $10,000 as a
result of the settlement.  In Sept., Judge Dwyer granted
preliminary approval to the settlement (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 6, 2007).

Deadline to file claims is on July 28, 2008.  

UST denies any wrongdoing or that smokeless tobacco causes
health problems.

UST, Inc. -- http://www.ustinc.com/-- a holding company for its  
wholly owned subsidiaries: U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company and
International Wine & Spirits Ltd.  The company is engaged in the
manufacturing and marketing of consumer products in three
operating segments: Smokeless Tobacco Products, Wine and All
Other Operations.  The Smokeless Tobacco Products segment
manufactures and markets smokeless tobacco products. The Wine
segment produces and markets varietal and blended wines, and
imports and distributes wines from Italy. UST Inc.'s
international operations, which market moist smokeless tobacco,
are included in the All Other Operations segment.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

January 14, 2008
MEALEY'S CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey's Seminars
Ritz-Carlon Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 23-24, 2008
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

January 29-30, 2008
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS AND LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 7-8, 2008
DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT CASES
ALI-ABA
Washington, DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 11-12, 2008
MEALEY'S REINSURANCE LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey's Seminars
The Westin, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

February 27-28, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 28-29, 2008
FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 27-28, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 9-12, 2008
MEALEY'S 15TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE
Mealey's Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 10-11, 2008
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

May 1-2, 2008
SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES
ALI-ABA
Boston, Massachusetts
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 29-31, 2008
MASS LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Charleston, South Carolina
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 25-28, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Boulder, Colorado
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

July 10-11, 2008
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu

July 30, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION:
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, Illinois
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu

October 23-24, 2008
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227


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

December 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "WHAT EVERY BUSINESS LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT
BANKRUPTCY"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-31, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-31, 2007
CONFIDENTIALITY IN CIVIL LITIGATION: ASSUMED NAMES, SEALED
DISCOVERY,
PRIVATE SETTLEMENTS, ARBITRATION AND APPEALS IN FEDERAL AND
TEXAS STATE COURTS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 23, 2008
MOORE'S RULES OF FEDERAL PRACTICE TELECONFERENCE:
TUTORIAL OF PROCEDURAL FEDERAL PRACTICE IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT
RULE CHANGES
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 7, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PRODUCT RECALLS
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 13, 2008
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WEATHERING MASS TORT AND
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS & NEGOTIATIONS
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 27, 2008
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS GASKETS TELECONFERENCE: EXPOSURE AND STATE OF
THE ART
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BUSINESS LITIGATION
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 24TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2006)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2007)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

COMPLEX LITIGATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS
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 MOTIONS
TO COMPEL
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: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2006)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

INTERACTIVE GROUP: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP has
filed a class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Giant Interactive Group, Inc. pursuant or
traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO" or
"Offering") on or about November 1, 2007 through November 19,
2007, inclusive.

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

Giant Interactive, formerly Giant Network Technology Limited, is
an online game developer and operator. The Company focuses on
massively multiplayer online ("MMO") games that are played
through networked game servers, in which a number of players are
able to simultaneously connect and interact. Giant Interactive
operates three MMO games, all of which it has developed
internally: ZT Online, ZT Online pay-to-play ("PTP") and Giant
Online.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company's average concurrent user ("ACU") and
         peak concurrent user ("PCU") figures as presented in
         the Registration Statement included game users engaged
         in "gold farming" activities;

     (2) that, prior to the IPO, the Company had implemented a
         major rule change for ZT Online which was designed to
         discourage "gold farming" activities; and

     (3) that this rule change would materially reduce the
         Company's ACU and PCU numbers in subsequent quarters.

On November 19, 2007, after the close of the market, Giant
Interactive shocked investors when it announced its financial
and operational results for the third quarter of 2007 (ended
September 30, 2007). Among other things, the Company reported
that its ACU count for the third quarter had decreased over 6.5
percent from the second quarter of 2007, and that its PCU count
for the third quarter had decreased 17.2 percent from the second
quarter of 2007. On a subsequent conference call, Company
representatives attributed both the ACU and PCU declines to a
major rule change in the Company's ZT Online game, a change that
the Company had instituted months before its IPO.

On this news, the Company's shares declined $3.78 per share, or
over 25.4 percent, to close on November 20, 2007 at $11.10 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume. This closing price on
November 20, 2007 represented a cumulative loss of $4.40 per
share, or over 28 percent, from the value of the Company's
shares at the time of its IPO just weeks earlier.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 25,
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


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Alfred Yates Jr. Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC has filed a class
action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WaMu" or the "Company")  
securities between April 18, 2006 and December 10, 2007,
inclusive.

The complaint charges WaMu and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and
prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or
indicate:

     (1) that the Company had failed to adequately disclose the
         extent of its exposure to anticipated losses and
         defaults in its lending portfolio;

     (2) that contrary to earlier representations, the Company
         had failed to adequately reserve for losses as
         conditions in the credit and housing markets
         deteriorated;

     (3) that the defendants had engaged in a conspiracy with
         First American and EA to artificially inflate the
         appraised value of homes for certain mortgages to
         artificially inflate the Company's reported loan-to-
         value ratios;

     (4) that the Company's lending portfolio and the mortgages
         that it issued were substantially riskier than they
         were represented to investors to be;

     (5) that as a result, the Company's investment portfolio
         was impaired;

     (6) that, as a result of the above, the Company would be
         forced to take substantial charges in subsequent
         quarters to remedy such failures;

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

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

According to the complaint, on October 17, 2007, after the
market closed, WaMu stunned investors by disclosing that it had
suffered a 72% drop in third quarter of 2007 net income and
would have to set aside up to $1.3 billion in the fourth quarter
of 2007 to cover its loan losses. On this news, WaMu's stock
dropped from $33.07 per share to as low as $30 per share,
closing at $30.52 per share on October 18, 2007 on volume of
more than 36 million shares. Then, on November 1, 2007, News
York's Attorney General issued a press release announcing that a
lawsuit was filed against First American Corporation and
eAppraiseIT, alleging that they conspired with Washington Mutual
to inflate Real Estate appraisals. Following this disclosure,
WaMu's stock dropped to as low as $23.59 per share before
closing at $23.81 per share, on volume of 31 million shares.

Then on November 2, 2007, MarketWatch.com reported that
Washington Mutual may have to set aside $412 million to $2.1
billion in extra reserves in response to the New York Attorney
General's lawsuit. On this news, the Company's shares fell an
additional $1.94 per share, or over 7.5 percent, to close on
November 2, 2007 at $23.81 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Then on November 7, 2007, MarketWatch.com further reported that
Washington Mutual indicated that its 2007 credit losses could
amount to between $2.7 billion to $2.9 billion, almost double
the estimates that the Company provided July 2007. On this news,
the Company's shares fell an additional $4.19 per share, or over
17.3 percent, to close on November 7, 2007 at $20.19 per share,
on heavy trading volume. Finally, on December 10, 2007, after
the close of the market, the Company disclosed that it expected
to report a net loss for the fourth quarter of 2007. On this
news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.46 per share,
or over 12.3 percent, to close on December 11, 2007 at $17.42
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, Pittsburgh
          Toll free: 800-391-5164 or
          Phone: 412-391-5164
          Fax: 412-471-1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.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  * * *