CAR_Public/080123.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 16

                            Headlines


ALBERTSON'S INC: Settles Suit Filed by Terminated Workers
ASHWORTH INC: Calif. Court Refuses to Certify Class in FCRA Suit
ENRON CORP: High Court Refuses to Review UC Regents Suit Ruling
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Class Period in Securities Suit Corrected
ISRAELI BANKS: Court Allows $1.84 Million Price Fixing Lawsuit

JOHN CHEZIK: Court Awards $7M Fees, Interest in Car Buyers Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Checking Account “Bonus”
L'OREAL PARIS: Recalls Bleach Kits Due to Misprinted Directions
MASTERCARD INT'L: Refund Option in Conversion Fee Suit Provided
MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Calif. Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Certification Hearing in DRAM Suit Set 2008
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Several SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Flash Memory Antitrust Lawsuits
MONSANTO CO: Hearing Held in W.Va. Lawsuit Over Dioxin
NATIONAL BEEF: Awaits Final Ruling in Boxed Beef Price Suit

PFIZER AUSTRALIA: Lawsuit Planned Over Parkinson's Drug
POTTERY BARN: Recalls Decorative Candles Due to Fire Hazard
RC2 CORP: Settles Suit Over Thomas & Friends Toys for $30M
SCOR SA: Feb. Fairness Hearing Set for Converium Suit Settlement
SEARS: Recalls Play Stoves that can Tip Over Posing Injury Risk

STEWART ENTERPRISES: Still Faces $1.5B Antitrust Damages Claim
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Nixing of SCI Affiliate from Case Appealed
SUN MARK: Courtyard Healthcare Dropped from False Ad Lawsuit
SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Suit in Calif.
SUPERVALU INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Labor Litigation

T-MOBILE USA: Faces Suit in Cal. Over “Illegal” Message Fees
WAL-MART STORES: Customer Files Fraud Suit Over Video Game
WICK & PETAL: Recalls Jar Candles Posing Fire Hazard
WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Considers Motion in Securities Suit

                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
                            

                            *********  


ALBERTSON'S INC: Settles Suit Filed by Terminated Workers
---------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's Inc. reached a settlement in the class action,
“Joanne Kay Ward et al. v. Albertson's, Inc. et al.,” which was
filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California.

The suit, filed on Oct. 13, 2000, alleges that the company and
its subsidiaries, Lucky Stores, and Sav-on Drug Stores, paid
terminated employees their final paychecks in an untimely
manner.  The suit sought statutory penalties.

On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action.  

In December 2007, the parties agreed to settle this matter,
subject to Court approval, according to company's Jan. 9, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 1, 2007.

The owner of Albertson’s, Supervalu Inc. --
http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery channel that  
conducts its retail operations under three retail food store
formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food
stores and limited assortment food stores.  The Company’s
business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply
chain services.


ASHWORTH INC: Calif. Court Refuses to Certify Class in FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
declined to grant class-action status to a lawsuit against
Ashworth, Inc., which is alleging that the company violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act by printing on credit or debit card
receipts more than the last five digits of the credit or debit
card number and/or the expiration date.

The suit was filed Feb. 27, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  Plaintiff seeks statutory
and punitive damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief on
behalf of the purported class.

The suit against Ashworth was one of hundreds of suits filed
against different retailers nationwide.  

The proposed class representative for the putative class filed
his motion to certify this matter as a class action.  The
Company filed an opposition to the motion and the court entered
an order denying the class certification.  

On Nov. 13, 2007, the parties entered into a settlement on the
record whereby Ashworth would pay the plaintiff $1,000 and the
plaintiff would dismiss his individual claim with prejudice.

The parties subsequently entered into a written stipulation to
that effect and the court dismissed the complaint.

The suit is "Burnis L. Simon Jr. v. Ashworth Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-01324-GHK-AJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge George H. King
with referral to Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Farris E. Ain, Esq.
          Herbert Hafif Law Offices
          269 West Bonita Avenue
          Claremont, CA 91711-4784
          Phone: 909-624-1671
          E-mail: farris.ain@hafif.com

Representing the defendants is:

          J. Scot Kennedy, Esq.
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
          4 Park Plaza, 17th Floor
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: 949-451-3805
          E-mail: skennedy@gibsondunn.com


ENRON CORP: High Court Refuses to Review UC Regents Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied without comment a motion filed by
Enron Corp. shareholders to review an appeals court ruling
blocking a class action against investment banks and firms that
did business with the energy company prior to its collapse,
reports say.

The suit, which was filed October 2001, names as defendants
Merrill Lynch and Co. Inc. and Credit Suisse Group.  It was
filed by Enron investors seeking to recover $40 billion in
losses from the bankruptcy of the energy company.  Enron filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Dec. 2, 2001.

In June 2006, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon certified the
lawsuit as a class action.

On March 19, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit
ruled that the suit was improperly certified as a class action
(Class Action Reporter, March 22, 2007).  It sent the case back
to the lower court for reconsideration.

The shareholders then sought U.S. Supreme Court review of the
ruling.  In their Petition, the Plaintiffs asked the Supreme
Court: does liability exist under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b 5, where an actor knowingly employs
deceptive devices and contrivances as part of a scheme to
defraud investors in another public company, but makes no
affirmative misrepresentations to the market?

The Plaintiffs contended that Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5,
which both prohibit any person from directly or indirectly using
or employing a deceptive device or contrivance, clearly
encompasses the banks' conduct in the Enron fraud case.

Plaintiffs-Appellees are:

     -- Regents of the University of California;
     -- Washington State Investment Board;
     -- San Francisco City and County Employees' Retirement
        System;
     -- Employer-Teamsters Local Numbers 175 and 505 Pension
        Trust Fund;
     -- Hawaii Laborers Pension Plan;
     -- Staro Asset Management LLC;
     -- Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the Longview Collective
        Investment Fund;
     -- Robert V. Flint;
     -- John Zegarski; Mervin Schwartz, Jr.;
     -- Steven Smith;
     -- Archdiocese of Milwaukee;
     -- Greenville Plumbers Pension Plan;
     -- Nathaniel Pulsifer, as Trustee of the Shooters Hill
     -- Revocable Trust.

Defendants-Appellants are:

     -- Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc.;
     -- Credit Suisse First Boston LLC;
     -- Pershing LLC;
     -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.;
     -- Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.;
     
Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. are also
Appellants.

The University of California is lead plaintiff in the case.  It
has so far reached these settlements:

Arthur Andersen LLP, Sep. 2006,               $72.5 million
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Sep. 2006,              $13.5 million
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Aug. 2005, $2.4 billion
JPMorganChase, June 2005,                      $2.2 billion
Citigroup, June 2005,                          $2 billion
Outside Directors, Jan. 2005,                $168 million
Lehman Brothers, Oct. 2004,                $222.5 million
Bank of America, July 2004,                   $69 million
Andersen Worldwide SC, 2002,                  $32 million
LJM2 bankruptcy recovery, 2004-05,            $37 million

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          Phone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com  


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Class Period in Securities Suit Corrected
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP announced that April 28, 2005 through
June 8, 2006 is the correct class period for the class action
lawsuit against International Coal Group, Inc., and certain of
its Officers and Directors, filed in Federal Court in
Charleston, West Virginia.

Earlier, the law firm commenced the suit on behalf of all
persons and entities who, during the Class Period of April 18,
2005, through June 6, 2006:

     (1) purchased securities in ICG, Inc.; or

     (2) exchanged ICG, Inc. securities for International Coal
         Group, Inc. (NYSE: ICG),

pursuant to the November 2005 reorganization; or (3) purchased
shares of International Coal Group, Inc. subsequent to November
21, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008).

The complaint charges International Coal Group, Inc., and
certain of its Officers and Directors, with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

International Coal Group, Inc. is a coal producer with coal
mining operations in West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland and
Illinois.

The complaint alleges that statements made by International Coal
Group, Inc., including representations contained in its
registration statements filed in connection with the November
21, 2005 reorganization, and December 7-8, 2005 stock offering,
and post-offering filings with the SEC were materially false and
misleading in describing its business, including its capital
requirements and equipment needs, the impact of their legally
deficient safety and maintenance practices, and the historic
foreseeable ongoing and current result of operations.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all class
members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
January 9, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk,
          Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
          The Koll Center
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA   92101
          Tel:  619.238.1333
          Fax:  619.238-5425
          E-mail:  jrk@classactionlaw.com


ISRAELI BANKS: Court Allows $1.84 Million Price Fixing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nissim Yeshaya of the Tel Aviv District Court approved a
$1.84 million class action against Israel's top three banks for
allegedly colluding to fix interest rates, Noarm Sharvit of the
Globes reports.

The suit was filed against:

     -- Bank Hapoalim (TASE: POLI; LSE:80OA),
     -- Bank Leumi (TASE: LUMI), and
     -- Israel Discount Bank (TASE: DSCT).

The suit claims the conduct raised interest rate spread in the
shekel sector for current bank accounts, creating huge profits
for the banks while harming the public and greatly damaging the
economy.  Clients were allegedly damaged by at least 4 percent
of the interest rates the banks charged, or NIS1.8 billion ($412
million) annually (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 14, 2006).  

The banks allegedly charge the same prices for the prime  
interest rate, as well as extra payments on most current  
accounts, excess fees, credit allocation charges, and management  
fees for current debit accounts.

The suit is seeking an order to dismantle the cartel, order the  
banks to set competitive and economic fees and interest rates,  
and keep reasonable interest spreads and set fair prices for the  
public.  


JOHN CHEZIK: Court Awards $7M Fees, Interest in Car Buyers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clay County (Missouri) Circuit Judge Rex Gabbert ordered payment
of $7 million in attorney fees and interest in the settlement of
a class action by people who bought vehicle service contracts
from bankrupt car dealership John Chezik Homerun Inc., Dan
Margolies of The Kansas City Star reports.

In 2002, John Chezik Homerun, Inc., which operates John Chezik
Honda faced a class action relating to a "100 percent money-back
guarantee" that the company offered on its vehicle service
contracts (Class Action Reporter, May 27, 2002).  

The class consisted of 1,186 customers who bought contracts from
Jan. 1, 1997, to Dec. 22, 2003, and who got the money-back
guarantees and made no claim under the contracts.

Law firm Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP commenced the suit
on behalf of named plaintiffs Keith and Deborah Shackelford, who
bought a 1995 Honda Accord from the company.  The Shackelfords
bought a service contract, which said a customer would be
refunded the entire cost of the contract if no claims were made
on it.

The Shackelfords said they made no claims.  They returned to the
dealership in April 2002 to request their refund but allegedly
were told they could receive only credit toward another car
purchase.  The dealership offered to refund the Shackelfords'
money after talks with their lawyers, but the company refused to
pay legal fees and other costs.

The case was certified as a class action and was settled for
$8.4 million.  Jurors returned two separate judgments for
punitive damages for $5 million.  In 2007, the Clay County
Circuit Court jury awarded more than $3.4 million in actual
damages to customers of John Chezik Homerun Inc. and A&L Holding
Co. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2007).   

In a Jan. 16, report, Mr. Margolies said that after Judge
Gabbert merged some overlapping damage awards this week, the
total came to $7.3 million.  Judge Gabbert awarded legal fees to
the plaintiffs of $2.8 million and assessed $4.8 million in
prejudgment interest against John Chezik and its parent, A&L
Holding Co.

He also awarded $100,000 in expenses to the plaintiffs, $35,000
apiece in “incentive” awards to the two lead plaintiffs and
post-judgment interest of 10.25 percent as of May 9, 2007, when
the jury returned its verdict.

John Chezik Homerun filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in
December.

          Robert O. Jester, Esq.
          Ensz & Jester, P.C.
          2121 City Center Square
          1100 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 474-8010
          Fax: (816) 471-7910


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Checking Account “Bonus”
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging it
promised but failed to give $100 to customers who opened a Chase
Free Checking account with a balance of $100 or more, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Christopher L. Akinyemi brings this action
pursuant to Illinois Code of Civil Procedure Article II, Part 8,
on behalf of all consumers who received a coupon to receive cash
deposited in the account and opened a checking account at Chase,
but did not have the bonus credited to their account.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant engaged in unlawful practices as
         alleged;

     (b) whether defendant breached its contract with members of
         the putative class by refusing to provide class members
         with payment of the bonus in response to defendant's
         offer of a bonus; and

     (c) whether members of the class have been damaged and the
         proper measure of such damages.

Plaintiff requests that the court grant these relief:

      -- an order certifying the proposed class and appointing
         plaintiff and his undersigned counsel of record to
         represent the class;

      -- actual and compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff
         and the other members of the class against defendant
         for the actual damages sustained as a result of
         defendant's wrongdoing together with interest;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum
        rate allowable by law; and the costs and disbursements
        incurred by plaintiff in connection with this action,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- such other and further relief as this court may deem
        proper.

The suit is "Christopher L. Akinyemi et al. v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., Case No. 08CH02257," filed in the Circuit of Cook
County, Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Norman Rifkind
          Amelia S. Newton
          Heidi VonderHeide
          Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1320
          Chicago, Illinois 60610
          Phone: (312) 634-0057
          Fax: (312) 634-0059


L'OREAL PARIS: Recalls Bleach Kits Due to Misprinted Directions
---------------------------------------------------------------
L'Oreal Paris, a division of L'Oreal USA, has initiated a
voluntary recall from retail stores in the United States of the
L'Oreal Paris Dream Blonde (Baby's Breath Blonde #100 Ultra
Lightening) Bleach and Lightening care kit.

The product was sold in retail outlets in the U.S. from January
1 through January 18, 2008. L'Oreal is voluntarily taking this
action due to an error in the printing of the directions for the
use of the Dream Blonde Bleach and Lightening care kit. All
retailers have been notified and have removed the product from
their shelves. Affected consumers, estimated at a few hundred,
will receive a full refund for returned product.

L'Oreal took immediate action following one customer complaint
of the product causing irritation. The Dream Blonde Bleach and
Lightening Care formula itself is safe. However, if used
according to the current misprinted directions, complications
such as irritation or sensitivity could result, so consumers
should not use the product and should instead return it to their
retailer for a refund. As with any product, if a consumer feels
they are having any type of reaction or irritation, they should
consultant their physician. This recall affects only the Dream
Blonde Bleach and Lightening care kit in the Dream Blonde range
of products.

Any consumers looking for more information should call 888-241-
9504.


MASTERCARD INT'L: Refund Option in Conversion Fee Suit Provided
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. and Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman &
Robbins LLP, Co-Lead and Co-Class Counsel for the plaintiffs in
the class action, "In re Foreign Currency Conversion Fee
Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1409)” announced that all class
members who made a foreign transaction with a Visa, MasterCard,
or Diners Club credit or debit/ATM card between February 1, 1996
and November 8, 2006 are eligible for a refund.

The amount of the refund will depend on which claim form is
chosen (only one claim form may be submitted), the amount of
total claims, the dollar value of the claim, the bank that
issued their card, and the amount of money available to pay
claims. Class members might only get a partial refund.

Class members may select one of three claim form options:

     -- Refund Option 1 is an Easy Refund of $25 and is
        recommended if you had foreign transactions of less than
        $2,500 using your eligible cards during the class
        period.

     -- Refund Option 2 is a Total Estimation Refund that is
        based on typical spending during travel and answers to
        the few questions listed on the claim form. This option
        is recommended if you had foreign transactions of more
        than $2,500 using your eligible cards during the class
        period.

     -- Refund Option 3 is the Annual Estimated Refund option.
        It is recommended if you had extensive foreign travel or
        foreign transactions and are willing to provide year-by-
        year information.

However, if the volume of claims is unexpectedly high, it may be
necessary to adjust the refund amounts.

The lawsuit claims that Visa, MasterCard, their member banks,
and Diners Club conspired to set and hide the price of foreign
transactions (including fees, typically 1-3%) in violation of
federal and state law, and that Visa and MasterCard inflated
their base exchange rates before applying these fees. The
Defendants are:

     -- Visa,
     -- MasterCard,
     -- Bank of America,
     -- Bank One/First USA,
     -- Chase,
     -- Citibank,
     -- Diners Club,
     -- HSBC/Household,
     -- MBNA and Washington Mutual/Providian

In Dec. 2007, Berger & Montague, P.C. and Coughlin, Stoia,
Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that parties to the suit
reached a $336,000,000 settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
5, 2007).

The settlement will benefit people and entities who were Visa-,
Mastercard- and Diners Club-branded Credit and Debit/ATM
Cardholders who made made a foreign transaction between Feb. 1,
1996 and Nov. 8, 2006.  The settlement applies to those persons
or entities even if they did not make a foreign transaction, and
they will benefit from it.

                         Settlement Terms

The settlement provides $336,000,000 to pay claims, the costs of
administering the settlement and notice, and court-awarded
attorneys' fees (up to 27.5% of the estimated $313,000,000
expected to remain in the settlement fund after deducting costs
for administration and notice, plus interest and expenses) and
awards for the class representatives.

The Defendants also agree to certain disclosure-related
practices. If approved, the settlement will bind class members.

If persons and entities are eligible to make a claim and do not
opt out, they will release all claims related to any foreign
transaction, or the subject matters of the lawsuit, against the
Defendants, the member banks, and related entities and
individuals. Claims in other cases involving foreign
transactions will also be extinguished, but they can still make
a claim here, if eligible for a refund.

Settlement agreements have also been signed in some of these
other cases. These agreements include payment of fees and
expenses to attorneys, some of whom have represented the
Plaintiff in “Schwartz v. Visa (CA).” These payments will not
reduce the $336,000,000 settlement.

Class members do not need to go to court but may if they want
to. Class members may also hire an attorney, at their own cost,
if they want to. The court hearing to decide whether to approve
the settlement is on March 31, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. at the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY, 10007-1581. If class members plan to go,
they are advised to check with the court to confirm the time and
date.

All class members who made a foreign transaction with a Visa,
MasterCard, or Diners Club credit or debit/ATM card between
February 1, 1996 and November 8, 2006 are eligible for a refund.
The amount of the refund will depend on which claim form is
chosen, the amount of total claims, the dollar value of the
claim, the bank that issued their card, and the amount of money
available to pay claims. Class members might only get a partial
refund.

Class members also have other options. They may:

     -- Object. Class members must file a written objection and
        proof of class membership with the court. They do not
        have to go to court or hire an attorney. But can if they
        want to, at their own cost. The deadline is February 14,
        2008.

     -- Opt out. If class members are eligible for a refund from
        the settlement but do not want one, and they want to
        keep their right to sue for money, they must opt out by
        sending the opt-out form letter (available at:
        http://www.ccfsettlement.com,or by calling: 1-800-945-
        9890) to: P. O. Box 280, Philadelphia, PA 19105.

If they opt out, they cannot get money from the settlement.
Class members cannot opt out of the part of the settlement
involving agreed disclosure-related practices. The deadline is
February 14, 2008.

For more information, visit: http://www.ccfsettlement.com. For   
recorded information, call: 1-800-945-9890.

To ask for a refund, class members must file a claim for a
refund online at: http://www.ccfsettlement.com.Or file by mail   
(get a claim form at http://www.ccfsettlement.com,or by calling   
1-800-945-9890). The deadline is May 30, 2008.

                       Case Background

A number of federal putative class actions that allege, among
other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the
asserted one percent currency conversion "fee," were filed
against:

          -- MasterCard International, Inc.,
          -- Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
          -- Visa International Corp.,
          -- several member banks including:

               * Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.,
               * Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.,
               * Bank of America, N.A. (USA),
               * MBNA, and
               * Citicorp Diners Club Inc.

Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the federal complaints were consolidated in MDL
No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint adding MBNA Corp. and MBNA America Bank, N.A.
as defendants.

This pleading asserted two theories of antitrust conspiracy
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act:

      -- an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among
         MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
         with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and
         frequently more;" and

      -- two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby
         each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to        

    
         have conspired with its members to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to
         facilitate and encourage institution-and collection-of
         second tier currency conversion surcharges."

The MDL Complaint also asserted that the alleged currency
conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.

On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL
action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and
related matters.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard has paid
$72,480 to be used for defendants' settlement fund to settle the
MDL action.  

On Nov. 8, 2006, Judge William H. Pauley, III, granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreements.  The
settlement agreements were subject to final approval by Judge
Pauley, and resolution of all appeals.

The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William
H. Pauley, III.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David J. Bershad, Esq.
         Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9387
         Fax: 212-868-1229
         E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com

         Christopher Burke, Esq.
         Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP
         Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Sheldon V. Burman, Esq.
         Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC
         110 East 59th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 935-1600


MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Calif. Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave final approval to a proposed settlement in the matter,
“Grecian v. Meade Instruments Corp., et al., SA CV 06-908 AG
(JTLx).”

The complaint, filed on Sept. 27, 2006, asserted claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act in connection with the Company's option granting
practices.  

On Jan. 8, 2007, the court granted the “Grecian” plaintiffs’
motion to be appointed lead plaintiffs.  On Feb. 22, 2007, the
plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which asserted
claims for violations of Section 10 (b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s
option granting practices.

On May 23, 2007, the parties in both this action participated in
a mediation session.

As a result of this mediation, the parties in both actions
reached a preliminary settlement understanding, which included
corporate governance reforms and an amount to cover plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.

The parties submitted the settlement agreement and related
paperwork for the court's approval, which was obtained in
December 2007.

The suit is “Bill Grecian et al. v. Meade Instruments Corp. et
al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00908-AG-JTL,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Andrew
J. Guilford with referral to Judge Jennifer T. Lum.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

         Donald J. Enright, Esq.
         Finkelstein Thompson and Loughran
         1050 Thirtieth Street Northwest, The Duvall Foundry
         Washington, DC 20007
         Phone: 202-337-8000


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Certification Hearing in DRAM Suit Set 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
is to hear on the first half of 2008, a motion to certify a
consolidated antitrust complaint filed against Micron
Technology, Inc. and other suppliers of dynamic random access
memories (DRAM).

U.S. Litigation

Four cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly
purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM from various DRAM
suppliers during the time period from April 1, 1999 through at
least June 30, 2002.  

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair
competition laws and seek treble monetary damages, restitution,
costs, interest and attorneys' fees.  

In addition, at least 64 cases have been filed in various state
and federal courts (five of which have been dismissed) asserting
claims on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers of
DRAM.  

Cases have been filed in the following states:

       -- Arkansas,       -- New Jersey,
       -- Arizona,        -- New Mexico,
       -- California,     -- Nevada,
       -- Florida,        -- New York,
       -- Hawaii,         -- Ohio,
       -- Iowa,           -- Pennsylvania,
       -- Kansas,         -- South Dakota,
       -- Massachusetts,  -- Tennessee,
       -- Maine,          -- Utah,
       -- Michigan,       -- Vermont,
       -- Minnesota,      -- Virginia,
       -- Mississippi,    -- Wisconsin, and
       -- Montana,        -- West Virginia, and
       -- North Carolina,
       -- North Dakota,
       -- Nebraska,
       -- New Hampshire,
       -- also in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  

The complaints purport to be on behalf of individuals and
entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products
containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various
time periods ranging from April 1999 through at least June 2002.

They allege violations of various jurisdictions' antitrust,
consumer protection and/or unfair competition laws relating to
the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble monetary
damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees.   

A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) for consolidated proceedings.

On June 1, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  

Plaintiffs subsequently have filed an amended complaint, and the
Company filed a response.  

A motion for class certification has been filed and is expected
to be heard in the first half of 2008.

                      Canadian Litigation

Additionally, three purported class action DRAM lawsuits also
have been filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers, alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act.  

The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the cases filed in the U.S.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.

    
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Several SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) suppliers, continues to face a number of purported
antitrust class actions in the U.S. and Canada over the sale of
SRAM, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 29, 2007.

                         U.S. Litigation

At least eighty purported class actions have been filed against
the Company and other SRAM suppliers in various federal courts
on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers alleging price-
fixing in violation of federal and state antitrust laws,
violations of state unfair competition law, and/or unjust
enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of SRAM products
during the period from January 1998 through December 2005.  

The complaints seek treble monetary damages sustained by
purported class members, in addition to restitution, costs, and
attorneys’ fees.

                       Canadian Litigation

Three purported class action SRAM lawsuits also have been filed
in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging
violations of the Canadian Competition Act.  

The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the SRAM cases filed in the United States.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Flash Memory Antitrust Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face several purported
antitrust class actions in relation to the sale of flash memory
products, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 29, 2007.

                         U.S. Litigation

At least 34 purported class actions have been filed against the
Company and other suppliers of flash memory products in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and other
federal district courts.  

These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly or
indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers during the period
from Jan. 1, 1999 through the date the various cases were filed.

The complaints generally allege price fixing in violation of
federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair
competition laws and seek monetary damages, restitution, costs,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

                       Canadian Litigation

Three purported class actions also have been filed in Canada, on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of
the Canadian Competition Act.  

The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the Flash cases filed in the U.S.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MONSANTO CO: Hearing Held in W.Va. Lawsuit Over Dioxin
------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing was held in a purported class
action filed by 15 plaintiffs in Putnam County, West Virginia
state court against Monsanto Co. and several other defendants
over dioxins/furans contamination.

The suit, "Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al.," also names
as defendants Pharmacia Corp. and seven others.  The company is
named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of
Pharmacia.   

The alleged class consists of all current and former residents,
workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were
allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties
surrounding Nitro, West Virginia.  

The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a
chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by
Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia
and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.   

Akzo Nobel and Flexsys are named defendants in the case, but
Solutia is not, due to its pending bankruptcy proceeding.   

The suit seeks damages for property clean up costs, loss of real
estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels,
funds to test for human contamination and future medical
monitoring costs.   

The complaint also seeks an injunction against further
contamination and punitive damages.

Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys group of defendants tendered their
cases to Monsanto for indemnification and defense.  Monsanto
agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys
defendant group.

The class certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007,
according to the company's Jan. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 30, 2007.

For more details, contact:  

         W. Stuart Calwell, Esq.
         Alex McLaughlin, Esq.
         The Calwell Practice
         P.O. Box 113, Charleston, WV 25301
         Phone: 304-343-4323 and 304-291-5223
         Fax: 304-344-3864 and 304-291-2240;

              - and -

         James F. Humphreys, Esq.
         J. David Cecil, Esq.
         Thomas G. Wilson, Esq.
         James F. Humphreys & Associates
         United Center, Suite 800, 500 Virginia Street
         East Charleston, WV 25301
         Phone: 304-347-5050
         Fax: 304-347-5055


NATIONAL BEEF: Awaits Final Ruling in Boxed Beef Price Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A final judgment has yet to be issued in the matter, “Schumacher
v. Tyson Foods, et al.,” which names National Beef Packing
Company, the beef processor owned by U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, as
a defendant.

On July 1, 2002, a lawsuit was filed against:

     -- Farmland National Beef Packing Co., L.P. (FNBPC or the
        predecessor to NBP [National Beef Packing Company LLC]),

     -- ConAgra Beef Co.,

     -- Tyson Foods, Inc., and

     -- Excel Corp.

in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota
seeking certification of a class of all persons who sold cattle
to the defendants for cash, or on a basis affected by the cash
price for cattle, during the period from April 2, 2001 through
May 11, 2001 and for some period up to two weeks thereafter.

The case was filed by three named plaintiffs on behalf of a
putative nationwide class that plaintiffs estimate is comprised
of hundreds or thousands of members.

The complaint alleged that the defendants, in violation of the
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, knowingly used, without
correction or disclosure, incorrect and misleading boxed beef
price information generated by the U.S.D.A. to purchase cattle
offered for sale by the plaintiffs at a price substantially
lower than was justified by the actual and correct price of
boxed beef during this period.

Plaintiffs also sought recovery against all defendants under a
theory of unjust enrichment.  

The case was certified as a class-action matter in June of 2004.
The plaintiffs claimed damages against FNBPC in the amount of
approximately $4.5 million plus prejudgment interest, attorneys'
fees and court costs.

The claim is subject to reduction in an unknown amount by the
number of class members who have opted out of the class.  Trial
began March 31, 2006.

On April 13, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of FNBPC
but against the other defendants.  The other defendants have
filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.  

The appeal was argued on Nov. 14, 2007.  No decision has been
made.  

The plaintiffs did not appeal the verdict for the Company but no
final judgment will be entered until after the appeal is
decided, according to U.S. Premium Beef's Jan. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 24, 2007.

The suit is “Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-01027-CBK,” filed in the U.S. District Court of South
Dakota under Judge Charles B. Kornmann.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Elizabeth J. Anderson, Esq.
         David F. Herr, Esq.
         Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand
         3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. 7th St.
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
         Phone: (612) 672-8200
         Fax: (612) 672-8397

Representing the defendants are:

         William H. Baumgartner, Jr., Esq.
         Sidley Austin LLP
         One South Dearborn Street
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 853-7000
         Fax: (312) 853-7036
         E-mail: wbaumgartner@sidley.com

              - and -

         Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq.
         McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO
         1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700, First Natl. Tower
         Omaha, NE 68102-1627
         Phone: (402) 341-3070
         Fax: (402) 341-0216


PFIZER AUSTRALIA: Lawsuit Planned Over Parkinson's Drug
-------------------------------------------------------
A Melbourne law firm is planning to file a class action on
behalf of Parkinson's patients who were prescribed the drug
Cabaser to manage the disease, Lisa Whitehead of ABC Online
reports.

Drug users claim they suffered impulsive and destructive
behavior as a result of using the drug.  The report cited three
people who took cabergoline, a class of drug called a dopamine
agonist, which is sold under the brand name Cabaser in
Australia.  One of them is Andrew, according to the report.

Lawyer Anne Shortall from Arnold Thomas & Becker is representing
Andrew in a class action she is launching against the two drug
companies that market commonly prescribed dopamine agonists in
Australia.  

Two of Ms. Shortall's other clients took a similar drug to
Cabaser called pergolide, marketed in Australia under the brand
name Permax, the report said.

Cabaser is made by Pfizer Australia.  Permax is marketed by
Aspen Pharmacare Australia.


POTTERY BARN: Recalls Decorative Candles Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pottery Barn of San Francisco, Calif., in cooperation with U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 185,000
round and egg-shaped decorative candles.

The company said the candle's exterior coating can ignite,
posing a fire hazard.

Pottery Barn has received two reports of the gold paint on the
candle exterior igniting. No injuries or property damage have
been reported.

This recall involves egg-shaped and large and small round
candles sold in three sizes. The candles were sold in green, red
and white with gold glitter and leaf designs. The recall
includes all styles of this candle, including style numbers
9444811, 9444928, 9444936, 9444944, 9444944, 9445214, 9445222,
9445222, and 9445313. The style number for the candles can be
found on the price ticket under the candle.

These recalled candles were manufactured in Hong Kong and were
being sold at Pottery Barn stores nationwide from September 2007
through December 2007 for between $10 and $20.

Picture of recalled candles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08168.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
candles and return them to any Pottery Barn store for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact Pottery Barn toll-free at
(888) 922-9245 between 7 a.m. and 12 a.m. ET Monday through
Sunday, or visit the company's Web site:
http://www.potterybarn.com


RC2 CORP: Settles Suit Over Thomas & Friends Toys for $30M
----------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois court granted preliminary approval to a nationwide
class action settlement, resolving the claims of hundreds of
thousands of people who bought Thomas & Friends toys allegedly
contaminated with lead paint.

The settlement, which is valued at over $30 million, also
guarantees that RC2 Corporation – the manufacturer of the
popular children’s toys – will implement a battery of safeguards
to ensure that its toys are suitable for children to play with
in the future.

“In recent months, moms and dads from around the country have
learned that they cannot assume that their children’ s toys are
safe simply because they came from the shelves of large
retailers. This settlement is an important step towards ensuring
that this is a problem of the past,” explained Jay Edelson of
KamberEdelson, LLC, who, along with his partner Scott A. Kamber,
and William Audet of Audet & Partners, LLP, were appointed to
represent the class as lead counsel.

The settlement was joined by lawyers who filed similar class
actions in Florida, California, New Jersey and Tennessee.

The Court also appointed Gino L. DiVito of Tabet, DiVito, and
Rothstein, LLC as part of the leadership group representing the
class. Mr. DiVito formerly served as both a circuit court and
appellate judge in Illinois and, prior to that, was a Cook
County assistant state's attorney.

Under the settlement agreement, eligible class members can
receive full cash refunds or replacement toys with an additional
“bonus” toy. The settlement also provides for $100,000 to go to
an appropriate not-for-profit organization.

The parties have established a website at
http://www.thomastrainsettlement.comto provide additional  
details about the settlement. That site will be operational by
no later than January 25, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Jay Edelson
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          Phone: 312-589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@kamberedelson.com


SCOR SA: Feb. Fairness Hearing Set for Converium Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 8, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, “Neil L. Sclater-Booth,
et al. v. SCOR, S.A., and PATINEX AG, Case No. Civil Action No.
07-CV-3476 (GEL).”

The hearing will be held in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007.

                      Factual Background

On Feb. 17, 2007, SCOR S.A. proposed an offer for the
acquisition of the Company to Converium AG's Board of Directors.
The next day, Converium's Board unanimously rejected the offer,
concluding that it fundamentally failed to recognize the value
of Converium's franchise and growth prospects, and therefore it
was not in the best interest of the Company, its shareholders,
or its customers.

On February 26, 2007, SCOR formally pre-announced a tender offer
to acquire certain Converium shares and on April 5, 2007, SCOR
issued a Swiss Offer Prospectus relating to the Offer.  

The Offer Prospectus stated, in relevant part, among other
things, that for each Converium share tendered, SCOR offers:

      -- 0.5 New SCOR Shares with nominal value of EUR
         7.8769723 each;

      -- CHF 4 in cash;

      -- the Offer would not apply to the Company's American
         Depository Shares;

      -- SCOR's offer would be subject to a number of
         conditions, including valid acceptances for shares
         representing at least 50.01% of the Company?s share
         capital; and

      -- the Offer would not be made in or into the U.S.

On May 1, 2007, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned, “Neil L. Sclater-Booth v. SCOR S.A. and Patinex AG,
Civil Action No. 07 CV 3476 (GEL).”

The suit is alleging that SCOR and defendant Patinex AG failed
to comply with certain disclosure requirements imposed by the
U.S. securities laws in connection with SCOR's public tender
offer in Switzerland for all publicly held registered shares of
Converium.

More specifically, the suit alleges that:

      -- the Offer has triggered the application of the
         provisions of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of
         1934 governing tender offers, and that SCOR has
         violated Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act, which
         requires certain disclosures in connection with tender
         offers, and Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act, which
         prohibits fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative acts
         in connection with tender offers; and

      -- SCOR and Patinex violated Section 13(d) of the
         Exchange Act, by failing to disclose that SCOR and
         Patinex “acted as a group” in connection with the
         Offer.

On May 25, 2007, parties reached a tentative settlement in the
matter.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in which,
among other things, the Court preliminarily certified the class,
preliminarily determined that the suit was properly brought as a
class action, and preliminarily found that plaintiff was an
adequate representative of the Class.

The class consists of all U.S. persons holding shares of
Converium and holders of Converium's American Depository Shares.

For more details, contact:

         Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
         James E. Tullman, Esq.
         Weiss & Lurie
         551 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10176
         Phone: (212) 682-3025
         Web site: http://www.weisslurie.com/

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Brian D. Long, Esq.
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         919 North Market Street, Suite 980
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302) 295-5310
         Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/

         Joseph N. Sacca, Esq.
         Gary J. Hacker, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: (212) 735-3000
         Web site: http://www.skadden.com/

              - and -

         Converium Holding AG Litigation Settlement
         c/o Strategic Claims Services
         600 N Jackson Street ? Suite 3
         Media, PA 19063
         Phone: 866.274.4004 and 610.565.9202
         Fax: 610.565.7985
         Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net/


SEARS: Recalls Play Stoves that can Tip Over Posing Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corp., of Hoffman Estates,
Ill., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, are recalling about 17,000 “My First Kenmore” Play
Stoves.

The company said a metal bracket connecting the door to the
stove can cause a tip-over when the door is opened. This poses a
risk of injury to young children.

Sears has received one report of the product tipping over,
resulting in bruises to a child.

The self-assembled, wooden play stove is painted pink with six
white knobs and a timer. The dimensions of the stove when
assembled are 11 1/2” W x 13 3/4” D x 32 7/8” H.

These recalled play stoves were manufactured in Taiwan and were
being sold at Sears and Kmart stores nationwide from September
2007 through November 2007 for about $100.

Picture of recalled play stoves:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08166.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove and discard the
bracket that connects the door to the stove to eliminate the
hazard. Consumers may obtain updated assembly instructions by
contacting Sears/Kmart or by visiting either firm?s Web site. In
some products, the updated assembly instructions are already
included and replacement instructions are not required.

For additional information, contact Sears/Kmart at (800) 659-
7026 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday, or
visit either http://www.sears.comor http://www.kmart.com


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Still Faces $1.5B Antitrust Damages Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Enterprises, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
antitrust class action seeking a ruling from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas for an award of damages
ranging from $99 million to $1.5 billion.

                Funeral Consumers Alliance Case

One of the purported class actions was filed by Funeral
Consumers Alliance, Inc., et al. against:

     * Service Corporation International,
     * Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
     * Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,
     * Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and
     * Batesville Casket Co.

The Case, No. H-05-3394, was originally filed on May 2, 2005, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all consumers
who purchased a Batesville casket from the funeral home
defendants at any time.  

The court consolidated it with five subsequently filed and
substantially similar cases.  The matter was known as the
Consolidated Consumer Cases.

The Consolidated Consumer Cases allege that the defendants acted
jointly to reduce competition from independent casket
discounters and fix and maintain prices on caskets in violation
of the federal antitrust laws and California's Business and
Professions Code.  

Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

At the defendants' request, in late September 2005, the court
transferred the Consolidated Consumer Cases to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.  

The transferred Consolidated Consumer Cases have been
consolidated before a single judge in the Southern District of
Texas.

On Nov. 10, 2006, after the court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss, the company answered the first amended consolidated
class action complaint, denying liability and asserting various
affirmative defenses.  

Discovery is underway.  The court conducted a hearing on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Dec. 4-7, 2006,
and has taken the motion under advisement.  

Fact discovery has been completed, and expert discovery is
ongoing.

In April 2007, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating
that the damages sought from all defendants would be in the
range of approximately $950 million to approximately $1.5
billion, before trebling.

                       Pioneer Valley Case

On July 8, 2005, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Northern District of California by
Pioneer Valley Casket Co., Inc., and others against:

     -- Service Corp. International,  
     -- Alderwoods Group, Inc.,  
     -- Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,  
     -- Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and  
     -- Batesville Casket Co.  

The Pioneer Valley Case involves the same claims asserted in the
Consolidated Consumer Cases, except that it was brought on
behalf of a nationwide class defined to include only independent
casket retailers.

On July 15, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for
failure to plead facts sufficient to establish viable antitrust
and unfair competition claims.   

On Sept. 9, 2005, the court denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss, without prejudice, but ordered the plaintiffs to file
an amended and consolidated complaint that satisfies the
objections raised in the motions to dismiss.

At the defendants' request, the court also issued orders in late
September 2005 transferring the Consolidated Consumer Cases and
the Pioneer Valley Case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.   

The transferred Consolidated Consumer Cases have been
consolidated before a single judge in the Southern District of
Texas.  The Pioneer Valley Case has been consolidated with these
cases for purposes of discovery only.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the consumer plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint.  Defendants then filed
motions to dismiss the first amended complaint.  

On Oct. 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed a first amended
complaint.

Defendants then filed motions to dismiss.  Discovery is underway
in both cases.  

On Sept. 14, 2006, the magistrate recommended that all motions
to dismiss be denied.  The parties have 10 days to file written
objections with the district court judge.  

A hearing on whether the matters may proceed as class actions
was scheduled for Dec. 5, 2006.   

In April 2007, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating
that the damages sought from all defendants would be
approximately $99.0 million, before trebling.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.

The suit is “Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc. et al. v. Service
Corporation International., Case No. 4:05-cv-03394,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under
Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to Judge Calvin Botley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jonathan S. Abady, Esq.
         Emery Celli Brinckerhoff
         545 Madison Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-763-5000
         Fax: 212-763-5001
         E-mail: jabady@ecbalaw.com

         Gordon Ball, Esq.
         Ball & Scott, 550 W. Main Ave., Ste. 750
         Knoxville, TN 37902
         Phone: 865-525-7028
         Fax: 865-525-4679
         E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com

              - and -

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

Representing the company is:

         Mark A. Cunningham, Esq.
         Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre       


         201 St. Charles Ave
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Phone: 504.582.8536
         Fax: 504.589.8536
         Web site: http://www.joneswalker.com


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Nixing of SCI Affiliate from Case Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action against Stewart Enterprises, Inc.
over its funeral goods and services operations are appealing the
dismissal by the Superior Court for the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles of an affiliate of Service Corp.
International (SCI) from the case.

The suit, "Henrietta Torres and Teresa Fiore, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated and the General
Public v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. BC328961,"
was filed on Feb. 17, 2005 against the company and several other
defendants.

The purported class action was brought on behalf of a nationwide
class defined to include all persons, entities and organizations
who purchased funeral goods and/or services in the U.S. from
defendants at any time on or after Feb. 17, 2001.

The suit named the company and several of its Southern
California affiliates as defendants.  It sought to assert claims
against a class of all entities located anywhere in the U.S.
whose ultimate parent corporation has been the company at any
time on or after Feb. 17, 2001.

In May 2005, the court ruled that this case was related to
similar actions against SCI and Alderwoods Group, Inc., and
designated SCI case as the lead case.

In response, on Aug. 29, 2005, the plaintiffs in each of the
three cases filed amended complaints.  SCI has filed a demurrer
in its case, and the company joined in that demurrer on October
6, 2005.

The case against the company effectively has been held in
abeyance while the court tests plaintiff's legal theories in the
lead case.

Rulings on legal issues in the lead case will apply equally in
the case against the company, and the court has allowed the
company to participate in hearings and briefings in the lead
case.

As a result of demurrers, the plaintiff in the lead case has
amended her complaint twice.  On Jan. 31, 2006, however, the
court overruled SCI demurrer to the third amended complaint and
established a schedule leading to hearing on a motion for
summary judgment in early July to test the viability of the
named plaintiff's claim against SCI.

On Aug. 14, 2006, the court heard oral argument on cross-motions
for summary judgment.  The cross-motions are pending.

The third amended complaint in the lead case alleges that the
SCI defendants violated the "Funeral Rule" promulgated by the
Federal Trade Commission by failing to disclose that the prices
of certain goods and services they obtained from third parties
specifically on the plaintiff's behalf exceeded what the
defendants paid for them.

Plaintiff alleges that by failing to comply with the Funeral
Rule, defendants:

    -- breached contracts with the plaintiffs;

    -- were unjustly enriched; and

    -- engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
       practices in violation of a provision of California's
       Business and Professions Code.

The plaintiff seeks restitution damages, disgorgement, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

In September and October 2006, the court granted the motion for
summary judgment filed by the SCI affiliate with whom the
plaintiff had contracted and entered a judgment of dismissal in
favor of that SCI affiliate.

On Dec. 8, 2006, the plaintiff noticed an appeal of this
judgment.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.

Stewart Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.stewartenterprises.com/
-- is a provider of funeral and cemetery products and services
in the death care industry in the U.S.  Through its
subsidiaries, the Company provides a range of funeral
merchandise and services, along with cemetery property,
merchandise and services, both at the time of need and on a pre-
need basis.


SUN MARK: Courtyard Healthcare Dropped from False Ad Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Long Beach attorney Stephen Garcia, who filed a class action
against Sun Mar Health Care Inc. chain of nursing homes over
patient care, dropped Courtyard Healthcare Center from the suit,
the Central Valley Business Times reports.

According to Mr. Garcia, the Davis facility was incorrectly
included in the class action.  Sun Mar sold 100 percent of the
facility in April 1999.

The lawsuit was filed in Orange County Superior Court against
Sun Mar Health Care, Inc., Sun Mar Management, and its 18
California skilled nursing homes on behalf of Warren Richardson
(Class Action Reporter, Jan 14, 2008).

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

Named nursing homes in the complaint:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The suit specifically names:

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

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

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

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

To contact Mr. Garcia:

          Stephen Garcia
          One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
          Long Beach, California 90831
          Phone: (562) 216-5270
          Toll Free: 1-800-281-8515
          Fax: (562) 216-5271
          Website: http://www.lawgarcia.com


SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc. and its acquisition, Albertson's Inc. continue
to face a consolidated class action filed by assistant managers
in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California,
according to the company's Jan. 9, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 1, 2007.

                        Gardner Litigation

In April 2000, a class-action complaint was filed against
Albertson's, as well as American Stores Co., American Drug
Stores, Inc., Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc., and Lucky Stores, Inc.,
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Albertson's, in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California.

The suit, “Gardner, et al. v. American Stores Company, et al.,”
was filed by assistant managers seeking recovery of overtime
based on plaintiffs’ allegation that they were improperly
classified as exempt under California law.

In May 2001, the court certified a class with respect to Sav-on
Drug Stores assistant managers.

                       Rocher Litigation

A case with very similar claims, involving the Sav-on Drug
Stores assistant managers and operating managers, was also filed
in April 2000 against Albertson's, Inc.'s subsidiary Sav-on Drug
Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, California.

The suit, “Rocher, Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.,”
was certified as a class action in June 2001 with respect to
assistant managers and operating managers.

The two cases were consolidated in December 2001.  New
Albertson's was added as a named defendant in November 2006.

Plaintiffs seek overtime wages, meal and rest break penalties,
other statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest,
injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery  
channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail
food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and
drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores.  The
Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food
and Supply chain services.


SUPERVALU INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Labor Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc. agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging that it
failed to pay wages for time worked during meal breaks by its
non-exempt employees employed in key carrier positions.

Sally Wilcox and Dennis Taber filed the complaint in California
Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego in August
2004.  It was later certified as a class action.

The lawsuit further alleges that Albertson's failed to provide
itemized wage statements as required by California law and that
Albertson's failed to timely pay wages of terminated or resigned
employees as required by California law.  

It further alleges a violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq.

The lawsuit seeks recovery of all wages, compensation and/or
penalties owed the members of the class certified, including
compensation of one hour of pay for rest or meal period
violations and wages for all time worked while employees were
clocked out for meal periods or required to remain on the
premises during meal periods.

It further seeks to recover all past due compensation and
penalties for failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements and to pay all wages due at time of termination for
members of the class certified with interest from Aug. 6, 2000
to time of trial.

In December 2007, the parties agreed to settle this matter,
subject to Court approval.

Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery  
channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail
food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and
drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores.  The
Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food
and Supply chain services.


T-MOBILE USA: Faces Suit in Cal. Over “Illegal” Message Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Jan.
18 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California alleging it charges fraudulent message fees, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Gernot Trolf alleges T-Mobile cheats customers
by billing them $2.99 for every voicemail message to their
phones outside the United States, even if they don't accept or
check the calls, and charging them again if they do check them.

He brings this action for deceptive business practices in
violation of the California Legal Remedies Act and Unfair
Competition Law, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
all customers of T-Mobile in the United States who were charged
roaming fees for voicemail messages while traveling outside of
the United States.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether T-Mobile adequately disclosed its roaming
         charges for the voicemail its customers receive while
         traveling outside the Untied States;

     (b) whether T-Mobile's practices constitute unfair and
         deceptive acts and practices in violation of California
         and/or Washington state law; and

     (c) whether plaintiffs and the other members of the class
         were damaged as a result of T-Mobile's practices.

Plaintiff pray for judgment as follows:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action and
        certifying plaintiffs as a representative of the class
        under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- declaring the class action waiver in T-Mobile's T&C
        unconscionable and unenforceable;

     -- enjoining T-Mobile from charging for unanswered calls
        and/or voicemail notifications absent adequate
        disclosure;

     -- ordering T-Mobile to disgorge all profits made as a
        result of its practices described;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class damages;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class restitution;

     -- awarding plaintiffs costs and disbursements incurred in
        connection with this action, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees, and reimbursement of all reasonable
        expenses incurred in prosecuting this action; and

     -- granting pre-judgment interest and such other and
        further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Gernot Trolf et al v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No.
08 CV 0112BTM WMc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David C. Parisi
          Parisi & Havens LLP
          15233 Valleyheart DRive
          Sherman Oaks, california 91403
          Phone: (818) 990-1299
          Fax: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com

          - and -

          Oren Giskan
          Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP
          11 Broadway -- Suite 2150
          New York, New York 10004
          Phone: (212) 847-8315
          Fax: (646) 520.3237


WAL-MART STORES: Customer Files Fraud Suit Over Video Game
----------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
Jan. 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas accusing it of cheating customers, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Ross M. Hooks, IV claims Wal-Mart breached
contracts to sell a video game, "Super Smash Brothers Brawl
Wii," for $23.43, "by sending out an email to class members
acknowledging their 'request' to cancel contract [though] no
class member made any such request."

This is a class action for damages based upon Wal-Mart's breach
of contract in its failure to honor on-line sales of a pre-
release video game called Super Smash Brothers Brawl Wii.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on
behalf of all persons who contracted for and purchased a Super
Smash Brothers Brawl Wii video game from Wal-Mart from its on-
line sales service on a pre-order special, and whose order was
then unilaterally canceled by Wal-Mart.

Mr. Hooks wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Wal-Mart breached its contracts by failing to
         honor its offered and accepted terms to provide the
         Super Smash Brothers Brawl Wii video game to consumers;
         and

     (b) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to damages, and if so, what is the proper measure of
         such damages.

Plaintiff prays for entry of judgment as follows:

     -- certifying the proposed class, and appointing plaintiff
        and his counsel to represent the plaintiff class;

     -- entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and members of
        the class against defendant;

     -- awarding money damages, with interest, to plaintiff and
        members of the class;

     -- awarding attorneys' fees to plaintiff and members of the
        class; and

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

The suit is "Ross M. Hooks, IV v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case
No. A08CA052 LY," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stephen W. Stewart
          The Stewart Law Firm, PLLC
          3000 South IH-35, Suite 150
          Austin, Texas 78704
          Phone: (512) 326-3200
          Fax: (512) 326-8228
          E-mail: sws@thestewartlawfirm.net

          - and -

          Austin Tighe
          Vic Feazell
          Feazell & Tighe LLP
          6300 Bridgepoint Parkway
          Bridgepoint 2, Suite 220
          Austin, Texas 78730
          Phone: (512) 372-8100
          Fax: (512) 372-8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com


WICK & PETAL: Recalls Jar Candles Posing Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
The Wick & Petal Co. of Indianapolis, Ind., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,300 jar candles.

The company said the candles can burn with a high flame, posing
a fire hazard.

Wick & Petal has received seven reports of the candles burning
with high flame, some resulting in minor property damage. No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all Wick & Petal jar candles. The candles
have a cylindrical shape and a chrome lid. The lid has a white
label with a picture of the fragrance, the fragrance name, and
“Wick & Petal Co.” printed on it.

These recalled jar candles were manufactured in the United
States and were being sold at select candle retailers and craft
fairs in Indiana from October 2007 through December 2007 for
between $8 and $18.

Picture of recalled jar candles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08167.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
candles and return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact Wick & Petal at (317) 441-
8008 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the company's Web site: http://www.wickandpetal.com.The  
company will accept collect calls on their main line number.


WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Considers Motion in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a
securities fraud class action filed against Workstream, Inc.,
its chief executive officer, and former chief financial officer.

On or about Aug. 10, 2005, a class action was filed on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the company's common shares
during the period from Jan. 14, 2005 to and including April 14,
2005.  

It alleges, among other things, that management provided the
market misleading guidance as to anticipated revenues for the
quarter ended Feb. 28, 2005, and failed to correct this guidance
on a timely basis.  

The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act,
and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well
as the award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel
and expert fees and costs.  

In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which added additional plaintiffs and sought to elaborate on the
allegations contained in the complaint.  

The defendant’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was denied. Defendants have answered the amended
complaint, denying its material allegations.

The Court has certified the case as a class action and has
approved notice to the class.  

Defendants contend that the deadline for taking discovery has
expired, but plaintiffs have asked the Court for additional time
to pursue discovery.

The Company and the individual defendants have filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings, based upon a recent ruling of the
U.S. Supreme Court.  

Plaintiffs have responded to that motion, which was argued on
Sept. 28, 2007 and is awaiting decision, according to the
company's Jan. 11, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov.
30, 2007.

The suit is "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al. v.
Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Charles L. Brieant.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile, LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 868-3610
          Fax: (212) 918-7967
          E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com
       
          Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
          Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310
          E-mail: rstone@lawssb.com

Representing the defendants is:
         
          David M. Doret, Esq.
          H. Robert Fiebach, Esq.
          Cozen and O'Connor
          45 Broadway Atrium
          New York, NY 10006-3792
          Phone: 212-509-9400

                  
                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                           *********


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  * * *