CAR_Public/080121.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, January 21, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 14

                            Headlines




AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Calif. Suit Over "False Imprisonment"
CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Suits on Misleading Investors
COST RECOVERY: TX Suit Claims Fraudulent Scheme Against Drivers
CRANIUM INC: Recalls Board Game for Lead Paint Standard Breach
DUKE ENERGY: Accused of Antitrust Conspiracy in Ohio Lawsuit

ENSIGN GROUP: Settles Calif. Suit Over Nursing Homes Operations
FLORIDA: Health Care Secretary Sued Over Medicaid Reform Program
FLORIDA: Pediatric Groups Tap Kenny Nachwalter in Medicaid Suit
GTR OAKLAND: Beaver Creek Golfers Get Nod for Class Status
HEWLETT-PACKARD: April 29 Hearing Set for Suit Settlement

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Reverses Class Certification in P4 Cases
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Suit Over Intel P4 Processors
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Two "Smart Chips" Lawsuits
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Illinois Suit Over EEPROM Chip
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Calif. Suit Over Laserjet Color Printers

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Answers Remaining Claims in Inkjet Printer Suit
HEWLETT PACKARD: Appeals Court Remands "Digwamaje" Suit
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Pa. Court Mulls Dismissal of RESPA Suit
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Court Mulls Dismissal Bid in "Sewell"
KINDER MORGAN: Faces Suit Over July Pipeline Rupture, Oil Spill

LJ INT'L: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Eleventh Circuit Hears Arguments in OOIDA Case
LOUISIANA: Lawsuit Aims to Challenge "Big Charity" Closure
MERCK & CO: No Class Status Granted for Three Fosamax Suits
MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Reaches $117M Settlement in Securities Suit

MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Wis. Securities Lawsuit
MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Antitrust Suit Settlement Vouchers Out
PROPERTY INSURERS: Florida Mulls Suit Over Insurance Rates
RECORDING INDUSTRY: Court Re-Affirms Decisions in Piracy Case
THIRD FEDERAL: Obtains Judgment in $27M "Greenspan" Litigation

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Schiffrin Files OH Securities Fraud Suit




                            *********  

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Calif. Suit Over "False Imprisonment"
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of Napa over a delay of flights on last Dec. 29, 2006.  
The delays were due to severe thunderstorms.

This is an action for:

     (a) false imprisonment;
     (b) intentional infliction of emotional distress;
     (c) negligence;
     (d) breach of contract; and
     (e) deceit/fraud.

The complaint alleges American Airlines falsely imprisoned more
than 1,200 passengers on more than 100 grounded planes, some for
more than 9 hours, on Dec. 29, 2006, without food, water, or
toilets and in unbelievable stench, because the airline was too
cheap to pay for food and lodging, and it never reimbursed them
or apologized for this execrable treatment.

Named plaintiff Kathleen Hanni brings this action pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 on behalf of
approximately 12,000 people who were affected by the actions of
the defendant.

She prays for judgment as follows:

     -- for general and compensatory damages on all causes of
        action according to proof at trial;

     -- for punitive and exemplary damages according to proof at
        trial;

     -- for reasonable attorneys fees according to law and proof
        at trial;

     -- for costs of suit; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        just and proper.

According to Marilyn Adams of USA TODAY, American spokesman John
Hotard declined to comment on the complaint, saying he had not
seen them. He noted that since December 2006, American has
implemented new procedures designed to prevent recurrences.
Those include a guideline limiting ground delays to four hours
when possible and letting passengers deplane when it is safe to
do so.

"That was our largest weather disruption, ever, and we handled
it the best we could," he said. "I think we have fixed the
problem and lawsuits are not necessary."

The suit is "Kathleen Hanni et al. v. American Airlines, Inc.,
Case No. 26-40576," filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Napa.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Paul S. Hudson
          Law Offices of Paul S. Hudson PC
          4411 Bee Ridge Road # 274
          Sarasota, Florida 34233
          Phone: (410) 940-8934
          Fax: (240) 391-1923

          - and -

          David G. Ramos
          Law Offices of David G. Ramos
          3266 Villa Lane
          Napa, California 94558
          Phone: (707) 255-1700
          Fax: (707) 255-3660


CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Suits on Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------
CellCyte Genetics Corporation (CCYG) is the subject of a few
class action lawsuits claiming investors were misled by filings
and publishment of false information.

Earlier, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a proposed class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, OTC Bulletin
Board: CCYG) during the period between April 6, 2007 through and
including Jan. 9, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2008).

The complaint alleges that CellCyte executives misled investors
by publishing false information about the history and experience
of the Company's chief executive officer Gary A. Reys.

Mr. Reys' background was called into question after published
news reports called out alleged discrepancies relating to Reys'
finance degree from the University of Washington, a CPA
designation, ties to the Washington Society of Certified Public
Accountants and a strong track record within the pharmaceutical
industry.

According to the complaint, these published statements created
an unrealistically positive assessment of CellCyte's prospects
for investors. As a result stock prices for the Company were
artificially inflated. Soon after Reys' credibility came into
question, CellCyte took some of Reys' biography information off
its website.

Following the removal, shares fell 55% to $2.20 a share.
CellCyte traded at a high of $7.02 per share just days before.

During last Thursday's session, shares were down an additional
43% on 319 thousand in volume.

CellCyte Genetics, a biotechnology company, is dedicated to
bringing innovative proprietary therapeutic products and
regeneration medicine to patients. The Company's technology
platforms are based on stem cells derived from cord-blood, once
considered medical waste. Similar to bone marrow, cord-blood is
enriched with stem cells, only of a more potent nature. The
higher potency of cord-blood stem cells gives them the ability
to become red and white blood cells and platelets, elements that
make up a healthy immune system. CellCyte has finalized
licensing of its' three lead product candidates and now owns
worldwide Patent Sole Ownership - Exclusive License to these
technologies, seen to be the leading advancement in early cancer
tumor detection, stem cell trafficking and organ targeting of
stem cells to the heart, lung, liver and kidney for repair and
organ regeneration.


COST RECOVERY: TX Suit Claims Fraudulent Scheme Against Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Recovery Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
January 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas under 15 USC Section 1692, et seq., the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Tine Moore accuses CRC of defrauding drivers
across the United States by dunning them for charges allegedly
owed to city police departments that respond to fender benders.  

Plaintiff claims CRC repeatedly threatened "further action" if
she did not pay them for "police squad car response ... to a
motor vehicle accident."

She brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1),
(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of all those individuals who
directly or through the insurance company insuring the
individual who have, within one year of the filing of the
complaint have received any communication from defendant CRC
regarding an alleged money due and/or owing as a result of an
automobile incident.

Plaintiff requests;

     -- that the court certify this action as a class action and
        appoint her as the class representative and her
        attorneys as class counsel;

     -- that defendant be cited to appear and that upon trial,
        the court declare that defendant's form collection
        letters and action have violated the Fair Debt
        Collection Practices Act; and

     -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class for
        injunctive relief, statutory damages and reasonable and
        necessary attorneys' fees as provided by 15 USC Section
        1692k(a) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and
        for such other relief, both at law and in equity, to
        which plaintiff may be justly entitled.

The suit is "Tina Moore et al. v. Cost Recovery Corp., LLC, Case
No. 508CV007," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Steven K. DeWolf
          Barbara L. Emerson
          Gary D. Lykins
          Haakon T. Donnelly
          Bellinger & DeWolf, LLP
          10,000 N. Central Expressway, Suite 900
          Dallas, Texas 75231
          Phone: (214) 954-9540
          Fax: (215) 954-9541


CRANIUM INC: Recalls Board Game for Lead Paint Standard Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cranium Inc., of Seattle, Wash., in cooperation with U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 38,000
Cranium Cadoo Board Games.

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

Only the die found in Cranium Cadoo board games with lot numbers
2007195 through 2007244 are included in the recall. The Cranium
Cadoo game is packaged in a square cardboard box with an orange
background. The seven digit lot number is printed under the
plastic tray on the bottom half of the box.

These recalled board games were manufactured in China and were
being sold at Fred Meyer, Kmart, Shopko, Wal-Mart and specialty
game stores nationwide between October 2007 through January 2008
for about $20.

Picture of recalled board games:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08169a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08169b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately dispose of the die and
contact Cranium Inc. to receive a free replacement die.

For additional information, contact Cranium Inc. at (877) 272-
6486 between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.cranium.com


DUKE ENERGY: Accused of Antitrust Conspiracy in Ohio Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
January 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio alleging it violated antitrust law by creating Cinergy
Retail Services, a "sham entity," to funnel $15 million in
kickbacks to major corporations in the Greater Cincinnati area,
in exchange for their support for a major rate increase in 2003-
2004, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a proposed class action brought by southern Ohio
electricity users on behalf of southern Ohio businesses, other
entities, and individual consumers purchasing electricity from
defendant, in violation of federal and Ohio law.

Plaintiffs propose to represent a class consisting of all
defendant's electric customers who did not enter into any
"Option Agreement" with the conspirators.

Plaintiffs pray:

     -- for a judgment that Duke Energy has violated Section 2
        of the Clayton Act (15 USC Section 13(a));

     -- for an order, under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 USC
        Section), awarding to the plaintiffs treble damages, as
        a result of Duke Energy's violation of Section 2 of the
        Clayton Act (15 USC Section 13 (a));

     -- for an order permanently enjoining Duke Energy, its
        officers, agents, employees, successors, and all persons
        in active concern or participation with them, from
        engaging in carrying out, or renewing any contracts,
        agreements, policies, practices or understandings, or
        claiming any rights thereunder having the purpose or
        effect of continuing, reviving, or renewing the
        aforesaid violation of the Clayton Act, in accordance
        with the provisions of Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15
        USC Section 26), or the aforesaid violation of state
        law;

     -- for compensatory and punitive damages in accordance with
        Ohio law;

     -- for the cost of their suit and reasonable attorney's
        fees; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        just and proper.

The suit is "Anthony Williams et al. v. Duker energy
International, Inc., Case No. 1:08CV046," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Randolph H. Freking
          Kelly Mulloy Myers
          George Reul
          Tod Thompson
          Freking & Betz
          525 vine Street, Sixth Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 721-1975
          Fax: (513) 651-2570
          E-mail: randy@frekingandbetz.com or
                  kmyers@frekingandbetz.com or
                  greul@frekingandbetz.com or
                  tthompson@frekingandbetz.com

          - and -

          Stanley M. Chesley
          Paul M. DeMarco
          W.B. Markovits
          Christopher D. Stock
          Waite Schneider BAyless & Chesley Co., LPA
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
          One West Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 621-0267
          Fax: (513) 621-0262
          E-mail: stanchesley@wsbclaw.com or
                  demarcoworld@wsbclaw.com or
                  billmarkovits@wsbclaw.com or
                  christock@wsbclaw.com


ENSIGN GROUP: Settles Calif. Suit Over Nursing Homes Operations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ensign Group, Inc. reached a settlement for a class action filed
against it, alleging, among other things, violations of
applicable California Health and Safety Code provisions and a
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act at
certain of our facilities.

Twenty-nine nursing homes throughout California, owned or  
operated by Ensign Group, Inc. recently faced a class action in
Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, alleging unlawful
business practices, unfair and fraudulent business practices,
violations of health & safety codes, and violations of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Class Action Reporter, May 23,
2006).

The suit was filed on behalf of:

     -- Barbara Davison, a former resident of Shoreline  
        Healthcare Center;  

     -- the California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA), a  
        nonprofit corporation, on behalf of patients, their  
        families; and  

     -- the Service Employees International Union United  
        Healthcare Workers-West, representing nursing home  
        employees and the thousands of other citizens of the  
        State of California similarly situated.  

The essence of the complaint is that the defendants professed
that their skilled nursing facilities provided the level of
patient staffing and quality of care that are required, at the
very minimum, by the State of California and that they billed
individuals, their private insurance companies, and government
sources, such as MediCare and MediCal, as if they had been
providing the care promised.  

The lawsuit alleges that the reality is that they did not
provide this legally mandated minimum care to the elder and
infirm residents of their skilled nursing facilities.  

"I have successfully litigated hundreds of elder abuse cases for
individuals throughout the southwest, and the fact is, there is
a direct correlation between the level and quality of care a
patient receives and the direct nursing staff available at a
facility," says Long Beach plaintiff attorney Stephen M. Garcia
of Garcia Law.  

"The California Department of Health Services has cited Ensign
repeatedly for such inadequacies, which we believe to be caused
by short-staffing, leading Ensign to have what the company
believe to be an unacceptable number of residents who develop
bed sores and urinary tract infections, who have unexplained
falls, who have an unexpected weight loss, and who suffer
medication errors, all often the first signs of inadequate care
and elder abuse."  

"What concerns us is corporate greed," Mr. Garcia continues.
"Our lawsuit alleges that Ensign ignores the needs of a
particularly vulnerable segment of our community: our parents,
our grandparents -- and someday maybe ourselves.  We wish to
ensure that quality patient care by sufficient and qualified
staff is the norm, not the exception and that a 'profits over
people' mentality becomes a thing of the distant past."  

In 1999, in response to a growing concern over the low levels of
direct patient staffing and quality of care in nursing homes,
the California legislature increased required direct patient
care to 3.2 hours per day as of January 2000.  Per filings with
the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development submitted by Ensign and its related entities under
penalty of perjury, Ensign often fails to have sufficient staff
on duty to meet the needs of their residents as required by
state and federal law.  

"This is one of many class action cases I have brought in recent
years against nursing home operators who do not properly care
for this particularly vulnerable segment of our population,"
says Mr. Garcia.  "As horrible as the individual cases are, they
can't compare with these so-called skilled nursing facilities
who are abusing our elderly relatives and friends by the
hundreds, sometimes the thousands."  

Bill Powers of CARA concurs with Mr. Garcia, saying, "We hope
this lawsuit helps force the Ensign Group to clean up and to
staff up for better patient care."  

List of nursing homes named in class action:

     -- Bellflower: Rose Villa Health Care Center  
     -- Cloverdale: Cloverdale Healthcare Center  
     -- Costa Mesa: Victoria Healthcare Center  
     -- Downey: Brookfield Healthcare Center  
     -- Escondido: Palomar Vista Healthcare Center  
     -- Glendora: Claremont Care Center  
     -- Huntington Beach: Sea Cliff Healthcare Center  
     -- Laguna Hills: Palm Terrace Healthcare & Rehabilitation  
        Center  
     -- Lemon Grove: Lemon Grove Care and Rehabilitation Center  
     -- Long Beach: Atlantic Memorial Healthcare Center  
                    Shoreline Healthcare Center  
     -- Norwalk: Southland Care Center  
     -- Oxnard: Glenwood Care Center  
     -- Palm Springs: Premier Care and Rehabilitation for Palm  
                      Springs  
     -- Panorama City: Panorama Gardens  
     -- Redlands: Brookside Healthcare Center  
     -- Rosemead: Mission Care Center  
     -- San Diego: Arroyo Vista Nursing Center  
     -- San Dimas: Arbor Glen Care Center  
     -- Santa Rosa: Park View Gardens at Montgomery  
                    Summerfield Health Care Center  
     -- Sonoma: Sonoma Healthcare Center  
     -- Ukiah: Ukiah Convalescent Hospital  
     -- Upland: Upland Rehabilitation and Care Center  
     -- Ventura: Victoria Care Center  
     -- Vista: Vista Knoll Specialized Care Facility  
     -- Willits: Northbrook Nursing and Rehab  
     -- Whittier: Royal Court Health Center  
     -- Whittier Hills Health Care Center  

The company settled this class action, which settlement was
approved by the affected class and the Court in April 2007,
according to its Nov. 8, 2007 Form S-1 Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

For more details, contact:

        Garcia Law Firm
        One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
        Long Beach, CA 90831
        Phone: 562-216-5270 or (800) 281-8515
        Fax: 562-216-5271
        Web site: http://www.lawgarcia.com


FLORIDA: Health Care Secretary Sued Over Medicaid Reform Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Secretary Dr.
Andrew Agwunob is facing a class action over the state's pilot
Medicaid reform program, reports say.

The suit was filed by the Florida Legal Services on behalf of
three Broward County residents in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Jan. 10.  The suit was filed
by David Reid, David Mitchell and Joann Brown.  The suit seeks
to include all 197,000 Medicaid reform-eligible residents of
Broward, Duval, Baker, Clay and Nassau counties in a class
action.

The Medicaid reform pilot was launched in July 2006.  It
required most Medicaid recipients in select counties to enroll
in a Medicaid HMO or PPO in order to curtail the rapid growth of
the state's Medicaid budget.

The suit insists on upholding federal laws that allows
beneficiaries to change plans within 90 days of enrollment or at
any time should they find cause still.  It demands the state
tell beneficiaries that they can change plans at any time for
cause.  The cause includes lack of access to covered services or
experienced providers.  It also demands that beneficiaries must
be notified 60 days prior to their next opportunity to change
plans for any reason, which comes a year after they enroll.

The suit is "Reid et al v. Agwunobi, Case no. 0:2008cv60040,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge William J. Zloch.


FLORIDA: Pediatric Groups Tap Kenny Nachwalter in Medicaid Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The heads of three leading pediatric associations in Florida
have hired the Miami law firm of Kenny Nachwalter to defend them
in a suit over health care to Florida's poorest children, the
Orlando Sentinel reports.  

The suit was filed by the Florida Pediatric Society and the
Florida Academy of Pediatric Dentistry on behalf of a dozen
Medicaid-eligible Florida children.  It was filed against the
Agency for Health Care Administration, the Department of
Children and Family Services, and the Department of Health.  It
charges that more than 500,000 Medicaid-eligible Florida
children are receiving no preventive health services "because of
the defendants' violation of federal law."

According to the report, the agencies shared the firm's fees of
as much as $500,000.  

On the date of the report, lawyers of the pediatric associations
were to meet with state officials to settle the dispute.  It was
stated that if there is no resolution, a trial date is set for
June 22, 2009.  No update was available at this time.

Kenny Nachwalter on the Net: http://www.knsacs.com/.


GTR OAKLAND: Beaver Creek Golfers Get Nod for Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------
Oakland County Circuit Judge Rae Lee Chabot ruled in December
that a group of golfers who have bought memberships in Beaver
Creek Links Golf Inc. could consolidate their claims into a
class action, L.L. Brasier of Free Press reports.  A trial is
tentatively set for July in Oakland county Circuit Court.

More than 230 golfers are suing to force new owners of Beaver
Creek Links Golf in Oakland Township, GTR Oakland Properties and
all affiliate corporations, to honor the lifetime membership
they thought they were availing when they bought memberships.  

The golf course on Stoney Creek Road began selling lifetime
memberships in the early 1990s for $3,000 to $5,000.  The
contract includes a provision that golfers would be guaranteed
25 years of free golf if the course were sold.

Beaver Creek Golf Links Inc. then sold the course to GTR Oakland
Properties in 2004.  The new management stopped honoring Beaver
Creek Memberships in 2006.  

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages above the $25,000
circuit court minimum that will help replace their lost golf and
ensure them play at a different course.

One of those suing is Anne Lynas.  She and other golfers are
represented by Robert Zawideh, an attorney with the Birmingham
firm of Norman Yatooma.

Representing Beaver Creek Golf Links is:

         Bryan Monaghan, Esq.
         827 N. Main, Rochester MI 48307
         Web site: http://www.bmonaghanlaw.com
         Phone: 248-608-5300

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert S. Zawideh, Esq.
         Norman Yatooma & Associates, P.C.
         219 Elm Street
         Birmingham, Michigan 48009
         Phone: (248) 642-3600


HEWLETT-PACKARD: April 29 Hearing Set for Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
An April 29, 2008 hearing was set to determine whether to grant
final approval to the settlement purported class actions filed
against Hewlett-Packard Co. in Texas, Oklahoma, and California
over faulty floppy disk controllers (FDC).

                          Texas Cases

One of the suits is "Alvis v. HP," which is a defective product
consumer class action filed in the District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas in April 2001.

In February 2000, a similar suit captioned, "LaPray v. Compaq,"
was filed in the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

The basic allegation is that HP and Compaq sold computers
containing floppy disk controllers that fail to alert the user
to certain floppy disk controller errors.  That failure is
alleged to result in data loss or data corruption.

The complaints in "Alvis" and "LaPray" seek injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray
case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the certification and remanded
to the trial court in May 2004.

On March 29, 2005, the Alvis trial court certified a Texas-wide
class action for injunctive relief only, which HP appealed on
April 15, 2005.  HP's appeal in the Alvis case is still pending.

                         Oklahoma Cases

On June 4, 2003, each of "Barrett v. HP," and "Grider v.
Compaq," was filed in the District Court of Cleveland County,
Oklahoma, with factual allegations similar to those in "Alvis"
and "LaPray."

The complaints in "Barrett" and "Grider" seek, among other
things, specific performance, declaratory relief, unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees.

On Dec. 22, 2003, the District Court entered an order staying
the Barrett case until the conclusion of "Alvis."

On Sept. 23, 2005, the District Court granted the "Grider"
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class action, which
the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed on Oct. 13, 2006.

On Nov. 5, 2006, HP filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with
the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking reversal of the lower courts'
decisions.  

That petition was denied on March 26, 2007.  The Grider case is
scheduled for trial in April of 2008.

                        California Cases

On Nov. 5, 2004, "Batiste v. HP (formerly Scott v. HP)," and on
Jan. 27, 2005, "Schultz v. HP (formerly Jurado v. HP)," were
filed in state court in San Joaquin County, California, with
factual allegations similar to those in "LaPray" and "Alvis,"
seeking certification of a California-only class, injunctive
relief, unspecified damages (including punitive damages),
restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 27, 2006, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification and certified the Schultz case as a
California-only class.

On March 26, 2007, HP filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Supreme Court.  That petition was summarily
denied on May 9, 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2007.

On Dec. 11, 2007, the court in the "Grider v. Compaq," and
"Barrett v. HP" cases preliminarily approved a settlement under
which the Grider, Barrett, Alvis, LaPray, Schultz and Batiste
class actions will be dismissed with prejudice.

Under the proposed settlement, eligible class members will each
have the right to obtain:

       -- a redemption certificate for use in purchasing a PC
          through HP's website;

       -- a USB flash drive as long as the class member meets
          certain requirements; and

       -- a software patch designed to address the alleged
          defect at issue in the lawsuits.

In addition, class counsel and the class representatives will be
paid attorneys' fees and expenses and stipends in an amount that
is yet to be finally approved by the court.

As of Oct. 31, 2007, HP had established adequate reserves to
cover the costs associated with the settlement, including the
anticipated attorneys' fees and expenses and stipends.

The court has scheduled a hearing for April 29, 2008 to
determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement,
according to the company's Dec. 18, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Oct. 31, 2007.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of  
products, technologies, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large
enterprises.  Its offerings span personal computing and other
access devices, imaging and printing-related products and
services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and
multi-vendor customer services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Reverses Class Certification in P4 Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed certification of the
nationwide class in the suits:

     -- "Barbara's Sales, et al. v. Intel Corp., Hewlett-
        Packard Co., et al.," and

     -- "Neubauer, et al. v. Compaq Computer Corp."

The cases are separate lawsuits filed on June 3, 2002 in the
Circuit Court, 3rd Judicial District, Madison County, Illinois.

The suit alleges that Hewlett Packard Co. and Compaq, along with
Intel, misled the public by suppressing and concealing the
alleged material fact that systems that use the Intel Pentium 4
processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the
Intel Pentium III processor and processors made by a competitor
of Intel.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys'
fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class.  The
trial court in the HP action certified an Illinois class as to
Intel but denied a nationwide class.  Both parties appealed the
trial court's decision.  

On July 25, 2006, the 5th District Appellate Court ruled that
the trial court erred in applying Illinois law in deciding to
certify the Illinois class and to deny certification of the
nationwide class and directed the trial court to reconsider
those decisions applying California law instead.

On Aug. 28, 2006, Intel appealed the Fifth District's decision
to the Illinois Supreme Court.  

On Nov. 29, 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed
certification of the nationwide class, held that no statewide
class could be certified under Illinois law, and remanded the
case back to the trial court, according to the company's
Dec. 18, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of  
products, technologies, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large
enterprises.  Its offerings span personal computing and other
access devices, imaging and printing-related products and
services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and
multi-vendor customer services.

    
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Suit Over Intel P4 Processors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face a purported class action
in California with regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s
Pentium 4 processor.

The suit, "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard
Co.," generally alleges that the company along with Intel,
misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged
material fact that systems that use the Pentium 4 processor are
less powerful and slower than systems using the Pentium III
processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel.

The company was joined to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004.  It was
initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California,
based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois
cases.

The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a
nationwide class.  

The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in
Santa Clara County, California.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Dec. 18, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of  
products, technologies, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large
enterprises.  Its offerings span personal computing and other
access devices, imaging and printing-related products and
services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and
multi-vendor customer services.

    
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Two "Smart Chips" Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face several lawsuits over its
use of "smart chips" in its inkjet printer cartridge, according
to the company's Dec. 18, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Oct. 31, 2007.

The suits clam that the "smart chips" erroneously signal to the
customer that certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be
replaced before they are really empty, and include an expiration
date that is allegedly not documented in marketing materials
provided to consumers.  Some of these lawsuits have been
dismissed by without prejudice by the plaintiffs.

                        Feder Litigation

The suit, "Feder v. HP (formerly Tyler v. HP)," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
June 16, 2005 asserting breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
and deceptive advertising and unfair business practices in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that HP employed a "smart
chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register
ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable
through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.

Plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

                        Ciolino Litigation

On Sept. 6, 2005, a lawsuit captioned, "Ciolino v. HP," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The allegations in the Ciolino case are substantively identical
to those in "Feder," and the two cases have been formally
consolidated in a single proceeding in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the caption, "In
re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation."

                       Blennis Litigation

In addition, on Jan. 17, 2007, an additional lawsuit captioned,
"Blennis v. HP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California with allegations substantially
the same as those consolidated in "In re Inkjet Printer
Litigation."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, damages
(including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

                      Canadian Litigation

Substantially similar allegations have been made against HP and
its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., in four Canadian
class actions, one commenced in British Columbia in February
2006, two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006,
respectively, and one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, all
seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and
punitive damages.

                     Dismissed Litigations

Three related lawsuits filed in California state court have been
dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs.  The suits are:

       -- "Tyler v. HP" (filed in Santa Clara County on Feb. 17,
          2005),

       -- "Obi v. HP" (filed in Los Angeles County on Feb. 17,
          2005), and

       -- "Weingart v. HP" (filed in Los Angeles County on March
         18, 2005)

In addition, two related lawsuits filed in federal court have
been dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs.  The suits
are:

        -- "Grabell v. HP" (filed in the District of New Jersey
           on March 18, 2005), and

        -- "Just v. HP" (filed in the Eastern District of New
           York on April 20, 2005).

The consolidated federal suit is "In re: HP Inkjet Printer
Litigation, Case No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
         Cotchett Pitre & Simon
         S.F. Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Phone: 650.697.6000
         Fax: 650.692.3606
         E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Sally J. Berens, Esq.
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
         1881 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-849-5300
         Fax: 650-849-5333
         E-mail: sberens@gibsondunn.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Illinois Suit Over EEPROM Chip
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face a purported class action
alleging violations of Illinois state law in its inclusion of an
electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM)
chip in certain of its LaserJet printers that prematurely
advises the user that the drum kit needs replacing.

The suit, "Schorsch v. HP," was filed against HP on Oct. 28,
2003 in Illinois state court.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint seeking
to expand the class from purchasers of drum kits to purchasers
of all HP printer consumables that contain EEPROM chips.

The most current amended complaint seeks certification of an
Illinois-only class and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Dec. 18, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of  
products, technologies, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large
enterprises.  Its offerings span personal computing and other
access devices, imaging and printing-related products and
services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and
multi-vendor customer services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Calif. Suit Over Laserjet Color Printers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. faces a purported class action in California
containing allegations that HP employs a technology in its
LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts down
prematurely, preventing customers from using the toner that is
stranded in the cartridge, according to the company's Dec. 18,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.

On June 6, 2007, a separate consumer class action captioned,
"Baggett v. HP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The plaintiffs allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers
that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the
cartridge after the printer shuts down.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of
purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is "Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al.,
Case No. 8:07-cv-00667-AG-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Andrew J.
Guilford with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         Kabateck Brown Kellner
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-217-5000
         E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

              - and -

         Darren T Kaplan, Esq.
         Chitwood Harley Harnes
         1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900
         E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com

Representing the defendant are:

         Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com

              - and -

         Robert A Particelli, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         1701 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-963-5000
         Fax: 215-963-5001
         E-mail: rparticelli@morganlewis.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Answers Remaining Claims in Inkjet Printer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. answered the remaining claims in a class
action, which alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers
to unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when
printing black and white images and text.

The suit, captioned, "Rich v. HP," is a consumer fraud class
action filed against HP on May 22, 2006 in the U.S District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of
a nationwide class.

The Court has granted HP's motion to dismiss several of the
plaintiffs' claims, and HP answered the remaining claims in
February 2007, according to the company's Dec. 18, 2007 Form 10-
K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 5:06-cv-
03361-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to
Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213/217-5000
         Fax: 213/217-5010
         E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

              - and -

         Stephen Michael Garcia, Esq.
         Garcia Law Firm
         Suite 1950, One World Trade Center
         Long Beach, CA 90831
         Phone: 562-216-5270
         E-mail: jmobley@lawgarcia.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Christopher Chorba, Esq.
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         Fax: 213-229-7520
         E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com


HEWLETT PACKARD: Appeals Court Remands "Digwamaje" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the purported class
action, "Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et al.," which names Hewlett
Packard Co. and numerous other multinational corporations as
defendants, back to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York for further proceedings, according to the
company's Dec. 18, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Oct. 31, 2007.

The case was filed on Sept. 27, 2002 in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of current and
former South African citizens and their survivors who suffered
violence and oppression under the apartheid regime.  

The lawsuit alleges that HP and other companies helped
perpetuate, profited from, and otherwise aided and abetted the
apartheid regime during the period from 1948-1994 by selling
products and services to agencies of the South African
government.  

Claims are based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture
Victims Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state law.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the
creation of a historic commission, compensatory damages in
excess of $200 billion, punitive damages in excess of
$200 billion, costs and attorneys' fees.  

On Nov. 29, 2004, the court dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' complaint.  In May 2005, the plaintiffs filed an
amended notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

On Jan. 24, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
argument on the plaintiffs' appeal but has not yet issued a
decision.

On Oct. 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the District
Court's decision.  

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs'
claims under the Torture Victims Protection Act, but reversed
the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' Alien Tort
Claims Act claims, finding that it was possible for the
plaintiffs to state such a claim.

The Second Circuit, therefore, remanded the case to the District
Court to permit the plaintiffs to attempt to plead the
allegations needed to state a claim under the Alien Tort Claims
Act.

The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corp., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kweku J. Hanson, Esq.
         487 Main Street, Harford, CT 06106,
         Phone: (860) 728-5454
         Fax: (860) 548-9660

         Medi Moira Mokuena
         268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House 1685, Extension 12
         Republic of South Africa

              - and -

         Paul M. Ngobeni, Esq.
         914 Main Street, Suite 206
         East Hartford, CT 06108
         Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508) 620-4798

Representing the defendants are:

         Kristin M. Heine, Esq.
         Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
         500 Campus Drive
         Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047
         Phone: (973) 549-7338
         Fax: (973) 360-9831
         Web site: http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/

              - and -

         Kristin Michele Heine, Esq.
         Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
         140 Broadway, 39th Flr.
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: (973) 549-7338
         Fax: (973) 360-9831
         E-mail: kristin.heine@dbr.com


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Pa. Court Mulls Dismissal of RESPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.'s motion that
seeks for a dismissal of a purported class action filed against
it alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act against the company.

The suit, "Mark W. Mellar et al. v. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.
et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on May 30, 2007.  

It accuses Hovnanian of taking kickbacks and unearned fees by
requiring homebuyers and sellers to use a specified title
insurance company, in violation of RESPA.

Named plaintiffs Mark W. Mellar and Margaret Ann Liguori bring
this action on behalf of residential mortgage borrowers who:

     -- purchased a home from Hovnanian Enterprises Inc.;

     -- received a mortgage loan for such home purchase that was
        originated, processed and/or brokered by K. Hovnanian
        American Mortgage, LLC; and/or

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

By requiring home buyers to finance their purchase through
Hovnanian Mortgage and to obtain title insurance through a
Hovnanian-affiliated title company, under the direct threat of
having to otherwise pay more money for their new home,
defendants have allegedly failed to comply with the statutory
prerequisites for exemption as an affiliated business
arrangement and, consequently, have violated RESPA's prohibition
against kickbacks and unearned fees.

Additionally, Hovnanian, as a seller of property, has allegedly
violated Section 9 of RESPA by requiring the use of a particular
title insurance company.

Defendants are accused of engaging in a uniform, systematic
pattern and practice of requiring the use of Hovnanian Mortgage
for the financing of home purchases from Hovnanian and the use
of a Hovnanian-affiliated title company for the provision of
title insurance for such home purchases, in violation of
Sections 8 and 9 of RESPA.

             Plaintiffs' Transaction with Hovnanian

On or about March 30, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Terms and
Conditions Purchase Agreement with Hovnanian, pursuant to which
Plaintiffs agreed to purchase a new home from Hovnanian, located
in its "Byers Station" community, in Chester Springs,
Pennsylvania.

Subsequently, plaintiffs entered into an Amendment to Purchase
Agreement, dated April 5, 2007, which amended the purchase price
to $427,366.44.  This Amendment is valid only if K. Hovnanian
Mortgage and Governor's Abstract Co. are used.

On or about April 7, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Price
Reduction Addendum, which purported to reduce the price of
plaintiffs' home in the amount of $14,041.78. This price
reduction was, once again, conditioned upon Plaintiffs'
agreement to, inter alia, "use K. Hovnanian American Mortgage,
LLC, an affiliate of Seller, to obtain a mortgage loan and
purchase the home with a loan made by K. Hovnanian American
Mortgage, LLC" and "use Governor's Abstract Co., Inc., an
affiliate of the Seller, to obtain title insurance to complete
the purchase of the home."

On or about April 7, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Decorator
Selection Credit Addendum, which purported to issue plaintiffs a
"Decorator Selection Credit" at closing in the amount of
$55,958.22. This credit was, once again, conditioned upon
Plaintiffs' agreement to use Hovnanian Mortgage and Governor's
Abstract for the financing and title insurance of their new
home.

As a direct result of the requirement placed upon them by
Hovnanian to either use Hovnanian Mortgage for financing and
Governor's Abstract for title insurance, or pay an additional
$70,000.00 in order to purchase their home, Plaintiffs financed
their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and obtained title
insurance through Governor's Abstract.  Plaintiffs closed on
their purchase on April 26, 2007.

By "requiring" the use of Hovnanian Mortgage and the affiliated
title company, under the threat of charging buyers thousands of
dollars more for their homes, Defendants, however, fail to meet
the prerequisites for the affiliated business arrangement
exemption. 12 U.S.C. Section 2607(c).

Plaintiffs and the class respectfully request judgment against
Defendants as follows:

     -- for an Order certifying this action may be maintained as
        a class action, as defined, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
        and 23(b)(3);

     -- for an Order appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of
        the class;

     -- for an Order appointing the undersigned counsel as class
        counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

     -- for an Order directing that reasonable notice of the
        class action be provided to all members of the class at
        the appropriate time after discovery and dispositive
        motions have been resolved;

     -- for violating RESPA, an Order and Judgment finding that
        the Defendants are liable as a matter of law to each
        member of the class for treble damages;

     -- for declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by
        law or equity, including Enjoining Defendants from
        continuing the unlawful practices as set forth herein;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law and
        statute;

     -- for pre-and-post judgment interest as provided by law in
        an amount according to proof at trial;

     -- for an award of costs and expenses incurred in this
        action; and

     -- for such other relief as the Court may deem just and
        proper.

Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint.  The
company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 26,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?208f  

The suit is "Mellar et al. v. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. et al,
Case No. 2:07-cv-02196-AB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Anita B.
Brody.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Carlson Lynch Ltd
          36 N. Jefferson Street
          P.O. Box 7635
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Phone: 724-656-1555
          Fax: 724-656-1556
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Court Mulls Dismissal Bid in "Sewell"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has
yet to rule on a motion by a subsidiary of Hovnanian
Enterprises, Inc. that sought for a dismissal of the complaint
in the matter, "Sewell et al. v. D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00343-JES-SPC."

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on May 30, 2007, alleging violations of the
federal securities acts, among other allegations, in connection
with the sale of some of the Company's subsidiary's homes in
Fort Myers, Florida.

Defendants in the suit include:

     * Frank D'Alessandro,
     * Gates, D'Allesandro & Woodyard LLC,
     * K.Hovnanian First Homes LLC,
     * First Home Builders of Florida,
     * First Home Builders of Florida I, LLC,
     * Samir Cabrera, and
     * Honora Kreitner

Defendants are accused of running a subprime mortgage scam.  
Named plaintiffs Randolph Sewell and Daphne Sewell sue for,
inter alia, federal securities fraud, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the
Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
1701 et seq., and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Florida Statutes, Section 501.201 et. seq., in connection
with the offering and sale of real estate investment
opportunities in Lee County, Florida.

According to the complaint, defendants promised 14 percent
annual returns through a "Lease To Own" program, in which would
supply lessees with poor credit to "investors" who bought new
homes; the lessees would get options to buy the homes within
three years, at a "promised" annual appreciation of 14 percent.

The D'Alessandro & Woodyard prospectus "explains that investors
will realize their guaranteed 14 percent annual rate of return
when the 'ready-made' tenant procured by D'Alessandro & Woodyard
'buys' the investor out of the deal.

In the "Exit Strategy," D'Alessandro & Woodyard explains that
this 'buyout' is made possible through the tenant's successful
procurement of refinancing in the 'sub-prime' lending market,
and that they will be 'coached' in this process by D'Alessandro
& Woodyard and its affiliates."

According to plaintiffs, they "invested" $15,000 in three such
homes, couldn't get financing, and stand to lose everything.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons who
received the "First Home Lease Purchase Investment Opportunity"
prospectus and thereafter purchased properties from First Home
Builders in Cape Coral and Lehigh Acres, Florida for investment
purposes.

Questions raise include:

     (a) whether defendants violated the federal securities
         laws by inducing purported class members to purchase
         investment properties from First Home Builders based
         upon false and misleading representations contained in
         the Prospectus and in oral communications with the
         Plaintiffs and class members;

     (b) whether defendants violated the Interstate Land Sales
         Full Disclosure Act by inducing purported class members
         to purchase investment properties from First Home
         Builders based upon false and misleading             
         representations contained in the Prospectus and in oral
         communications;

     (c) whether defendants' actions also constitute deceptive
         and unfair trade practices, in violation of Sections
         501.201 to 501.213, Florida Statutes;

     (d) whether defendants D&W and First Home Builders breached
         their contractual obligations to purported class
         members failing to obtain tenants for the purchased
         properties.

Plaintiffs demand the following relief:

     -- that the court certify the case as a class action and  
        appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives and
        plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants in the
        amount of their damages incurred with interest thereon,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- that the court order such other relief as it deems just
        and proper, including, but not limited to, rescission of
        the subject purchase agreements and the return of each
        purchaser's down payment or contract deposit (as well as
        any other monies paid to defendants).

The Company's subsidiary has filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint.  It reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
26, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Sewell et al. v. D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00343-JES-SPC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge John E.
Steele with referral to Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Gary C. Rosen, Esq.
          Daniel L. Wallach
          Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
          Emerald Lake Corp Pk
          3111 Stirling Rd.
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312-9057
          Phone: 954/987-7550
          Fax: 954/985-4176
          E-mail: bthomas@becker-poliakoff.com or
                  dwallach@bellsouth.net

          -- and -

Representing Mr. D'Alessandro are:

          Christopher T. Vernon, Esq.
          3080 Tamiami Trl E
          Naples, FL 34112 Map
          Phone: (239) 649-4900

          -- and --

          Philip J. Snyderburn, Esq.
          Snyderburn, Rishoi & Swann
          258 Southhall Lane, Suite 420
          Maitland, Florida 32751
          (Orange Co.)
          Phone: 407-647-2005
          Fax: 407-647-1522


KINDER MORGAN: Faces Suit Over July Pipeline Rupture, Oil Spill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Canada could face a class action over a Trans
Mountain pipeline oil spill in July 2007, Brennan Clarke of The
Globe and Mail reports.

Work a municipal storm drain project near Inlet Drive punctured
the pipeline July 24, 2007, and the resulting oil spill forced
the evacuation of 31 homes.

The report says more than a dozen Burnaby residents affected by
the oil spill are suing the municipality, local contractor B.
Cusano, and Kinder Morgan Canada, the owner of the ruptured
pipeline.  A total of 13 individual writs of summons were filed
in B.C. Supreme Court in late December.  

"It's a precursor, a first step to a class-action lawsuit," said
Burnaby Councillor Lee Rankin, who is a lawyer.  "At some point
I would expect an application to certify these as class action,"
he said.

According to the report, court documents list Surrey lawyer
Marco D. Carnello as legal counsel for the 13 plaintiffs.  
However Mr. Carnello referred all questions to lawyer Adam
Roberts, the company partner directly responsible for the files.


LJ INT'L: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
LJ International, Inc. faces several securities fraud class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

In September 2007, several plaintiffs filed shareholder class
actions against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, entitled:

       -- "Apple v. LJ International, Inc., et al. (No. 07-
          06076),"

       -- "Cooper v. LJ International, Inc., et al. (No. 07-
          06213)," and

       -- "Lieben v. LJ International Inc. et al. (No. 07-
          06216).
   
The Class Actions generally allege, on behalf of all persons who
purchased LJ common stock during the period from Feb. 15, 2007
to Sept. 6, 2007, that LJ and the individual defendants made
misleading statements and omissions of material fact,
overstating the Company's fiscal 2005 and 2006 financial
results, and thereby artificially inflated the market price of
LJ's common stock throughout the Class Period.  

Plaintiffs further allege that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by releasing fiscal 2006
earnings and EPS results that significantly understated the
Company's tax liability and that overstated its earnings and
EPS, that the Company's internal controls were inadequate, and
that, as a result, defendants engaged in improper accounting
practices.  

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, according to
the company's Dec. 28, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31,
2007.

The suit is "Richard Apple, et al. v. LJ International Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-CV-06076," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

         Catanzarite Law Corporation
         2331 West Lincoln Avenue
         Anaheim, CA, 92801
         Phone: 714.520.5544
         Fax: 714.520.0680
         E-mail: info@catanzarite.com

         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170
         Los Angeles, CA, 90071
         Phone: 213.617.9007
         Fax: 213.617.9185
         E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

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

              - and -

         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY, 10118
         Phone: 212.686.1060
         Fax: 212.202.3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Eleventh Circuit Hears Arguments in OOIDA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral
arguments with regards to an appeal in the class action, "Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar
System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR," The Land
Line Magazine reports.

On Jan. 16, 2007, attorneys for the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA), and Landstar System, Inc.
squared-off in federal appeals court in a multimillion-dollar
case that could send ripples through the industry in terms of
how carriers' leases disclose markups and chargebacks against
owner-operators.

Leaders with the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
are confident that the recent oral arguments will lead to a
favorable decision for truckers.

                        Case Background

On Nov. 1, 2002, OOIDA and six individual independent
contractors who provide truck capacity to the company under
exclusive lease arrangement filed a purported class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the company (Class Action Reporter, April 26,
2007).

On April 7, 2005, plaintiffs amended the complaint.  Claims are
currently pending against the following company entities:

      -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,  
      -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and  
      -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.  

On Aug. 30, 2005, the court granted a motion by plaintiffs to
certify the case as a class action.  The amended complaint
alleges that certain aspects of the company's motor carrier
leases and related practices violate certain federal leasing
regulations and seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount
of damages and attorney's fees.

The class was defined as "all owner-operators in the U.S. who,
after Nov. 1, 1998, and through the pendency of this proceeding,
had or have leases with Landstar Inway Inc., Landstar Ranger
Inc., or Landstar Ligon Inc. or their authorized agents or
business affiliates, that are subject to federal regulations
contained in Part 376, Code of Federal Regulations."

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the company has violated
the federal regulations by:

      -- making undisclosed and/or undocumented reductions from  
         revenue derived from freight before calculating  
         compensation, thereby unlawfully reducing Plaintiffs'  
         compensation (Revenue Claim);

      -- making charge-backs to the plaintiffs' for certain  
         products or services that were in excess of sums  
         actually paid by the company for such products and  
         services (Charge-Back Margin Claim); and  

      -- failing to provide the plaintiffs with proper  
         disclosure with respect to the methodology for  
         calculating such charge-back amounts (Charge-Back  
         Disclosure Claim).

On Oct. 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit denied the defendants' petition for permission to file
an interlocutory appeal of the class-certification order.

In May 2006, plaintiffs served defendants with a report,
prepared by their consultant, asserting that as a result of the
alleged violations by the defendants of the federal leasing
regulations, class members suffered damages, excluding interest,
during the period ending April 30, 2006 of approximately
$39.1 million in the aggregate (Plaintiffs' Report).

Plaintiffs allege that the damages of the class members will
continue to accrue through the pendency of this litigation and
the amended complaint also asserts alternative damage theories,
including claims for equitable relief.  Defendants had no role
in preparing the Plaintiffs' Report.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the defendants filed a motion, which is
pending, asking that the court bifurcate the proceedings such
that only common issues of law would be decided on a classwide
basis and any remaining issues of fact, including whether any
class member can prove liability or damages, would be tried on
an individualized basis.

On Oct. 6, 2006, the court issued a summary judgment ruling
which found, among other things, that:

      -- the lease agreements of the defendants (as defined
         below) literally complied with the requirements of
         Section 376.12(d) of the applicable federal leasing
         regulations in regards to provisions relating to
         reductions to revenue derived from freight upon which
         BCO Independent Contractors' compensation is
         calculated;

      -- charge-back amounts which include fees and profits to
         the motor carrier are not unlawful under Section
         376.12(h); and

      -- the defendants had violated 376.12(h) of the
         regulations by failing to provide access to documents
         to determine the validity of certain charges.

On Jan. 12, 2007, the court ruled that the monetary remedy
available to the plaintiffs would be limited to damages
sustained as a result of the violation and rejected plaintiffs'
request for equitable relief in the form of restitution or
disgorgement.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the court ordered the decertification of the
class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of determining
remedies.

On Jan. 18, 2007, in response to a motion filed by the
defendants following the presentation by the plaintiffs of their
case in chief, the court granted judgment as a matter of law in
favor of the defendants and stated that the plaintiffs had
failed to present evidence that any of the plaintiffs had
sustained damages as a result of any violation of the applicable
federal leasing regulations.

On that date, the court also ruled that access to documents
describing a third party vendor's charges to determine the
validity of charge-back amounts under 376.12(h) was not required
under defendants' current lease with respect to programs where
the lease contains a price to a BCO Independent Contractor
(independent contractors who provide truck capacity to the
Company under exclusive lease arrangements) that is not
calculated on the basis of a third party vendor's charge to the
defendants.

Paul D. Cullen, Sr., one of OOIDA's trial counsel, would later
the appeal decertification of the suit.  In the appeal,
according to him, the plaintiffs will argue that the judge
should have found Landstar's failure to provide chargeback
documentation caused the drivers economic harm by hiding its
markups on chargeback items.

Also in the appeal, OOIDA and the truckers will argue that the
court was wrong in its apparent finding that Landstar's
obligation to document the validity of such chargebacks could be
satisfied by identifying the amount of the chargeback on a
driver's settlement sheet.

In essence, OOIDA wants class-action status restored to the
case.

The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-
HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Daniel E. Cohen, Esq.
         Daniel R. Unumb, Esq.
         Paul D. Cullen, Esq.
         Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq.
         Joseph A. Black, Esq.
         Susan Van Bell, Esq.
         The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC
         1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300
         Washington, DC 20007-3770
         Phone: 202/944-8600 or 202/965-6100

         Michael R. Freed, Esq.
         Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL
         Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110
         Jacksonville, FL 32202
         Phone: 904/366-1500
         Fax: 904/366-1501
         E-mail: mrfreed@bmdpl.com

              - and -

         Paul D. Cullen Sr., Esq.
         The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC
         1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 300, P.O. Box 25806
         Washington, DC 20007-3708
         Phone: (202) 944-8600
         Fax: (202) 944-8611

Representing the defendants are:  

         Daniel R. Barney, Esq.
         Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, P.C.
         1850 M St., NW, Suite 280
         Washington, DC 20036-5804
         Phone: 202/783-5485
         E-mail: dbarney@scopelitis.com

         Timothy W. Wiseman, Esq.
         Robert L. Browning, Esq.
         Gregory M. Feary, Esq.
         Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C.
         10 W. Market St., Suite 1500
         Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968
         Phone: 317/637-1777
         Fax: 317/687-2414

              - and -

         Andrew Tysen Duva, Esq.
         Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II, Esq.
         Holland & Knight
         50 North Laura St., Suite 3900
         Jacksonville, FL 32202
         Phone: 904/353-2000 or 904/353-2000 Ext. 25454
         Fax: 904/358-1872
         E-mail: lhamilton@hklaw.com



LOUISIANA: Lawsuit Aims to Challenge "Big Charity" Closure
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit, seeking class-action status, was filed in New Orleans
challenging the closing of Charity Hospital, also known as "Big
Charity" because of its looming stature, WDSU reports.

According to the report, the hospital was closed because
officials with the Louisiana State University determined that it
was too badly damaged by flood waters.  The 20-story building is
where the poor and mentally ill went for medical care.

The suit contends that the closing of Big Charity was carried
out in an illegal sleight of hand after Hurricane Katrina hit
and left scores of people unable to get treatment.

According to the suit the "unlawful closure of Big Charity has
had a devastating impact."  Among other things, the suit
contends, "thousands of residents lack basic health care, the
chronically ill go untreated, and critical specialty care is
either delayed or unavailable."

The report said a top official with LSU, which runs the system
of hospitals for the poor in Louisiana, said the closing of
Charity was inevitable because of Katrina.


MERCK & CO: No Class Status Granted for Three Fosamax Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newsinferno.com reports that U.S. District Judge John Keenan
refused to grant class-action status to a group of Fosamax
lawsuits plaintiffs in Pennsylvania, Florida and Louisiana who
wanted Merck to establish a Fosamax medical monitoring fund.  
Fosamax, a popular osteoporosis drug, is associated with
osteonecrosis of the jaw.

Judge Keenan denied motions to approve classes of current and
former users of the popular drug in Pennsylvania, Florida and
Louisiana who have not been diagnosed with Dead Jaw Syndrome.
"The court finds that class-treatment of these claims is
inappropriate because they present too many individual questions
of fact particular to each class member's claim," he wrote.

As of June 30, 2007, 225 cases, which include approximately 700
plaintiff groups, had been filed against Merck in either federal
or state court, including 5 cases which seek class action
certification, as well as damages and medical monitoring.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw, generally
subsequent to invasive dental procedures such as tooth
extraction or dental implants, and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax.

On August 16, 2006, the JPML ordered that the Fosamax product
liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be
transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation
(Fosamax MDL) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

The Fosamax MDL has been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  As a
result of the JPML order, over 190 of the cases are before Judge
Keenan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Timothy M. O'Brien, Esq.
         Pensacola, Florida
         Phone: (850) 435-7084 (FL)
         (662) 843-5333 (MS)
         Fax: (850) 436-6084

         Vance Andrus, Esq.
         Andrus, Boudreaux, Lemoine & Tonore
         416 W. Main Street
         Lafayette, LA 70501
         Phone: (800) 725-5000 (Toll Free)
                (337) 233-3075
         Fax: (337) 233-3375


MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Reaches $117M Settlement in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Interactive Corp., an acquisition of Hewlett-Packard Co.
has reached a $117.5 million settlement in the securities class
action, captioned, "In re: Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities
Litigation," according to Hewlett-Packard's Dec. 18, 2007 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.

In November 2006, Hewlett-Packard Co. completed its acquisition
of Mercury Interactive Corp.  Upon completion of the acquisition  
Hewlett Packard assumed oversight for all litigation and
regulatory matters pending or subsequently commenced against
Mercury.

Prior to the announcement of the acquisition, and beginning on
or about Aug. 19, 2005, four securities class actions were filed
against Mercury Interactive and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of purchasers of Mercury's stock from
October 2003 to November 2005:

The original actions were:

      -- "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. C05-3395";

      -- "Johnson v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         3864";

      -- "Munao v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         4031"; and

      -- "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-5157."

These class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California as, "In re Mercury
Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation."

The consolidated complaint filed on Sept. 8, 2006 alleges that
the defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding Mercury's business and operations in violation of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  

On July 30, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint with leave to amend.

On Oct. 15, 2007, HP and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated class action
lawsuit.

The agreement, if finalized and approved by the court, provides
for HP to pay an aggregate of $117.5 million to administer the
settlement, to compensate the class, and to pay attorneys' fees.

The suit is "In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C05-3395," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel
with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          Scott + Scott, LLC, 600 B. Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Fax: 619-233-0508
          E-mail: ashingler@scott-scott.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer Tetefsky
          Marketing Director
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          Phone: 212-907-0659
          E-mail: jtetefsky@labaton.com

          Nicole Acton Jones, Esq.
          Heller Ehrman, LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-772-6032
          Fax: 415-772-6268
          E-mail: nicole.jones@hellerehrman.com

          Kirk Andrew Dublin, Esq.
          Jones Day
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1500
          Phone: 415-626-3939
          Fax: 415-875-5700
          E-mail: kdublin@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Facter, Esq.
          Shearman & Sterling, LLP
          525 Market Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-616-1100
          Fax: 415-616-1199
          E-mail: jfacter@shearman.com


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Wis. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Technologies, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Between March 22, 2006 and April 26, 2006, seven putative
securities class actions were filed on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired shares of the company's common stock
between Aug. 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006.

Defendants in the suit include the company, Richard A. Linden,
its former president and chief executive officer; and Scott T.
Veech, its former chief financial officer.  One of the suits
also names Brian E. Pedlar, former president of Cedara Software
Corp. and former senior vice president, who served as interim
co-president and co-chief executive officer from July 2, 2006 to
Aug. 18, 2006.  One case has been voluntarily dismissed.

The cases arise out of the company's March 17, 2006 announcement
that the company would revise its results of operations for the
fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005, as well
as its investigation of allegations made in anonymous letters
received by the company.  

The lawsuits allege that the company and individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  It seeks damages in
unspecified amounts.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss on July 16, 2007.  The
plaintiff filed its response brief on Nov. 14, 2007, according
to the company's Dec. 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Maiden v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00349-RTR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under
Judge Rudolph T Randam

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Daniel M. Shanley, Esq.
         DeCarlo & Connor
         533 S. Fremont Ave., 9th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1706
         Phone: 213-488-4100
         Fax: 213-488-4180

              - and -

         Paul J. Geller, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants is:

         David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
         Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
         525 W. Monroe St., Ste. 1900
         Chicago, IL 60661-3693
         Phone: 312-902-5200
         Fax: 312-577-4481
         E-mail: david.kistenbroker@kattenlaw.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Antitrust Suit Settlement Vouchers Out
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Brinks of Times-Republican reports that cash or voucher
benefits in the settlement of an antitrust class action against
Microsoft Corp. in Iowa began being mailed near the end of
December and will continue in batches through the end of
February.

Mr. Brinks learned of the information from Roxanne Conlin,
attorney in an antitrust suit against Microsoft Corp.

Iowans who bought Microsoft Corp. computer software or computers
with software preloaded since 1994 had until Dec. 14 to claim a
cash refund.

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

The Polk County District Court has granted final approval to the
$180 million settlement of the antitrust class action (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 6, 2007).

The suit, filed in 2000, claimed that Microsoft engaged in
illegal monopolization and anticompetitive conduct between
1994 and 2006 that caused customers to pay more for software.

Plaintiffs claimed that Microsoft violated Iowa antitrust laws.
Because of this, the lawsuit claims that consumers and
businesses paid more for Microsoft Software.  Microsoft denied
the claims and says it developed and sold high quality software
products at fair and reasonable prices.

The class includes all individuals and businesses that purchased
a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone
other than Microsoft between May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006.  
The class also includes Iowa State and its local governments
that purchased a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa
from someone other than Microsoft between July 1, 2002 and June
30, 2006.

Microsoft settled the case for about $179.95 million.

Class members are entitled to receive:

     - $16 for each copy of Windows or MS-DOS;
     - $25 for each copy of Microsoft Excel;
     - $29 for each copy of Microsoft Office; and
     - $10 for each copy of Microsoft Word, Works and Home
       Essential software.

Payment will be in the form of cash or vouchers that can be used
towards the purchase of computers, peripheral computer hardware,
and software from any manufacturer, not just Microsoft.

Half of any funds that are not claimed will be provided as
vouchers for hardware, software and technology services to Iowa
public schools.  One hundred percent of the volume license
vouchers claimed but not redeemed will also be provided to Iowa
public schools.

Lead plaintiffs in the suit are Joe Comes of Riley Paint Inc.,
an Iowa corporation, Skeffington's Formal Wear of Iowa Inc., and
Patricia Anne Larsen.

The case is "Joe Comes, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No.
CL82311" filed in Iowa District for Polk County.

Plaintiffs' lawyer information:
     
          Roxanne B. Conlin
          Roxanne B. Conlin and Associates, P.C.
          319 7th Street, Suite 600
          Des Moines, Iowa 50309-3826
          Phone: 515-283-1111
          Fax: 515-282-0477
          Web Site: http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com  

Representing the defendants is:

          David B. Tulchin, Esq.
          Sullivan and Cromwell LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2498
          Phone: (212) 558-4000
          Fax: (212) 558-3588
          Web Site: http://www.sullcrom.com  


PROPERTY INSURERS: Florida Mulls Suit Over Insurance Rates
----------------------------------------------------------
K.C. Bouchillon of InjuryBoard.com reports that Florida Gov.
Charlie Crist is investigating a possible class action against
property insurers for failing to lower rates and pass on savings
to insurers after receiving concessions from the Florida
Legislature.

The Florida Legislature in January 2007 overhauled the state's
insurance statutes to ease pressure to insurance companies who
have suffered several years of disasters and allegedly declining
profits.  The changes provided billions in additional cheap
reinsurance to private insurers.  In turn, the companies are to
ower insurance rates for Florida property owners.  

Instead, many insurers, including some of the largest -- such as
Allstate and Nationwide -- either reduced their rates minimally
or asked for rate increases, according to the report.   Allstate
asked for rate ranging from 27.4 percent to 43.4 percent. At the
same time, Allstate has dropped at least 350,000 Florida
policyholders in the past four years.


RECORDING INDUSTRY: Court Re-Affirms Decisions in Piracy Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon reaffirmed a
magistrate's award of attorneys' fees, and the dismissal of
Tanya J. Andersen's counterclaims against the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) without prejudice so that her
class action against the record labels can proceed.

Ms. Andersen, a disabled single mother who resides in Oregon,
was sued by RIAA in February 2005 for distributing gangster rap
over KaZaA using the handle "gotenkito."  

The litigation against her was, entitled, "Atlantic v.
Andersen."  She denied all of RIAA's allegations and filed the
now-dismissed counterclaims in October 2007.  

After over two years of contentious filings and allegations of
misconduct by RIAA's investigators, the case against Ms.
Andersen was dismissed with prejudice after the record labels
decided to drop the case.

Ms. Andersen was awarded attorneys' fees by the magistrate
overseeing the case in September 2007, a decision that was
quickly appealed by RIAA.

However, Judge James A. Redden of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon upheld the award.  In addition, the judge
also upheld the dismissal of Ms. Andersen's counterclaims
without prejudice, thus paving the way for them to be heard as
part of the malicious prosecution lawsuit filed against RIAA in
June 2007.

Judge Redden cited the "interests of judicial economy and
comprehensive litigation" in his upholding of an earlier
decision to dismiss Ms. Andersen's counterclaims without
prejudice.

                Malicious Prosecution Litigation

In the lawsuit for malicious prosecution, Mrs. Andersen alleges
that RIAA used illegal and flawed methods when investigating
people for downloading or swapping copyrighted songs without
paying (Class Action Reporter Sept. 27, 2007).

Furthermore, Mrs. Andersen claims that RIAA knew of the faulty
methods but continued to pursue its lawsuits, even against
innocent people such as herself.

Aside from RIAA, other defendants in the suit include:

       -- MediaSentry and its owner, SafeNet;

       -- Settlement Support Center LLC, a Washington company
          operating as the debt collection arm for the
          defendants' "coordinated enterprise to pursue a scheme
          of threatening and intimidating litigation;"

       -- Atlantic Recording Corp;

       -- Priority Records;
       
       -- Capitol Records;
      
       -- UMG Recordings; and

       -- BMG Music.

In her request for class action status, the complaint goes on to
state that:

"RIAA is composed of 4 major multinational member companies each
having many subsidiary member companies" and that it "publicly
claims to exercise an actual monopoly and control over 90% of
the sound recordings sold in the U.S."  

"MediaSentry is in the business of conducting personally
invasive private investigations of private citizens in many
states in the U.S. for the RIAA and its controlled member
companies.  It advertises that its services include
'investigation' and 'litigation support.'"

"Pursuant to a secret agreement, RIAA, its controlled member
companies and MediaSentry conspired to develop a massive threat
and litigation enterprise targeting private citizens across the
U.S."

"The RIAA and its controlled member companies have for years
aggressively acted to prevent disclosure of the secret agreement
and their conspiratorial enterprise."

"MediaSentry and RIAA know that their investigations are illegal
and flawed.  MediaSentry is not licensed or registered to
conduct private investigation of private U.S. citizens."

"Moreover, in a March 2004 sworn deposition MediaSentry's then
president admitted to various serious flaws in the investigative
scheme which all Defendants know result in misidentification of
individuals.

"Despite this knowledge, Defendants have falsely represented to
many tens of thousands of people that they have been
definitively and personally identified as copyright infringers."

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?23a9

The suit is "Tanya Andersen v. Atlantic Recording, Case No. 07-
934BVR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard A. Adams
          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: radams@pattonroberts.com

               - and -

          Lory Ray Lybeck
          Lybeck Murphy, LLP
          7525 SE 24th Street, Suite 500
          Mercer Island, WA 98040-2336
          Phone: (206) 230-4255
          Fax: (206) 230-7791
          E-mail: lrl@lybeckmurphy.com

Representing defendants is:

          William T. Patton
          Lane Powell, PC
          601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100
          Portland, OR 97204-3158
          Phone: (503) 778-2100
          Fax: (503) 778-2200
          E-mail: pattonw@lanepowell.com

               - and -

          Amy Bauer, Esq.
          Holme Robert & Owen, LLP
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: (303) 866-0417
          Fax: (303) 866-0200
          E-mail: amy.bauer@hro.com


THIRD FEDERAL: Obtains Judgment in $27M "Greenspan" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas granted a motion
for judgment filed by Third Federal Savings and Loan Association
of Cleveland, a unit of TFS Financial Corp., in a purported
class action over "document preparation fees."

The suit was filed on June 13, 2006 under the caption, "Gary A.
Greenspan vs. Third Federal Savings and Loan."

The plaintiff has alleged that Third Federal Savings and Loan
impermissibly charged customers a "document preparation fee"
that included the cost of preparing legal documents relating to
mortgage loans.

It was alleged that the Association should disgorge the document
preparation fees because the document preparation constituted
the practice of law and was performed by employees who are not
licensed attorneys in the State of Ohio.

The plaintiff seeks a refund of all document preparation fees
from June 13, 2000 to the present (approximately $26.9 million
from June 13, 2000 through March 31, 2007), as well as
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of the lawsuit.

Third Federal Savings and Loan Association vigorously disputes
these allegations and answered the plaintiff's complaint with a
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On April 26, 2007, the Court of Common Pleas issued a final
order which granted the Association's motion.  The plaintiff had
30 days to appeal the final order of the Court of Common Pleas
to the 8th District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County).

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

TFS Financial Corp. -- http://www.thirdfederal.com/-- was  
established as a mid-tier stock holding company for Third
Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, and the
ownership of Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of
Cleveland is its primary business activity.  


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Schiffrin Files OH Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Huntington Bancshares Incorporated between July
20, 2007 through November 16, 2007, inclusive.

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

Huntington is a regional bank holding company. It serves as the
holding company for The Huntington National Bank ("Huntington
National"), which provides commercial and retail financial
products and services.

On July 1, 2007, Huntington acquired Sky Financial Group, Inc.
("Sky Financial") for $3.3 billion. As a result of the Sky
Financial acquisition, the Company began a relationship with
Franklin Credit Management Corporation ("Franklin"). More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company had failed to adequately and timely
         record reserves for losses from its exposure to
         subprime mortgages;

     (2) that the Company had failed to disclose the extent of
         its vulnerability to anticipated losses and defaults in
         its home loan portfolio;

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

     (4) 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 November 16, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
reported its 2007 fourth quarter financial and operating
results. For the quarter, the Company stated that it expected to
include a charge of up to $300 million, or $0.81 per share, to
"replenish and build the allowance for loan and lease losses in
support of the Franklin relationship." Additionally, the Company
revealed that its $1.5 billion in loans to Franklin were being
reassessed in terms of their "collectability." The Company
stated that Franklin had inadequately addressed its loan loss
reserves, and that Franklin's mortgages represented the
underlying collateral for the Company's loans to Franklin. As a
result, the Company reported a significant net loss for the
fourth quarter 2007. On this news, the Company's stock declined
$1.33 per share, or 8.27 percent, to close on November 16, 2007
at $14.75 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

For more information, contact:

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

                           *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *