CAR_Public/080103.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, January 3, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 2

                            Headlines


AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Racial Discrimination Suit in Neb. Court
AMERICAN HOME: Labor Suit Plaintiffs File Motion to Lift Stay
APPLE CANADA: Settles Canadian Suit Over iPod Battery Life
APPLE CANADA: Court Yet to Issue Ruling in iPod Levy Litigation
APPLE INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss iBook G4 Lawsuit

APPLE INC: Continues to Face Calif. Suit Over 65W Power Adapters
APPLE INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Trade Practices Suit
APPLE INC: Awaits Ruling in Calif. iPod Hearing Loss Lawsuit
APPLE INC: Calif. Court Junks Suit Over Performance Bonus Plan
APPLE INC: Still Faces U.S., Canadian Lawsuits Over iPod Nanos

ARIBA INC: Motion to Dismiss Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Heard
ARKANSAS: Van Buren School Settles Suit Filed by Former Teacher
BEA SYSTEMS: Del. Court Yet to Set Hearing for Plumtree Lawsuit
BEA SYSTEMS: Faces Suits in Del., Calif. Over Oracle Proposal
BEBE STORES: June 2008 Hearing Set for Former Worker's Suit

BEBE STORES: Objection Filed in “Tarlecki” Labor Suit Settlement
BLUE RIDGE: Faces Four Lawsuits Over Pigeon River Pollution
CHOCOLATE COS: N.J. Lawsuit Accuses Firms of Price Fixing
DELTA FINANCIAL: Former Employees File Suit in Bankruptcy Court
EEBOO CORP: Recalls Tower Blocks Posing Choking Hazard to Kids

FLORIDA ROCK: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Vulcan Deal
GEOCEL CORP: Ind. Residents Plan Suit Over Groundwater Pollution
LENOX GROUP: Recalls Warmer Dishes Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
LOUISIANA: New Orleans Accused of Violating Kid's Civil Rights
MANTTRA INC: Recalls Pressure Cookers to Replace Pressure Valve

MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit in N.C. Over Recalled Defibrillator
OWENS CORNING: IRC Seeks Dismissal of "Brown" ERISA Suit in Ohio
TRAVELERS COS: Reaches Settlement in Minn. Securities Fraud Suit
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Court Mulls Consolidation of Consumer Lawsuits


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

VIRGIN MOBILE: Zwerling Schachter Files N.Y. Securities Suit
                           


                            *********  

AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Racial Discrimination Suit in Neb. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Family Insurance Group is facing a class-action
complaint filed Dec. 26 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska alleging it charges blacks and other
minorities more for homeowners insurance than it charges white
people, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint further claims American Family does this despite a
$14.5 million settlement it paid the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to settle a racial-
discrimination lawsuit in 1995.

Named plaintiff Denis Taylor brings this action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all non-
Caucasians, who:

     (i) were issued policies by American Family on a
         discriminatory basis as a result of American Family's
         use of credit information in underwriting;

    (ii) were denied insurance coverage by American Family as a
         result of its discriminatory use of credit information
         in underwriting; or

   (iii) had the premium on their American Family policy
         increased as a result of American Family's
         discriminatory use of credit information in
         underwriting.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether American Family discriminated against class
         members by charging them more in premiums for their
         insurance policies than the premiums charged to
         similarly situated Caucasians;

     (b) whether American Family's credit-scoring programs were
         designed and implemented as a pretext for American
         Family's racially discriminatory pricing of premiums;

     (c) whether American Family's intent in its discriminatory
         policies and practices was racially motivated;

     (d) whether American Family maintained a corporate policy
         to sell its policies on a racially discriminatory basis
         by concealing material information from plaintiff and
         class members such as the fact that the polices were
         not sold under the same terms and conditions as those
         offered to similarly situated Caucasians;

     (e) whether American Family trained, directed or determined
         that its agents conceal or not disclose American
         Family's discriminatory practices in the sale and
         servicing of the policies;

     (f) whether American Family devised and deployed a scheme
         or common course of conduct which acted to defraud or
         deceive plaintiff and class members and/or exacted
         unreasonable, unconscionable and/or discriminatory
         premiums for its insurance policies by taking advantage
         of its position of superior knowledge and otherwise;

     (g) whether American Family systematically failed to
         disclose to plaintiff and class members material
         information such as the actual basis on which premiums
         would be calculated;

     (h) whether American Family systematically discriminated
         against class members and engaged in a deceptive scheme
         and common course of conduct in targeting an
         economically disadvantaged segment of the population
         for the sale of properties;

     (i) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         specific performance, injunctive relief, restitution
         and/or other equitable relief against American Family;

     (j) whether American Family's conduct was undertaken with
         malice or with reckless indifference to the rights of
         plaintiff and class members to be free from racial
         discrimination; and

     (k) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to an
         award of punitive damages against American Family.

Plaintiff demands judgment and orders as follows:

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

     -- appointing plaintiff as class representative and naming
        the undersigned attorneys as counsel for the class;

     -- awarding plaintiff and class members their costs and
        disbursements incurred in connection with this action,
        including reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness
        fees, and other costs;

     -- granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive
        relief as permitted by law or equity, including
        rescission, reformation, attaching, impounding or
        imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise
        restricting , the proceeds of American Family's ill-
        gotten funds to ensure that plaintiff and class members
        have an effective remedy;

     -- awarding punitive damages to plaintiff and class
        members;

     -- granting declaratory and injunctive relief and all
        relief that flows from such injunctive and declaratory
        relief; and

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

The suit is "Denise Taylor et al. v. American Family Insurance
Group et al., Case No. 8:07cv493," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Robert Sullivan, Esq.
          Haessler, Sullivan & Klein, Ltd.
          666 North Broadway
          P.O. Box 146
          Wahoo, Nebraska 68066

          - and -

          Christa L. Collins
          J. Andrew Meyer
          Nicole C. Mayer
          James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smilhanich, P.A.
          One Urban Centre, Suite 550
          4830 West Kennedy Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Phone: (813) 286-4100
          Fax: (713) 286-4174


AMERICAN HOME: Labor Suit Plaintiffs File Motion to Lift Stay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Abram, Jr., Najla Waheed, Richard Zemel, Rosalyn Ceasar,
Dustin Jones, John Sogluizzo, and Anthony Faux, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly-situated, ask the Court:

  -- to lift the automatic stay to allow them to:

     * resume certain class-action "wage and hour" litigation
       filed against the Debtors prepetition in a California
       federal court;

     * file papers in the California Court that will authorize
       the Plaintiffs to provide potential class members with a
       written "opt-in notice" in connection with the California
       suit, just as would be done absent bankruptcy;

     * seek class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal
       Rules of Civil Procedure in the California Court; and

  -- alternatively, to extend the bar date, currently set on
     January 11, 2008, so that putative class members may timely
     file their claims, or for a judgment that the Plaintiffs'
     timely-filed class proof of claim is deemed a timely-filed
     claim on behalf of each person, who eventually returns an
     "opt-in" form or becomes a member of the class to be
     certified in the California Suit.

James E. Huggett, Esq., at Margolis Edelstein, in Wilmington,
Delaware, relates that certain former employees have sued the
Debtors for violations of federal and state "wage and hour"
laws.  

In the California Suit, certain of the Plaintiffs seek to
represent not only themselves, but also a class of all other
similarly-situated persons, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  He notes that thousands of the
Debtors' former employees have claims of the type the Plaintiffs
seek to prosecute and that would have been adjudicated in the
California Suit.  Hence, the Plaintiffs have contemporaneously
filed a class proof of claim in the bankruptcy cases.

The putative class members have not received any written notice
of their potential "wage and hour law" claims in the California
Suit, Mr. Huggett notes.  He says that many, if not most, of
them have not received notice of the impending Bar Date.  He
tells Judge Sontchi that if the Court lifts the automatic stay,
the Plaintiffs will promptly request that the California Court
approve the form and manner of a notice the Plaintiffs can send
to putative class members to apprise them of the pendency of the
California Suit and their potential rights in that action.

Mr. Huggett contends that the Abram, et al.'s request is itself
a "core proceeding" under Section 157(b)(2)(G) of the Judiciary
and Judicial Procedure Code, however, the Plaintiffs' underlying
claims, and those of the putative class members, against the
Debtors arise not from the Bankruptcy Code, but from applicable
non-bankruptcy law, specifically the Fair Labor Standards Act
and analogous state "wage and hour" laws.  Accordingly, the
claims of the Plaintiffs and the putative class members are non-
core.

Because of the unique nature of FLSA and the California Suit,
"cause" exists for the Court to grant the Plaintiffs relief from
the automatic stay, Mr. Huggett asserts.  He notes that lifting
the stay will allow the Plaintiffs to move for conditional and
class certification of their claims, which is a particularly
important step in an FLSA case, and is "a product of the
collective action's unique procedural quirks."

The stay should be lifted because the FLSA statute of
limitations continues to run on the putative class members'
claims, who have not received notice, Mr. Huggett argues.  He
points out that, among other things, the broad remedial purpose
of the FLSA requires notice to affected employees.  Hence, he
notes, the stay should be lifted, or the Bar Date should be
extended.

(American Home Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 20; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).


APPLE CANADA: Settles Canadian Suit Over iPod Battery Life
----------------------------------------------------------
Apple Canada, Inc. has settled a lawsuit filed in Calgary over
alleged misrepresentations by the company regarding the battery
life of its popular iPod mp3 player.

                        Lenzi Complaint

The dismissed action is styled, "Lenzi v. Apple Canada, Inc.,"
was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on June 7, 2005, seeking
authorization to institute a class action on behalf of
Generations 1, 2 and 3 iPod owners in Quebec.  

On Feb. 2, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff's motion for
authorization to institute a class action (motion for
certification).  

                        Wadell Complaint

Two similar complaints relative to iPod battery life, “Wolfe v.
Apple,“ and “Hirst v. Apple,” were filed in Toronto, Ontario,
Canada on Aug. 15, 2005 and Sept. 12, 2005, respectively.  

Counsel subsequently amended the complaint, now called, “Waddell
v. Apple.”

The Waddell lawsuit is brought on behalf of all Canadian
purchasers other than Quebec purchasers.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the Company filed its statement of defense to
the Waddell complaint.

                       Hamilton Complaint

In addition, a similar complaint regarding iPod battery life,
“Hamilton v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.,” was
filed in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on Oct. 5, 2005, purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of iPods in Alberta, Canada.  The
complaint was served on Sept. 27, 2006.

The Company has reached a settlement of this matter and the
parties have requested preliminary court approval for the
settlement.  

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,  
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE CANADA: Court Yet to Issue Ruling in iPod Levy Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian court has yet to reach a decision in the purported
class action, "St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc."

Plaintiff filed the case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Aug. 5,
2005, seeking for the refund by the company of the Canadian
Private Copying Levy that was applied to the iPod purchase price
in Quebec between Dec. 12, 2003 and Dec. 14, 2004, but later
declared invalid by the Canadian Court.  

A class certification hearing took place Jan. 13, 2006.  On Feb.
24, 2006, the court granted class certification and notice was
published during the last week of March 2006.  

Discovery is closed and a trial was conducted on Oct. 15, and
16, 2007.  The Court has not yet issued a decision, according to
the company’s Nov. 15, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 29, 2007.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,  
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss iBook G4 Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for a dismissal of a class
action filed against Apple, Inc. over the failure rate of its
iBook G4’s logic board.

The suit is "Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc.," filed on Nov. 7,
2006 on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers
of the iBook G4.  It claims that the computer’s logic board
fails at an abnormally high rate.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising).  Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other
relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 19, 2007, which
the court granted on March 13, 2007.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2007.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss on Aug. 16, 2007, which was
heard on Oct. 4, 2007.

The suit is "Alan Vitt v. Apple Computer Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-
07152-GHK-RC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge George H. King with referral
to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James S. Cahill, Esq.
          Rossbacher Firm, 811 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2666
          Phone: 213-895-6500
          Fax: 213-895-6161

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Kick Law Offices
          900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 230
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-624-1588

               - and -

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          Wilentz Goldman and Spitzer
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Phone: 732-636-8000
          E-mail: kevin@hagens-berman.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Ronald K. Meyer, Esq.
          Munger Tolles & Olson
          355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100


APPLE INC: Continues to Face Calif. Suit Over 65W Power Adapters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. still faces a purported consumer fraud class action
over problems with its 65W Power Adapters for iBooks and
Powerbooks.

The suit is “Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.,” and was filed on
Aug. 31, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported nationwide class
of consumers who purchased 65W Power Adapters for iBooks and
Powerbooks between November 2002 and the present.  

The complaint alleges various problems with the 65W Adapter,
including fraying, sparking and premature failure.  Plaintiffs
allege violations of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and breach of
warranties.  

The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.  The Company
filed an answer on Oct. 20, 2006 denying the material
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
15, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 29, 2007.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,  
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.  


APPLE INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Trade Practices Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the class action, “Branning et al.
v. Apple Computer, Inc.,” which is alleging violations of the
California’s trade laws.

Plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action in San
Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005.  The initial
complaint alleged violations of California Business Professions
Code 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly unfair and
unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, allegedly
selling used computers as new and failing to honor warranties.  

Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of
trade secrets, breach of contract, and violation of the Song
Beverly Act.  Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other
relief.

On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company’s motion to
transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.  On May
2, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new
named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a
claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act (California
Business and Professions Code 16700 et seq.), and a claim for
false advertising.  

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the
court sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005.  The court
granted Plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended
complaint on Dec. 29, 2005.

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint adds three additional plaintiffs
and alleges many of the same factual claims as the previous
complaints such as alleged selling of used equipment as new,
alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts for
the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the
opening of the Apple Retail stores.  

Plaintiffs continue to assert causes of action for unfair
competition (17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract,
misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright
Act and allege new causes of action for fraud, conversion and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Jan.
31, 2006, which the court sustained on March 3, 2006 on sixteen
of seventeen causes of action.  

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding one new plaintiff.
The company filed a demurrer, which was granted in part on Sept.
9, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on Sept.
21, 2006.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  The
case is in discovery.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
15, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 29, 2007.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,  
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Awaits Ruling in Calif. iPod Hearing Loss Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for a dismissal of a
purported class action filed against Apple Inc. in California
alleging that defects in its iPod causes hearing loss to users.

The action, "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc.," alleges that the
company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold
with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold
without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced
hearing loss by iPod users.  

The Birdsong action was initially filed on Jan. 30, 2006 in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.  It
asserts causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana
class of iPod purchasers.  

A similar action, "Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed
on Jan. 31, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California asserting California causes of action on
behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the
four-year period before Jan. 31, 2006.   

The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of
California, and the Patterson action was dismissed.  An amended
complaint was subsequently filed in “Birdsong,” dropping the
Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based
claims equivalent to those in “Patterson.”  

After the company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2006,
plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second
amended complaint on Jan. 16, 2007.  

That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches
of implied and express warranties, violations of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent
misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a
Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-
class.  

On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
California law based claims.  The court held a hearing on the
motion to dismiss on June 4, 2007, but has not yet issued a
ruling.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
15, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 29, 2007.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,  
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Calif. Court Junks Suit Over Performance Bonus Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County Superior Court in California entered a
final judgment that completely dismissed the purported class
action, “Bader v. Anderson, et al.,” which names Apple, Inc., as
a defendant.

Plaintiff filed the purported shareholder derivative action
against the Company and each of its then current executive
officers and members of its Board of Directors on May 19, 2005
in Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims for breach
of fiduciary duty, material misstatements and omissions and
violations of California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 (unfair competition).

Plaintiff alleged that the Company’s March 14, 2005, proxy
statement was false and misleading for failure to disclose
certain information relating to the Apple Computer, Inc.
Performance Bonus Plan, which was approved by shareholders at
the annual meeting held on April 21, 2005.

Plaintiff, who brought the suit on the Company’s behalf, made no
demand on the Board of Directors and alleges that such demand is
excused.

Plaintiff sought injunctive and other relief for purported
injury to the Company.  

On July 27, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
that, in addition to the purported derivative claims, adoption
of the bonus plan and distribution of the proxy statement
describing that plan also inflicted injury on her directly as an
individual shareholder.

On Jan. 10, 2006, the Court sustained defendants’ demurrer to
the amended complaint, with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint on Feb. 7, 2006, and the Company filed
a demurrer.  

After a hearing on June 13, 2006, the Court sustained the
demurrer without leave to amend as to the non-director officers
and with leave to amend as to the directors.

On July 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint,
which purported to bring claims derivatively as well as directly
on behalf of a class of common stockholders who have been or
will be harmed by virtue of the allegedly misleading proxy
statement.

In addition to reasserting prior causes of action, the third
amended complaint included a claim that the Company violated the
terms of the plan, and a claim for waste related to restricted
stock unit grants to certain officers in 2003 and 2004 and an
option grant to the company’s chief executive in January 2000.

The Company filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint.  On
Jan. 30, 2007, the Court sustained the Company’s demurrer with
leave to amend.  

On May 8, 2007, plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint.  The
Company filed a demurrer to the fourth amended complaint, which
the court sustained, without leave to amend, on Oct. 12, 2007.

On Oct. 25, 2007, the Court entered a final judgment in favor of
defendant and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,  
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Still Faces U.S., Canadian Lawsuits Over iPod Nanos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., and its subsidiaries continue to face several
purported class actions in the U.S. and Canada over its iPod
Nano products, according to the company’s Nov. 15, 2007 Form 10-
K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 29, 2007.

                      U.S. Federal Action

The consolidated suit, “In re Apple iPod Nano Products Liability
Litigation,” were formerly known as:

       -- “Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc.;”

       -- “Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.;”

       -- “Calado, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.;”

       -- “Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.;”

       -- “Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.;”

       -- “Rappel v. Apple Computer, Inc.;”

       -- “Mayo v. Apple Computer, Inc.;”

       -- “Valencia v. Apple Computer, Inc.;”

       -- “Williamson v. Apple Computer, Inc.;”

       -- “Sioson v. Apple Computer, Inc.”

Beginning on Oct. 19, 2005, eight complaints were filed in
various U.S. District Courts and two complaints were filed in
California State Court, alleging that the Company's iPod nano
was defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during
normal use, rendering the screen unreadable.

The federal actions were coordinated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge
Ronald Whyte pursuant to an April 17, 2006 order of the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated and Amended Master
Complaint on Sept. 21, 2006, alleging violations of California
and other states' consumer protection and warranty laws and
claiming unjust enrichment.

The Master Complaint alleges two putative plaintiff classes:

       -- all U.S. residents (excluding California residents)
          who purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured
          or designed using processes necessary to ensure normal
          resistance to scratching of the screen; and

       -- all iPod nano purchasers other than U.S. residents who
          purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured or
          designed using processes necessary to ensure normal
          resistance to scratching of the screen.  The Company
          answered the Master Complaint on Nov. 20, 2006.

                     U.S. State Court Action

The two California State Court actions were coordinated on May
4, 2006, and assigned to the Hon. Carl West in Los Angeles
Superior Court.

Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
on June 8, 2006, alleging violations of California state
consumer protection, unfair competition, false advertising and
warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges a putative plaintiff class of
all California residents who own an iPod nano containing a
manufacturing defect that results in the nano being susceptible
to excessive scratching.  The Company answered the Consolidated
Amended Complaint on Oct. 6, 2006.

                         Canadian Cases

Two similar complaints, “Carpentier v. Apple Canada, Inc.,” and
“Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.,”
were filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada on Oct. 27, 2005, and
Nov. 9, 2005, respectively, seeking authorization to institute
class actions on behalf of iPod nano purchasers in Quebec.

The Royer-Brennan file was stayed in May 2006 in favor of the
Carpentier file.  

A similar complaint, Mund v. Apple Canada Inc. and Apple
Computer, Inc., was filed in Ontario, Canada on Jan. 9, 2006
seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of
iPod nano purchasers in Canada.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,  
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.  


ARIBA INC: Motion to Dismiss Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Heard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
heard a motion filed by Ariba Inc. to dismiss a second amended  
securities fraud class action filed against it.

On Oct. 31, 2005, a purported class action, alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company's Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer and a former president and director
of the Company.  The action is brought on behalf of stockholders
who purchased the Company's stock from June 10, 2003 to Feb. 7,
2005.

That case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and an Amended Complaint was
filed on November 30, 2006, adding the Company as a defendant.  

A second amended complaint was filed on May 18, 2007.  It
alleges that the defendants artificially inflated the Company's
stock price between those dates by failing to disclose, in
public statements that the Company made about its products,
market position and performance, that some of those products
allegedly infringed patents belonging to a third party.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs second
amended complaint on July 20, 2007.  The motion was heard by the
Court on Oct. 22, 2007, according to the company’s Nov. 15, 2007
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Ariba, Inc. -- http://www.ariba.com-- provides spend management  
solutions that allow enterprises to manage the purchasing of
non-payroll goods and services required to run their business.
The Company refers to these non-payroll expenses as spend.  Its
solutions include software, network access, professional
services and expertise.  They are designed to provide
enterprises with technology and business process improvements to
manage their spend, and in turn, save money.  Ariba's software
and services streamline and improve the business processes
related to the identification of suppliers of goods and
services, the negotiation of the terms of purchases, and the
management of ongoing purchasing and settlement activities.


ARKANSAS: Van Buren School Settles Suit Filed by Former Teacher
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Van Buren School Board agreed to settle a 2003 breach of
contract suit filed by a former teacher against the school
district, Amy Sherrill of Times Record reports.

Former Coleman Junior High civics teacher Steve Jones filed the
case against the school district on Aug. 22, 2003.  He filed it
along with another teacher, Allen Wolfe, asking for payment to
teachers who had worked uncompensated duty time.  Mr. Wolfe
settled his claim and was dismissed from the lawsuit (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2006).

The lawsuit covers any certified teacher working for the school
district between August 1998 and present who has performed
"uncompensated non-instructional duties."

Mr. Jones asked for compensation for the duty time, pre- and
post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
other relief to which he deems he and the class are entitled.  
He also asked for compensatory and punitive damages.

Crawford County Circuit Judge Mike Medlock granted class-action
status to that case back in 2005, allowing about 500 Van Buren
teachers to join the lawsuit.

In April 2006, two claims were added to the lawsuit:

      -- an appeal of Mr. Jones' termination under the Teacher
         Fair Dismissal Act; and

      -- an allegation of a violation of the Arkansas Civil
         Rights Act.

Judge Medlock dismissed all but the class-action portion of the
lawsuit.  

The case was tried on Feb. 22.  It resulted in a split verdict
in which Mr. Jones and the class of Van Buren teachers prevailed
on three questions and lost on another three questions (Class
Action Reporter, March 2, 2007).  Issues raised included the
length of a school day, what constituted instructional and non-
instructional duty, and whether teachers were receiving
a state-mandated 30-minute lunch period.

Later, Mr. Jones and the school district settled a portion of
the suit (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2007).  The district
also agreed to pay Mr. Jones a total of $275,000 in three equal
annual installments, beginning July 15.  The district also
agreed to pay funds into the Teacher Retirement System.

Mr. Jones signed a release freeing the district and
Superintendent Merle Dickerson from any liability or action
relating to the terms of his employment, except for claims
pursued as a class action against the district.

In December, the school district board members voted to accept a
settlement of the suit.  The settlement calls for the district
to earmark $130,000 for settlement of all outstanding class
claims, attorneys’ fees, a class representative fee and any
administrative costs associated with the claims settlement
process.

Fort Smith attorney Brian Meadors, who represents Mr. Jones,
said the terms of the agreement of the settlement offer will be
presented at a hearing Jan. 7 before Judge Medlock.  

Mr. Jones could be paid up to $7,500 of the $130,000 for his
representation of the class and his 100 to 150 hours of work on
the case, according to Mr. Meadors.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          C. Brian Meadors
          Pryor, Robertson & Barry, PLLC
          315 North 7th Street
          P.O. Drawer 848
          Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0848
          Phone: 479-782-8813 and 479-782-7911
          Fax: 479-785-0254
          Web Site: http://www.prblaw.com;and    

          Mark T. Burnette
          Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &
          Sneddon, PLLC
          1010 West Third Street
          Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1510, (Pulaski Co.)
          Phone: 501-378-7870
          Fax: 501-375-1940
          Web site: http://www.mbbwi.com


BEA SYSTEMS: Del. Court Yet to Set Hearing for Plumtree Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County has yet to set a hearing date on certain motions
in one of two purported class actions against BEA Systems, Inc.
over the company's acquisition of Plumtree Software, Inc. in
August 2005.

The suit was also filed against Plumtree's board of directors.

                       Globis Litigation
  
On Aug. 23, 2005, a class action entitled "Globis Partners, L.P.  
v. Plumtree Software, Inc. et al., Case No. 1577-N," was filed
in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County.  

The suit alleges, among other claims, that the consideration to
be paid in the proposed acquisition of Plumtree by the company
is unfair and inadequate.  It seeks an injunction barring
consummation of the merger and, in the event that the merger is
consummated, a rescission of the merger and an unspecified
amount of damages.  

                       Keitel Litigation

On Aug. 24, 2005, a class action entitled "Keitel v. Plumtree
Software, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC 05-444355" was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco.  

The complaint names Plumtree and all member of Plumtree's board
of directors as defendants alleging similar complaints and
seeking similar damages as the class action brought by Globis
Partners, L.P.   

                          Developments

In the Keitel Action, plaintiffs sought an injunction against
completion of the merger.  That motion was denied and the case
has now been stayed.

In the Globis Action, plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
October 22, 2005, which the Company moved to dismiss on Oct. 6,
2006.

Plumtree and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on the same date.

On Dec. 8, 2006, plaintiff moved for leave to file a second
amended complaint.  On Jan. 4, 2007, parties stipulated to
permit plaintiff to file the second amended complaint.  

It was filed on January 16, 2007.  Defendants moved to dismiss
the second amended complaint on Feb. 5, 2007.   The briefing on
the motions has been completed.

Currently, the parties are waiting for the Court to set a date
for the hearing.

BEA Systems, Inc. -- http://www.bea.com-- is engaged in  
enterprise application and service infrastructure software.  BEA
Tuxedo product family is an application infrastructure platform
for transactional processing systems for C, C++ and COBOL
systems, and BEA WebLogic product family, which consists of
application infrastructure software for Java applications
perform functions, such as transaction processing, clustering,
caching, load balancing, failover, security, integration and
management features.


BEA SYSTEMS: Faces Suits in Del., Calif. Over Oracle Proposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
BEA Systems, Inc. faces several purported class actions in
Delaware and California over Oracle Corp.'s unsolicited proposal
to acquire the company for $17.00 per share in cash.

                      Freedman Litigation

On Oct. 12, 2007, a class action titled, “Freedman v. BEA
Systems, Inc. et al.,” was filed in the Court of Chancery in the
State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

The complaint names the Company and its directors as defendants,
asserting that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to give proper consideration to Oracle’s unsolicited
proposal to acquire the company for $17.00 per share.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including the
implementation of a process or procedure to obtain the highest
possible price for the Company’s shareholders through
negotiations with Oracle or other means.

                        Blaz Litigation

On Oct. 12, 2007, a class action titled, “Blaz v. BEA Systems,
Inc. et al.,” was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.

The complaint names the Company and its directors as defendants,
asserting that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to give proper consideration to Oracle’s unsolicited
proposal to acquire the Company for $17.00 per share.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including the
implementation of a process or procedure to obtain the highest
possible price for the Company’s shareholders through
negotiations with Oracle or other means.

                        Gross Litigation

On Oct. 12, 2007, a class action titled, “Gross v. BEA Systems,
Inc. et al.,” was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara.

The complaint names the Company, eight of its directors, and
certain unnamed “John Doe” parties as defendants, alleging that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to give
proper consideration to Oracle’s unsolicited proposal to acquire
the Company for $17.00 per share.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including an order
requiring the defendants to cooperate with any party expressing
a bona fide interest in making an offer that maximizes the value
of the Company’s shares and the formation of a stockholders’
committee to ensure the fairness of any transaction involving
the Company’s shares.

The complaint also seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount.

                       Chuang Litigation

On Oct. 12, 2007, a class action titled, “Ellman v. Chuang et
al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Santa Clara.

The complaint names nine of the Company’s directors as
defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant, alleging that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
adequately consider Oracle’s unsolicited proposal to acquire the
Company for $17.00 per share.

In addition, the complaint asserts a derivative cause of action
against the director defendants, ostensibly on behalf of and for
the benefit of the Company, again alleging that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
adequately consider Oracle’s proposal.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including an order
requiring the Company’s directors to respond reasonably to
offers that are in the best interests of shareholders, a
prohibition on entry into any contractual provisions designed to
impede the maximization of shareholder value, and an order
restraining the defendants from adopting or using any defensive
measures against a potential acquiror.

                        Zwick Litigation

A shareholder class action titled, “Zwick v. BEA Systems, Inc.
et al.,” may be filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara.

The complaint names the Company, eight of its current directors,
and certain unnamed “John Doe” parties as defendants.  It
alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to give proper consideration to Oracle’s
unsolicited proposal to acquire the Company for $17.00 per
share.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including an order
requiring the defendants to cooperate with any party expressing
a bona fide interest in making an offer that maximizes the value
of the Company’s shares and the formation of a stockholders’
committee to ensure the fairness of any transaction involving
the Company’s shares.  It also seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.

Plaintiffs indicated their intention to file this suit on Oct.
26, 2007, but as of Oct. 27, 2007, the Company has no
confirmation that the suit has in fact been filed.

BEA Systems, Inc. -- http://www.bea.com-- is engaged in  
enterprise application and service infrastructure software.  BEA
Tuxedo product family is an application infrastructure platform
for transactional processing systems for C, C++ and COBOL
systems, and BEA WebLogic product family, which consists of
application infrastructure software for Java applications
perform functions, such as transaction processing, clustering,
caching, load balancing, failover, security, integration and
management features.


BEBE STORES: June 2008 Hearing Set for Former Worker's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A June 2008 hearing is set for a purported class action filed by
a former employee of bebe stores, inc. in the Superior Court of
California, San Mateo County on July 27, 2006.

The suit (case No. CIV 456550) is alleging a failure to pay all
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to provide meal periods, violation of Labor Code
Section 450, violation of Labor Code Section 2802 and California
Code of Regulations Section 11040(9)(A), statutory wage
violations (late payment of wages), unlawful business practices
under Business and Professions Code Section 16720 and Section
17200, conversion of wages and violation of Civil Code Section
52.1.

The plaintiff purports to bring the action also on behalf of
current and former California bebe employees who are similarly
situated.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory, statutory, punitive, restitution
and injunctive relief.  

Due to certain similarities in claims between this action and
the one previously mentioned (“Tarlecki v. bebe stores, inc.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-01777-MHP”), the parties and the Court have
postponed active litigation and discovery until such time as the
previously mentioned case resolves the claims in common.

Notwithstanding, the Court in this case has set a hearing in
June 2008 regarding whether class certification would be
appropriate if, and to the extent, any claim(s) in this case
remain(s) active at that time.

bebe stores, inc. -- http://www.bebe.com/-- designs, develops  
and produces a line of contemporary women's apparel and
accessories.  The Company's target customer is a 21 to 35-year-
old woman.  Its product offering includes a range of separates,
tops, sweaters, dresses, active wear and accessories in the
lifestyle categories.


BEBE STORES: Objection Filed in “Tarlecki” Labor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
An objection was filed in a settlement reached in the class
action, “Tarlecki v. bebe stores, inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-01777-
MHP.”

A former employee sued the company in a complaint filed on April
28, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The suit alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit claimed that the company obligated plaintiff to buy and
wear its brand clothing as a uniform, without reimbursement or
credit, and the net effect of deducting the value of such
required purchases from her wages would often result in her not
being paid minimum wages.

The plaintiff purports to bring the action also on behalf of a
class of hourly, non-managerial employees who are similarly
situated.  The lawsuit seeks compensatory, statutory and
injunctive relief.

The company has negotiated a confidential settlement in this
case which remains subject to court approval.  One objection to
the settlement has been filed.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
15, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 6, 2007.

The suit is “Tarlecki v. bebe stores, inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-
01777-MHP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michelle M. Gomez-Novy, Esq.
          Bononi Law Group
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-553-9200
          Fax: 213-553-9215

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Phone: (415) 433-1940
          Fax: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: aeidelhoch@littler.com


BLUE RIDGE: Faces Four Lawsuits Over Pigeon River Pollution
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. is facing a set of four lawsuits
for dumping discharges from its Canton, North Carolina, pulp and
paper mill to the Pigeon River, Gilbert Soesbee of The Newport
Plain Talk reports.

The suit was filed by Knoxville attorney, Gordon Ball, in Cocke
County Circuit Court on behalf of Denton resident, Beth Freeman
on Dec. 19.  Ms. Freeman and a class of an estimated 300 other
plaintiffs who are identified as people who own land bordering
the Pigeon River in Cocke County are seeking damages totaling
not more than $74,000 per plaintiff or a total of no more than
$4.9 million from Blue Ridge, according to the report..

The civil complaints concern Blue Ridge's alleged pollution of
the river from August 21, 2007, to February 21, 2008.  The
pollution allegedly diminished the quality of the waters,
environment, and resources downstream of and along the Pigeon
River in Cocke County, Tennessee.  Plaintiffs alleged they
suffered private nuisance.

Ms. Freeman is asking the court to certify the lawsuits as a
class-action complaint, with members of the class identified as
"all individuals who own or owned real property adjoining and/or
abutting the Pigeon River in Cocke County, Tennessee, during the
period beginning on August 21, 2007, and ending on February 21,
2008."  The complaint also demands a jury trial of the case.

Blue Ridge purchased the paper mill from Champion International
Corp. in 1999.  

For more information, contact:

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          550 Main Avenue, Suite 750
          Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
          Phone: 865-525-7028   
          Fax: 865-525-4679
          E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com


CHOCOLATE COS: N.J. Lawsuit Accuses Firms of Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
Chocolate companies are facing an antitrust class-action
complaint filed Dec. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

          -- The Hershey Co.,
          -- Mars, Inc.,
          -- Masterfoods USA,
          -- Nestle, S.A.,
          -- Nestle USA,
          -- Cadbury Schweppes PLC,
          -- Cadbury Schweppes Americas,
          -- Cadbury Adams USA LLC

The world's leading manufacturers of chocolate allegedly
conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of
chocolate in the worldwide chocolate market, including in the
United States.

Named plaintiffs CNS Confectionery Products and Winn Corp. claim
the alleged conspirators control more than 80 percent of the $16
billion U.S. chocolate market, and half of the world market, and
raised prices in concert this year.

Allegedly, much of the revenue increase in the $16 billion U.S.
chocolate market in 2006 "was achieved through price increases
rather than increased unit sales," the complaint states. It
claims the defendants "institute(ed) uniform price increases in
2007."

Plaintiffs bring this action under Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased chocolate directly from
the defendants or their co-conspirators, at any time from at
least Dec. 21, 2003 through the present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants conspired, contracted or combined
         with others, for the purpose of and with the effect of
         raising, fixing, maintaining, pegging, or stabilizing
         the price of chocolate which was purchased by the
         class;

     (b) whether defendants undertook actions to conceal the
         unlawful conspiracies, contracts or combinations
         described; and

     (c) whether defendants' conduct violated the relevant
         federal antitrust laws and caused injury to the
         business and property of plaintiffs and the class and,
         if so, the proper measure of damages.

Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action under Rules 23(b)(2) and
        (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that
        plaintiffs be appointed as class representatives and
        that plaintiffs' counsel be appointed as counsel for the
        class;

     -- that the unlawful contract, combination and conspiracy
        alleged be adjudged and decreed to be an unreasonable
        restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1
        of the Sherman Act and that such unlawful conduct be
        enjoined thereunder;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover compensatory
        damages, as provided by law, determined to have been
        sustained as to each of them, and that judgment be
        entered against defendants on behalf of plaintiffs and
        each and every member of the class;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover treble damages, as
        provided by law;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover their costs of the
        suit, including attorney's fees as prpvoded by law; and

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

The suit is "CNS Confectionery Products, LLC et al. v. The
Hershey Company, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Mark Shane
          The Law Offices of Shane and White, LLC
          1676 Route 27
          Edison, NJ 08817
          Phone: (732) 819-9100
          Fax: (732) 572-9641

          Bernard Persky
          Eric Belfi
          Hollis L. Salzman
          Kellie Lerner
          Morrisa Falk
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 907-0700
          Fax: (212) 818-0477

          Robert S. Schachter
          Stephanie Kirwan
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: (212) 223-3900
          Fax: (212) 371-5969

          - and -

          Douglas G. Thompson
          Richard M. Violin
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          The Duvall Foundry
          1050 30th street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20007
          Phone: (202) 337-8000
          Fax: (202) 337-8090


DELTA FINANCIAL: Former Employees File Suit in Bankruptcy Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Bressmer, Paula Capone and Tracy Prince, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated former employees, seek
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware's
determination that the Delta Financial Corporation, Delta
Funding Corporation and Fidelity Mortgage, Inc., violated the
WARN Act when they failed to provide proper advance notice of
layoffs.

Bressmer, et al., and about 1,000 other employees of Delta
Financial and its two wholly owned subsidiaries, were allegedly
terminated without cause, as part of, or as the result of, mass
layoffs or plan closing ordered by the Defendants, on or about
August 22, 2007, and November 8, 2007.  The Defendants, however,
failed to provide 60 days' advance written notice of the
employees' terminations, as required by the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C Section 2101 et seq.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees seek to
recover 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 2104, from the Defendants.  

Representing Bressmer, et al., Christopher D. Loizides, Esq., at
Loizides, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware, asserts that the
Defendants failed to pay the Former Employees their respective
wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and
accrued vacation for 60 calendar days following their respective
terminations and failed to make 401(k) contributions and provide
them with health insurance coverage and other employee benefits
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act  for 60
calendar days from and after the dates of their respective
terminations.

Since the Former Employees seek back-pay attributable to a
period of time after the filing of the Debtors' bankruptcy
petition and which arose as the result of the Defendants'
violation of a federal law, their claim against the Defendants
is entitled to administrative priority status pursuant to the
Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, Mr. Loizides
asserts.

The Plaintiffs also contend that Delta Financial Corporation and
its wholly owned subsidiaries Delta Funding Corporation and
Fidelity Mortgage, Inc., were a "single employer" and are each
liable under the WARN Act.  The plaintiffs were either under the
payrolls of Delta Funding or non-debtor Fidelity Mortgage, Inc.  

Ms. Bressmer, until her termination on August 22, 2007, and
Ms. Capone, until her termination on November 8, 2007, worked at
the Debtors' corporate headquarters in Woodbury, New York.  
Mr. Prince worked at the Debtors' branch at Tempe, Arizona,
until his termination on November 8, 2007.

                          Class Action

Bressmer, et al., seek to pursue a class action on behalf other
similarly situated employees, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Loizides asserts that a class action is superior to other
available method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy -- particularly in the context of WARN Act
litigation, where individual plaintiffs and class members may
lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit
in federal court against a corporate defendant.  He explains
that concentrating all the potential litigation concerning the
WARN Act rights of the members of the class in the Bankruptcy
Court will avoid multiplicity of suits, will conserve the
judicial resources and the resources of the parties and is the
most efficient means of resolving the WARN Act rights of all the
members of the class.

Bressmer et al., aver that they have retained counsel competent,
experienced in complex class action employment litigation.  The
Plaintiffs have retained Loizides, P.A., and Outten & Golden
LLP.

                       Prayer for Relief

Bressmer, et al., seek from the Bankruptcy Court:

   A. certification that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and
      (b) and 29 U.S.C. Section 2104(a)(5), Plaintiffs and the
      other similarly situated former employees constitute a
      single class;

   B. designation of the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

   C. appointment of Loizides and Outten & Golden as Class
      Counsel;

   D. a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and each of the
      "affected employees" equal to the sum of: their unpaid
      wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday    
      pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(k)
      contributions and other ERISA benefits, for 60 days, that
      would have been covered and paid under the then-
      applicable employee benefit plans had that coverage
      continued for that period, all determined in accordance
      with the WARN Act, including an administrative expense
      claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 503(b)(a)(A) in favor
      of the Plaintiffs and the Class members equal to the above
      sums or alternatively, determining that the first $10,950
      of the WARN Act claims of the Plaintiffs and each other
      Class member is entitled to priority status, under Section
      507(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, and the remainder as a
      general unsecured claim.

   E. Interest as allowed by law on the amounts owed; and

   F. Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs and
      disbursements that the Plaintiffs. incurred in prosecuting
      this action, as authorized by the WARN Act, including an
      allowed administrative priority claim under Section 503
      of the Bankruptcy Code for the fees, costs and
      disbursements.

(Delta Financial Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 2; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).


EEBOO CORP: Recalls Tower Blocks Posing Choking Hazard to Kids
--------------------------------------------------------------
eeBoo Corp., of New York, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 170,000  
Tot Tower toy blocks.

The company said the plastic covering on the toy blocks can
detach, posing a choking hazard to children.

The firm has received two reports of the plastic covering
detaching from the blocks and being mouthed by young children.
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Tot Tower blocks are sold in sets of 10 blocks
ranging from 6 x 6 inches to 1.5 x 1.5 inches. The cardboard
blocks are covered in a plastic laminate film. The blocks have
various images and themes including Things I Know New; Garden
Fairies; Hardware Store; Around the Land; Read-To-Me; Animal
Sounds; Animal Alphabet; ABC; and Nursery Friends. “Tot Towers”
and “eeBoo Corporation” are printed on the product's packaging.

These recalled tower blocks were manufactured in China and were
sold at specialty and gift shops nationwide from January 2003
through September 2007 for about $20.

Pictures of recalled tower blocks:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08150a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08150b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toy away
from children, and return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund, or contact eeBoo Corp. directly to receive a replacement
toy.

For additional information, contact eeBoo Corp. at (800) 791-
5619 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.eeboo.com


FLORIDA ROCK: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Vulcan Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Rock Industries, Inc., and the members of its board of
directors continue to face a purported shareholder class-action
complaint against a merger agreement wherein Vulcan Materials
Co. would acquire the company.

The suit "Dillinger v. Florida Rock, et al., Case No. 16-20007-
CA-001906," was filed in the Duval County Circuit Court on March
6, 2007.  It seeks to enjoin the merger and alleges, among other
things, that the directors have breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the company's shareholders by attempting to sell the
company to Vulcan for an inadequate price.

The company provided no material development in the matter in
its Nov. 16, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Florida Rock Industries, Inc. -- http://www.flarock.com/--  
operates in three segments: construction aggregates, concrete
products, and cement and calcium products.


GEOCEL CORP: Ind. Residents Plan Suit Over Groundwater Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the Meadow Farms neighborhood in Elkhart, Ind. plan
to file a class action against Geocel Corp. over water
contamination problems in the neighborhood, Ed Ernstes of WSBT-
TV reports.

The suit will be filed early this year, according to the report.

Geocel makes sealants and caulks.  In June, the company
acknowledged it was responsible for polluting the neighborhood
groundwater with vinyl chloride, dichloroethene and
dichloroethane.  Meadow Farms residents have been advised not to
drink or cook with their water and to bathe only in lukewarm
water because heat can release contaminants.

Geocel signed an agreement with the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management in November in which it agreed to clean
up the contaminated area in exchange for the state's promise not
to take legal action.  It has until May to submit a plan to IDEM
detailing how it intends to clean up the pollution.

Geocel's attorney is:

          Richard Paulen, Esq.
          Barnes & Thornburg LLP
          121 W. Franklin
          Suite 200
          Elkhart, Indiana 46516
          Phone: 574-296-2558
          Fax: 574-296-2535
          E-mail: richard.paulen@BTLaw.com


LENOX GROUP: Recalls Warmer Dishes Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lenox Group Inc., of Bristol, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
43,000 Covered Warmer Dishes with Rack.

The company said the flames from the tea candle can extend up
the sides of the dish. In addition, a label on the bottom of the
dish causes excessive smoke when exposed to the flame. This
poses fire and burn hazards to consumers.

The firm has received eight reports of flames extending up the
sides of the dish and smoking. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves covered ceramic warmer dishes with a rack
and tea light candle. A label with ?Lenox? and the SKU number is
on the bottom of the warming dish. The following warmer dishes
are included in this recall.


         Pattern Name          SKU Number
         
         Holiday                782673
         Winter Greetings    782697
         Holiday Gatherings    782670
         Orchard & Bloom    783368
         Butler's Pantry    783357
         Butterfly Meadow    783362

These recalled warmer dishes were manufactured in China (rack
and tea light), Indonesia (ceramic dish) and are being sold at
Lenox and department stores nationwide from October 2007 through
December 2007 for about $30.

Pictures of recalled warmer dishes:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08145.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
warming dish with rack and tea light and return it to the place
of purchase for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Lenox at (800) 635-3669
Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.lenox.com/recall


LOUISIANA: New Orleans Accused of Violating Kid's Civil Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Ray Nagin and the New Orleans Department of Human Services
are facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 21 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana over jail
abuses, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiffs are challenging the conditions of confinement of all
children housed at the Youth Study Center (YSC) in New Orleans,
Louisiana, which includes unsanitary conditions, inadequate
medical care, cruel psychological and verbal harassment and
abuse, improper and excessive use of lockdown, inadequate
education, and other unconscionable and illegal conditions of
confinement.

They are bringing the action on behalf of all other persons who
are now, or in the future will be held in custody at the YSC,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).

Plaintiffs pray that the court:

     (1) assume jurisdiction over this action;

     (2) order that this case may be maintained as a class
         action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the  
         Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     (3) declare unconstitutional and unlawful the conditions of
         confinement and treatment of children at YSC;

     (4) declare that the complained action, omissions, policies
         and practices of defendants violate rights guaranteed  
         to members of the plaintiff class by:

        (a) the IDeA, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq. and its
            implementing regulations;

        (b) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.
            Section 794 and its implementing regulations;

        (c) the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Sections 12131-12133 and its
            implementing regulations; and

        (d) the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments
            of the United States Constitution, and various
            provisions of the Louisiana Constitution,
            Louisiana's Children Code, and other Louisiana Law.

     (5) (a) enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the
             continuation of unconstitutional conditions of
             confinement and requiring the defendants, their
             successors, agents and employees, and all persons
             acting in concert with them to take immediate steps  
             to improve the conditions of confinement and
             treatment for youth at YSC and to bring such  
             treatment and conditions to a constitutionally and
             statutorily adequate medical treatment;

         (b) providing adequate counseling and mental health
             care;

         (c) providing adequate education and special education
             as required by the IDEA, Section 504 of the
             Rehabilitation Act, and  title II of the ADA;

         (d) providing adequate visitation and access to  
             materials for maintaining stable family and
             community relationships;

         (e) providing adequate visitation and access to
             materials for maintaining stable family and
             community relationships;

         (f) providing adequate recreation and exercise;

         (g) providing adequate, nutritious, and sanitary
             food service;

         (h) prohibiting illegal and inhumane isolation
             practices;

         (i) prohibiting arbitrary disciplinary practices;

         (j) ensuring meaningful access to counsel and legal
             materials;

         (k) providing adequate staffing levels, and staff
             training and supervision;

         (l) providing adequate monitoring, investigation and  
             documentation of alleged abuses; and


        (m) improving physical safety measures and conditions
            (sanitation and ventilation) which would be in
            compliance with acceptable norms and constitutional
            principles applicable to the housing of youth in                 
            state and city facilities; and

        (n) implementing a constitutionally adequate grievance               
            procedure;

     (6) award plaintiffs the costs of this lawsuit and
        reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     (7) award plaintiffs such other and further relief that the
         court shall deem just and proper.

The suit is "J.D. et al. v. C. Ray Nagin et al. Case No. 07-
9755," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Carol Kolinchak
          Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana
          1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd.
          New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
          Phone: 504-522-5437
          E-mail: ckolinchak@jjpl.org

          Stephen F. Hanlon
          Sharon Y. Eubanks
          LaKeyria W. Felder
          Holland & Knight LLP
          2099 Penn. Ave., N.W. Suite 100
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: 202-955-3000
          E-mail: Stephen.Hanlon@hklaw.com or
                  Sharon.Eubanks@hklaw.com or
                  LaKeytria.Felder@hklaw.com


MANTTRA INC: Recalls Pressure Cookers to Replace Pressure Valve
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manttra Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
38,250 Pressure Cookers.

The company said if the pressure cookers are not closed
properly, the lid can separate and allow hot contents to spill
out. This poses a risk of burns to consumers.

Manttra has received two reports of hot contents spilling out of
the pressure cookers, resulting in minor burn injuries.

This recall involves Manttra Smart Series five-piece stainless
steel multi cooker sets. The set includes a pressure lid, glass
lid, steamer basket, wire trivet, and stock/pressure pot.
Model/code number 38270 is stamped on the base of the 8-quart
stainless steel cooker.

These pressure cookers were manufactured by TTK Prestige Ltd.,
of India and were sold at major department stores nationwide
from June 2003 through April 2007 for between $70 and $100.

Picture of recalled pressure cookers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08147.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the pressure
cookers and contact Manttra Inc. to receive a new replacement
pressure valve (ZPD valve).

For additional information, contact Manttra Inc. toll-free at
(877) 962-6887 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.manttra.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit in N.C. Over Recalled Defibrillator
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rashid Hunter of Fremont, California, filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Medtronic Inc., on behalf of all Californians implanted
with Sprint Fidelis leads, the wiring that connects a
defibrillator to the heart.

Due to reports of adverse events and at least five patient
deaths linked to breaking defibrillator leads sold under the
brand name Sprint Fidelis, Medtronic issued a recall of the
product on October 15, 2007. Mr. Hunter seeks an order from the
Court holding Medtronic responsible for all diagnostic and
medical charges, and any corrective surgical expenses caused by
Medtronic's faulty device.

"I live in constant fear, wondering if my lead will malfunction
and kill or cause me severe pain as it has done to others,"
stated Mr. Hunter. "My family also lives in fear that the device
will fail and I won't be able to get help in time to save my
life. It would be a great relief to me and my family if
Medtronic was required to fund a program to monitor the health
of every patient with the recalled leads."

"The defect is potentially fatal and patients are fearful they
may be the next victim," commented Elizabeth J. Cabraser,
counsel for Mr. Hunter. "Many patients are also concerned
whether they will receive the necessary diagnostic and medical
care in the years to come, and whether they can afford
replacement surgery should their physician recommend extraction
of the lead. Today's lawsuit seeks to hold Medtronic responsible
for the medical expenses Californians with the recalled wires
will incur."

The lawsuit alleges Medtronic misrepresented the safety of its
Sprint Fidelis leads and failed to warn that the leads were
prone to breakage.

The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead has had a significantly higher
than expected failure rate that appears in just the first two
years after implantation.

Leads are the thin, insulated wires connected to a defibrillator
that carry electric impulses to the heart. Your wallet card will
specify the manufacturer of your defibrillator leads.

Medtronic recall on the net:
http://www.medtronicheartleadrecall.com

The suit is “Hunter v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., Case Number:
3:2007cv06474,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Magistrate Judge Bernard
Zimmerman.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Heather A. Foster
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          Phone: (415) 956-1000
          Fax: (415) 956-1008
          E-Mail: hfoster@lchb.com


OWENS CORNING: IRC Seeks Dismissal of "Brown" ERISA Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Members of the Owens Corning Investment Review Committee (IRC)
are seeking for a dismissal of a purported federal class action
filed against them in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.

On Sept. 1, 2006, various members of IRC were named as
defendants in the lawsuit, captioned, "Brown v. Owens Corning
Investment Review Committee, et al."

Owens Corning is not named in the lawsuit but such individuals
would have a contingent indemnification claim against the
company.

The suit, brought by former employees of Owens Corning, was
brought under ERISA alleging that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to certain pension benefit plans and to class
members in connection with investments in an Owens Corning
company common stock fund.  

A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the defendants on
March 5, 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Brown et al. v. Owens Corning Investment Review
Committee et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-02125-JZ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge
Jack Zouhary.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Cornish F. Hitchcock, Esq.
         McTigue & Porter
         Ste. 350, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20015
         Phone: 202-364-6900
         Fax: 202-364-9960
         E-mail: conh@mctiguelaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Janine T. Avila, Esq.
         Connelly, Jackson & Collier
         Ste. 1600, 405 Madison Avenue
         Toledo, OH 43604
         Phone: 419-243-2100
         Fax: 419-243-7119
         E-mail: javila@cjc-law.com


TRAVELERS COS: Reaches Settlement in Minn. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Cos. Inc. reached a settlement agreement in the
consolidated securities class action, “In Re: St. Paul Travelers
Securities Litigation II, Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN,” which
was filed against The Travelers Companies, Inc., formerly The
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.

In November 2004, two purported class actions were brought by
certain shareholders of the Company against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  These
two actions were consolidated as “In re St. Paul Travelers
Securities Litigation II.”

On July 11, 2005, an amended consolidated complaint was filed.
The amended and consolidated complaint alleged violations of
federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s alleged
failure to make disclosure relating to the practice of paying
brokers commissions on a contingent basis, the Company’s alleged
involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids and the Company’s
allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance products.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the Company and the other defendants in “In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II” moved to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim.

Oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss was presented
on June 15, 2006.  By order dated Sept. 25, 2006, the Court
denied the Company’s motion to dismiss.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the Company and the other defendants in “In re
St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II” moved for partial
judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the allegations
relating to the allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance
products.

On June 1, 2007, the Court granted that motion and permitted the
lead plaintiff to replead.  

On June 8, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended and
consolidated complaint alleging the same claims as in the first
amended and consolidated complaint but extending the putative
class period.

On July 11, 2007, the Company and other defendants in 'In re St.
Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II” moved to dismiss the
second amended and consolidated complaint (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 7, 2007).

According to the company's Form 8-K filed Dec. 31 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, Travelers Companies reached
an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the
previously disclosed purported class action , which is subject
to a number of contingencies, including the negotiation and
execution of definitive documentation and court approval.

The Company also announced that it has reached an agreement in
principle with the Attorneys General of the States of Florida,
Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, Texas and West Virginia, the
Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and the District
of Columbia, the Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida
and the Office of Insurance Regulation of the State of Florida,
settling as to the Company their previously disclosed industry-
wide investigations into producer compensation and insurance
placement practices. The settlement is subject to court
approvals.  

The suit is "In Re: St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II,
Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim
with referral to Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
         Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
         Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         270 Madison Ave.
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4690, 212-545-4605 and 212-545-4762
         Fax: 212-545-4653
         E-mail: isquith@whafh.com, bruckner@whafh.com and
         rifkin@whafh.com

              - and -

         Jack L. Chestnut, Esq.
         Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
         Chestnut & Cambronne
         222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700
         Mpls., MN 55402
         Phone: (612) 339-7300
         Fax: 612-336-2940
         E-mail: jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com and
         kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com

Representing the defendants are:

         David H. LaRocca, Esq.
         Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
         Michael J. Garvey, Esq.
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
         425 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10017-3954
         Phone: 212-455-2377, 212-455-2598 and 212-455-7358
         E-mail: dlarocca@stblaw.com, mchepiga@stblaw.com and
         mgarvey@stblaw.com

              - and -

         Peter W. Carter, Esq.
         Richard B. Solum, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney,
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Mpls., MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2868
         E-mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com and
         solum.rick@dorsey.com


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Court Mulls Consolidation of Consumer Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a motion seeking for a consolidation of several
purported consumer fraud class actions against Vonage Holdings
Corp.

Initially, the company was named in several purported class
actions filed in California, New Jersey, Ohio and Washington.  
The suits alleges a wide variety of deficiencies with respect to
the company's business practices, marketing disclosures, email
marketing and quality issues for both phone and fax service.

These cases seek relief under various state consumer protection
statutes, federal anti-spam laws, and common law theories.  Some
of the actions allege that the company failed to adequately
disclose terms of service, including how the money-back
guarantee and the free month of service operate.  Various
plaintiffs allege that the disconnect fees are improper and that
the company failed to honor promised rebates.

In addition, some plaintiffs allege the company falsely
represented cost savings for its customers and deceptively
describe the nature and quality of our service.  Other
plaintiffs claim its facsimile service is defective.

Theses various class actions, on behalf of both nationwide and
state classes, pending in New Jersey, Washington and California
are generally alleging that the company:

       -- delayed and/or refused to allow consumers to cancel
          their Company service;

       -- failed to disclose procedural impediments to
          cancellation;

       -- failed to adequately disclose that their 30-day money
          back guarantee does not give consumers 30 days to try
          out the company's services;

       -- suppressed and concealed the true nature of its
          services and disseminated false advertising about the
          quality, nature and terms of the company's services;

       -- imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and

       -- invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of
          Service to the detriment of customers.

On May 11, 2007, plaintiffs in one action petitioned the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, seeking transfer and
consolidation of the pending actions to a single court for
coordinated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1407.

The motion was heard on July 26, 2007 in Minneapolis, Minnesota
and the MDL Panel, in an Order dated Aug. 15, 2007, transferred
the pending actions to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

On Oct. 1, 2007, plaintiffs in one action moved before the Court
for Consolidation and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel of the
actions, and requested time to file an Amended Consolidated
Complaint.  

The Court has not yet ruled on the motion, 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.

Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider  
of broadband telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber
lines as of Dec. 31, 2006.  Utilizing its voice-over-Internet
protocol (VoIP) technology platform, the Company offers low-cost
communications services.  


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


VIRGIN MOBILE: Zwerling Schachter Files N.Y. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
acquired the common stock of Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. (New York
Stock Exchange: VM) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
October 11, 2007 initial public offering of 27.5 million shares
at $15.00 per share and who suffered damages.

The complaint alleges that the Company's Registration Statement
and Prospectus filed with the SEC on or about October 10, 2007
contained statements that were materially false and misleading,
or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements
made not misleading, because:

     (1) the Company had already suffered a larger than expected
         third quarter loss for the period ended September 30,
         2007;

     (2) the Company was experiencing weakening demand for its
         services at the time of the IPO;

     (3) the Company's cost structure at the time of the IPO was
         too high for the Company to operate profitably; and (4)
         that, as a result of the foregoing, the Registration
         Statement/Prospectus was materially false and
         misleading.

On November 15, 2007, approximately one month after the IPO,
Virgin Mobile announced earnings for the three month period
ended September 30, 2007. The Company reported that its third-
quarter loss widened to $7.3 million, compared with a loss of
$5.1 million in the year-ago quarter. The Company also reported
a pro-forma loss of $.15 cents per share, compared with a loss
of $.10 cents per share in the year-ago period. As of November
16, 2007, shares of the Company's common stock had declined to
$9.19 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 22,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Kevin McGee, Esq.
          Willy Gonzalez
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          Phone: 1-800-721-3900
          E-mail: kmcgee@zsz.com or wgonzalez@zsz.com
          Website: http://www.zsz.com


                           *********


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

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

Copyright 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  * * *