CAR_Public/071227.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 27, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 255

                            Headlines


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Borrowers Sue in Calif. Over Risky Loans
ENERGY FUTURE: Wants March 2007 Merger-Related Suits Dismissed
ENERGY FUTURE: Shareholders Drop Plea to Continue 8 Merger Suits
ENERGY FUTURE: Reaches Tentative Deal on July 2007 Merger Suit
FIRST DATA: Calif. Court Sets Hearing in Concord EFS ATM Lawsuit

FIRST DATA: Settles Lawsuits Over Merger with KKR Unit
FIRST DATA: Tenn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Concord EFS Lawsuit
FORD MOTOR: Court Approves EEOC Discrimination Suit Settlement
GAMING PARTNERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Nevada
GAMING PARTNERS: Gordon Voluntarily Dismisses Securities Suit

HA-INT'L: Reaches Settlement in Foundry Resins Antitrust Lawsuit
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Suit Over LDW Charges
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Removes TCPA Violations Suit to Federal Court
HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeals Certification of Suit Over Service Charges
HERTZ GLOBAL: Files Motion in Okla. Consumer Fraud Suit Over FSC

HERTZ GLOBAL: Nevada Court Denies Bid to Drop Fees Litigation
HERTZ GLOBAL: Nevada Court Junks Lawsuit Over Fees Collection
HEXION SPECIALTY: Completes Payment in Ky. $5.25M Settlement
INDIANA: City, Sanitary District Face Suit Over July 26 Flooding
INTUIT INC: QuickBooks Users Sue Over Widespread Data Deletion

MCAFEE INC: Ex-Employees Stock Options Suit Settled for $13.8M
MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y. Court Give Final OK to $15M Suit Settlement
MONSANTO CANADA: High Court Denies Leave to Appeal Canola Suit
NATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Suit Claims Useless Damage Waivers Charges
OMNI FINANCIAL: More Defendants to be Named in Gage Suit

ORBCOMM INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New Jersey
PERSONAL FINANCIAL: 35 Mortgage Borrowers To File Separate Suits
RMG TECHNOLOGIES: Ohio Lawsuit Alleges Inflated Ticket Prices
WELLS FARGO: Calif. Court Grants Certification to Kay Lawsuit


* NERA Finds 18-month Class Action Decline for the Year 2007


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FOCUS MEDIA: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
MORGAN KEEGAN: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in TN
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Berger & Montague Files Ca. Securities Suit



                            *********

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Borrowers Sue in Calif. Over Risky Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several people who took on home loans from Countrywide Financial
Corp. (NYSE: CFC) have sued the company, claiming they and other
borrowers were steered unnecessarily into taking on risky loans
with built-in payment hikes, which ultimately led them to go
bankrupt or lose their homes.

The Borrowers claim that Countrywide tried to induce as many
people as possible into expensive and dangerous subprime loans,
because the loans are the most lucrative for Countrywide.

The lawsuit, which was originally filed before the U.S. District
Court in Los Angeles, California in September, seeks unspecified
damages and class-action status.

Many borrowers with subprime adjustable-rate mortgages, pay-
option loans and others that featured low initial payments and
the potential for sharp increases after a few years have
defaulted on their loans or ended up in foreclosure.

Countrywide and other lenders have struggled this year because
of the spike in defaults and foreclosures. Shares of Countrywide
were unchanged Friday, closing at $8.77.

Based in Calabasas, California, Countrywide Financial
Corporation (NYSE: CFC) -- http://www.countrywide.com/-- is a  
diversified financial services provider.  Through its family of
companies, Countrywide originates, purchases, securitizes,
sells, and services residential and commercial loans; provides
loan closing services such as credit reports, appraisals and
flood determinations; offers banking services which include
depository and home loan products; conducts fixed income
securities underwriting and trading activities; provides
property, life and casualty insurance; and manages a captive
mortgage reinsurance company.


ENERGY FUTURE: Wants March 2007 Merger-Related Suits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
yet to rule on the request of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH
Corp.), formerly TXU Corp., to dismiss two putative class and
derivative lawsuits and one derivative lawsuit filed in March
2007 in connection with a merger agreement entered into by the
company.

                        Merger Agreement

On Oct. 10, 2007, EFH Corp. completed its Merger with Texas
Energy Future Merger Sub Corp., a unit of Texas Energy Future
Holdings Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
controlled by the Sponsor Group -- investment funds affiliated
with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., TPG Capital, L.P. and
Goldman Sachs & Co. -- which is the parent of EFH Corp.

As a result of the Merger, EFH Corp. became a subsidiary of
Texas Holdings, which is controlled by the Sponsor Group, and
substantially all of the outstanding shares of common stock of
EFH Corp. were converted into the right to receive $69.25 per
share.

                          Litigation

The lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against the former directors of EFH
Corp., EFH Corp., as a nominal defendant, and the Sponsor Group.

On April 27, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed Amended Complaints
asserting only derivative claims against the defendants.

The lawsuits seek to challenge and enjoin the Merger Agreement.

The cases allege that the former directors abused their
ability to control and influence EFH Corp., committed gross
mismanagement and violated various fiduciary duties by approving
the Merger Agreement.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Sponsor
Group aided and abetted the misconduct.  

The Plaintiffs contend that the former directors violated
fiduciary duties owed to shareholders by failing to maximize the
value of EFH Corp. and by breaching duties of loyalty and due
care by not taking adequate measures to ensure that the
interests of shareholders were properly protected.  

The Merger Agreement allowed EFH Corp. to solicit other
proposals from third parties until April 16, 2007, and the
transaction was subject to the approval of EFH Corp.'s former
shareholders, which was obtained at the annual meeting of
shareholders on Sept. 7, 2007.  

Accordingly, EFH Corp. and its former directors filed Motions to
Dismiss based on the Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the
provisions of the Texas Business Organizations Code applicable
to filing and pursuing derivative proceedings.  

The Motions are pending before the Court, 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.


ENERGY FUTURE: Shareholders Drop Plea to Continue 8 Merger Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders withdrew a request asking a Texas state court to
reverse its dismissal of a consolidated class action filed
against Energy Future Holdings Corp., formerly TXU Corp., over a
merger agreement, the company disclosed 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.

                        Merger Agreement

On Oct. 10, 2007, EFH Corp. completed its Merger with Texas
Energy Future Merger Sub Corp., a unit of Texas Energy Future
Holdings Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
controlled by the Sponsor Group (investment funds affiliated
with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., TPG Capital, L.P. and
Goldman Sachs & Co.), which is the parent of EFH Corp.

As a result of the Merger, EFH Corp. became a subsidiary of
Texas Holdings, which is controlled by the Sponsor Group, and
substantially all of the outstanding shares of common stock of
EFH Corp. were converted into the right to receive $69.25 per
share.

                           Litigation

In February and March 2007, eight lawsuits were filed in state
district court in Dallas County, Texas by putative shareholders
against the former directors of EFH Corp., EFH Corp. (then known
as TXU Corp.), the Sponsor Group, and certain financial
entities, asserting claims on behalf of former owners of shares
of EFH Corp. common stock as well as seeking to certify a class
action on behalf of allegedly similarly situated shareholders.

The lawsuits, which have been consolidated into one action in
the 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, contend that the
former directors of EFH Corp. violated various fiduciary duties
owed plaintiffs and other shareholders in connection with the
execution of the Merger Agreement and that the Sponsor Group and
certain financial entities aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the former directors.

The Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from consummating
the Merger Agreement until such time as a procedure or process
was adopted to obtain the highest possible price for
shareholders, as well as a request that the Court direct the
pre-closing officers and directors of EFH Corp. to exercise
their fiduciary duties in order to obtain a transaction in the
best interest of EFH Corp. shareholders.  

The consolidated suit includes claims that the former directors
failed to take steps to properly value or maximize the value of
EFH Corp. and breached their duties of loyalty, good faith,
candor and independence owed to former EFH Corp. shareholders.

The Merger Agreement allowed EFH Corp. to solicit other
proposals from third parties until April 16, 2007, and was
subject to the approval of EFH Corp.'s former shareholders,
which was obtained at the annual meeting of shareholders on
Sept. 7, 2007.  

The consolidated suit purports to assert claims by shareholders
directly against the directors.  EFH Corp. believes that Texas
law does not recognize such a cause of action.  

Consequently, EFH Corp. and its former directors filed a Motion
to Dismiss.  On May 25, 2007, the Court granted the Motion and
dismissed the consolidated putative class action suit with
prejudice.  

On May 31, 2007, the Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the
May 25 Order dismissing the action; however, the Plaintiffs
subsequently withdrew the request.

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.


ENERGY FUTURE: Reaches Tentative Deal on July 2007 Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH Corp.), formerly TXU Corp.,
reached a tentative settlement in a putative class action
lawsuit commenced on July 19, 2007, against the company over a
merger agreement.

                        Merger Agreement

On Oct. 10, 2007, EFH Corp. completed its Merger with Texas
Energy Future Merger Sub Corp., a unit of Texas Energy Future
Holdings Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
controlled by the Sponsor Group (investment funds affiliated
with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., TPG Capital, L.P. and
Goldman Sachs & Co.), which is the parent of EFH Corp.

As a result of the Merger, EFH Corp. became a subsidiary of
Texas Holdings, which is controlled by the Sponsor Group, and
substantially all of the outstanding shares of common stock of
EFH Corp. were converted into the right to receive $69.25 per
share.

                           Litigation

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas by a putative shareholder against EFH
Corp. and its former directors.

The suit is asserting a claim under Section 14(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations
thereunder, asserting that the preliminary proxy statement of
EFH Corp. filed June 14, 2007 fails to adequately describe the
relevant facts and circumstances regarding the Merger as well as
seeking to certify the litigation as a class action on behalf of
allegedly similarly situated shareholders.

EFH Corp. has not yet responded to the litigation, 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.

On July 23, 2007, the Sponsor Group, joined by EFH Corp.,
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs
that would result in the dismissal of the litigation if the
settlement is approved by the courts, the company said.

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.


FIRST DATA: Calif. Court Sets Hearing in Concord EFS ATM Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
set a Feb. 28, 2008 hearing to consider a motion for summary
judgment filed in the purported class action, "ATM Fee Antitrust
Litigation," which names Concord EFS, Inc., which has merged
with First Data Corp., as a defendant.

On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla
Martinez filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the company, its
subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions.   

The plaintiffs claim the defendants violated antitrust laws by
conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM fees that were
ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.  They seek a declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and other relief as the nature of the case may
require or as may seem just and proper to the court.  

Five similar suits were filed and served in July, August and
October 2004, two in the Central District of Los Angeles,
California; two in the Southern District of New York, and one in
the Western District of Seattle, Washington.   

The plaintiffs sought to have all of the cases consolidated by
the Multi-District Litigation panel.  The panel denied that
request on Dec. 16, 2004 and all cases were transferred to the
Northern District Court of California and assigned to a single
judge.  All cases other than the Brennan case were stayed.

Subsequently, a seventh lawsuit was filed in the District of
Alaska, which thereafter was also consolidated with the case
before the Northern District of California.

In Brennan, on May 4, 2005, the court ruled on the defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  The
court did not dismiss the complaint, except for a technical
dismissal of the claims against First Data Corp., Bank One Corp.
and JPMorgan Chase.   

On May 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
clarified the basis for alleging that the holding companies
First Data Corp., Bank One Corp. and JPMorgan Chase were liable.   

On July 21, 2005, Concord filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking to foreclose claims arising after Feb. 1, 2001, the date
that Concord acquired the STAR network.   

On Aug. 22, 2005, the Court also consolidated all of the ATM
interchange cases pending against the defendants in the Brennan
suit.

On Sept. 14, 2006, a hearing on Concord's Motion for Summary
Judgment was held and the Court requested additional briefing.

On Nov. 30, 2006, the Court issued an order that terminated the
pending motion and requested further discovery on the limited
issue of pro-competitive justifications for the fixed ATM
interchange by March 1, 2007.

A hearing was held on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel on
May 23, 2007, at which time the Court directed the defendants to
file a motion for summary judgment.  On June 25, 2007, the Court
entered an order on the Motion to Compel.

On Aug. 3, 2007, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking to dismiss the Plaintiffs' per se claims, arguing that
there are pro-competitive justifications for the ATM
interchange.  

The hearing on the Summary Judgment Motion is scheduled for
Feb. 28, 2008, 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 is "In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:04-
cv-02676-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.   

Representing the Plaintiffs are:  

         Daniel O. Myers, Esq.
         Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and Brickman, LLC
         1037 Chuck Dawley, Building A,
         Mt. Pleasant, SC 92464
         Phone: 843-727-6500
         Fax: 843-216-6509
         E-mail: dmyers@rpwb.com

              -- and --

         Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.   
         Lieff Cabraser Heiman & Bernstein, LLP
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000
         Fax: 415-956-1008
         E-mail: jsaveri@lchb.com

Representing the Defendants are:

         Buckmaster DeWolf, Esq.
         Peter Edward Moll, Esq.
         Benjamin K. Riley, Esq.
         Brian Wallach, Esq.
         Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP
         301 Ravenswood Avenue
         Menlo Park, CA 94025
         Phone: 650-463-8100
         E-mail: dewolfb@howrey.com
                 mollp@howrey.com
                 rileyb@howrey.com
                 wallachb@howrey.com


FIRST DATA: Settles Lawsuits Over Merger with KKR Unit
------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corp. and other defendants have reached a settlement
for two consolidated class actions related to a merger agreement
with New Omaha Holdings L.P., a Delaware limited partnership,
and its wholly owned subsidiary Omaha Acquisition Corp., a
Delaware corporation.

On April 1, 2007, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with New Omaha and Omaha Acquisition Corp.  New Omaha
is controlled by affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.

Four purported class actions were filed against the Company and
its directors challenging the process.

On May 23, 2007, one additional purported class action was filed
in the District Court for Arapahoe County, Colorado.  It was
filed by Feivel Gottlieb against:

     -- Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., LLP,
     -- Henry C. Duques,
     -- Daniel P. Burnham,
     -- David A. Coulter,
     -- Alison Davis,
     -- Peter B. Ellwood,
     -- Courtney F. Jones,
     -- Richard P. Kiphart,
     -- James D. Robinson III,
     -- Charles T. Russell,
     -- Joan E. Spero,
     -- Arthur F. Weinbach,
     -- First Data Corp.

The complaint generally alleges that the Company and members of
the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
to stockholders by approving a merger agreement with an
affiliate of KKR that provides inadequate consideration to
stockholders.

The complaint also alleges:

     -- that the members of the Board of Directors have
        conflicts of interest with respect to the pending
        merger;

     -- that the termination fee provided for in the merger
        agreement is improper; and

     -- that KKR aided and abetted the purported breaches of
        fiduciary duties.

The complaint generally seeks, among other things:

       -- class certification;

       -- an order enjoining consummation of the merger under
          the present terms or rescinding it;

       -- imposition of a constructive trust upon any improper
          benefits received by defendants; damages and costs;
          and

       -- any other relief the court may deem appropriate.

On May 8, 2007 and June 14, 2007, "Morton Smith Trust v. First
Data Corp., et al.," and "Gottlieb v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts &
Co. et al." were consolidated with "Pappas v. Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co, et al." for all purposes.

On May 25, 2007, the defendants sought to dismiss or stay the
consolidated cases.

On June 22, 2007, the plaintiffs sought preliminary injunction
to enjoin the consummation of the Merger and the dissemination
of a definitive proxy statement.  The plaintiffs also sought
expedited discovery.

On May 10, 2007, "Larson v. First Data Corp., et al.," and "Ex
rel. Will of Rosenman v. First Data Corp., et al." were
consolidated for all purposes.

On June 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended compliant
alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
Company stockholders by disseminating a preliminary proxy
statement with material omissions.

On July 30, 2007, the parties to the two consolidated cases
entered into a memorandum of understanding.

Under the terms of the memorandum, the Company, the other named
defendants, and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the
consolidated actions subject to court approval.

The Company and the other defendants deny the allegations in
both consolidated actions, and deny having committed, or having
aided and abetted, any violation of law or breach of duty.

The memorandum provides for dismissal of the Colorado actions
with prejudice upon approval of a stipulation of settlement by
the Colorado court, to be followed by consensual dismissal with
prejudice of the Delaware actions.

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, the Company
acknowledged that the consolidated actions resulted in a
decision to provide additional information to shareholders in
the definitive proxy statement concerning the pending merger,
and agreed to pay certain attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
incurred by the plaintiffs.

The Company reported no development in the matter in its
Nov. 13, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

First Data Corp. -- http://www.firstdatacorp.com-- operates  
electronic commerce, payment services and customer account
management businesses.  FDC has four main business segments:
First Data Commercial Services Segment, First Data Financial
Institution Services Segment, First Data International Segment
and Integrated Payment Systems Segment, and a fifth segment,
known as All Other and Corporate.


FIRST DATA: Tenn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Concord EFS Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shelby County Circuit Court in Tennessee has yet to rule on
a motion seeking dismissal of a third amended complaint in a
consolidated securities fraud suit filed against Concord EFS
Inc., which has merged with First Data Corp.

On April 3 and 4, 2003, two purported class action complaints
were filed on behalf of the public holders of Concord EFS's
common stock, excluding shareholders related to or affiliated
with the individual defendants.

The defendants in those actions were certain current and former
officers and directors of Concord.  The complaints generally
alleged breaches of the defendants' duty of loyalty and due care
in connection with the defendants' alleged attempt to sell
Concord without maximizing the value to shareholders to advance
the defendants' alleged individual interests in obtaining
indemnification agreements related to the securities litigation
discussed above and other derivative litigation.

The complaints sought class certification, injunctive relief
directing the defendants' conduct in connection with an alleged
sale or auction of Concord, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts'
fees and other costs and relief the Court deems just and proper.

On April 2, 2003, Barton K. O'Brien filed an additional
purported class-action complaint.  The defendants were Concord
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.  

The O'Brien complaint contained allegations regarding the
individual defendants' alleged insider trading and alleged
violations of securities and other laws and asserted that the  
alleged misconduct reduced the consideration offered to Concord
shareholders in the proposed merger between Concord and a
subsidiary of the company.

The complaint sought class certification, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, costs and other relief the Court deems just and
proper.  

Moreover, the complaint also sought an order enjoining
consummation of the merger, rescinding the merger if it is
consummated and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
to members of the putative class, and directing the defendants
to account to the putative class members for unspecified
damages.

                     Consolidated Lawsuit

On Sept. 19, 2003, a second amended consolidated complaint was
filed, consolidating the actions under "In Re: Concord EFS, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation," before the Shelby County Circuit
Court.

On Oct. 15, 2003, the plaintiffs in "Concord EFS, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation," sought leave to file a third amended
consolidated complaint to include allegations that the proxy
statement disclosures relating to the antitrust regulatory
approval process were inadequate.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 22, 2004,
alleging that the claims should be denied and deemed moot since
the merger has occurred.

On Oct. 18, 2004, the Court heard arguments on the plaintiffs'
motion to amend complaint and the defendant's motion to dismiss.  

On Sept. 12, 2006, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
file a third amended complaint.  In early November 2006, Concord
sought to dismiss the third amended complaint.

On June 28, 2007, a hearing was held on Concord's dismissal
motion.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Nov. 13, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

First Data Corp. -- http://www.firstdatacorp.com-- operates  
electronic commerce, payment services and customer account
management businesses.  FDC has four main business segments:
First Data Commercial Services Segment, First Data Financial
Institution Services Segment, First Data International Segment
and Integrated Payment Systems Segment, and a fifth segment,
known as All Other and Corporate.


FORD MOTOR: Court Approves EEOC Discrimination Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
granted final approval on the settlement of a class action filed
by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Ford
Motor Co., two related companies, and the United Auto Workers.

Under the settlement, the defendants will pay $1.6 million and
provide other relief to settle the race discrimination lawsuit,
according to the EEOC.

                        Case Background

In the case, which was filed on Aug. 27, 2007, the EEOC charged
that a written test used by Ford, Visteon Corp. and Automotive
Components Holdings discriminated against blacks.  

The Apprentice Training Selection System is a test that was used
to determine eligibility for a skilled trades apprenticeship
program.

The United Auto Workers was a defendant because the test was
used to select apprentices in the joint Ford-UAW program and
people affected by the settlement are covered by the union
agreement.

The action was premised under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis
of race, and to provide appropriate relief to a class of
African-American apprenticeship test takers who were adversely
affected by such practices (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29,
2007).

The commission alleges that the defendants' apprenticeship test
had a disparate impact on African-American apprenticeship
program at least since Jan. 1, 1997.  

The commission further alleges that the defendant employers'
apprenticeship test was not reasonably reviewed for currency by
investigation of alternative selection procedures with less
adverse impact, which had become current in the professional
literature by the time this case arose.

The commission asked the court to:

     -- grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant
        employers, their officers, successors, assigns, and all
        persons in active concert or participation with them,
        from engaging in disparate impact regarding selection
        for apprenticeship and any other employment practice
        which discriminates on the basis of race;

     -- order defendant employers to institute and carry out
        policies, practices, and programs which provide equal
        employment opportunities for African-Americans, and
        which eradicate the effects of their past unlawful
        employment practices;

     -- order defendant employers to make whole the class
        aggrieved African-American apprentice applicants by
        providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest,
        in amount to be determined at trial, and other
        affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of
        their unlawful employment practices, including rightful-
        place instatement and front pay;

     -- grant a permanent injunction enjoining UAW, its
        officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active
        concert or participation with it, from engaging in
        disparate impact regarding selection for apprenticeship
        and any other employment practice which discriminates on
        the basis of race;

     -- order UAW to institute and carry out policies,
        practices, and programs which provide equal employment
        opportunities for African-Americans, and which eradicate
        the effects of its past unlawful employment practices;

     -- order defendant UAW to make whole the class of aggrieved
        African-American apprentice applicants by providing
        appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in
        amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative
        relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its
        unlawful employment practices, including rightful-place
        instatement and front pay;

     -- grant further relief as the court deems necessary
        and proper in the public interest;

     -- award the commission its costs of the action;

     -- or in the alternative, grant approval of the parties'
        Settlement Agreement, which is the subject of a Joint
        Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement
        which will be filed with the complaint.

The suit is a successor case to an earlier EEOC suit filed in
Cincinnati against Ford and the UAW.  The Cincinnati suit
settled for $9.2 million in 2005, and covered 3,400 people,
according to Daniel J. Cabot, director of the EEOC's Cleveland
field office.

The latest settlement covers people who weren't included in the
earlier deal.

                           Settlement

In general, about $1.6 million in settlement payments will be
made to 700 class members nationwide who have taken the test
since Jan. 1, 1997, and were not placed on the Ford apprentice
list at the former Visteon facilities.

Additionally, the settlement places 55 black test takers on the
apprentice lists and requires development of a new selection
method by a jointly selected expert with detailed reporting and
monitoring.

The settlement received preliminary court approval Sept. 9,
2007.  Judge S. Arthur Spiegel gave his final stamp of approval
at the Dec. 20, 2007 fairness hearing.

A copy of the Final Order is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?2697

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford
Motor Company et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00703-SJD," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under
Judge Susan J. Dlott with referral to Judge S. Arthur Spiegel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey A. Stern
          C. Larry Watson
          Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
          Cleveland District Office
          Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Office Building
          1240 East 9th Street, Suite 3001
          Cleveland, OH 44199
          Phone: 216-522-7458 or 216-522-7455
          Fax: 216-522-7430
          E-mail: jeffrey.stern@eeoc.gov or
                  larry.watson@eeoc.gov


GAMING PARTNERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------
Gaming Partners International Corp. faces a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
alleging violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misstatements and omissions by the company.

The suit was filed on June 27, 2007.  It is entitled, "Robert J.
Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P. Endy,
Alain Thieffry, Elisabeth Carrette, Robert J. Kelly, Charles R.
Henry, Laura McAllister Cox and Gaming Partners International
Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00849-LDG-GWF."

A motion was filed by the plaintiff to consolidate the case with
another similar complaint entitled, "Natalie Gordon v. Gerard P.
Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P. Endy, Alain Thieffry,
Elisabeth Carrette, Robert J. Kelly, Charles R. Henry, Laura
McAllister Cox and Gaming Partners International Corp., Case No.
2:07-cv-00448-RCJ-RJJ."

However, the Gordon complaint was dismissed and the Kaplan
complaint remains of record, according to Gaming Partners'
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 "Kaplan v. Charlier et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00849-
LDG-GWF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada under Judge Lloyd D. George with referral to Judge George
W. Foley, Jr.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Kim E. Miller, Esq.
         Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
         12E. 41st Street. 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-696-3730

Representing the defendants is:

         Tami D. Cowden, Esq.
         Kummer Kaempfer Bonner Renshaw & Ferrario
         3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 7th Floor
         Las Vegas, NV 89169
         Phone: 702-792-7000
         Fax: 702-796-7181
         E-mail: tcowden@kkbrf.com


GAMING PARTNERS: Gordon Voluntarily Dismisses Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Gordon, plaintiff in a purported class action, dismissed
her complaint against Gaming Partners International Corp.

The suit, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, is alleging violations of federal securities
laws based on alleged misstatements and omissions by the
company.  It was filed on April 5, 2007 under the caption,
"Natalie Gordon v. Gerard P. Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P.
Endy, Alain Thieffry, Elisabeth Carrette, Robert J. Kelly,
Charles R. Henry, Laura McAllister Cox and Gaming Partners
International Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00448-RCJ-RJJ."

The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages,
costs and expenses, and equitable relief against the Company,
its directors and certain executive officers.  

The complaint was served on the Company on April 6, 2007, and
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31,
2007.

Ms. Gordon voluntarily dismissed her complaint on June 28, 2007,
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 was presided over by Judge Robert C. Jones with
referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Mark Albright, Esq.
         Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright
         801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4
         Las Vegas, NV 89106
         Phone: (702) 384-7111
         Fax: (702) 384-0605 (fax)
         E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Tami D. Cowden, Esq.
         Kummer Kaempfer Bonner Renshaw & Ferrario
         3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 7th Floor
         Las Vegas, NV 89169
         Phone: 702-792-7000
         Fax: 702-796-7181
         E-mail: tcowden@kkbrf.com


HA-INT'L: Reaches Settlement in Foundry Resins Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
HA-International, LLC, a joint venture company between Hexion
Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and Delta-HA, Inc., settled
consolidated antitrust class action in Ohio over foundry resins.

Between May and July 2004, eighteen lawsuits were filed in
various jurisdictions alleging that the Hexion and HAI, along
with various other entities, conspired to fix foundry resin
prices and allocate markets.

Subsequently, ten of the cases were dropped and the eight
remaining cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.

On May 2, 2007, the District Court ruled that the plaintiffs'
proposed class of non-contract foundry resin purchasers would be
certified as a class for trial.

The defendants took an appeal from the decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which appeal was denied.  

HAI's settlement negotiations with plaintiffs resulted in an
agreement reached on Oct. 29, 2007 to pay the class $7,000,000
with no admission of wrong doing and a dismissal for all HAI
defendants, according to Hexion Specialty's Nov. 14, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. -- http://www.hexionchem.com--  
is a maker of thermosetting resins (or thermosets) that add a
desired quality (heat resistance, gloss, adhesion) to a number
of different paints and adhesives.  The company also makers of
formaldehyde and other forest product resins, epoxy resins, and
raw materials for coatings and inks.


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Suit Over LDW Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in a suit originally filed over Hertz
Equipment Rental Corp.'s Loss Damage Waiver charge.

On Aug. 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd. filed a suit
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
against HERC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The suit purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of
all persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC
and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver charge.  

The complaint alleges that the LDW is deceptive and
unconscionable as a matter of law under pertinent sections of
New Jersey law, including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and
the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of statutory damages
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages with the return of all LDW charges paid,
declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting HERC from
engaging in acts with respect to the LDW charge that violate the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  

The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2006, the company filed an answer to the complaint.   

In November 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, an individual
residing in Texas, and new claims relating to HERC's charging of
an "Environmental Recovery Fee."

Causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing were also added.  

In January 2007, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  Discovery subsequently commenced among the parties.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
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 is "Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz Equipment Rental  
Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-03830-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Dennis  
M. Cavanaugh with referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Scott A. George, Esq.
         Sheller, Ludwig & Sheller, P.C.
         One Greentree Ctr., Rte. 73 & Greentree Rd., Suite 201
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Phone: (856) 988-5590
         E-mail: sgeorge@sheller.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Alan E. Kraus, Esq.
         Latham & Watkins, LLP
         One Newark Center, 16th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07101-3174
         Phone: (973) 639-7293
         E-mail: alan.kraus@lw.com


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Removes TCPA Violations Suit to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. removed to federal court a
purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, which was filed against it in Kansas.

On May 3, 2007, "Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation," was commenced in the
District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.

Fun Services purports to be a class action on behalf of all
persons in Kansas and throughout the U.S. who on or after four
years prior to the filing of the action were sent facsimile
messages of material advertising the availability of property,
goods or services by HERC and who did not provide express
permission for sending the faxes.

The plaintiff asserts violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and common law
conversion.  The plaintiff is seeking damages and costs of suit.

In June 2007, the company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, 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.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an
equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car
rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other.  In its car
rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries.  The Company has
a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S.
and in all major European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through
approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and
Spain, as well as through its international licensees.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeals Certification of Suit Over Service Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is taking an appeal from the class
certification order issued by the 214th Judicial District Court
of Nueces County, Texas, in the case, "Jose M. Gomez,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, v. The Hertz Corp."

The suit purports to be a class action filed alternatively on
behalf of all persons who were charged a Fuel and Service Charge
by the company or all Texas residents who were charged a FSC by
the company.  

The suit alleges that the FSC is an unlawful penalty and that,
therefore, it is void and unenforceable.  

In response to various motions by the company, the plaintiff has
filed two amended complaints, which scaled back the putative
class from a nationwide class to a class of all Texas residents
who were charged a FSC by the company or by its Corpus Christi
Licensee.

A new cause of action was also added for conversion.  After some
limited discovery, the company filed a motion for summary
judgment in December 2004.  That motion was denied in January
2005.  The parties are engaged in more extensive discovery.

On Aug. 3, 2006, a hearing was held on the plaintiff's amended
motion for class certification with no decision rendered to
date.  

After the hearing, the plaintiff filed a fifth amended petition
seeking to further refine the putative class as including all
Texas residents who were charges an FSC in Texas after Feb. 6,
2000.

In October 2006, the court entered a class certification order,
which certified a class of all Texas residents who were charged
an FSC in Texas after Feb. 6, 2000.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Nov. 13, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an
equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car
rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other.  In its car
rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries.  The Company has
a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S.
and in all major European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through
approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and
Spain, as well as through its international licensees.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Files Motion in Okla. Consumer Fraud Suit Over FSC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. has filed a motion for summary
judgment in the purported class action, "Keith Kochner,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v.
The Hertz Corp."

The suit, filed in the District Court in and for Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma, purports to be a class action, on behalf of
Oklahoma residents who rented from the company and incurred the
company's Fuel and Service Charge (FSC).  

The petition alleges that the imposition of the FSC is a breach
of contract and amounts to an unconscionable penalty or
liquidated damages in violation of Article 2A of the Oklahoma
Uniform Commercial Code.

In March 2005, the trial court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the action but also granted the plaintiff the right to
re-plead.

In April 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
petition, alleging that the company's FSC violates the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act and that the company have been unjustly
enriched, and again alleging that the company's FSC is
unconscionable under Article 2A of the Oklahoma Uniform
Commercial Code.

In May 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
class action petition.  In October 2005, the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiff to file a
second amended complaint by the end of October.  The plaintiff
did.

The plaintiff also filed a third amended complaint in November
2005, and the company answered the complaint.  Discovery has
commenced among the parties.

In August 2007, the company filed a motion for summary judgment,
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.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an
equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car
rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other.  In its car
rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries.  The Company has
a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S.
and in all major European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through
approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and
Spain, as well as through its international licensees.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Nevada Court Denies Bid to Drop Fees Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denied Hertz
Global Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed on
behalf of all persons who rented cars from the company or
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. at airports in Nevada and who were
charged airport concession recovery fees.  

On Oct. 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan Ph.D., and Lydia
Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a suit against Hertz and Enterprise Rent-A-Car
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

The Sobel action purports to be a nationwide class action on
behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz or Enterprise
at airports in Nevada and whom Hertz or Enterprise charged
airport concession recovery fees.  

The complaint alleged that the airport concession recovery fees
violate certain provisions of Nevada law, including Nevada's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an
injunction prohibiting Hertz and Enterprise from quoting or
charging any of the fees prohibited by Nevada law.

The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.  In
November 2006, the plaintiffs and Enterprise stipulated and
agreed that claims against Enterprise would be dismissed without
prejudice.  

In January 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss.  In
September 2007, the court denied the motion to dismiss,
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 is "Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD., and Lydia Lee, et
al. v. The Hertz Corp. and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., Case No.
3:06-cv-00545-LRH-VPC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada under Judge Larry R. Hicks with referral to
Judge Valerie P. Cooke.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          G. David Robertson, Esq.
          Robertson & Benevento
          50 W. Liberty St., Suite 600
          Reno, NV 89501  
          Phone: 775-329-5600
          Fax: 775-348-8300
          E-mail: gdavid@nvlawyers.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Dan C. Bowen of Lionel, Esq.
          Sawyer & Collins
          50 W. Liberty St., Suite 1100
          Reno, NV 89501
          Phone: 775-788-8666
          E-mail: dbowen@lionelsawyer.com

          -- and --

          Matthew K. Narensky, Esq.
          Heller Ehrman, LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415 772-6000
          E-mail: matthew.narensky@hellerehrman.com


HERTZ GLOBAL: Nevada Court Junks Lawsuit Over Fees Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted Hertz
Global Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a January 10, 2007
class action, captioned as "Marlena Guerra, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz
Corp."

The class action related to Hertz's collection of Fuel and
Service Charge from customers.  The suit purports to be a class
action on behalf of all individuals and business entities who
rented vehicles at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport and
were charged a FSC.

The complaint alleged that those customers who paid the FSC were
fraudulently charged a surcharge required for fuel in violation
of Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  

The plaintiff also alleged the FSC violates the Nevada Uniform
Commercial Code since it is unconscionable and operates as an
unlawful liquidated damages provision.

The plaintiff argued that the company breached its own rental
agreement-which the plaintiff claims to have been modified so as
not to violate Nevada law-by charging the FSC, since the charges
violate the UCC or the prohibition against fuel surcharges.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including the return
of all FSC paid or the difference between the FSC and its actual
costs, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  

In March 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss.  In July
2007, the court granted the motion to dismiss and ordered the
plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice, 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 is "Guerra v. Hertz Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00023-PMP-
GWF," filed in the U.S. District Court of Nevada under Judge
Philip M. Pro with referral to George W Foley, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
         Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
         350 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: (213) 217-5000
         Fax: (213) 217-5010
         E-mail: rlk@kbklawyers.com

             -- and --

         Austin Tighe, Esq.
         Feazell & Tighe LLP
         6300 Bridgepoint 1, Suite 220
         Austin, TX 78730
         Phone: (512) 372-8100
         Fax: (512) 372-8140
         E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Denise Barton, Esq.
         Morris Pickering & Peterson
         900 Bank Of America Plaza, 300 S. Fourth Street
         Las Vegas, NV 89101
         Phone: (702) 474-9400
         Fax: (702) 474-9422
         E-mail: dab@morrislawgroup.com

             -- and --

         Peter S. Hecker, Esq.
         Heller Ehrman, LLP
         333 Bush Street
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-772-6000


HEXION SPECIALTY: Completes Payment in Ky. $5.25M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc., paid the majority of its $5.25
million settlement of a purported class action filed against it
by residents of Riverside Gardens in Kentucky.

In May 2006, the company -- formerly Borden Chemicals -- was
named as a defendant in a lawsuit that relates to odors and air
emissions from the company's Louisville plant (Class Action
Reporter, March 7, 2007).  

The purported class action suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky on behalf of
plaintiffs living in Riverside Gardens, a community adjacent to
a company plant.

Since then, the court has approved a resolution of the claims
that includes a cash payment, the installation of a new treed
buffer between the plant and the neighborhood, and new odor and
emission control systems.

The majority of the settlement costs were paid in the second
quarter 2007, although administrative actions must occur before
the matter is concluded, according to Hexion Specialty'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 "Humphrey et al. v. Hexion Specialty Chemicals,
Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-00276-JGH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky under Judge John G.
Heyburn, II.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mark K. Gray, Esq.
         Gray & White
         500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 1200, PNC Plaza
         Louisville, KY 40202
         Phone: 502-585-2060
         Fax: 502-581-1933
         E-mail: mkgrayatty@aol.com

             -- and --

         Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
         Macuga & Liddle, PC
         975 E. Jefferson Avenue
         Detroit, MI 28307
         Phone: 313-392-0015

Representing the defendants is:

         David J. Kellerman, Esq.
         Middleton Reutlinger
         2500 Brown & Williamson Tower
         Louisville, KY 40202-3410
         Phone: 502-584-1135
         Fax: 502-561-0442
         E-mail: dkellerman@middreut.com


INDIANA: City, Sanitary District Face Suit Over July 26 Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Hammond, Indiana, and the Hammond Sanitary District
face a purported class action in Lake County Circuit/Superior
Court over a July 26, 2007 flood, Susan Brown of nwitimes.com
reports.

The lawsuit, filed on Dec. 4, 2007, seeks to compel the city and
the sanitary district to fix the sewer system, and to compensate
the plaintiffs for damages related to the flood.

Plaintiffs, who are represented by the Merrillville law firm of
Marshall P. Whalley and Associates, include:

       -- Katharine Farley,
       -- Kim Massie, and
       -- James Paul.

In the suit, the plaintiffs claim that the sewer system was
designed to handle the amount of rain that fell on July 26.  
They also claim that the flooding was the result of human error.

Speaking on behalf of his clients, Marshall P. Whalley, Esq.,
told nwitimes.com, "These residents should be compensated for
their losses."  He adds, "They also need to know that some
changes should be made to the sewer system, or the way it is
maintained, to better guard against a re-occurrence of the
devastation that occurred in July."

Mr. Whalley argues that more than 1,100 people complained of
flooding with some homeowners reporting as much as 4 feet of
sewage water in their basements.

For more details, contact:

          Law Offices of Marshall P. Whalley & Associates, P.C.
          Broadfield Square North, 8915 Broadway
          Merrillville, Indiana 46410
          Phone: (219) 769-2900
          Web site: http://www.mwhalleylaw.com


INTUIT INC: QuickBooks Users Sue Over Widespread Data Deletion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three businesses relying on QuickBooks Pro for Macintosh filed a
class action against the product's manufacturer Intuit, Inc. for
sending faulty software code on the weekend of December 15 and
16, 2007, that has caused the wholesale deletion of their
QuickBooks data and other files.

The lawsuit, "Create-A-Card v. Intuit," was filed in federal
court in San Francisco. The plaintiffs are businesses located in
California, New York and Florida that use QuickBooks Pro for
their accounting and other data storage purposes.

Juan Loredo, owner of plaintiff AGCJ, Inc., operates a bar
called the Vinyl Room in Burlingame, California. On December 16,
2007, he opened his QuickBooks program and received the software
update from Intuit. "Intuit has caused every computer user's
worst nightmare," stated Mr. Loredo. "My company lost its
invoicing, sales reports, inventories, day to day working files,
pictures, and other files containing financial information. The
files lost represent hundreds of hours of work."

"As we've described in the Complaint, just right as many
QuickBooks users were trying to close their books for the year,
they lost key financial and business information," said
plaintiffs' co-counsel Jim Quadra, a partner at Moscone,
Emblidge & Quadra, LLP. "Through its negligence in transmitting
destructive software code and failure to take immediate
corrective action, Intuit took what is typically the busiest and
most profitable time of year for small businesses, and turned it
into a logistical mess."

"Although Intuit has finally halted the automatic downloading of
the faulty software, Mac users nationwide have each incurred
hundreds to thousands of dollars in labor and other cost trying
to restore their valuable data, some of which will never be
recovered. Today's lawsuit seeks compensation for lost data as
well as the time and money spent attempting to recover the lost
data," said Michael W. Sobol of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, and plaintiffs' co-counsel.

The proposed class consists of all individuals and entities
whose files or data became inaccessible or were damaged,
corrupted, or lost, whether temporarily or permanently, as a
result of opening QuickBooks and receiving Intuit's December
2007 faulty code. The complaint asserts claims of negligence,
strict products liability, trespass to chattels, breach of
implied warranty and unfair business practices.

Plaintiffs seek for themselves and all class members
compensatory and other damages.

For more information, contact:

          Michael W. Sobol
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          Phone: 415-956-1000
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com

          -- and --

          James A. Quadra
          Moscone, Emblidge, & Quadra, LLP
          Phone: 415-362-3599
          E-mail: quadra@meqlaw.com


MCAFEE INC: Ex-Employees Stock Options Suit Settled for $13.8M
--------------------------------------------------------------
McAfee, Inc. reached a tentative settlement in a class-action
lawsuit filed against the company relating to its accounting
practices, the InfoWorld Daily reports.

Charges for the restatement will be $137.4 million, InfoWorld
Daily says. McAfee has also set aside $13.8 million to cover
lawsuits filed in 2006 on behalf of McAfee shareholders.

In 2006, seven former McAfee, Inc. employees filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging they were cheated out of about $2 million total,
because the company did not permit them to exercise stock
options that then expired during the software company's self-
imposed "blackout" period (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 22,
2006).

Named as defendants in the suit are:

     -- McAfee, Inc.,
     -- Chief Executive George Samenuk, and
     -- interim CEO Dale Fuller.

The employees' suit alleges McAfee was contractually obligated
to let them exercise their options grants within 90 days of the
end of their employment, but did not.  

Plaintiffs also accuse the company of reneging on promises to
give former workers a 90-day extension on their window for
exercising options.

The suit alleges that in August, then-Chief Executive George
Samenuk sent an e-mail message to all employees making this
promise, and when he retired in October, interim CEO Dale Fuller
decided to revoke it.

Recently, the company filed 10 years' worth of restated
financial reports, a process that was set off by the stock-
option backdating scandal that has plagued the company.

Companies with backdating problems often delay filing financial
statements until they can make necessary accounting adjustments.
At the same time, some of those companies have also imposed a
"blackout" barring the issuance of any new shares until the
financials are restated.

The class consists of all persons who were employed at McAfee
and who received stock options but were unable to exercise them
due to the blackout imposed by McAfee as of July 28, 2006.

The suit is "McIntosh et al v. McAfee, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
07694-HRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joseph W. Cotchett
          Mark C. Molumphy
          Kelly L. Sommerfeld
          Cotchett, Pitre & Simon
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Phone: 650-697-6000
          Fax: 650-697-0577
          E-mail: plee@cpsmlaw.com or mmolumphy@cpsmlaw.com or
                  ksommerfeld@cpsmlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert Feldman
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-493-6811
          E-mail: wsgr@wsgr.com


MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y. Court Give Final OK to $15M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave final approval to the $15,000,000 settlement of the matter
"In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02 MDL 1484 (JFK)."

In an order dated Dec. 19, 2007, Judge John F. Keenan approved
and certified the class in the case against Merrill Lynch & Co.
over a drop in the firm's stock price, The Associated Press
reports.

                        Case Background

Merrill Lynch was named in dozens of class actions since 2001
that challenged the objectivity of the Company's research
recommendations related to securities of Internet companies
(Class Action Reporter, March 8, 2006).

Plaintiffs claimed that Merrill Lynch stock took hits after the
New York attorney general's investigation into allegedly false
or misleading research reports on Internet companies became
public in April 2002, leading to a drop in the company's stock
price, according to the Dow Jones Newswires.

                           Settlement

The settlement covers all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. common stock during
the period July 3, 1999 through and including April 8, 2002
(Class Action Reporter, July 24, 2007).

The suit is "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports
Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 MDL 1484 (JFK)," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA  19103
          Phone: (215) 875-4625
          Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY  10036
          Phone: 212.735.2628
          Fax: 917.777.2628
          Web site: http://www.skadden.com

               -- and --

          Marc B. Dorfman, Esq.
          Foley & Lardner LLP
          3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202.295.4007
          Web site: http://www.foley.com


MONSANTO CANADA: High Court Denies Leave to Appeal Canola Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to grant two organic
farmers the right to file a class action against Monsanto
Canada, Inc., and  over genetically modified canola, according
to a report by www.truthabouttrade.org

Larry Hoffman of Spalding, Saskatchewan, and Dale Beaudoin of
Maymont, Saskatchewan, filed a claim in January 2002 on behalf
of all organic farmers in Saskatchewan (Class Action Reporter,
April 23, 2002).  

The farmers claim that since genetically modified canola was
introduced in Canada in the mid-1990s, it has been found growing
on land for which it was never intended.  The farmers' claims
say few, if any, seed suppliers will certify their seeds as
organic.

The suit alleges that genetically modified canola contaminated
their organic crops, causing millions in damages (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 1, 2002).

When the the farmers first went to court in 2002, they argued
that their business was hurt as a result of Monsanto's
development of genetically modified canola, because open
pollination means that their crops can't be certified organic.

The original court though refused the farmers' other argument
that all organic farmers in the province should be considered a
class for the suit.  The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld
that ruling.

With the Supreme Court's recent decision, all legal avenues for
the case have been exhausted.

The unsuccessful application for leave to appeal was sponsored
by Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, an umbrella group of
organic farmers, processors, and consumers.

Commenting on the recent decision, Arnold Taylor, chairman of
the SOD's organic agriculture protection fund committee said,
"We were very disappointed, we were hopeful that we would be
successful in our appeal and that we would be able to
successfully get certified as a class and go to trial."

Trish Jordan, a spokeswoman for Monsanto Canada, commented that
the company always believed there was no merit to the farmers'
claims.

"The two lower court decisions that had previously been issued
were fairly strong in terms denying class-action certification,
so we're just pleased that the Supreme Court adhered to those
decisions and this case, I guess, will be over now," Ms. Jordan
said, according to www.truthabouttrade.org


NATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Suit Claims Useless Damage Waivers Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Equipment Services Corp. is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
alleging it illegally charges customers for limited damage
waivers that provide no actual benefits, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

NES specializes in renting to construction and industry, and
earns about $500 million a year.

Named plaintiff Thycon Construction, Inc. brought the action on
behalf of all persons or entities nationwide who rented
equipment from NEES and paid for a LDW associated with the
transaction, CourtHouse News Service says.

The Plaintiff asks the court to find:

     (a) whether the LDW confers any benefit at all on persons
         who rent equipment from NES;

     (b) whether NES represented that the LDW conferred a
         benefit;

     (c) whether NES ever pursued any claim against any lessees
         who had not purchased the LDW for any damage caused by
         any event which NES would purportedly have waived under
         the LDW;

     (d) whether NES's promise under the LDW is illusory;

     (e) whether class plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory
         judgment that the NES' promise under the LDW is
         illusory;

     (f) whether defendant has been unjustly enriched by receipt
         of payments from the class for LDWs;

     (g) whether class plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of
         the monies paid for the illusory promise;

     (h) whether NES should be required to provide an equitable
         accounting for monies it has collected as payments for
         LDW premiums;

     (i) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to a  
         permanent injunction against the future collection of
         money for payments of LDW premiums; and

     (j) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         imposition of constructive trust, disgorgement of
         unjustly retained funds into said constructive trust,
         and resulting restitution to plaintiff and class
         members.

The Plaintiff also asks the court to rule:

     -- that the action is properly maintainable as a class
        action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801 et. seq.;

     -- that the LDWs sold by NES to plaintiff and class members
        are illusory promises and do not constitute
        consideration for payment therefore by plaintiff and
        class members;

     -- that NES has been unjustly enriched by acceptance of
        payments for LDW which are worthless to plaintiff and
        class members;

     -- that plaintiff and class members are entitled to
        restitution of the payments made by plaintiff and class
        members to NES for LDWs;

     -- that NES shall pay immediately to plaintiff and class
        members all amounts collected by NES for LDWs;

     -- for imposition of a constructive trust upon all monies
        collected by NES for LDWs;

     -- for establishment by the court of a trust for the
        benefit of plaintiff and all class members;

     -- that NES will provide an equitable accounting of all
        funds collected as payments for LDWs;

     -- that NES will pay into said trust all monies collected
        by NES for LDWs;

     -- that NES pay plaintiff's costs and expenses, including
        reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- for other and further relief as the court deems
        just appropriate in the circumstances.

The suit is "Thycon Construction, Inc. et al. v. National
Equipment SErvices Corp., et al., Case No. 07CH37811," filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          C. Barry Montgomery, Esq.
          Peter C. John, Esq.
          James D. Benak, Esq.
          Williams Montgomery & John  Ltd.
          20 North Wacker DRive, Suite 2100
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Phone: (312) 443-3200
          Fax: (312) 630-8500

          -- and --

          Herman Watson, Jr.
          Rebekah Keith
          Eric J. Artrip
          Watson, Jimmerson, Martin, McKinney, Graffeo & Helms,
          P.C.
          203 Greene Street
          Post Office Box 18368
          Huntsville, Alabama 35804
          Phone: (256) 536-7423
          Fax: (256) 536-2689


OMNI FINANCIAL: More Defendants to be Named in Gage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, granted  
a request to add more defendants in a class action against Omni
Financial Services, Inc.

The company was named as a defendant in litigation involving
Georgia Community Bank, which it acquired in 2005.  While the
plaintiffs had initially dismissed the company from the
litigation in May 2006, they have since filed a motion seeking
leave to add one of its subsidiaries as a party-defendant.

On Oct. 24, 2005, two shareholders of Georgia Community
Bancshares, Inc., the former parent of Georgia Community Bank,
filed a proposed class action against, among others, Georgia
Community Bancshares, Georgia Community Bank and the company for
fraud under the Georgia Securities Act of 1973, as amended and
the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
common law fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The action is "Gage, et al. v. Georgia Community Bank, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 2005CV107863, Superior Court of Fulton
County, State of Georgia."

The complaint alleged that, prior to the company's acquisition
of Georgia Community Bank, the defendants committed fraud in the
sale of Georgia Community.

The suit alleged that the company merged with Georgia Community
Bank and assumed all of its liabilities, including liability for
the claims alleged in the complaint.

The company said it purchased all of Georgia Community Bank's
stock from Georgia Community Bancshares, caused Georgia
Community Bank to be converted into a national bank and merged
it into the company's subsidiary bank, Omni National Bank.  

After the action was filed, the company was not initially served
with process.  In discussions with the plaintiffs' counsel, the
company asserted that neither it nor Omni National Bank has any
liability for the claims alleged in the complaint, that Omni
National Bank owns any claims against Georgia Community Bank's
officers and directors for any breach of their fiduciary duties
to Georgia Community Bank and that the company will assert
ownership of those claims, if the plaintiffs proceed with the
litigation against the company.

The company's counsel accepted service of the complaint on
April 3, 2006.  On April 18, the company's counsel served the
plaintiffs and their counsel with written notice of its intent
to file claims for abusive litigation pursuant to Official Code
of Georgia (O.C.G.A.) Section 51-7-80 et seq. and for frivolous
litigation pursuant to O.C. G.A. Section 9-15-14 against the
plaintiffs, their counsel and each counsel's firm if they failed
to withdraw, abandon, discontinue or dismiss the complaint
against the company within 30 days of notice.

Subsequently, on May 3, 2006, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the action and all related claims as to the company,
without prejudice.  The action is still pending against the
remaining defendants.

On Dec. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave of
court to amend the complaint to add the Bank as a party-
defendant, alleging in their proposed amended complaint that the
Bank, as the successor in interest to GCB assumed liability in
the merger for the plaintiffs' claims against GCB.  

The court granted the motion on May 18, 2007, 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.  

Omni Financial Services, Inc. -- http://www.omnifinserv.com/--  
is a bank holding company that operates through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Omni National Bank.  Omni National Bank is a
national bank, and provides a range of banking services to
commercial and consumer customers.


ORBCOMM INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
ORBCOMM, Inc. faces a purported securities fraud class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
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.  

On Sept. 20, and 25, 2007, two separate plaintiffs filed
purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its
officers.  

The actions allege that the Company's registration statement
related to its initial public offering in November 2006
contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of
the Securities Act of 1933.  

The actions cited a drop in the trading price of the Company's
common stock following an Aug. 14, 2007 disclosure of reduced
guidance for the remainder of 2007, which was released together
with the Company's second quarter financial results.  

The actions seek to recover compensatory, and in one complaint
rescissory damages, on behalf of a class of shareholders who
purchased common stock in or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering on or about Nov. 3, 2006 through Aug. 14, 2007.  

The court has yet to certify the class or appoint a lead
plaintiff.  

ORBCOMM Inc. -- http://www.orbcomm.com/-- operates the global  
commercial wireless messaging system optimized for narrowband
communications.  The Company's system consists of a global
network of 30 low-Earth orbit (LEO), satellites and accompanying
ground infrastructure.  Its two-way communications system
enables its customers and end-users to track, monitor, control
and communicate with fixed and mobile assets located anywhere in
the world.  It enables its customers and end-users to achieve
these benefits using a single global technology standard for
machine-to-machine and telematic (M2M), data communications.


PERSONAL FINANCIAL: 35 Mortgage Borrowers To File Separate Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty-five mortgage borrowers have left the class action
against Personal Financial Management Inc. to file their own
separate suits, The Reading Eagle reports.

In September, the Exeter Township company and its six affiliates
filed for bankruptcy liquidation.  Reading Eagle says 811
customers learned their mortgages were with outside mortgage
banks, not with the company as promised. They also learned they
were on the hook for higher mortgages at a higher interest rate
than they were promised, and the outside banks threatened
foreclosure if they didn't pay, the report said.

Also, more than 30 borrowers who had paid off their loans ahead
of time, and dozens of others who had paid ahead on their
mortgages, discovered the company hadn't turned over the money
to the outside banks that now are demanding it.

In November, company owner Wesley A. Snyder pleaded guilty to
one count of mail fraud. Subsequently, the borrowers sued the
banks, claiming they allowed Snyder and his companies to act as
their loan-servicing agent but didn't control his actions.

The original suit was filed in Berks County Court, but the banks
forced it to Giles' federal court in Philadelphia.

Borrowers claim every penny paid Snyder should be counted as
money paid the banks.

"I am appalled at the lack of compassion and concern exhibited
by the lenders," said Joseph O'Keefe, the Kutztown lawyer who
began the suit, Reading Eagle reports.

According to the suit, attorneys said the recent move to
separate suits was sparked by repeated comments from U.S.
District Court Judge James T. Giles, who at a Dec. 13 hearing
said he doubts the case merits class-action certification,
Reading Eagle relates.

"I think ideally each of the 800 (borrowers) should file
individual actions," Judge Giles said, according to Reading
Eagle.

Judge Giles, Reading Eagle says, has warned that if he certifies
the case as a class-action and it ultimately loses, the ruling
would be binding on all borrowers.

"It seems to me that it's fairer for each plaintiff . . . to do
it the old-fashioned way (by separate suits)," he said.

The move is expected to spark more than 800 separate suits
against outside mortgage banks or a series of smaller class-
action suits, or both, attorneys in the case said, according to
Reading Eagle.

"We have not determined what will be filed, and where," said
Ellen Meriwether, one of a half-dozen attorneys for the
borrowers who discovered at the company's September collapse
they collectively owe $40 million more than they were promised,
Reading Eagle relates.

Ms. Meriwether said it is possible some of the individual suits
will be filed in county courts, and some in federal courts.

"We'll discuss with each client the best place to pursue further
actions," she said.

Meanwhile, the two plaintiffs left in the original suit have
withdrawn a request for a preliminary injunction that would have
temporarily cut all borrowers' payments and protected their
credit records, according to Reading Eagle.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph O'Keefe, Esq.
          O'Keefe & Sher
          15019 Kutztown Rd.
          Kutztown, PA 19530-9276
          Phone: (610) 683-0771
          Fax: (610) 683-0777


RMG TECHNOLOGIES: Ohio Lawsuit Alleges Inflated Ticket Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio accuses RMG Technologies, Inc.;
National Event company II, LLC; and Designer Tickets and Tours,
Inc., doing business as LasVegasTickets.com of reselling tickets
at inflated prices after buying them from Ticketmaster, using
software that eludes Ticketmaster's security procedures, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Boaz Lissauer alleges that RMG Technologies
invented the technology and sold or leased it to broker
defendants, including National Event Co. II and Designer Tickets
and Tours.

The class action is brought on behalf of a class of consumers
who purchased tickets from ticket brokers who, in turn,
initially purchased the tickets from Ticketmaster LLC by means
of an illegal conspiracy that violated the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the common law, as
a result of which plaintiff and class members paid artificially
inflated prices for said tickets.

The Plaintiff brought the action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(1) and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons who purchased
tickets from any broker defendant at artificially inflated
prices for events from Jan. 1, 2004 through Oct. 15, 207 for
events in which Ticketmaster was the exclusive primary seller
for the event.

The Plaintiff asks the court to find:

     (a) whether defendants are properly within the jurisdiction
         of the court;

     (b) whether defendants and their co-conspirators were
         associated-in-fact as an enterprise as defined in 18
         U.S.C. Section 1961(4);

     (c) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a pattern of racketeering activity as defined in 18
         U.S.C. Section 1961(5);

     (d) whether the conduct of the defendants and their co-
         conspirators violates 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c);

     (e) whether defendants conduct violated the CFAA or the
         DMCA;

     (f) whether defendants and their co-conspirators committed
         RICO predicate acts or conspired to violate the RICO
         statute;

     (g) whether defendants acted with the requisite mental
         state;

     (h) whether plaintiff and the class are intended third-
         party beneficiaries of Ticketmaster's contracts with
         defendants;

     (i) whether defendants fraudulently concealed their
         conduct;

     (j) whether defendants were unjustly enriched;

     (k) whether plaintiff and the class suffered an injury to
         their property caused by the conduct of the defendants
         and their co-conspirators;

     (l) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         damages; and

     (m) the appropriate measure of damages and other relief.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court:

     -- to certify that the action may be maintained as a class
        action;

     -- to award plaintiff and the class restitutionary or
        compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- to award plaintiff and the class treble damages in an
        amount to be determined at trial;

     -- to award plaintiff and the class the costs of this
        litigation, including attorneys' fees and expenses; and

     -- for other and further relief as may be just and proper
        under the circumstances.

The suit is "Boaz Lissauer et al. v. RMG Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 2:07CV1278," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard L. Norton, Esq.
          Katz Greenberger & Norton, LLP
          105 East Fourth Street, 4th Floor
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Phone: (513) 721-5151
          Fax: (513) 621-9285
          E-mail: rln@kgnlaw.com

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          Peter M. Overs, Jr., Esq.
          Harwood Feffer LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 935-7400
          Fax: (212) 753-3630
          E-mail: rharwod@whesq.com or povers@whesq.com

          -- and --

          Joshua D. Glatter, Esq.
          Osen & Associate, LLC
          700 Kinderkamack Road
          Oradell, NJ 07649
          Phone: (201) 265-6400
          Fax: (201) 265-0303


WELLS FARGO: Calif. Court Grants Certification to Kay Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of
California, San Francisco/Oakland Division granted certification
to the lawsuit "Kay et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al., Case
Number: 3:2007cv01351."

Lead plaintiff, Andrea Kay, filed the suit on March 7, 2007
alleging that:

          -- Wells Fargo & Company,
          -- Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and
          -- North Star Mortgage Guaranty Reinsurance Company

violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
12 U.S.C. section 2607, by paying or receiving kickbacks,
unearned fees or other prohibited payments in connection with
captive reinsurance arrangements with certain residential
private mortgage insurers.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Wells
Fargo and WFB referred residential loan customers who were
required to purchase private mortgage insurance to PMI providers
that had entered into reinsurance agreements for such referred
PMI insurance with North Star, an affiliated business or
"captive" of Wells Fargo or WFB.  The Plaintiff essentially
alleges that these reinsurance agreements involved insufficient,
if any, transfer of risk of loss and therefore violated the
anti-kickback and prohibited payment/fee sharing provisions of
Section 8 of RESPA.

The Defendants have denied all of the allegations and contend
the agreements are appropriate and standard reinsurance
involving meaningful risk transfer. The Defendants intend to
continue vigorously defending the claims.

The Plaintiff moved for certification of a class of all
borrowers who obtained mortgage loans through WFB who paid for
private mortgage insurance which was reinsured by WFB affiliate
North Star from 1999 to the present.

On November 30, 2007, the Court issued an Order:

     (1) granting the Plaintiff's motion for certification of
         a class, defining it as:

         All homeowners who obtained residential mortgage
         loans through Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. that closed from
         March 7, 2006 through and including December 31, 2007,
         and who paid for private mortgage insurance subject to
         reinsurance through North Star Mortgage Guaranty
         Reinsurance Company, but not including those borrowers
         whose loans Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. acquired from third-
         party lenders.

         -- and --

     (2) directing the Plaintiff's counsel to publish a notice
         to invite other counsel to compete for class
         representation in the case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
         Rule 23(g).

The Plaintiffs' counsel may also apply as lead counsel, pursuant
to Rule 23(g), on or before January 10, 2008.

The suit is "Kay et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al., Case
Number: 3:2007cv01351," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Magistrate Judge Edward
M. Chen.


* NERA Finds 18-month Class Action Decline for the Year 2007
------------------------------------------------------------
NERA Economic Consulting's semi-annual benchmark study found an  
18-month decline in shareholder class action filings, which has  
definitively reversed course, with 2007 federal filings
projected to increase by 58% compared to the previous year.

The NERA report projects there will be 207 federal filings by
year end, following just 131 filings in 2006. Despite widespread
speculation that filings would continue to decline, the trend
has reversed course and filings are back up to 2005 levels, as
NERA predicted in its mid-year review of filings from January
through June 2007.

The sharp increase in filings has been driven in part by
litigation related to subprime lending. As of 15 December 2007,
38 subprime shareholder class actions had been filed this year.
The first subprime-related shareholder class action was filed on
8 February 2007, and the pace of filings accelerated throughout
the remainder of the year. In fact, by 15 December the total
number of subprime cases filed had more than quadrupled compared
to the first half of 2007.

However, subprime litigation is not the entire story. 2007
standard federal filings alone - excluding the subprime and
options backdating cases - increased nearly 40% from 2006.
The new report, Recent Trends In Shareholder Class Action
Litigation: Filings Return to 2005 Levels as Subprime Cases Take
Off; Average Settlements Hit New High, is authored by NERA
economists Stephanie Plancich, Brian Saxton, and Svetlana
Starykh, and includes data on filings and dismissals through 15
December 2007, and on settlements with the final settlement date
through 31 December 2007.

The authors report that average settlements have also spiked
this year, continuing an overall upward trend over the past five
years. Still, 2007 marked a notable increase: The average
settlement paid to resolve a shareholder class action case in
2007 was $33.2 million, up nearly 50% from 2006. The median
settlement also reached a new high in 2007, at just under $10
million.

Looking ahead to 2008, the report suggests that market
conditions indicate that filings are likely to remain high.
"Subprime lending cases are already springing up across several
Federal Circuits. As the crisis in the credit markets continues
to deepen and the market for subprime mortgages continues to
suffer accordingly, more litigation is likely to follow," note
the authors.

Among other findings in the NERA study:

     -- Filings in the Ninth Circuit continue to be a leading
        indicator for overall filing trends. Following a steep
        drop in 2006, the Ninth Circuit began to see an increase
        in filings early in 2007. NERA projects a total of 54
        federal filings for the year, almost twice the number in
        2006, and close to the 1998-2004 average of 56 filings
        per year.

     -- Other Circuits are following suit. Second Circuit
        filings are on pace to exceed filing levels from each of
        the last four years as well as the 1998-2004 standard
        filings average. 2007 filings are higher than 2006
        federal filing levels in all but the First and Eighth
        Circuits.

     -- Subprime cases have been filed in at least seven of the
        11 Circuits, plus the DC Circuit, but are concentrated
        in the Second and Ninth Circuits.

     -- Filings have also increased against both US and non-US
        companies. Filings against non-US companies dropped to
        15 in 2006, but are on pace to exceed the 26 cases
        already filed in 2007.

     -- The NERA report also examines the current status of the
        235 federal shareholder class actions filed in 2000. In
        the seven years since these cases were filed, over 90%
        have reached some kind of resolution.  To date,
        approximately 60% of these cases have reached final
        settlement and more than 31% have been dismissed.

     -- Mega-settlements (over $100 million) have been steadily
        growing as a percentage of all settlements over the past
        decade. Before 2000, no more than one or two percent of
        settlements fell into this category; by 2007, 8.1% of
        all settlements were more than $100 million.

     -- Investor losses historically have been the single most
        powerful determinant of settlements, explaining
        approximately 50% of their variation. Average investor
        losses have grown dramatically over the last decade, in
        tandem with increasing average settlement values. To
        date, for cases settling in 2007, average losses are
        approximately $1.75 billion.

NERA Economic Consulting is an international firm of economists
who understand how markets work. It provides economic analysis
and advice to corporations, governments, law firms, regulatory
agencies, trade associations, and international agencies.      

Their global team of more than 600 professionals operates in
over 20 offices across North and South America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.

NERA provides practical economic advice related to highly
complex business and legal issues arising from competition,
regulation, public policy, strategy, finance, and litigation.

Their more than 45 years of experience creating strategies,
studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy recommendations
reflects our specialization in industrial and financial
economics. Because of our commitment to deliver unbiased
findings, we are widely recognized for our independence. Our
clients come to us expecting integrity and the unvarnished
truth.

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com-- founded in  
1961 as National Economic Research Associates, is a unit of the
Oliver Wyman Group, an MMC company.

For more information, contact:

          Benjamin Seggerson
          Media Specialist
          NERA Economic Consulting
          Phone: +1-202-466-9232
          E-mail: Ben.seggerson@nera.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FOCUS MEDIA: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action lawsuit before the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Focus Media between September 27, 2007 and
November 19, 2007, including those who bought shares in the
Company's November 7, 2007 Secondary Public Offering.

The Complaint charges Focus Media and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Focus Media operates an out-of-home advertising network in the
People's Republic of China using audiovisual television
displays, based on the number of locations and number of flat-
panel television displays in its network.

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

     (1) that the Company had made numerous acquisitions in its
         Internet Advertising Business segment;

     (2) that these acquisitions had significantly reduced gross
         margins in the Company's Internet Advertising Business
         segment; and

     (3) that these acquisitions had substantially increased the
         Company's operating expenses.

On November 19, 2007, after the close of the market, Focus Media
shocked investors when it announced its third quarter 2007
financial and operational results.  The Company disclosed that
it had consolidated several newly acquired entities during the
quarter, which significantly impacted gross margins in the
Company's Internet Advertising Business segment, and
substantially increased the Company's operating expenses.

On this news, the Company's shares declined $5.15 per share, or
over 9 percent, to close on November 20, 2007 at $52.00 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 28,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

          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


MORGAN KEEGAN: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action before the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the shares of certain mutual funds offered by
Morgan Keegan Select Fund Inc., including:

     -- the Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund (Class
        A:MKHIX; Class C:RHICX; Class I:RHIIX),

     -- the Regions Morgan Keegan Select Intermediate Bond Fund
        (Class A:MKIBX; Class C:RIBCX; Class I:RIBIX) and

     -- the Regions Morgan Keegan Select Short Term Bond Fund
        (Class A:MSBIX; Class C:RSTCX; Class I:MSTBX), or
        shares of the RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc.,

pursuant or traceable to MK Select's and the RHY Fund's false
and misleading Registration Statements and Prospectuses since
December 6, 2004.

The complaint charges the Funds' registrants, the Funds'
administrator, Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., the Funds'
adviser, Morgan Asset Management, Inc., Regions Financial Corp.
and certain of Morgan Keegan's officers or directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that parts of the Funds' portfolios have
been invested in collateralized debt obligations, including CDOs
backed by subprime mortgages to higher-risk borrowers. For
years, shares of the Funds traded within narrow ranges. Then in
early March 2007, as the subprime crisis began to emerge, the
Funds began to trend lower as the market learned of their
exposure to the subprime market. Nonetheless, the shares of the
Funds continued to trade at artificially inflated prices as the
full extent of the Funds' exposure had not yet been revealed. As
late as the summer of 2007, as the housing and credit crisis
deepened, MK Select and the RHY Fund continued to play down and
conceal the Funds' growing exposure to the problems in the
subprime market. Beginning in early July 2007, the Funds began
to acknowledge serious problems in their portfolios related to
the Funds' exposure to the subprime market. Then on November 7,
2007, Portfolio Manager James C. Kelsoe wrote a letter to
investors in which he acknowledged the full extent of the
problems the portfolios faced due to the deterioration in the
housing sector and the subprime mortgage crisis.

As a result of these disclosures, the price of the Select Funds'
shares collapsed. The High Income Fund Class A shares closed at
$4.53 per share on November 8, 2007, a decline of 51% from early
July 2007. Likewise, the Intermediate Fund Class A shares closed
at $5.88 per share on November 8, 2007, a decline of 38% from
early July 2007. Additionally, the Short Term Fund Class A
shares closed at $8.84 per share on November 8, 2007, a decline
of 12% from early August 2007. The price of the RHY Fund shares
also collapsed. The RHY Fund shares closed at $5.41 per share on
November 8, 2007, a decline of 63% from early July 2007.

According to the complaint, the true facts which were omitted
from the Registration Statements/Prospectuses were as follows:

     (a) the Funds lacked adequate controls and hedges to
         minimize the risk of loss from mortgage delinquencies
         which affected a large part of their portfolios;

     (b) the Funds' portfolios were materially misstated due to
         their failure to properly value CDOs; and

     (c) the extent of the Funds' risk exposure to mortgage-
         backed assets was misstated.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Select Funds or
the RHY Fund pursuant or traceable to MK Select's and the RHY
Fund's false and misleading Registration Statements and
Prospectuses.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
December 6, 2007, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Coughlin Stoia
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Berger & Montague Files Ca. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action
lawsuit, Feldman v. Verifone Holdings, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Verifone Holdings, Inc.
between March 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007, inclusive.

The suit alleges that Verifone and its CEO, Douglas G. Bergeron,
and CFO, Barry Zwarenstein, violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements about Verifone's
financial results and condition, including that Verifone
materially overstated inventories and materially understated the
cost of net revenues during the first three quarters of 2007.

It also alleges that, as a result of the inflated share price,
the individual defendants were able to sell their own Verifone
stock for proceeds of over $60 million during the Class Period.

On December 3, 2007, Verifone announced that it was restating
its financial statements for the first three fiscal quarters of
2007 and that its financial statements issued during those
quarters could no longer be relied upon. In reaction to this
news, Verifone's share price fell by 45% from $48.03 on November
30, 2007 to $26.03 on December 3, 2007, on extremely high volume
of over 49 million shares.  

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

For more information, contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 1-888- 891-2289 or 215-875-3000
          Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com


                             *********

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.


                            *********

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  * * *