CAR_Public/080108.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, January 8, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 5

                            Headlines


AMERIGAS INC: Continues to Face W.Va. Suit Over Propane Leak
ANALOG DEVICES: Court Sets Jan. 30 Hearing for Dismissal Motion
ATMOS ENERGY: Dismissal of Kans. Royalties Suit Under Appeal
BEARINGPOINT INC: Va. Court Denies Appeal in Securities Lawsuit
CABOT CORP: No Discovery Yet in “Anthony” Beryllium Hazards Suit

CABOT CORP: “Sheridan” Beryllium Hazards Suit in Discovery
CABOT CORP: Settles Carbon Black Lawsuit, Still Faces Others
CARDINAL HEALTH: Coughlin Stoia Gets $107M in Legal Fees
COMMERCE BANCORP: Faces 10 Lawsuits in N.J. Over TD Merger
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Insurer to Pay $3M to Settle Investors' Suit

FLORIDA: Activist Group to Take on Suit Against Pinellas Schools
FORWARD INDUSTRIES: Fla. Court Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuit
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: N.J. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Seeks to Dismiss Md. Market-Timing Lawsuit
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Certification Sought in Market-Timing Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: In Talks to Settle Suit Over Manifold Gaskets
GEORGIA: Human Rights Group Files Amicus Curiae in HB1059 Suit
GOOGLE INC: Responds to Amended Trademarks Infringement Suit
GRAVITY CO: N.Y. Court Okays $10M Settlement of ADS Buyers' Suit
KENTUCKY: Breckenridge Education Board Sued Over Segregation

MICROSOFT CORP: Xbox Live Subscribers Sue Over Service Glitches
PETSMART INC: Continues to Face Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
PETSMART INC: Still Faces Several Suits Over Tainted Animal Food
PULTE HOME: Illegally Uses Affiliated Mortgage Cos., Suit Says
ROYAL SEAFOOD: Recalls Dried Roach (Fish) Posing Health Risk

RSI HOME: Recalls Medicine Cabinets with Mirrors that can Detach
SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Face Ill. Suits Over Kmart Merger
SEARS ROEBUCK: Parties Settle “Ong” Securities Lawsuit in Ill.
SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued in Ill. for Failing to Protect Customer Info
TRICAM INDUSTRIES: Recalls Wagons on Paint's High Lead Level

TYCO INT'L: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit in N.H.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HOMBANC CORP: Chitwood Harley Files Ga. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AMERIGAS INC: Continues to Face W.Va. Suit Over Propane Leak
------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriGas, Inc. still faces a purported class action in the
Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia over a fire
that resulted from a propane leak, according to the company's
Nov. 29, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

In July 2001, the suit, “Swiger, et al. v. UGI/AmeriGas, Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 98-C-298,” was filed against the company.

Plaintiffs Samuel and Brenda Swiger and their son sustained
personal injuries and property damage as a result of a fire that
occurred when propane that leaked from an underground line
ignited.

The suit sought to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory
and punitive damages and attorney's fees, for themselves and on
behalf of persons in West Virginia for whom the defendants had
installed propane gas lines, allegedly resulting from the
defendants' failure to install underground propane lines at
depths required by applicable safety standards.

The court recently granted the plaintiffs' motion to include
customers acquired from Columbia Propane in August 2001 as
additional potential class members, and to amend their complaint
to name additional parties consistent with such ruling.

In 2003, the defendants settled the individual personal injury
and property damage claims of the Swigers.  Class counsel has
indicated that the class is seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12 million plus punitive damages, civil penalties,
and attorneys' fees.

In 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to include
customers acquired from Columbia Propane in August 2001 as
additional potential class members, and the plaintiffs amended
their complaint to name additional parties pursuant to such
ruling.

Class counsel has indicated that the class is seeking
compensatory damages in excess of $12 million plus punitive
damages, civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.

AmeriGas Partners, L.P. -- http://www.amerigas.com/-- is a  
retail propane distributor in the U.S.  As of Sept. 30, 2006,
the Company served approximately 1.3 million residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural and motor fuel customers
from approximately 600 district locations in 46 states.


ANALOG DEVICES: Court Sets Jan. 30 Hearing for Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts set a
Jan. 30, 2008 hearing for Analog Devices, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss a purported class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Oct. 13, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed
on behalf of participants in the company's Investment
Partnership Plan from Oct. 5, 2000 to the present.

The complaint named as defendants the company, certain officers
and directors, and the company's Investment Partnership Plan
Administration Committee.

The complaint alleges purported violations of federal law in
connection with the company's option granting practices during
the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, including breaches of
fiduciary duties owed to participants and beneficiaries of the
company's Investment Partnership Plan under ERISA.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, as well as
equitable and injunctive relief.  

On Nov. 22, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the complaint.  On Jan. 8, 2007, the
Plaintiff filed memoranda in opposition.   

On Jan. 22, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
filed further memoranda in support of the motions to dismiss.

The court has scheduled a hearing on defendants' motion to
dismiss on Jan. 30, 2008, according to the company's Nov. 30,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 3, 2007.

The suit is “Bendaoud v. Hodgson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11873-
NG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
         Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134
         E-mail: ted@shulaw.com
                 tshapiro@shulaw.com


ATMOS ENERGY: Dismissal of Kans. Royalties Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal regarding the dismissal of a lawsuit originally
filed by Quinque Operating Co., Tom Boles, and Robert Ditto in
September 1999 in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas
against Atmos Energy Corp., and more than 200 companies in the
natural gas industry.  

Plaintiffs, who purport to represent a class of royalty owners,
allege that the defendants have underpaid royalties on gas taken
from wells situated on non-federal and non-Indian lands in
Kansas, predicated upon allegations that the defendants' gas
measurements were inaccurate.  They have not specifically
alleged an amount of damages.  

The company is also a defendant, along with over 50 other
companies in the natural gas industry, in another proposed class
action filed in the same court by Will Price, Tom Boles, and The
Cooper Clarke Foundation in May 2003 involving similar
allegations.  

The company is also a defendant in another lawsuit, “In Re
Natural Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litigation,” involving similar
allegations filed in June 1997 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado, which was later transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, where it was
consolidated with approximately 50 additional lawsuits in
October 1999.  

On Oct. 20, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss this lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal order, which has yet
to be ruled on by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, according to the company's Nov. 29, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Atmos Energy Corp. -- http://www.atmosenergy.com/-- is engaged  
primarily in the regulated natural gas distribution and
transmission and storage businesses as well as other
nonregulated natural gas businesses.


BEARINGPOINT INC: Va. Court Denies Appeal in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
denied a motion by plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action
filed against Bearingpoint, Inc. to appeal a dismissal of the
case.

The suits filed after April 2005 claim that the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors
violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange
Act by, among other things, making materially misleading
statements between Aug. 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005 with respect
to the company's financial results in the company's Securities
and Exchange Commission filings and press releases.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court certified a class, appointed class
counsel and appointed a class representative.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2006 and the defendants,
including the company, subsequently filed a motion to dismiss
that complaint, which was fully briefed and heard on May 5,
2006.   

The Company was awaiting a ruling when, on March 23, 2007, the
court stayed the case, pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision
in the case of “Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs,” argued
before the Supreme Court on March 28, 2007.

On June 21, 2007, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the
Tellabs case, holding that to plead a strong inference of a
defendant’s fraudulent intent under the applicable federal
securities laws, a plaintiff must demonstrate that such an
inference is not merely reasonable, but cogent and at least as
compelling as any opposing inference of non-fraudulent intent.

On Sept. 12, 2007, the court dismissed with prejudice this
complaint, granting motions to dismiss filed by the Company and
the other named defendants.  

In granting the Company’s motion to dismiss, the court ruled
that the plaintiff failed to meet the scienter pleading
requirements set forth in the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, as amended.  

On Sept. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion that seeks a
reversal of the court’s order dismissing the case or an
amendment to the court’s order that would allow the plaintiffs
to replead.   

The Company filed its brief on Oct. 17, 2007, and although a
hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion was scheduled for Nov. 16,
2007, the court canceled the hearing as not necessary.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs’ motion to amend or alter the court’s Sept. 12, 2007
dismissal of this matter.

The suit is “In Re BearingPoint, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00454-TSE-TCB,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under Judge T. S.
Ellis, III with referral to Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steven Jeffrey Toll, Esq.
         Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
         1100 New York Ave., Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005-3965
         Phone: (202) 408-4600

Representing the defendant is:

         Charles William McIntyre, Jr., Esq.
         McGuireWoods, LLP
         1050 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1200
         Washington, DC 20036-5317
         Phone: (202) 857-1742


CABOT CORP: No Discovery Yet in “Anthony” Beryllium Hazards Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has yet to begin in a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over
health hazards posed by beryllium-containing products
manufactured by Cabot Corp.

In September 2006, Cabot was one of several named defendants in
"Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. et al.," a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of certain present
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge Inc. facility in
Sellersville, Pennsylvania.  

U.S. Gauge is a company alleged to have purchased the beryllium-
containing products from Cabot.  The class action alleges that
the present and former employees were exposed to beryllium dust
and fumes during the machining of beryllium-containing products
purchased from Cabot and that they are therefore entitled to
receive medical monitoring.   

Also named in the case are:

     -- Ametek, Inc. (third-party defendant);
     -- Admiral Metals Inc.;  
     -- Tube Methods, Inc.; and
     -- Small Tube Manufacturing Corp.  
      
Cabot has asserted claims against the other defendants and
another party.  Discovery in the case has not yet begun,
according to the company's Nov. 29, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. et al.,  
Case No. 2:06-cv-04419-JKG," filed in the U.S. District Court  
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge James Knoll  
Gardner.

Representing plaintiff Gary Anthony are:

         Ruben Honik, Esq.
         Golomb & Honik, PC
         121 South Broad Street, 9th Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-985-9177
         E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com

              - and -

         Stephan Matanovic, Esq.
         Golomb & Honik PC
         121 S. Broad Street, 9th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-985-9177
         E-mail: smatanovic@golombhonik.com

Representing the company is:  

         Neil S. Witkes, Esq.
         Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP
         401 City Avenue, Suite 500
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: (610) 660-5700
         Fax: 484-430-5711


CABOT CORP: “Sheridan” Beryllium Hazards Suit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has begun in the class action, “Sheridan et al. v. NGK
North America, Inc., et al.,” which names Cabot Corp. as one of
the defendants.  The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The class action complaint was originally filed in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on
behalf of persons that resided within a one-mile radius of the
company's former Reading, Pennsylvania facility for a period of
at least six months between 1950 and 2000.  In 1986, Cabot sold
a manufacturing facility in Reading to NGK Metals, Inc.

The class action alleges that these persons were exposed to
emissions of beryllium from the Reading plant and are,
therefore, entitled to receive medical monitoring.  

Discovery regarding class certification began in October 2007,
according to the company's Nov. 29, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Sheridan et al v. NGK North America, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-05510-JKG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania James Knoll Gardner.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Ruben Honik, Esq.
         Golomb & Honik, PC
         121 South Broad Street, 9th Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-985-9177
         E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com

Representing the defendants is:
   
         Thomas c. Delorenzo, Esq.
         Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin
         1845 Walnut Street, 19th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-575-2741
         Fax: 215-575-0856
         E-mail: tcdelorenzo@mdwcg.com


CABOT CORP: Settles Carbon Black Lawsuit, Still Faces Others
------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp. has settled several state court antitrust class
actions in relation to carbon black, but still continues to face
several similar lawsuits, according to the company's Nov. 29,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

During fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Company and others were
named in nine actions filed in Superior Court of the State of
California on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers
of carbon black in the state of California from as early as
November 1998 to the present.

During fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the Company and the other
defendants were named in actions filed in state courts in the
states of Florida, Kansas, Tennessee, South Dakota, North
Carolina and New Jersey on behalf of all indirect purchasers of
carbon black in these states.

Each of these complaints asserts violations under the applicable
state laws.  The plaintiffs specifically allege that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices
for carbon black sold in the United States during a specified
period.

The plaintiffs in the state actions also seek treble damages in
an unspecified amount and attorneys’ fees.

In October 2007, the Defendants settled the California state
actions which were accrued for as of September 30, 2007.  Court
approval of this settlement is pending.

Cabot Corp. -- http://www.cabot-corp.com-- is a global  
specialty chemicals and performance materials company.  The
Company's principal products are rubber blacks, performance
products, inkjet colorants, fumed metal oxides, aerogels,
tantalum and related products, and cesium formate drilling
fluids.  


CARDINAL HEALTH: Coughlin Stoia Gets $107M in Legal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio has awarded Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP more than $107 million in fees and $2.25
million in expenses for serving as the lead counsel for the
plaintiffs in the matter, “"In re Cardinal Health, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-575," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,” the
Securities Law360 reports.

Since July 2, 2004, purported purchasers of the company's
securities have filed 10 purported class action complaints. They
named the company and certain of its officers and directors,
asserting claims under the federal securities laws.   

The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities
during various periods beginning as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and
ending as late as July 26, 2004.   

The suits allege, among others, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a)
of the U.S. Exchange Act by issuing a series of false and/or
misleading statements concerning the company's financial
results, prospects and condition.   

Certain of the complaints also allege violations of Section 11
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming
material misstatements or omissions in prospectuses issued by
the company in connection with its acquisition of Bindley
Western Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in 2003.   

The alleged misstatements relate to the company's accounting for
recoveries relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin
manufacturers, and to classification of revenue in the company's
Pharmaceutical Distribution business as either operating revenue
or revenue from bulk deliveries to customer warehouses, and
other accounting and business model transition issues, including
reserve accounting.   

The alleged misstatements are claimed to have caused an
artificial inflation in the company's stock price during the
proposed class period.   

The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable
relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.   

On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions
were consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal
Health, Inc. Federal Securities Litigation."  

On Jan. 26, 2005, the court appointed the Pension Fund Group as
lead plaintiff in this consolidated action.   

On Apr. 22, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint naming the company, certain current and former
officers and employees and the company's external auditors as
defendants.  

The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and other
unspecified relief against the defendants.   

On Mar. 27, 2006, the court granted a motion to dismiss with
respect to the company's external auditors and a former officer
and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the company and
the other individual defendants.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the parties stipulated that the case could
proceed as a class action with a class comprised of all persons
other than Company officers or directors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company’s stock during the class period.

On April 23, 2007, the Company announced that it had determined
that it was necessary to record a reserve of $600 million for
the quarter ended March 31, 2007 in respect of the Cardinal
Health federal securities actions.

Since that announcement, the Company has negotiated a proposed
memorandum of understanding with counsel for the plaintiffs to
settle these actions, including an agreement by the Company to
pay $600 million.   

On May 2, 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the
proposed memorandum of understanding; however, the proposed
memorandum of understanding remained subject to approval by the
class representatives for the plaintiffs.

Under the MOU, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions
will be terminated for a payment of $600 million, an amount
reserved by the Company in the third quarter of fiscal 2007.  
The Company transferred the $600 million into an escrow account
on May 25, 2007.

The Company entered into a stipulation of settlement with
counsel for the plaintiffs, which was filed with the Court on
July 27, 2007.  

On July 31, 2007, the Court entered an Order preliminarily
approving the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27,
2007).

On Oct. 19, Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that
Judge Marbley approved the $600 million settlement (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 23, 2007).

In approving the settlement, Judge Marbley noted that the $600
million was an extraordinary result representing a significant
recovery for the class achieved by co-lead plaintiffs:

     * Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the LongView Collective
       Investment Fund,
     * LongView 600 Small Cap Collective Fund,
     * LongView VEBA 500 and LongView Quantitative Fund,
     * California Ironworkers Field Trust Funds,
     * New Mexico State Investment Council and PACE Industry
       Union-Management Pension Fund

The class included everyone who purchased Cardinal's publicly
traded securities between Oct. 24, 2000 and July 26, 2004. The
lead plaintiff, Pension Fund Group, an aggregation of four
pension fund groups, was also awarded about $82,500 in the
decision.

The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-575," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

        Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
        10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
        New York, NY, 10016
        Phone: 800-217-1522
        E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
  
        Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP
        600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza,   
        San Diego, CA, 92101
        Phone: 800.449.4900
        E-mail: support@milberg.com

             - and -

        John R. Climaco, Esq.
        Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli LPA
        1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900
        Cleveland, OH 44115-1891
        Phone: 216-621-8484
        Fax: 216-771-1632
        E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com

Representing the company are:

        John M. Newman, Jr., Esq.
        Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq.
        Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue
        North Point, 901 Lakeside Ave.
        Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
        Phone: 216-586-3939
        E-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com
                gjritts@jonesday.com


COMMERCE BANCORP: Faces 10 Lawsuits in N.J. Over TD Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancorp, Inc. is facing 10 putative shareholder class
actions related to its merger with Toronto-Dominion Bank, the
company disclosed in a Jan. 4 regulatory filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Oct. 2, 2007, the company and The Toronto-Dominion Bank
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which
TD will acquire the Company and the Company will become a
wholly-owned subsidiary of TD.  

The Company’s Board of Directors approved the Merger Agreement
and has adopted a resolution recommending the approval of the
Merger Agreement by the Company’s shareholders.  

Since the announcement on Oct. 2, 2007 of the signing of the
Merger Agreement, ten putative shareholder class actions related
to the merger have been filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey in Camden and Essex Counties.  

All of the complaints name as defendants the Company and certain
of the Company’s directors and officers, and seven of the ten
complaints name TD as a defendant.  

The complaints have been consolidated in the New Jersey Superior
Court, Camden County, Law Division (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
12, 2007).

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the consideration
agreed to in the Merger Agreement is inadequate and unfair to
the Company’s shareholders and that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger
Agreement and pursuing the plan of merger as described therein
by failing to maximize shareholder value, creating deterrents to
other offers and shareholder dissent (including by agreeing to
pay a termination fee to TD under certain circumstances set
forth in the Merger Agreement), and by putting the personal
interests of certain of the Company’s directors ahead of the
interests of the shareholders.  

The complaints further allege that TD aided and abetted the
directors in breaching their respective fiduciary duties.

The lawsuits seek injunctive, declaratory and other equitable
relief as well as monetary damages.  

"Although Commerce and TD believe that these lawsuits are
without merit, they sought a settlement in order to avoid the
burdens and expenses of further litigation," Commerce's proxy
statement said.

Commerce Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.commerceonline.com-- is a   
bank holding company.  The Company operates through a nationally
chartered bank subsidiary, Commerce Bank N.A. (Commerce N.A.),
and a New Jersey state-chartered bank subsidiary, Commerce
Bank/North (collectively, the banks).


CROCUS INVESTMENT: Insurer to Pay $3M to Settle Investors' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers involved in a suit filed by investors of failed Crocus
Investment Fund confirmed that parties are working on an out-of-
court settlement, Janet McFarland of Globe and Mail reports.

The Crocus Investors Association filed the suit after the labor
sponsored fund that was created by the Manitoba government
failed.  The fund's securities were frozen in late 2004.  A 2005
report by the province's Auditor-General alleged improper
accounting and abuses of travel and expense policies.

Shareholder lawyer Jay Prober said there is a settlement with
the insurer representing the fund's 18 former officers and
directors.  Details of the settlement will be released Jan. 14,
Mr. Prober said, according to CBC Manitoba reports.

Meanwhile, lawyer Patrick Riley, who represents former Crocus
chief executive Sherman Kreiner and chief financial officer Jane
Hawkins, confirmed that a settlement of $3.15 million to be paid
by Chubb Insurance Company of Canada has been reached in the
suit, according to Aldo Santin of Winnipeg Free Press.  Mr.
Riley said the settlement was made with no admission of fault or
liability on the part of the directors and officers.

The class action is still going ahead against other parties not
involved in the settlement, including the government of
Manitoba, the Manitoba Securities Commission, former auditors
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and former investment bankers BMO
Nesbitt Burns Inc. and Wellington West Capital Inc.

Bernie Bellan, who heads the Crocus Investors Association, said
the shareholders agreed that the settlement from Chubb would be
given to the court-appointed receiver, Russ Holmes of Deloitte,
who is liquidating the Crocus assets.

He said the settlement should allow receiver Deloitte & Touche
to begin distributing money it raised through liquidating the
fund's investments.  In its latest report, Deloitte said it has
$58.1 million in cash being held for investors, and is still
working to sell more assets.

The case returns to court this week when arguments will be made
over whether the suit should be certified.

Lead attorney for the investors is:

          David Klein, Esq.
          David Klein, Klein Lyons
          Suite 1100 - 1333 West Broadway    
          Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1
          Phone: (604) 874-7171


FLORIDA: Activist Group to Take on Suit Against Pinellas Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Black Student Achievement Council of Pinellas asked a
circuit judge to allow it to represent plaintiffs in a case
accusing the Pinellas School District of failing to educate
black children, Donna Winchester of the St. Petersburg Times
reports.

The group is composed of several community activist groups,
including the Concerned Organizations for Quality Education for
Black Students, the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance,
the Fred G. Minnis Bar Association, the Tampa Bay Area Muslim
Association and the International People's Democratic Uhuru
Movement.

The suit was filed in 2000 by William Crowley, who claimed the
white-run school system allowed his son to fall behind.  He
sought no monetary remuneration but instead, said he wanted the
system fixed.  Mr. Crowley withdrew from the case for personal
reasons.

The lawsuit cited a consistent gap between black and white high-
school graduates in Pinellas County. The suit cited that the
class failure rate is more than twice as high among blacks. It
also cited that discipline problems are 39 percent more frequent
than with white students.

Representing the plaintiffs is lawyer Guy Burns.  Representing
the district is:

          William A. Kebler, Esq.
          Fowler White Boggs Banker
          501 1st Avenue North
          Suite 900
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Phone: (727) 896-0601
          Fax: (727) 821-1968


FORWARD INDUSTRIES: Fla. Court Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
dismissed the purported class action filed by Lynn Finkelstein &
Company, Inc., on behalf of certain of its clients as attorney-
in-fact and all other similarly situated against:

     -- Jerome E. Ball,
     -- Douglas W. Sabra,
     -- Michael Schiffman, and
     -- Forward Industries, Inc.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on July 31, 2006.  The company was served
with the summons and the purported class action complaint on
Oct. 3, 2006.  

The complaint alleges that the Company during the purported
class period July 25, 2005, to Feb. 2, 2006, made certain
misrepresentations of fact, or failed to disclose certain
material facts, and violated certain generally accepted
accounting principles in the presentation of its financial
statements included in its periodic reports filed with the
Commission pursuant to the Exchange Act.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
and on May 29, 2007, by leave of the Court filed a second
amended complaint that purports to state substantially identical
claims.

The Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints in their
entirety for failure to satisfy the pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

On Sept. 14, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida issued an order granting the Company’s
motion to dismiss the purported class action complaint in the
matter.

The Court’s order dismissed the complaint with prejudice for
failure to satisfy the pleading requirements of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

In addition, plaintiff’s motion for oral argument was denied.  
Plaintiff elected not to appeal the Court’s orders within the
required thirty-day period, according to the company's Nov. 29,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Lynn Finkelstein v. Ball, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
21922-UU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-4750
          Fax: 392-4775
          E-mail: jvianale@vianalelaw.com

              - and -

          Barbara Podell, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
          Phone: 215-875-3000
          Fax: 875-4673

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Charles Christian Kline, Esq.
          White & Case
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900
          Miami, FL 33131-2352
          Phone: 305-371-2700
          Fax: 358-5744
          E-mail: ckline@whitecase.com


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: N.J. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
dismissed one of two purported securities fraud class actions
filed against Franklin Resources, Inc.

Previously, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries have
been named in two lawsuits alleging violations of federal
securities laws relating to marketing support payments and
payment of allegedly excessive commissions.

The lawsuits are styled as class actions, and seek, among other
relief, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.  The
suits are:

       -- “Alexander v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case
          No 06-7121 SI,” filed on Nov. 16, 2006 in the U.S.
          District Court for the Northern District of
          California; and

       -- “Ulferts v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
          06-7847 SI,” filed on Dec. 22, 2006 in the U.S.
          District Court for the Northern District of
          California.

On Feb. 14, 2007 and March 16, 2007, respectively, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California ordered
the transfer of these lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

The suits are now under the captions:

       -- “Alexander v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case
          No. 2:07-cv-00848 WJM-MF,” and

       -- “Ulferts v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
          2:07-cv-01309 WJM-MF.”

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuits on Sept. 25,
2007.  On November 27, 2007, the New Jersey District Court
granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Alexander lawsuit.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Ulferts lawsuit remains under
submission with the court.

Franklin Resources, Inc. -- http://www.franklintempleton.com--  
is an investment management company.  Through its wholly owned
direct and indirect subsidiaries, Franklin Resources provides
investment management and fund administration services to open-
end and closed-end investment companies, institutional accounts,
high-net-worth families, individuals and separate accounts in
the U.S. and internationally.  


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Seeks to Dismiss Md. Market-Timing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to
rule on motions seeking to dismiss a consolidated market
timing/late trading class action filed against Franklin
Resources, Inc. and certain of the Franklin Templeton  
mutual funds, current and former officers, employees, and  
directors.

The defendants have been named in multiple lawsuits in different  
federal courts in Nevada, California, Illinois, New York, and  
Florida.  Generally, the cases alleged violations of various
federal securities and state laws.  

Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, monetary damages,
restitution, removal of fund trustees, directors, advisers,
administrators, and distributors, rescission of management
contracts and 12b-1 plans, and/or attorneys' fees and costs.

Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to  
alleged arrangements to permit market timing and/or late trading  
activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the  
portfolio securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by the  
company's subsidiaries, allegedly resulting in market timing  
activity.  

The majority of these lawsuits duplicate, in whole or  
in part, the allegations asserted in the administrative  
complaint and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's  
findings regarding market timing in the SEC Order.  The lawsuits  
are styled as class actions, or derivative actions on behalf of  
either the named funds or the company.

To date, more than 400 similar lawsuits against at least 19  
different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal  
district courts throughout the country.  

Because these cases involve common questions of fact, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the creation
of a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, entitled "In re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation."  

The Judicial Panel then transferred similar cases from different
districts to the MDL for coordinated or consolidated pretrial  
proceedings.

As of Dec. 20, 2006, these market timing lawsuits are pending  
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, and in some  
instances, name certain officers, directors and/or Funds.  The  
suits that have been transferred to the MDL include:

      -- "Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.   
         03-770 GPM," filed on Nov. 19, 2003 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois;  

      -- "Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 03-859 MJR," filed on Dec. 16, 2003 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
         and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of Florida on March 29, 2004;   

      -- "Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case  
         No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ," filed on Feb. 6, 2004 in  
         the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada;   

      -- "Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04  
         0583 JSW," filed on Feb. 11, 2004 in the U.S. District  
         Court for the Northern District of California;

      -- "Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,  
         Case No. C 04 0584 JSW," filed on Feb. 11, 2004 in  
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of  
         California;   

      -- "Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. 8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP," filed on Feb. 11, 2004 in
         the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
         Florida;

      -- "Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ," filed on Feb. 12, 2004 in the  
         U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada;   

      -- "Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case  
         No. C 04 0598 MJJ," filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the  
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District  
         of California;  

      -- "McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         C 04 0628 PJH," filed on Feb. 13, 2004 in the U.S.  
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,  
         Case No. C 04 0639 SC," filed on Feb. 17, 2004 in the  
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District of  
         California;   

      -- "Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et  
         al., Case No. 04 CV 1330," filed on Feb. 18, 2004 in  
         the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of  
         New York;  

      -- "D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund,
         et al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC," filed on March 3, 2004
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C  
         04 0901 JL," filed on March 5, 2004 in the U.S.  
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0902 JL," filed on March 5, 2004 in the U.S.  
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;  

      -- "Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case
         No. C 04 0984 EMC," filed on March 10, 2004 in the  
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District  
         of California; and

      -- "Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489," filed
         on March 30, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs in the MDL filed consolidated amended complaints on  
Sept. 29, 2004.  On Feb. 25, 2005, defendants filed motions to  
dismiss, which are currently under submission with the court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
28, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No.  
1:04-md-15862-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
District of Maryland under Judge Andre M. Davis.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          H. Adam Prussin, Esq.
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross, LLP
          100 Park Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 1-212-661-1100
          Fax: 1-212-661-8665
          E-mail: haprussin@pomlaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Meredith Nelson Landy, Esq.
          O'Melveny and Myers, LLP
          2765 Sand Hill Rd.
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 16504732671
          Fax: 16504732601
          E-mail: mlandy@omm.com


FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Certification Sought in Market-Timing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in one market-timing lawsuit filed in Canada against
Franklin Templeton Investments Corp., a unit of Franklin
Resources, Inc., served the company with a motion for class
certification.

Franklin Templeton is a subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc.,
and the investment manager of Franklin Templeton's Canadian
mutual funds.  It faces three market-timing class actions filed
in Canada.

The suits are seeking, among other relief, monetary damages, an
order barring any increase in management fees for a period of
two years following judgment, and/or attorneys' fees and costs.

The suits are:

       -- "Huneault v. AGF Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 500-06-
          000256-046," filed on Oct. 25, 2004 in the Superior
          Court for the Province of Quebec, District of
          Montreal;

       -- "Heinrichs, et al. v. CI Mutual Funds, Inc., et al.,
          Case No. 04-CV-29700," filed on Dec. 17, 2004 in the
          Ontario Superior Court of Justice; and

       -- “Richardson v. Franklin Templeton Investments Corp.,
          Case No. 05-CV-303069,” filed on Dec. 23, 2005 in the
          Ontario Superior Court of Justice; and

       -- "Fischer, et al. v. IG Investment Management Ltd., et
          al. Case No. 06-CV-307599CP," filed on March 9, 2006
          in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

On July 25, 2007, plaintiffs in the Fischer lawsuit served
Franklin Templeton Investments Corp. with a motion for class
certification.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
28, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Franklin Resources, Inc. -- http://www.franklintempleton.com--  
is an investment management company.  Through its wholly owned
direct and indirect subsidiaries, Franklin Resources provides
investment management and fund administration services to open-
end and closed-end investment companies, institutional accounts,
high-net-worth families, individuals and separate accounts in
the U.S. and internationally.  


GENERAL MOTORS: In Talks to Settle Suit Over Manifold Gaskets
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit over intake manifold gaskets installed in
General Motors vehicles have agreed to postpone a December
certification motion to the week of February 18, 2008 to allow
settlement discussions between the parties to proceed.

A Web site set up by lawyers from Stevenson LLP and Koskie
Minsky LLP, disclosed that a certification motion in the suit
was set December 3-5, 2007.  

GM made it clear they would vigorously oppose a national class.
The defendants brought a motion to strike out parts of the claim
and the plaintiffs’ materials. This motion was refused by
Justice Cullity on June 8, 2007. General Motors then sought
leave to appeal to Divisional Court. Leave to appeal was denied
on June 26, 2007.

The defendants filed their responding certification materials on
August 16, 2007. The plaintiffs served reply materials in
September 2007.

During September and October 2007, cross-examinations of the
various witnesses and scientific experts were conducted by both
sides.

In light of the evidence now gathered, the parties have begun to
explore settlement possibilities. Counsel have agreed to
postpone the December certification motion to the week of
February 18, 2008, to allow discussions between the parties to
proceed.

The suit was filed by owners of General Motors vehicles in Nova
Scotia against General Motors of Canada Ltd. and its U.S. parent
General Motors Corp. in Ontario.

The suit alleges that certain Buicks, Chevrolets, Oldsmobiles
and Pontiacs made between 1995 and 2003 have a defective intake
manifold gasket that degrades prematurely, causing coolant to
leak into the engine, and damaging it, the report said.  The
gasket regulates the flow of air and fuel into the cylinders.  
The allegation is that the gasket degrades prematurely causing
coolant to leak into the engine.

A statement of claim filed with courts in several provinces
alleges the defect was corrected when General Motors introduced
a new gasket in 2004 but that General Motors was negligent
because it failed to inform customers and did not issue a recall
on affected vehicles.   The claim dates back to 1995.

The claim, therefore, is based on negligence, including the
failure to warn the class of the problems and to rectify the
problems.  The damages are difficult to assess but a claim has
been made for restitution of the defendants' savings, which are
estimated to be about $1,200,000,000 in Canada alone, according
to the Web site.

Colin Stevenson of Toronto law firm Stevenson LLP and Harvin
Pitc as well as Koskie Minsky LLP are representing the
plaintiffs in Canada.  They have set up the Web site
http://www.gmcanadianclassaction.cafor customers to submit a   
claim.


GEORGIA: Human Rights Group Files Amicus Curiae in HB1059 Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Curiae, the Law Office of the Southern Center for Human
Rights, represents a certified class of all 14,500 people on
Georgia's sex offender registry in a challenge to the residency
and employment restrictions codified at Ga. Code Ann. SS 42-1-
15(a).  On behalf of the plaintiff class in "the Whitaker v.
Perdue, Civil Action No. 4:06-cv-140-CC," and pursuant to Ga.
Ct. R. 23, the Southern Center for Human Rights asked the court
on Dec. 4 to:

     (1) deny the motion for reconsideration filed in this case
         on Nov. 29; or

     (2) grant the motion and declare that Ga. Code Ann. S 42-1-
         15(a) is unenforceable, an interpretation that has been
         adopted and endorsed by the Office of the Attorney
         General and the Georgia Sheriffs' Association.

On Nov. 21, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed in part and
reversed in part a trial court ruling denying a request for
declaratory relief filed by appellant Anthony Mann.  Mr. Mann is
a registered sexual offender, see OCGA S 42-1-12(a) (20) (B) who
previously challenged the predecessor to OCGA S 42-1-15 when its
application required him to vacate his residence at his parents'
home.

In the ruling, the Supreme court concluded that although OCGA
S42-1-15(b) (1) has the functional effect of ousting appellant
physically from his business, appellant has not shown that the
regulation has unduly burdened him financially or adversely
affected his reasonable investment-backed expectations in his
business.  It concluded that appellant failed to establish that
the economic impact of the work restriction, as applied to him,
effected an unconstitutional taking of appellant's property
interest in his business.  The trial court did not err by deying
appellant's request for declaratory relief.

                        Whitaker v. Perdue

The suit was filed on June 20, 2006 by registered sex offenders
Wendy Whitaker, Joseph Linaweaver, Janet Jenkins Allison, James
Victor Wilson, Jeffery York, Dewayne Owens, Al Reginald Marks,
Lori Sue Collins, and Reverend Joel Jones, challenging certain
provisions of Act No. 571 (HB 1059).

                            HB 1059

The Act provides, in pertinent part, that no individual required
to register as a sex offender "shall reside or loiter within
1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school, or area
where minors congregate."

The Act defines "areas where minors congregate" as including
"school bus stops," and "school bus stops" are defined as school
bus stops "as designated by local school boards of education or
by a private school."  In addition, the Act provides that no
individual required to register as a sex offender "shall be
employed by any child care facility, school, church, or by any
business entity that is located within 1,000 feet of a child
care facility, a school, or a church."

Defendants in the case were:

     -- Gov. Sonny Perdue;
     -- Georgia Attorney;
     -- General Thurbert E. Baker;
     -- Scot Dean, Chief of Probation in Cedartown; and
     -- Polk County Sheriff Robert Sparks.

The Act was scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2006.  On July
28, 2006, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as to the Sheriffs of
Burke and Richmond counties, insofar as it appeared that the
local school boards of education in those counties had not
designated school bus stops, and directing Plaintiffs and the
Sheriff of Columbia County to file a consent order reflecting
the agreement reached at the hearing.

That same day, the Court entered an Order certifying, for the
duration of this litigation, a Plaintiff class consisting of all
persons who are registered, who are required to register, or who
in the future will be required to register as sex offenders
under Georgia law.  Plaintiff Reverend Joel Jones was not a
member of the Plaintiff class in this case.

On August 24, 2006, the Court entered an Order certifying, for
the duration of this litigation, a Defendant class consisting of
all Sheriffs in the State of Georgia and naming the Sheriff of
Columbia County as the class representative.

                             Claims

Plaintiff alleges that the Act will force thousands of
registered sex offenders from their homes, jobs, and churches.
Plaintiffs contend that the Act is unconstitutional because it
violates:

     (1) a section in the U.S. Const. art. that prohibits ex
         post facto laws, Bills of Attainder, and laws that
         impair the obligation of contracts;

     (2) the procedural component of the Due Process Clause;

     (3) the substantive component of the Due Process Clause and
         the right to family privacy;

     (4) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
         Act;

     (5) the Free Exercise Clause and the right to freedom of
         association;

     (6) the Takings Clause;

     (7) the right to interstate and intrastate travel; and

     (8) the Eight Amendment's prohibition on cruel and
         unusual punishment.

Plaintiffs request that the Court declare certain portions of
the Act unconstitutional and permanently enjoin the enforcement
of those provisions.

                            Rulings

In March 2007, defendants' Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer
and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint are denied
as moot.  The court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, but allowed Plaintiffs to
amend their complaint within 20 days of the date of this Order
to assert a claim that the provision of the Act that prohibits
registered sex offenders from working within 1,000 feet of
churches violates the Free Exercise Clause and to assert
vagueness and overbreadth claims.

The suit is "Whitaker et al. v. Perdue et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-
00140-CC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Clarence Cooper.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephen Brooks Bright, Esq.
          Southern Center for Human Rights
          83 Poplar Street, N.W.
          Atlanta GA 30303-2122
          Phone: 404-688-1202
          E-mail: sbright@schr.org

          - and -

          Margaret Fletcher, Esq.
          Garrett of the ACLU Foundation of Georgia, Inc.
          Suite 514 75 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303,
          Phone: 404-523-6201
          E-mail: mgarrett@acluga.org


GOOGLE INC: Responds to Amended Trademarks Infringement Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
YouTube and Google Inc. answered lead plaintiffs’ amended
complaint in the suit, "The Football Association Premier League
Limited, et al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al." on Dec. 3.

In May, the Football Association Premier League Limited, the
premier league of English soccer, and independent music
publisher Bourne Co. (together with its affiliate Murbo Muis
Publishing Inc.) filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to stop the alleged
unauthorized and uncompensated use of their creative and other
copyrighted works and those of all other similarly situated
copyright holders on the YouTube.com website (Class Action
Reporter, May 7, 2007).

The lawsuit names as defendants:

     -- YouTube, Inc.;
  
     -- YouTube LLC; as well as

     -- YouTube's corporate parent, Google, Inc.

According to the complaint, "Defendants are pursuing a
deliberate strategy of engaging in, permitting, encouraging, and
facilitating massive copyright infringement on the YouTube
website" in order to build traffic to the site.

The complaint alleges that the YouTube defendants have long been
aware of this pattern of massive infringement yet purposefully
refrain from employing readily available measures to curb it
because the defendants understand that the popularity of
ouTube.com (and its value as a platform for other uses) derive
primarily from the ability of website visitors to access, view,
and otherwise exploit copyrighted materials without having to
pay the owners of those materials.

The complaint further alleges that it was this very business
model that persuaded defendant Google to pay $1.65 billion to
purchase YouTube in November 2006, and that Google has endorsed
and directed YouTube's infringing conduct since becoming its
corporate parent.

On Nov. 16, The Football Association Premier League and Bourne
Co. filed an amended class action complaint that includes 15 new
named plaintiffs:

     -- Cherry Lane Music Publishing Co., Inc.,
     -- CAL IV Entertainment LLC,
     -- Robert Tur d/b/a Los Angeles News Service,
     -- National Music Publishers' Association,
     -- The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization,
     -- State Three Music U.S., Inc.,
     -- Edward B. Marks Music Co.,
     -- Freddy Bienstock Music Co., d/ba/Bienstock Publishing
        Co.,
     -- Alley Music Corp.,
     -- X-ray Dog Music Inc.,
     -- Federation Francaise de Tennis,
     -- The Scottish Premier League Ltd.,
     -- The Music Force Media Group LLC,
     -- The Music Force LLC,
     -- Sin-Drome Records Ltd.

Previously, Premier League and Bourne also announced that the
two law firms representing them in the proposed class action:

     * Proskauer Rose LLP, and
     * Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

have been appointed Class counsel on an interim basis by the
Judge presiding over the case (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7,
2007).

The YouTube Class Action on the net:
http://www.youtubeclassaction.com/

The suit is "The Football Association Premier League Limited, et
al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Louis M. Solomon, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Phone: (212) 969-3000

          - and -

          Max W. Berger, Esq.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 554-1400


GRAVITY CO: N.Y. Court Okays $10M Settlement of ADS Buyers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted approval to a settlement
of a consolidated class action “Blackmoss Investments Inc. vs.
GRAVITY Co., Ltd., No. 1:05-CV-04804-LAP.”

Under the terms of the November 21, 2007 settlement, a fund of
US$10 million will be created to settle the claims of a class
consisting of persons who purchased American Depository Shares
of the Company during the period from February 7, 2005 through
November 10, 2005, inclusive. The Company's share of the
settlement fund will be US$5 million.

Costs of administering the settlement, as well as Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees of 20.56% of the settlement amount and related
expenses, will be paid out of the settlement fund before
distributions are made to class members. In exchange, the
Company and its current and former directors and officers, as
well as other third parties, will be released from liability for
the claims asserted by the class.

The Company has denied and continues to deny any and all
allegations of wrongdoing in connection with this matter, but
believes that given the uncertainties and costs associated with
the litigation, the settlement was in the best interests of the
Company and its shareholders.

Based in Korea, GRAVITY is a developer and distributor of online
games. GRAVITY's principal product, Ragnarok Online(tm), is a
popular online game in many markets, including Japan, Taiwan and
Thailand, and is currently commercially offered in 22 markets.
For more information, please visit http://www.gravity.co.kr.

The suit is “Blackmoss Investments Inc. v. Gravity Co., Ltd. et
al., Case Number: 1:2005cv04804,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Loretta
A. Preska.


KENTUCKY: Breckenridge Education Board Sued Over Segregation
------------------------------------------------------------
The Breckenridge County Board of Education is facing a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky accusing it of illegally assigning
half of its middle school students to sex-segregated classes,
without reason and without informing the students or parents of
it, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Eight parents brought the action pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedures Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of all
present, potential, and future students at Breckinridge County
Middle School whose rights to equal education opportunity
without discrimination on the basis of sex are violated by the
mandatory single-sex instruction based on overboard gender
stereotype proposed by the Middle School.

Plaintiffs request that court enter judgment in their favor as
follows:

     -- certifying the proposed class of plaintiffs;

     -- enjoining defendants from segregating any class or
        educational program by sex, unless such segregation
        complies with the letter ot Title IX, 20 USC Sections
        1681-1688 and 34 CFR Section 106.34(b)(i), (ii), (iii)
        and (iv);

     -- permanently enjoining all defendants, their agents and
        employees, and all persons in concert or participation
        with them, including any successors and assigns, to take
        all affirmative steps necessary to remedy the past and
        present effects of the illegal, discriminatory conduct
        described and to prevent similar occurrences in the
        future;

     -- declaring that the actions of defendants described
        constitute discrimination on the basis of sex in
        violation of plaintiffs' rights under federal and state
        law;

     -- awarding monetary damages, under Title IX, based on
        defendants' intentional misconduct and intentional
        violation of plaintiffs' rights to be free of
        discrimination based on sex, to fairly and reasonably
        compensate plaintiffs for the deprivation of their
        rights;

     -- awarding monetary damages, under 42 USC Section 1983, to
        fairly and reasonably compensate plaintiffs for
        defendants' intentional and wrongful violation of
        plaintiffs' rights to equal protection under the laws,
        as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
        States Constitution;

     -- awarding plaintiffs a compensatory education award to
        fairly and reasonably compensate plaintiffs for the loss
        of education based on the unlawful discrimination, based
        on sex, and arbitrarily imposed on the Middle School
        population with no regard to plaintiffs' fundamental
        right to education on equal terms;

     -- awarding plaintiffs their expenses, costs, and fees
        associated with the filing and maintenance of this
        action, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to
        42 USC Section 1988 and any other applicable provision
        of law; and

     -- awarding other equitable and monetary relief as the
        court deems just and proper.

The suit is "ANA et al. v. Breckinridge County (KY) Board of
Education et al., Case No.3:08CV-4-S," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Ninamary Buba Maginnis, Esq.
          Maginnis Law Office
          2212 Bradford DRive, Suite 102
          Louisville, Kentucky 40218
          Phone: (502) 458-5875
          Fax: (502) 458-4790
          E-mail: maginnislaw@yahoo.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Xbox Live Subscribers Sue Over Service Glitches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Gibson Law firm filed a class action against Microsoft Corp.
on behalf of three Xbox Live subscribers who allegedly suffered
glitches and interruptions in their connections over Christmas,
reports say.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of Texas on Jan. 4 on behalf of Texas residents Shannon
Smith, Keith Kay, and Orlando Perez.  They claim breach of
contract, breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation.

The suit states that in December 2007, XBOX Live crashed and
prevented Plaintiffs around the world from accessing online play
for several weeks. XBOX Live is Microsoft’s gaming membership
that provides gamers to access Microsoft’s servers for online
gaming. XBOX Live continues to deny subscribers access and has
even issued apologies for their failure to correct server
problems. Over eight (8) million gamers worldwide subscribe to
XBOX Live.

Specifically, interruptions in game-play kicked many Plaintiffs
offline of XBOX Live and displayed messages such as “Server
Error.” Other Plaintiffs have been unable sign into XBOX Live at
all or use the advertised features such as “match-make” or
“account recovery,”despite paying for these services in their
yearly subscription dues. Many Plaintiffs purchased new
subscriptions specifically to play online during the holidays.
In the last three months of 2007, Microsoft sold over four (4)
million XBOX console units. This increase in console purchases
led to a substantial increase in XBOX Live subscriptions.

Microsoft knew the increase in subscriptions would increase
game-play on its servers yet failed to provide adequate access
and service to XBOX Live and its subscribers.

Plaintiffs purchased XBOX Live accounts in expectation of
enhancing their gaming experience via online play, usually
costing each Plaintiff between $30 and $50 per year for a
subscription. Subscribers can then play their XBOX console
online amongst other subscribers. Plaintiffs represent a class
of subscribers that have been denied access to XBOX Live
beginning in December 2007.

Allegedly, defendant’s breach includes:

     -- failing to allow Plaintiffs to sign on or use XBOX Live;

     -- failing to provide Plaintiffs with the full features
        paid for, including, but not limited to, “match-making”
        and “account recovery;” and

     -- failing to provide uninterrupted service to online
        gamers.

The breach of warranty claim allegedly arises from the company's
failure to provide adequate access to XBOX Live.  The negligence
claim allegedly arises from Microsoft's failure to exercise
reasonable care or competence in communicating information
regarding the nature of the services offered through XBOX Live.

Microsoft attributed the problem to a huge influx of new gamers
during the holiday period.  It had offered a free Xbox Live
Arcade game to all subscribers to make amends.

The suit seeks unspecified damages including expenses associated
with Xbox Live memberships as well as an award of attorney fees
and costs.

The suit is Case 4:08-cv-00061 filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Jason A. Gibson, Esq.
           3800 Buffalo Speedway Suite 550
           Houston, Texas 77098
           Phone: (713) 650-1010
           Fax: (713) 650-1011


PETSMART INC: Continues to Face Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart, Inc. still faces two labor-related class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

In October 2006, two lawsuits were filed against the company in
California State Court, on behalf of putative classes of current
and former California employees.

The first suit, “Sorenson v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 3,
2006,” and the plaintiff, a former dog groomer, alleges claims
on behalf of other non-exempt hourly workers as to whether she
and other employees received their required meal and rest
breaks.  

The second suit, “Enabnit v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 12,
2006,” and the plaintiff seeks principally to represent
employees providing pet grooming services, for alleged meal and
rest period violations, and to represent a class of employees
whose paychecks were allegedly not compliant with the California
Labor Code.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, penalties under the
California Labor Code, restitution, attorney fees, costs, and
prejudgment interest.

In November 2006, the company removed both actions to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, where
they are currently in the early stages of litigation.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July Oct. 28, 2007.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty  
provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North
America.  The Company has identified a group of pet owners that
the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets
and consider their pets family members.  


PETSMART INC: Still Faces Several Suits Over Tainted Animal Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart, Inc. continues to face several purported class actions
over tainted animal food, including “Rozman v. Menu Foods
Midwest Corp., et al.,” which is now pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The suit is seeking the court’s approval of a class action and
an award of damages on behalf of pet owners as a result of
injuries to and/or deaths of pets arising from the alleged
consumption of animal food tainted with melamine.

                 Other Similar Litigation

The Company has also been named as a co-defendant in several
other similar lawsuits brought by plaintiffs, individually and
on behalf of putative classes of individuals, in jurisdictions
across North America seeking damages arising from the
defendants’ manufacture, distribution and sale of animal food.

Several of these cases have been consolidated by the Judicial
Panel in Multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July Oct. 28, 2007.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty  
provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North
America.  The Company has identified a group of pet owners that
the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets
and consider their pets family members.


PULTE HOME: Illegally Uses Affiliated Mortgage Cos., Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pulte Home Corp. and Del Webb Homes are facing a class-action
complaint accusing it of illegally requiring homebuyers to use
their affiliated mortgage companies, Pulte Mortgage and Dell
Webb Mortgage Corp., to buy a home.

The suit was filed Dec. 4, 2007 in the Superior Court of the
state of California for the County of Placer.  Named plaintiff
Joseph A. De Souza brings this action on behalf of:

     (i) residential mortgage borrowers who purchased a home
         from Pulte;

    (ii) received a mortgage loan for such home purchase that
         originated, processed and/or brokered by Del Webb;
         and/or

   (iii) bought title insurance for such home purchase from a
         title company designated by and affiliated with Pulte,
         wherein the borrowers were required by the literal
         terms of their real estate purchase agreement with
         Pulte to finance their purchase through, and or
         processed by and/or brokered by Pulte Mortgage and
         obtain title insurance through a Pulte-affiliated title
         company, or else forfeit various discounts off of the
         purchase price and/or closing costs for their new home.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the relationship between and among Pulte, Pulte
         Mortgage and the title companies and title insurers
         constitute an "affiliated business arrangement" within
         the meaning of RESPA;

     (b) whether defendants' affiliated business arrangement
         fail to meet the prerequisites for exemption from
         liability under RESPA;

     (c) whether defendants engaged in an illegal referral
         scheme, in violation of Section 2607 of RESPA;

     (d) whether Pulte accepted fees, kickbacks, rebates or
         things of value pursuant to any agreements or
         understandings, oral or otherwise, from Title
         Company(s) and or Title Insurance company(s) for  
         referrals of business or services or insurance incident
         to or a part of a real estate settlement service for
         the purchase of a Pulte home from Pulte;

     (e) whether part of the title insurance premiums purchased
         at the time of closing purchase of homes from Pulte
         paid to a reinsurance company(s) affiliated with Pulte;

     (f) whether Pulte uniformly require its customers, directly
         or indirectly, to obtain title insurance through and or
         from a company selected by Pulte, within the meaning of
         Section 2608 of RESPA; and

     (g) whether Pulte required its customers to obtain title
         insurance through and/or from a company selected or
         recommended by Pulte within the meaning, violate
         Section 2608 of RESPA.

Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

     -- for an order certifying this action may be maintained as
        a class action;

     -- for general, special and consequential damages according
        to proof;

     -- for punitive and exemplary damages;

     -- for statutory damages pursuant to Real Estate Settlement
        Procedures Act;

     -- for equitable entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs
        from the common fund;

     -- for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to California
        Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5;

     -- for preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting
        defendants from engaging in the unlawful, unfair, and/or
        fraudulent conduct alleged, including:

        (1) an injunction prohibiting defendants, in connection
            with a transaction involving a federally mortgage
            loan, from requiring that its customers use any
            particular title insurer or title company for a
            transaction;

        (2) an injunction prohibiting defendants, in connection
            with a transaction involving a federally related
            mortgage loan, from using sales contracts which
            state, in substance, that defendants select the
            title insurer;

        (3) an injunction prohibiting defendants from charging
            for escrow fees or escrow related services that have
            not bee filled with the CDI and approved.

The suit is "Joseph A. De Souza et al. v, Pulte Home
corporation, et al., Case No. SCV 22055," filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Placer.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Wayne S. Kreger
          Paul D. Stevens
          Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, California 90405
          Phone: (310) 396-9600
          Fax: (310) 396-9635


ROYAL SEAFOOD: Recalls Dried Roach (Fish) Posing Health Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Seafood Baza Inc., located at 50-01 Rockaway Beach Blvd.,
Far Rockaway, New York is recalling packages of "Dried Roach"
(Fish) because the product may be contaminated with Clostridium
Botulinum, which can cause botulism, a serious and potentially
fatal food borne illness.

The sale of this type of fish is prohibited under New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets regulations because
Clostridium botulinum spores are more likely to be concentrated
in the viscera than in any other portion of fish. Uneviscerated
fish has been linked to outbreaks of botulism poisoning.
Symptoms of botulism include blurred or double vision, general
weakness, and poor reflexes, difficulty swallowing and
respiratory paralysis.

The recalled "Dried Roach" (Fish) was distributed to Net Cost
Market stores located in Brooklyn and Staten Island, New York
and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The product comes in clear
plastic pouches of various weights with a product code 20.03.08.
It is product of Latvia.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem. Consumers who have "Dried Roach" (Fish) are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for full refund.

Consumers with questions should contact the company at 1-888-
776-3958.


RSI HOME: Recalls Medicine Cabinets with Mirrors that can Detach
----------------------------------------------------------------
RSI Home Products, of Anaheim, Calif., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
8,600 Medicine Cabinets.

The company said the medicine cabinet's mirrors can separate and
break, posing a laceration hazard.

RSI has received two reports of mirrors detaching and breaking.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves three styles of bathroom medicine cabinets
sold in 30-, 36- and 48-inch sizes with top lights and three
beveled mirror doors: Estate by RSI Tri-view cabinets with four
to six lights, crown molding and three finishes: white, solid
oak and maple; Insignia with a wide variety of finishes and
manufactured to consumer specifications provided through Lowe's;
MasterBath cabinets with a wide variety of finishes and
manufactured to consumer specifications provided through The
Home Depot.

These recalled medicine cabinets were manufactured in the United
States and were sold at Lowe's Retail Outlet stores nationwide
and at http://www.Lowes.comfrom August 2007 through October  
2007 for between $140 and $220 (Estate by RSI); Lowe's Retail
Outlet stores nationwide during September 2007 for between $170
and $250 (Insignia); The Home Depot Retail Outlet stores
nationwide during September 2007 for between $160 and $360
(MasterBath).

Pictures of the recalled medicine cabinets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08533a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08533b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove and safely dispose
of the cabinet's mirrors. Consumers should contact RSI to
receive free replacement mirrors.

For additional information, contact RSI toll-free at (888) 774-
8062 between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web sites: http://www.estatebath.com,or
http://www.insigniacabinets.com,or http://www.masterbath.com


SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Face Ill. Suits Over Kmart Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corp. still faces several purported class actions
in Illinois in relation to its merger with Kmart Holding Corp.,
according to the company's Nov. 30, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Nov. 3, 2007.

Sears Holdings is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corp. and
Sears, Roebuck and Co.  It was formed as a Delaware corporation
in 2004 in connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears.

The merger, completed on March 24, 2005, combined two of
America's oldest existing retail entities, both with origins
dating to the late 1800s.

Following the announcement of the merger on Nov. 17, 2004,
several actions have been filed relating to the transaction.

                      Fischer Litigation

"William Fischer, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et al.," was
a consolidated action filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Originally, the case was one of three actions that were filed
and then later consolidated.

The actions assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
Sears' stockholders against Sears and certain of its officers
and directors, together with Kmart, Edward S. Lampert, William
C. Crowley and other affiliated entities, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the merger and seeking
damages.

The plaintiffs allege that the merger favors interested
defendants by awarding them disproportionate benefits, and that
the defendants failed to take appropriate steps to maximize the
value of a merger transaction for Sears' stockholders.

On Sept. 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's Aug. 8, 2006 order dismissing plaintiffs' amended
complaint.

Briefing on the appeal has been completed. The case has not been
set for oral argument.

                        Levie Litigation

"Maurice Levie, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al.," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

This action asserts claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of a purported class of Sears' stockholders against Sears
and Alan J. Lacy, for allegedly failing to make timely
disclosure of merger discussions with Kmart during the period
Sept. 9 through Nov. 16, 2004, and seeks damages.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and an
amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2005.   

The amended complaint names Edward S. Lampert and ESL Partners,
L.P. as additional defendants, and purports to assert claims on
behalf of sellers of Sears stock during the period Sept. 9
through Nov. 16, 2004.  

The defendants have answered the amended complaint.

On July 17, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, certifying a class
of Sears stockholders who sold shares of Sears stock between
Sept. 9, 2004 and Nov. 16, 2004, excluding short sellers who
covered their positions during the class period.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants’ petition for leave to appeal the class certification
order.  

The Court has approved a class notice schedule that commences in
November 2007.  Meanwhile, written discovery is underway.

Sears Holdings Corp. -- http://www.searsholdings.com/-- is a  
broadline retailer with approximately 2,300 full-line and 1,100
specialty retail stores in the U.S. operating through Kmart
holding Corporation (Kmart) and Sears, Roebuck and Co., and
approximately 370 full-line and specialty retail stores in
Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc. (Sears Canada).

    
SEARS ROEBUCK: Parties Settle “Ong” Securities Lawsuit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action, “Ong, et al. v. Sears Roebuck &
Co., et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-04142,” which names a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sears Holdings Corp., as a defendant, have reached
a tentative settlement in the matter.

On June 17, 2003, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois against Sears and certain
officers, purportedly on behalf of a class of all persons who,
between June 21, 2002 and Oct. 17, 2002, purchased the 7% notes
that Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp. (SRAC) issued on June 21,
2002.

Pursuant to a subsequently filed amended complaint, plaintiffs
named as additional defendants certain former Sears officers not
originally named, SRAC and several investment banking firms,
which had acted as underwriters for SRAC’s March 18, May 21, and
June 21, 2002 notes offerings.

The complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and, as
against the individual defendants, violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.

The complaint purports to allege that defendants made a number
of false and misleading statements in one or more prospectuses
for debt securities offerings and in SEC filings and other
public statements, concerning the adequacy of reserves for
uncollectible accounts, and the condition of Sears’ former
credit business, among other things.

The parties have agreed to settle the matter and are drafting
the terms of the settlement agreement, according to the
company's Nov. 30, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Nov. 3, 2007.

The suit is “Ong, et al. v. Sears Roebuck & Co, et al., Case No.
1:03-cv-04142,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 357-0370
          Fax: (312) 357-0369
          E-mail: cgilden@cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Harold C. Hirshman, Esq.
          Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, 7800 Sears Tower
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 876-8000
          E-mail: hhirshman@sonnenschein.com

          Walter C. Carlson, Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: wcarlson@sidley.com

               - and -

          Robert Y. Sperling, Esq.
          Winston & Strawn LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Phone: (312) 558-5600
          E-mail: rsperling@winston.com


SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued in Ill. for Failing to Protect Customer Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears, Roebuck & Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
Cook County, Illinois days after privacy activists revealed that
the company's Web site exposed the details of customer purchases
going back more than a decade, the Washington Post reports.

Plaintiffs allege that the lack of privacy protections at
Sears's managemyhome.com site violated its own privacy promises
to consumers, and in so doing ran afoul of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, which prohibits "unfair and deceptive practices."

Named plaintiff Christine Desantis brings this action on behalf
of all other individuals whose purchase history is available to
the public through the http://www.managemyhome.comwebpage.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Sear's conduct constitute a breach of
         contract;

     (b) whether Sear's conduct violate its fiduciary duties to
         the class;

     (c) whether the class is entitled to an accounting;

     (d) whether Sears violated the Illinois consumer Fraud and
         Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and

     (e) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief.

Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

      -- an order certifying the class as defined above;

      -- an award of the aggregated actual damages of the
         members of the Class;

      -- an injunction requiring Defendant to secure the private
         information it has obtained from the Class and to
         notify the Class of the possibility of security
         breaches;

     --  an accounting to determine whether any security
         breaches occurred;

     -- reasonable Attorney’s fees and costs; and

     -- such further and other relief the Court deems
        appropriate.

The suit is "Christine Desantis et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and
Co., et al.," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jay Edelson
          Ethan Preston
          Elizabeth Mackey (not admitted in Illinois)
          Kamberedelson, LLC
          53 West Jackson Blvd; Suite 1530
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: 312-589-6370


TRICAM INDUSTRIES: Recalls Wagons on Paint's High Lead Level
------------------------------------------------------------
Tricam Industries Inc., of Eden Prairie, Minn., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 15,000 Metal Toy Wagons.

The company said the surface paint on the wagon bucket contains
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the red metal wagon model MH1250. The wagon
has a red steel bucket, a black handle, a black steel axle
support, and black tires.

These recalled toy wagons were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Tractor Supply Company stores nationwide from
September 2002 through November 2007 for about $30.

Picture of recalled toy wagons:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08154.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled wagon
away from children and contact Tricam Industries for
instructions on how to return the wagon and obtain a refund.

For additional information, contact Tricam Industries at (800)
867-6763 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.tricam.com.


TYCO INT'L: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit in N.H.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by Tyco International, Inc. continues before the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

The company and certain of its current and former employees,
officers and directors, were named as defendants in eight class
actions brought under of ERISA.  

Two of the actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire and the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the six remaining actions
to that court later on.  

Thus, all eight actions are now consolidated in the District
Court in New Hampshire, falling under the Multidistrict
Litigation, "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No.
1:02-md-01335-PB."

The complaints purported to bring claims on behalf of the Tyco
International (U.S.) Inc. Retirement Savings and Investment
Plans and the participants therein.

On Jan. 12, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire denied, without prejudice, the company's motion to
dismiss certain additional individual defendants from the
action.

On Jan. 20, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On Jan. 27, 2005, the company answered the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the company and certain individual defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's Jan. 12, 2005
order, insofar as it related to the Tyco International (U.S.)
Inc. Retirement Committee.  On May 25, 2005, the court denied
the motion for reconsideration.

On Jul. 11, 2005, the company and certain individual defendants
opposed plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The motion
is still pending.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class
"consisting of all participants in the Plans for whose
individual accounts the Plans purchased and/or held shares of
Tyco Stock Fund at any time from Aug. 12, 1998 to July 25,
2002."

On Aug. 29, 2006, Tyco filed a petition for leave to appeal the
class certification order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.  

On Nov. 13, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit denied Tyco's petition.  

On Nov. 28, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order
directing them to serve notice of the ERISA class action on
potential class members.

Tyco did not object to service of notice on potential class
members, and on Jan. 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion,
assented to by Tyco that proposed an agreed upon form of notice.

On Jan. 18, 2007, the Court granted that motion.  On Dec. 5,
2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended
complaint.

Subsequently, on Jan. 10, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to
withdraw their motion to amend the complaint without prejudice.

The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 27,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 28, 2007.

The consolidated suit is "In re Tyco International, Ltd.,
Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, Mdl-1335, Master
Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.  

Representing the ERISA plaintiffs is:

          Kenneth G. Bouchard, Esq.
          Bouchard & Kleinman, PA
          1 Merrill Drive, Ste. 6
          Hampton, NH 03842-1968
          Phone: 603 926-9333
          E-mail: kbouchard@bestnhlaw.com
  
Representing the defendants are:

         Elizabeth F. Edwards, Esq.
         Bryan A. Fratkin, Esq.
         McGuireWoods
         One James Center, 901 East Cary St.
         Richmond, VA 23219-4030
         Phone: 804 775-4390
         E-mail: eedwards@mcguirewoods.com
                 bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com


         Ann M. Galvani, Esq.
         Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP
         570 Lexington Ave, 16th Flr.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212 446-2300
         E-mail: kmasci@bsfllp.com

              - and -

         Edward A. Haffer, Esq.
         Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
         1000 Elm St., PO Box 3701
         Manchester, NH 03105
         Phone: 603-668-0300
         E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


HOMBANC CORP: Chitwood Harley Files Ga. Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
all persons who purchased the common stock of HomeBanc Corp.
(OTC US: HMBN.PK) during the period from September 26, 2005
through August 3, 2007, inclusive.

The defendants are Patrick S. Flood, who served as the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board at all
relevant times until his resignation from the Company on January
12, 2007, and Kevin D. Race, who served as the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief
Financial Officer at all relevant times, and served as a
director of the Company at all relevant times.

The Complaint alleges that the officers of HomeBanc - Kevin D.
Race and Patrick S. Flood - violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Beginning on September 26, 2005, HomeBanc sought to
register 2 million shares of 10% Series A Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Stock. On February 2, 2006, HomeBanc sold these
preferred shares through its underwriters, raising approximately
$50 million. However, HomeBanc failed to disclose in its
registration statement that it was planning to sell its
adjustable rate loans for cash, and was buying lower-quality,
higher-risk, residential mortgage-backed securities.

Throughout the Class Period, HomeBanc misrepresented its risk of
loss due to interest rate fluctuations. HomeBanc was earning
less in interest on its assets than the amount it had to pay in
interest on its debts. As a result, HomeBanc had less cash
available to meet its business and operating needs.

HomeBanc, however, continued to tell the public throughout the
Class Period that it had sufficient current cash balances and
cash flows from its operations to support its liquidity needs
for at least a year or more. Even as late as May 9, 2007,
HomeBanc told the public that it had enough cash "to support our
liquidity requirements for the foreseeable future." Just three
months later, HomeBanc's common and Series A Preferred shares
were delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. On August 7,
2007, HomeBanc filed for bankruptcy.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 29,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Meryl W. Edelstein, Esq.
          Mary Kathryn King, Esq.
          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          Phone: 1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900
          E-mail: medelstein@chitwoodlaw.com or
                  kking@chitwoodlaw.com
          Website: http://www.chitwoodlaw.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  * * *