CAR_Public/080102.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 2, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 1

                            Headlines


BP CORP: Trial in Kansas Refinery Pollution Suit Resumes Jan. 7
CENTURYTEL INC: Circuit Court Certifies "Beattie" Lawsuit
DELPHI CORP: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $38.25 Million
GAMENAMICS INC: Recalls Air-Powered Hockey Tables that can Melt
GAP OUTLET: Recalls Boys' Jackets Posing Entrapment Hazard

JP MORGAN: Breach of Contract Lawsuit in N.Y. Court Tossed-Out
NORTH AMERICAN: Recalls Circuit Breakers Due to Fire Hazard
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Challenges Class Certification in Mo. Suit
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Mo.
NOVASTAR HOME: Ga. Court OKs Settlement in Service Fees Lawsuits

NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Tenn.
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Seeks Nixing of Calif. Premium Payments Suit
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Wash. Court Approves $5.1M Suit Settlement
PEST CONTROL PROVIDERS: Failure to Deliver Services Prompts Suit
PROGERSSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over Consumer Fraud

QVC INC: Recalls Electric Toasters Due to Fire Hazard
SONY ELECTRONICS: Sued in CA Over Defects In Vaio PCG Laptops
TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Junk Securities Suit Pending
TRIPLE-S INC: Seeks Nixing of P.R. Suit by Shareholder's Heirs
TRIPLE-S INC: Settlement Reached in Fla. Physicians' Litigation

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Opposes High Court Petition in Sanchez Suit
U.S. AUTO: Seeks Nixing of Consolidated Calif. Securities Suit
U.S. HOME: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Labor-Related Litigation
WORLD DRYER: Recalls Hand, Hair Dryers for Electric Shock Hazard
ZIX CORP: Parties Discuss Class Certification Issue in Tex. Suit


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BASIN WATER: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********  

BP CORP: Trial in Kansas Refinery Pollution Suit Resumes Jan. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against BP Corp. of North America in
relation to pollution at its Neodesha refinery will resume
deliberations on January 7, KOAM-TV reports.

The suit was filed in Wilson County District Court on March 19,
2004 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2007). It alleges that

     * BP Corp., formerly known as BP Amoco Co.;
     * BP America;
     * BP Products North America;
     * Atlantic Richfield Co., dba Group Environmental
       Management Co.; and
     * BP America Production Co.

falsely represented that contamination left by the refinery that
closed in 1970 was not spreading and was being cleaned up.  The
plaintiffs seek punitive damages plus nearly $477 million in
actual damages.

The plaintiffs are identified as "a class of property owners,
governmental entities and business owners who suffered economic
loss as a result of damage to their real property," according to
court documents.

Citizens say the company did not have an effective plan to clean
up the land near the old refinery, the report said.

Of the actual damages, $280,000,000 are remediation costs,
$98,121,384 are damages to governmental property and $99,529,418
are damages to private property, according to Anna Fry of
Parsons Sun.

Attorneys for BP say the lawsuit is about "politicians and
money", and that the company never had a complaint about its
public information or its cleanup prior to the filing of the
lawsuit.


CENTURYTEL INC: Circuit Court Certifies "Beattie" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The 6th Circuit granted certification to a class in a consumer
lawsuit filed against Centurytel, Inc., originally filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit, "Beattie, et al. v. CenturyTel Inc.," was filed by
Barbrasue Beattie and James Sovis on Oct. 28, 2002.  It alleges
that the company unjustly and unreasonably billed customers for
inside wire maintenance services.  It seeks unspecified money
damages and injunctive relief under various legal theories on
behalf of a purported class of more than two million customers
in the company's telephone markets.  

The Plaintiffs claim that "CenturyTel has routinely and
systematically charged customers for its optional inside wire
maintenance program by 'cramming' charges onto customers'
telephone bills."

On March 10, 2006, the court certified the suit as a class
action and issued a ruling that the billing descriptions the
company used for the services during an approximately 18-month
period between Oct. 29, 2000 and May 2002 were legally
insufficient.

The company has appealed the class certification decision (Class
Action Reporter, March 15, 2007).

The 6th Circuit held that CenturyTel customers were properly
granted class certification over their claims that the phone
company billed them for an unregulated, optional service called
WireWatch.

The WireWatch service "covers the cost of diagnosis and repair
of inside wiring and/or jack damages that can interrupt
(customers') phone service," according to the company.

Customers claim that the price of WireWatch increased from $0.99
per month in 1994 to $3.95 per month in 2001. If plaintiffs
pursue their claims individually, the circuit noted, the most
each could recover is about $124.

Such a small possible recovery discourages individuals from
suing and makes a class action the "superior mechanism" for
litigation, Judge Cole wrote.

The suit is "Beattie, et al. v. Centurytel, Inc., Case No. 1:02-
cv-10277-DML," filed in the U.S District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge David M. Lawson.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory J. Boulahanis, Esq.
          Boulahanis & Assoc.
          21905 Garrison Avenue
          Dearborn, MI 48124
          Phone: 313-277-2550
          Fax: 313-277-2550

              -- and --

          Elwood S. Simon, Esq.
          Elwood S. Simon Assoc.
          355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Phone: 248-646-9730
          Fax: 248-258-2335
          E-mail: esimon@esimon-law.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer L. Frye, Esq.
          Dickinson Wright
          301 N . Liberty, Suite 500
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Phone: 734-623-7075
          Fax: 734-623-1625
          E-mail: jfrye@dickinsonwright.com

               -- and --

          David J. Houston, Esq.
          Dickinson Wright
          215 S. Washington Square, Suite 200
          Lansing, MI 48933-1888
          Phone: 517-371-1730
          E-mail: dhouston@dickinsonwright.com


DELPHI CORP: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $38.25 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP,
and Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, the court-appointed co-lead
counsel for the lead plaintiffs in the securities class action
litigation involving Delphi Corp., the U.S. auto parts maker in
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, have announced that an
agreement in principle has been reached with Delphi's former
outside auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, to settle claims against
the auditing firm for $38,250,000 in cash.

The case arises out of alleged accounting improprieties at
Delphi that forced the Company, on June 30, 2005, to restate its
financial results for all fiscal periods dating back to 1999 and
to reverse hundreds of millions of dollars in reported earnings
during those periods.

Lead Plaintiffs -- Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma,
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Raiffeisen
Kapitalanlage Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Stichting Pensioenfonds
ABP -- were appointed by a federal court in June 2005 to
represent a proposed class of investors who acquired Delphi
securities between March 7, 2000 and March 3, 2005.

The Complaint filed by those institutional Lead Plaintiffs
asserted claims under the federal securities laws against
Delphi, Deloitte -- who was Delphi's outside auditor during the
Class Period -- certain officers and directors of Delphi, the
banks that underwrote Delphi's offerings of securities, and
certain other entities.

Judge Gerald E. Rosen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan appointed a retired federal judge, Layn R.
Phillips, to serve as a Special Master to conduct settlement
discussions.

Following an extensive mediation conducted by Judge Phillips,
Deloitte and the Lead Plaintiffs reached an agreement whereby
Deloitte will pay to the Class $38,250,000 to settle all claims
asserted against Deloitte in the action.

The settlement is one of the larger settlements obtained from an
accounting firm to settle claims of securities fraud.  It is
conditioned on approval by Judge Rosen, who will pass on the
settlement after the members of the Class are given appropriate
notice of the settlement and an opportunity to be heard.

The Deloitte settlement follows an earlier settlement in the
case, also arising out of a mediation conducted by Judge
Phillips, whereby the Lead Plaintiffs obtained a settlement
potentially worth at least $284 million from Delphi and its
insurance carriers and its former banks to resolve all claims
against Delphi and certain other defendants.  The $284 million
settlement is contingent upon final approval by Judge Rosen as
well as approval of Delphi's plan of reorganization in Delphi's
Chapter 11 proceeding.

                     About Delphi Corp.

Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Delphi Corporation (OTC: DPHIQ)
-- http://www.delphi.com/-- is the single supplier of vehicle
electronics, transportation components, integrated systems and
modules, and other electronic technology.  The company's
technology and products are present in more than 75 million
vehicles on the road worldwide.  Delphi has regional
headquarters in Japan, Brazil and France.

The company filed for chapter 11 protection on Oct. 8, 2005
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 05-44481).  John Wm. Butler Jr.,
Esq., John K. Lyons, Esq., and Ron E. Meisler, Esq., at Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, represent the Debtors in their
restructuring efforts.  Robert J. Rosenberg, Esq., Mitchell A.
Seider, Esq., and Mark A. Broude, Esq., at Latham & Watkins LLP,
represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  As of
November 30, 2007, the Debtors' balance sheet showed
US$11,345,000,000 in total assets and US$24,684,000,000 in total
debts.

The Debtors' exclusive plan-filing period expires March 31,
2008.  On Sept. 6, 2007, the Debtors filed their Chapter 11 Plan
of Reorganization and a Disclosure Statement explaining that
Plan.  (Delphi Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 102; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000)

For more information, contact co-lead counsel for Lead
Plaintiffs:

          Stuart Grant, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE  19801
          Phone: (302) 622-7000

          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
          Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP
          205 Linda Drive
          Daingerfield, Texas 75638
          Phone: (903) 645-7333

          John "Sean" P. Coffey, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, New York 10019
          Phone: (212) 554-1400

          Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 667-7706

          -- and --

          Allan Ripp
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          212-262-7477
          E-mail: arippny@aol.com


GAMENAMICS INC: Recalls Air-Powered Hockey Tables that can Melt
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gamenamics Inc., of Elgin, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,100 cordless
air-powered hockey tables with rechargeable battery.

The company said the hockey table's wires can overheat or melt,
posing a burn hazard to consumers.

Gamenamics has received eleven reports of burnt or melted wires.
No property damage or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves cordless air-powered hockey tables with a
rechargeable battery. The table can be folded and moved on
attached wheels. The tables are 72-inches long and 38-inches
wide and have a predominantly white surface with a bright blue
aluminum rail. The playing surface contains the words "Fan
Hockey." The recalled items have the numbers SG-504-6c and 73058
printed on the product's carton.

The tables were made in China and sold at Hammacher Schlemmer
and Sky Mall catalogs and Web sites from August 2006 through
January 2007, and from June 2007 through July 2007 for about
$400.

Picture of the recalled product are available at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08524a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08524b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the air hockey table until
they have installed the free repair kit. If consumers find wire
damage, including burnt or melted wires, they should contact
Hammacher Schlemmer to return the product for a full refund.

For additional information, consumers should contact Hammacher
Schlemmer by phone at (800) 227-3528 anytime, or e-mail at
customerservice@hammacher.com


GAP OUTLET: Recalls Boys' Jackets Posing Entrapment Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Gap Outlet, operated by Gap Inc., of San Francisco, California,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling about 16,200 "Warmest Jacket" Boys' Jackets.

The company said the jackets have a waist drawstring with a
toggle that could become snagged or caught in small spaces or
doorways, which can pose an entrapment hazard to children. In
February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children
from getting entangled at the waist by drawstrings in upper
garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.  No injuries have
been reported.

The jackets are hooded, zip in front, and have a drawstring at
the waist. They were sold in navy and gray in multiple
children's sizes. "Gap Outlet" is printed on a label at the
neck. Style number 513573 is printed on a white label sewn
behind the size and product care label near the neckline.

These recalled boys' jackets were manufactured in Indonesia and
sold exclusively at Gap Outlet stores nationwide from September
2007 through December 2007 for about $50.

Consumers are advised to stop wearing the jacket immediately and
return the item to any Gap Outlet store for a full refund.
Consumers who return the jacket before April 30, 2008, will also
receive a $5 appreciation card. Consumers choosing to keep the
jacket should immediately remove the drawstring to eliminate the
hazard.

For additional information, contact the company toll-free at
(888) 747-3704 between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, Saturday 12 p.m. through 7 p.m. ET, and Sunday 12 p.m.
through 6 p.m., or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.gapinc.com


JP MORGAN: Breach of Contract Lawsuit in N.Y. Court Tossed-Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York  
threw out a class action filed against JP Morgan Investments
alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of
fiduciary duty, Bailey Somers of the Securities Law360 reports.

Judge Harold Baer Jr. granted JP Morgan's motion to dismiss the
federal securities fraud claim -- originally filed October 11,
2006 by investor Leslie Danzis -- and bounced the remaining
claims back to state court, Securities Law360 says.

The case dates to 2000, when Ms. Danzis opened an investment
account with Chase Investment Services Corp., which later merged
with JP Morgan Investment.

Ms. Danzis used her account to purchase shares in three funds:
the AIM Mid Cap Opportunities Fund, the Franklin Biotech Disc.
Fund, and the Pimco Global Fund.

The suit is "Danzis v. JP Morgan Investments et al., Case
Number: 1:2006cv08279," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Harold Baer.


NORTH AMERICAN: Recalls Circuit Breakers Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
North American Breaker Co. Inc. (NABCO), of Burbank, California,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling about 50,000 counterfeit Circuit Breakers labeled
as "Square D".

The company said the recalled circuit breakers labeled "Square
D" have been determined by Square D Company to be counterfeit
and can fail to trip when they are overloaded, posing a fire
hazard to consumers.  No injuries have been reported.

The counterfeit circuit breakers are black and are labeled as
Square D QO-series models 110, 115, 120, 130, 210, 215, 220,
225, 230, 235, 240, 250, 260, 280, 1515, 1520, 2020, 2125, 315,
340, 350, 360, and 3100. Actual Square D circuit breakers have:

     (a) the amp rating written on the handle in white paint on
         the front of the breaker;

     (b) the Square D insignia molded onto the breaker side,
         and;

     (c) a yellow chromate mounting clip with half of the top of  
         the clip visible.

NABCO warns that if a circuit breaker labeled as Square D does
not match this description, it could be counterfeit.

The recalled circuit breakers were manufactured in China and
sold by NABCO, electrical distributors, and retailers nationwide
from March 2003 through April 2006 for between $3 and $85.

Pictures of the recalled circuit breakers are available at no
charge at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08151a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08151b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08151c.jpg

Consumers are advised to contact NABCO to determine if the
breaker they have is counterfeit, and to arrange for a free
inspection and replacement or refund if necessary.

For more information, contact NABCO at (866) 505-5851 from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. PT, e-mail the firm: recall@nabreaker.com, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.nabcorecall.com-- this is  
not a Square D Company recall.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Challenges Class Certification in Mo. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. is challenging a certification of a
class in the consolidated securities fraud class action, "In Re:
Novastar Financial Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:04-cv-
00330-ODS,"

Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar securities
class actions against the company and three of its executive
officers were filed and consolidated into a single action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  

The consolidated complaint generally alleged that the defendants
made public statements that were misleading or failed to
disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters.  

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- the company;
     -- Lance W. Anderson, president, and chief operating
        officer;
     -- Michael L. Bamburg, senior vice president and chief
        investment officer;
     -- Scott Hartman, chairman of the board and chief executive
        officer; and
     -- Rodney E. Schwatken, vice president, secretary,
        treasurer, and controller.

The plaintiffs purported to bring the consolidated action on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
and sellers of put options on the company's common stock during
the period Oct. 29, 2003 through April 8, 2004.  

According to the complaint, NovaStar fostered an aggressive-
growth culture throughout the class period.  NovaStar touted its
rapid growth in earnings, production, and its securities
portfolio and highlighted the increasing number of NovaStar-
affiliated branch offices.  

In 2003, the company reported that it had doubled the number of
branch offices in operation and that its earnings had more than
doubled in 2003 to $112 million.

On Aug. 23, 2004, Judge Ortrie D. Smith issued an order
consolidating all related cases into one class action as, "In re
NovaStar Financial Securities Litigation," and appointed lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  The lead plaintiffs filed their
consolidated class action complaint on Nov. 12, 2004.

On Jan 14, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
action, and on May 12, 2005, the court denied the request.

On Feb. 8, 2007, the court certified the case as a class action.  
The Company sought permission to appeal the class certification
decision, but was denied.  The Company's request is the subject
of a pending petition for rehearing.

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

The suit is "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation,   
Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri under Judge Ortrie D.
Smith.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
          1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 607-6871
          Fax: (404) 876-4476
          E-mail: jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com

               -- and --

          William W. Wickersham, Esq.
          Entwitle & Cappucci, LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10171
          Phone: 212-894-7200

Representing the defendants are:

          Erin Bansal, Esq.
          William F. Alderman, Esq.
          Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5700
          Fax: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: walderman@orrick.com


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novastar Financial, Inc. faces a consolidated securities fraud
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, 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.

Since February 2007, a number of substantially similar putative
class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

The complaints name the Company and three of the Company's
executive officers as defendants and generally allege, among
other things, that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results.

The plaintiffs purport to have brought the actions on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock during the period May 4, 2006 through Feb. 20,
2007.

Following consolidation of the actions, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on Oct. 19, 2007.

The suit is "Robert W. Boyd, III, et al. v. NovaStar Financial,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00139," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri under Judge Howard F.
Sachs.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates
         519 Alleghany Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue
         Pittsburgh, PA, 15219
         Phone: 412.391.5164

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA, 92101
         Phone: 619.231.1058
         Fax: 619.231.7423

              -- and --

         Saxena White PA
         2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 307
         Boca Raton, FL, 33431
         Phone: 800.361.5096
         Fax: 888.782.3081
         E-mail: http://www.saxenawhite.com


NOVASTAR HOME: Ga. Court OKs Settlement in Service Fees Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
gave final approval to a nationwide settlement for several
purported class actions that were filed against NovaStar Home
Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar Financial, Inc., in
relation to settlement service fees, 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.

                      Federal Litigation

In April 2005, three putative class actions filed against
NovaStar Home and certain of its affiliates were consolidated
for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia, as "In Re NovaStar Home Mortgage,
Inc. Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation."

These cases allege that NovaStar Home improperly shared
settlement service fees with limited liability companies in
which NovaStar Home had an interest alleging violations of the
fee splitting and anti-referral provisions of the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and alleging certain
violations of state law and civil conspiracy.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages with respect to the RESPA claims,
disgorgement of fees with respect to the state law claims as
well as other damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees.  

                      State Court Actions

In addition, two other related class actions have been filed in
state courts:

     -- "Miller v. NovaStar Financial, Inc. et al.," was filed
        in October 2004 in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
        Illinois; and

     -- "Jones et al. v. NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. et al.,
        was filed in December 2004 in the Circuit Court for
        Baltimore City, Maryland.

In the Miller case, plaintiffs allege a violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and civil
conspiracy and contend certain LLCs provided settlement services
without the borrower's knowledge.  

Plaintiffs in the Miller case seek disgorgement of fees, other
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees on behalf of the
class of plaintiffs.

In the Jones case, the plaintiffs allege the LLCs violated the
Maryland Mortgage Lender Law by acting as lenders or brokers in
Maryland without proper licenses, and contend this arrangement
amounted to a civil conspiracy.  Plaintiffs in the Jones case
seek disgorgement of fees and attorney's fees.  

In January 2007, all of the plaintiffs and NovaStar Home agreed
upon a nationwide settlement.

On June 22, 2007, the parties signed a settlement agreement that
provides for a claims-made settlement class.  On Sept. 18, 2007,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
entered an order giving final approval to the settlement.

Novastar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastaris.com/--  
operates as a specialty finance company that originates,
purchases, securitizes, sells, invests in and services
residential nonconforming loans and mortgage-backed securities.
The Company offers a range of mortgage loan products to
borrowers, commonly referred to as nonconforming borrowers, who
generally do not satisfy the credit, collateral, documentation
or other underwriting standards prescribed by conventional
mortgage lenders and loan buyers, including U.S. Government-
sponsored entities, such as Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae) or Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (Freddie Mac).  


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar Financial,
Inc., faces a putative nationwide class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging
racial discrimination.

The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and
1982; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601-3619; and
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1691-1691f.

Plaintiff alleges that NovaStar Mortgage paid higher yield
spread premiums to brokers for loans made to minorities as
compared to loans made to white borrowers.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and damages, including
punitive damages, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Jackson v. Novastar Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 2:06-
cv-02249-BBD-tmp," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee under Judge Bernice B. Donald with
referral to Judge Tu M. Pham.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBORN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-274-1100
          Fax: 602-274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com

               -- and --

          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          JAMES HOYER NEWCOMER & SMILJANICH PA
          4830 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550
          Tampa, FL 33609-2589
          Phone: 813-286-4100
          Fax: 813-286-4174
          E-mail: ameyer@jameshoyer.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Bruce E. Alexander, Esq.
          WEINER BRODSKY SIDMAN KIDER, P.C.
          1300 19th Street, N.W., 5th floor
          Washington, DC 20036-1609
          Phone: 202-628-2000
          E-mail: Alexander@wbsk.com

               -- and --

          R. Porter field, Esq.
          BURCH PORTER & JOHNSON
          130 N. Court Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Phone: 901-524-5126
          Fax: 901-524-5024
          E-mail: pfeild@bpjlaw.com


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Seeks Nixing of Calif. Premium Payments Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar Financial,
Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
which accuses it of engaging in unfair competition and false
advertising by failing to disclose the "premium payments" it
makes to mortgage brokers

On June 29, 2007, two borrowers, Christophe Kubiak and Sebastian
Sanges, filed a putative class action entitled, "Kubiak v.
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.," against the Company and two of its
subsidiaries.

The suit alleges that payments of premiums to brokers by one of
the subsidiaries were not properly disclosed to borrowers in the
manner allegedly required by federal or state law, thus
constituting unfair competition and false advertising under
California law and violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages, restitution,
injunctive relief and attorney's fees on behalf of California
borrowers who allegedly failed to receive adequate disclosure of
such premiums.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the action,
according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Kubiak et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-03438-EDL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Elizabeth D.
Laporte.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Carter M. Zinn, Esq.
          Law Offices of Carter M. Zinn
          3450 Broderick Street, Suite 302
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Phone: (415) 292-4100
          Fax: (415) 292-4106
          E-mail: czinn@lrolaw.com


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Wash. Court Approves $5.1M Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
gave final approval to the proposed $5.1 million settlement of a
consumer fraud class action filed against NovaStar Mortgage,
Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar Financial, Inc.

In December 2005, a putative class action was filed against
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington entitled, "Pierce et al. v.
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc."

Plaintiffs contend that NovaStar Mortgage failed to disclose
prior to closing that a broker payment would be made on their
loans, which was an unfair and deceptive practice in violation
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiffs seek excess interest charged, and treble damages as
provided in the Washington Consumer Protection Act and
attorney's fees.

On Oct. 31, 2006, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
to certify a Washington state class.  For business reasons,
NovaStar Mortgage entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs on June 21, 2007.  

The agreement calls for NMI to pay class members $3.3 million
and to pay $1.8 million in attorneys' fees.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the district court entered an order giving
final approval to the settlement.  The Company paid the $5.1
million settlement on Nov. 5, 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 is "Pierce, et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., Case No.
3:05-cv-05835-RJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Robert J. Bryan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq.
         The Law Office of Matthew Bergman
         705 2ND Avenue, Suite 1601
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-957-9510
         E-mail: matt@bergmanlegal.com

              -- and --

         Ari Y. Brown, Esq.
         Bergman & Frockt
         705 Second Avenue, Ste. 1601
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-957-9510
         E-mail: ari@bergmanlegal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Donald C. Brown, Jr. Esq.
         Weiner Brodsky Sidmann Kider
         1300 19TH St., NW, 5th Fl.
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-628-2000
         E-mail: brown@wbsk.com

              -- and --

         Sal Mungia, Esq.
         Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson & Daheim
         P.O. BOX 1157
         Tacoma, WA 98401-1157
         Phone: 253-620-6500
         Fax: 1-253-620-6565
         E-mail: smungia@gth-law.com


PEST CONTROL PROVIDERS: Failure to Deliver Services Prompts Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman & Lazear in Oakland, Calif., in conjunction with
Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC and Campbell Law,
P.C., in Birmingham, Ala., filed separate class action lawsuits
against the country's two largest subterranean (ground) termite
control providers.

The suits were filed against Terminix International, Inc., owned
by The ServiceMaster Company and Orkin Exterminating, Inc.,
owned by Rollins, Inc., for not providing the basic services
they promised in their contracts.

The lawsuits seek to stop Terminix and Orkin from continuing
unacceptable business practices. The Plaintiffs allege both
companies advertised "baiting" systems that have no termite
"bait" in them. In addition, the companies are alleged to have
applied grossly incomplete chemical treatments to the soil under
and around foundations and used chemicals that either never
worked or which wore off quickly. Instead of telling California
consumers about the alleged shortcomings, the companies
collected annual fees as if they were providing the termite
services provided in the contract.

These lawsuits come on the heels of Terminix's settlements with
several states' Attorneys General including Florida,
Connecticut, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, and New Jersey, over
claims of deceptive practice act violations.

In Florida, Orkin is defending racketeering charges brought by
the State's Attorney General.

According to attorney Tim Hoffman of Hoffman & Lazear, "Our
clients were paying for pest control services they never
received, leaving their property at risk for serious damage. Our
clients want to make sure that other consumers are not misled by
these practices."

For more information or questions regarding the class action
suit, contact:

          H. Tim Hoffman
          Phone: 510.763.5700
          Web site: http://www.campbelllitigation.com

          -- and --

          Mason Scott
          Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC
          Phone: 843-727-6500
          E-mail: mscott@rpwb.com


PROGERSSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over Consumer Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. is facing a class-action
complaint filed Dec. 20 in the court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio, alleging it defrauds its customers by deceptively
combining its policy limits for uninsured motorist coverage and
medical coverage, without informing clients, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Wanda Bates, Ann Buschur and Camelya McGhee
brought the action on behalf of all residents of the State of
Ohio, who:

     (i) were insured persons under a policy of insurance issued
         by defendant that included Uninsured Motorist coverage
         for bodily injury (UMBI coverage) and Med. Pay
         coverage, for which defendant charged separate
         premiums;

    (ii) were insured persons under a policy of insurance
         comprised of defendant's standard policy form or forms
         that included a purported "Nonduplication clause;" and

   (iii) suffered a bodily injury for which defendant refused to
         provide benefits for the cost of medical treatment
         under both the UMBI coverage and the Med. Pay coverage
         portions of the policy.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant violated Ohio law by charging
         separate premiums for UMBI coverage and Med. Pay
         coverage, and then denying benefits, violates the
         implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with
         the plaintiffs and members of the class;

     (b) whether defendant's adjusting prices, and in particular
         its refusal to pay the full amount that would have been
         recoverable from the uninsured or underinsured
         tortfeaser under UMBI coverage, along with Med. Pay
         benefits, violates the implied covenant of good faith
         and fair dealing with the plaintiffs and members of the
         class;

     (c) whether defendant devised and employed a scheme or
         artifice to deny Med. Pay coverage benefits, by
         unlawfully excluding the cost of medical treatment
         purportedly paid under a UMBI claim;

     (d) whether plaintiffs and the members of the class have
         suffered damages and the proper measure of damages;

     (e) whether defendant's bad faith conduct in direct
         violation of established Ohio law justifies the
         imposition of exemplary damages, and the amount of such
         damages;

     (f) whether plaintiffs and the members of the class are
         entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief barring
         defendant's further unlawful conduct;

     (g) whether defendant has a duty to disclose material facts
         to the plaintiffs and the class;

     (h) whether defendant has a duty not to provide misleading
         and false declaration pages to plaintiffs and the class
         members;

     (i) whether defendant used the "Nonduplication clause" to
         reduce benefits to its customers without reducing
         premiums;

     (j) whether the purported "Nonduplication clause that
         defendant has inserted into its standard policy forms
         violates Ohio law and Ohio public policy;

     (k) whether defendant mislead its customers by falsely
         portraying the limits of UMBI coverage and Med. Pay
         coverage on its insurance declaration pages, due to the  
         fact that the purported limits were over stated and did
         not reflect the combined limit interpretation of the
         policies later asserted by defendant;

     (l) whether defendant engaged in an unfair and deceptive
         practice by treating the Med. Pay coverage limits and
         UMBI coverage limits as a combined limit, without
         clearly advising its customers of that fact;

     (m) whether defendant engaged in an unfair and deceptive
         practice by charging separate premiums for UMBI
         coverage and Med. Pay coverage, but then only providing
         coverage under a combined limit;

     (n) the significant amount of damages the class has
         sustained as a result of defendant's wrongful conduct,
         and the proper measure of damages;

     (o) statewide class action treatment is appropriate because
         defendant's unlawful denial of benefits scheme at issue
         occurs throughout the State of Ohio and defendant's
         wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint was
         accomplished through the use of standard contracts of
         adhesion throughout the State of Ohio.


Plaintiffs ask the Court for:

     -- an order certifying the matter as a class action under
        Rule 23 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and
        appointing the plaintiffs and their counsel to represent
        the class;

     -- an order requiring defendant to identify all class
        members and pay restitution to plaintiffs and all
        members of the class to restore all funds acquired by
        means of any act or practice declared by the court to be
        unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair business practice, in
        violation of applicable laws, statutes or regulations,
        and in particular paying to plaintiffs and all members
        of the class the lesser of the cost of medical treatment             
        or the limits of the Med. Pay coverage available under
        each applicable insurance policy, provided that in no
        event will the restitution award in favor of any
        plaintiff and class member exceed $75,000;

     -- alternatively, an award in favor of plaintiffs and the
        class members equal to the amount wrongfully retained
        and withheld by defendant due to its failure to pay
        insurance benefits required under the applicable
        policies of insurance, as disgorgement of the benefit
        wrongfully obtained by defendant, provided that in no
        event will the disgorgement award in favor of any
        plaintiff or class member exceed $75,000;

     -- an order preliminary or permanently enjoining defendant
        from pursuing the policies, acts and practices
        complained of;

     -- alternatively, an award of actual and compensatory
        damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including,
        but not limited to any damages as may be provided for by
        statute, all in an amount in excess of $25,000, provided
        that in no event will the compensatory damage award in
        favor of any plaintiff or class member exceed $75,000;

     -- an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs of
        suit;

     -- an award of pre- and post judgment interest; and

     -- other or further relief that the court may deem just and
        equitable.

The suit is "Wanda Bates et al. v. Progressive Casualty
Insurance Co., Case No.: CV 07 645172," filed in the Court of
Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, under Judge Joseph D.
Russo.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          James A. DeRoche, Esq.
          David H. Krause, Esq.
          Garson & Associates Co., LPA
          1600 Rockereller Building
          614 West Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, Ohio 44113
          Phone: (216) 696-9330
          Fax: (216) 696-1700
          E-mail: jderoche@garson.com or dhkrause@garson.com

          -- and --

          Glenn D. Feagan, Esq.
          Law Offices of Glenn D. Feagan
          8905 lake Avenue, 4th Floor
          Cleveland, Ohio 44113
          Phone: (216) 937-2222
          E-mail: gfeagan@feaganlaw.com


QVC INC: Recalls Electric Toasters Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
QVC Inc., of West Chester, Pa., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Protection Safety Commission, is recalling about 13,000
Cook's Essential Electric Toasters.

The company said the toaster can turn on without bread in the
slots and ignite items placed on top of it, posing a fire
hazard.

QVC has received reports of five toasters turning on
spontaneously, including two incidents of toaster covers burned
and one incident of fire damage to a kitchen cabinet. No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the "Cook's Essential" chrome two-slice
electric toasters model CT200.  Each toaster has "Essentials"
and "Model: CT200" printed on a plate located on the underside
of the toaster.

The toasters were made in China and sold at QVC's televised
shopping programs, Web page, toll-free number, outlet, and
employee and Studio stores from May 2000 through May 2003 for
between $50 and $60.

Picture of the recalled toaster is available at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08522.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the toaster immediately,
unplug it, and return it to QVC using the prepaid shipping
labels that QVC will provide.  Consumers who return their
toasters will receive a full refund of the purchase price, plus
shipping and handling.

Consumers who bought a toaster from QVC's television program or
at QVC.com were sent a package by mail containing information on
how to receive a refund. Any consumer who bought a toaster at a
QVC outlet or retail store should return the toaster to the
store where it was purchased to receive a full refund. Consumers
who have not received the information package should call QVC at
(800) 367- 9444 from 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. ET, any day or visit
http://www.qvc.com


SONY ELECTRONICS: Sued in CA Over Defects In Vaio PCG Laptops
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Electronics, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
claiming Sony's Vaio PCG laptops have defective power cords that
cause the computers to shut down, fail to charge and short
circuit, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Miguel Cabrera claims Sony has misrepresented
and concealed material information in the marketing,
advertising, sale and servicing of the Sony Vaio laptop
computers in the PCG series. The defects in the Vaio PCG laptops
extend to other series of Sony laptops as well, the complaint
states, CourtHouse News Service relates.

Class counsel Houman Fakhimi, Esq., of Santa Ana claims Sony
knows the defect has affected "thousands of Vaio PCG laptops,"
but conceals it and refuses to warn consumers, CourtHouse News
Service says.

Plaintiff asserts claims under the Unfair Competition Law,
Business and Professions Code Sections 17500 et. seq., for
violations of the consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code
Section 1750 et. seq. for breach of express warranty pursuant to
Commercial Code Section 2313.

The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Sony Vaio PCG laptops in the PCG series.

Mr. Cabrera wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the Vaio PCG laptops fail at unacceptably high
         rates, are inherently defective, and are not of
         merchantable quality;

     (b) whether Sony made false or misleading statements of
         fact to the class and the public concerning the defects
         inherent in the Vaio PCG laptops;

     (c) whether Sony knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that
         its statements about the performance and reliability of
         the Vaio PCG laptops were false or misleading;

     (d) whether Sony concealed from the class and the public
         that the Vaio PCG laptops fail at unacceptably high
         rates, and inherently defective, and are not of
         merchantable quality;

     (e) whether Sony's false or misleading statements of
         fact and its concealment of material fact regarding the
         performance and reliability of the Vaio PCG laptops
         were likely to deceive the public;

     (f) whether, by the misconduct set forth in the complaint,
         Sony has engaged in an unfair, deceptive or unlawful
         business practices with respect to the advertising,
         marketing and sale of Vaio PCG laptops;

     (g) whether, by the misconduct as set forth in the
         complaint, Sony has engaged in unfair, deceptive,
         untrue or misleading advertising of the PCG laptops;

     (h) whether, by its conduct, Sony violated the Consumer
         Legal Remedies Act, and Song-Beverly Act and other
         relevant statutes;

     (i) whether Sony has breached its warranties to plaintiff
         and the class; and

     (j) whether, as a result of Sony's misconduct, plaintiff
         and the class are entitled to compensatory, statutory
         or punitive damages, restitution, equitable relief
         or other damages and relief, and, if so, the amount
         of the relief.

Plaintiff asks the Court for:

     -- an order certifying the case as a class action and
        appointing plaintiff and his counsel to represent the
        class;

     -- restitution and disgorgement of all amounts obtained by
        Sony as a result of its misconduct, together with
        interest thereon from the date of payment, to the
        victims of the violations;

     -- actual or statutory damages for injuries suffered by
        plaintiff and the class in the maximum amount permitted
        by applicable law;

     -- punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the
        trier of fact;

     -- an order requiring Sony to immediately cease its
        wrongful conduct as set forth in the complaint;
        enjoining Sony from continuing to falsely market and
        advertise, conceal material information and conduct
        business via the unlawful, unfair and deceptive business
        acts and practices complained of; ordering Sony to
        engage in a corrective notice campaign; and requiring
        Sony to refund to plaintiff and all members of the class
        the funds paid to Sony for these defective products;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of prosecuting
        the action;

     -- statutory pre-judgment interest; and

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

The suit is "Miguel Cabrera et al. v. Sony Electronics, Inc.,
Case No.: 37-2007-00084569-CU-BC-CTL," filed in the Superiro
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Houman Fakhimi,Esq.
          Fakhimi & Associates
          3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 620
          Santa Ana, California 92707
          Phone: (714) 542-2188
          Fax: (714) 542-3119


TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Junk Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action filed against TorreyPines
Therapeutics, Inc., formerly Axonyx, Inc.

Several lawsuits were filed against the company in February
2005, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
from June 26, 2003 through and including Feb. 4, 2005.

Director and former Axonyx chief executive Dr. M. Hausman, and
Axonyx chief executive Dr. G. Bruinsma, were also named as
defendants in the lawsuits.  These actions were consolidated
into a single class action in January 2006.  

Plaintiffs allege generally that the company's Phase III
Phenserine development program was subject to errors of design
and execution, which resulted in the failure of the first Phase
III Phenserine trial to show efficacy.

They also said that the defendants' failure to disclose the
alleged defects resulted in the artificial inflation of the
price of the company's shares during the class period.

On April 10, 2006, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  The company filed its answer to that
complaint on May 26, 2006.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 26, 2006 and was submitted to the
court for a decision in September 2006.  The motion to dismiss
is pending.

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

The suit is "In Re: Axonyx Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-02307-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Thomas P. Griesa.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Evan Jay Kaufman, Esq.
         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: (631) 367-7100
         Fax: (631) 367-1173
         E-mail: ekaufman@lerachlaw.com
                 srudman@lerachlaw.com

         Evan J. Smith, Esq.
         Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C.
         240 Mineola Blvd.
         Mineola, NY 11501
         Phone: 516-741-4977
         E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

              -- and --

         Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP
         401 B Street, Suite 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants:

         May Orenstein, Esq.
         Sigmund Samuel Wissner-Gross, Esq.
         Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP
         Seven Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: (212) 209-4800 and 212-209-4930
         Fax: 212-938-2804
         E-mail: morenstein@brownrudnick.com
                 swissnergross@brownrudnick.com


TRIPLE-S INC: Seeks Nixing of P.R. Suit by Shareholder's Heirs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S, Inc. (TSI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Triple-S
Management Corp., is seeking the dismissal of a purported class
action in the Court of First Instance for San Juan, Superior
Section in Puerto Rico.

The suit was filed on Oct. 23, 2007 by Ivonne Houellemont,
Ivonne M. Lens, and Antonio A. Lens, heirs of Dr. Antonio Lens-
Aresti, a former shareholder of TSI.

The plaintiffs are seeking the return of 16 shares -- prior to
giving effect to the 3,000-for-one stock split -- that were
redeemed in 1996, a year after the death of Dr. Lens-Aresti, or
compensation of $40,000 per share which they allege is a share's
present value.  The plaintiffs allege that they were
fraudulently induced to submit the shares for redemption in
1996.  At the time of Dr. Lens-Aresti's death, the bylaws of TSI
would not have permitted the plaintiffs to inherit Dr. Lens-
Aresti's shares, as those bylaws provided that in the event of a
shareholder's death, shares could be redeemed at the price
originally paid for them or could be transferred only to an heir
who was either a doctor or dentist.

The plaintiffs' complaint also states that they purport to
represent as a class all heirs of the TSI's former shareholders
whose shares were redeemed upon the shareholders' deaths.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
claims as barred by the applicable statute of limitations,
according to the Triple-S Management's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Triple-S Management Corp. -- http://www.triplesmanagement.com--  
is a managed care company in Puerto Rico, serving approximately
one million members across all regions.  The Company offers a
portfolio of managed care and related products in the
commercial, Medicare and Puerto Rico Health Reform (similar to
Medicaid) markets.  The Company serves a range of customer
segments, from corporate accounts, federal and local government
employees and individuals to Medicare recipients and Puerto Rico
Health Reform (the Reform) enrollees, with a range of managed
care products.


TRIPLE-S INC: Settlement Reached in Fla. Physicians' Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in a purported class action
filed against Triple-S, Inc. and several other defendants in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
according to the Triple-S Management'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 class action was filed on May 22, 2003 by medical doctors
Kenneth A. Thomas and Michael Kutell on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated and the Connecticut State Medical
Society against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Assoc. and
multiple other insurance companies including Triple-S.  

The individual plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants, which they
allege have resulted in a loss of their property and a detriment
to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive relief to
end those practices and prevent further losses.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.
  
The class action complaint alleges that the health care plans
are the agents of Blue Cross licensed entities, and as such have
committed the alleged acts, and acted within the scope of their
agency, with the consent, permission, authorization and
knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of both their
interest and the interests of other defendants.
  
The company believes that it was dragged into litigation for the
sole reason of being associated with Blue Cross.

However, on June 18, 2004, the complaint was amended to name
additional plaintiffs:

      -- the Colegio de Medicos y Cirujanos de Puerto Rico, a
         compulsory association grouping all physicians in
         Puerto Rico;

      -- Marissel Velazquez, president of the Colegio de
         Medicos y Cirujanos de Puerto Rico; and

      -- Andres Melendez.

Later Marissel Velazquez voluntarily dismissed her complaint
against the company.
  
Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds,
including but not limited to arbitration and applicability of
the McCarran Ferguson Act.

The parties have been ordered to engage in mediation by the
District Court, and 24 plans, including TSI, are actively
participating in the mediation efforts.

The mediation resulted in the creation of a Settlement Agreement
that was filed with the Court on April 27, 2007.  The District
Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on May 31,
2007.

The suit is "Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D., et al. v. Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, Case No. 03-21296-CIV-MORENO," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
under Judge Federico A. Moreno with referral to Judge Andrea M.
Simonton.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicole Miles Acchione, Esq.
         Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards
         226 W Rittenhouse Square, The Penthouse,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-731-9004
         Fax: 215-731-9044

Representing the defendants are:

         Cesar T. Alcover-Costa, Esq.
         Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez
         254 Munoz Rivera Avenue
         PO Box 363507
         San Juan, PR 00936-3507
         Phone: 787-753-3113
         Fax: 250-7545
         E-mail: calcover@cabprlaw.com

         Michael Garrett Austin, Esq.
         McDermott Will & Emery, LLP
         201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2200
         Miami, FL 33131-4336
         Phone: 305-347-6517
         Fax: 305-347-6500
         E-mail: maustin@mwe.com

         Laura Besvinick, Esq.
         Hogan & Hartson, 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-459-6500
         Fax: 459-6550
         E-mail: lbesvinick@hhlaw.com


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Opposes High Court Petition in Sanchez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corp., is opposing plaintiffs' petition for
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the
purported class action, "Sanchez, et al. v. Triple-S Management,
et al."

The purported class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico, alleges violations under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against:

      -- Triple-S Management Corp.;
      -- certain of its present and former directors;
      -- certain of Triple-S, Inc.'s present and former
         directors and others.

Filed on Sept. 4, 2003, by Jose Sanchez, the suit specifically
alleges a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs by acquiring control
of Triple-S, Inc. through illegally capitalizing Triple-S and
later converting it to a for-profit corporation and depriving
the stockholders of their ownership rights.

Plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed
decisions of Triple-S' board of directors and stockholders,
allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain restrictions in
order to turn Triple-S into a charitable corporation, basically
forever.

On March 4, 2005, the court issued an Opinion and Order,
dismissing eight of the 12 counts for failing to assert an
actionable injury, six of them for lack of standing and two for
failing to plead with sufficient particularity in compliance
with the Rules.

All shareholder allegations were dismissed in the opinion and
order.  The remaining four counts were found standing, in a
limited way, in the opinion and order.  

Parties finished class certification discovery and fully briefed
the issue of class certification.  While waiting for the court's
decision on the issue of class certification, the court, sua
sponte, issued an Order to Show Cause to plaintiffs as to why
the complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice.

The court's Order to Show Cause is predicated on the parties'
submissions about class certification.  The court then granted
the plaintiffs leave to file a sur-reply, which they did on
April 21, 2006.

In its Order to Show Cause the court indicated that it would
decide first the sustainability of the complaint before deciding
the plaintiffs' request for class certification.

On May 4, 2006, the Court issued an Opinion and Order awarding
summary judgment in favor of all the defendants, thereby
dismissing the case.

The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.  The parties argued the matter
before the First Circuit on Feb. 6, 2007, which took the case
under advisement.

On June 13, 2007, the First Circuit issued its Opinion
confirming the summary judgment entered by the District Court.
The plaintiffs did not move for any type of post-judgment relief
before the Court of Appeals.

On Sept. 11, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a petition for
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was docketed on
Sept. 17, 2007.

The company filed an opposition to the petition for certiorari
on Oct. 17, 2007, according to the Triple-S Management'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 "Sanchez, et al.  v. Triple-S Management, et al.,
Case No. 3:03-cv-01967-JAF," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico under Judge Jose A. Fuste.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert G. Blakey, Esq.
         1341 East Wayne Street North, South
         Bend, IN 46615
         Phone: 219-239-5717

              -- and --

         Paul H. Hulsey, Esq.
         Marco Tulio Torres-Moncada, Esq.
         Hulsey Litigation Group, L.L.C.
         Charleston Harbor, 2 Wharfside 3
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Phone: 843-723-5303
         Fax: 843-723-5307
         E-mail: phulsey@hulseylitigationgroup.com

Representing the company are:  

         Seth B. Kosto, Esq.
         Gael Mahony
         10 St. James Avenue
         Boston, MA 02114
         Phone: 617-523-2700
         Fax: 617-523-6850


U.S. AUTO: Seeks Nixing of Consolidated Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On March 24, 2007, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and certain officers, directors
and underwriters.  

The complaint alleges that the Company filed a false
Registration Statement in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  

On April 26, 2007, a second complaint containing substantially
similar allegations was filed, and also included a claim under
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.  

The complaints were consolidated on May 15, 2007.  A lead
plaintiff was selected on Aug. 9, 2007.  

The amended consolidated complaint was filed on Oct. 4, 2007,
alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act.  

The amended complaint is against the Company and certain current
and former officers, as well as Oak Investment Partners XI, LP,
and the underwriters involved in the initial public offering.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's
Registration Statement failed to disclose material information
and misstated the Company's financial results.  

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution, unspecified
equitable relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on Oct. 31, 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 is "Patricia Johnson, et al. v. U.S. Auto Parts
Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02030," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge George H. King.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA, 92101
         Phone: 619.231.1058
         Fax: 619.231.7423
         E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com


U.S. HOME: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Labor-Related Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Home Systems, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action filed against it in California court, which is
alleging certain violations of the California Labor Code and
unfair business acts and practices in violation of the
California Business and Profession Code.

Originally, the suit was filed by two former employees on July
2007 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles Central District.  It was subsequently
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Plaintiffs assert the claims on their behalf and a class of
other plaintiffs similarly situated.  

Relief sought in the complaint includes unspecified damages,
injunctive and equitable relief, punitive damages, penalties (in
addition to wages owed) and attorney fees.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss which was denied by 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.

The suit is "Andrea Spiegler v. Home Depot U S A Inc et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-04428-CAS-AJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge
Christina A. Snyder with referral to Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 109
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          Matthew J. Zevin, Esq.
          Stanley Mandel and Iola
          550 West C St., Ste. 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-235-5306
          Fax: 815-377-8419
          E-mail: mzevin@smi-law.com

Representing the defendants are:

          John J. Byrne, Jr.
          Johanson Berenson LLP
          1146 Walker Road Suite C
          Great Falls, VA 22066
          Phone: 703-759-1055

          Marc R. Greenberg, Esq.
          Keesal Young and Logan
          400 Oceangate, P.O. Box 1730
          Long Beach, CA 90801-1730
          Phone: 562-436-2000
          E-mail: marc.greenberg@kyl.com


WORLD DRYER: Recalls Hand, Hair Dryers for Electric Shock Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
World Dryer Corp., of Berkeley Illinois, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
25,000 World Dryer and Bradley Brand Hand and Hair Dryers.

The company said some of the nozzles on these dryers are not
grounded. If an electrical component comes into contact with an
ungrounded nozzle, it can pose a shock hazard to consumers.

World Dryer has received a report of an electrical component
coming into contact with an ungrounded nozzle outside the United
States. As a result, one consumer suffered an electric shock.

The World Dryer and Bradley brand hand and hair dryers are wall-
mounted dryers with nozzles protruding from the front that may
be either recessed or surface mounted. The dryers are used
primarily in rest rooms and locker rooms in public and
commercial buildings.

These recalled dryers were manufactured in the United States,
and sold at industrial and electrical distributors and supply
houses nationwide from June 2005 through April 2007 for between
$600 and $1,000.

Picture of recalled dryers is available at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08531.jpg

World Dryer has been contacting facilities utilizing these
dryers. Facilities that have the recalled dryers will receive a
free repair kit. Consumers and facility managers that have not
been contacted should call World Dryer with serial and model
number to determine if the dryer is included in this recall.

For additional information, contact World Dryer at (800) 323-
0701 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or log
on to http://www.worlddryer.com


ZIX CORP: Parties Discuss Class Certification Issue in Tex. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
against Zix Corp., and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, are in the process of re-briefing the
class certification issue in the matter.

Beginning in early September 2004, several purported shareholder
class actions were filed against the company in Texas federal
court.

The purported class actions seek unspecified monetary damages
on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between
Oct. 30, 2003 and May 4, 2004.

The suits alleged that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act during this time
period.  The class actions were later consolidated into one
case.

The defendants are Zix Corp., Dennis F. Heathcote, Daniel S.
Nutkis, John A. Ryan, Ronald A. Woessner, and Steve M. York.

The Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuits
pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act was denied in September 2006 by the Court.

The consolidated class action lawsuit is proceeding in due
course, and the discovery process has commenced.   

Also, the shareholder representatives of the purported plaintiff
shareholder class have filed a motion with the Court to certify
a class of plaintiffs consisting of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock in the open market from Oct. 30, 2003,
and May 4, 2004, inclusive and who were damaged by the allegedly
materially false and misleading statements or omissions.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' initial motion to certify the
class, but afforded the plaintiffs another opportunity to re-
file their class certification motion with the Court.

The parties are in the process of re-briefing the class
certification issue, and the briefing is not scheduled to be
completed until late February 2008, according to the company's
Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

The suit is "Brody, et al. v. Zix Corporation, et al., Case No.
04-CV-01931," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Claxton & Hill
         3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103
         Dallas, TX, 75204-2471
         Phone: 214.969.9099

         Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
         275 Madison Ave 34th Flr
         New York, NY, 10016
         Phone: 212.682.1818
         Fax: 212.682.1892
         E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com

              -- and --

         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         3 Bala Plaza E
         Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
         Phone: 610.667.7706
         Fax: 610.667.7056
         E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2006)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BASIN WATER: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Basin Water, Inc. common stock during the period
between May 14, 2007 and November 13, 2007.

The complaint charges Basin and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Basin designs, builds and implements systems for the
treatment of contaminated groundwater.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. As a result of
defendants' false statements, Basin stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of
$13.06 per share on November 8, 2007.

On November 14, 2007, before the market opened, the Company
reported its financial results for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2007, and announced that during the third quarter, the Company
recorded a $4.7 million charge to cost of revenues to reserve
for future projected losses. The reserve was due primarily to
poorly priced contracts, increasing waste disposal and salt
purchase costs and the inability to contractually pass increased
costs on to the Company's clients. This charge to cost of
revenues was in addition to the reserve previously recorded in
the fourth quarter of 2006. On this news, Basin's stock declined
$2.29 per share to close at $8.01 per share, a one-day decline
of 22% on volume of 1.4 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were:

     (a) the Company failed to properly account for its reserves
         for its legacy system contracts related to its system
         sales and water service agreement contracts;

     (b) the Company's unprofitable legacy business would
         continue to weigh on the Company's results for some
         period of time as the Company was having difficultly
         reworking its unfavorable legacy contracts;

     (c) defendants' Class Period statements that by the end of
         the second quarter of 2007 the Company had largely
         completed its internal operational transition of its
         business practices and processes and had resolved the
         bulk of the issues concerning its legacy contracts were
         patently false; and

     (d) the Company lacked requisite internal controls to
         ensure that Company was properly accounting for its
         reserves for its legacy contracts, and, as a result,
         the Company's projections and reported results issued
         during the Class Period were based upon defective
         assumptions or manipulated facts.

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

For more information, contact:

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


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, a professional corporation, filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Huntington
Bancshares Incorporated between July 20, 2007 and November 16,
2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the class period the company,
and certain of its officers or directors, have violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the company's securities and
causing class members to overpay for the securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

         Charles J. Piven
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         Baltimore, Maryland
         Phone: 410/986-0036

                           *********

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 2008.  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  * * *