CAR_Public/080117.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, January 17, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 12

                            Headlines


A.A. OF AMERICA: Recalls Toys on Paint's High Lead Level
APOLLO GROUP: Ariz. Jury Awards $280M Damages to Investors
BROCADE COMMS: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Securities Lawsuit
BROCADE COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
CANADIAN PACIFIC: No Checks Yet for Minot Derailment Suit Deal
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Calif. Court Mulls Consolidation of Labor Suits

FANNIE MAE: Judge Limits Class in D.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
FEDEX GROUND: Discovery in Owner-Operators Lawsuit Completed
FEDEX CORP: Reaches Settlement in Labor Law Violations Lawsuit
FEDEX GROUND: Calif. Drivers' Suit Remanded to Trial Court
FEDEX CORP: Still Faces Fuel Surcharge Rates Antitrust Lawsuits

FEDEX CORP: Appeals Class Certification in Kans. ERISA Lawsuit
FIRST MAGNUS: WARN Act Violation Suit Refused Certification
GPC BIOTECH: Axxion Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
INTEGRATED SILICON: Faces SRAM Antitrust Suits in U.S., Canada
INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Cal. Discrimination Suit Settlement Okayed

IOWA: Lawsuit Over Traffic Camera Under Judicial Review
JJB SPORTS: Settles Lawsuit Over Football Shirt Price Fixing
KASH N? GOLD: Recalls Lamps for Lead Paint Standard Violation
ONSTAR CORP: Faces W. Va. Suit Over In-vehicle Security System
ORACLE CORP: March 24 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit

PENNSYLVANIA: Erie County Workers Complain Against Executive
PEP BOYS: Settles One Labor Law Violation Claim in California
QUEST CHEROKEE: Still Faces Kans. Suit Over Royalty Payments
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: TRS Settles for $61M After Opting Out
SHIMS BARGAIN: Recalls “Baby Town” Pacifiers for Choking Hazard

SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Hears Securities Fraud Suit Appeal
STATE FARM: Banned from Cutting Underinsured Motorist Payments
U-HAUL CO: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over 2006 Fire in Clementon, N.J.
UNITED STATES: Secret Service Fails to Turn over Documents


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Abraham Fruchter Files N.Y. Securities Suit


                            *********  


A.A. OF AMERICA: Recalls Toys on Paint's High Lead Level
--------------------------------------------------------
A.A. of America Inc., of East Brunswick, N.J., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 5,400 toy wrestler figures.

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

The recalled toy is a package of four action figures. Each
figure is about 5 3/4 inches high. The UPC number 604111230003
is printed on the product?s packaging.

These toy wrestling figures have been manufactured in China and
were sold at dollar stores and discount stores nationwide from
January 2007 through December 2007 for about $1.

Picture of recalled toy wrestler figures:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08164.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the toy away from children
immediately and return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.

For more information, contact A.A. of America toll-free at (888)
822-8697 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, e-
mail: recalls@aatoys.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.aatoys.com


APOLLO GROUP: Ariz. Jury Awards $280M Damages to Investors
----------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury in Phoenix awarded plaintiffs in a consolidated
securities suit filed against Apollo Group $5.55 a share for
damages as a result of fraud committed by the company and its
executives.  The total damages is estimated at about $280
million, according to reports.

According to Bloomberg News, the jury found Apollo responsible
for 60 percent of the plaintiffs' losses.  Former Chief
Executive Officer Todd Nelson's share is 30 percent and former
Chief Financial Officer Kenda Gonzales's is 10 percent.  The
precise amount of damages the company will pay will be
determined after eligible investors file proof of claims.

The Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago is lead
plaintiff in the case.

                      Case Background

On Oct. 12, 2004, a complaint captioned, "Sekuk Global
Enterprises et al. v. Apollo Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CV
04-2147 PHX NVW," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

Another class action complaint, "Christopher Carmona, et al. v.
Apollo Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 04-2204 PHX EHC," making
similar allegations was filed on or about Oct. 18, 2004 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

A third class action complaint, "Jack B. McBride, et al. v.
Apollo Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 04-2334 PHX LOA," which
made similar allegations was filed on or about Oct. 28, 2004 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The court consolidated the three pending complaints and the
newly named lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May
16, 2005.  

Lead plaintiff purports to represent a class of the company's
shareholders who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004 and
Sept. 14, 2004, and seeks monetary damages in unspecified
amounts.  

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act, by the company for their issuance of
allegedly materially false and misleading statements in
connection with their failure to publicly disclose the contents
of the U.S. Department of Education's program review report.  

A motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint was
filed on June 15, 2005, on behalf of Apollo Group, Inc. and the
individual named defendants.

The court denied the motion to dismiss on Oct. 18, 2005 and
discovery commenced. The parties conducted discovery from
October 2005 until discovery closed on Feb. 16, 2007.  

On March 9, 2007, both parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  Opposition briefs were filed on May 11, 2007 and
reply briefs were filed on June 8, 2007.  

The court denied both summary judgment motions on Sept. 12,
2007.  A trial began Nov. 14 wherein the Policemen's Annuity and
Benefit Fund of Chicago sought $5.55 a share in damages on
behalf of anyone who bought and held the company's stock from
Feb. 27, 2004, to Sept. 14, 2004.  The jury awarded them the
amount they sought on Jan. 16.

Apollo was represented by Wayne W. Smith of Gibson, Joseph P.
Busch III and Jared M. Toffer of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP; and
David R. Rosenbaum of Osborn Maledon, P.A.

The consolidated action is "In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-02147," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge James A. Teilborg.  

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert D. Mitchell, Esq.
         Mitchell & Forest
         2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 618
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Phone: 602-468-1411
         Fax: 602-468-1311
         E-mail: robertmitchell@mitchelllaw.com

              - and –

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Wayne W. Smith, Esq.
          Orange County Office
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          USA
          Phone: (949) 451-4108
          Fax: (949) 475-4709


BROCADE COMMS: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to set a trial date for a consolidated securities fraud
class action pending against Brocade Communications Systems,
Inc.

Beginning on or about May 19, 2005, several securities class
action complaints were filed against the company and certain of
its current and former officers.

These actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock from February 2001 to May 2005.  They came on
the heels of the company's restatement of certain financial
results due to stock-based compensation accounting issues.

On Jan. 12, 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  On April 14, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the company's
stock from May 2000 to May 2005.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among others, violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

It generally alleges that the company and the individual
defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding
the company's business and operations and seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief against the defendants.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the Court denied Brocades motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and granted certain individual defendants
motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint with leave to
amend.

On Jan. 2, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of Brocades stock
from May 18, 2000 to May 15, 2005.

The amended consolidated complaint names the Company and certain
of its former officers and directors and alleges, among other
things, violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
that Brocade and the individual defendants made false or
misleading public statements regarding Brocades business and
operations and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief against the defendants.

On Jan. 29, 2007, Brocade filed its answer to the amended
consolidated complaint.  On Aug. 7, 2007, a federal jury
convicted Brocades former Chief Executive Officer, Gregory
Reyes, on ten criminal counts related to the Company's
historical stock option practices.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court denied certain individual defendants
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  

On Oct. 12, 2007 the Court granted lead plaintiffs motion for
class certification and certified a class in this action
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Brocade between May 18,
2000 to May 15, 2005, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

The Court also partially granted plaintiffs motion for partial
summary judgment against Mr. Reyes, who is a defendant in this
action, prohibiting him from re-litigating in this class action
the jury's finding from Mr. Reyes criminal case that he
knowingly and willfully made material misrepresentations in
Brocades Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2001, 2002 and 2003.

On Dec. 5, 2007, a federal jury convicted Brocades former human
resources director, Stephanie Jensen, on two criminal counts
related to the Companys historical stock option practices. (Ms.
Jensen is not a defendant in the class action.)  

No trial date has been set for the class action, according to
the company's Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Oct. 27, 2007.

The suit is "Prena Smajlaj, et al. v. Brocade Communication
Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-2042," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
         100 Pine Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA, 94111
         Phone: 415.772.4700
         Fax: 415.677.1233
         E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com

         Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP
         205 Linda Drive
         Daingerfield, TX, 75638
         Phone: 903.645.7333
         Web site: http://www.nixlawfirm.com

              - and -
  
         Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP
         Century Bank Plaza - Suite 400, 2900 St. Michael Drive
         Texarkana, TX, 75503
         Phone: 903-334-7000
         Fax: 903-334-7007
         E-mail: website@pattonroberts.com

Representing the company are:

         Steven Guggenheim, Esq.
         Caz Hashemi, Esq.
         Cameron Powers Hoffman, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 415-493-3900 and 650-320-4827
         E-mail: sguggenheim@wsgr.com
                 chashemi@wsgr.com
                 choffman@wsgr.com


BROCADE COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. is seeking for a dismissal
of securities fraud class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On Oct. 23, 2007, a class action complaint was filed against
Brocade and certain of its former officers and current and
former directors.

This action was filed in the California Superior Court in Santa
Clara County on behalf of individuals who owned Brocade stock
between Feb. 21, 2001 and May 16, 2005.

The complaint generally alleges that Brocade and the individual
defendants breached the duty of disclosure by failing to
disclose alleged wrongful conduct including conduct complained
of in the securities litigation, "Prena Smajlaj, et al. v.
Brocade Communication Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-
2042," and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief
against the defendants.

On Nov. 26, 2007, this action was removed from state court to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Nov. 28, 2007, Brocade filed a motion seeking to have this
action deemed related to the consolidated federal securities
class action, "Prena Smajlaj, et al. v. Brocade Communication
Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-2042."

On Dec. 3, 2007, Brocade filed a motion to dismiss the action in
its entirety on the ground that it is preempted by the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.

The suit is “Huang et al v. Reyes et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
05950-CRB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Norman J. Blears, Esq.
          Heller Ehrman LLP
          275 Middlefield Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506
          Phone: (650) 324-7000
          Fax: 650-324-0638
          E-mail: nblears@hewm.com

          Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
          Stull Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          E-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Angela Lucille Dunning, Esq.
          Cooley Godward Kronish LLP
          5 Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Phone: 650-843-5000
          Fax: 650-857-0663
          E-mail: adunning@cooley.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Bornstein, Esq.
          Kirkpatrick and Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP
          55 Second Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 249-1059
          Fax: (415) 882-8220
          E-mail: jeff.bornstein@klgates.com


CANADIAN PACIFIC: No Checks Yet for Minot Derailment Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Checks in a settlement of a class action resulting from a
Canadian Pacific Railway train derailment and chemical spill at
Minot, North Dakota in 2002 could come after two months yet, a
Fargo attorney for the plaintiffs said, according to Blake
Nicholson of Associated Press.

“..[M]y best guess is that it will likely be another couple of
months before all this can be finalized and checks issued," Mike
Miller, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said.

The case was dismissed by the court in March 2006.  In that
dismissal, the court found that people injured by a railroad’s
negligence could not seek a legal remedy.  Plaintiffs appealed
that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit.  While on appeal the parties agreed to the
settlement.  U.S. District Judge Dan Hovland granted final
approval to a $7,054,000 million settlement of the suit three
months ago (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 27, 2007).

The class consists of all persons who were exposed to the
anhydrous ammonia cloud in and around the city of Minot, North
Dakota, and who were adversely affected by the release of the
hazardous chemical on January 18, 2002, and who have sustained
property damages, property value diminution, personal injuries,
and economic or non-economic damages as a result of the
derailment and hazardous chemical release.

Under the settlement, plaintiffs' attorneys will get $2.9
million of the settlement to cover their fees and expenses. The
three lead plaintiffs will each get $25,000, with the remainder
shared equally by about 2,000 people.

The settlement was granted preliminary approval in July (Class
Action Reporter, July 12, 2007).  Plaintiffs were given until
Nov. 8 to submit claims (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2007).
About 4,000 people have submitted claims.

The settlement does not include people who filed individual
lawsuits against the railroad, nor the 228 people who opted out
of the class action case to pursue their own lawsuits.  The
settlement also excludes people who signed releases of liability
for the railroad after Feb. 17, 2002, a month after the
derailment.

The Settlement on the Net: http://www.minotsettlement.com

The suit is "Mehl, et al. v. Canadian Pacific RR, et al., Case  
No. 4:02-cv-00009-DLH-KKK,"on appeal from the U.S. District
Court for the District of North Dakota under Judge Daniel L.
Hovland with referral to Judge Karen K. Klein.

Representing the company is attorney Tim Thornton (E-mail:
thodgson@SHTB-law.com).  Analytics Inc. administers the class
action settlement.  On the Net:
http://www.claimsadministrator.com.

Representing the plaintiffs is attorney:

         Gordon Rudd, Esq.
         651 Nicollet Mall Suite 501
         Minneapolis, MN
         55402
         Phone: (612)341-0400
         Fax: (612)341-0844
         Website: http://www.zimmreed.com


DAVE & BUSTER'S: Calif. Court Mulls Consolidation of Labor Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has yet to rule on a motion by Dave &
Buster's, Inc., and one of its subsidiaries, in two class
actions alleging violations of state regulations concerning
mandatory meal breaks and rest periods.

The company is working to have these two cases consolidated and
coordinated because the potential class members are virtually
identical.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
18, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 4, 2007.

Dave & Buster's, Inc. -- http://www.daveandbusters.com-- is an  
operator of large-format, high-volume, regional entertainment
complexes.  Each entertainment complex offers an array of
entertainment attractions, such as pocket billiards,
shuffleboard, interactive simulators and virtual reality
systems, as well as traditional carnival-style games of skill.
The Company's complexes offers food and beverages.


FANNIE MAE: Judge Limits Class in D.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia limited a class in the suit "In Re:Fannie Mae
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01639” to buyers of Fannie
Mae stock and call options and sellers of company put options
from April 17, 2001, until Dec. 22, 2004, James Tyson of
Bloomberg News reports.

Judge denied a request by Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann that
investors who held the stock through Sept. 27, 2005, be
included.

Beginning on Sept. 23, 2004, 13 separate complaints were filed
by holders of the company's securities against Fannie Mae, as
well as certain of its former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York and the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio.

The complaints in these lawsuits purport to have been made on
behalf of a class of plaintiffs consisting of purchasers of
Fannie Mae securities between April 17, 2001 and Sept. 21, 2004.

The complaints alleged that the company and certain of the
company's  officers, including Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer, made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material facts in violation of the federal
securities laws. Plaintiffs' claims were based on findings
contained in the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight's (OFHEO) September 2004 interim report regarding its
findings to that date in its special examination of the
company's  accounting policies, practices and controls.

All of the cases were consolidated and/or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on March 4, 2005 against the
company and former officers Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer.

The court entered an order naming the Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio
as lead plaintiffs.  

The consolidated complaint generally made the same allegations
as the individually-filed complaints, which is that the company
and certain of its former officers made false and misleading
statements in violation of the federal securities laws in
connection with certain accounting policies and practices.

More specifically, the consolidated complaint alleged that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, largely
with respect to accounting statements that were inconsistent
with the GAAP requirements relating to hedge accounting and the
amortization of premiums and discounts.

Plaintiffs contend that the alleged fraud resulted in
artificially inflated prices for the company's common stock.
They seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other fees
and costs.

Discovery commenced in this action following the denial of the
motions to dismiss filed by the company and the former officer
defendants on Feb. 10, 2006.

On April 17, 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action filed an amended consolidated complaint against the
company and former officers Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard and Leanne Spencer, that added purchasers of publicly
traded call options and sellers of publicly traded put options
to the putative class and sought to extend the end of the
putative class period from Sept. 21, 2004 to Sept. 27, 2005.

The company and the individual defendants filed motions to
dismiss addressing the extended class period and the deficiency
of the additional accounting allegations.

On Aug. 14, 2006, while those motions were still pending, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding KPMG LLP and
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. as additional defendants and adding
allegations based on the May 2006 report issued by OFHEO and the
February 2006 report issued by Paul Weiss.

The company's answer to the second amended complaint was filed
on Jan. 16, 2007.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification on May 17, 2006 and briefing on the motion was
completed on March 12, 2007.  Recently, Judge Leon limited the
class to Fannie Mae shareholders from April 2001 through
December 2004.  He denied a request by Ohio Attorney General
Marc Dann that investors who held the stock through Sept. 27,
2005, be included.

The suit is "In Re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-01639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon.
  
Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are:  

          Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA, 2109
          Phone: 617.542.8300
          Fax: 617.230.0903
          E-mail: info@bermanesq.com
  
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,         
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone:  202.408.4600
          Fax: 202.408.4699
          E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com

               - and -
  
          Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A.
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street,  
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513.621.026
          Fax: 513.381.2375
          E-mail: wsbclaw@aol.com


FEDEX GROUND: Discovery in Owner-Operators Lawsuit Completed
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery and class certification briefing are now complete in a
consolidated owner-operators class action pending against FedEx
Ground Package System, Inc., a major service line of FedEx
Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous other purported class
actions and administrative proceedings that claim that the
company’s owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather
than independent contractors.

Most of the purported class actions have been consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.

With the exception of recently filed cases that have been or
will be transferred to the multi-district litigation, discovery
and class certification briefing are now complete, according to
the company’s Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2007.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.


FEDEX CORP: Reaches Settlement in Labor Law Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corp., and its FedEx Ground subsidiary have settled two
lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-
and-hour violations.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things,
that they were forced to work “off the clock,” were not paid
overtime or were not provided work breaks or other benefits.

The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief, or both.

In September 2007, the company tentatively agreed to settle two
such lawsuits against FedEx Ground for an immaterial amount,
according to the company’s Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.

    
FEDEX GROUND: Calif. Drivers' Suit Remanded to Trial Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action against FedEx Corp., which determined that
independent contractors in its FedEx Ground subsidiary are
direct employees, was recently remanded to a trial court, after
an appeal in the matter was denied by a the California Supreme
Court.

The case, “Estrada vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.” is a
class action involving single work area contractors in
California.

In Aug. 13, 2007, the California appellate court affirmed the
trial court’s ruling in “Estrada” that a limited number of
California single work area contractors (most of whom have not
contracted with FedEx Ground since 2001) should be reimbursed as
employees for some of their operating expenses.

The California Supreme Court has refused to review the appellate
court decision.

Accordingly, the case has been remanded to the trial court for
reconsideration of the amount of such reimbursable expenses,
according to the company’s Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.

    
FEDEX CORP: Still Faces Fuel Surcharge Rates Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corp. along with other freight carriers continue to face
purported class actions, alleging a conspiracy to fix fuel
surcharge rates.

In late July 2007, a purported antitrust class action was filed
in California federal court, naming FedEx Corp. (particularly
FedEx Freight Corp. and its LTL [less-than-truckload] freight
subsidiaries) and several other major LTL freight carriers as
defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants conspired to fix fuel
surcharge rates in violation of federal antitrust laws and seeks
injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

Since the filing of the original case, similar cases have been
filed against the company and other LTL freight carriers, each
with the same allegation of conspiracy to fix fuel surcharge
rates.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
21, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of  
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  


FEDEX CORP: Appeals Class Certification in Kans. ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corp. and its FedEx Ground subsidiary are appealing to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit a decision that
certified a class in the matter, “Craig, et al. V. FedEx Ground
Pkg. Systems, Case No. 3:05-CV-00530.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas.  It is alleging state law claims on behalf of a
statewide class and federal law claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on behalf of a nationwide
class.

The Causes of Action include:
       
       -- Exercise of Rights under Family Medical Leave Act,
       -- Violations of ERISA,
       -- Fraud,
       -- Rescission of Operating Agreement,
       -- Constructive Trust and Other Equitable Relief,
       -- Injunctive Relief,
       -- Declaratory Relief

In October 2007, the company received a decision from the court
granting class certification in the case.

The court also required the parties to submit briefs on the
issue of whether the decision should be applied to the other
actions pending class certification determination in the multi-
district litigation.

The company has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, according to the company’s Dec.
21, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Craig, et al. V. FedEx Ground Pkg. Systems, Case
No. 3:05-CV-00530,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         George Barton, Esq.
         Phyllis Norman, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON P.C.
         800 West 47th St., Ste. 700
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Phone: (816) 300-6252
         Fax: (816) 300- 6259
         E-mail: gbarton@birch.net
                 bartonlaw3@birch.net

         Richard T. Phillips, Esq.
         Smith, Phillips, Mitchell and Scott , LLP
         P. O. Drawer 1586
         Batesville , MS 38606
         Phone: (662) 563-4613
         Fax: (662)563-1546
         E-mail: flip@smithphillips.com

              - and -

         Alan M. Purdie, Esq.
         Gore, Kilpatrick, Purdie, Metz and Adcock
         402 Legacy Park
         Ridgeland, MS 39157
         Phone: (601) 957-1595
         Fax: (601) 957-1790
         E-mail: apurdie@hgglaw.com


FIRST MAGNUS: WARN Act Violation Suit Refused Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Marlar denied a request by former
employees of the Tucson-based First Magnus Financial Corp. to
certify a lawsuit for unpaid wages and benefits, Christie Smythe
of the Arizona Daily Star reports.

The lawsuit was filed about a week after First Magnus filed for
bankruptcy on Aug. 21. It alleges that the company violated the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by not
providing advance notice before suddenly halting its operations
and laying off virtually all of its 5,500 employees nationwide
on Aug. 16.

In an order filed Jan. 11, Judge Marlar denied the employees'
request to certify the suit as a class action, writing that
"such an event would unnecessarily increase the costs and reduce
the distribution to the proposed class members."

The judge further wrote that the employees should simply file
claims, "each of which will be addressed on its merits."

                      About First Magnus

Based in Tucson, Arizona, First Magnus Financial Corporation --
http://www.firstmagnus.com/-- purchases and sells prime and
Alt-A mortgage loans secured by one-to-four unit residences.

The company filed for chapter 11 protection on Aug. 21, 2007
(Bankr. D. Ariz. Case No.: 07-01578).  John R. Clemency, Esq.,
at Greenberg Traurig LLP serves as the counsel for the Debtor.  
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has selected the
firm Warner Stevens LLP as its counsel.  When the Debtor filed
for bankruptcy, it listed total assets of $942,109,860 and total
debts of $812,533,046.

The Debtor's exclusive period to file a plan expired on Dec. 19,
2007.  The confirmation hearing on the Debtor's liquidation plan
is on Feb. 7, 2008.  (First Magnus Bankruptcy News, Issue No.
16; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service Inc.
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


GPC BIOTECH: Axxion Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated three securities suits against
GPC Biotech AG and appointed Axxion S.A. Luxemburg as lead
plaintiff in the case, Ron Zapata of the Securities Law360
reports.

In 2007, several class-action complaints were filed against GPC
and certain of its executive officers, on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GPC securities
between December 5, 2005, and July 24, 2007, inclusive (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2007).

The cases are:

     -- “Robert Corwin, et al. v. Bernd R. Seizinger et al.,
        Case Number: 07-cv-6728,”

     -- “Istvan Temesfoi, et al. v. GPC Biotech AG, et al., Case
        Number 07-cv-7016,” and

     -- “Audrey Dang, et al. v. GPC Biotech AG, et al.,”

all in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

According to the complaints, GPC and the other defendants
violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, the defendants made a series of materially false and
misleading misrepresentations and omissions about the Company's
operations, financial condition, and business prospects,
including those concerning the prospects for U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval of GPC's leading drug candidate,
Satraplatin (a treatment for advanced prostate cancer), thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities
during the Class Period.

Recently, Judge Chin appointed the Luxemburg-based investment
firm as lead plaintiff in the consolidated shareholder class
action.  The judge also appointed Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead
counsel.

To contact lead counsel:

          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: 212-907-0700
          Toll-free: 888-753-2796
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          Email: info@labaton.com


INTEGRATED SILICON: Faces SRAM Antitrust Suits in U.S., Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., and other static random
access memory (SRAM) suppliers continue to face several
purported class actions in the U.S. and Canada relating to the
sale and pricing of SRAM products, according to the company’s
Dec. 17, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

                        U.S. Litigation

Initially, 32 purported class actions were filed by U.S. Direct-
Purchaser and U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs.  They ware
alleging violations of the Sherman Act, violations of state
unfair competition laws, and unjust enrichment.

The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in a single federal
court for coordinated pre-trail proceedings.  

The U.S. complaints seek treble damages for the alleged damages
sustained by purported class members, in addition to
restitution, costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as an injunction
against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

As of Aug. 30, 2007, the company was voluntarily dismissed from
28 of the thirty-two pending lawsuits pursuant to a Tolling
Agreement between the company and the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser
Plaintiffs.  

The U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs agreed not to name the
company as a defendant unless the Tolling Agreement is
terminated according to terms specified in that agreement.

The company remains a defendant in the four lawsuits brought by
the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs.

                      Canadian Litigation

Three purported class actions were filed against the company and
other SRAM suppliers in three Canadian courts alleging violation
of the Canadian Competition Act and other unlawful conduct.

The Canadian complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages,
in addition to declaratory relief, restitution, and costs.

Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com-- is a  
fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets high-
performance integrated circuits (ICs) for various markets, such
as digital consumer electronics, networking, mobile
communications and automotive electronics.  The Company's
primary products are high-speed and low-power static random
access memory (SRAM) and low- and medium-density dynamic random
access memory (DRAM).  It also designs and markets electrically
erasable programmable ready only memory (EEPROMs), SmartCards,
controller chips for flash memory sticks and card reader-
writers, and wireless chipsets.


INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Cal. Discrimination Suit Settlement Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted preliminary approval to a settlement of the  
class action “Pizarro, et al. v. International Coffee and Tea,
LLC, Docket number 06-7448.”

The suit involves those who use a wheelchair or scooter, are
hearing impaired, or are visually impaired and have been to a
Coffee Bean location in the State of California and have
suffered accessibility discrimination from October 24, 2005
until the present.

The lawsuit sought to make Coffee Bean alter its stores with
respect to access for people who use wheelchairs or scooters,
and/or who are hearing and/or visually impaired, and sought
damages in an amount specified by Statute(s) (statutory minimum
damages) for people who shopped at Coffee Bean in California.

Coffee Bean denied liability. The Court did not decide which
side was correct.

Under the settlement, Coffee Bean will make alterations to all
of its California corporate owned stores to become fully
accessible to the mobility impaired, hearing impaired and
visually impaired and will pay $500,000.00 to a Damages Fund
created for the benefit of the Class. The Defendants have also
agreed to pay attorneys' fees and costs not to exceed
$250,000.00. Qualifying Damages Class Members can obtain
monetary recovery. The Defendant has also agreed to pay an
incentive award outside the Damage Fund to each class
representative not to exceed $10,000.00 each.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on March 15,
2008.

The United States District Court for the Central District of
California will hold a hearing on May 19, 2008 at 1:30 P.M.
before United States District Judge Philip Gutierrez.

Coffee Bean Settlement on the net:
http://www.CoffeeBeanSettlement.com

The suit is “Pizarro, et. al. v. International Coffee and Tea,
LLC, Docket number 06-7448,” filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Philip
Gutierrez.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esquire
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Toll free: 877-LEGAL-90


IOWA: Lawsuit Over Traffic Camera Under Judicial Review
-------------------------------------------------------
A case over Davenport's red-light and speed camera ordinance is
still under judicial review, said city interim corporate counsel
Tom Warner, according to Tory Brecht of Quad City Times.  That
means it could either be heard in appellate court or go all the
way to the Supreme Court, according to the report.

Last year, the Scott County District Court Judge Gary McKenrick
ruled that a lawsuit claiming the city of Davenport's automated
camera-ticketing system violates state law can be a class action
(Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2007).

Attorneys Richard A. Davidson and Cathy Cartee are representing
Monique Rhoden of Rock Island, Illinois, who received a ticket
from a camera while driving through Davenport, specifically at
the intersection of Kimberly Road and Harrison Ford.

Mr. Davidson contended that the system contradicts state law in
that state law requires criminal citations be issued to people
who speed or run a red light.  In contrast, the city issues the
tickets to the vehicles' owners instead of the drivers.  

Unlike a speeding or red light ticket issued by a law
enforcement officer, the camera-generated citations are
considered a civil infraction, not a criminal offense.  

The suit seeks the return of speeding fines previously
collected.  The city reportedly collected about $250,000 in
speeding fines in fiscal year 2006.

The suit is "Monique D. Rhoden v. City of Davenport, Iowa, Case
No. 106960," filed in the Scott County District Court under
Judge Gary McKenrick.

For more details, contact:

          Dick Davidson, Esq.
          224 18th Street, Suite 500
          Rock Island, Illinois 61201 (Rock Island Co.)
          Phone: 309-786-1600
          Fax: 309-786-1794


JJB SPORTS: Settles Lawsuit Over Football Shirt Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action-style competition claim filed against JJB Sports
over replica football shirts has been settled out of court for
GBP20,000 ($39,188) excluding legal fees.  JJB settled without
admitting liability.

In February, JJB Sports was reportedly found by the Office of
Fair Trading to have conspired with Umbro, AllSports in fixing
prices for football shirts between 2000 and 2001 (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 22, 2007).

Consumer organization Which? filed the legal claim against JJB
Sports on behalf of people who bought replica England and
Manchester United football shirts between 2000 and 2001 (Class
Action Reporter, March 16, 2007).

The consumer watchdog lodged the suit at the Competition Appeals
Tribunal.  This is the first time that Which? has used its
powers under the Enterprise Act 2002, which allows it to bring a
class action against a company that has been convicted of price
fixing or any other anticompetitive practice.  It acted on a
"no-win, no-fee" basis.

Under the settlement each of the almost 600 customers who joined
the Which? action will receive GBP20 a shirt.  Fans who bought
one of the replica shirts but did not join the Which? action
will still be able to claim GBP10 with proof of purchase, or
GBP5 if they bought a shirt but also took advantage of an
earlier JJB offer of a free England away shirt and a mug.


KASH N? GOLD: Recalls Lamps for Lead Paint Standard Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kash N? Gold Ltd., of Deer Park, N.Y., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
60,000 Tinker Bell lamps.

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

The recalled Tinker Bell lamp has model “Tinker Bell Lamp”
printed on the bottom of the lamp. The lamp has a sculpted
Tinker Bell in a flower garden with an animation of Tinker Bell
swaying back and forth while music plays when the light switch
or demo button is depressed.

These recalled novelty lamps were manufactured in Hong Kong and
were sold at electronic and appliance retailers nationwide,
including Lowe's from January 2007 through October 2007 for
about $40.

Picture of recalled novelty lamps:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08162.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
lamps and return them to the store where purchased for a refund
or contact the firm to receive a Kash N? Gold merchandise
credit.

For additional information, visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kngamerica.com


ONSTAR CORP: Faces W. Va. Suit Over In-vehicle Security System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Audi and OnStar Corp. are facing a potential class action
lawsuit in Kanawha Circuit Court (West Virginia), Cara Bailey of
the West Virginia Record reports.

Charleston resident Robert Reishman filed the suit against the
car company and the in-car communication and security system
included with the vehicle, claiming the switch from analog to
digital systems caused his system to become obsolete and his car
to decline in value.

According to the suit, Audi and OnStar have an agreement that
allows OnStar to be installed in some Audis. The system used
analog service on some vehicles until Jan. 1, 2008, when the
service switched to digital.

"As a result ... thousands of Audi owners will be left stranded
with useless analog-only OnStar systems," the suit says. "Not
only will these Audi owners lose the safety, security and
convenient benefits of the OnStar network, they will also suffer
sharp declines in the value of their vehicles."

Mr. Reishman claims that he, and other members of the class,
will suffer significant out of pocket costs and expenses to
replace or repair the analog-only OnStar equipment in the
vehicles. He also claims he will suffer from the depreciation
and loss of value of his vehicle and the benefits and use of the
OnStar system for which he paid.  Mr. Reishman claims Audi and
OnStar participated in unfair and deceptive business practices.

The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The suit (Case Number: 07-C-2681) is filed in Kanawha Circuit
Court under Judge Jennifer Bailey Walker.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          John W. Barrett
          Bailey & Glasser LLP
          227 Capitol Street
          Charleston, West Virginia 25301
          Phone: 304-345-6555  
          Fax: 304-342-1110
          Website: http://www.baileyglasser.com


ORACLE CORP: March 24 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A March 24, 2008 trial date is scheduled for a purported
securities fraud class action filed against Oracle Corp. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Initially, stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the company and its chief executive officer on and after March
9, 2001.

Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and
a revised second amended complaint.  The last dismissal was with
prejudice.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The revised second amended complaint named its chief executive
officer, its then chief financial officer (who currently is
chairman of the company's board of directors) and a former
executive vice president as defendants.

This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000 through
March 1, 2001.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements about the company's actual and expected financial
performance and the performance of certain of the company's
applications products, while certain individual defendants were
selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws.

They further alleged that certain individual defendants sold
Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information.  In addition, they also allege that the defendants
engaged in accounting violations.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On July 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment against all defendants and a motion for summary
judgment against the company's chief executive officer.

On Aug. 7, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended versions of these
motions.  The parties' summary judgment motions are fully
briefed.

On Oct. 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default
judgment against defendants or various other sanctions because
of defendants’ alleged destruction of evidence.  This motion is
fully briefed.  

A hearing on all these motions was held on Dec. 20, 2007.  The
court has set a trial date of March 24, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-CV-0988," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins with
referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
         Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
         1438 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Phone: 415-896-1000
         Fax: 415-896-2249
         E-mail: jennie@libertylawoffice.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Dorian Daley, Esq.
         500 Oracle Parkway
         Redwood City, CA 94065
         Phone: (650) 506-5200
         Fax: (650) 506-7114


PENNSYLVANIA: Erie County Workers Complain Against Executive
------------------------------------------------------------
A union representing 65 Erie County workers filed a class-action
grievance against County Executive Mark DiVecchio for alleged
discrimination in labor contract negotiations, David Bruce of
GoErie.com reports.

The professional unit of the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees filed the grievance against Mr.
DiVecchio with county Personnel Director Larry Meredith this
month.  According to the report, the union members claim that
Mr. DiVecchio violated the current bargaining agreement by
discriminating against them in current negotiations because of a
"conflict of interest" with the Health Department and its staff.  

The filing doesn't describe the conflict, but reportedly, the
Health Department closed in December a catering business that
Mr. DiVecchio owns because it didn't have the proper license for
its new location.  Mr. DiVecchio denied the issue has affected
its last offer to the professional unit.

Union members call for Mr. DiVecchio to remove himself from
labor negotiations for a new labor contract. They also want the
county to return to the bargaining table as soon as reasonably
possible and to implement the wage package agreed upon with the
Erie Court Association of Professional Employees' bargaining
unit.


PEP BOYS: Settles One Labor Law Violation Claim in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack settled one particular claim
common among several purported labor class actions filed against
the company in a California court.

During the fourth quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007,
the Company was served with four separate lawsuits brought by
former associates employed in California, each of which lawsuits
purports to be a class action on behalf of all current and
former California store associates.  

One or more of the lawsuits claim that the plaintiff was not
paid for:

       -- overtime,
       -- accrued vacation time,
       -- all time worked (i.e. “off the clock” work), and/or
       -- late or missed meal periods or rest breaks.

The plaintiffs also allege that the Company violated certain
record keeping requirements arising out of the foregoing alleged
violations.  

The lawsuits:

       -- claim these alleged practices are unfair business
          practices,
       
       -- request back pay, restitution, penalties, interest and
          attorney fees, and

       -- request that the Company be enjoined from committing
          further unfair business practices.

During the third quarter of 2007, the Company reached a
settlement in principle regarding the accrued vacation time
claims (which is subject to court approval)

The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack -- http://www.pepboys.com/-- is  
an automotive retail and service chain.  The Company operates in
one industry, the automotive aftermarket.  It is engaged
principally in the retail sale of automotive parts, tires and
accessories, automotive repairs and maintenance and the
installation of parts.


QUEST CHEROKEE: Still Faces Kans. Suit Over Royalty Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Cherokee, LLC, a unit of Quest Resource Corp., continues
to face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas in relation to royalty payments.

On Aug. 3, 2007, certain alleged mineral and/or overriding
royalty interests owners in land located in the Kansas portion
of the Cherokee Basin filed a putative class action against
Quest Cherokee.

The suit is captioned, “Hugo Spieker, et al. v. Quest Cherokee,
LLC, Case No. 07-1225-MLB.”  Named plaintiffs allege that Quest
Cherokee has failed to properly make royalty payments to them
and the putative class by, among other things, paying royalties
based on reduced volumes instead of volumes of gas measured at
the wellheads, and by allocating certain expenses to plaintiffs'
interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the amount in controversy exceed five  
million dollars.

Quest Energy Partners, L.P. reported no development in the
matter in its Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Spieker et al. v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, Case No.
6:07-cv-01225-MLB-KMH,” filed in the  U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas under Judge Monti L. Belot with referral
to Judge Karen M. Humphreys.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Charles E. Millsap, Esq.
          Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, L.L.C.
          1900 Epic Center, 301 N. Main, PO Box 997
          Wichita, KS 67201-0997
          Phone: 316-267-7361
          Fax: 316-267-1754
          E-mail: cmillsap@fleeson.com

Representing the defendant is:

          David E. Bengtson, Esq.
          Stinson Morrrison Hecker LLP
          1625 N. Waterfront Pkwy., Suite #300
          Wichita, KS 67206-6602
          Phone: 316-265-8800
          Fax: 316-265-1349
          E-mail: dbengtson@stinson.com


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: TRS Settles for $61M After Opting Out
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Teacher Retirement System of Texas said in December that it
has reached a major settlement with Qwest Communications
International, Inc., on allegations of securities fraud
committed by that telecommunications company.

TRS will receive a net recovery of approximately $61.6 million
from the settlement.

A class-action settlement with Qwest was announced in 2005.
Under that settlement, TRS' estimated recovery would have
amounted to $1.4 million. TRS opted out of the class recovery to
pursue legal proceedings against Qwest. The $61.6 million net
settlement that TRS reached with Qwest is approximately $60
million greater than the estimated recovery would have been
under the class-action settlement.

“We considered the high attorney fees and the insufficient
recovery anticipated from the class action lawsuit and decided
to seek damages from Qwest on our own,” explained TRS Executive
Director Ronnie Jung. “We were confident that we could achieve a
much greater recovery on behalf of our members and
beneficiaries.”

Retirement systems from other states, including Alaska,
Colorado, Florida, and New York also participated in this
successful settlement.


SHIMS BARGAIN: Recalls “Baby Town” Pacifiers for Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shims Bargain Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
45,000 “BabyTown” pacifiers.

The company said these pacifiers fail to meet federal safety
standards for pacifiers. The pacifier shield is too small and
could easily enter the mouth of an infant. Also, ventilation
holes are too small and not placed to allow for the insertion of
a tool to remove the pacifier when lodged in the mouth of a
child. Finally, the package fails to display the required
warning instructing consumers not to tie a pacifier around a
child's neck, which would present a strangulation hazard. No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled pacifiers were sold in a 4-pack of assorted colors.
“BabyTown” and model #39864 are written on the product?s
packaging.

These recalled pacifiers were manufactured in China and were
being sold at dollar stores nationwide from March 2004 through
December 2007 for $1.

Picture of recalled pacifiers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08160.jpg

Consumers are advised to take these pacifiers away from children
immediately and return them to the store where purchased for a
full refund.

For additional information, contact Shims Bargain toll-free at
(866) 540-3334 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday.


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Hears Securities Fraud Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has heard oral arguments on an appeal against the dismissal of a
securities fraud complaint against Siebel Systems, Inc.

On March 10, 2004, William Wollrab, on behalf of himself and
purportedly on behalf of a class of stockholders of Siebel
Systems, a company acquired by Oracle Corp. in January 2006,
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Siebel and certain of its
officers relating to predicted adoption rates of Siebel v7.0 and
certain customer satisfaction surveys.

This complaint was consolidated and amended on August 27, 2004,
with the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago being
appointed to serve as lead plaintiff.  The consolidated
complaint also raised claims regarding Siebel's business
performance in 2002.  

In October 2004, Siebel filed a motion to dismiss, which was
granted on Jan. 28, 2005 with leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on March 1, 2005.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.  Siebel
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 27,
2005, and on Dec. 28, 2005, the Court dismissed the case with
prejudice.  

On Jan. 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on
Sept. 18, 2006, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief.
Defendants’ responsive brief was filed on Dec. 15, 2006.  The
plaintiffs filed their reply brief on Jan. 16, 2007.  

The court heard oral argument on this appeal on Dec. 6, 2007.

The suit is "Wollrab v. Siebel Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00983-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
         Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 850
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 230-0800
         E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com

         Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         Symphony Towers, 750 B. Street, Suite 2770
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-239-4599
         E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com

         Mel E. Lifshitz, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,
         10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414
         Fax: 212-779-3218
         E-mail: lifshitz@bernlieb.com

              - and -

         Dale MacDiarmid, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael D. Torpey, Esq.
         Erin L. Bansal, Esq.
         Penelope Graboys, Esq.
         Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
         The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
         Phone: 415-778-5700
         Fax: 415-778-5759
         E-mail: mtorpey@orrick.com
                 ebansal@orrick.com
                 pgraboysblair@orrick.com


STATE FARM: Banned from Cutting Underinsured Motorist Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Arizona Supreme Court ruled that State Farm could not cut
underinsured motorist payments to injured people who have
received workers' compensation, Bob Christie of Insurance
Journal reports.

The ruling came in a suit filed as a class action by former Pima
County sheriff's Deputy Jean Cundiff, who met a car crash twice
before retiring. State Farm determined that though their
policy's underinsured motorist coverage had a $25,000 limit, Ms.
Cundiff will only receive $10,000 because she also received
workers' compensation payment.

According to the report, the Supreme Court ruled that State Farm
was wrong to cut Ms. Cundiff's because workers' compensation
isn't liability insurance and the underinsured motorist law
expressly forbids it, even if an insurance policy contains such
a provision.  According to the ruling, an arbitrator decided her
damages totaled $40,000.  

The ruling regarding computation of underinsured motorist
payments will apply to all insurance companies who sell policies
in Arizona.  It covers only underinsured motorist payments and
not uninsured motorist coverage.  

The case was sent back to a lower court for further hearings and
to determine who else may be eligible to receive money from
State Farm.

Representing Ms. Cundiff is:

          John L. Tully Law Offices
          4562 N 1st Ave # 100
          Tucson, AZ 85718
          Phone: (520) 322-5051


U-HAUL CO: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over 2006 Fire in Clementon, N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
U-Haul Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed Jan. 7 in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County over poor
solutions to a housing crisis at the Clementon, N.J., storage
center, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a mass property damage claim that stems from a fire
caused by an illegal electrical hook-up in a storage unit at a
U-Haul storage facility.

Storage-unit renters claim U-Haul Co. knew someone was living in
a storage unit, and when his jury-rigged electric system burned
down Building G at the Clementon, N.J., storage center, U-Haul
destroyed evidence to try to prevent a class-action complaint
from being filed.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to NJ Court Rule 4:32 of
the New Jersey Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons
renting and/or leasing a storage unit or units, and all persons
storing any property in such units, as well as any insurance
carriers insuring such property and made payments to any insured
for such loss to property, at the time of the subject of fire on
or about Feb. 26, 2006 at defendants' premises in Clementon, New
Jersey.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants breached their duty to exercise
         reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to the class;

     (b) whether defendants have negligently allowed the named
         plaintiffs and the members of the class to be sustain
         damages;

     (c) whether defendants operated their business in a manner
         that they knew, or should have known, would cause
         injury to plaintiff and the class;

     (d) whether defendants failed to employ reasonable
         precautions and safeguards to minimize or eliminate the
         damage that has been done;

     (e) whether defendants had a duty to safeguard the property
         of the class;

     (f) whether the defendants breached that duty;

     (g) whether or not the class were intended beneficiaries of
         the certain terms of the contract;

     (h) whether the offer of rental as embodied in the contract
         had the capacity to mislead; and

     (i) whether, following the Feb. 26, 2006 fire, the
         defendants knew or should have known that such event
         was likely to give rise to claims and/or litigation
         therefrom, and whether the defendants took reasonable
         measures to inform the members of the class and
         otherwise protect and preserve the evidence.

Plaintiffs demand judgment against defendant for damages,
attorneys fees, interests, and costs of suit, and such other
relief as the court may deem proper and under the circumstances.

The suit is "Thuressa Robinson et al. v. U-haul Company et al.,
Case No. L 168-08," filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Camden County.

Representing plaintiffs:

          Thomas T. Booth, Jr., Esq.
          Law Offices of Thomas T. Booth, Jr., LLC
          241 Kings Highway East, First Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 354-6060
          Fax: (856) 354-6033


UNITED STATES: Secret Service Fails to Turn over Documents
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson postponed a decision
on whether to issue additional sanctions against the U.S. Secret
Service for failing to turn over documents in a class action
alleging systemic workplace discrimination against African
American agents, Rebecca Carr of Austin American-Statesman
reports.

In December, Judge Robinson ordered the service to turn over all
documents referring to the promotion of African American agents
from 1991 to the present.  She gave the government until January
7, 2008, to produce the documents.  The service failed to file
any record from current employees, the report said.

Judge Robinson has sanctioned the government three times and
issued 22 rulings against the service in discovery.  In recent
development, Judge Robinson said she did not want to rush her
decision because of the serious nature of the case.

Lawyers representing the service have filed a motion asking U.S.
District Judge Richard Roberts, the judge overseeing the case,
to reverse Judge Robinson’s earlier sanction because it was
“erroneous and contrary to law."  They oppose the order because
it requires defendant to “produce documents that are not within
his possession, custody or control.”

Judge Robinson did not address the government’s motion,
according to the report. She set a hearing for January 18 to
give the government an opportunity to cross-examine Arthur L.
Kuhn, a Secret Service inspector, who conducted a search for all
paper records maintained by current employees.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is Reginald Moore.  
Representing plaintiffs for free is the law firm Hogan & Hartson
and Relman & Dane.

Marina Braswell is one of the lawyers handling the case for the
government.

For more information, contact:

          Hogan & Hartson LLP
          555 13th Street, N.W.
          Washington , D.C., DC 20004
          USA
          Website: http://www.hhlaw.com
          Phone: (202) 637-5600
          Fax: (202) 637-5910


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Abraham Fruchter Files N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP commenced a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York  on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (NASDAQ Global
Select Market: IBKR) in the Company’s initial public offering
(“IPO”), which commenced on May 4, 2007, through July 5, 2007.

The claims asserted arise under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§77k and 77l(a)(2), and have
been asserted against Interactive Brokers.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant made materially
misleading statements and otherwise failed to disclose that it
had incurred material trading losses at the time of the IPO and
that its proprietary pricing model was unable to prevent such
material trading losses.

The subsequent disclosure of these facts after the close of
trading on July 5, 2007 resulted in the price of the Company’s
common stock declining, causing Plaintiff and the other members
of the Class to suffer damages.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 11,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jack Fruchter, Esq.
          Larry Levit, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com or llevit@aftlaw.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  * * *