CAR_Public/080107.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, January 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 4

                            Headlines


APPLE INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Cal. Over Operability of iPod
ASHLAND INC: Ohio Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Litigation
ASHLAND INC: Still Faces MTBE Products Liability Suit in N.Y.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Recalls Misassembled Alaris Pump Modules
CAREMARK RX: Pharmacies File Suit Over Delayed Reimbursements

DICK'S SPORTING: Working to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y.
D.R. HORTON: Faces Lawsuit in Ga. Over Alleged RESPA Violations
FORD MOTOR: Ill. Judge Decertifies Lawsuit Over Flaky Paints
GOODMAN GLOBAL: Settles Lawsuit in Tex. Over $2.65B Sale to H&F
INTEL CORP: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over X86 Microprocessors

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Suit Over Acres Gaming Merger in Discovery
INTERNET GAMING: IGE Hong Kong Dropped from "Gold Farming" Suit
LBO GIANTS: Sued for Allegedly Fixing Prices of LBO Services
MUELLER WATER: Seeks Dismissal of “Foundry Sand” Disposal Suit
NBTY INC: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval

NEW ERA CANNING: Recalls Canned Beans on Possible Contamination
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Former Workers File $75M Suit for CBA Breach
PANTRY INC: Awaits Approval of N.C. Wage, Hour Suit Settlement
PANTRY INC: Continues to Face Multiple “Hot Fuel” Lawsuits
PANTRY INC: Faces Suit in Alabama Alleging FLSA Violations

RJ REYNOLDS: Bands File Suit Over “Unauthorized” Cigarette Ad
STAPLES INC: Reaches $38M Settlement for Calif. Wage, Hour Suits
TD AMERITRADE: Seeks to Dismiss Cal. Suit Over Privacy Breach
TD AMERITRADE: Account Holder Sues for Alleged Privacy Breach
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Defective DLP Televisions

VIRGIN MOBILE: Long Distance Phone Customers Sue Over Excise Tax
WEIS MARKETS: Recalls Fruit Miniatures Due to Undeclared Walnuts
* Securities Fraud Suits Up 43% to 166 in 2007 Standford Says


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BASIN WATER: Alfred Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
COMCAST CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in Penn.


                            *********  


APPLE INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Cal. Over Operability of iPod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 31 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
accusing it of making digitally recorded music sold through its
online stores inoperable with operating systems other than
iPods, and of making iPods unable to play music downloaded
through competitors' Web sites, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Stacie Somers bring this action pursuant to
Rules 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on behalf of all persons or entities in the United States, that,
during the class period, purchased an Apple iPod, or who
purchased audio or video content from Apple's Music Store, from
Dec. 31, 2203 through the conclusion of the trial of this
matter.

She wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) the definition of the relevant markets;

     (b) Apple's market power within these markets;

     (c) Apple monopolized and continues to monopolize the
         relevant markets;

     (d) Apple attempted to monopolize and continues to attempt   
         to monopolize the relevant markets;

     (e) the contractual conditions Apple imposes upon its
         customers are unconscionable;

     (f) whether Apple's conduct caused damage to the plaintiff
         and members of the classes, including the degree to
         which prices paid by the classes are higher than the
         prices that would be paid in a market free from tying,
         monopolization, and other illegal conduct; and

     (g) the appropriateness of injunctive relief to restrain
         ongoing and future violations of the law.

Plaintiff prays that the court declare, adjudge and decree the
following:

     -- that this action may be maintained as a class action
        pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
        with respect to the claims for damages and other
        monetary relief, and declaring plaintiff as
        representatives of the class and her counsel as counsel
        for the classes;

     -- that the conduct alleged constitutes unlawful tying,
        monopolization, and attempted monopolization in
        violation of Cartwright Act, California common law, and
        sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act;

     -- that the conduct alleged is in violation of the  
        California Unfair Competition Law and appropriate
        injunctive relief be granted pursuant to this law;

     -- for an order permanently restraining and enjoining Apple
        from continuing the unfair and anti-competitive
        activities alleged;

     -- that plaintiff and the classes are entitled to damages,
        penalties and other monetary relief provided by
        applicable law, including treble damages;

     -- that plaintiff and the classes recover their costs of
        suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and pre- and
        post-judgment interest;

     -- for an order requiring full restitution of all funds
        acquired from Apple's unfair business practices,
        including disgorgement of revenues and/or profits;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their expenses and
        costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to
        the extent provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiff and the classes are granted such other,
        further, and different relief as the nature of the case
        may require or as may be determined to be just,
        equitable, and proper by the court.

The suit is "Stacie Somers et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. CV 07
6507," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alreen Haegguist
          Haegguist Law Group
          501 West Broadway, Suite A-276
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 955-8218
          Fax: (619) 342-7878

          Helen I. Zeldes
          Law Office of Helen Zeldes
          249 S. Highway 101, #370
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Phone: (858) 523-1713
          Fax: (858) 523-1783
          E-mail: helenz@zeldeslaw.com

          - and -

          Steven A. Skalet
          Craig L. Briskin
          Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 822-5100
          Fax: (202) 822-4997
          E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com or
                  cbrinskin@findjustice.com


ASHLAND INC: Ohio Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
granted class-action status to the case, “In Re: Foundry Resins
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:04-md-01638-GLF-MRA,” which
names Ashland, Inc., as one of the defendants.

In response to an investigation by the U.S. Department of
Justice that was closed in 2006 without criminal or civil
allegations being made by the government, several foundry owners
have filed lawsuits seeking class-action status for classes of
customers of foundry resins manufacturers such as Ashland (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2007).

These cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio.  The suit was
filed before Judge Gregory L. Frost with referral to Mark R.
Abel.

Plaintiffs in the suit are:

       -- Tri-Cast Ltd. Partnership,
       -- Atchison Casting Corp.,
       -- Amite Foundry & Machine Inc.,
       -- Lancaster Foundry Supply Co.,
       -- Port Shell Molding Co.,
       -- Kore Mart, Ltd.,
       -- Kulp Foundry, Inc.,
       -- State Line Foundries Inc.,
       -- Tri-Cast Limited Partnership, and
       -- Caterpillar, Inc.

Defendants are:

       -- Ashland Inc.,
       -- Delta Ha Inc.,
       -- Huttenes Albertus Chemische Werke Gmbh,
       -- Borden Chemical Inc.,
       -- Ashland Specialty Chemical Co.,
       -- HA International LLC.

In May 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio entered an order certifying a class for the civil
lawsuits.  

The suit is “In Re: Foundry Resins Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 2:04-md-01638-GLF-MRA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephen Eric Chappelear, Esq.
          Hahn Loeser & Parks
          2, 65 E State Street, 14th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215-4224
          Phone: 614-221-0240
          Fax: 614-233-5148
          E-mail: sechappelear@hahnlaw.com

Representing Ashland is:

          Michael Karl Yarbrough, Esq.
          Frost Brown Todd LLC
          One Columbus, 10 W Broad Street, Suite 1000
          Columbus, OH 43215-3467
          Phone: 614-464-1211
          Fax: 614-559-7245
          E-mail: myarbrough@fbtlaw.com


ASHLAND INC: Still Faces MTBE Products Liability Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., along with many other companies, continues to face
approximately 30 cases alleging methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE) contamination in groundwater.  

All of these cases have been consolidated in a multi-district
litigation in the Southern District of New York for preliminary
proceedings.

The plaintiffs generally are water providers or governmental
authorities and they allege that refiners, manufacturers and
sellers of gasoline containing MTBE are liable for manufacturing
a defective product and that owners and operators of retail
gasoline sites have allowed MTBE to be discharged into the
groundwater.

Ashland's potential liability relates to gasoline containing
MTBE allegedly produced and sold by Ashland, or one or more of
its subsidiaries, in the period prior to the formation of the
Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC.

Ashland only distributed MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE in a
limited number of states and has been dismissed in a number of
cases in which it was established that Ashland did not market
MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE in the state or region at
issue.  

Many MTBE cases allege class-action status and seek punitive
damages or treble damages under a variety of statutes and
theories.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
27, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchanged
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:00-cv-01898-SAS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Representing Ashland is:

         Steven L. Leifer, Esq.
         Baker Botts LLP (DC)
         1299 Pennsylvania Ave N.W.
         Washington, DC 20004
         Phone: (202) 639-7723


CARDINAL HEALTH: Recalls Misassembled Alaris Pump Modules
---------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health issued a voluntary recall of its Alaris Pump
module.

On Nov. 5, 2007, Cardinal Health notified customers of a
voluntary recall for all Alaris Pump modules, model 8100
(formerly known as Medley Pump module), shipped prior to Sept.
27, 2007.

Serial numbers for affected devices can be found at
http://www.cardinalhealth.com/alaris/indexmodulealert.asp.

The reason for this recall is that the units may contain
misassembled occluder springs (bent, broken, nested or missing).
These conditions have occurred due to misassembly during
manufacturing. Misassembled springs could lead to overinfusion
that could result in serious adverse health consequences or
death. Overinfusion may be difficult to detect because the
misassembled springs can work intermittently, and there is no
warning or notification of an overinfusion.

The company became aware of the issue from a review of customer
complaints and service data. Cardinal Health has received one
report of an injury and two reports of patient deaths associated
with the use of this device. The deaths could not be confirmed
by the respective hospitals or Cardinal Health as definitively
caused by this issue.

Any customer inquiries related to this action should be
addressed to Cardinal Health’s customer service center at 1-800-
625-6627, with representatives available 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.

Additional information about the voluntary recall can also be
found at
http://www.cardinalhealth.com/alaris/indexmodulealert.asp.

Cardinal Health will work with customers to minimize disruption
while completing an inspection of the devices as quickly as
possible at the company’s service facility and repairing those
units with misassembled springs. This includes dispatching field
teams to customer sites and using a loaner pool of temporary
substitute Alaris pump modules with hospitals while their pumps
are being inspected at Cardinal Health's facility. Any devices
found with misassembled springs will be repaired and then
returned to the customer, along with their other devices that
have passed inspection.

In the interim, the company has developed an occluder pressure
test to provide customers a method to potentially identify
affected devices prior to Cardinal Health’s inspection. The
occluder pressure testmay not be effective in detecting all
misassembled occluder springs, and a further inspection by the
company is required.

This test method was posted as an updated service bulletin 528A
at http://www.cardinalhealth.com/alaris/indexmodulealert.asp.

Follow hospital protocol related to monitoring that your
infusion pumps are functioning correctly during use.

Cardinal Health notified customers by registered letter, posted
the customer letter on the Cardinal Health web site and set up a
dedicated call center for customer support. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has also been apprised of this action.

The voluntary recall covers Alaris Pump modules that were
distributed to 46 states, the District of Columbia, Canada,
Guam, Puerto Rico and Saudi Arabia. There have been
approximately 201,000 Alaris Pump modules distributed worldwide
that are affected by this recall. All units shipped after Sept.
27, 2007 have undergone a new inspection process to confirm
correct assembly of the occluder springs, and therefore the
company has not included these units as part of this recall. The
company is working on product improvements to the pump to
minimize the possibility for future misassembly of the springs.

Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product,
and/or quality problems should also be reported to the FDA’s
MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by Fax at 1-800-
FDA-0178, by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20852-9787, or on the MedWatch web site:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ohio, Cardinal Health, Inc. (NYSE: CAH)
http://www.cardinalhealth.com-- is an $87 billion, global  
company serving the health-care industry with products and
services that help hospitals, physician offices and pharmacies
reduce costs, improve safety, productivity and profitability,
and deliver better care to patients.


CAREMARK RX: Pharmacies File Suit Over Delayed Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark RX, LLC d/b/a Caremark RX, Inc. and Caremark, Inc. are
facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 26 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois accusing it
of defrauding thousands of independently owned pharmacies and
violating contracts by paying less than the Average Wholesale
Price for filling prescriptions, and delaying its
reimbursements, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Mill Street Clinic Pharmacy, Inc. brings this
action as a nationwide class action pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 23 on behalf of all pharmacies and/or
similar entities who entered into a contract with Caremark or
its predecessors at any time within 10 years prior to the filing
of this complaint, which contract required Caremark to reimburse
the pharmacy and/or other similar entity at a rate which is a
function of the Average Wholesale Price (AWP).

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant had access to the current or correct
         AWP of prescription medications;

     (b) whether defendant failed to make reimbursement payments
         using the true AWP of prescription medications;

     (c) whether defendant knowingly, intentionally and/or
         willfully failed to make reimbursement payments using
         the true AWP of prescription medications;

     (d) whether defendant failed to make timely reimbursement
         payments;

     (e) whether defendant knowingly, intentionally and/or
         willfully failed to make timely reimbursement payments;

     (f) whether defendant concealed, suppressed and/or omitted
         the fact that it did not intend to make reimbursement
         payments properly and/or timely;

     (g) whether defendant knowingly, intentionally and/or
         willfully concealed, suppressed and/or omitted the fact
         that it did not intend to make reimbursement payments
         properly and/or timely;

     (h) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         injunctive relief;

     (i) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         punitive damages;

     (j) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         treble damages;

     (k) whether the conduct of defendant, as alleged, caused
         damages to the plaintiff and the other members of the
         class; and

     (l) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

     -- acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause;

     -- certification of this case as a class action pursuant to
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- designation of the plaintiff as representative of the
        Rule 23 class, and counsel of record as class counsel;

     -- damages sufficient to compensate plaintiff and the Rule
        23 class for their injuries;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against the
        defendant and its partners, officers, owners, agents,
        successors, employees, representatives and any and all
        persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in any
        further unlawful practices and policies as set forth;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

     -- reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this action;

     -- punitive damages and/or treble damages as allowable by
        law; and

     -- any and all other relief that the court may deem just
        and equitable.

The suit is "Mill Street Clinic Pharmacy, Inc. et al. v.
CareMark RX, LLC et al., Case No. 07050249," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Peter L. Currie, Esq.
          The Law Firm of Peter L. Currie, PC
          536 Wing Lane
          Saint Charles, Illinois 60174
          Phone: (630) 862-1130
          Fax: (630) 845-8982


DICK'S SPORTING: Working to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. continues to seek to settle two
purported class actions that accuse it of failing to pay
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the company's Nov. 28, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Nov. 3, 2007.

The cases were filed in May and November of 2005 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.  They are
captioned:

       -- “Tamara Barrus v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. and
          Galyan’s Trading Company, Inc.,” and

       -- “Daniel Parks v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.”

Because until September 2006 none of these cases were certified
as class actions, the company deemed them to be claims that were
incidental to its business.  

In September and October 2006, respectively, a magistrate judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
conditionally certified classes for notice purposes under the
FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases, which the U.S. District
Judge upheld.

In the Barrus case, the parties and the Court agreed to stay the
litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims through
mediation.

Mediation sessions were held in April and August 2007.

The parties to the Barrus case have continued to work through
the mediator’s office in an effort to determine whether the
matter can be resolved through settlement.  

The parties to the Parks case have agreed to mediate the case
although the mediator and the schedule for mediation have yet to
be determined.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting  
goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store
environment.


D.R. HORTON: Faces Lawsuit in Ga. Over Alleged RESPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
D.R. Horton Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  

The plaintiff claims he was forced to use the company's
affiliated mortgage service to buy his home so that the company
could get discounts and incentives.

The suit was filed by John R. Yeatman on June 15, 2007 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, under
the caption, “John R. Yeatman, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et
al.”

It was filed against D.R. Horton and its mortgage company, DHI
Mortgage Co.  Mr. Yeatman is seeking class-action status for the
suit.  

The complaint seeks certification of a class alleged to include
persons who, within the year preceding the filing of the suit,
purchased a home from the Company and obtained a mortgage for
such purchase from its affiliated mortgage company subsidiary.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated Section 8 of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by effectively requiring
its homebuyers to use its affiliated mortgage company to finance
their home purchases by offering certain discounts and
incentives.

The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive
relief.

The suit is “Yeatman et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. et al., Case
No. 4:07-cv-00081-BAE-GRS,” filed in U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Georgia under Judge B. Avant Edenfield with
referral to G. R. Smith.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
          Gillen, Cromwell, Parker & Withers, LLC
          P.O. Box 10164
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Phone: 912-447-8400
          Fax: 912-233-6584

Representing the defendants is:

          David M. Souders, Esq.
          Weiner, Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, PC
          1300 19th Street, NW
          Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-628-2000
          Fax: 202-628-2011


FORD MOTOR: Ill. Judge Decertifies Lawsuit Over Flaky Paints
------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Associate Judge Richard Tognarelli decertified on
Dec. 20 a lawsuit over flaky paint on vehicles that Ford Motor
Co. built from 1989 to 1996, Steve Korris of Madison County
Record reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of a Lakin Law firm secretary,
Joyce Philips, in 1999, who claimed Ford did not disclose a risk
that paint in its vehicles would delaminate and peel away.   
Daniel Schopp later joined the suit.  In 2003, former Madison
County Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis certified the two as
representative of separate classes of people: those whose top
coat delaminated and those whose clear coat delaminated.

After Judge Kardis retired, the case was assigned to Judge
Matoesian.  Last year, Judge Matoesian allowed Ms. Phillips to
withdraw.  Mr. Schopp replaced her.

Later, Chief Justice Ann Callis assigned the Ford case to Judge
Tognarelli, an unelected associate judge.

Robert Schmieder of the Lakin Law firm sought to certify
Norma Maag, Joseph Gulash, Peter Yaciuk and Beverly Breder as
class representatives.

Ford Motor Co. sought to decertify both classes, arguing that
they are inadequate class representatives.  Ford attorney Peter
Herzog of St. Louis opposed certification of the new plaintiffs
in February 2007.

Judge Tognarelli decertified the suit relying on two Illinois
Supreme Court decisions from 2005, Avery and Gridley,
prohibiting application of Illinois consumer fraud law to
transactions in other states.

For more information, contact:

          Robert W. Schmieder, II, Esq.
          The Lakin Law Firm, P.C.
          300 Evans Avenue P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.)
          Phone: 618-254-1127
          Telecopier: 618-254-0193

          Peter W. Herzog, Jr., Esq.
          Herzog Crebs LLP
          515 N. 6th Street, Suite 2400
          St. Louis, Missouri 63101 (Independent City)
          Phone: 314-231-6700
          Fax: 314-231-4656


GOODMAN GLOBAL: Settles Lawsuit in Tex. Over $2.65B Sale to H&F
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodman Global, Inc. announced a tentative settlement of two
purported class actions filed in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas, against Goodman and other named defendants.

On Oct. 21, 2007, the Company signed a definitive agreement to
be acquired by affiliates of private equity firm Hellman &
Friedman LLC in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately
$2.65 billion, on an enterprise value basis.

The two purported class actions relate to the proposed
acquisition and have been consolidated as “Call4U, Ltd. v.
Goodman Global, Inc., Cause No. 2007-66888.”

It names as defendants the Company, all of its directors and
H&F, and it asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the directors and aiding and abetting such breaches against H&F
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 26, 2007).

A memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of the
settlement was entered into on behalf of plaintiffs, Goodman and
the other named defendants as of January 3, 2008. The proposed
settlement is subject to court approval and certain other
conditions.

Goodman and the other defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to the plaintiffs and the
putative class in the consolidated action, deny that they have
or are engaged in any wrongdoing or violation of law or breach
of duty and believe they acted properly at all times. The
memorandum of understanding provides for dismissal of the
consolidated action with prejudice upon court approval of such
settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding,
Goodman agreed:

     (i) to disclose certain additional information regarding
         the transaction to its stockholders;

    (ii) with Hellman & Friedman to amend the merger agreement
         governing the transaction; and

   (iii) to allow its stockholders an additional period of
         twenty (20) calendar days, beginning on the date of the
         stockholder vote to approve the transaction, within
         which Goodman's stockholders may elect appraisal rights
         for their shares of Goodman's common stock.

The settlement of the consolidated class action will not affect
the merger consideration to be paid in the merger, any other
terms of the merger other than those set forth in the amendment
to the merger agreement or the timing of the special meeting of
stockholders held to approve the merger.

Goodman Global, Inc. -- http://www.goodmanglobal.com/-- is a   
domestic manufacturer of heating, ventilation and air
conditioning products for residential and light commercial use.


INTEL CORP: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over X86 Microprocessors
------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corp. is facing an antitrust class-action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Beth Fink claims Intel monopolizes the worldwide
market for X86 microprocessors by "coerce(ing) customers to
refrain from dealing with Intel's major competitors," forcing
customers into exclusive deals, threatening retaliation, and
forcing PC makers to boycott competitors, restraining
competition and inflating prices.

Ms. Fink brings this action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all persons and
entities residing in the United States who from June 28, 2001
through the present, purchased an x86 microprocessor in the
United States, other than for resale, indirectly from the
defendant or any controlled subsidiary or affiliate defendant.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Intel has possessed monopoly power in the
         relevant market since at least June 28, 2001;

     (b) whether Intel acquired or maintained monopoly power
         within the relevant market through anticompetitive
         activity;

     (c) whether Intel's unlawful conduct has enabled Intel to
         increase, maintain, or stabilize above competitive
         levels the prices it charges for x86 microprocessors;
         if so, whether such supra-competitive prices were
         passed on to class members; and if so, the appropriate
         class-wide measure of damages;

     (d) whether Intel violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act;

     (e) whether Intel violated Sections 16720 and 17200 of the
         California Business and Professions Code; and

     (f) whether Intel violated the antitrust, unfair
         competition, consumer protection laws and unjust
         enrichment laws as alleged;

Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

     -- that Intel's conduct alleged be adjudged and decreed to
        violate the laws as alleged;

     -- that plaintiff and the class members recover damages, as
        provided by the state laws alleged, and that a joint and
        several judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class be
        entered against Intel in the maximum amount permitted by
        such laws;

     -- that Intel, its affiliates, successors, transferees,
        assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents
        and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or
        claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined
        and restrained from in any manner continuing,
        maintaining, or renewing its anticompetitive conduct or
        adopting or following any practice, plan, program, or
        device having a similar purpose or effect;

     -- that plaintiff and class members be awarded restitution,
        including disgorgement of profits obtained by Intel as a
        result of its acts of unfair competition and unjust
        enrichment;

     -- that plaintiff and class members be awarded pre- and
        post-judgment interest, and that interest be awarded at
        the highest legal rate from and after the date of
        service of the initial complaint of this action;

     -- that plaintiff and the class members recover their costs
        of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as
        provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiff and the class members have such further
        relief as the case may require and the court may deem
        just and proper under the circumstances.

The suit is "Beth Fink, et al. v. Intel corporation," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Representing plaintiffs are:

           Stephen D. Mossman
           Mattson, Ricketts, Davies, Stewart & Calkins
           134 S. 13th Street, Suite 1200
           Lincoln, NE 68508
           Phone: (402) 475-843
           Fax: (402) 475-0105
           E-mail: sdm@mattsonricketts.com

           - and -

          Craig C. Corbitt
          Judith A. Zahid
          Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP
          44 Montgomery Steet, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94140
          Phone: (415) 693-0700
          Fax: (415) 693-0770


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Suit Over Acres Gaming Merger in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the purported class action, “Paul Miller
v. Acres Gaming Inc., et al.,” which was filed in Nevada court
and names as defendant, International Game Technology, Inc.
  
The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their
fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the
approval of the merger transaction between Acres and the company
and sought to enjoin and/or void the merger agreement among
other forms of relief.   

The other defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Floyd W. Glisson,
     -- Todd L. Bice,
     -- Roger B. Hammock,
     -- Richard Furash,
     -- David R. Willensky,
     -- Robert W. Brown,
     -- Ronald G. Bennett

On Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order to prevent Acres stockholders from
voting on the merger.  

On Sept. 24, 2003, plaintiff petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court
to vacate the denial of the TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding
its stockholder vote on the merger.  The Nevada Supreme Court
denied the petition on Sept. 25, 2003.

On Nov. 5, 2003, the plaintiff amended his complaint to recover
damages.  

On Dec. 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff’s second amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.

On May 7, 2004, the Court issued an order denying defendants’
motion to dismiss.

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, plaintiff filed a third
amended complaint on Sept. 9, 2004.  Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the third amended complaint on Sept. 14, 2004.

On March 15, 2006, the Court issued an order denying defendants’
motion to dismiss the third complaint.

On April 7, 2006, defendant filed a Notice of Removal to U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.

Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court,
which was granted by order dated Aug. 15, 2006.

On Nov. 30, 2006, the case was transferred to business court and
discovery continues, according to the company's Nov. 28, 2007
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchanged
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al, Case no.  
P03-A-470016-C,” filed in Clark County Nevada District Court  
under Judge Michelle Leavitt.   

Representing the defendants:

         Paul R. Hejmanowski, Esq.
         Lionel Sawyer & Collins
         1700 Bank America Plaza, 300 S. Fourth Street
         Las Vegas, NV 89101
         Phone: (702) 383-8880
         Fax: (702) 383-8845

  
INTERNET GAMING: IGE Hong Kong Dropped from "Gold Farming" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Florida granted a motion to dismiss
Internet Gaming Entertainment, Ltd.'s Hong Kong branch from a
class action over the World of Warcraft EULA, Earnest Cavalli of
stated at http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/01/class-action-
su.html.

The suit was filed by Antonio Hernandez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated against Internet Gaming
Entertainment, Ltd. and IGE US LLC (Class Action Reporter, June
5, 2007).  

"The case involves IGE's calculated decision to reap substantial
profits by knowingly interfering with and substantially
impairing the intended use and enjoyment associated with
consumer agreements between Blizzard Entertainment and
subscribers to its virtual world called World of Warcraft."

It alleges that the company profited millions of dollars by
selling World of Warcraft virtual property or currency (commonly
referred as 'gold') generated by cheap labor in third world
countries.  The process of generating virtual assets and then
selling them through eBay or other industry websites is known as
"gold farming," "real money trade" or "RMT."

ICE's gold farming activities allegedly not only substantially
diminish the enjoyment and satisfaction consumers obtain by
earning, through the expenditure of vast amounts of time and
energy, virtual assets within World of Warcraft, they also
violate the express terms of agreements Subscribers enter into
to participate in World of Warcraft.  Indeed, the express terms
of Blizzard Entertainment's agreements with its Subscribers for
World of Warcraft specifically prohibit the sale of any World of
Warcraft virtual assets or property, according to the complaint.

The action was brought on behalf of all individuals in the U.S.
and its territories who, for purposes other than resale,
purchased Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft software
and paid subscription fees at any time from Nov. 27, 2004 until
present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule, among others, on whether
defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practice of selling
World of Warcraft gold, violated Florida's or any other state's
consumer protection statute.

Causes of Action:

Claim 1 - violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade  
          Practices Act;

Claim 2 - violation of Consumer Protection Statutes of remaining  
          49 states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico;

Claim 3 - unfair Trade Practices Act Conspiracy;

Claim 4 - breach of third-party beneficiary contract;

claim 5 - breach of third-party beneficiary conspiracy;

claim 6 - tortuous interference with business relationship;

claim 7 - tortuous interference with business relationship and
          conspiracy.

The plaintiff seeks conspiratory damages, treble damages,
injunctive relief, among others.

According to Mr. Cavalli, the litigation against HK IGE, it
seems, was stalled and aborted due to bureaucratic red tape.  He
said Mr. Hernandez "was issued a 90-day extension by the court
to serve the Hong Kong branch notice of the suit, but due to the
complexities of bringing litigation against foreign firms via
the Hague Convention, there simply wasn't enough time to provide
HK IGE with the necessary papers."

Representing the plaintiff is:

          C. Richard Newsome, Esq.
          Newsome Law Firm
          20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 800
          Orlando, Florida 32801
          Phone: (407) 648-5977
          Fax: (407) 648-5282
          E-mail: newsome@productsliability.net


LBO GIANTS: Sued for Allegedly Fixing Prices of LBO Services
---------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts accuses:

          -- Bain Capital Partners, LLC,
          -- The Blackstone Group,
          -- The Carlyle Group,
          -- Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
          -- GS Capital Partners,
          -- JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
          -- JP Morgan Partners, LLC,
          -- Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., LP,
          -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,
          -- Merrill Lynch Global Partners, Inc.,
          -- Permira Advisors, LLC,
          -- Providence Equity Partners, Inc.,
          -- Silver Lake Partners,
          -- Texas Pacific Group,
          -- Thomas H. Lee Partners, LP and
          -- Warburg Pincus, LLC

of conspiring to "rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix transaction prices and divide up the
market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts,"  the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Michael M. Davidson claims the conspirators,
whose conduct is "not regulated by federal securities law ...
fix the prices for target companies at artificially low levels."

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Section of the Sherman
Act, 15 USC Section 1, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act,
15 USC Sections 15 and 26 on behalf of all persons who sold
their securities, or are in the process of selling their
securities, to any of the defendants in LBOs.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix
         and maintain prices of securities of target companies,
         as alleged, purchased by defendants and their co-
         conspirators;

     (b) the identity of the participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in the complaint
         and the nature and character of the acts performed by
         defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of
         the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section 1 of
         the Sherman Act;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged, caused injury to plaintiffs
         and other members of the class;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         securities sold to defendants and their co-conspirators
         during the class period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and other members of the class.

Plaintiffs pray as follows:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- that the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the
        acts done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their
        co-conspirators, be adjudged to have been in violation
        of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 1;

     -- that judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of
        the class against defendants for damages sustained by
        plaintiffs and the class as provided for in Section 4 of
        the Clayton Act, together with the costs of this action,
        including reasonable attorney's fees;

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner
        continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract,
        combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging in
        any other contract, combination or conspiracy having a
        similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or
        following any practice, plan, program or device having a
        similar purpose or effect; and

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class have such
        other, further and different relief as the case may
        require and the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The suit is "Michael M. Davidson et al. v. Bain Capital et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          David E. Marder
          Meghan E. Walt
          Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciressi LLP
          800 Boylston Street, 25th Floor
          Boston, MA 02199
          Phone: (617_ 267-2300


MUELLER WATER: Seeks Dismissal of “Foundry Sand” Disposal Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s U.S. Pipe subsidiary is seeking
for a dismissal a purported civil class action in relation to
its disposal of toxic “foundry sand.”

The suit was originally filed on April 8, 2005 in the Circuit
Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, and removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the
Class Action Fairness Act.

The putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint
with the U.S. District Court on Dec. 15, 2006.  

The case was filed against U.S. Pipe and other foundries in the
Anniston, Alabama area alleging state law tort claims
(negligence, failure to warn, wantonness, nuisance, trespass and
outrage) arising from creation and disposal of "foundry sand"
alleged to contain harmful levels of polychlorinated biphenyls
and other toxins, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and
zinc.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for real and personal
property damage and for other unspecified personal injury.

On June 4, 2007, a Motion to Dismiss was granted to U.S. Pipe
and certain co-defendants as to the claims for negligence,
failure to warn, nuisance, trespass and outrage.  

The remainder of the complaint was dismissed with leave to file
an amended complaint.

On July 6, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which dismissed prior claims relating to U.S. Pipe’s former 10th
Street facility and no longer alleges personal injury claims.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 27, 2007 and
U.S. Pipe filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
on Aug. 24, 2007.

Atlanta, Georgia-based Mueller Water Products, Inc. --
http://www.muellerwaterproducts.com-- is a manufacturer of a  
range of water infrastructure and flow control products for use
in water distribution networks and treatment facilities.  It
acts as a distributor, especially in Canada, for products that
are manufactured by other companies.  

Its product portfolio includes engineered valves, hydrants, pipe
fittings and ductile iron pipe, which are used by
municipalities, as well as the commercial and residential
construction, oil and gas, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) and fire protection industries.  It manages
its business Mueller Water operates through three business
segments: Mueller Co, U.S. Pipe and Anvil.  Through Mueller Co,
it sells its hydrants and valves and other water and wastewater
infrastructure and gas distribution products.  Through U.S.
Pipe, it sells ductile iron pipe and related products.  Through
Anvil, it sells its pipe fittings and couplings, pipe hangers,
pipe nipples and related products.


NBTY INC: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
formally approved a settlement of a consolidated securities
class action filed against NBTY, Inc., and certain of its
officers and directors, according to the company's Nov. 27, 2007
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchanged
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

From June 24, 2004 through Sept. 3, 2004, six separate
shareholder class actions were filed against the company and
certain of its officers and directors on behalf of shareholders
who purchased shares of the company's common stock between Feb.
9, 2004 and July 22, 2004.

The actions allege that the company failed to disclose material
facts during the class period that resulted in a decline in the
price of the company's stock after June 16, 2004 and July 22,
2004, respectively.

The court consolidated the six class actions in March 2005, and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
Newly appointed lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
alleging a class period from Nov. 10, 2003 to July 22, 2004.

Along with the officers and directors, we filed a motion to
dismiss the action.  The motion was denied on May 1, 2006.

The parties entered into extensive document discovery, during
which the Court certified the class to consist of shareholders
who purchased shares of the company's common stock during the
period from November 10, 2003 to July 22, 2004.

Following a mediation session on Feb. 15, 2007, the parties
agreed to a proposed settlement of the class action claims.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, all the class action
claims will be dismissed with prejudice and a full release will
be given to the Company and its officers and directors,
including all defendants named in the consolidated actions.

The total amount to be paid to the Class in settlement of the
claims will be paid entirely by the NBTY directors' and
officers' liability insurers.

In the settlement, NBTY and the individual defendants deny any
violation of law, and have agreed to the settlement to eliminate
the uncertainties, distractions and expense of further
litigation.  The settlement is subject to review and approval by
the Court.

On April 17, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed with the Court the
proposed settlement, as well as an application for its
preliminary approval, for notice to the Class, and for a
settlement hearing.

The Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May
2, 2007, directed that notice be given by mail and publication
to the Class, and scheduled a settlement hearing for August
2007.  

The settlement agreement was formally approved by the court at a
hearing on Aug. 9, 2007.  

Under the terms of the settlement, all class-action claims were
dismissed with prejudice and a full release given to the Company
and its officers and directors.

The suit is "In Re: NBTY, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no.
04-CV-2619," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge Leonard D. Wexler.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Paskowitz & Associates
         Phone: 800.705.9529
         E-mail: classattorney@aol.com

              - and -

         Roy Jacobs & Associates
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000
         New York, NY, 10118
         E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com

Representing the company are:

         Charles W. Stotter, Esq.
         Robert Novack, Esq.
         Edwards & Angell, LLP
         750 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10022-1200
         Phone: 212-308-4411
         Fax: 212-308-4844
         E-mail: Cstotter@edwardsangell.com or
                 Rnovack@ealaw.com


NEW ERA CANNING: Recalls Canned Beans on Possible Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Era Canning Co. of New Era, Michigan is voluntarily
recalling 171 cases/ 6 cans per case of 6 lbs. 5 oz. GFS Fancy
Blue Lake Cut Green Beans, 4 Sieve, lot code 19H7FL , because
they may be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium
which can cause life-threatening illness or death from botulism.
Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not
look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms:  general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing
these symptoms should seek immediate medical attention.  The
incubation period can be 2 hours to 2 weeks; in most cases the
symptoms appear after 12 to 24 hours.

The canned green beans were distributed to foodservice customers
in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia
and sold through GFS Marketplace stores in Indiana, Kentucky,
and Tennessee.

The canned green beans are packaged in 6 lbs. 5 oz. cans under
the GFS brand (GFS reorder #118737; UPC  93901 11873) with lot
code 19H7FL printed on the end of the can.  No other reorder
numbers or lots are included in this recall.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential contamination of the product was found through
testing by the Food and Drug Administration.  New Era Canning in
conjunction with the US Food and Drug Administration and the
Michigan Department of Agriculture is thoroughly evaluating all
processes and procedures to determine the cause of the problem.

Any food that may be contaminated should be disposed of
carefully. Even tiny amounts of toxins ingested, inhaled, or
absorbed through the eye or a break in the skin can cause
serious illness. Skin contact should be avoided as much as
possible, and the hands should be washed immediately after
handling the food.   

Customers should not be encouraged to return product to Gordon
Food Service.  Customers who have the product or any foods made
with these products should throw them away immediately. Double
bag the cans in plastic bags that are tightly closed then place
in a trash receptacle for non-recyclable trash outside of the
home.  Restaurants and institutions are encouraged to assure
that such products are only placed in locked receptacles which
are not accessible to the public. Additional instructions for
safe disposal can be found at
www.cdc.gov/botulism/botulism_faq.htm.

Anyone with questions can call FDA at 1-888-SAFEFOOD.

Customers with questions may contact New Era Canning at 1-800-
282-9007 Ext. 111.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Former Workers File $75M Suit for CBA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laid-off customer service workers demand $75 million from
Northwest Airlines and the International Association of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers in a class-action complaint filed
Dec. 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, the CourtHouse Service reports.

Named plaintiff Debbie Allen claims their union told them not to
accept lower-paying jobs when they were fired and replaced.  She
further claims the union won a grievance, then reimbursed
workers who had ignored its advice and took the lower-paying
jobs, but left people who had followed orders without payment.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all other persons who
was employed at Northwest Airlines who were improperly laid off.

She wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) all putative class members are or were employees of
         Northwest;

     (b) all putative class members are covered by the same
         collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between IAM and
         Northwest;

     (c) all putative class members were adversely affected by
         Northwest's breach of the CBA;

     (d) IAM filed a class action grievance regarding
         Northwest's breach of the CBA, as more fullty described
         infra, on behalf of the putative class members as well
         as other IAM employees, but failed in its duty of fair
         representation to the putative class members; and

     (e) all putative class members are or were employed at
         Northwest as CSR's.

Plaintiff prays that:

     -- the court certify the foregoing plaintiff class
        representatives and all others similarly situated as a
        class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- the court issue a permanent injunction against Northwest
        enjoining Northwest from violating the plaintiffs'
        rights under the CBA and order Northwest to immediately
        recall the plaintiff class members to work at Northwest;

     -- the court permanently enjoin IAM from breaching its duty
        of fair representation to plaintiffs;

     -- the court award the plaintiff class members all back
        pay, including, but not limited to, medical benefits,
        pension benefits, vacation leave, salary, average
        overtime pay, sick leave, dental benefits, and other  
        associated job benefits against defendants jointly and
        severally in the amount of $150,000 each of the
        aggregate amount of $75,000,000;

     -- the court award the plaintiff class members all costs,
        expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred in this action;

     -- the court award the plaintiff class members all further
        relief to which they are entitled; and

     -- the plaintiffs demand a jury to try all issues when
        joined.

The suit is "Debbie Allen et al. v. Northwest Airlines et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Weestern District of
Tennessee.

Representing plaintiffs is:

           Ralph T. Gibson
           Bateman Gibson, LLC
           65 Union Avenue, Suite 1010
           Memphis, Tennessee 38103
           Phone: (901) 843-2466


PANTRY INC: Awaits Approval of N.C. Wage, Hour Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc. has yet to report that the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina has approved a
tentative settlement of the purported class action, “Barton, et
al. v. The Pantry, Inc.”

The suit asserted claims on behalf of the company's North
Carolina present and former employees for unpaid wages under
North Carolina Wage and Hour laws.   

It was filed in the Superior Court for Forsyth County, State of
North Carolina in June 2004.  Plaintiffs in the suit are
Constance Barton, Kimberly Clark, Wesley Clark, Tracie Hunt,
Eleanor Walters, Karen Meredith, Gilbert Breeden, LaCentia
Thompson, and Mathesia Peterson, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of classes of those similarly situated.

The suit sought an injunction against any unlawful practices,
damages, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees.  

On Aug. 17, 2004, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.  On July 18,
2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting certain
additional claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of present and former store employees in the southeastern
U.S.  It added one additional plaintiff, Chester Charneski.   

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to the
Superior Court for Forsyth County, which is presently pending
before the federal district court.

The company filed a motion to dismiss parts of the amended
complaint on Aug. 23, 2005.  On May 17, 2006, the court granted
in part and denied in part the company's motion, with the result
that the court will now determine if the case may proceed as a
class action under state law and/or a collective action under
federal law and if so, who among the company's present or former
employees will be members of the classes.

On Jan. 16, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to file a second
amended complaint asserting on behalf of themselves and classes
of those similarly situated state law claims for alleged unpaid
wages in all eleven states in which the company does business.

On Feb. 8, 2007, the company filed a motion opposing the filing
of the Seconded Amended Complaint.  The motion is pending before
the court.

On March 26, 2007, the company reached a proposed settlement in
principle with class counsel.  The proposed settlement will
establish a settlement fund of $1,000,000 from which payments
will be made to settlement class members and class counsel.

Additionally, the proposed settlement provides for the company
to bear all costs of sending notices, processing and preparing
payments and other administrative costs of the settlement.  

No other payments will be made to class members or class
counsel.  The proposed settlement is subject to court approvals.  

Final approval of the proposed settlement is expected to take
several months and there can be no assurance that the court will
approve the proposed settlement, according to the company's Nov.
26, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchanged
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2007.

The suit is “Barton, et al. v. The Pantry, Inc., Case No. 1:04-
cv-00748-NCT,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge N.C. Tilley, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Robert M. Elliot, Esq.
         J. Griffin Morgan, Esq.
         Elliot Pishko Morgan, P.A.
         426 Old Salem Road
         Winston-Salem, NC 27101
         Phone: 336-724-2828
         Fax: 336-714-4499
         E-mail: rmelliot@epmlaw.com

              - and -

         Charles Joseph, Esq.
         Joseph & Herzfeld, LLP
         757 Third Ave., 25th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-688-5640
         
Representing the company are:

         Kimberly Jo Korando, Esq.
         Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan
         POB 2611
         Raleigh NC 27602-2611
         Phone: 919-821-6671
         Fax: 919-821-6800
         E-mail: kkorando@smithlaw.com


PANTRY INC: Continues to Face Multiple “Hot Fuel” Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc. still faces several purported class actions
over motor fuel that was greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at
the time of sale, according to the company's Nov. 26, 2007 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchanged Commission
for the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2007.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action
lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the country
against numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  

Major petroleum companies and significant retailers in the
industry have been named as defendants in these lawsuits.  

To date, the company have been named as a defendant in seven
cases:

       -- one in Florida (Cozza, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
          et al., S.D. Fla., No. 9:07-cv-80156-DMM, filed
          2/16/07);

       -- one in Delaware (Becker, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum
          Company LLC, et al., D. Del., No. 1:07-cv-00136, filed
          3/7/07);

       -- one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie
          Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-
          00091-FL, filed 3/7/07);

       -- one in Alabama (Snable, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
          Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 7:07-cv-00535-LSC, filed
          3/26/07);

       -- one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
          Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed 6/5/07);
         
       -- one in Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac
          Petroleum, Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed
          7/13/07);

       -- one in South Carolina (Korleski v. BP Corporation
          North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-
          MDL, filed 9/24/07.

Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-
District Litigation, all of the cases, including the seven in
which the company are named, have been or will be transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas where the
cases will be consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the
defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the
amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted
gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.

These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the
defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their
retail motor fuel dispensing devices.

In certain of the cases, including some of the cases in which we
are named, plaintiffs also have alleged that because defendants
pay fuel taxes based on temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons,
but allegedly collect taxes from consumers in non-temperature
adjusted gallons, defendants receive a greater amount of tax
from consumers than they paid on the same gallon of fuel.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery
of excess taxes paid and punitive damages.  

Both types of cases seek compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and prejudgment interest.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com-- operates an  
independently operated convenience store chain in the U.S.  


PANTRY INC: Faces Suit in Alabama Alleging FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On Nov. 16, 2007, Arnesa Jones, Burdeen Smith, Patricia Taylor,
and Sandra Holt, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
classes of those similarly situated, filed suit against the
company.

The plaintiffs seek class action status and assert claims on
behalf of the company's present and former employees for unpaid
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit generally allege that they
were/are employed by the company as store managers, but their
managerial duties were non-existent or minimal compared to their
nonmanagerial duties.  

The plaintiffs further allege that the company required its
store managers to work over 40 hours per week for a salaried
amount without overtime compensation.

The suit seeks permission to give notice of this action to all
of the company's employees during the three years immediately
preceding the filing of this suit and to all other potential
plaintiffs who may be similarly situated.

The plaintiffs also seek damages, liquidated damages, costs,
pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees, and any injunctive
and/or declaratory relief to which they may be entitled.

The suit is “Jones, et al. v. The Pantry, Inc., Case No. CV-07-
P-2097-S,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama under Judge R. David Proctor.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kevin W. Jent
          Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis LLC
          The Kress Building, 301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
          Phone: 205-314-0549
          Fax: 205-254-1500
          E-mail: kjent@wcqp.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Tammy L. Baker, Esq.
          Jackson Lewis LLP
          800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 870
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: 205-332-3106
          Fax: 205-332-3131
          E-mail: BakerT@jacksonlewis.com


RJ REYNOLDS: Bands File Suit Over “Unauthorized” Cigarette Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Wenner Media are facing a lawsuit
for allegedly using the names of an Oakland band and a group
from Toronto in a cigarette ad without authorization, The
Examiner reports.

The suit was filed in Alameda County Superior Court by Xiu Xiu
of Oakland and F----d Up of Toronto.  R.J. Reynolds makes the
Camel cigarettes featured in the ads.  Wenner Media publishes
the Rolling Stone magazine that carried the ad insert.  The suit
claims defendants used the bands' names for commercial advantage
and unfair business practices.

The ad was ran in in the Nov. 15, 2007, fortieth anniversary
issue of Rolling Stone.

The suit was filed by San Francisco attorney Christopher Hun on
behalf of the two groups.  He is seeking class-action status for
the case so that members from more than 150 bands featured in
the ad could join the suit.

The suit states the publication of the groups' names without
their authorization, consent or prior knowledge was illegal.  It
seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The suit was filed in Alameda County because the issue of
Rolling Stone was at all material times marketed, distributed
and sold in Alameda County.  It says members of the two groups
have suffered "embarrassment, shock and anger" because the ad
makes it seem like they are endorsing a commercial product that
many of them have taken a stand against.


STAPLES INC: Reaches $38M Settlement for Calif. Wage, Hour Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Staples, Inc. reached a $38 million settlement for two class
actions brought against the company for alleged violations of
what is known as California’s “wage and hour” law.

                     Staples Overtime Cases

The first of these lawsuits was filed on Oct. 21, 1999.  These
cases were subsequently consolidated as the “Staples Overtime
Cases,” Superior Court for the State of California, County of
Orange, Civil Complex Center (Judicial Council Coordination
Proceeding No. 4235, Lead Case No. 816121).

The plaintiffs in the Staples Overtime Cases alleged that we
improperly classified store general managers and store assistant
managers as exempt under the California wage and hour law,
making such managers ineligible for overtime wages.

The plaintiffs sought to require the company to pay overtime
wages to the putative class for the period from Oct. 21, 1995 to
the present.  

The general manager and assistant manager classes were certified
by the court in November 2005.  Staples and the general manager
class in the Staples Overtime Cases settled in December 2006 for
$3.875 million.  The remaining class action lawsuit concerning
assistant managers continued.

                        Frigo Litigation

In September 2007, in the U.S. District for the Central District
of California, “Frigo v. Staples, Inc.,” another class and
collective action lawsuit was filed, purportedly on behalf of
all assistant managers in Staples’ California stores, including
those individuals who started working for Staples after the
previous class action notice was sent to the then current and
former assistant managers.

                           Settlement

Subject to court approval, Staples settled with the assistant
store manager class in both “Frigo” and the Staples Overtime
Cases on Nov. 2, 2007 for $38 million, with the settlements
covering a span of twelve years of potential damages, including
interest and class counsel’s attorneys’ fees, for a class of
more than 1,700 current and former associates.

Staples, Inc. -- http://www.staples.com/-- is an office  
products company. The Company sells a variety of office supplies
and services, business machines and related products, computers
and related products, and office furniture.  Its product
offering includes Staples, Quill and other branded products.  


TD AMERITRADE: Seeks to Dismiss Cal. Suit Over Privacy Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade, Inc. is seeking a dismissal of a purported class
action that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California accusing the company of
illegally selling e-mail addresses to spammers.

Named plaintiff Matthew Elvey alleges TD Ameritrade provides
spammers with its accountholders' private e-mail addresses,
which sent and continue to send unsolicited commercial e-mail
(particularly e-mail promoting certain penny stocks or stock
spam) to these private e-mail addresses (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 12, 2007).

The exposure of its accountholders' e-mail addresses allegedly
violated and breached TD Ameritrade's privacy policy.

Mr. Elvey brings this class action on behalf of two classes:

     -- TD AmeriTrade accountholders residing in California
        (California Resident Class); and

     -- Internet access services which received spam sent to TD
        AmeriTrade accountholder's e-mail addresses which is
        traceable to TD AmeriTrade's breach of its privacy
        policy (CAN SPAM Class).

The complaint alleges that TD AmeriTrade's provision of its
accountholder's e-mail addresses not only facilitated the
transmission of spam to its accountholder's e-mail addresses, it
did so in violation of express representations in it privacy
policy that it would not share its accountholder's personal
information with third parties.  

On behalf of the California Resident Class, Mr. Elvey seeks
injunctive relief under California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, equitable relief under California's Unfair Competition Law,
and damages and equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duty.

Further, TD AmeriTrade's provision of its accountholder's emails
facilitated and initiated the transmission of various stock spam
to their Internet facilities, in violation of the CAN SPAM Act
of 2003.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether TD AmeriTrade expose or provided e-mail
         addresses of the California Resident Class members to
         spammers;

     (b) whether such exposure violated TD AmeriTrade's Privacy
         Statement;

     (c) whether such exposure was intentional or unintentional
         on TD AmeriTrade's part;

     (d) whether TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement represented
         that TD AmeriTrade's services have characteristics,
         uses and benefits, or quantities which they do not
         have, in violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section
         1770(a)(14);

     (e) whether TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement represented
         that TD AmeriTrade's services confer or involves
         rights, remedies, obligations which they do not confer
         or involve, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
         Section 17200;

     (f) whether, in light of the exposure and provision of
         California Resident Class members' e-mail addresses to
         spammers, TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement was
         deceptive under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200;

     (g) whether TD AmeriTrade owed California Class members
         fiduciary duty as their broker;

     (h) whether TD AmeriTrade owed the California class members
         a fiduciary duty by dint of its collection of personal
         information under the Privacy Statement;

     (i) whether TD AmeriTrade breached such fiduciary duties
         through the violation of its Privacy Statement;

     (j) whether TD AmeriTrade failed to fully and accurately
         disclose the exposure and provision of California
         Resident Class members' e-mail addresses to spammers  
         and any underlying security breach;

     (k) whether, in light of Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.82, TD
         AmeriTrade's failure to disclose any security breach
         violated its fiduciary duties to the California
         Resident Class members;

     (l) whether, in light of its fiduciary duties, TD
         AmeriTrade's failure to disclose any security brach
         violated its fiduciary duties to the California
         Resident Class members;

     (m) whether TD AmeriTrade violated the CLRA;

     (n) whether TD AmeriTrade violated the UCL; and

     (o) whether plaintiff and the California Resident Class are
         entitled to relief, and the nature of such relief.

Plaintiff prays that court enter judgment and orders in their
favor and against defendants as follows:

     -- certifying the action as a class action and designating
        plaintiff and his counsel as representatives of the
        California Resident Class, the CAN SPAM Class;

     -- with respect to Counts I, II, and III, equitable relief
        for the California Resident Class, including an order
        for accounting, an order enjoining the misconduct
        alleged, restitution of property gained by this
        misconduct and disgorgement of profits obtained while
        the breach of fiduciary duty was on going, such as
        commissions on trades;

     -- with respect to Count III, damages in an amount to be
        determined at trial for the California Resident Class;

     -- with respect to Count IV, an injunction against further
        violations of CAN SPAM, statutory damages for each
        Traced Spam to each CAN SPAM class member, and
        reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
        under the CAN SPAM Act, for the CAN SPAM Class;

     -- awarding pre- and post-judgment interest; and

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

On July 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction.  

On July 18, 2007, TDA, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff’s amended complaint, which the plaintiff has opposed.

The parties, through counsel, have been discussing the matter
and exchanging information, according to the company's Nov. 26,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?209f

The suit is “Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
02852-BZ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Bernard Zimmerman.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
          2757 Leonis Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90058
          Phone: (323) 585-8696
          Fax: (323) 585-8198
          E-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 920-3072
          Fax: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kolaw.com

          - and -

          Ethan Mark Preston, Esq.
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 920-3072
          Fax: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: ep@eplaw.us


TD AMERITRADE: Account Holder Sues for Alleged Privacy Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging that the company illegally sold e-mail addresses to
spammers.

The suit was filed by Brad Zigler on Sept. 26, 2007.  The
factual allegations and the relief sought are substantially the
same as those in the case, “Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case
No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ.”

In general, the Elvey case alleges TD Ameritrade provides
spammers with its accountholders' private e-mail addresses,
which sent and continue to send unsolicited commercial e-mail
(particularly e-mail promoting certain penny stocks or stock
spam) to these private e-mail addresses (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 12, 2007).

The exposure of its accountholders' e-mail addresses allegedly
violated and breached TD Ameritrade's privacy policy.

Mr. Zigler’s complaint was brought on behalf of a purported
nationwide class of accountholders, according to the company's
Nov. 26, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
04903-MJJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Christopher Parisi
          Parisi & Havens LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: 818-990-1299
          Fax: 818-501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@msn.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Shirish Gupta, Esq.
          Mayer Brown LLP
          Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300, 3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Phone: (650) 331-2025
          Fax: (650) 331-2060
          E-mail: sgupta@mayerbrown.com


TOSHIBA AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Defective DLP Televisions
----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb of Lawyers and Settlements reports that Toshiba
America Consumer Products is facing a class action over defects
in certain models of its Toshiba DLP televisions.  The suit has
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.

The suit alleges that a lamp integral to the operation of the
television does not last nearly as long as the 6000 to 8000
hours the company's marketing materials claim, according to the
report.   Toshiba has stated that the problem is with a limited
number of units manufactured in 2005.  It has replaced defective
lamps free of charge, although it took months for buyers to get
a back-ordered lamps.

The problems came to light in the few months of 2006.  According
to the report, it appears as if these problems are continuing.


VIRGIN MOBILE: Long Distance Phone Customers Sue Over Excise Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. is one of 12 telecommunications carriers
named as defendants in a class action, entitled, “Belloni et al.
v. Verizon Communications et al.,” which was brought on behalf
of a purported class of long distance telephone customers.

The amended class action complaint filed in October 2006 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleges that the defendants unlawfully collected and remitted
money to the IRS in the guise of an excise tax that the
plaintiffs assert was inapplicable to the services provided.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
conditionally transferred the action to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with related actions.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages in
an amount not specified.

Plaintiffs generally claim that defendants are liable for the
full amount collected from customers and remitted to the
government, and damages flowing from the alleged failure to file
with the FCC and communicate to the public the non-applicability
of the Communications Excise Tax.

Plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees and costs, according to the
company's Oct. 10, 2007 Form S-1 Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is  
a provider of wireless communications services, offering
prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth
market.  The Company offers its products and services on a flat
per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified
quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each
case without requiring VMU’s customers to enter into long-term
contracts or commitments.  The Company markets its products and
services under the Virgin Mobile brand.  VMU has rights to use
the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services
through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin
Group.


WEIS MARKETS: Recalls Fruit Miniatures Due to Undeclared Walnuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weis Markets has initiated the voluntary recall of its Weis
Baker's 18-count Fruit Miniatures and two pound platters of
Mini-Fruit Diamonds in four varieties –- Nut Diamond, Cheese
Raspberry, Apricot and Mixed assortment. These products are
being recalled because they may contain walnuts which are not
identified on the label.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to walnuts run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

These products, which were sold in Weis Markets' Bakeries, have
been removed from store shelves and destroyed. The 18-count
Fruit miniatures come in clear plastic containers and the two
pound Mini Fruit Diamonds are packaged in a platter with a clear
top. The UPC and code dates are listed below.

This problem came to the company's attention after a customer
complaint. Concerned customers may return this product to Weis
Markets for a full refund. Customers with concerns or questions
about this recall may contact Weis Markets' customer hotline at
866-999-9347, Extension 3, which is open Monday through Friday 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.

Weis Baker's 18-count and two pound platters of Fruit Miniatures
– Nut Diamond, Cheese Raspberry and Apricot are sold at Weis
Markets including its Mr. Z's, King's and Scot's Lo-Cost units.
Weis Markets operates 156 stores in five states: Pennsylvania,
Maryland, New York, New Jersey and West Virginia.

The UPC Codes for the recalled product with a sell by date up to
1/5/08 are:

     UPC 210100-00000 18 Ct Fruit Miniatures
     UPC 210112-00000 2 lb Fruit Miniature Platters


* Securities Fraud Suits Up 43% to 166 in 2007 Standford Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
The number of companies sued in securities fraud class action
litigation rose 43 percent between 2006 and 2007, from 116 to
166. Although litigation activity for 2007 as a whole was 14
percent below the ten-year historical average (covering 1997-
2006) of 194 companies sued per year, activity jumped in the
second half of the year as the subprime mortgage crisis unfolded
and stock market price volatility increased.

One hundred companies were sued in the second half of the year,
a litigation rate that reversed a trend of eight consecutive
quarters with below average litigation activity. But this
increase may not signal a longer-term trend.

Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with
Cornerstone Research, observes that, "For the past two years,
securities fraud class action litigation has been driven by
market-wide events, such as the 2006 backdating scandals and the
2007 subprime crisis. If these systemic shocks are excluded from
consideration, the 'core' litigation rate continues to be
remarkably low. When litigation related to the subprime crisis
is excluded from the calculation--on the assumption that the
subprime crisis is a nonrecurring event--the resulting core
litigation rate remains well below historical norms. Measured as
a core litigation rate, 126 companies were sued in the full
calendar year, compared with the average core litigation rate
from 1997 through 2006 of 192."

John Gould, Vice President at Cornerstone Research and
contributor to the report, believes that the increase in filings
in the second half of 2007 raises as many questions as answers.
He notes, "Just a few months ago we were trying to pin down the
cause of the two-year lull in class action activity that began
in mid-2005. Unfortunately, the increase in filing activity in
2007 does not provide much insight into why filings were down in
the preceding years. While it is likely that both the subprime
crisis and the increase in stock market volatility contributed
to the increase in filings in the second half of the year, it is
not possible, as a technical matter, to separate these two
effects."

This past year also saw defendants prevailing in the JDS
Uniphase securities class action, a rare example of such
litigation reaching trial. Professor Grundfest commented that
"the JDS trial is an important landmark in modern securities
litigation. These cases rarely go to trial, and for the
defendants to win a total victory in a case that claimed $20
billion in damages demonstrates that not every case that makes
it past summary judgment has merit. The interesting question is
how and whether this trial result might cause plaintiffs to
modulate their settlement demands or embolden defendants to take
cases to trial."

                            Findings

The report's additional significant findings include:

     -- Stock Market Volatility and the Subprime Crisis Directly
        Correlate with Filing Activity

        Stock market volatility and the number of filings are
        correlated. On average, a 10 point increase in the
        quarterly average S&P 500 Implied Volatility Index (VIX)
        is associated with 12 additional litigations per
        quarter. In 2007, for instance, the number of companies
        sued jumped from 66 in the first two quarters to 100 in
        the last two, just as stock market volatility rose
        dramatically from historically low levels, partly due to           
        events related to the subprime crisis.

     -- Subprime Fallout Skyrockets Finance Filings

        The Finance sector led the way in securities class
        action activity with 47 companies sued in 2007, more
        than quadrupling 2006's 11 filings. The subprime fallout
        accounted for this spike, with 25 of the Finance sector
        filings associated with subprime market disclosure
        issues. The Consumer Non-Cyclical and Communications
        sectors had the second and third highest levels of
        litigation activity with 36 and 33 companies sued,
        respectively.

     -- Market Capitalization Losses Increase

        Disclosure Dollar Losses (DDLs)* increased 190 percent
        from 2006, from $52 billion to $151 billion. Also
        substantial is the 128 percent increase in Maximum
        Dollar Losses (MDLs)+, which rose from $293 billion in
        2006 to $669 billion in 2007. Incidences of "mega" DDL
        filings--cases associated with disclosure losses of $5             
        billion or more--were much higher, with nine mega  
        filings in 2007 compared with only one in 2006.

     -- Nasdaq and NYSE/Amex Firms Sued Almost As Often

        Somewhat departing from historical trends, in 2007 there
        were almost the same number of securities class action
        filings against companies listed on Nasdaq (77 filings)
        as against those on NYSE/Amex (73 filings). Both figures
        are higher than in 2006, which saw 60 filings for Nasdaq
        and 49 for NYSE/Amex. Consistent with other findings in
        the report, the 2007 filing rate was well below the
        historical average of 99 filings a year against Nasdaq
        firms, but in line with the historical average of 74
        filings a year against NYSE/Amex firms.

     -- Filing Activity Highest in Second Circuit

        The Second Circuit (New York) had the most securities  
        class action filings in 2007 with 58, followed by the
        Ninth Circuit (California) with 39, and the Eleventh
        Circuit (Florida/Georgia/Alabama) with 18. These three
        circuits were also the busiest in 2006, with the Second
        Circuit's 31 filings, the Ninth Circuit's 28, and the
        Eleventh Circuit's 13. Not surprisingly, the Second and
        Ninth Circuits retained the top two spots for DDLs and
        MDLs.  The Second Circuit had $93 billion in DDLs and
        $443 billion in MDLs while the Ninth Circuit recorded
        $21 billion in DDLs and $105 billion in MDLs. The Third
        Circuit (Delaware/New Jersey/Pennsylvania) was third
        with $12 billion in DDLs and $39 billion in MDLs.

     -- Large Cases Remain Unresolved

        Of the 2,218 securities class action cases filed since
        1996, 19 percent are continuing--primarily those filed
        in the past few years.  Among the 81 percent of cases
        that have been resolved, 41 percent were dismissed and
        59 percent settled. Among the dismissals, 73 percent
        occurred after the first ruling on motion to dismiss but
        before the ruling on summary judgment, as did 60 percent
        of the settled cases.

For the 1996-2001 cases, almost all of which have been resolved,
the median time to resolution was 33 months, with 36 months for
settled cases and 25 months for dismissed cases. Importantly, a
comparison of the market capitalization DDL of cases filed in
2000-02 shows that the median DDL of ongoing cases is more than
twice that of settled or dismissed cases. These data indicate
that cases with larger shareholder losses take longer to
resolve.

Professor Grundfest and Dr. Gould are available to speak to the
media about the report, titled Securities Class Action Case
Filings--2007: A Year in Review.

Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse on the
net: http://securities.stanford.edu

Cornerstone Research on the net: http://www.cornerstone.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BASIN WATER: Alfred Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC filed a class action
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 September
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 as follows:

     (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 and/or manipulated facts.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 25,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


COMCAST CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
purchasers of Comcast Corp. common stock during the period
between February 1, 2007 and December 4, 2007.

The complaint charges Comcast and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Comcast, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
cable operator in the United States.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
materially misled the investing public, thereby inflating the
price of Comcast's common stock by publicly issuing false and
misleading statements and failing to disclose:

     (i) that the Company was experiencing increased competition
         from satellite providers and telephone companies which
         was forcing it to spend more to attract and retain
         customers, and that this adverse trend was worsening;

    (ii) that the Company's level of capital expenditures
         necessary to upgrade and maintain its technology and
         equipment was rising beyond internal expectations; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
         statements about the Company and their earnings
         guidance were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
         times.

On October 25, 2007, Comcast issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the third quarter of 2007, the period
ended September 30, 2007. The Company reported that third-
quarter net income fell 54% from the prior year and that it was
experiencing slowing subscriber growth. Upon these
announcements, the price of Comcast common stock fell $2.57 per
share, or approximately 11%, to close at $21.28 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

Then, on December 4, 2007, after the markets closed, the Company
issued a press release announcing that it was cutting its 2007
user growth forecast of 6.5 million revenue generating units
("RGUs") to 6 million RGUs and that its revenue and cash flow
growth projections would fall short of expectations. Upon this
news, the price of Comcast common stock fell an additional $2.55
per share, or approximately 12%, to close at $18.18 per share,
on heavy trading volume.

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

For more information, contact:

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


                           *********


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

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

Copyright 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  * * *