CAR_Public/080114.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, January 14, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 9

                            Headlines


AT&T INC: Sales Consultants File FSLA Violations Lawsuit in Ga.
BRISTOL-MYERS: Canadian Court Approves Serzone Suit Settlement
BRITISH TELECOM: I.Net Merger Could Spur Lawsuit, Report Says
CALIFORNIA: 18 Nursing Homes Face Lawsuit Over False Promotions
CALIFORNIA: L.A. School District Accused of Labor Law Violation

CLA USA: Living Trusts Sellers Accused of Exploiting Seniors
DHL: Settles Lawsuit Filed by Shipment Contractors for $25M
DRDGOLD LTD: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
DYNAMEX INC: Opening Brief Filed in Appeal of Calf. Labor Suit
DYNAMEX INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Misclassification of Drivers

GEORGIA: Suit Against Valdosta Claims Routine Torture of Inmates
INDONESIA: Pondok Indah Residents File Suit Over Busway Corridor
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Amend Cal. Securities Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: April 30 Hearing Set for Calif. RALs Litigation
JACKSON HEWITT: 6th Circuit Considers Appeal in Credit Act Suit

JACKSON HEWITT: W.Va. “Hunter” Credit Act Suit in Discovery
JACKSON HEWITT: Seeks to Dismiss Ill. RICO Act Violations Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: N.J. Court OKs Motion to Junk Racketeering Suit
KADANT INC: Faces Lawsuit in Mass. Over Defective Products
KAITLIN GROUP: Faces Marketing Fraud Suit in Ontario Court

KEITH MACNALLY: Workers File N.Y. Lawsuit Over Underpayments
MIRALUS HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Headache Drug
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Ut. Securities Suit Survives Dismissal Motion
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Ill. Judge Dismisses FCRA Violations Lawsuit
PANALPINA WORLD: Accused of Fixing Freight Forwarding Prices

SAPPI LTD: Dismissed as Defendant in Paper Antitrust Lawsuits
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Complaint in Lawnmower Litigation Dismissed
TENNESSEE VALLEY: $18M Settlement of Overcharging Suit Okayed
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dismissal of Hurricane-Related Suit Appealed


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

SMITH & WESSON: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
UNITED RENTALS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********  


AT&T INC: Sales Consultants File FSLA Violations Lawsuit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP has brought a putative
collective action unpaid wage and overtime lawsuit against AT&T,
Inc., AT&T Corp. and BellSouth Corp.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on December 10, 2007. The
defendants were served on December 20, 2007 and January 7, 2008.

Plaintiffs allege that AT&T, formerly known as BellSouth,
violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by refusing to
compensate Sales Consultants, Sales and Service Consultants and
Sales Associates, and those similarly situated, for all their
time worked.

The suit was started by a current Universal Sales Associate and
a former Sales Consultant on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that
they were denied pay for time worked before and after their
shifts and during meal and rest breaks. A large portion of this
time was spent booting-up computers, logging into computer
systems and performing customer callbacks.

Plaintiffs' attorney David Schlesinger explained, "Call center
employees from a number of locations, in a number of states,
appear to have been denied wages and overtime for work performed
before and after their shifts and during meal and rest breaks.
It looks like these companies' pay practices systematically
denied call center workers compensation for time worked."

Plaintiffs are represented by Michele Fisher, James Kaster and
David Schlesinger from Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP, which is
based in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California.

The case is “Brooks et al. v. AT&T, Inc., AT&T Corp. and
Bellsouth Corporation, Civ. No. 1: 07-cv-3054,” N.D. Georgia.

Individuals may find information about joining this action at
http://www.overtimecases.comor by calling (877) 448-4092.

Contacts: David Schlesinger 612-256-3277 Jim Kaster 612-256-3202

Plaintiffs counsel is:

          Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
          Phone: 612-338-1919  
          Fax: 612-338-4878
          Website: http://www.nka.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: Canadian Court Approves Serzone Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Justice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified as class action and approved a settlement of an
Ontario proceeding over Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s SERZONE drug.

Without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, in February 2006,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. executed an agreement in principle with
respect to all of the SERZONE claims in Canada.

The class actions were filed in 2002 against the Company in
Canada alleging, among other things, that it knew or should have
known about the hepatic risks posed by SERZONE, an
antidepressant marketed by the company, and failed to adequately
warn physicians and users of the risks.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, all claims
will be dismissed, the litigation will be terminated, the
defendants will receive releases and the Company committed to
paying at least $1 million into funds for class members.

The Approval Hearing for the Settlement in the Ontario Superior
Court action brought on behalf of Class Members resident in
Canada, excluding Quebec, occurred on April 24, 2007.

The Approval Hearing in the Quebec Superior Court, District of
Montreal action brought on behalf of Class Members resident in
Quebec occurred on April 17, 2007.

By order dated December 6, 2007, Mr. Justice Cullity of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the Ontario
proceeding as a class action and approved the Serzone  
Settlement. As noted, the Settlement must be approved by the
Quebec Superior Court for the Settlement to become effective.
The decision of the Quebec Superior Court is pending.

Serzone Settlement on the Net: http://www.serzonesettlement.ca/

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged in  
the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing,
distribution and sale of pharmaceuticals and other healthcare-
related products.

For more information, contact:

          Ontario National Class Counsel
          Rochon Genova LLP
          McPhadden, Samac, Merner, Barry
          Phone: 1 (866) 881-2292

          Quebec Class Counsel
          Sylvestre Fafard Painchaud
          Phone: 514-937-2881

          Claims Administrator
          Crawford Class Action Services
          Phone: at 1-866-640-0039


BRITISH TELECOM: I.Net Merger Could Spur Lawsuit, Report Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
A judge's comment on a possible motive behind the merger between
Italian business services provider I.Net SpA and British Telecom
Group (BT) could spur I.Net minority shareholders to pursue what
they perceive is rightly theirs through a class action,
according to Il Sole 24 Ore.

The Milan court cleared the transaction last month, but the
approving judge has cast doubt on the business motivation behind
the deal and on the share-swap ratio, according to the report.

I.Net minority shareholders Tamburi Investments Partners SpA and
hedge fund Trafalgar Asset Managers had claimed the takeover
offer was too low, and they then opposed the merger.


CALIFORNIA: 18 Nursing Homes Face Lawsuit Over False Promotions
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed in Orange County Superior Court against
Sun Mar Health Care, Inc., Sun Mar Management, and its 18
California skilled nursing homes on behalf of Warren Richardson,
by and through his Attorney in Fact Marlene Miller.

The suit was filed on Mr. Richardson's behalf and on behalf of
all California citizens who resided in, or are residing in, one
of the company's California facilities from Jan. 8, 2005 through
Jan. 5, 2008.

Named nursing homes in the complaint:

     -- California Sun Mar Facilities
        ANAHEIM
          Anaheim Healthcare Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received
          11 notices of deficiencies by the California
          Department of Health for providing substandard care
          and violating residents' rights.

          Sun-Mar Health Care, Inc. dba Sun Mar Nursing Center
          8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 10 notices of deficiencies
          by the California Department of Health for providing
          substandard care and violating residents' rights.

        DAVIS
          Courtyard Health Care Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07:
          received 20 notices of deficiencies by the California
          Department of Health for providing substandard care
          and violating residents' rights.

          8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 14 notices of deficiencies.

        EL MONTE
          Gibraltar Convalescent Hospital, Inc. dba Sunset Manor
          Convalescent Hospital 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 18
          notices of deficiencies by the California Department
          of Health for providing substandard care and violating
          residents' rights.

        FONTANA
          Citrus Nursing Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 8
          notices of deficiencies by the California Department
          of Health for providing substandard care and violating
          residents' rights.

          8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 11 notices of deficiencies.

          Sun-Mar Nursing Centers dba Laurel Convalescent Center
          8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received multiple notices of
          deficiencies by the California Department of Health
          for providing substandard care and violating
          residents' rights.

        FULLERTON
          Gordon Lane Care Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 19
          notices of deficiencies by the California Department
          of Health for providing substandard care and violating
          residents' rights.

        GARDEN GROVE
          Garden Park Care Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 10
          notices of deficiencies by the California Department
          of Health for providing substandard care and violating
          residents' rights.

        LA HABRA
          Park Regency Care, LLC dba Park Regency Care Center
          8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 29 notices of deficiencies
          by the California Department of Health for providing
          substandard care and violating residents' rights.

        LOS ANGELES (90019)
          Inland Medical Enterprises, Inc. dba Alcott
          Rehabilitation Hospital 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 11
          notices of deficiencies by the California Department
          of Health for providing substandard care and violating
          residents' rights.

          8/1/04 - 7/31/05: received 12 notices of deficiencies.

        MONTEREY PARK
          Heritage Manor Healthcare dba Heritage Manor 8/1/06 -
          10/31/07: received 13 notices of deficiencies by the
          California Department of Health for providing
          substandard care and violating residents' rights.

          Monterey Park Convalescent Hospital 8/1/06 - 10/31/07:
          received multiple notices of deficiencies by the
          California Department of Health for providing
          substandard care and violating residents' rights.

        PARAMOUNT
          Paramount Convalescent Group, Inc. dba Paramount
          Convalescent  Hospital 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received
          multiple notices of deficiencies by the California
          Department of Health for providing substandard care
          and violating residents' rights.

        RIVERSIDE
          F & B Health Care dba Extended Care Hospital of
          Riverside 8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 19 notices of
          deficiencies by the California Department of Health
          for providing substandard care and violating
          residents' rights.

        ROSEMEAD
          Gibraltar Convalescent Hospital, Inc. dba Del Mar
          Convalescent Hospital 8/1/04 - 7/31/05: received
          multiple notices of deficiencies by the California
          Department of Health for providing substandard care
          and violating residents' rights.

        SANTA ANA
          Bartlett Care Center LLC dba French Park Care Center
          8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 21 notices of deficiencies
          by the California Department of Health for providing
          substandard care and violating residents' rights.

          8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 34 notices of deficiencies.

          8/1/04 - 7/31/05: received 20 notices of deficiencies.

        SAN DIEGO
          Villa Rancho Bernardo Health Care, LLC dba Villa
          Rancho Bernardo Care Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07:
          received 14 notices of deficiencies by the California
          Department of Health for providing substandard care
          and violating residents' rights.

          8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 18 notices of deficiencies.

          8/1/04 - 7/31/05: received 16 notices of deficiencies.

        SANTA MONICA
          P.C. Care, LLC dba Pacific Convalescent Center 8/1/06
          - 10/31/07: received 11 notices of deficiencies by the
          California Department of Health for providing
          substandard care and violating residents' rights.

        TUJUNGA
          Wyngate Nursing Center dba North Valley Nursing Center
          8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 16 notices of deficiencies
          by the California Department of Health for providing
          substandard care and violating residents' rights.

The complaint alleges that Sun Mar Health Care, Inc. promotes
itself to people who are elderly and to their families by
falsely claiming to provide superior and attentive skilled
nursing care. Sun Mar's promotional materials claim the
facilities provide skilled nursing care services of a particular
standard and quality that will meet the needs of prospective and
current residents.

The suit alleges that the corporate officers and managers of the
individual homes deliberately keep the budgets so tight that
appropriate staffing and training of staff cannot be provided
and, therefore, residents do not receive the care they need and
should be getting, and for which they are paying.

"In our opinion, Sun Mar facilities have a long record of
excessive and repeated citations for substandard patient care
and violations of residents' rights, according to California
Department of Health records," says Long Beach, Calif.,
plaintiff attorney Stephen M. Garcia of The Garcia Law Firm.

"It is a fact, accepted by the entire long-term care community,
that there is a direct correlation between the conduct that
leads to abuse of an elder and insufficient staffing levels in
these long-term facilities. In our opinion, residents of Sun Mar
facilities are elder abuse victims waiting to happen as the
result of the inappropriate operations in the Sun Mar facilities
as alleged in our complaint. It's just a matter of whose parents
or grandparents are going to be the victims."

"Simply stated," says Mr. Garcia, "the lawsuit alleges that Sun
Mar misrepresents the quality and nature of the services it
provides to their residents in order to entice them to pay good
money for services Sun Mar does not provide. This lawsuit seeks
to change corporate attitudes of greed over proper care, of
promoting profits over the needs of the elder and vulnerable
adults the long-term communities serve."

Mr. Garcia points to French Park Care Center in Santa Ana as an
example. Records indicate that as far back as Aug. 1, 2004 to
July 31, 2005, this Sun Mar facility was cited for 20
deficiencies by the California Dept. of Health. The facility
continued to deteriorate from Aug. 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006,
when it received a mind-boggling 34 deficiencies. And most
recently, Aug. 1, 2006 to Oct. 31, 2007, the facility is still
hovering at an unacceptable level of 21 notices of deficiencies.

The lawsuit alleges that substandard care and neglect of
residents' rights was a corporate-wide strategy and policy
mandated by its parent corporation, officers, managers, and the
principals of Sun Mar Health Care.

The suit specifically names:

     -- Irving Bauman, president and principal of Sun Mar Health
        Care, Inc., and

     -- the administrators and managing agents of each of the 18
        facilities, including:

        * Robert Koontz,
        * Hanh Ta,
        * Pat Chase-Lyle,
        * David Ormiston,
        * Chris Stottlemyer,
        * Ron Ofer,
        * Sandra Faay,
        * Andrew Litchman,
        * Fernando Rodriguez,
        * Janie Chen-Campos,
        * Martin Hipschman,
        * Smita Muir,
        * Carmen Hernandez,
        * Robert Furbin,
        * Bertha Noble, and
        * John Baldwin

The suit alleges that the company and its principals,
deliberately understaffed its facilities by forcing each
facility to operate under a budget, approved and directed by Mr.
Bauman and the directors of the individual facilities, that
charged for services not provided, thereby enriching themselves
at the expense of their elderly residents.

"When Sun Mar residents put down their deposits and pay their
fees, they do so with the expectation that they will receive the
care they were being promised and which was advertised," says
Mr. Garcia. "We believe the facts clearly show that the promised
services were not and are not being delivered, that Sun Mar
management knew this to be true, and yet it continues making the
same misrepresentation to the public. At a minimum, our parents
and grandparents, who have lived long and served well, deserve
the truth from those who would take their money. This lawsuit is
about that truth being told about Sun Mar facilities in
California."

For more information, contact:

          Geri Wilson
          The Jonathan Group
          Phone: 626.403.6741
          Mobile: 626.487.2235
          E-mail: gerij9@yahoo.com


CALIFORNIA: L.A. School District Accused of Labor Law Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and Deloitte
Consulting, the district's payroll contractor, are facing a
class action filed by two LAUSD high school employees for
alleged underpayment, City News Service reports.

The suit seeks class-action status.  It was filed by Elizabeth
Forsberg, a teacher, and Dawn Amenta, an aide, who works at El
Camino Real High School.  

The suit claims the employees earned less than minimum wage by
being underpaid.  "Defendant LAUSD has failed and refused, and
continues to fail and refuse, to pay for all hours worked as
required by California wage and hour laws," the suit claims.  

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, including unpaid wages
and general and punitive damages.

The district has been plagued by payroll difficulties for nearly
a year already, the report said.


CLA USA: Living Trusts Sellers Accused of Exploiting Seniors
------------------------------------------------------------
Texarkana residents filed on Dec. 19 a class action in Miller
County Circuit Court (Ark.) against sellers of living trust
documents accusing the salesmen of exploiting senior citizens,
Michelle Massey of the Southeast Texas Record reports.

Defendants named are:

     -- John R. Vermillion,
     -- John Vermillion and Associates L.L.C.,
     -- CLA USA Inc.,
     -- CLA USA Insurance Services,
     -- CLA Marketing, CLA Estate Services,
     -- CLA Insurance Services,
     -- Charles Loper Jr.,
     -- Charles Loper III.,
     -- Steven Morgan,
     -- Robert Reese, and
     -- The Estate Plan Inc.

The living trust sellers are facing allegations of "masquerading
as qualified financial advisers, estate planners, lawyers, and
paralegals" to "exploit and prey" upon senior citizens with the
creation and selling of "unnecessary and often useless" living
trusts, according to the report.

Defendants are accused of fraud, unauthorized practice of law,
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy. The suit
alleges that the defendants created and sold the living trusts
as part of a scheme to gain access to senior citizens' financial
information in order to sell annuities and other financial
products.

The plaintiffs accuse Vermillion of violating rules of
professional conduct, failing to advise clients, engaging in
unsolicited contact with clients and practicing law in Arkansas
while unlicensed.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants made misrepresentations to entice
         potential class members to purchase living trusts and
         other products;

     (b) whether defendants fraudulently concealed material
         omissions;

     (c) whether defendants engaged in unauthorized practice of
         law;

     (d) whether there was conspiracy among the defendants to
         commit fraud;

     (e) whether defendants breached fiduciary duties;

     (f) whether defendants' conduct was intentional;

     (g) whether plaintiffs are entitled to rescission, refund,
         or restitutionary damages and;

     (h) whether plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief.

The suit seeks disgorgement of defendants' gains and
restitution.  It is also seeking:

     -- temporary and permanent injunction against the  
        defendants to cease and desist the sales of living
        trusts while telling the consumers they will avoid
        estate taxes;

     -- for the defendants to explain in every meeting that the  
        living trusts is unnecessary to avoid estate taxes
        because of federal estate tax exemptions;

     -- for the defendants to notify members of the proposed
        class with regard to the potential restitutionary relief
        and any other activities to prevent future fraud.

The suit is case no. cv-2007-474-2 filed in Miller County
Circuit Court under Judge Jim Hudson.

Plaintiffs' counsel:

          Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, L.L.P.
          Century Plaza, Suite 400,
          2900 St. Michael Drive, P.O. Box 6128
          Texarkana, Texas 75505-6128
          Phone: 903-334-7000  
          Fax: 903-334-7007
          Website: http://www.pattonroberts.co


DHL: Settles Lawsuit Filed by Shipment Contractors for $25M
-----------------------------------------------------------
International shipper DHL has settled a $25 million class action
over a glitch in its computer system that resulted to some
contractors not being paid, David Bertola of Business First of
Buffalo reports.

DHL's computer system has prevented certain types of shipments
from being processed resulting to some contractors not being
paid.  The suit was filed on behalf of a class of contractors
who handled shipments.  

Plaintiffs' law firm Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham & Coppola
LLC says the total number of contractors involved in the suit
numbers 1,400 nationwide. These include present and previous DHL
contractors dating back to 1994.

Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham & Coppola LLC on the Net:
http://www.ruppbaase.com/.


DRDGOLD LTD: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a consolidated securities fraud class action pending
against DRDGOLD, Ltd.

On June 13, 2005, a securities class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and two of its former officers.

Since then, four nearly identical securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and the same officers.
The cases were consolidated and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed.

The actions were allegedly filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's shares during two purported class periods spanning
from Oct. 23, 2003, to Feb. 25, 2005.

The complaints alleged generally that the company and the
individual defendants made false and  misleading public
statements regarding, among other things:

       -- the restructuring of the company's North West
          Operations in South Africa;

       -- the company's ability to reduce the negative impact of
          the increasing value of the South African Rand; and

       -- the strength of the company's balance sheet.

The company defended the lawsuits brought against the company
and its officers named in the complaints.  Its attorneys filed
an application to  dismiss the plaintiffs'  case and on Jan. 31,
2007, the Court issued an order directing the Clerk of the Court
to enter judgment dismissing the class actions.

The suit is “In Re: DRDGOLD Securities Litigation Case No. 05-
CV-05542,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
         3620 East Layton Ave.
         Cudahy, WI, 53110
         Phone: 866-264-3995
         Fax: 414-482-8001
         E-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406
         Melville, NY, 11747
         Phone: 631.367.7100
         Fax: 631.367.1173
         E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

         Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
         6 East 45th Street
         New York, NY, 10017
         Phone: 310.209.2468
         Fax: 310.209.2087
         E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

         Wechsler Harwood LLP
         488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor
         New York, NY, 10022
         Phone: 212.935.7400
         Fax: info@whhf.com

              - and -

         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY, 10016
         Phone: 212.545.4600
         Fax: 212.686.0114
         E-mail: newyork@whafh.com


DYNAMEX INC: Opening Brief Filed in Appeal of Calf. Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported labor class action against Dynamex,
Inc. filed an opening brief in his appeal against a decision by
the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County to refuse
certification to the suit.

A company driver filed the suit on April 15, 2005.  It alleges
that the company unlawfully misclassified its California drivers
as independent contractors, rather than employees.

It asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the
purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other
benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of
certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other
benefits and the obligation of the company to pay employer
payroll taxes under federal and state law.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Nov. 2,  
2006.  The company responded in a memorandum of points and
authorities in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiff's
motion for class certification on Nov. 29, 2006.   

A hearing was held on Dec. 12, 2006, and on Dec. 14, 2006, the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification was denied.  The
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 5, 2007.

During the summer of 2007, Plaintiff associated additional
counsel for the Appeal.  Plaintiff requested and was granted
various extensions in which to file his Opening Brief.  The
Brief was filed on Oct. 18, 2007.

A Stipulation between the parties had given Dynamex until Jan.
11, 2008, to file its answering brief.  Plaintiff will have 30
days following that in which to file a rebuttal brief.
Thereafter the Court will schedule an Oral hearing.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com-- is a provider of  
same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada.
Through its network of business centers, the Company provides
same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing
its ground couriers.


DYNAMEX INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Misclassification of Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex, Inc. faces a purported class action in  the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York over an
alleged misclassification of its drivers as independent
contractors instead of employees.

On Oct. 17, 2007, two former independent contractor drivers in
New York filed a purported class action/collective action
against the Company, alleging that the Company had unlawfully
misclassified its drivers in New York and in the U.S. as
independent contractors rather than as employees, and the
Company had unlawfully failed to comply with the “Truth In Truck
Leasing” and “Leasing Regulations” under U.S. Transportation
Statutes.

The Complaint seeks relief under the New York Labor and Wage
Statutes and the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act including payment
of wages for all hours worked plus overtime, as well as for
reimbursement of business expenses and improper deductions made
from driver wages.

The truck leasing claims seek unspecified amounts by which
plaintiffs were underpaid and amounts for which the Company had
over deducted.  Injunctive relief to prevent further violations
is sought.

The suit is “Berrios et al v. Dynamex, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-09293-RJS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Richard J. Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
         Locks Law Firm PLLC
         110 East 55th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 838-3333
         Fax: (212) 838-3735
         E-mail: frudich@lockslawny.com

              - and -

         Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
         Berger & Gottlieb
         150 E. 18 St.
         New York, NY 10003
         Phone: (212)-228-9795
         Fax: (212)-982-6284
         E-mail: nyjg@aol.com

Representing the defendants:

         Jeffrey W. Brecher, Esq.
         Jackson Lewis LLP
         58 South Service Road
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-247-0404
         Fax: 631-247-0417
         E-mail: brecherj@jacksonlewis.com


GEORGIA: Suit Against Valdosta Claims Routine Torture of Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta attorney McNeil Stokes filed a class action against
guards and officials at Valdosta State Prison and the Georgia
Department of Corrections.

The suit names 25 prison guards, officers, supervisors, wardens,
medical personnel and corrections officials allegedly involved
in routine beatings and torture of restrained inmates and
subsequent cover-up of the abuse.

The complaint details gruesome attacks in which prisoners are
allegedly bound and restrained while guards and members of the
special Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) kick them
with hard-toe combat boots, beat them with gloves especially
designed for assaults known as "beating gloves," and choke them
with night sticks. Two young men have been beaten to death since
these series of cases were initially filed.

Abuses in other Georgia prison systems include guards inflicting
torture methods known as the "Georgia Motorcycle" whereby an
inmate is stripped of clothing and strapped in four or five
point restraints to an iron bed or chair for as much as 48 hours
without food, water or bathroom facilities; and a method known
as the "Georgia G-string" whereby inmates are stripped and a
chain is cinched around their testicles for hours at a time,
leaving them in excruciating pain.

A former guard from Rogers State Prison has described these
beatings as a "sport" throughout the correctional system.
Inmates listed as Level IV mental health prisoners are often
targeted because of the behavior caused by their
mental disabilities. Medical treatment is either denied to the
victims or, if administered, is not reported to prevent an
official record of the abuse.

Mr. Stokes, who recently won a case against Rogers State Prison
in Georgia, thereby ending inmate abuse at that facility, is
determined to protect prisoners' rights throughout the state.
"These beatings are a blood-sport among the correctional
officers involved," explains Stokes.

"The victims (men and women) are shackled with their hands
behind their backs or otherwise restrained while the CERT
officers inflict the most horrendous torture. The Georgia
correctional system, including Internal Affairs and the Attorney
General, think they can continue covering this up, but it is
going to stop. It must stop. It's that simple."

The claim describes a pattern and practice of torturing
restrained inmates that serves no penological purpose utilizing
premeditated violence including but not limited to:

     -- slamming inmates on the ground and running their heads  
        into walls and doors;

     -- using profanity with racial and sexual innuendos;
     -- not following Standard Operating Procedures on use of
        video camera;

     -- beating prisoners in surreptitious locations such as
        showers, alcoves, and empty rooms;

     -- covering up beating in use of force reports;

     -- instructing medical staff to cover up beatings;

     -- covering up and condoning beatings by wardens and deputy  
        wardens of security;

     -- covering up of beatings by internal affairs;

     -- putting inmates who have been beaten in lockdown
        segregation facilities to avoid observation of their
        injuries;

     -- not allowing inmates who have been beaten to see their
        families or to have picture taken of their injuries;

     -- thwarting prison grievance procedure to cover up
        beatings and prevent exhaustion of grievances by inmates
       who have been beaten so that they cannot maintain causes
       of action in court.

Defendants in the Valdosta Class Action suit include
Commissioner James Donald; Rick Jacobs; Sarah Draper; Sr. Sharon
Lewis, MD; Warden Hart; Deputy Warden McLaughlin; Albert Jones;
Captain Morris; Lt. Maine; Officer Powell; Officer Jesse Howell;
Officer T. Brown; Officer Yancey; Officer Cannon; Officer Snake;
Officer Smith; Officer Shane; Officer Grainger; Officer
Radcliff; Sergeant Bond; Officer Page; Officer Bates; Officer
John Doe No.1; and Officer John Doe No. 2; all of the Valdosta
State Prison system.

Plaintiffs are listed as: Astainiel Jarvis Mann; Pip Heng;
Elijah Adcock; Rickie Lee Fox; Jodrph Daniel Fincher; and
Shedrick D. Ross.

The suit is "Mann et al. v. Donald et al., Case No. 7:08-cv-
00005-HL-RLH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia under Hugh Lawson with referral to Judge
Richard L. Hodg.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          McNeill Stokes, Esq.
          1040 Peachtree Battle Avenue
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Phone: 404-352-2144
          E-mail: mcstokes@bellsouth.net


INDONESIA: Pondok Indah Residents File Suit Over Busway Corridor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a suit over the construction of a busway corridor in  
Pondok Indah, South Jakarta opened Jan. 8 and will resume Jan.
21, The Jakarta Post reports.

Residents of upscale Pondok Indah, South Jakarta, Indonesia
filed suit in the South Jakarta District Court against:

     -- the city administration,
     -- Governor Fauzi Bowo,
     -- the public works agency,
     -- the transportation agency,
     -- the planning agency,
     -- the City Environment Management Board and
     -- two busway lane contractors.

PT Metropolitan Kencana, the developer of Pondok Indah area, is
also being sued for allegedly failing to notify residents of the
city administration's plans, the report said.

According to the report, the construction of busway corridor 8,
which connects Harmoni in Central Jakarta with Lebak Bulus
Terminal in South Jakarta through Jl Metro Pondok Indah, met
resistance from residents of the neighborhood in September.

Seven plaintiffs claiming to represent 9,300 residents said the
defendants built the corridor illegally.

"The project was carried out without an environmental impact
analysis report," plaintiff Louis Mario Pakaila said, according
to the report.

Plaintiffs argued it would destroy the local environment by
chopping down palm trees and green areas along the street, and
cause major traffic jams.

They demanded the defendants stop further development of the
corridor and pay more than US$75,000 in compensation.


INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Amend Cal. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against Infineon Technologies AG have filed a third amended
complaint in the matter.

Between September and November 2004, seven securities class
action complaints were filed against the company  and current or
former officers in U.S. federal district courts, later
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of our publicly-traded securities who purchased them
during the period from March 2000 to July 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of the
U.S. securities laws and asserts that the defendants made
materially false and misleading public statements about the
company's historical and projected financial results and
competitive position because they did not disclose its alleged
participation in DRAM price-fixing activities and that, by
fixing the price of DRAM, defendants manipulated the price of
our securities, thereby injuring its shareholders.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs and attorneys’ fees.  

In September 2006, the court dismissed the complaint with leave
to amend.  In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint.

In March 2007, pursuant to a stipulation agreed with the
defendants, the plaintiffs withdrew the second amended complaint
and were granted a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint.  

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in July 2007,
according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "In Re:Infineon Technologies AG Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-04156-JW," filed in the U.S.  
Disctrict Court for the Northern District of California under  
Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Phone: 619.231.1058
          Fax: 619.231.7423

               - and -

          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.
          New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 212.682.1818
          Fax: 212.682.1892
          E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark R.S. Foster, Esq.
          Mia A. Mazza, Esq.
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-268-6335 or 415-268-7000
          Fax: 415-268-7522
          E-mail: mfoster@mofo.com
                  mmazza@mofo.com


JACKSON HEWITT: April 30 Hearing Set for Calif. RALs Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 30, 2008 class certification hearing was set for a
lawsuit filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., Santa
Barbara Bank & Trust (SBB&T), and Cendant Corp. in relation to
Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs).

On March 18, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California
Seniors brought the purported class action in the Superior Court
of California (San Francisco), subsequently adding Cendant, in
the Superior Court of California (Santa Barbara, following a
transfer from San Francisco).

The suit seeks declaratory relief in connection with the
provision of RALs, as to the lawfulness of the practice of
cross-lender debt collection, as to the validity of Santa
Barbara's cross-lender debt collection provision and as to
whether the method of disclosure to customers with respect to
the provision is unlawful or fraudulent.

It is also seeking injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement,
compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and expenses.

The company is a party in the action for allegedly
collaborating, and aiding and abetting, in the actions of SBB&T.

The trial court granted a motion by Santa Barbara and third-
party bank defendants on federal preemption grounds, and stayed
all other proceedings pending appeal.  

The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's
preemption decision.  The California Supreme Court denied
review.

SBB&T and third-party banks moved in the California Court of
Appeal to stay remittitur pending certiorari to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

On June 4, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, and
the purported class action suit is proceeding in the trial
court.

A class certification hearing has been scheduled for April 30,
2008, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/  
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.  

    
JACKSON HEWITT: 6th Circuit Considers Appeal in Credit Act Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal by Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. against a
decision denying its bid to reverse an order remanding the
purported class action, “Brown v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No.
1:06-cv-02632-PAG” to the  to the Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County.

Initially, on Sept. 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported
class action complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, in connection with an alleged
failure to comply with Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act,
and for alleged unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Ohio's
Consumer Sales Practices Act, and seeking damages and injunctive
relief.

On Oct. 30, 2006, the company filed a notice removing the
complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss, and a
motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration.  On Dec.
8, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the Ohio
Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, which the company
opposed on Jan. 16, 2007.

On Feb. 27, 2007, the Court entered an order remanding the case
to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, without ruling on
the other pending motions.

On March 6, 2007, the Company filed for permission to appeal the
remand decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.  On Sept. 7, 2007, the Court denied the Company’s
petition.

On September 21, 2007 the Company filed a petition with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to request a rehearing by
the Court panel that denied the petition and to request that the
full Court hear the matter.  

A decision by the Court is currently pending, according to the
company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31,
2007.

The suit is "Brown v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-
02632-PAG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio under Judge Patricia A. Gaughan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
         The Law Office of Ronald I. Frederick
         Ste. 1300, 55 Public Square
         Cleveland, OH 44113
         Phone: 216-502-1055
         Fax: 216-781-1749
         E-mail: RonF@ClevelandConsumerLaw.com

              - and -

         Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
         Dworken & Bernstein
         Painesville, 60 South Park Place
         Painesville, OH 44077
         Phone: 440-352-3391
         Fax: 440-352-3469
         E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:
         
         G. Karl Fanter, Esq.
         Baker & Hostetler
         3200 National City Center, 1900 East Ninth Street
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 216-861-7918
         Fax: 216-696-0740
         E-mail: kfanter@bakerlaw.com


JACKSON HEWITT: W.Va. “Hunter” Credit Act Suit in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia over alleged violations
of West Virginia's Credit Service Organization Act.

On Oct. 30, 2006, Linda Hunter brought a purported class action
complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of West Virginia, for an alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, for breach of West Virginia's Credit Service
Organization Act, for breach of contract, and for unfair or
deceptive acts or practices, and seeking damages.

On Nov. 22, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss.  A
decision by the court is currently pending, and during such time
the case is in its discovery stage.


On November 22, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  On
Nov. 6, 2007, the Court partially granted the Company’s motion
to dismiss.  

On Nov. 21, 2007, the Company answered the complaint.  The case
is in its discovery stage, according to the company's Dec. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Hunter v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00919," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia under Judge Robert C. Chambers.

Representing the plaintiff is

         John W. Barrett, Esq.
         Bailey & Glasser
         227 Capitol Street
         Charleston, WV 25301-1386
         Phone: 304/345-6555
         Fax: 304/342-1110
         E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
         1440 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202/371-7000
         Fax: 202/393-5760
         E-mail: mikelly@skadden.com
      
              - and -

         Debra Lee Hovatter, Esq.
         Spilman Thomas & Battle
         P.O. Box 615
         Morgantown, WV 26504-0615
         Phone: 304/291-7935
         Fax: 304/291-7979
         E-mail: dhovatter@spilmanlaw.com


JACKSON HEWITT: Seeks to Dismiss Ill. RICO Act Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint in a purported class action filed against Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. with regards to the company’s tax
return preparation services.

On April 20, 2007, Brent Wooley brought the purported class
action complaint against the company and certain unknown
franchisees on behalf of customers who obtained tax return
preparation services that allegedly included false deductions
without support by the customer.  The practice allegedly
resulted in penalties being assessed by the IRS against the
taxpayer.  

The suit was brought for alleged violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and the Racketeer
and Corrupt Organizations Act.  It sought compensatory and
punitive damages, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

The alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act relate to representations regarding tax
return preparation and Gold Guarantee coverage and denial of
Gold Guarantee claims.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss which, on
Sept. 5, 2007, was denied without prejudice to permit the
plaintiff to further amend the complaint.

On Oct. 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to
add additional parties.  On Nov. 20, 2007, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  

A decision by the Court is currently pending, according to the
company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31,
2007.

The suit is “Wooley v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-02201,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Ruben Castillo.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
         Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
         20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 606-0500
         E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Christina M. Tchen, Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 407-0700
         Fax: (312) 407-0411
         E-mail: ttchen@skadden.com

    
JACKSON HEWITT: N.J. Court OKs Motion to Junk Racketeering Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved
a joint stipulation of dismissal filed by the parties in the
case, “Chapman v. Jackson Hewitt Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
02910-KSH-PS.”

On June 22, 2007, James Chapman brought a purported class action
complaint against Jackson Hewitt Inc. and certain unknown
franchisees on behalf of customers whose returns were deemed
improper by the IRS and then were denied Gold Guarantee claims
for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the
Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act as well as breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the Court approved a joint stipulation of
dismissal without prejudice, according to the company's Dec. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007.

The suit is “Chapman v. Jackson Hewitt Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-02910-KSH-PS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with
referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Hagens Berman, P.S.
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: (206) 623-7292

              - and -

         Simon B. Paris
         Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.
         One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: (215) 496-8282
         Fax: (215) 496-0999
         E-mail: sparis@smbb.com


KADANT INC: Faces Lawsuit in Mass. Over Defective Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Kadant Inc. was served with a purported class action complaint
on January 7, 2008 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of
consumers who purchased defective decking and railing products
manufactured by its discontinued operation between April 2002
and October 2003.

The complaint, filed December 26, 2007, alleges that decking and
railing products manufactured by Kadant Composites LLC between
April 2002 and October 2003 were defective and claims, among
other things, breach of express and implied warranties and
violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and
similar consumer protection statutes of other states.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages for the class in an
unspecified amount over $5 million, together with punitive
damages and attorneys' fees.

Kadant Composites LLC sold the assets comprising the composites
decking and railing products business to an unrelated third
party in October 2005, but retained the liabilities associated
with warranty claims for products manufactured prior to the
sale. The buyer's parent company has also been named as a
defendant.

Kadant Inc. is reviewing the allegations set forth in the
complaint and intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

Kadant Inc. is a leading supplier to the global pulp and paper
industry, with a range of products and services for improving
efficiency and quality in pulp and paper production, including
paper machine accessories and systems for stock preparation,
fluid handling, and water management.

For more information, contact:

          Thomas M. O'Brien - Investor contact
          Wes Martz - Media contact
          Kadant Inc.
          Phone: 978-776-2000 or 269-278-1715


KAITLIN GROUP: Faces Marketing Fraud Suit in Ontario Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Real estate developers The Kaitlin Group Ltd., 1138337 Ontario
Inc. and CCCC Durham West Ltd., all of Ontario, are facing a
suit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for allegedly
falsely advertising that its Port of Newcastle subdivision will
have a nine hole executive golf course.

Jean-Marc Haddad, a resident of the Town of Newcastle in the
province of Ontario, commenced proceeding under the Class
Proceedings Act of 1992 on Dec. 17, 2007.  The suit was filed on
behalf of people who purchased freehold homes on land planned,
marketed and/or developed by some or all of the defendants
within a residential community known as the Port of Newcastle,
located in Newcastle, in the Municipality of Clarington in the
Region of Durham, Ontario on or before Oct. 5, 2007.  The suit
excludes condominium purchasers within the Subdivision and
purchasers of homes and/or properties on land developed by
Kylemore.

The suit Kaitlin's marketing efforts include promoting the
Subdivision as a Golf Course Community with a nine hole
executive golf course within the Subdivision.  The subdivision
was given draft approval by the municipality on or about Oct.
19, 1999

In and around 2003, Kaitlin sold a portion of the Subdivision to
Kylemore Homes Ltd. and/or Kylemore Communities (West Village)
Ltd. and/or Kylemore By the Lake Ltd. and/or another related
company operating under the name Kylemore Communities.  The
property sold included the land which was originally marketed by
Kaitlin as the location where the nine hole executive golf
course was going to be developed.

In and around 2007, the area of the Subdivision that was
originally marketed by Kaitlin as the location of the nine hole
executive golf course area began to be developed for residential
use by Kylemore.

The suit claims Kaitlin's marketing information was inaccurate,
incomplete, false, deceptive and/or misleading.

The class members state that Kaitlin negligently breached their
duty of care, are strictly liable, are liable for breach of
express and/or implied warranty and are liable for deceit or
negligent and/or fraudulent misrepresentation, as a result of
which the Representative Plaintiff suffered damages.

The plaintiff on behalf of himself and on behalf of each member
of the class seeks, among others:

     (a) restitution in an amount to be determined based on the
         defendants' revenue and/or profit resulting directly or
         indirectly from the sale of a portion of defendant's
         land in the Port of Newcastle to Kylemore Homes Ltd.
         and/or Kylemore Communities (West Village) Ltd. and/or
         Kylemore By The Lake Ltd. and/or another related
         company operating under the name of Kylemore
         Communities in lieu of using such land for a community
         golf course, plus the financial savings to the
         defendants associated with their failure to develop a          
         golf course and other amenities within the Port of
         Newcastle community and the financial benefit to the
         defendants relating to the increased revenues from the
         sale of  homes and/or properties resulting from their
         misrepresentations;

     (b) in the alternative to (a), general and special damages
         in the amount of CA$25,000,000;

     (c) punitive, aggravated, and exemplary damages in the  
         amount of $10,000,000;

    (d) prejudgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the
        Court of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c, C. 43;

    (e) any goods and services tax which may be payable on any
        amounts pursuant to Bill C-62, The Excise Tax Act,
        R.S.C. 1985, as amended or any other legislation enacted
        by the Government of Canada;

For more information, contact plaintiff's attorney:

          Thomson, Rogers
          Suite 3100
          390 Bay Street
          Toronto, Ontario
          M5H 1W2

          L. Craig Brown Alan Farrer
          Darcy R. Merkur
          Phone: 416-868-3176
          Fax: 416-868-3134


KEITH MACNALLY: Workers File N.Y. Lawsuit Over Underpayments
------------------------------------------------------------
Three former waiters at the Keith McNally restaurants -- Pastis
and Balthazar -- filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in
Manhattan alleging the restaurants failed to pay minimum wage
and overtime while letting non-tipped employees share in their
tips, Larry Neumeister of the Associated Press reports.

The restaurant workers sought class-action status, which would
let them include as plaintiffs any worker who claimed to have
been cheated of pay during the last six years, the report said.

The suit accuses the restaurants and McNally of setting
corporate-wide policies that caused workers to suffer
financially, including a requirement that waiters repay the
amount of a bill whenever a customer walked out without paying.  

The restaurants also deducted money from a waiter's pay if his
cash submitted at the end of a shift was short and took out
another $5 per shift to cover the pay of the person who folds
napkins on the tables, the lawsuit said.

The suit seeks to recover unspecified damages and to require a
change in the way the restaurants treat their workers.  It
estimates that there are potentially 100 people who can become
member of the class.

Pastis, a French bistro located in Manhattan's meatpacking
district, opened in 1999. Balthazar opened in 1997.

The suit was filed by lawyer Maimon Kirschenbaum.

For more information, contact:

          Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP
          Toll Free: 866-348-7394
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


MIRALUS HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Headache Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miralus Healthcare is facing a class-action complaint filed in  
Superior Court in California accusing it of falsely selling
several "HeadOn" headache remedies, the CourtHouse News Service
Reports.

The complaint alleges that these "HeadOn" headache remedies are
neither safe nor effective, and contain chemicals that may be
carcinogenic, including potassium bichromate and the "noxious
weed" white bryony.

Miralus Healthcare is a company that is best known for its
homeopathic headache remedy HeadOn. The product has gained some
fame because it uses a simple television commercial, that thrice
repeats the phrase "HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead!"
without claims about the product's intended use or efficacy.

Plaintiffs' counsel is:

          Pearson, Simon, Soter, Warshaw & Penny, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, California 91403
          Phone: 818-788-8300  
          Fax: 818-788-8104
          Website: http://www.psswplaw.com


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Ut. Securities Suit Survives Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities fraud class action filed in April 2006 against
Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. (Pink Sheets:NATR) and certain
of its officers and directors has survived a motion to dismiss
filed by the defendants.

The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah on behalf of purchasers of
Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. formerly (NASDAQ: NATRE) stock
during the period between May 13, 2002 to March 20, 2006 (Class
Action Reporter, Apr. 11, 2006).

The Rosen Law Firm's complaint was the first complaint that has
been filed to expand the Class Period to include all purchasers
of Nature stock from May 13, 2002 to March 20, 2006.  Although
several other law firms have since announced class actions
against Nature, the Rosen Law firm was the first law firm to
announce an investigation concerning the Company.

The Complaint charges that on March 20, 2006 the Company shocked
the market when it announced that it was withdrawing its
financial statements and warned that it could be delisted from
the NASDAQ.

The company disclosed that an internal investigation revealed
"certain internal control weaknesses and outline potential
violations of law."  The company also revealed that the internal
investigation recommended "the termination of certain employees
and senior officers."

The recent court ruling has the effect that the Class Period was
shortened. The Amended Complaint initially sought to represent
all investors purchasing Nature's stock from April 23, 2002
through April 5, 2006. Due to the Court's ruling, purchases of
Nature's common stock prior to March 14, 2005 are not included
in the proposed Class action.

A motion for certification of a class including all investors
that purchased Nature's common stock during the period from
March 14, 2005 through April 5, 2006 is currently pending in
U.S. District Court. If the Court denies that motion, then
investors would have to bring cases on their own or as a group.
As it currently stands, investors who purchased prior to March
14, 2005 are not included in the proposed class action.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Ill. Judge Dismisses FCRA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois dismissed a class action against
Overstock.com that alleged the online retailer violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by including the last four digits
customers' credit cards and their expiration dates, Steve
Gonzalez of the Madison County Record reports.

On Sept. 18, 2007, Shandie Deaton filed the suit claiming
Overstock.com violated FCRA by printing the expiration date
and/or printed more than the last five digits of class members'
credit card or debit card numbers on the receipts provided at
the point of a sale or transaction between Overstock.com and the
class members.

After the case was filed, Overstock filed a motion to dismiss
the suit arguing the case is a dispute governed by the mandatory
arbitration clause to which Ms. Deaton had contractually agreed
when she made her purchase.  The arbitration should be held in
Salt Lake City, Utah.

Ms. Deaton argued that the mandatory arbitration clause is
unenforceable because arbitration would be so expensive as to
effectively preclude her from vindicating her federal rights
under the FCRA and it unconscionably prevents consumers from
joining together in a class action, which may be their only
effective way of protecting their FCRA rights.  

Judge Gilbert said this argument fails because, for one, the
American Arbitration Association provides pro bono arbitrations
for individuals who cannot afford it and notes that Overstock
has agreed to pay Ms. Deaton's portion of the arbitration costs.

However, while the clause at calls for arbitration in Salt Lake
City, Judge Gilber said he has no authority to order arbitration
outside of the Southern District of Illinois.

"Therefore, while the Court could stay the instant proceedings,
it cannot compel the parties to proceed in the arbitration
forum," the judge wrote.

Given that fact, it is unclear what purpose a stay of the
instant action would serve," he added. "Accordingly, the Court
will exercise its discretion to dismiss, rather than stay, the
instant proceedings."

The suit is “Deaton v. Overstock.com, Inc. et al., Case Number:
3:2007cv00643,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, under Judge J. Phil Gilbert.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          John R. Patchett
          Patchett Law Office
          104 West Calvert
          Marion, IL 62959
          Phone: (618) 997-1984


PANALPINA WORLD: Accused of Fixing Freight Forwarding Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
Panalpina World Transport and other "third party logistics
providers," or freight forwarders are facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York alleging  antitrust conspiracy against Mail
Boxes Etc. and others, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Also named in the complaint:

     -- Panalpina, Inc.
     -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG
     -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.
     -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.
     -- EGL, Inc.
     -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP
     -- Deutsche Bahn AG
     -- Schenker AG
     -- Schenker, Inc.
     -- Deutsche Post AG
     -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.
     -- UTI Worldwide, Inc. and
     -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders

Plaintiffs Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything
Goes LLC d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the
provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding
governmental entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and
affiliates, and their co-conspirators) who directly purchased
Freight Forwarding Services in the United States from any of the
defendants or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-
conspirator, at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001 to
the present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix,
         stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding
         Services sold in the United States;

     (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
         violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
         combination alleged;

     (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took
         affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy
         or combination;

     (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
         contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;

     (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of
         Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an
         artificially high and non-competitive level;

     (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
         combination upon interstate commerce;

     (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim
        contained 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 contract, conspiracy or combination
        alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint
        of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as
        provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment
        in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against
        the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance
        with the antitrust 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 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 of 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 distribution or sale of
            Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning
            prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any
            such products except to the extent necessary in
            connection with bona fide sale transactions between
            the parties to such communication;

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

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

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

The suit is "Precision Associates, Inc. et al. cv. Panalpina
World Transport (Holding) Ltd. et al., Case No. CV 08 0042,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Christopher Lovell
          Craig M. Essenmacher
          Imtiaz A. Siddiqui
          Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: (212) 608-1900
          Fax: (212) 719-4677


SAPPI LTD: Dismissed as Defendant in Paper Antitrust Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sappi Ltd. and Sappi Fine Paper North America have been
dismissed as defendants in certain lawsuits, including class
actions over an alleged price fixing conspiracy with other
manufacturers of publication paper.

Since May 2004, a number of class and individual actions have
been filed in federal and state courts alleging that Sappi
Limited and Sappi Fine Paper North America participated in a
price fixing conspiracy with other manufacturers of publication
paper.

The cases assert violations of the federal and state antitrust
laws and state unfair competition statutes.  These lawsuits seek
treble damages and injunctive relief, as well as other costs
associated with the litigation.

In November 2006, the plaintiffs in the class action case
brought on behalf of most direct purchasers dismissed Sappi
Limited and Sappi Fine Paper North America without prejudice.

The cases brought by certain of the individual direct purchasers
and the indirect purchasers were also dismissed without
prejudice during fiscal 2007, according to the company's Dec.
14, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Sappi Limited -- http://www.sappi.com-- is a producer of coated  
fine paper and chemical cellulose.  


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Complaint in Lawnmower Litigation Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A court has dismissed a suit that accuses Tecumseh Products,
Inc. of printing inaccurate horsepower labels on certain of its
lawnmowers.

The plaintiffs in the suit seeks certification of a class of all
persons in the U.S. who, beginning Jan. 1, 1995 through the
present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two stroke or four
stroke gas combustible engine up to 20 horsepower that was
manufactured by defendants.  

The complaint seeks an injunction, compensatory and punitive  
damages, and attorneys' fees.  

No orders have been entered in the case, and there has been  
limited discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend this  
case, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and  
Exchange Commission.

On March 30, 2007, the Court entered an order dismissing the
complaint subject to the ability to re-plead certain claims,
pursuant to a detailed written order to follow, according to the
company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2007.

Tecumseh Products Co. -- http://www.tecumseh.com-- is a  
manufacturer of hermetic compressors for residential and
commercial refrigerators, freezers, water coolers,
dehumidifiers, window air conditioning units, and residential
and commercial central system air conditioners and heat pumps.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: $18M Settlement of Overcharging Suit Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
gave final approval to an $18 million settlement by Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) of a suit that claims the utility
overcharged industrial customers during a heat wave in 1998.

On Aug. 31, 1999, suit was filed against TVA in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama by
Birmingham Steel Corp., on behalf of itself and a class of TVA
industrial customers that contracted for economy surplus power.

While Birmingham Steel Corp. was the original class
representative, it filed for bankruptcy and was excluded from
the class.  Johns Manville Corp. was substituted as the class
representative.

The lawsuit alleged that TVA overcharged for economy surplus
power during the summer of 1998 by improperly including some
incremental costs when calculating the price of economy surplus
power, and the class members sought over $100 million in
damages.

The parties engaged in mediation in December 2006 and reached a
settlement agreement under which TVA agreed to pay approximately
$18 million to resolve the case.
  
Because the settlement was required to be approved by the court
to be effective, the settlement was submitted to the court on
May 21, 2007.  The court preliminarily approved it on June 6,
2007.  

On Aug. 20, 2007, the court conducted a hearing on the fairness
of the settlement, after which it approved the settlement in the
amount of $18 million, according to TVA's Dec. 12, 2007 Form 10-
K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Johns Manville, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Authority,
Case No. 2:99-cv-02294-VEH-HGD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia
Emerson Hopkins with referral to Judge Harwell G. Davis, III.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Julie Wilson Pittman, Esq.
          Burr & Forman, LLP
          3100 SouthTrust Tower
          420 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205-458-5239
          Fax: 205-458-5100
          E- mail: jpittman@burr.com

Representing the defendant is:

          A. Jackson Woodall, Esq.
          Tennessee Valley Authority
          400 West Summit Hill Drive
          Knoxville, TN 37902-1401
          Phone: 1-865-632-4301
          E-mail: ajwoodall@tva.gov

    
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dismissal of Hurricane-Related Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter, "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Co., Case No. Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," which
names Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), as a defendant, are
appealing the dismissal of the case.

The suit is generally accusing the TVA and several oil companies
of helping increase Hurricane Katrina's destructive force.

In April 2006, 14 residents of Mississippi allegedly injured by
Hurricane Katrina added TVA as a defendant to a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.

In general, plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an oil
company trade association, three large chemical companies and a
chemical trade association, and 31 large companies involved in
the mining and/or burning of coal, including TVA and other
utilities.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' greenhouse gas
emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate and
direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force.

They are seeking monetary damages among other relief.

TVA has moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that TVA’s
operation of its coal-fired plants is not subject to tort
liability due to the discretionary function doctrine.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the district court heard oral arguments on
whether the issue of greenhouse gas emissions is a political
matter which should not be decided by the court.  The district
court then dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs
lacked standing.

The dismissal has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, according to TVA's Dec. 12, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under
Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H.   
Walker.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         F. Gerald Maples, Esq.
         Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
         F. Gerald Maples, PA
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504/569-8732
         E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
                 mmayberry@geraldmaples.com

         Randall Allan Smith, Esq.
         Stephen M. Wiles, Esq.
         Smith & Fawer
         201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Phone: 504/525-2200
         Fax: 504/525-2205
         E-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net
                 smwiles@smithfawer.com

              - and –

         Carlos A. Zelaya, Esq.
         Maples & Kirwan, LLC
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504-569-8732
         Fax: 504/525-6932


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


SMITH & WESSON: 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
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. from June 15, 2007
through December 6, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Smith & Wesson and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Smith & Wesson is the parent company of Smith & Wesson Corp., a
manufacturer of firearms and firearm safety/security products,
and the parent company of Thompson/Center Arms, Inc., a designer
and manufacturer of firearm rifles.

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's reported sales figures were in fact
         inventory stocking transactions, as opposed to true
         representations of growth;

     (2) that the Company's subsequent quarterly sales would
         decrease as customers worked through overstocked
         inventory levels;

     (3) that the Company had observed market saturation in
         various product lines, which would have the effect of
         customers postponing or reducing orders and purchases;

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

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On October 29, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced its preliminary second quarter financial results,
indicating therein that gross margins for the quarter would be
lower than previously projected. The Company stated that it had
observed softness in certain product markets, low consumer
demand, and "a buildup of pre-season retail inventories."

The Company further announced that it expected sales of $325
million for fiscal 2008, lower than its previous projection of
$330 million. Additionally, the Company significantly lowered
its earnings guidance for fiscal 2008 to $23.5 million, or $0.53
per share, compared to its previous guidance of between $28.5
million, or $0.63 per share. On this news, the Company's shares
fell $7.97 per share, or 39.6 percent, to close on October 29,
2007 at $12.12 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on December 6, 2007, the Company further shocked investors
when it announced its final second quarter financial and
operational results, painting an even more dismal picture than
was presented in its preliminary results for the quarter. The
Company disclosed that its reduced retail sales activities were
"compounded by the fact that inventory in the channel was at an
extremely high level," which had the effect of impacting product
pricing in order to clear out built-up inventory.

Additionally, the Company further lowered its sales forecast for
fiscal 2008, down to $300 million for the year against its
previously reduced guidance of $325 million for the year. On
this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $1.84 per
share, or 20.6 percent, to close on December 7, 2007 at $7.08
per share, again on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 11,
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


UNITED RENTALS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (BLBG)
has filed a class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut against United Rentals, Inc. (URI)
and the members of its board of directors.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an institutional investor and
all other persons who purchased shares of URI from August 29,
2007 through and including November 14, 2007.

The lawsuit alleges that the URI Board violated the securities
laws by refusing to disclose that affiliates of Cerberus Capital
Management, L.P. were seeking to renegotiate the terms of their
now-cancelled merger with URI for months before URI finally
disclosed the collapse of the deal on November 14, 2007. The
case is pending before the Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant, under the
docket number 3:07CV1893 (VLB).

On July 23, 2007, defendant URI publicly announced its entry
into a definitive merger agreement with Cerberus, which would
provide URI shareholders with $34.50 in cash for each URI share
they held. On August 31, 2007, while the public still believed
that the deal would likely close, Cerberus sent a letter to URI
expressing its intent to renegotiate the deal. On September 6,
2007, URI refused to renegotiate and rejected Cerberus's
asserted basis for revisiting the terms of the deal. On
September 19, 2007, URI disseminated a final proxy statement
omitting any reference to Cerberus's effort to renegotiate the
deal while touting the availability of specific performance to
assure closing of the deal.

The parties' prior dispute remained hidden from the investing
public until November 14, 2007, when Cerberus sent another
letter refusing to close the deal as negotiated. URI's stock
price promptly plunged 31% from $34.01 to $23.50, its largest
single-day drop since it went public in 1997. On December 21,
2007, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that despite URI's
prior public statements regarding its ability to seek specific
performance of the merger agreement, it was not entitled to any
remedy other than a $100 million termination fee.

The Complaint asserts that URI's failure to disclose the August
31 and September 6 letters (as well as oral communications
surrounding those letters) prior to and in the September 19,
2007 proxy statement materially misled investors and caused
URI's stock price to trade at artificially high levels.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the URI Board violated
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, that all Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and that all Defendants except URI violated Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

BLBG seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired URI securities during the Class
Period.

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

For more information, contact:

          Gerald H. Silk
          Blair Nicholas
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          Phone: 212-554-1400 or 858-793-0070


                           *********


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  * * *