CAR_Public/080109.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 9, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 6

                            Headlines


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Lawsuits Over Agency Program Overhaul
ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: N.Y. Court Approves Holocaust Suit Deal
BLUE SHIELD: Order Reviving Suit Over Canceled Insurance Vacated
BP CORP: Jurors Clear Firm in Kansas Refinery Pollution Suit
CANADA: Judge Certifies $700M Suit Over Visa Application Fees

CHICO'S FAS: Parties Reach Settlement in Calif. Labor Litigation
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Stockholder Lawsuits in S.D. New York
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Cal. Court Approves $2M Labor Suit Settlement
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Former Disney Store Manager Files Labor Suit
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in Ohio

COMCAST CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Tex. Lawsuit Alleges Insurance Scam
CYBERONICS INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Securities Complaint
DEL MONTE: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Recalled Pet Food, Snacks
DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Cordless Drills Due to Fire Hazard

FIRST CONSULTING: Meeting on Computer Sciences Merger to Proceed
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Cadillacs with Defective Differential
HOOKER FURNITURE: Recalls Bunk Beds to Repair Gaps Between Parts
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Parties Work to Settle Minn. Labor Suit
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Nixing of Minn. Securities Suit on Appeal

ISRAEL: Families of Qassam Rocket Firing Victims File Lawsuit
LIBERTY APPAREL: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings
SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Helmets Failing Safety Standard
STARBUCKS COFFEE: February Trial Set in “Jou Chau” Labor Suit
TJX COS: Mass. Court Refuses to Certify Security Breach Suit

TJX COS: Faces Consolidated FACTA Violations Suit in Kans.
TJX COS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Calif. Labor Code
T-MOBILE USA: Customer Files Suit Over Text Message Billings
TYCO INT'L: Refused Appeal in TyCom Securities Fraud Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: FEMA Favored in Housing Rental Assistance Suit

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Ala. Suit Over Defective Washing Machines


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

NAVISTAR INTL: Schiffrin Barroway Files IL Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********  
  

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Lawsuits Over Agency Program Overhaul
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Company (AIC), which is owned by The Allstate
Corp., faces several class actions relating to its agency
program reorganization announced in 1999.

                   EEOC I & Romero I Lawsuits

These matters include a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging
retaliation under federal civil rights laws (EEOC I Lawsuit),
and a class action filed in August 2001 by former employee
agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA
violations (Romero I Lawsuit).

In March 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I
litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that,
among other things, certified classes of agents, including a
mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes
of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release
is voidable at the option of the release signer.  

The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must
return to Allstate Insurance "any and all benefits received by
the [agent] in exchange for signing the release."

The court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record,
there is no basis for claims of age discrimination."

The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or
reconsider its memorandum and order and on Jan. 16, 2007, the
judge denied their request.  The case otherwise remains
pending.

                       EEOC II Litigation

The EEOC also filed another lawsuit in October 2004 alleging age
discrimination with respect to a policy limiting the rehire of
agents affected by the agency program reorganization (EEOC II
Lawsuit).

In EEOC II, in October 2006, the court granted partial summary
judgment to the EEOC.

Although the court did not determine that Allstate Insurance was
liable for age discrimination under the ADEA, it determined that
the rehire policy resulted in a disparate impact, reserving for
trial the determination on whether Allstate Insurance had
reasonable factors other than age to support the rehire policy.

Allstate Insurance filed a motion for interlocutory appeal from
the partial summary judgment, which was granted by the trial
court on Jan. 4, 2007.

AIC has filed a petition for immediate review of two controlling
issues of law to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and
that petition is currently pending.

                         ERISA Lawsuits

Allstate Insurance is also defending a certified class action
filed by former employee agents who terminated their employment
prior to the agency program reorganization.

These plaintiffs have asserted breach of contract and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act claims.  

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including
a worker classification issue.  

These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the
Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent
independent contractors treated as employees for benefit
purposes.

This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was
the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed
and remanded to the trial court in April 2005.  

In all of these various matters, plaintiffs seek compensatory
and punitive damages, and equitable relief.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the   
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business.  It conducts its business primarily in the United
States.


ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: N.Y. Court Approves Holocaust Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York reaffirmed his earlier ruling
approving an estimated $49.7 million settlement of the class
action "In re: Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. Holocaust Insurance
Litigation, No. 1374."

In February, Judge Daniels approved the settlement, but the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit set aside his order upon
finding that the notice that had been given to class members
seemed inadequate.  In response, Judge Daniels ordered that
additional notices be sent.  

Recently, Judge Daniels said that by sending out more than
50,000 letters late last year, lawyers backing the settlement
had overcome objections.  The case now returns to the appeals
court.

                    Summary of the Litigation

The class action alleges, among other things, that: (a) Generali
(and its related companies) withheld the value and/or proceeds
of insurance policies sold to the Holocaust era victims prior to
and during the Holocaust era; and (b) after the Holocaust,
Generali refused to pay on the policies, did not disclose the
nature and scope of its unpaid policies, and refused to identify
or disgorge the value or proceeds of such policies.

The Court decided that everyone who fits the following
description is a Class member:

All persons worldwide who:

     (1) were:
         -- Holocaust Victims as defined, infra; and
         -- during the Class Period were:

        * named in or were parties to any Insurance Policies as
          defined infra, including, but not limited to, the
          insureds, beneficiaries and owners under such
          Insurance Policies; or

        * persons who succeeded to their rights by operation of
          law or otherwise, including but not limited to heirs,
          distributees, legatees, and the like; or

     (2) persons claiming by, through, or in the right of any
         one or more of the foregoing persons (including but not
         limited to heirs, distributees, legatees, and the
         like), whether or not such claimants in this clause (2)
         are Holocaust Victims; provided however that "Generali
         Settlement Class" and "Releasors" shall not include
         persons:

         * who timely elect to be excluded from the "Generali
           Settlement Class"; or
        
         * who for any reason previously released any one or
           more of the Generali Group from liability in respect
           to the claims being compromised (whether such
           previous release was provided in connection with
           receiving compensation in respect of an Insurance
           Policy or for any other reason).

The Class Period is Jan. 1, 1920, through Dec. 31, 1945.  A
"Holocaust Victim" means any person who was persecuted by the
Nazis (or their allies or by persons acting in concert with them
or pursuant to their direction) at any time on account of
religion, sexual orientation, racial background, or political
views, including but not limited to Jews, Romani, homosexuals,
and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Important terms of the proposed Settlement are:

     * Generali will process and fund Claim Forms under
       valuation and eligibility standards established by The
       International Commission On Holocaust Era Insurance
       Claims (ICHEIC), including all pending and unpaid claims         
       already received by ICHEIC;

     * Generali will process new Claim Forms, with Court
       supervision, with the same eligibility standards as used
       in ICHEIC and with valuation criteria described in the
       Settlement Agreement that are similar (but not identical)
       to the criteria used in processing and paying claims
       through ICHEIC.  Generali will bear the cost for
       reviewing and processing Claim Forms and Court
       supervision;

     * Validated Claim Forms will be paid based on a formula
       that takes into consideration amounts due on policies,
       currency conversion and interest, among other factors.  
       The minimum payment for any valid claim is $1,000;

     * Generali will be released as to all Holocaust era
       insurance claims, and the class action Litigation will be
       dismissed with prejudice;

     * Generali will pay incentive awards to each of the four    
       Named Plaintiffs up to $5,000, as the Court may award;

     * Generali will pay counsel fees and costs, but the payment
       thereof will not diminish the compensation available to
       Class Members with valid Claim Forms.  

Generali had said it had already paid some $175 million in
Holocaust-era insurance claims.


BLUE SHIELD: Order Reviving Suit Over Canceled Insurance Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser network.org reports that a California appeals court
vacated a Dec. 4 decision that revived a proposed class action
accusing Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Co.
of improper cancellation of individual insurance.

The court also granted Blue Shield of California a rehearing on
the issue.  During the rehearing, the court can maintain its
original decision or make a new judgment.

Class Action Reporter reported on Dec. 21, 2007 that the
California 2nd District Court of Appeal found a Los Angeles
trial court in error when it denied class certification to a
suit accusing the company of trying to avoid paying claims by
retroactively canceling policies of insured individuals it
accused of lying on their applications.  The court remanded the
case to the trial court to reconsider its class certification
ruling based on the opinion.

The suit was filed by Augusto Ticconi and others who had health
insurance policies canceled after they made claims.  In his
lawsuit,  Mr. Ticconi said he had more than $100,000 in medical
bills before Blue Shield canceled his policy.  

Mr. Ticconi claims that the insurer failed to attach a copy of
his application to his policy, as required by state law, and so
could not use his prior statement to say he lied about his
health status.  The Second District Court of Appeal wrote in the
opinion that "the insurer may not raise a defense based on
misstatements made in unattached and unendorsed applications."

The suit claims the insurer illegally voided the policy after a
10-day cancellation period.  It seeks to bar Blue Shield from
other retroactive cancellations based on unattached applications
and to reinstate improperly rescinded policies.

The proposed class would include all California residents who
had health insurance policies rescinded by Blue Shield Life
since March 28, 2001 based on alleged misrepresentations in
their policy applications.

Of the nearly 250,000 short-term health insurance policies Blue
Shield Life issued between Jan. 1, 2000 and June 30, 2005, it
rescinded 207 for misrepresentation, the court had said in
December.

Representing Mr. Ticconi is attorney Timothy Morris.


BP CORP: Jurors Clear Firm in Kansas Refinery Pollution Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas jurors hearing a pollution case filed by the city of
Neodesha against BP Corp. of North America freed the company
from accusations of wrongdoing, according to the Independence
Daily Reporter.

Juror Ann Atchison told the Independence Daily Reporter that
jurors all were in agreement.

The suit was filed in Wilson County District Court on March 19,
2004.  In addition to the city of Neodesha, plaintiffs included
the local school district, Neodesha Plastics Inc., Fiberglass
Engineering, and property owners Anna Harshman and Wade Jones,
who are acting as class representatives.  The suit alleges that:

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

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

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

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


CANADA: Judge Certifies $700M Suit Over Visa Application Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Sean Harrington certified a class action claiming
the government has overcharged visa applicants by $700 million
over 10 years, reports say.

The suit was filed by Coquitlam couple Alan and Irina Hinton.  
They claim it costs only seven dollars to produce a visitor's
visa in Taiwan, but applicants pay $75.  The lawsuit also
alleges that immigration visas can cost the government up to 360
dollars to process. But newcomers to the country are charged as
much as $550 for a visa.

The Hintons and others want the fees declared illegal and the
difference between the fee and the actual cost of creating the
travel documents returned with interest.

If successful, the suit could affect millions of individuals who
applied for various federal travel documents between April 1,
1994 and March 31, 2004, according to Ian Mulgrew of Vancouver
Sun.

None of the claims in the lawsuit have been proven in court.

Hinton's lawyer is Richard Kurland.  On the Net:
http://www.canimmigrate.com.


CHICO'S FAS: Parties Reach Settlement in Calif. Labor Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the putative class action, “Linda Balint v. Chico’s
FAS, Inc. et al.,” have reached a tentative settlement in the
case filed in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.

On May 9, 2007, the Company was served with a lawsuit in which
it was named as defendant in the case.

The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, failed to:

       -- pay overtime wages, and

       -- provide meal periods, among other claims.  

The Company timely filed its response to the Complaint.  In
October 2007, the parties participated in an early mediation of
this matter and reached a settlement as a result of that
mediation.  

The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by
the Court.

Chico's FAS, Inc. -- http://www.chicos.com-- is a specialty  
retailer of private-label, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates,
complementary accessories and other non-clothing gift items.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Stockholder Lawsuits in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., faces two stockholder
class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

                      September Litigation

On Sept. 21, 2007 a stockholder class action was filed against
the Company and certain current and former senior executives in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

This complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
Company’s current and former officers made statements to the
investing public which misrepresented material facts about the
business and operations of the Company, or omitted to state
material facts required in order for the statements made by them
not to be misleading, causing the price of the Company’s stock
to be artificially inflated in violation of provisions of the
Exchange Act, as amended.

It alleges that more recent disclosures establish the misleading
nature of these earlier disclosures.

The complaint seeks money damages plus interest as well as costs
and disbursements of the lawsuit.

                       October Litigation

On Oct. 10, 2007, a stockholder class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against the Company and certain of its current and former senior
executives.  

This complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
Company’s current and former officers made statements to the
investing public which misrepresented material facts about the
business and operations of the Company, or omitted to state
material facts required in order for the statements made by them
not to be misleading, thereby causing the price of the Company’s
stock to be artificially inflated in violation of provisions of
the Exchange Act, as amended.  

According to this complaint, more recent disclosures establish
the misleading nature of these earlier disclosures.

This complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, compensatory damages plus interest, and costs and
expenses of the lawsuit, including counsel and expert fees.

The suit is “Hall, et al. v. The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-08252,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610.668.7987
          Fax: 610.660.0450
          E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631.367.7100
          Fax: 631.367.1173

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610.667.7706
          Fax: 610.667.7056
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Cal. Court Approves $2M Labor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles gave
preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of a purported
class action filed by a former co-sales manager of The
Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc.

On or about Feb. 15, 2005, Michael Scott Smith, a former co-
sales manager for The Children’s Place in the San Diego
district, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code and seeks class action
on behalf of Mr. Smith and other individuals similarly situated.

On Oct. 19, 2007, the Company entered into a class action
settlement with the plaintiff’s counsel and signed a memorandum
of understanding providing for, among other things, a maximum
total payment of $2.1 million, inclusive of attorneys’ fees,
costs and expenses, service payments to the class representative
and administration costs, in exchange for a full release of all
claims and dismissal of the lawsuit.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Nov.
29, 2007.

Secaucus, N.J.-based The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. --
http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of  
children's merchandise under its proprietary, The Children’s
Place and licensed Disney Store brand names.  


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Former Disney Store Manager Files Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. faces a purported class
action filed by a former Disney Store manager in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

On or about July 12, 2006, Joy Fong, a former Disney Store
manager in the San Francisco district, filed a lawsuit against
the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code and seeks class action
status on behalf of Ms. Fong and other individuals similarly
situated.

The company filed its answer on Aug. 11, 2006 denying any and
all liability, and on Jan. 14, 2007, Ms. Fong filed an amended
complaint, adding a subsidiary of Disney as a defendant.  

The company reported no development at its Dec. 5, 2007 Form 10-
K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007.

Secaucus, N.J.-based The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. --
http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of  
children's merchandise under its proprietary, The Children’s
Place and licensed Disney Store brand names.  


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., and one of its
subsidiaries face a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging violations of
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On or about Sept. 28, 2007, Meghan Ruggiero filed a complaint
against the Company and its subsidiary, Hoop Retail Stores, LLC,
on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act and seeks class certification, an award of
statutory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and
injunctive relief.

The suit is “Ruggiero v. The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02966-CAB,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York under Judge
Christopher A. Boyko.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Phillip A. Ciano, Esq.
          Ciano & Goldwasser
          460 MK Ferguson Plaza, 1500 West Third Street
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-658-9900
          Fax: 216-658-9920
          E-mail: pac@cianogoldwasser.com

               - and -

          Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
          Weisman, Kennedy & Berris
          1600 Midland Bldg., 101 Prospect Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Phone: 216-781-1111
          Fax: 216-781-6747
          E-mail: dgoetz@weismanlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Michele Kryszak Abraham, Esq.
          Thompson Hine
          3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-566-5642
          Fax: 216-566-5800
          E-mail: michele.abraham@thompsonhine.com


COMCAST CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp., its Chief Executive Officer Brian Roberts and
other top executives are facing a securities fraud suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The executives are accused of inflating share price through
false and misleading reports while dumping 585,792 of their own
shares at artificially high prices, for more than $15 million.

Named plaintiff Marilyn Clark brings this action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of
all those who purchased the publicly-traded securities of
Comcast between Feb. 1, 2007 and Dec. 4, 2007, inclusive, who
were damaged, thereby.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by
         defendants' acts as alleged;

     (b) whether statements made by defendants to the investing
         public during the class period misrepresented material
         facts about the business and operations of Comcast;

     (c) whether the price of Comcast common stock was
         artificially inflated during the class period; and

     (d) whether to what extent the members of the class have
         sustained damages and the proper measure of damages;

Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment as follows:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action,
        designating plaintiff as lead plaintiff and certifying
        as a class representative under Rule 23 of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure and plaintiff's counsel as lead
        counsel;

     -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and
        the other class members against all defendants, jointly
        and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
        defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at
        trial, including interest; and

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs
        and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
        fees and expert fees.

The suit is "Marilyn Clark et al. v. Comcast Corp. et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.


CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Tex. Lawsuit Alleges Insurance Scam
--------------------------------------------------------
Continental General Insurance Co. is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, alleging it runs a nationwide insurance scam
through its disguised marketer, Consumers Health Awareness
Association, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Tommy Castille said Continental General and
Consumers Health falsely claim to be unaffiliated, falsely claim
to sell "group policy" insurance but do not inform policyholders
what the policy is.  Continental General allegedly does this "to
avoid state insurance regulations," to collect extra fees, to
manipulate benefits, and to hide its fees when seeking rate
increases.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all individuals who were
insured under any policy of health insurance issued by CGI to
CHAA during the period beginning four years prior to the filing
of this suit.

Plaintiff requests the following relief:

     -- certification of the Class described above;

     -- injunctive relief as above requested;

     -- declaratory relief as above requested;

     -- attorney Fees as above requested; and

     -- the actual damages, statutory treble damages and relief
        requested above based upon the causes of action
        asserted, and all other applicable causes of action that
        may arise from the facts as alleged.

The suit is "Tommy Castille et al. v. Continental General
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-04," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Anthony L. Vitullo
          Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP
          Three Galleria Tower
          13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: 972/934-9100
          Telecopier: 972/934-9200


CYBERONICS INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action, “In re: Cyberonics,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. H-0502121,” are
appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit a
dismissal with prejudice of their supplemented first amended
complaint in the matter.

On June 17, 2005, a putative class action was filed against the
company and certain of its officers and Robert P. Cummins, then
chairman and chief executive, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

The lawsuit was captioned, "Richard Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-02121."  

A second lawsuit with similar allegations was also filed on July
12, 2005.  It was captioned, “Stanley Sved v. Cyberonics, Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-2414.”

On July 28, 2005, the court consolidated the two cases under
Civil Action No. H-05-2121, captioned, "In re Cyberonics, Inc.
Securities Litigation," and entered a scheduling order.

           Consolidation, Appointment of Lead Counsel

On Sept. 28, 2005, the court appointed EFCAT, Inc., John E. and
Cecelia Catogas, Blanca Rodriguez, and Mohamed Bakry as lead
plaintiffs and also appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
Nov. 30, 2005.  The complaint generally alleged, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements
regarding the company's VNS Therapy System device as a therapy
for treatment resistant depression.

                  Dismissal Motion, Amendments

On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to
allege facts that state any claim for securities fraud.

On July 20, 2006, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, allowing the
plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden
to plead a securities fraud claim with particularity, including
failures to allege with particularity a material misstatement or
omission, to allege facts sufficient to raise a strong inference
of intent or severe recklessness, and to allege sufficiently the
causal connection between the plaintiffs' loss and the
defendants' actions.

The court noted that “the deficiencies in plaintiffs' complaint
might well extend beyond the point of cure,” but nonetheless
granted plaintiffs the right to amend their complaint in light
of the strong presumption of law favoring a right to amend.

                    First Amended Complaint

On Aug. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint for violation of the securities laws.  The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by
making false and misleading statements regarding the VNS Device
as a therapy for treatment resistant depression.

Lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to disclose:

     -- that certain individuals associated with the U.S. Food
        and Drug Administration had safety and efficacy concerns
        about the use of the VNS Device for the treatment of
        depression and questioned the adequacy of evidence of
        safety and effectiveness the company presented to the
        FDA;

     -- that the defendants misrepresented the prospect for
        payer reimbursement for the VNS Device;

     -- that the defendants concealed executive compensation and
        governance issues and that the defendants falsely stated
        that an analyst's statements about options granted in
        June 2004 were inaccurate and without merit.

Lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and
entities, except those named as defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities during the period
Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006.  

The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
equitable or injunctive relief, if available.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to
allege facts that state any claim for securities fraud.

The lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss
on Oct. 23, 2006, and the defendants filed a reply to the
opposition on Nov. 6, 2006.

   Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assoc. Intervenes

On Oct. 31, 2006, a week before the defendants filed their reply
in connection with the motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association filed a
motion seeking to intervene and asking the court to require the
lead plaintiffs to republish notice of the amended class action
claims.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the court issued an order compelling
republication of notice and staying the proceeding pending
determination of the lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs published notice of the
filing of the first amended complaint, stating that investors
who purchased our securities during the expanded class period
(Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006, inclusive) may move the
court for consideration to be appointed as lead plaintiff within
60 days.

           Supplements to Motions, Dismissal, Appeal

In February 2007, the court lifted the stay, and in March 2007,
the lead plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file an
amended complaint.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend
without prejudice and stayed the litigation in light of issues
raised in a case that is currently submitted to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

In June 2007, the court lifted the stay and granted plaintiffs
leave to “supplement —- not amend” their first amended complaint
and granted the company leave to “supplement —- not amend” its
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.

In July 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a supplemental amended
complaint, and in August 2007, the company filed a supplement to
its motion to dismiss.

On October 4, 2007, the court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs’ supplemented first amended complaint with prejudice.  

On Oct. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The suit, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. H-05-2121," is originally "Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc. et
al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02121," and was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Sim Lake.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Elizabeth A. Abbott, Esq.
         John G. Emerson Esq.
         Scott E. Poynter, Eq.
         Emerson Poynter LLP
         2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 100
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037
         E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com
   
         Mark A. Golovach, Esq.
         Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
         Jeffrey R. Krinsk Esq.
         Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
         501 West Broadway, Ste 1250
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-238-1333
         Fax: 619-238-5425
         E-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com
                 fk@classactionlaw.com

              - and -

         Neil Rothstein, Esq.
         David R. Scott, Esq.
         Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
         Scott & Scott LLC
         600 B Street, Ste. 1500
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-233-4565

Representing the defendants is:

         N. Scott Fletche, Esq.
         Vinson & Elkins LLP
         1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
         Houston, TX 77002-6760
         Phone: 713-758-3234
         Fax: 713-615-5168
         E-mail: sfletcher@velaw.com


DEL MONTE: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Recalled Pet Food, Snacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Co. continues to face several class actions in
New Jersey, Florida, and Nevada over its recalled pet foods and
snacks, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Oct. 28, 2007.

The cases in which the company is currently a defendant are:

      -- “Blaszkowski v. Del Monte,” filed on May 9, 2007 in the
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         Florida;

      -- “Carver v. Del Monte,” filed on April 4, 2007 in the
         U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
         California;

      -- “Ford v. Del Monte,” filed on April 7, 2007 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of
         California;”

      -- “Picus v. Del Monte,” filed on April 30, 2007 in state
         court in Las Vegas, Nevada;

      -- “Schwinger v. Del Monte,” filed on May 15, 2007 in U.S.
         District Court for the Western District of Missouri;
         
      -- “Hart v. Del Monte,“ filed on April 10, 2007 in state
         court in Los Angeles, California (this case was
         previously reported by the company as “Wahl v. Del
         Monte,” the name of the case has changed because the
         previously named plaintiffs have been replaced); and

      -- “Tompkins v. Del Monte,” filed on July 13, 2007 in U.S.
         District Court for the District of Colorado.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Hart, Schwinger,
and Tompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other pet
food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district
litigation.

The Blaszkowski and Picus cases were not consolidated.  

On Oct. 12, 2007, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss in the
Blaszkowski case. The court has not issued a ruling on this
motion.

On Oct 12, 2007, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss in the
Picus case.  The state court granted the Company’s motion in
part and denied the motion in part.

Del Monte Foods Co. -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a  
producer, distributor and marketer of branded food and pet
products for the U.S. retail market.  The segments in which the
Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The
Pet Products segment.


DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Cordless Drills Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEWALT Industrial Tool Company, of Towson, Md., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 346,000 DEWALT Cordless Drills.

The company said the trigger switch of the cordless drill can
overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

DEWALT has received 11 reports of trigger switches overheating.
No injuries or property damage have been reported.  This recall
involves DEWALT individual cordless drills listed below:

Model         Description                        Date Codes
Number

DC920  Heavy-Duty XRP(tm) 1/2" (13mm)             200723
       18 Volt Cordless Drill/Driver              through 200742

DC930  Heavy-Duty XRP(tm) 1/2" (13mm)             200625
       14.4 Volt Cordless Drill/Driver            through 200746

DC935  Heavy-Duty XRP(tm) 1/2" (13mm)              200627
       4.4 Volt Cordless Hammerdrill/Drill/Driver through 200746


DC936  Heavy-Duty XRP(tm) 1/2" (13mm)              200635
      14.4 Volt Cordless Hammerdrill/Drill/Driver through 200746

DC940  Heavy-Duty XRP(tm) 1/2" (13mm)             200635
       12 Volt Cordless Drill/Driver              through 200746

The model number is printed on a sticker on the side of the
unit. The date code is embossed on the bottom of the unit. Units
stamped with an "M" following the date code have been repaired
and are not included in this recall. The packaging of repaired
drills has a green dot sticker near the UPC label.

The drills were made in Mexico and sold at wholesale
distributors and retailers from about June 2006 through December
2007 for between $180 and $280.

Consumers are advised to stop using the drills immediately and
contact DEWALT for the location of the nearest service center to
receive a free inspection and, if necessary, free repair.

Consumer Contact: Call DEWALT toll-free at (888) 742-9168
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.DEWALT.com.

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the
recalled products, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08143.html.


FIRST CONSULTING: Meeting on Computer Sciences Merger to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles has denied a motion for preliminary injunction seeking
to enjoin First Consulting Group, Inc.'s special meeting of
stockholders to vote on its proposed merger with Computer
Sciences Corp. (NYSE: CSC).

The motion and ruling were made as part of the class action
lawsuit “In Re First Consulting Group, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation,” which was consolidated from two previously
announced lawsuits titled “Teitelbaum v. First Consulting Group,
Inc., et al.,” and “Discovery Partners v. Aprahamian, et al.”

In December 2007, the Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC
announced that a class action has been filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California on behalf of shareholders of
First Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCGI) in connection with
the agreement and Plan of Merger with Computer Sciences Corp.
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 12, 2007).

The purpose of the action is to seek the highest possible offer
for the public shares of First Consulting.

As a result of the court's recent ruling, First Consulting s
special meeting will proceed as scheduled on January 10, 2008 at
10:00 a.m., Pacific time, at the Hilton Long Beach and Executive
Meeting Center, 701 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach,
California.

First Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCGI) is a leading
provider of outsourcing, consulting, systems implementation and
integration services and proprietary software products for
healthcare, pharmaceutical, and other life sciences
organizations throughout North America, Europe and Asia.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Cadillacs with Defective Differential
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors, Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in the
Superior Court of California alleging the rear wheel
differential on the Cadillac CTS-V is defective and locks up
without warning on model years 2004-2007, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Plaintiffs claim the differential can't withstand the force of
the engine. They demand special damages, alleging breach of
warranty, negligence, fraud and unfair business practices.

Headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors Corp. (NYSE:
GM) -- http://www.gm.com/-- was founded in 1908.  GM employs
about 280,000 people around the world and manufactures cars and
trucks in 33 countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany,
France, Russia, Brazil and India.  In 2006, nearly 9.1 million
GM cars and trucks were sold globally under the following
brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden,
HUMMER, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and Vauxhall.  GM's OnStar
subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security
and information services.


HOOKER FURNITURE: Recalls Bunk Beds to Repair Gaps Between Parts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hooker Furniture Corp., of Martinsville, Va., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 1,300 bunk beds.

The company said the bunk beds have gaps between parts of the
upper bunk that could allow a child's body to pass through but
not a child's head. This poses an entrapment or strangulation
hazard to children and exceeds the space allowed by the federal
bunk bed safety standard. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled bunk beds come in twin-over-twin, twin-over-full
and loft beds with the following model names: “Albany Park,”
“Swedish Accents,” “Mariner's Landing,” and “Chelsea's Place.”
The bunk beds come in cherry, white, and black finishes. Some of
the bunk beds are also made of metal.

These recalled bunk beds were manufactured in Malaysia and
Vietnam and were sold at Hooker Furniture retailers nationwide
from August 2005 through August 2007 for about $1,000.

Pictures of recalled bunk beds:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08131a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08131c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08131b.jpg

Consumers are advised not allow children to use the recalled
bunk beds and contact the retailer where purchased to schedule a
free, in-home repair.

For additional information, contact Hooker Furniture toll-free
at (877) 705-8408 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.hookerfurniture.com


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Parties Work to Settle Minn. Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class action alleging violations of
labor law by Hutchinson Technology, Inc. have agreed to engage
in mediation in hopes of concluding the matter.

Originally, Hutchinson Technology was named as the defendant in
a complaint brought in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District
Court by two current and three former employees and served on
the company on Aug. 28, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13,
2007).

The complaint asserts claims based on the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, several statutes and regulations dealing with
topics related to wages and breaks, and common law theories.

It alleges that the company fails to pay its production workers
for the time they spend changing into and out of protective
clothing and that the company does not provide employees the
breaks allegedly required by Minnesota law or promised by
company policy.

On Sept. 18, 2006, the company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  

The complaint seeks pay for the allegedly unpaid time, an equal
amount of liquidated damages, other damages, penalties,
attorneys fees and interest.

By order dated Feb. 22, 2007, the Court conditionally certified
a class consisting of certain current and former Minnesota
employees.

On June 14, 2007, an amended complaint was filed with the Court
seeking to add certain current and former Wisconsin and South
Dakota employees to the plaintiff class, but the Court has not
yet certified this new class.

On July 5, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment and the motion was scheduled for hearing on
Aug. 21, 2007.  The company did not say whether the hearing took
place, but at its Dec. 4, 2007  regulatory filing, it said the
parties have agreed to engage in mediation.

Hutchinson Technology Inc. -- http://www.htch.com-- operates in  
two segments: the Disk Drive Components Division and the
BioMeasurement Division.  The Disk Drive Components Division is
a supplier of suspension assemblies for disk drives.  Suspension
assemblies are precise electro-mechanical components that hold a
disk drive's recording head at microscopic distances above the
drive's disks.  The BioMeasurement Division is filling an
information gap in the monitoring of trauma patients with the
introduction of the InSpectra StO2 Tissue Oxygenation Monitor.
Launched in October 2006, the device gives hospital trauma teams
the ability to non-invasively and continuously measure tissue
oxygen saturation (St02) and monitor it during resuscitation.


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Nixing of Minn. Securities Suit on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal against a dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against Hutchinson
Technology, Inc.

The company and six of its present executive officers, two of
which are directors, were named as defendants in a Consolidated
Complaint filed by several investors on May 1, 2006.

The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of all persons, except the defendants, who purchased
company stock in the open market between Oct. 4, 2004 and Aug.
29, 2005.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements about the company, and the business
and prospects, in press releases and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings during the class period, and that
the market price of the company's stock was artificially
inflated as a result.

Additionally, the consolidated complaint also alleges claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

It seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class in
an unspecified amount, interest, an award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation, and unspecified equitable/injunctive
relief.

On June 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted the defendants motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with prejudice and on the merits.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the Courts dismissal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the appeal
remains pending, according to the company's Dec. 4, 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 Hutchinson Technologies Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-02095-PJS-JJG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Patrick
J. Schiltz with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         58 S. Service Rd., Ste. 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-454-7722
         E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com

         Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP
         100 Washington Ave., S. Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
         Phone: (612) 339-6900
         Fax: (612) 339-0981
         E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com

              - and -

         Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         1 Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-631-8605
         E-mail: smlee@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Ahna M. Thoresen, Esq.
         Faegre & Benson, LLP
         90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
         Phone: 612-766-7000
         Fax: 612-766-1600
         E-mail: athoresen@faegre.com


ISRAEL: Families of Qassam Rocket Firing Victims File Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yonat Atlas of Ynetnews reports that the Israel Law Center filed
a $68 million class action against the Egyptian government on
behalf of 10 families from Sderot whose relatives were severely
wounded or killed by Qassam rockets, reports say.

Attorney Nitzana Darshan-Layton, head of the Israel Law Center,
filed the suit at the Beersheba District Court on Jan. 7.  The
suit claims Cairo has a role in the ongoing weapons' smuggling
to Gaza Strip.

Among the families named in the class action suit is the
Abukasis family from Sderot, who lost their daughter to a Qassam
rocket in 2005.


LIBERTY APPAREL: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings
------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Apparel Co. Inc., of New York, N.Y. is recalling about
12,000 jewel brand girls' hooded sweatshirts.  

The garments have a drawstring through the hood, which can pose
a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, the U.S.
Consumer Product and Safety Commission issued guidelines to help
prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the
neck and waist by drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets
and sweatshirts.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The Jewel brand girls' zippered hoodie sweatshirts have various
designs on the front, and were sold in two styles: the "Big
Heart" zip-up long sleeve hoodie sweatshirts (style #J2173k/sk)
in black, light pink and purple colors, and the "Small Stars"
long sleeve hoodie jacket sweatshirts (style #J2174k/sk) in
green, khaki, navy and orange colors. Both styles were sold in
small, medium, large, extra-large sizes.

The sweatshirts were made in China and sold at Marshalls and
other specialty children's clothing retailers nationwide from
August 2007 through November 2007 for about $10.

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings to
eliminate the hazard or return the sweatshirts to either the
place of purchase or Liberty Apparel for a full refund.

For additional information, call Liberty Apparel Co. collect at
(212) 768-3030 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the
recalled products, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08146.html


SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Helmets Failing Safety Standard
------------------------------------------------------------
Specialized Bicycles, of Morgan Hill, Calif., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 3,000 Specialized Bicycle helmets.

The company said the helmets fail testing required under CPSC's
safety standard for bicycle helmets. This can pose a head injury
hazard to riders in a fall. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Specialized helmets, model 2D. Model
“2D” is printed on the sides of the helmet in the rear. The
helmets were sold for men and women in matte black, white,
silver, blue, pink, and team colors.

These recalled helmets were manufactured in China and are being
sold by Specialized through its authorized retailers and online
stores between July 2007 and October 2007 for about $200.

Picture of recalled helmets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08138.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled helmet
immediately and return it to an Authorized Specialized Retailer
to receive a free replacement or a full refund.

For additional information, contact Specialized toll-free at
(877) 808-8154 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. MT Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.specialized.com.


STARBUCKS COFFEE: February Trial Set in “Jou Chau” Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County Superior Court scheduled a February 2008
trial for the class action, "Jou Chau v. Starbucks Coffee Co."  

On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed
the suit, which alleges that the company violated the California
Labor Code by allowing shift supervisors to receive tips.   

More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors
direct the work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the
company and are therefore excluded from receiving tips under
California Labor Code Section 351, which prohibits employers and
their agents from collecting or receiving tips left by patrons
for other employees.  

It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate
the Labor Code, they also are unfair practices under the
California Unfair Competition Law.  

In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips
distributed to shift supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under
California Labor Code Section 203 for willful failure to pay
wages due.  Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs.   

On March 30, 2006, the Court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiff representing a class of
all persons employed as baristas in the state of California
since Oct. 8, 2000.

In March 2007, notice of action was sent to approximately
120,000 potential members of the class.  Trial is currently set
for February 2008.

Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and  
roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh,
rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold
blended beverages, various complementary food items, coffee-
related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium teas
and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-operated
retail stores.  


TJX COS: Mass. Court Refuses to Certify Security Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the matter, “In re
TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, 07-cv-10162.”

The case was filed putatively on behalf of customers, including
all customers in the U.S., Puerto Rico, and Canada, whose
transaction data were allegedly compromised by the unauthorized
intrusion or intrusions into portions of the Company’s computer
system and related theft of customer data (Computer Intrusion),
and putatively on behalf of all financial institutions that
received alerts from MasterCard or Visa related to the Computer
Intrusion identifying payment cards issued by such financial
institutions, and who thereafter suffered damages from actual
reissuance costs, monitoring expenses or fraud loss.

These putative class actions asserted claims for negligence and
related common-law and/or statutory causes of action stemming
from the Computer Intrusion, and seek various forms of relief
including damages, related injunctive or equitable remedies,
multiple or punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.

On Sept. 21, 2007, TJX entered into a settlement agreement with
respect to the consolidated class action litigation, amended
Nov. 14, 2007, which remains subject to various conditions and
to court approval.

On Oct. 12, 2007, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims in
the consolidated financial institution class action other than
claims of negligent misrepresentation and a state statutory
claim based on the same claims of negligent misrepresentation.

On Nov. 29, 2007 the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for
class certification in the consolidated financial institution
class action.

The suit is “In Re: TJX Companies Retail Security Breach
Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-10162-WGY,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge
William G. Young.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Janet G. Abaray, Esq.
          Lopez, Hodes, Restaino, Milman & Skikos
          Suite 2090, 312 Walnut Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-852-5600
          Fax: 513-852-5611
          E-mail: jabaray@burgsimpson.com

               - and -

          William A. Baird, Esq.
          Milstein, Adelman & Kreger LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Phone: 310-396-9600
          Fax: 310-396-9635
          E-mail: tbaird@maklawyers.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard D. Batchelder, Jr., Esq.
          Ropes & Gray LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-951-7515
          Fax: 617-951-7050
          E-mail: rbatchelder@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Malcome A Heinicke, Esq.
          Munger, Tolles & Olson
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-512-4009


TJX COS: Faces Consolidated FACTA Violations Suit in Kans.
----------------------------------------------------------
The TJX Companies, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas,
captioned, “In re: The TJX Companies, Inc. Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litigation, MDL Docket No.
1853.”

Initially, several putative class actions were filed against
TJX.  The suits were later consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas under the caption, “In re: The
TJX Companies, Inc. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA) Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1853.”

The case was brought putatively on behalf of persons in the U.S.
to whom TJX provided credit card or debit card receipts in
alleged violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek statutory damages, punitive
damages, injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys’ fees.

The suit is under Judge Kathryn H. Vratil with referral to Judge
David J. Waxse.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Erica L. Allen
         Linde Law Firm
         9000 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1025
         Los Angeles, CA 90069
         Phone: 310-203-9333
         Fax: 310-203-9233
         E-mail: eag@lindelaw.net

              - and -

         Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
         Law Offices of Keith J. Keogh, Ltd.
         227 W. Monroe, Ste. 2000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-726-1092
         Fax: 312-726-1093
         E-mail: Aburke@Keoghlaw.com

Representing the defendant are:

         Christopher J. Aikin, Esq.
         Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
         2555 Grand Boulevard
         Kansas City, MO 64108-2616
         Phone: 816-474-6550
         Fax: 816-421-5547
         E-mail: caikin@shb.com

              - and -

         Ryan L. Bellows, Esq.
         McDonald Carano Wilson LLP
         100 W. Liberty St. - 10th Fl.
         Reno, NV 89501
         Phone: 775-788-2000
         Fax: 775-788-2020
         E-mail: rbellows@mcdonaldcarano.com


TJX COS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Calif. Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
The TJX Companies, Inc. faces a purported class action in
Alameda County, California, Superior Court, alleging violations
of the state's labor laws.

The suit is captioned, “Mason Lee v. Marshalls of California,
Inc. (Case No. RG07337021),” which was filed on July 23, 2007.  
It was for alleged violations of certain sections of the
California Labor Code, principally:

       -- Section 212 (prohibiting issuance of out-of-state
          paychecks),

       -- Section 226.7 (requiring paid rest periods), and

       -- Section 226 (requiring certain information on
          paychecks).

The Complaint seeks unspecified actual damages, penalties of
$100 for each aggrieved employee for the initial violation and
$200 for each aggrieved employee for each subsequent violation,
together with attorneys’ fees and costs.

The TJX Companies, Inc. -- http://www.tjx.com-- is an off-price  
retailer of apparel and home fashions in the U.S. and worldwide.
Its T.J. Maxx, Marshalls and A.J. Wright chains in the U.S., its
Winners chain in Canada, and its T.K. Maxx chain in Europe sell
off-price family apparel and home fashions.  The Company’s
HomeGoods chain in the U.S. and its HomeSense chain, operated by
Winners in Canada, sell off-price home fashions.  


T-MOBILE USA: Customer Files Suit Over Text Message Billings
------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington over
its disclosure of the terms of its text messaging services.

Named plaintiff Maria Detwiler brings this action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure on behalf of all
residents of the United States of America who are or were
customers of T-Mobile, who were not offered the opportunity to
disable text messaging on their cellular telephone, who received
unsolicited text messages on their cellular telephone, who were
charged and who paid T-Mobile's text messaging fee for the
unsolicitied text message.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether T-Mobile requires all of its customers to be
         text message enabled;

     (b) whether T-Mobile refuses to disable the text messaging
         feature on its customers' account;

     (c) whether T-Mobile's practice of assessing and collecting
         fees for unsolicited text messages received by its
         customers without offering its customers the
         opportunity to avoid such charges by opting out of text
         messaging, constitutes an unjust and unreasonable
         charge in violation of the Federal Communications Act
         (FCA);

     (d) whether T-Mobile's practice of assessing and collecting
         fees for unsolicited text messages received by its
         customers without offering its customers the
         opportunity to avoid such charges by opting out of text
         messaging, constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or
         practice in violation of the Washington Consumer
         Protection - Unfair Business Practices Act (WCPA), RCW
         19.86.020;

     (e) whether T-Mobile's practice of refusing to allow its
         customers to disable the text messaging service,
         constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice in
         violation of the WCPA;

     (f) whether mandatory injunctive and/or declaratory relief
         is necessary and appropriate in order to correct T-
         Mobile's practice of assessing and collecting fees for
         unsolicited text messages received by its customers  
         without offering its customers the opportunity to avoid
         such charges by opting out of text messaging; and

     (g) whether mandatory injunctive and/or declaratory relief
         is necessary and appropriate in order to correct T-
         Mobile's practice of refusing to allow its customers to
         disable the text messaging service.

Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

     -- for certification of the proposed class pursuant to
        Fed.R.Civ.P. 23;

     -- for an award of compensatory damages, restitution,
        attorneys' fees and other costs as allowed under the
        FCA, in an amount to be proven at trial;

     -- for an award of compensatory damages, trebled,
        attorneys' fees and other costs as allowed under the
        WCPA, in an amount to be proven at trial;

     -- for a declaration of the respective rights of plaintiffs
        and the other class members, and the duties of defendant
        regarding defendant's practices of:

        (a) assessing and collecting fees for unsolicited text
            messages received by its customers without offering
            its customers the opportunity to avoid such charges
            by opting out of text messaging; and

        (b) refusing to disable its customers' text messaging
            service;

     -- for the establishment of a constructive trust against
        defendants to allow full restitution to plaintiff and
        the class for all text message fees wrongfully collected
        by defendant for unsolicited text messages received by
        plaintiff and the class;

     -- for an award of reasonable attorney's fees and other
        costs as provided by law;

     -- for an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
        as provided by law;

     -- for leave to amend these pleadings, as may be necessary,
        to conform to the evidence presented at trial; and

     -- for such other relief as the court deems just and
        equitable.

The suit is "Maria Detwiler et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case
No. C07-2090RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Murray T. S. Lewis
          Lewis Law Firm
          3412 South Jackson Street
          Seattle, Washington 98114
          Phone: (206) 714-2113
          Fax: (206) 223-7009
          E-mail: lewislawseattle@yahoo.com

          J. Paul Gignac
          Kiley L. Grombacher
          Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP
          4050 Calle REal, Suite 130
          Santa Barbara, California 93110
          Phone: (805) 683-7400
          Fax: (805) 683-7401

          Peter J. Bezek
          Robert A. Curtis
          Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP
          15 West Carillo Street
          Santa Barbara, California 93101-8217
          Phone: (805) 962-9495
          Fax: (805) 962-0722
          E-mail: pbezek@foleybezek.com or
                  rcurtis@foleybezek.com

          - and -

          Michael W. Sobol
          Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Phone: (415) 956-1000
          Fax: (415) 956-1008


TYCO INT'L: Refused Appeal in TyCom Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied a
petition to appeal a certification of a class in the matter,
“Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd.”

On Oct. 30, 2003, “Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd.” was
transferred to the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The complaint asserts claims against Tyco based on Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77(k), Section 15 of
the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77(o), Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b),
and Sec. 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78t(a).

In orders dated Sept. 2, 2005, and Jan. 6, 2005, the Court
denied Tyco's motion to dismiss.  

On June 12, 2007, the Court certified a purported class
consisting of “all persons or entities who purchased TyCom
stock, either pursuant to a July 26, 2000, Registration
Statement and Prospectus for TyCom's initial public offering, or
on the open market between July 26, 2000 and Dec. 17, 2001."

On June 26, 2007, Tyco and TyCom filed a Rule 23(f) Petition
seeking leave to appeal the class certification order.  

On Sept. 13, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit denied Tyco's petition.

Tyco International Ltd. -- http://www.tyco.com-- is a  
diversified, global company that provides products and services
through it various segments, namely ADT Worldwide, Fire
Protection Services, Flow Control, Safety Products, and
Electrical and Metal Products.  

ADT Worldwide designs, sells, installs, services and monitors
electronic security systems to residential, commercial,
industrial and governmental customers.  Fire Protection Services
designs, sells, installs and services fire detection and fire
suppression systems to commercial, industrial and governmental
customers.  Flow Control designs, manufactures, sells and
services valves, pipes, fittings, valve automation and heat
tracing products. Safety Products designs, manufactures and
sells fire protection, security and life safety products.  
Electrical and Metal Products designs, manufactures and sells
steel tubing and pipe products, as well as cable products.


UNITED STATES: FEMA Favored in Housing Rental Assistance Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a decision made
by U.S. District Judge Helen Berrigan in a suit over rental
assistance to Hurricane Katrina victims, Michael Kunzelman of
The Associated Press reports.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency had planned to halt
rental assistance payments to storm victims.  In June 2007,
Judge Berrigan ruled that FEMA shouldn't halt rental assistance
payments to storm victims before they can appeal the agency's
decisions.  He granted a preliminary injunction that required
FEMA to continue paying rental assistance to eligible applicants
until the agency hears their appeals.

In July, the court of appeals blocked the preliminary
injunction.  On Jan. 4, it overruled Judge Berrigan's ruling.  
The three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit ruled that FEMA is not
bound to provide assistance to all eligible individuals.   It
sent the case to Judge Berrigan for further proceedings.

The suit has been certified to include a class of people whose
applications for continued rental assistance were denied by
FEMA.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Adam Strochak, Esq.
          Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
          Washington D.C., USA
          E-mail: adam.strochak@weil.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Ala. Suit Over Defective Washing Machines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corp., Inc., Maytag Corp., Inc., Maytag Sales, Inc.,
Maytag Southeastern Company, Inc., and Home Depot USA, Inc. are
facing a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama in relation to defective
front-loading washing machines and matching dryers.

Named plaintiff Richard Ellis, Jr. brings this action pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who
are United states citizens and who purchased or acquired as a
gift a Maytag Washing Machine Series Model MAH 8700 AWW and
other front loading washing machine manufactured by Whirlpool
and the Maytag defendants from Home Depot and any other retail
stores from 2005 through the present.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the Maytag Series MAH 8700 AWW front-loading,
         clothes-washing machine and other appliances possess a
         common defect;

     (b) whether the defendants were obligated to disclose the
         existence of the common defect and, if so, whether the
         defendants failed to disclose the common defect to
         members of the class;

     (c) whether defendants had the knowledge of the common
         defect;

     (d) whether defendants breached the implied warranties of
         merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
         for the Maytag Series MAH 8700 AWW front-loading,
         clothes-washing machine that possessed the common
         defect;

     (e) whether defendants extended express warranties to
         members of the class, and, if so, whether defendants
         breached those express warranties and whether the
         limitations on those express warranties are
         unconscionable and unenforceable;

     (f) whether defendants conduct has violated the consumer
         protection acts of the 50 states and the District of
         Columbia;

     (g) whether defendants have caused the class damage and
         irreparable harm, and, if so, the extent of such
         damages and/or the nature of the equitable and
         injunctive relief to which each member of the class is
         entitled;

     (h) whether defendants have acted, continued to act, and
         will act in the future on grounds generally applicable
         to the class, thereby making it appropriate to render
         final injunctive, or corresponding declaratory relief,
         with respect to the class;

     (i) whether defendants have concealed their fraudulent
         conduct and suppression by continued acts and omissions
         in their sales, customer services, and repair
         departments;

     (j) whether defendants unlawfully acted by selling,
         charging and receiving monies from class members for
         defective products and refusing to provide a full
         refund for the defective products;

     (k) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by selling,
         charging and receiving monies from class members for
         defective products;

     (l) whether defendants breached their respective contracts
         with class members;

     (m) whether defendants committed fraud and fraudulent
         concealment by selling to and charging class members in
         knowingly defective washers and then refusing to
         disclose the defectiveness of the product;

     (n) whether defendants should be permanently enjoined from
         selling these defective products and required to
         provide class members with a full refund;

     (o) whether defendants should be required to disgorge for
         the benefit of the class all of the monies that
         defendants have received and collected as a result of
         sales of these defective washers;

     (p) in the event of certification of a class pursuant to
         Rule 23(b)(3), the proper measure of damages that
         defendants should be required to pay the class members;
         and

     (q) the punitive damages which defendants should have to
         pay in order to prevent the defendants from acting in
         such an unlawful manner in the future.

Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

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

     -- to the extent a class is certified pursuant to rule
        23(b)(3), awarding the plaintiffs and the members of the
        class compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to
        be determined by a jury for the wrongful acts complained
        of;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the members of the class
        their costs and disbursements incurred in connection
        with this action, including reasonable attorney fees,
        expert witness fees, and other costs;

     -- granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive
        relief as permitted by law or equity;

     -- granting the declaratory, injunctive, and equitable
        relief; and

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

The suit is "Richard Ellis, Jr. et al. v. Whirlpool corp., Inc.
et al., Case No CV-07-BE-0679-W," filed in the U.s. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Bryan P. Winter
          Adcox Winter, LLP
          611 Helen Keller Boulevard
          Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35404
          Phone: (205) 553-5353
          Fax: (205) 553-5593


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

NAVISTAR INTL: Schiffrin Barroway Files IL Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Navistar International Corporation (PINKSHEETS:
NAVZ) from February 14, 2003 through July 17, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Navistar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Navistar is a holding company that operates through its
principal operating subsidiaries, International Truck and Engine
Corporation and Navistar Financial Corporation. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company had significantly underreserved for
         warranty expenses;

     (2) that the Company had overstated its revenue by
         understating the level of such warranty reserves;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

On December 14, 2005, the Company shocked investors when it
postponed an analyst meeting as the audit process for its 2005
Annual Report (ended October 31, 2005) was "taking longer than
expected." Investors were not comforted by the Company's Chief
Executive Officer assurance that "as a [C]ompany, we have high
standards." On this partial disclosure, the Company's shares
fell $2.11 per share, or 7 percent, to close on December 14,
2005 at $28.17 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Company's shares continued to decline as Navistar revealed
additional information relating to its accounting problems. Then
on July 17, 2006, Moody's investor service withdrew its rating
of the Company, "due to its belief that [Navistar] lacks
adequate financial information to maintain a rating." By July
17, 2006, the Company's shares had declined to $20.95 per share.

Subsequently, on February 13, 2007, the Company announced that
its stock had been suspended and delisted from the New York
Stock Exchange, and that it would start trading on the over-the-
counter market (commonly known as the "pink sheets"). Finally,
on October 25, 2007, almost two years after Navistar first
discovered its accounting problems, the Company disclosed that
its restatement adjustments would total $1.12 billion for the
restated financial periods, including warranty reserve increases
of $321 million. Additionally, the Company recorded $874 million
in income tax adjustments. The Company further revealed that it
had identified a number of material weaknesses in its internal
controls over financial reporting, and an independent law firm
investigating the Company identified instances of intentional
misconduct which resulted in the need for restatement
adjustments.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 15,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706




                           *********


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  * * *