CAR_Public/080110.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, January 10, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 7

                            Headlines


7-ELEVEN: Settles Goshen Gasoline Spill Lawsuit for $19.8M
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles Certain Claims in Calif. Labor Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Denies Motion to Junk Securities Suit
AVIS BUDGET: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Deceptive "EZ Fuel Fee"
BIG LOTS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Manager Misclassification

BIG LOTS: Cal. Court Mulls Appeal Against Labor Suit Settlement
BIG LOTS: La. Court Denies Decertification Motion in FLSA Suit
BIG LOTS: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Client Info. Request
BIG LOTS: Reaches Settlement in Tex. FLSA Violations Lawsuit
BROWN SHOE: Redfield Suit New Trial Request Goes to High Court

COPART INC: Still Faces Ga. Suit Over Storage Liens Charges
COPART INC: La. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss FCS Antitrust Suit
CVR ENERGY: Kans. Oil Spill Suit Dismissed, One More Pending
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Suits Over Server Banking Policy
DE BEERS: $259M Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 14

ELECTRONIC COS: Face Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Price Fixing
LOOKSMART LTD: Feb. 29 Hearing Set for $2M Click Fraud Suit Deal
MACY'S INC:  N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MACY’S INC: Still Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in Ohio
MAY DEPARTMENT: Mo. Court Denies "Decristofaro" Dismissal Motion

METLIFE INC: Fla. RICO Act Violations Suit Remains Stayed
METLIFE LIFE: Settles Suit Over Structured Settlement Annuities
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suit Over Proprietary Products
PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls Trailer Bicycles with Defective Coupler
[Redacted]

TENNESSEE: Faces Suit Over Theft of Voters' Registration Info
TISHMAN SPEYER: Dismissal of Suit Over Market Rents Appealed
T-N-T FARMS: Bean Pickers File Suit in Fla. Over Withheld Wages
TRADITION VALET: Valets File Minn. Suit Over Tipping Policy


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SECURITY CAPITAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********  


7-ELEVEN: Settles Goshen Gasoline Spill Lawsuit for $19.8M
----------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action about
the release of petroleum from a gas station at 1000 South Main
Street in Goshen, Indiana.

The lawsuit is “Larry Bowens v. 7-Eleven, Inc., The Southland
Corp., MDK Corp., and ENSR Corp., Case No. 20D03-0209-CT-48,”
filed in the Elkhart Superior Court No. 3.

The lawsuit claims that 7-Eleven, Southland, MDK and ENSR Corp.
are responsible for releases of petroleum from underground
storage tanks at a gas station located at 1000 South Main
Street, at the corner of Jackson Street and South Main Street in
Goshen, Indiana.

The petroleum releases allegedly entered the groundwater and
soil in the neighborhood around the gas station and petroleum
vapors also allegedly entered into surrounding properties.

Additionally, plaintiffs claim that defendants did not notify,
but should have notified, residents of the Jackson Street
Neighborhood of the releases. The defendants deny all claims.

The class includes all current and former owners, renters and
occupants of certain properties and houses in the Jackson Street
Neighborhood from January 1, 1996 to December 11, 2007. The
addresses of these properties can be found at  
http://www.bowensv7elevensettlement.com.

In 2006, Judge George Biddlecome of the Elkhart Superior Court
No. 3 had ruled that the class action could go forward (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2006).  The defendant's appealed, but
the Indiana Court of Appeals denied their request to dismiss the
suit.

The proposed settlement provides for settlement payments and
site investigation and remediation expenditures from the
defendants in a total amount of up to $19.8 million.  Payments
will be made to Settlement Class Members who have evidence that
benzene vapor from releases at the gas station entered their
homes and who have medical symptoms consistent with exposure to
benzene vapor.

Payments will also be made to persons who lived at the eligible
addresses at any time between January 1, 1996 and December 11,
2007 to compensate them for potential exposure to benzene vapor
and payments to owners of the eligible properties to compensate
them for past damage to their property.

Finally, the proposed settlement also provides for clean-up of
gasoline contamination of the Jackson Street Neighborhood.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on February 29,
2008 to consider whether the Proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and a motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses.

The suit is “Larry Bowens v. 7-Eleven, Inc., The Southland
Corp., MDK Corp., and ENSR Corp., Case No. 20D03-0209-CT-48,”
filed in the Elkhart Superior Court No. 3, under Judge George
Biddlecome.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          John Ulmer
          Yoder, Ainlay, Ulmer & Buckingham, LLP
          130 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 575, Goshen
          Indiana 46527-0575 (Elkhart Co.)
          Phone: 574-533-1171
          Telecopier: 574-534-4174


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles Certain Claims in Calif. Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
settled some claims in a class action filed by Lisa Hashimoto,
et al. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles on June 23, 2006.

Three plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a putative class of
California store managers employed in Hollister and Abercrombie
stores, that they were entitled to receive overtime pay as “non-
exempt” employees under California wage and hour laws.  

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.  

The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21,
2006.  The parties are engaging in discovery.

On Dec. 10, 2007 the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs’ counsel to settle those claims in the
action which are alleged to have arisen before April 30, 2004.

The agreement in principle is subject to integration into a
written agreement, notice, hearing, and court approval before it
can become effective.  

The agreement in principle does not affect claims which are
alleged to have arisen in the period commencing on April 30,
2004.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com-- is a  
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.  As of Jan. 28, 2006, the company
operated 851 stores in the U.S. and Canada.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Denies Motion to Junk Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied
a motion seeking for a dismissal of an amended complaint in a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all persons
who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the
company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005.

The first suit, “Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et
al.,” was filed on Sept. 2, 2005.  The suit also named as
defendants the company's officers.  

In September and October of 2005, five other purported class
actions were subsequently filed against the company and other
defendants in the same court.  

All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities
laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's
Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.  

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported
class actions into the first case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  The company joined in that motion.

On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice,
discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was
filed on Aug. 14, 2006.  On Oct. 13, 2006, all defendants moved
to dismiss that complaint.  

On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss.  On
Sept. 14, 2007, defendants filed answers denying the material
allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative defenses.

The suit is “Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al. (2:05-cv-
00819-EAS-TPK),” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with
referral to Judge Terence P. Kemp.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq.
         Maguire & Schneider
         250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236
         E-mail: kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com

Representing the defendants are:
   
         Philip Albert Brown, Esq.
         Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease
         52 East Gay Street
         Columbus, OH 43216-1008
         Phone: 614-464-6400
         Fax: 614-464-6400
         E-mail: pabrown@vssp.com

         Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq.
         Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter
         65 E State Street, Suite 1800
         Columbus, OH 43215-4294
         Phone: 614-462-5400
         Fax: 614-462-5422
         E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com

              - and -

         Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq.
         McNamara and McNamara
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-228-6131
         E-mail: mrs@mcnamaralaw.us


AVIS BUDGET: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Deceptive "EZ Fuel Fee"
------------------------------------------------------------
Avis Budget Group and Budget Rent-A-Car are facing a class-
action complaint filed Jan. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging it deceptively charge customers
a $9.50 "EZ Fuel fee" even though they return their rental car
with a full tank, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Donna J. Davis say Budget admitted this in a
Nov. 20, 2007 settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.

According to the complaint, defendants traditionally have
offered customers three options with respect to
refueling their rental vehicle. Customers have been able to:

     (1) return the vehicle with as much fuel as was in the tank
         upon rental and not pay any fuel or service charge;

     (2) return the vehicle with less fuel than was in the tank
         upon rental, and pay the specified per-mile or per-
         gallon rate for the difference; or

     (3) prepay for a full tank of gas up-front at a discounted
         rate, and forego credit for any fuel still in the tank
         upon return.

Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of herself and as
representative of a Class of individuals and entities who
rented vehicles from Budget and drove fewer than 75 miles.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Defendants made a misrepresentation and/or
         false promise, or concealed, suppressed or omitted any
         material fact with intent that consumers rely on such
         concealment, suppression or omission in connection with
         the sale or advertisement of any merchandise, which is
         prohibited by the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
         N.J.S.A. 56:8-1,et seq.;

     (b) whether Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered any
         ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of
         the false promise or misrepresentation, or concealment,
         suppression or omission of material fact; and

     (c) whether Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled
         to recover damages, including refunds, treble the
         damages sustained, interest, attorneys’ fees, filing
         fees, and reasonable costs of suit for Defendants
         injury to them in contravention of the New Jersey
         Consumer Fraud Act.

Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

      -- an order certifying this action to be a proper class
         action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
         establishing an appropriate Class, and finding that
         Plaintiff is a proper representative of the Class;

      -- damages;

      -- costs and expenses in this litigation, including, but
         not limited to, expert fees, filing fees, and
         reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

      -- any further compensatory, injunctive, equitable or
         declaratory relief including refunds as may be just and
         proper.

The suit is "Donna J. Davis et al. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc.,
et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          James E. Cecchi
          Lindsey H. Taylor
          Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart &
          Olstein
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, New Jersey 07068
          Phone:(973) 994-1700

          - and -

          Mary Jane Fait
          Theodore B. Bell
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Phone: (312) 984-0000


BIG LOTS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Manager Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots Inc. continues to face a purported class action filed
in September 2006 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that the company
violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying
California store managers as exempt employees.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for
alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid
upon termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks,
missed meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused
vacation time, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national  
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.’s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.

    
BIG LOTS: Cal. Court Mulls Appeal Against Labor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura
has yet to rule on an appeal by two individuals in connection
with the final order approving a settlement reached in a labor
class action filed against Big Lots, Inc.

In October 2005, a class action complaint was served upon the
company for adjudication in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Ventura.  The suit alleged that the
company had violated certain California wage and hour laws.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged
unpaid wages and rest and meal period compensation, as well as
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

In the third quarter of fiscal year 2006, the company and the
plaintiff reached a tentative settlement of the California
matter.  

On Nov. 6, 2006, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the tentative settlement.

On April 30, 2007, the court entered the final order approving
the class action settlement and judgment of dismissal with
prejudice.  

Two class members whose objections to the settlement were
overruled by the court have appealed the final order to the
California Court of Appeal, challenging the settlement.  

The same two objectors also filed a separate putative class
action in federal court in the Northern District of California
alleging the same class claims that were tentatively settled
through the California matter.   

The federal court stayed the federal action pending resolution
of the appeal before the California Court of Appeal, according
to the company's Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Nov. 3, 2007.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national  
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.’s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


BIG LOTS: La. Court Denies Decertification Motion in FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A May 8, 2008 trial is scheduled for a class action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
against Big Lots, Inc. over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The civil putative collective action complaint was filed on
November 2004 against the company in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.  It alleges that the company
violated FLSA by misclassifying assistant managers as exempt.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all
other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 5, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally
certifying a class of all current and former assistant store
managers who have worked for the company since Nov. 23, 2001.  

As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to
approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to
the Louisiana matter.

As of Aug. 4, 2007, approximately 1,100 individuals had joined
the Louisiana matter.  

The company has filed a motion to decertify the class and the
motion was denied on Aug. 24, 2007.

The Louisiana matter is scheduled to go to trial on May 8, 2008.

The suit is “Johnson, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No.
2:04-cv-03201-SSV-SS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Sarah S. Vance with
referral to Judge Sally Shushan.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Bohrer Law Firm
          8712 Jefferson Hwy, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: 225-925-5297
          E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Dominic J. Ovella, Esq.
          Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale
          One Galleria Blvd., P.O. Box 8288, Suite 1400          
          Metairie, LA 70011-8288
          Phone: 504-836-6500
          E-mail: novella@hmhlp.com

    
BIG LOTS: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Client Info. Request
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. faces a consolidated class action in California
alleging that the company violated state law by requesting
certain customer information in connection with the return of
merchandise for which the customer sought to receive a refund to
a credit card, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007.

In May 2007, two class-action complaints were filed against the
company,

     * one in the Superior Court of the State of California,  
       County of Orange (Stary matter), and

     * one in the Superior Court of the State of California,
       County of San Diego (Christopher matter),

wherein it was alleged that the company had violated California
law by requesting certain customer information in connection
with the return of merchandise for which the customer sought to
receive a refund to a credit card.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated,
statutory penalties, costs and attorneys' fees and seek
injunctive relief.  

The company believe that substantially all of the purported
class members of the Christopher matter are within the purported
class of the Stary matter.

The Stary matter has been transferred to the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego, where it will be
coordinated with the Christopher matter before the same judge.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national  
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.’s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


BIG LOTS: Reaches Settlement in Tex. FLSA Violations Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. settled a class action filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas over  
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In November 2004, a civil putative collective action complaint
was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, wherein it was alleged that the
company had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act regulations by
misclassifying as exempt employees our furniture department
managers, sales managers, and assistant managers.

Subsequent to its filing, the plaintiffs in the matter amended
the complaint to limit its scope to furniture department
managers.

The plaintiffs in the matter seek to recover, on behalf of
themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated,
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated
damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.  

On August 8, 2005, the District Court in Texas issued an order
conditionally certifying a class of all current and former
employees who worked for the company as a furniture department
manager at any time between Nov. 2, 2001 and Oct. 1, 2003.  

As a result of that order, notice was sent to approximately
1,300 individuals who had the right to opt-in to the Texas
matter.

In the third quarter of 2006, the company reached a tentative
settlement with the plaintiffs concerning the matter.

The company recorded, in the third quarter of 2006, a pretax
charge of $3.2 million included in selling and administrative
expenses for the estimated settlement liability of the matter.  

On Jan. 17, 2007, the court approved the settlement, and in
2007, the company paid the settlement, according to the
company's Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Nov. 3, 2007.

The suit is "Hanks, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No.
5:04-cv-00238-DF-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom with referral
to Judge Caroline Craven.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
          Fibich Hampton Leebron & Garth
          1401 McKinney, Suite 1800
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: 713/751-0025
          Fax: 17137510030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Paul E. Hash, Esq.
          Jackson Lewis – Dallas
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: 214/520-2400
          Fax: 12145202008
          E-mail: hashp@jacksonlewis.com


BROWN SHOE: Redfield Suit New Trial Request Goes to High Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class action filed against Brown Shoe Co.,
Inc., in relation to operations of its Redfield, Colorado site,
have filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Colorado seeking
review of the Court of Appeal’s decision denying them a new
trial.

The suit was filed in March 2000 alleging claims for trespass,
nuisance, strict liability, unjust enrichment, negligence, and
exemplary damages arising from the alleged release of solvents
contaminating the groundwater and indoor air in the areas
adjacent to and near the site.

In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict
finding the company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class
plaintiffs $1.0 million in damages.

The Company recorded this award along with estimated pretrial
interest on the award and estimated costs related to sanctions
imposed by the court related to a pretrial discovery dispute
between the parties.  The total pretax charge recorded for these
matters in 2003 was $3.1 million.  

The Company recorded an additional $0.6 million in expense in
2004, related to pretrial interest, to reflect the trial court’s
ruling extending the time period for which prejudgment interest
applied.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the December 2003 jury verdict
and in August 2007, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its
decision of the appeal.  

The Court rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain a new trial by
affirming the trial court judgment.  It also denied a cross-
appeal by the Company seeking a reversal of a portion of the
pretrial interest awarded to plaintiffs.  

The Court also reversed the trial court’s award of costs to the
Company, and remanded the case to the trial court for a
determination of whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover
their costs related to the trial.

The plaintiffs have filed a petition with the Supreme Court of
Colorado seeking review of the Court of Appeal’s decision
denying them a new trial, according to the company's Dec. 11,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007.

Brown Shoe Co., Inc. -- http://www.brownshoe.com/-- operates in  
the footwear industry.  The Company’s activities include the
operation of retail shoe stores, and the sourcing and marketing
of footwear for women, men and children.  It operates in two
segments: Retail Operations and Wholesale Operations.


COPART INC: Still Faces Ga. Suit Over Storage Liens Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc. continues to face a suit in the  State Court for
the County of Chatham, Georgia over allegations it charges
unreasonable amounts for storage liens.


On Sept. 16, 2005, Richard M. Gray filed the suit seeking
relief, including class certification, damages, fees, costs and
expenses.  

The company's motion for summary judgment was heard on Jan. 31,
2007, and was denied.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007.

Copart, Inc. -- http://www.copart.com/-- is a provider of  
salvage vehicle sales services in the U.S.  It also provides
vehicle suppliers, primarily insurance companies with a range of
services to process and sell salvage vehicles over the Internet
through its virtual bidding second-generation (VB2) Internet
auction technology.   

    
COPART INC: La. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss FCS Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana has
yet to rule on motions seeking for a dismissal of a purported
antitrust class action filed against Copart, Inc.

On July 28, 2006, Foreign Car Sales and Service LLC (FCS) filed
suit against Copart in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana, originally alleging antitrust violations
and unfair trade practices.

Relief sought originally included class certification based on
both unfair trade practices and Sherman Act violations, damages,
fees, costs and expenses.

On Jan. 5, 2007 the Magistrate required FCS to amend its
complaint.  

A First Amended Complaint was rejected, and a Second Amended
Complaint was submitted Feb. 16, 2007, in which FCS abandoned
its unfair trade practices claims, and now relies simply on
breach of contract claims.

On Aug. 23, 2007, Copart filed:

       -- Motion to Dismiss Claims for Improper Venue;

       -- Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Persons Needed
          for Just Adjudication;

       -- Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Diversity Jurisdiction;

       -- Motion to Dismiss Load Out Fee Class Action for
          Failure to State Claim; and

       -- Motion to Dismiss Load Out Fee Class Action for Lack
          of Diversity Jurisdiction.  

The court has the motions under consideration at this time, but
no decision has been rendered, according to the company's Dec.
10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007.

The suit is “F.C.S. L.L.C. v. Copart Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00535-FJP-SCR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana under Judge Frank J. Polozola with
referral to Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kimuel Wayne Lee, Esq.
          16137 Berryhill Drive
          Baton Rouge, LA 70817
          Phone: 225-751-3775

Representing the defendants is:

          Charles A. Schutte, Jr., Esq.
          Guglielmo, Marks, Schutte, Terhoeve & Love
          320 Somerulos Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Phone:  225-387-6966
          Fax: 225-387-8230
          E-mail: cschutte@gmstl.com


CVR ENERGY: Kans. Oil Spill Suit Dismissed, One More Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action over an oil spill in Coffeyville, Kansas,
which had named CVR Energy Inc. as a defendant has been
dismissed, however the company still faces a similar state court
action, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Crude oil was discharged from the Company’s refinery on July 1,
2007 due to the short amount of time available to shut down and
secure the refinery in preparation for the flood that occurred
on June 30, 2007.

More than 71,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from the  
refinery, far more than the 42,000 gallons that was initially
reported.  Due to widespread flooding that was occurring at the
time of the oil spill, the crude oil reached and damaged a very
large area.

As a result of the crude oil discharge, two putative class
actions (one federal and one state) were filed seeking
unspecified damages with class certification under applicable
law for all residents, domiciliaries and property owners of
Coffeyville, Kansas who were affected by the oil release.

The federal actions was filed by the law firms Parker Waichman
Alonso LLP, Hutton & Hutton Law Firm LLC, Neblett, Beard &
Arsenault and Becnel Law Firm LLC in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas, on behalf of numerous individuals and
business owners who have sustained losses as a result of the
refinery oil spill.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the federal suit for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.  On Nov. 6, 2007, the judge in
the federal class action granted the company’s motion to
dismiss.

The state court action is still pending.

The suit is “Dunham v. Coffeyville Resources, LLC et al., Case
No. 6:07-cv-01186-JTM-DWB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas under Judge J. Thomas Marten with
referral to Judge Donald W. Bostwick.

Representing plaintiffs is:

         Andrew W. Hutton
         Hutton & Hutton
         8100 E. 22nd St., North-Bldg. 1200
         P. O. Box 638
         Wichita, KS 67201-638
         Phone: 316-688-1166
         Fax: 316-686-1077
         E-mail: andrew.hutton@huttonlaw.com


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Suits Over Server Banking Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. paid $4 million to settle two class
actions over its server banking policy, The Orlando Sentinel
reports.

Darden Restaurants  -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a casual  
dining restaurant company.  The Company owns and operates the
Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones Barbeque
& Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in the U.S.
and Canada.

In January 2004, a former food server filed a purported class
action in California state court alleging that Red Lobster’s
“server banking” policies and practices (under which servers
settle guest checks directly with customers throughout their
shifts, and turn in collected monies at the shift’s end)
improperly required her and other food servers and bartenders to
make up cash shortages and walkouts in violation of California
law.  

The case was ordered to arbitration.  As a procedural matter,
the arbitrator ruled that class-wide arbitration is permissible
under our dispute resolution program.

In January 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel filed in California state
court a second purported class action on behalf of servers and
bartenders alleging that Olive Garden’s server banking policy
and its alleged failure to pay split shift premiums violated
California law.

According to the company's Jan. 4 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, Darden said that although
the company believes that their policies and practices were
lawful and that they have strong defenses to both cases,
following mediation with the plaintiffs, they have reached a
tentative resolution of the matters.

As a result, they have accrued approximately $4 million of legal
settlement costs for the quarter and six months ended November
25, 2007.

According to company spokesman Bob McAdam, the company admitted
no wrongdoing in settling the lawsuits, but decided they were
too costly to pursue further in court. The allegations, he
added, "are almost impossible to prove one way or the other."

Darden has "redoubled" its management training to ensure
compliance with the company's policy, he said.


DE BEERS: $259M Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District on New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing on April 14, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. for a
proposed $259 million settlement in the matter, “Shawn Sullivan,
et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-02819
(SRC).”

The hearing will be in Courtroom 8, U.S. Post Office &
Courthouse Building, Federal Square, Newark, New Jersey 07101.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before March 4, 2008.  Deadline for the submission of
a claim form is on May 19, 2008.

                         Case Background

In 2001, lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against
De Beers and entities associated with De Beers.  Other
defendants are:

       -- De Beers S.A.,

       -- DB Investments, Inc.,

       -- De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd.,

       -- De Beers A.G., Diamond Trading Company, Ltd.,

       -- CSO Valuations A.G.,

       -- Central Selling Organization, Central Holdings, Ltd.,
          and
       -- De Beers Centenary A.G. Defendants are the largest
          supplier of rough diamonds in the world.

The lawsuits claim that the Defendants unlawfully monopolized
the supply of Rough Gem Diamonds, sponsored false and misleading
advertising and unlawfully raised the prices of Gem Diamonds
higher than they should have been, all of which violated certain
federal and state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair
competition laws.

The following are the lawsuits being settled by the proposed
settlement:

       -- “Sullivan, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al.,
          USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04-02819 (SRC);”

       -- “Hopkins v. De Beers Centenary A.G., et al., San
          Francisco County, Ca. No. CGC-04-432954;”

       -- “Cornwell v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., Maricopa
          Co., Az. No. CV2005-2968;”

       -- “Null, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., D.N.J.
          Civil Action Index No. 05-04849 (SRC);”

       -- “Leider, et al. v. Ralfe, et al., D.N.J. Civil Action
          Index No. 06-00908 (SRC);”

       -- “Anco Industrial Diamond Corp. v. DB Investments,
          Inc., et al., D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 01-04463
          (SRC);” and

       -- “British Diamond Import Company v. Central Holdings
          Ltd., et al., USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04-
          04098 (SRC).”

                           Settlement

People and business entities in the U.S. who purchased gem
diamonds directly from De Beers and other diamond mining
companies from Sept. 20, 1997 to March 31, 2006 (Indirect
Purchaser Class) or who purchased loose gem diamonds, diamond
jewelry or other products containing a gem diamond from a seller
other than a mining company from Jan. 1, 1994 to March 31, 2006
(Direct Purchaser Class) are included in the settlement.

Under the proposed settlement, defendants agreed to pay a total
of $295 million to the plaintiffs.  Additionally, they also
agreed to pay up to $7 million to provide Notice of the Proposed
Settlement to the Indirect Purchaser Class.  

Of the $295 million, $22.5 million has been allocated to the
Direct Purchaser Class and $272.5 million has been allocated to
the Indirect Purchaser Class.

For more details, contact:

        Diamond Settlement Administrator
        Phone: 1-800-760-5431 or (612)-359-2002
        E-mail: Administrator@diamondsclassaction.com
        Web site: https://diamondsclassaction.com/


ELECTRONIC COS: Face Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp., ATI Technologies, and Advanced Micro Devices are
facing a class-action complaint filed Jan. 3 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
the companies conspired to fix prices for graphics processing
units and cards, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Robert Cademy brings this action pursuant to
Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities residing in the
United States who, from Nov. 30, 2002 to the present, purchased
computer Graphics Processing Units and Cards in the United
States indirectly from the defendants for their own use and not
for resale.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants formed and operated a combination or
         conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
         prices of, or allocate the market for, Graphics
         Processing Units and Cards;

     (b) whether the combination or conspiracy caused the price
         of Graphics Processing Units and Cards to be higher
         than they would have been in the absence of defendants'
         conduct;

     (c) the operative time period of defendants' combination or
         conspiracy;

     (d) whether defendants' conduct caused injury to the
         business or property of plaintiff and the members of
         the class;

     (e) the appropriate measure of the amount of damages
         suffered by the class;

     (f) whether defendants' conduct violates Section 1 of the
         Sherman Act;

     (g) whether defendants' conduct violates Sections 16720 and
         17200 of the California Business and Professions Code;

     (h) whether defendants' conduct violates the antitrust,
         unfair competition, and consumer protection laws of the
         other states; and

     (i) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief.

Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

     -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act, state
        antitrust law, and state consumer protection and/or
        unfair competition law claims alleged may be maintained
        as a class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3)
        of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy or
        combination alleged be adjudged and decreed to be:

        (1) a restraint of trade or commerce in violation of
            Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

        (2) an unlawful combination, trust, agreement,
            understanding, and/or concert of action in violation
            of the state antitrust laws;

        (3) violations of the state consumer protection and
            unfair competition law;

        (4) acts of unjust enrichment;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover damages, as
        provided by federal and state antitrust laws, and that a
        joint and several judgment in favor of plaintiff and the
        class be entered against defendants in an amount to be
        trebled in accordance with such laws;

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents, and employees thereof,  and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner:

        (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct,
            contract, conspiracy or combination alleged, or from
            entering into any other conspiracy alleged, or from
            entering into any other contract, conspiracy or
            combination having a similar purpose or effect, and
            from adopting or following any practice, plan,
            program or device having a similar purpose or
            effect; and

        (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the sale of Graphics
            Processing Units and Cards, information concerning
            bids of competitors;

     -- that plaintiff be awarded restitution, including
        disgorgment of profits obtained by defendants as a
        result of their acts of unfair competition and acts of
        unjust enrichment;

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

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

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

The suit is "Robert Cademy et al. v. Nvidia Corp. et al., Case
No. CV 08 0055," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
          David M. Watson, Esq.
          Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens, LLP
          625 Broadway, Suite 635
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619)232-0331
          Fax: (619) 232-4019


LOOKSMART LTD: Feb. 29 Hearing Set for $2M Click Fraud Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas will hold a
fairness hearing on Feb. 29, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. for a proposed
$2.54 million settlement of the matter, “Lane’s Gifts and
Collectibles et al. v. LookSmart, Ltd. et al., Case No. CV-2005-
52-1.”

The hearing will be held in the Hazel Street Courtroom of the
Miller County Courthouse located at 500 Hazel St., Texarkana,
Arkansas 71854.

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on Feb. 11,
2008.

                        Case Background

The suit names 11 search engines and Web publishers as
defendants.  It alleges breach of contract, restitution/unjust
enrichment/money had and received, and civil conspiracy claims
in connection with contracts allegedly entered into with
plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-click advertising or “Click
Fraud,” (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007).

Plaintiffs Lane’s Gifts and Collectibles, Max Caulfield d/b/a
Caulfield Investigations and Federal Tax Resolution LLC allege
that LookSmart breached its contracts with class members,
unjustly enriched itself, and engaged in a civil conspiracy by
failing to adequately detect and stop “click fraud” or other
invalid or improper clicks on online advertisements.

                           Settlement

The settlement covers all persons, together with any officer,
employee or agent of the same that have purchased advertising on
the Internet from LookSmart on or after Jan. 1, 2002, regardless
of where the ad was displayed.

The proposed settlement will provide advertising credits to
class members who certify that they were the victims of “click
fraud” or other invalid or improper clicks on online
advertisements purchased from LookSmart on or after Jan. 1,
2002.

Also, it will resolve claims that LookSmart breached its
contracts with advertisers and violated other laws by failing to
adequately detect and stop “click fraud” or other invalid or
improper clicks on online advertisement.

For more details, contact:


          LookSmart Click Charge Settlement Administrator
          Administar Services Group LLC
          P.O. Box 56636
          Jacksonville, FL 32241-6636
          Phone: (866) 756-5178
          Web site: http://www.looksmartsettlement.com/


MACY'S INC:  N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
consolidated two securities fraud class actions filed against
Macy's, Inc. f/k/a Federated Department Stores, Inc. over its
integration of The May Department Stores Co.

On June 4, 2007 and June 28, 2007, respectively, each of Robert
L. Garber and Marlene Blanchard separately filed a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain members of
its senior management on behalf of persons who purchased shares
of the Company's common stock between Feb. 8, 2007 and May 15,
2007.  

Both complaints allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects in relation to the integration of the
acquired May operations, resulting in supposed "artificial
inflation" of the Company's stock price during the relevant
period, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and costs.  

On Sept. 5, 2007, the court consolidated the two actions as, “In
re Macy's, Inc. Securities Litigation,” and appointed Pinellas
Park Retirement System (General Employees) as the lead plaintiff
in the consolidated action.  

The suit is “Robert L. Garber, et al. v. Macy's Inc., et al.,”
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

Representing in the plaintiffs:

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

              - and -

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

    
MACY’S INC: Still Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Macy’s Inc. continues to face a purported class action filed on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries of its 401(k) and May
Department Stores' retirement plans.

The suit was filed by Cincinnati lawyer Stephen Imm with Katz
Greenberger and Norton LLP on behalf of Ebrahim ShanehChian, who
is identified as a resident of Texas who was a Macy's employee
and plan participant during a purported class period.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio against:

     * Macy's, Inc.;
     * officers and directors and plan committee members;
     * Terry J. Lundgren, chief executive;
     * Meyer Feldberg;
     * Plan Committee for the Macy's, Inc.;
     * Profit Sharing 401(K) Plan;
     * Plan Committee for the May Department Stores Company
       Profit Sharing Plan; and
     * John Does 1 – 25

The suit was brought on behalf of persons who participated in
the 401(k) Plan and The May Department Stores Company Profit
Sharing Plan (May Plan) between Feb. 27, 2005 and the present.  

The complaint charges the Company, as well as members of the
Company's board of directors and certain members of senior
management, with breach of fiduciary duties owed under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act to participants in the
401(k) Plan and the May Plan.  

The suit is alleging that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects in relation to the integration of the
acquired May operations, resulting in supposed "artificial
inflation" of the Company's stock price between Aug. 30, 2005
and May 15, 2007.  

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and costs.

Macy's, Inc. reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007.

The suit is "Shanehchian v. Macy's, Inc., Case No.
1:2007cv00828," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge S. Arthur Spiegel with
referral to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hogan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
          Katz, Greenberger and Norton, LLP
          105 East Fourth Street
          4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4056
          Phone: (513) 721-5151
          Fax: (513) 621-9285


MAY DEPARTMENT: Mo. Court Denies "Decristofaro" Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri denied a motion that
sought for a dismissal of a purported stockholder class action
filed against The May Department Stores Co., which was acquired
by Macy's, Inc. f/k/a Federated Department Stores, Inc. in a
merger.

On Jan. 11, 2006, Edward Decristofaro, an alleged former May
stockholder, filed a purported class action on behalf of all
former May stockholders against May and the former members of
the board of directors of May.  

The complaint generally alleges that the directors of May
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith
and candor to May stockholders in connection with the merger.

The plaintiffs seek rescission of the merger or an unspecified
amount of rescissory damages and costs including attorneys' fees
and experts' fees.  

In July 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the case.

Macy's, Inc. reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007.

Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.fds.com-- formerly Federated  
Department Stores, Inc., operates departmental stores.  Its
retail stores sells a range of merchandise, including men’s,
women’s and children’s apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home
furnishings and other consumer goods, and are diversified by
size of store, merchandising character and character of
community served.


METLIFE INC: Fla. RICO Act Violations Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
A tag-along order that indefinitely stayed a purported
class action brought by the American Dental Association against
MetLife Inc. in the  U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida remained in force.

In May 19, 2003, the American Dental Association and three
individual providers filed a purported class action against
MetLife Inc. and Cigna Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of in-
network providers who allege that their claims are being
wrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use
and programming of software.  The complaint alleges federal
racketeering and various state law theories of liability.  

The district court has granted in part and denied in part
MetLife's motion to dismiss.  MetLife has filed another motion
to dismiss.  

The court has issued a tag-along order, related to a medical
managed care trial, which will stay the lawsuit indefinitely.

The suit is "American Dental Asso, et al. v. Cigna Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:03-cv-21266-FAM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under Federico A.
Moreno.  


METLIFE LIFE: Settles Suit Over Structured Settlement Annuities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the lawsuit, "Macomber, et al. v. Travelers Property
Casualty Corp., et al.," settled the case that was filed before
the Connecticut Superior Court on April 7, 1999 .

An amended putative class action complaint was filed against The
Travelers Life and Annuity Co., now known as MetLife Life and
Annuity Company of Connecticut (MLAC), Travelers Equity Sales,
Inc. and certain former affiliates.

The amended complaint alleged Travelers Property Casualty Corp.,
a former MLAC affiliate, purchased structured settlement
annuities from MLAC and spent less on the purchase of those
structured settlement annuities than agreed with claimants, and
that commissions paid to brokers for the structured settlement
annuities, including an affiliate of MLAC, were paid in part to
Travelers Property Casualty Corp.

On May 26, 2004, the Connecticut Superior Court certified a
nationwide class action involving the following claims against
MLAC: violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice
Statute, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.

On June 15, 2004, the defendants appealed the class
certification order.  

In March 2006, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial
court's certification of a class.  In June 2007, the matter was
settled as to all defendants.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com-- is a provider of    
insurance and  other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suit Over Proprietary Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. continues to face a purported
class action in relation to the sale of certain proprietary
products by its distributors.

The suit, "Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et
al.," was filed Jan. 31 against Metropolitan Life, MetLife
Securities, Inc. and MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.

Plaintiff asserts legal theories of violations of the federal
securities laws and violations of state laws with respect to the
sale of certain proprietary products (as opposed to non-
proprietary products) by the company's agency distribution
group.  

They seek rescission, compensatory damages, interest, punitive
damages and attorneys' fees and expenses.

The suit is "Thomas et al v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et
al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00121-F," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P.
Friot.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William B. Federman, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         Fax: 405-239-2112
         E-mail: wfederman@aol.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Emiline T. Ebrite, Esq.
         David L. Kearney, Esq.
         Gable & Gotwals
         211 N Robinson Ave., 15th Fl.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-5500
         Fax: 405-235-2875
         E-mail: tebrite@gablelaw.com
                 dkearney@gablelaw.com


PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls Trailer Bicycles with Defective Coupler
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Cycle Inc., of Madison, Wis. is recalling about 7,000
InStep "Pathfinder," Schwinn "Run About," and Mongoose
"Alley Cat" Trailer Bicycles.

The company said the coupler connecting the children's trailer
bike to the adult's bicycle has welds that can fail, posing a
fall hazard to children.

Pacific Cycle has received one report of the coupler failing,
resulting in a fall and abrasions to the rider.

The "Pathfinder," "Run About," and "Alley Cat" are single-
wheeled, children's bicycles that connect to an adult's bicycle
by a coupler. The recall includes model numbers: 12-PF250, 13-
SC250, 13-SC350 and M5101. The model number is located on the
lower seat tube of the frame. The affected couplers have welded
plates; bicycles that have couplers with cast parts are not
included in this recall.

The bicycles were made in China and sold at bicycle stores and
retailers nationwide from January 2007 through August 2007 for
between $80 and $120.

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 Pacific Cycle
toll-free at (877) 564-2261 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday, or visit http://www.instep.net,
http://www.schwinnbikes.com,or http://www.mongoose.com.

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the
recalled product, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08156.html.


[Redacted]


TENNESSEE: Faces Suit Over Theft of Voters' Registration Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for
Davidson County, Tennessee in relation to the theft of computers
containing voting registration information at the Nashville-
Davidson County Courthouse in December.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the provisions of Rule
23 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
individuals whose encrypted personal information and
computerized data was held and was meant to be secured by
Defendants on Davidson County Election Commission's (DCECs)
computers, computer system, computer hard drives, computer discs
and other likely repositories of such information and was
subject of unauthorized disclosure resulting in the mental
compromise of the security confidentiality and integrity of that
personal information.

They want the court to rule on whether:

     (a) defendants' legal responsibility to prevent the
         unauthorized requisition of unencrypted data that  
         materially compromised the security confidentiality or
         integrity of personal information maintained by
         defendants;

     (b) defendants' and DCEC's failure to disclose any breach
         of the security of the system following discovery or
         notification was or reasonably believed to have been
         required by an unauthorized person in the most
         expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay
         as required by law;

     (c) defendants' and DCEC's failure to notify the class of
         the personal information of any breach of the security
         of the computerized data immediately following
         discovery of unauthorized acquisition as required by
         state law;

     (d) defendants' and DCEC's failure to properly secure the
         class' personal information by taping passwords and
         usernames on the computers, unplugging security
         cameras, listening to music rather than guarding the
         data and neglecting to encrypt the data on the computer
         equipment;

     (e) defendants' and DCEC's failure to notify without
         unreasonable delay all consumer reporting agencies and
         credit bureaus that compile and maintain files on
         consumers on a nationwide basis as defined by federal
         law of the timing distribution and content of the
         notices as required by state law; and

     (f) such other legal and factual issues as may develop
         during the course of discovery in this case moving
         forward.

Plaintiffs demand the following relief:

     -- that process by issued requiring the defendants to
        answer the complaint within the time required by law;

     -- that the court enter an order determining that the
        actions involving claims common to all class members may
        be maintained as a class action as contemplated by Rule
        23 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- that plaintiffs be awarded such damages as will fully
        compensate plaintiffs for all injustices caused by the
        defendants' actions in violation of Tennessee common and
        statutory law;

     -- that defendants be required by mandatory injunction to
        notify each plaintiff including every member of the
        class of the breach of the security system caused by its
        conduct;

     -- that defendants procure a credit report for each
        plaintiff from each credit bureau and credit reporting
        agency;

     -- that the defendants procure monitoring of credit reports
        of each person whose personal information has been
        compromised for not less than 90 days;

     -- that the defendants indemnify and hold harmless each
        voter whose personal information has been compromised;

     -- that all monetary damages proven at trial be trebled
        pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act;

     -- that the plaintiffs' attorneys be awarded reasonable   
        attorneys' fees and costs of this action; and

     -- that the plaintiffs be awarded other damages as may be
        shown by the proof.

The suit is "Raymond T. Throckmorton et al. v. Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County et al., Case No.
08C43," filed in the circuit Court for the Davidson County,
Tennessee.

Plaintiffs' counsel:

          Blackburn & McCune PLLC
          201 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1700
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Phone: (615) 254-7770
          Fax: (615) 251-1385
          Web site: http://www.blackburnandmccune.com


TISHMAN SPEYER: Dismissal of Suit Over Market Rents Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit over market rents at Stuyvesant Town and
Peter Cooper Village filed a notice of appeal against a ruling
dismissing the case.

     (1) “Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al.”
         (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed January 22, 2007).  

This lawsuit was filed by a putative class of “market rate”
tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village against
parties including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company and
Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company.

Metropolitan Life was initially a named defendant but the action
has been discontinued as to Metropolitan Life since it did not
own the properties during the time period in question. This
group of tenants claim that the MetLife entities, and since the
sale of the properties, Tishman Speyer as current owner,
improperly charged market rents when only lower regulated rents
were permitted.

The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax
abatements. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages. A
second purported class action, originally titled

     (2) “Carroll v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et. al” (Sup.
          Ct., N.Y. County, filed February 14, 2007),

was filed against the same defendants alleging similar claims as
in the Roberts case and, in addition, includes a claim of unjust
enrichment and purported violation of New York General Business
Law Section 349.

The Carroll action was consolidated into the Roberts action. A
motion to dismiss was filed in the consolidated lawsuit and oral
argument was heard on May 15, 2007. By decision dated August 16,
2007, the court granted MetLife’s motion to dismiss and
dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

For more details, contact:

         Stuart M. Saft, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 545-4710
         Fax: (212) 686-0114
         Web site: http://www.whafh.com


T-N-T FARMS: Bean Pickers File Suit in Fla. Over Withheld Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
T-N-T Farms, Inc. and Quality Kid Produce Inc. are facing a
lawsuit seeking class-action status in a U.S. District Court in
Florida, Houston Chronicle reports.

Seasonal farmworkers Borel Venant, and Claircina Sinois filed
the suit on behalf of about 1,000 others.  They are asking for
back wages and damages totaling more than $1 million.

The lawsuit alleges the two companies failed to pay the workers
on time, failed to pay them for all the hours they were in the
field and did not report all the workers' earnings to the U.S.

Representing the workers is:

          Gregory S. Schell, Esq.
          Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmers Justice Project
          P.O. Box 2110
          Belle Glade, FL 33430-7110
          Fax: (561) 992-5040


TRADITION VALET: Valets File Minn. Suit Over Tipping Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tradition Valet, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the
Fourth Judicial District in the State of Minnesota for,
allegedly, unlawfully withholding earned gratuities by valets in
violation of Minnesota law.

Named plaintiff Dan Ryan bring this action pursuant to Rules
23.01 and 23.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure on
behalf of all individuals who were employed as valets by
defendant from December XX, 2004 through the present, worked at
events where customers purchased a "pre-paid gratuity," and were
denied full value of that gratuity.

The causes of action raised by plaintiffs are violation of
Minnesota Stat 177.24, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

     -- for class certification and for designation of
        plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel as
        class counsel;

     -- that the conduct of defendant be determined and
        adjucated to constitute conversion and unjust
        enrichment;

     -- that the conduct of defendant be determined and
        adjucated to be in violation of Minn. Stat. Section
        177.24 for damages in the amount of plaintiffs' and each
        member of the Minnesota class' unlawfully retained
        gratuities, plus an additional equal amount as
        liquidated damages, all costs, disbursements, witness
        fees, and attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of
        this claim, for all available civil penalties, and all
        other legal and equitable relief of this claim, for all
        available civil penalties, and all other legal ad
        equitable relief available pursuant to Minn. Stat.
        Section 177.24, Minn. Stat. 177.27 and other applicable
        law;

     -- for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for
        punitive damages;

     -- for all reasonable damages available at common law or
        pursuant to Minnesota Statutes flowing from defendant's
        conduct in an amount greater than $50,000 and for all
        other available legal and equitable relief;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the Minnesota class be
        awarded all attorney's fees and costs incurred in the
        prosecution of this action; and

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

The suit is "Dan Ryan et al. v. Tradition Valet, Inc.," filed in
the Fourth Judicial District Court in the State of Minnesota.

Representing plaintiffs are:

           Steven Andrew Smith
           E. Michelle Drake
           4600 IDS Center
           80 South 8th Street
           Minneapolis, MN 55402
           Phone: (612) 256-3200
           Fax: (612) 338-4878


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


SECURITY CAPITAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Security Capital Assurance Ltd. from April 23,
2007 through December 10, 2007, including those who purchased
shares in the Company's Secondary Public Offering of June 6,
2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Security Capital and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Security Capital is a
Bermuda-domiciled holding company whose operating subsidiaries
provide credit enhancement and protection products to the public
finance and structured finance markets throughout the United
States and internationally.

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 failed to fully disclose the extent of
         its exposure to collateralized debt obligations
         ("CDOs") and other residential mortgage-backed
         securities ("RMBS");

     (2) that the Company failed to adequately reserve for
         losses as conditions in the housing and credit markets
         deteriorated; and

     (3) that the Company improperly valued its credit default
          swaps.

On July 23, 2007, Security Capital shocked investors when it
reported its second quarter 2007 financial and operational
results. For the quarter, the Company reported net income of
$25.9 million, or $0.40 per share, compared to $36.4 million, or
$0.79 per share, reported in the second quarter of 2006. The
quarterly decline in net income was principally due to a decline
in refunding activity, and a significant increase in losses on
derivative instruments.

On this news, the Company's shares declined $4.38 per share, or
15.19 percent, to close on July 24, 2007 at $24.26 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on October 25, 2007, the Company reported its third quarter
2007 financial and operational results. For the quarter, the
Company reported a net loss of $89.9 million, or $1.40 per
share, compared to net income of $28.4 million, or $0.49 per
share, reported in the third quarter of 2006. This quarterly
loss was due to a $143 million mark-to-market loss. On this
news, the Company's shares declined an additional $1.20 per
share, or 8.3 percent, to close on October 25, 2007 at $13.25
per share, on heavy trading volume.

Then on December 11, 2007, Fortune published an article
suggesting that Security Capital may be facing ratings
downgrades. On this news, the Company's shares declined an
additional $1.23 per share, or 15 percent, to close on December
11, 2007 at $6.97 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The following day, Fitch Ratings put Security Capital on ratings
watch "negative," which caused the Company's shares to decline
an additional $1.52 per share, or 21.8 percent, to close on
December 12, 2007 at $5.45 per share. Finally, on December 13,
2007, the Company issued a press release responding to the Fitch
Ratings report in an attempt to reassure investors of its
solvency. On this news, the Company's shares declined an
additional $1.22 per share, or 22.4 percent, to close on
December 13, 2007 at $4.23 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 5,
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
           E-mail: info@sbtklaw.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  * * *