CAR_Public/080130.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 30, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 21


CYBERSOURCE CORP: Ill. Judge Nixes PaylinX Share Options Lawsuit
EXCELSIOR PRIVATE: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Trading Practices
FLORIDA: Residents File Lawsuit Over “Save Our Homes” Statute
FLORIDA: Lawyer Wants Pet License Fee Declared Unconstitutional
GENCORP INC: Continues to Face Vinyl Chloride Toxic Tort Suits

GLASS INDUSTRY: Six Firms Accused of Flat Glass Price Fixing
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces Cal. Suit Over Alleged Discrimination
HTC USA: HTC Smartphone Owners Claim Units Lack Driver Support
ISILON SYSTEMS: Firms Face Suit Over Company's Stock Performance
KENTUCKY: $62M Category Award Paid in Covington Sex Abuse Case

LG SOURCING: Recalls Torchiere Lamps Due to Fire Hazard
MAX & ERMA’S: Reaches Settlement in Pa. FCRA Violations Lawsuit
MINNESOTA: $126M Noise Pollution Suit Settlement Cleared
NATIONAL BEEF: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Boxed Beef Suit
OHIO: Faces Suit Over New Requirements in Sex Offender Registry

RAZORGATOR INC: Faces Mich. Suit Over Pricey Celebrity Tickets
RR DONNELLEY: Recalls Blocks Due to Lead Paint Standard Breach
SPRINT NEXTEL: Kans. Court Refuses to Dismiss New Jersey's Suit
SYMS CORP: Investor Files Lawsuit Over Plan to Deregister Shares
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit

TYSON FOODS: Settles Del. Shareholder Lawsuit for $4.5 Million
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: Awards Scholarships to Settle Lawsuit
USBC: Bowling Alley Owner Files Suit in Pa. Over Game Changes

* Milberg Weiss' Hired Plaintiff Gets Two Years Probation

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN DENTAL: Abbey Spanier Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
SHORETEL INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit


CYBERSOURCE CORP: Ill. Judge Nixes PaylinX Share Options Lawsuit
Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court in
Illinois granted a request by Cybersource Corp. to dismiss a
purported class action filed against the company by a former
employee of PaylinX, according to a report by Steve Gonzalez and
Steve Korris of The St. Clair Record.

The ruling comes more than a year after the judge took under
advisement the defense motion for summary judgment.

                        Case Background

In 2000, PaylinX agreed to merge into Cybersource, a public
company that helps businesses process payment transactions over
the Internet.  Under the merger, PaylinX share options would
turn into an option to buy shares of Cybersource.  

Half the Cybersource shares would accelerate or vest when the
merger closed.  It closed Sept. 18, 2000, with company stock at
$10.75.  But, at the stock conversion in November 2000, it had
dwindled to $1.85.

In 2002, attorney John Hoffman of Korein Tillery filed a lawsuit
on behalf of Brian Wilgus, a test engineer for PaylinX, claiming
that a delay in converting stock prevented Mr. Wilgus and others
from immediately exercising their options.  

Also, Mr. Hoffman claimed that the company failed to establish
necessary E-trade accounts.  The suit proposed a class action on
behalf of about 75 former PaylinX employees at Cybersource.

Judge Phillip Kardis certified the suit in 2004.  He retired in
2005 and the case was assigned to Judge Stack in 2006.

CyberSource attorney Alan Goldstein had asked whether Mr. Wilgus
did in fact exercise his option, and if he did, he did not
suffer from the share price drop between Sept. 18 and Oct. 20,
2000 because a "blackout" on that period to prevent illegal
insider trading was in place.

Mr. Goldstein contended that because of the blackout, no one at
Cybersource who owned company stock could sell shares, while the
share price was dropping from $10.75 to less than $6.50 between
Sept. 18 and Oct. 20, 2000.

At a Dec. 7, 2006 hearing, he asked the judge to grant summary
judgment for lack of any issue of fact.  Judge Stack took it
under advisement.  On Jan. 22, Judge Stack ruled that there were
no genuine issues of material fact for which any evidence could
be produced in the case.

For more details, contact:

         John Hoffman, Esq.
         Korein Tillery, LLC,
         Gateway on the Mall
         701 Market Street, Suite 300
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Phone: (314) 241-4844
         Fax: (314) 588-7036

              - and -

         Alan K. Goldstein, Esq.
         Goldstein and Price, L.C.
         One Memorial Drive, Suite 1000
         St. Louis, MO 63102-2449
         Phone: (314) 421-0710
         Fax: (314) 421-2832 and (314) 421-6150

EXCELSIOR PRIVATE: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Trading Practices
Excelsior Private Equity Fund II, Inc., (Managing Investment
Adviser) continues to face a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.

The Managing Investment Adviser, certain of its affiliates, and
others were named in five class actions, which allege that the
defendants allowed certain parties to engage in illegal and
improper mutual fund trading practices, which allegedly caused
financial injury to the shareholders of certain mutual funds
managed by Excelsior.

Each suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and related
equitable relief.

The class actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland for coordinated and consolidated
pre-trial proceedings.   The cases now fall under the title, "In
re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-1586."

In November 2005, the Maryland court dismissed many of the
plaintiffs' claims in both the fund shareholder class action.   
Several affiliates of the former Managing Investment Adviser and
individual defendants have also been dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and under Section
36(b) and 48(a) of the 1940 Act, however, have not been

The company provided no development in the matter in its Jan.
25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.

FLORIDA: Residents File Lawsuit Over “Save Our Homes” Statute
Florida residents filed a purported class action against the
state claiming that a law limiting property taxes for long-time
homeowners discriminates against more recent arrivals.

The suit was by Robert C. Bruner, Deborah Plitnick and Stanley
C. Chamberlin in Leon County Circuit Court on Nov. 21, 2007.  
The plaintiffs are represented by Doug Lyons, Esq., who brought
the case on behalf of residents of Florida who migrated to this
state within the last four years and became homesteaders with
diluted tax shelter benefits compared to old time homesteaders.

The suit is directed a a state law known as “Save Our Homes.”  
It is an amendment to the state constitution intended to prevent
skyrocketing property values and related high tax burden.  The
amendment is still subject to the approval of voters.  If it  
takes effect, someone who moves to the state to purchase a house
stands to pay property taxes as much as three times higher than
a Florida resident who qualifies for the tax cap.

That difference, according the suit violates the Equal
Protection Clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution because it discriminates against newcomers.

Thus, the plaintiffs are contending that the law and the
amendment take away their constitutional rights.  They claim
that the existing “Save Our Homes” cap on the taxable value of a
home should be invalidated,and needs to be replaced with a more
equitable system that doesn't discriminate against newcomers.  

The plaintiffs are also asking a judge to stop the
implementation of Amendment 1, if voters approve it, because it
worsens the inequities.

The case is the second of two class actions underway in Florida
over “Save Our Homes” statute.  The first case was brought by
Alabama residents, and constitutionally challenges “Save Our
Homes” on behalf of all non-residents of Florida who own
residences in the state.  

This action was filed by Jerome K. Lanning, and is consequently
referred to as the Lanning case.  It was also filed in Leon
County Circuit Court (Class Action Reporter, March 1, 2007).  

Copies of the two complaints are available free of charge at:


For more details, contact:

          Douglas S. Lyons, Esq.
          Lyons and Farrar, P.A.
          325 N. Calhoun St.
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Phone: (850) 222-8811

               - and -

          William C. Owen, Esq.
          William C. Owen, LLC
          241 Pinewood Dr.
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Phone: (850) 513-0600

FLORIDA: Lawyer Wants Pet License Fee Declared Unconstitutional
A Destin attorney filed a lawsuit claiming that Okaloosa
County's ordinance that required dog and cat owners in the
county to pay a $10 license fee discriminates against pet
owners, Dusty Ricketts of The Northwest Florida Daily News

The suit was filed by Tom Hoffer, with the law firm of Matthews
& Hawkins.  

According to the report, Okaloosa commissioners voted earlier
this month to allow the Panhandle Animal Welfare Society to
collect rabies vaccination information from veterinarians in
order to collect the annual fees.

Mr. Hoffer said the county ordinance levies a tax on him that is
not an ad valorem tax.  Since the fee is a non-ad valorem tax he
should receive a benefit that others do not, but this is not so
under the circumstance.  

Mr. Hoffe seeks to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional
and to have the county pay his attorney fees and $10 in damages
so he can get his license fee returned.

The law firm is researching the issue to see if they can meet
the requirements to file a class action, according to the
report.  A class action could compel the county to return all
the money it has collected from the license fees since they were
implemented in 1992.

GENCORP INC: Continues to Face Vinyl Chloride Toxic Tort Suits
GenCorp, Inc. continues to face toxic tort suits over alleged
exposure to vinyl chloride (VC), including one that is seeking
class certification.

Between the early 1950s and 1985, the company produced polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) resin at its former Ashtabula, Ohio facility. PVC
is one of the most common forms of plastic currently on the

VC, which is now listed as a known carcinogen by several
governmental agencies, is a building block compound of PVC.  The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
has strictly regulated workplace exposure to VC since 1974.

Since the mid-1990s, the Company has been named in numerous
cases involving alleged exposure to VC.  In the majority of such
cases, the Company is alleged to be a “supplier/manufacturer” of
PVC and/or a civil co-conspirator with other VC and PVC
manufacturers as a result of membership in a trade association.

Plaintiffs generally allege that the Company and other
defendants suppressed information about the carcinogenic risk of
VC to industry workers, and placed VC or PVC into commerce
without sufficient warnings.

A few of these cases alleged VC exposure through various aerosol
consumer products, in that VC had been used as an aerosol
propellant during the 1960s.

Defendants in these “aerosol” cases included numerous consumer
product manufacturers, as well as the more than 30 chemical

The Company used VC internally, but never supplied VC for
aerosol or any other use.

Of the cases that have been filed, the majority have been
dismissed or settled on terms favorable to the Company.  There
were three vinyl chloride cases pending against the Company as
of Nov. 30, 2007, all involving employees at VC or PVC
facilities owned or operated by others.  

One of the pending cases is an action seeking class
certification and a medical monitoring program for former
employees at a PVC facility in New Jersey.

The company provided no development in the matter in its Jan.
25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007.

GenCorp Inc. -- is a technology-based  
manufacturer of aerospace and defense systems with a real estate
business segment that includes activities related to the
entitlement, sale, and leasing of its excess real estate assets.

GLASS INDUSTRY: Six Firms Accused of Flat Glass Price Fixing
Six corporations are accused of fixing and manipulating the
price of flat glass through bogus $300 per truckload "energy
surcharges" since October 2000, the CourtHouse News Service

Plaintiff Diversified Glass Services filed the suit against:

     -- Pilkington North America,
     -- Nippon Sheet Glass,
     -- AGC Group,
     -- Asahi Glass Co.,
     -- Saint-Gobain Corp.,
     -- Saint-Gobain SA, and
     -- Guardian Glass Corp.

It claims St. Gobain has admitted it participated in the "price
fixing cartel" and has set aside EUR650 million to pay for it.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on January 25, 2008, according to

Diversified Glass is represented by Andrew Morganti and Peter
Safirstein of Milberg Weiss LLP in New York, along with Merrill
Davidoff, Eric Cramer and Michael Dell'Angelo of Berger Montague
LLP in Philadelphia.

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces Cal. Suit Over Alleged Discrimination
Greenpoint Mortgage Funding is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California alleging it discriminates against and overcharges
minority homebuyers, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Jorge Salazar is seeking redress for racially
discriminatory lending practices under the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, 15 USC Section 1691 et seq. (ECOA), the Fair
Housing Act, 42 USC Section 3601 et seq. (FHA), and the Civil
Rights Act, 42 USC Sections 1981 and 1982.

The complaint alleges Greenpoint has engaged in both intentional
and disparate impact discrimination through its development and
implementation of a specific, identifiable and uniform credit
pricing system, that provides financial incentives to its loan
officers, authorized mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders
to make subjective decisions to increase interest rates and
charge additional fees and costs to minority borrowers.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all minorities who
entered into residential mortgage loan contracts that were
originated, financed or purchased by defendant and who were
subject to defendant's points, fees, yield spread premiums and
other charges.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) the nature and scope of defendant's policies and
         procedures concerning the assessment of yield spread
         premiums and other discretionary fees on mortgage loans  
         it funds;

     (b) whether defendant discriminated against class members
         by charging them higher interest, fees, and costs than
         defendant charge similarly situated non-minority

     (c) whether defendant's intent in its discriminatory
         policies and procedures was racially motivated;

     (d) whether defendant can articulate any legitimate non-
         discriminatory reason for its polices and procedures;

     (e) whether defendant and its subsidiaries are creditors
         under the ECOA because, in the ordinary course of
         business, they participate in the decision of whether
         or not to extend credit to consumers;

     (f) whether defendant's policies and procedures regarding
         yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees have
         a disparate impact on minority borrowers;

     (g) whether defendant has any business justification for
         its policies and procedures;

     (h) whether there is a less discriminatory alternative to
         these policies and procedures;

     (i) whether defendant devised and deployed a scheme or
         common course of conduct that acted to deceive
         plaintiff and class members;

     (j) whether the court can enter declaratory and injunctive
         relief; and

     (k) the proper measure of disgorgement or monetary relief.

Plaintiff requests:

     -- an order determining that the action is a proper class
        action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

     -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class costs and
        disbursements incurred in connection with this action,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness
        fees and other costs;

     -- a judgment granting extraordinary equitable and/or
        injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity,
        including rescission, restitution, reformation,
        attaching, impounding, or imposing a constructive trust
        upon, or otherwise restricting, the proceeds of
        defendant's ill-gotten funds to ensure that plaintiff
        and class members have an effective remedy;

     -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory
        damages according to proof;

     -- a judgment awarding punitive damages to plaintiff and
        the class;

     -- a judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief
        and all relief that flows from such injunctive and
        declaratory relief;

     -- a judgment awarding pre-judgment interest to plaintiff
        and the class; and

     -- a judgment or other order granting such other and
        further relief as the court deems just and proper
        including, but not limited to, recessionary relief and

The suit is "Jorge Salazar et al. v. Greenpoint Mortgage
Funding, Inc., Case No. 08V 0155," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         John J. Stoia Jr., Esq.
         Theodore J. Pintar, Esq.
         Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

         - and -

         Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
         Wendy J. Harrison, ESq.
         2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Phone: (602) 274-1100
         Fax: (602) 274-1199

HTC USA: HTC Smartphone Owners Claim Units Lack Driver Support
A Web site http://HTCClassAction.orghas been set up to spread  
awareness about problems with recent HTC Smartphones and
PocketPCs and gather information for a possible class action.

According to the site, HTC neglected to include the necessary
drivers needed for its latest SmartPhone and PocketPC devices to
come to their full potential.  Those affected are all HTC
devices based on the MSM7200 and MSM7500 chipsets from Qualcomm.

The site states: None of these devices seem to use the hardware
acceleration provided by it's ATi Imageon based technology, or
the QTV or Q3Dimension technologies. These devices include, but
are not necessarily limited to:

    * HTC TyTN II (MSM7200)
    * HTC Touch Dual (MSM7200)
    * HTC Touch Cruise (MSM7200
    * HTC Wings (MSM7200).
    * HTC Titan (MSM7500),
    * HTC Vogue (MSM7500),
    * HTC Libra (MSM7500),
* HTC Iris (MSM7500)

ISILON SYSTEMS: Firms Face Suit Over Company's Stock Performance
Venture capital firms Atlas Venture, Madrona Venture Group, and
Sequoia Capital were named as defendants in a class action
lawsuit over the stock performance of Isilon Systems, Inc., PE
Week reports.

In the last quarter of 2007, the Class Action Reporter reported
that Isilon Systems has been the subject of several purported
securities fraud class actions filed by various law firms in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The law firms filing the lawsuits against Isilon are:

      -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Class
         Action Reporter, Nov. 5, 2007);

      -- Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Class
         Action Reporter, Dec. 17, 2007); and

      -- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Class Action
         Reporter, Dec. 19, 2007).

The complaints charge Isilon and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.  

The complaints allege that on Dec. 14, 2006, Isilon completed
its IPO of 8.9 million shares at $13.00 per share (including
590,717 shares sold as part of an over-allotment) for net
proceeds of approximately $105.7 million, pursuant to the
Registration Statement.  

The Registration Statement failed to disclose the truth about
Isilon’s business operations, finances, business metrics, and
future business and financial prospects.

Due to defendants’ positive, but false statements in the
Registration Statement, Isilon’s stock immediately soared – its
shares closing up over 77% on its first day of trading in the
best debut of a technology IPO in more than six years. Isilon’s
stock continued to climb, closing as high as $27.37 per
share on December 29, 2006.

Then on Oct. 3, 2007, after the market closed, Isilon announced
disappointing preliminary results for its third quarter 2007.  
On this news, Isilon’s stock price collapsed from $7 per share
on October 3, 2007 to close at $5.66 per share on October 4,
2007 –- a decline of over 19% on volume of 3 million shares
(over five times the average previous trading volume for the
stock). This closing price represented an all-time trading low
for Isilon.

According to the complaints, the true facts, which were omitted
from the Registration Statement or were known by certain of the
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were:

      -- the Company was not on track, nor would it be able, to
         reach profitability by the second half of 2007;

      -- the Company’s clustered storage solutions did not
         provide a competitively differentiated business model
         which would enable the Company to effectively compete
         against the dominant players in the traditional
         storage market;

      -- the Company’s past results were not indicative of its
         future operations, including the amount of revenue it
         derived from its large customers, such as the Eastman
         Kodak Company, the Company’s ability to continue to
         sustain quarter over quarter revenue growth, and its
         ability to manage its cost structure; and

      -- despite being able to grow and significantly diversify
         its overall customer base, the Company would remain
         highly dependent upon Kodak.  Given that the clustered
         network attached storage market in which the Company
         operates is a highly competitive, high-growth emerging
         market, the Company had no reasonable basis to make
         projections about its 2007 results.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Isilon common stock during the Class Period.

Isilon Systems, Inc. -- is a provider  
of clustered storage systems for digital content.  The Company
has designed and developed its clustered storage systems
specifically to address the needs of storing and managing
digital content.

KENTUCKY: $62M Category Award Paid in Covington Sex Abuse Case
The Class Counsel in the suit "Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of
Covington, Case No. 03-CI-00181," makes this status report to
all Class Members on Jan. 28:

All Category Awards and all Extraordinary Injury Fund (EIF)
awards have now been made by the Special Masters, except for
awards that may result from award decisions that are on appeal.
100% of the Category Awards made to date have been paid. The
total amount paid to class members for Category awards is
$62,881,500.00. The total amount of EIF awards to date is
$16,200,000.00. The EIF awards have not yet been paid.

The Special Masters have considered 400 claims in this case. One
claim was dismissed by the Court because it was filed too late
without a valid reason. To date, the Special Masters have made
243 awards and have denied 157 claims.

There have been 106 appeals of Category Award decisions to the
Appeals Special Master, who has decided 100 of those appeals.
The Appeals Special Master reversed 14 of the Special Masters'
decisions and remanded those cases to them for awards, which
were made. Those awards are included in the total 243 awards.

There have been 27 appeals of the Appeals Special Master's
decisions to the Boone Circuit Court. To date, the Court has
decided 11 appeals. The Special Masters have considered all 178
class members who received awards in Categories 3 and 4 for EIF
awards. They made EIF awards to 78 class members and denied
awards to 100 class members. To date, there have been 36 appeals
of EIF award decisions, which are all pending before the Appeals
Special Master. It is possible that additional awards may be
made if award decisions are reversed on appeal by the Appeals
Special Master or by the Court.

As all claimants were advised, the settlement originally
included of $25,000,000.00 in Senior Unsubordinated Notes from
Catholic Mutual Insurance entities. In April 2007, Catholic
Mutual made a scheduled payment of $5,000,000.00 on these Notes.

A second payment of $5,000,000.00 is due in April 2008. In
addition,most awards to persons who were abused during a time
period covered by Catholic Mutual Insurance are subject to
reinsurance policies held by Catholic Mutual. When these awards
were paid, Catholic Mutual applied for reinsurance proceeds.
Reinsurance proceeds began to be received in January 2008 and
are being deposited into the settlement funds to reduce the
amount of the Notes. It is expected that a substantial
percentage of the EIF awards will be paid in February due to the
receipt of additional Catholic Mutual reinsurance proceeds
during January and February 2008, which will retire a portion of
the Notes in the settlement fund.

The Settlement Agreement requires that 5% of the total
settlement be reserved for the Counseling Fund, which has been
and continues to pay for mental health treatment of abuse
victims, and that 5% be reserved for the Minors Fund, which is
set aside for claims by persons born after October 21, 1980.

There are sufficient assets in the Settlement Funds to pay all
awards and to fully fund the Counseling and Minors Funds.

During the course of the settlement, an independent CPA auditing
firm, Clark, Schaefer & Hackett Co., located in Cincinnati,
Ohio, has periodically made audit tests of the procedures used
in the settlement and of the numerous transactions that have
taken place through US Bank. The audit firm has approved all
actions to date and has submitted written reports to the Court
and to the Settlement Master.

The Settlement Master has submitted 15 written reports to the
Court between May 5, 2006 and January 23, 2008, approximately
every 45 days. These reports are filed in the public record and
set forth detailed information on the status of each settlement
escrow fund and of the claims and appeals process to date.

When all appeals have been resolved and all awards have been
paid, the independent auditor and the Settlement Master will
make a final detailed report to the Court describing exactly
what occured in the settlement process of this case. Pursuant to
Court Order, no class members or claimants in this case has been
or will be identified in the public record. Each class member
will receive a copy of the final report. The timing of the final
report will depend on the processing of the pending appeals and
the payment of EIF awards.

The suit was filed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Boone
Circuit Court.

LG SOURCING: Recalls Torchiere Lamps Due to Fire Hazard
L G Sourcing, Inc., of North Wilkesboro, N.C., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 90,000 Portfolio Incandescent Torchiere Lamps.

The company said a short circuit in the lamps' wiring can pose a
fire hazard to consumers.

L G Sourcing has received two reports of lamp fires. No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled lamp has a black steel frame and a bowl-shaped
light fixture. The item number 179878 is printed on the
packaging and the bottom of the base of the lamp. Only lamps
sold between March 2005 and October 2007 with UL listing number
E246506 are included in the recall. Lamps marked “ETL listed”
are not included in the recall.

These recalle lamps were manufactured by Field Smart Lighting
Co. Ltd., of China and were being sold at Lowe's retail stores
nationwide from March 2005 through October 2007 for about $17.

Picture of the recalled torchiere lamps can be found at:

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
lamps and return them to any Lowe's retail outlet to receive a

For additional information, contact L G Sourcing toll-free at
(866) 916-7233 anytime or visit

MAX & ERMA’S: Reaches Settlement in Pa. FCRA Violations Lawsuit
Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc. settled a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
that is alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The suit was filed on March 2007.  FCRA provides in part that
expiration dates may not be printed on credit or debit card
receipts given to customers.  FCRA imposes significant penalties
upon violators of these rules and regulations where the
violation is deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise, damages
are limited to actual losses incurred by the cardholder and
attorneys fees.

On Oct. 23, 2007, the company reached a settlement with the
plaintiff, which was subsequently approved by the court as a
class settlement.  

Under the terms of the settlement, the company is required to
distribute 225,000 vouchers to credit card users at the eighteen
restaurants that printed expiration dates on credit card
receipts during the period of the violation.

The vouchers are to be distributed between Dec. 2, 2007 and Feb.
1, 2008.  Each voucher contains two coupons for $4.00 off any
purchase at a Max & Erma’s restaurant between Dec. 2, 2007 and
Feb. 20, 2008, and between Jan. 21, 2008 and Feb. 20, 2008,

The suit is “Klingensmith v. Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00318-JFC-LPL,” filed in the U.S District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Joy Flowers
Conti, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
         Carlson Lynch
         P.O. Box 367
         231 Melville Lane
         Sewickley, PA 15143
         Phone: (412) 749-1677

Representing the defendants is:

         Paul J. Atencio, Esq.
         Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
         600 Grant Street
         USX Tower, Suite 2900
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219
         Phone: (412) 803-1170

MINNESOTA: $126M Noise Pollution Suit Settlement Cleared
Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich approved a
settlement of a class action that sought relief from airport
noise, the Star Tribune reports.

The approval is the final hurdle in the $216 million settlement
of a similar class action brought by the cities of Minneapolis,
Richfield and Eagan together with the Minneapolis Public Housing
Authority.  The Federal Aviation Administration has already
approved the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2007).  
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) board voted on Oct.
15 to approve it.

The cities' lawsuit stemmed from disagreements over the amount
of mitigation appropriate in the 60 to 64 DNL contours, which
are outside the federal standard for noise mitigation.

                 The Proposed Agreement

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the MAC would provide
mitigation to homes in the 60 to 64 DNL contours. Mitigation
activities would vary based on noise contour, with homes in the
most noise-impacted contours eligible for more extensive
mitigation than those in less impacted areas. Multi-family
dwellings (those with more than three living units) would
receive less extensive mitigation than single-family homes. The
total cost to MAC is uncertain until the program is complete,
but it is estimated the proposal could cost as much as $130
million to implement.

Four separate residential noise mitigation programs are included
in the agreement. Costs depicted in each of the four programs
are in 2007 dollars and will be adjusted annually for inflation
according to the Consumer Price Index:

(a) Single-family Homes in the Projected 2007 Mitigated 63-64  
    DNL Noise Contours

The approximately 432 homes in the most noise-impacted contours
would be eligible to receive the same level of noise mitigation
provided in the 65 DNL contour and greater. The program is
designed to achieve five decibels of noise reduction on average.
Depending on the improvements needed to reduce interior noise
sufficiently, modifications could include: central air
conditioning; exterior and storm window repair or replacement;
prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic
insulation; baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment.
Construction would be scheduled for completion by December 31,

(b) Single-family Homes in the Projected 2007 Mitigated 60-62
    Noise Contours

Owners of the approximately 5,344 homes in less noise-impacted
areas would be eligible for one of two mitigation packages:

     1.) The estimated 3,421 homes that did not have central air
         conditioning as of September 1, 2007 could receive it.

         In addition, homeowners would get up to $4,000
         (including installation costs) in other noise
         mitigation products and services they could choose from
         a menu provided by the MAC.

    2.) Owners of homes that already had central air
        conditioning installed as of September 1, 2007 or who
        choose not to receive central air conditioning would be
        eligible for up to $14,000 (including installation
        costs) of noise mitigation products and services they
        could choose from a menu provided by the MAC.

        Categories of products on the menu will include:

        (i) exterior and storm window repair or replacement;

       (ii) prime door and storm door repair or replacement;

      (iii) wall and attic insulation;

       (iv) baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment.

Construction is scheduled for completion by December 1, 2012.

(c) Multi-family homes in the projected 2007 mitigated 60-64 DNL

Any of the approximately 1,931 multi-family units in the
projected 2007 mitigated 60-64 DNL contours that do not have air
conditioning would receive through-the-wall or equivalent
permanently installed air conditioners. The MAC also will
install an acoustical cover for each air conditioner in the
multi-family units. Installation is scheduled to be complete by
December 1, 2010.

(d) $7 Million Total for Opt-Out and 2005 Mitigated Single-
family Homes

Single-family homes whose owners opted out of the already
completed MAC noise-mitigation program but that now have new
owners would be eligible to "opt in" and receive noise
mitigation. If the total cost to MAC of opt-in mitigation is
less than $7 million, any remaining monies would be used to
reimburse owners of the approximately 1,835 single-family homes
in the 2005 Mitigated 60-64 DNL contours for purchase and
installation of products included on a menu provided by the MAC.

The amount each homeowner receives will be determined by
subtracting dollars spent for the opt-in program from the total
$7 million budget and dividing the remainder among the total
number of single-family homes within the 2005 60-64 DNL
contours. The MAC would begin to issue reimbursements by March
1, 2010 and would complete them by July 31, 2014. The total the
MAC will spend on the opt-out and 2005 program all together is
capped at $7 million.

The MAC would also pay the cities $2.5 million in attorney's

Owners of single-family homes participating in the program who
sell the home within two years of receiving mitigation could be
required to reimburse the MAC for twenty-five percent of the
cost of providing the mitigation, up to a maximum of $3,500 per

People can identify where their home sits in relation to the
2007 noise contours through the MAC's noise program Web site,  

NATIONAL BEEF: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Boxed Beef Suit
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district
court's 2006 ruling 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,
DowJones Select reports.

The three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the district court's 2006 ruling in favor of the
ranchers, who had said in their lawsuit that large meat packing
companies underpaid producers for live cattle. The ranchers had
claimed that the packers knew or should have known of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's error.

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

The appeal was argued on Nov. 14, 2007.  

The appeals court recently ruled that the ranchers produced no
evidence that the packers intentionally violated the Packers and
Stockyards Act by manipulating or controlling, or attempting to
manipulate or control, cattle prices. To prove a violation, a
plaintiff must show that a packer intentionally committed
unlawful conduct, the panel said in its ruling.

"Therefore, the district court erred when it instructed the jury
that a showing of intent was not required and reversal of the
district court is necessary," the judges said.

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

              - 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

OHIO: Faces Suit Over New Requirements in Sex Offender Registry
The Ohio Justice and Policy Center filed a purported class
action against the State of Ohio, claiming that new
requirements, which forces sex offenders to register their
names, and addresses on a public registry for longer than
originally told, is unconstitutional, Sharon Coolidge of The
Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

The local legal watchdog group filed the suit in Hamilton County
Common Pleas Court on behalf of convicted sex offender Jerome
Sewell and another unnamed female sex offender.  They are
seeking to stop the reclassification under the Adam Walsh Child
Protection Act.  The law takes effect Jan. 1 and will affect
nearly one third of the state’s 25,000 sex offenders.

Approximately 250 sex offenders in Hamilton County have filed
individual complaints.  The purported class action seeks to make
a single claim on behalf of all Hamilton County sex offenders,
according to the report.

The case will be heard next month by Hamilton County Common
Pleas Judge Ethna Cooper.

For more details, contact:

          Margie Slagle, Esq.
          Ohio Justice & Policy Center
          215 E. 9th St., Suite 601
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Phone: 513-421-1108
          Fax: 513-562-3200
          Web site:

RAZORGATOR INC: Faces Mich. Suit Over Pricey Celebrity Tickets
RazorGator, Inc., Tickco Premium Seating and Preferred are facing a class-action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan accusing it of
cheating plaintiffs of $95,000 worth of entertainment at a
Rolling Stones concert and celebrity parties, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff E&M Properties claims the defendants charged it:

     -- $52,800 for two tickets to a Stones show in Las Vegas;
     -- $11,550 for Maxim party tickets;
     -- $13,475 for Stones party tickets;
     -- $9,350 for a party with Christina Aguilera; and
     -- $8,250 for Playboy party tickets

and they did not get what was promised, and had to pay another
$5,000 at the parties.

Plaintiffs say the defendants overcharged and failed to deliver
all year in 2007.

Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons who:

     (1) purchased tickets from these defendants at artificially
         inflated prices for events from Jan. 1, 2007 through
         Dec. 31, 2007; and

     (2) received tickets whose quality were substantially less
         than what was represented to them by the defendants.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants are properly within the jurisdiction
         of this court;

     (b) whether defendants and their co-conspirators were
         associated-in-fact as an enterprise as defined in 18
         U.S.C. Section 1961(4);

     (c) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a pattern of racketeering activity as defined in 18
         U.S.C. Section 1961(5);

     (d) whether the conduct of the defendants and their co-
         conspirators violates 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c);

     (e) whether defendants and their co-conspirators committed
         RICO predicate acts or conspired to violate the RICO

     (f) whether defendants fraudulently concealed their

     (g) whether defendants were unjustly enriched;

     (h) whether plaintiff and the class suffered an injury to
         their property caused by the conduct of the defendants
         and their con-conspirators;

     (i) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         damages; and

     (j) the appropriate measure of damages and other relief.

Plaintiffs requests:

     -- certification that the action may be maintained as a
        class action;

     -- award plaintiff and the class restitutionary and/or
        compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at

     -- award plaintiff and the class treble damages in an
        amount to be determined at trial;

     -- award plaintiff and the class the costs of this
        litigation, including attorneys' fees and expenses; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper
        under the circumstances.

The suit is E&M Properties, Inc. et al. v. RazorGator, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:08-cv-10377," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Nancy G. Edmunds,

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert D. Sheehan, Esq.
         Sheehan Assoc.
         1460 Walton Boulevard, Suite 222
         Rochester Hills, MI 48309
         Phone: 248-650-5366
         Fax: 248-650-5368

RR DONNELLEY: Recalls Blocks Due to Lead Paint Standard Breach
RR Donnelley, of Chicago, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 18,000
ESI-R Screening Materials distributed by Pearson Learning Group,
and Pearson Early Learning, of Upper Saddle River, N.J.

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

The green wooden blocks are part of the ESI-R Screening
Materials, educational materials used by schools to assess young
children. The items include 10 green wooden blocks, a plastic
yellow car, an 8-ft. white cloth ribbon, 10 black and white
printed cards with shapes, a red rubber ball, and a blue plastic

These recalled educational assessment blocks were manufactured
in China and were being sold at Pearson distributes to schools,
examiners, and educators nationwide via sales representatives,
catalogs, and the firm's Web sites:
and,from January 2003 through  
November 2007 for about $23. The materials are part of a larger
ESI-R kit that sold for about $120.

Pictures of recalled educational assessment blocks can be found

Purchasers are advised to immediately stop using the blocks in
the ESI-R Screening Materials. RR Donnelley will provide free
replacement materials and instructions for returning the
recalled product. RR Donnelley is directly contacting purchasers
and posting information on its Web site.

For additional information, contact RR Donnelley toll-free at
(888) 988-2940 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:

SPRINT NEXTEL: Kans. Court Refuses to Dismiss New Jersey's Suit
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas refused to
dismiss a class action filed  by the State of New Jersey against
Sprint Nextel Corp., Dan Margolies of The Kansas City Star

In setting the stage for a possible trial, Judge John W.
Lungstrum issued a ruling this month, which stated that the
state’s allegations were sufficient to withstand motions filed
by Sprint, its board of directors and its former top two
executives, William T. Esrey and Ronald T. LeMay, to throw out
the case.

The lawsuit filed on February 2003 alleges that Sprint and its
board of directors knew as early as March 2001 that it was
highly unlikely that then-Chief Executive William T. Esrey and
then-President Ronald T. LeMay would be able to continue running
Sprint (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2004).

That was because Sprint and the board supposedly knew that
personal tax shelters of the kind that Messrs. Esrey and LeMay
had bought from Ernst & Young, Sprint’s auditor at the time,
were under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and
that the pair faced potential tax liabilities totaling more than
$100 million.

The suit contends that Sprint should have disclosed to investors
that the two men's continued employment was in serious doubt
because they faced imminent financial ruin.

It seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who bought
shares of Sprint’s FON or PCS stock on the open market from
March 1, 2001, through Jan. 29, 2003.

Then and now, Sprint and the other defendants had asked Judge
Lungstrum to rule in their favor based on the complaint alone,
arguing that it failed to state facts showing an intention to
deceive or defraud.

However, in denying their most recent motions, Judge Lungstrum
found that the allegations in New Jersey’s complaint “permit an
inference” that the defendants knew of the devastating tax
liabilities faced by Messrs. Esrey and LeMay when they issued
the statements concerning their long-term employment, knew that
the IRS might find their tax shelters invalid, and knew that
Messrs. Esrey’s and LeMay’s continuing ability to lead Sprint
was “in grave doubt.”

With the decision, the parties in the five-year-old case are
only now beginning to take depositions.  No trial date has been

The suit is “State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment,
et al. v. Sprint Corporation et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-02071-JWL-
JPO,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Thomas R. Buchanan, Esq.
        McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC
        605 West 47th Street, Suite 350
        Kansas City, MO 64112
        Phone: 816-753-5400/960-7388
        Fax: 816-753-9996

             - and -

        Katrina Blumenkrants
        Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas LLC
        Two Gateway Center - 12th Floor
        Newark, NJ 07102
        Phone: 973-623-3000
        Fax: 973-623-0858

Representing the defendants are:

        Chad C. Beaver, Esq.
        Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP KC
        1000 Walnut, Suite 1400
        Kansas City, MO 64106-2140
        Phone: 816-474-8100
        Fax: 816-474-3216

             - and -

        Joselyn R. Treadway Verschelden, Esq.
        Rouse Hendricks German May PC
        One Petticoat Lane Bldg.
        1010 Walnut St., Ste. 400
        Kansas City, MO 64106
        Phone: 816-471-7700
        Fax: 816-471-2221

SYMS CORP: Investor Files Lawsuit Over Plan to Deregister Shares
Syms Corp. faces a purported class action that was filed by an
investor planning to deregister the company's shares under
federal securities laws, James Covert of The New York Post

A week after delisting from the New York Stock Exchange, a New
Jersey-based investor filed a lawsuit -- seeking class-action
status -- that accuses the Secaucus, N.J.-based clothing chain
of "self-dealing" as it moves to deregister its shares and as a
result avoid financial disclosures to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The company has said the disclosures, which are required under
Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules, are costly and time-consuming.

However, the suit, alleges that Syms' estimate that it will save
$750,000 a year by going dark is "inflated."  It contends that
the figure "pales in comparison" to the $100 million in market
capitalization lost since Syms announced on Dec. 21, 2007 its
intention to delist and deregister its shares.

The suit alleges “The going-dark plan was conceived and approved
. . . without any safeguards to protect the interest of Syms
minority shareholders.”

Syms Corp. -- operates a chain of off-
price retail stores located throughout the U.S. in the
Northeastern and Middle Atlantic regions, and in the Midwest,
Southeast and Southwest.  Each Syms store offers a range of in-
season merchandise bearing designer or brand name labels for
men, women and children.

TIBCO SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
Plaintiffs are still appealing a dismissal by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California of a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against TIBCO Software, Inc.

In May 2005, three purported shareholder class action complaints
were filed against the company and several of its officers:

      -- "Guzzetti v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02373-SBA," filed on June 10, 2006;

      -- "Bernheim v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02205-SBA," filed on May 31, 2005; and

      -- "Siegall v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-    
         cv-02146-SBA," filed on May 25, 2005.

Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's common stock from Sept. 21, 2004 through March 1,

The complaints generally allege that the company made false or
misleading statements concerning its operating results, its
business and internal controls, and the integration of Staffware
and seek unspecified monetary damages.  

It charges the defendants with violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary

The actions were consolidated and in September 2006, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed
the litigation with prejudice.  Plaintiffs have appealed the

The company reported no development in the matter in its Jan.
25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Lance Siegall, et al. v. Tibco Software, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-02146," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Elizabeth Pei Lin, Esq.
          Milberg Weiss LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213/617-1200
          Fax: 213/617-1975

Representing the defendants are:

          Douglas John Clark, Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650/493-9300
          Fax: 650/565-5100

TYSON FOODS: Settles Del. Shareholder Lawsuit for $4.5 Million
Former Tyson Foods Inc. CEO Don Tyson and a partnership that
owns Tyson Foods shares agreed to pay $4.5 million to settle a
suit over stock options before the court suit comes to trial,
Roy Harris of reports.

On Jan. 12, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated two
previously filed lawsuits, "Amalgamated Bank v. Tyson" and
"Meyer v. Tyson," and captioned the consolidated action "In re
Tyson Foods, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder's Litigation."

The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Tyson Limited
Partnership and certain present and former directors of the
company.  The company is also named as a nominal defendant, with
no relief sought against it.

The lawsuit contains five derivative claims alleging the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by:

     -- approving consulting contracts for Don Tyson and Robert
        Peterson in 2001 and for Don Tyson in 2004 (Count I);

     -- approving and inadequately disclosing certain "other
        compensation" paid to Tyson executives from 2001 to
        2003 (Count II);

     -- approving certain option grants to certain officers and
        directors with alleged knowledge the company was about
        to make announcements that would cause the stock price
        to increase (Count III);

     -- approving and not adequately disclosing various related-
        party transactions from 2001 to 2004 that plaintiffs
        allege were unfair to the company (Count IV); and

     -- making inadequate disclosures that resulted in a U.S.
        Securities and Exchange Commission consent decree
        (Count V).

The consolidated complaint asserts three additional derivative
claims for:

     -- breach of the 1997 settlement agreement in "Herbets v.
        Tyson, et al., No. 14231 (Del. Ch.)" (Count VI);

     -- civil contempt of the court's order and final judgment
        in "Herbets v. Tyson" (Count VII); and

     -- unjust enrichment regarding the benefits obtained by the
        defendants through the various transactions challenged
        in the consolidated complaint (Count IX).

The consolidated complaint also makes a putative class action
claim that the company's 2004 proxy statement contained
misrepresentations regarding certain executive compensation
(Count VIII).

On March 2, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  Plaintiffs' filed a response on May 8,
2006, and defendants filed a reply brief on June 9, 2006.  

On Feb. 6, 2007, the court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants’ motion, including dismissing in
whole the claims pertaining to the consulting contracts,
contempt of the court’s final order in “Herbets v. Tyson, et
al.,” and the putative class action claim, and dismissing in
part certain of plaintiffs' claims regarding the approval and
disclosure of executive compensation and the related-party
transactions, but declining to dismiss the remaining claims.

On May 16, 2007 the outside director defendants filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings regarding the count dealing with
option grants.

The court denied the outside directors motion on Aug. 15, 2007
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 4, 2008).

In refusing to dismiss the case on Aug. 15, Chancellor William
B. Chandler III ruled that Tyson's board had acted with
"disloyalty that could not have arisen from a good faith
business judgment" in its position on spring-loading the
options. Spring-loading of options, as distinct from backdating,
is the dating of strike prices ahead of expected favorable
company news so that the value of issued shares likely will

To settle the two-year-old derivative case, titled In Re Tyson
Foods Inc., the company also agreed to "implement or continue
certain governance measures," including establishing a
nominating committee, appointing a new independent director, and
limiting related-party transactions that Tyson LP, Don Tyson,
his family members, or Tyson Foods executives have with the

The former CEO and Tyson LP, identified as the company's largest
holder, will make the payment, with no other defendant
participating, according to the Springdale, Ark.-based food
producer. While shareholder contentions about the design of the
stock options will not be adjudicated — and claims against the
defendants will be dismissed — an attorney for the plaintiffs
tells that "getting senior officers to write checks back
to a company, where it's not covered by insurance, is a big

That outcome, along with governance changes being agreed to by
Tyson Foods, add more significance to a case already rife with

"This case provided two huge pro-shareholder rulings early on in
(Tyson Foods's) motion to dismiss part of the case," Stuart
Grant, whose Delaware firm Grant & Eisenhofer represented
plaintiffs, told

Tyson Foods, Inc. -- produces,   
distributes and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and
related allied products.

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: Awards Scholarships to Settle Lawsuit
The University of Missouri system is accepting applications for
a scholarship created by a 2005 legal settlement.

The scholarship fund was created after St. Louis attorney Robert
Herman filed a class action lawsuit against the UM system. The
system has awarded scholarships funded by the settlement since

The lawsuit alleged that the university's "educational fees"
violated an 1872 Missouri law that prohibited the collection of
tuition from Missouri residents.

Since 1986, the UM system has collected educational fees from
students. In 2002, UM system spokesman David Russell -- now UM
system chief of staff -- said that educational fees are
different from tuition because Missouri students' education is
subsidized from the state, and that tuition refers to the entire
cost of a student's education.

The law was changed in 2001 to allow the system to collect
educational fees.

The lawsuit could have cost the UM system up to $450 million,
but the two sides reached an agreement that would create a $10
million scholarship fund. Since then, the fund has grown to more
than $13 million.

According to the text of the settlement, the money in the fund
must be used for Tuition Settlement Scholarships until the 25th
anniversary of the fund's establishment.

The scholarships can go to students who attended any of the UM
system campuses between January 1995 and August 2001 as
undergraduates and residents of Missouri. The students must have
been between 16 and 25 years old when they attended the

Tuition Settlement Scholarship coordinator Carolyn Allen said
the system had expected more applications for the scholarship
than they received.

"We initially thought from records and data that there would be
about 4,000," Allen said. "We didn't get that high number."

In 2006 the system awarded 1,875 scholarships, Allen said. Last
year, it awarded 1,727 scholarships totaling $938,771. Of that,
almost 42 percent went to students who attended MU.

As a result, the amount of each award has increased each year.
In 2006, the first year the scholarship was offered, each
qualifying student received $500, Allen said. In 2007, that
amount increased to $515. This year, the scholarships are being
awarded in the amount of $530.

Qualifying students' spouses and children are also eligible.
Allen said most of the scholarships awarded so far have gone to
students who are still enrolled at a UM system campus, but that
more will likely be awarded when qualifying students' children
reach college age.

"As their children become eligible, then we should see an influx
of applicants at that point," she said. "We're kind of at a
dormant stage right now."

At that time, she said, applicants would need to provide proof
of relationship to a qualified student. Spouses need to provide
proof that they are married to a qualified student with a copy
of their marriage license.

She said some students' adopted children who are college-aged
could apply for the scholarships.

Allen said she sends reminder e-mails to enrolled students who
are eligible for the scholarship. She said that as she receives
inquiries about the scholarships, she adds new applicants to her
reminder list.

The scholarships can be used for any UM system education,
including undergraduate or graduate studies at any UM system
campus and MU Extension programs.

USBC: Bowling Alley Owner Files Suit in Pa. Over Game Changes
The U.S. Bowling Congress (USBC) faces a federal class action in
Pennsylvania that accuses it of conspiring to make the game
easier to attract more casual bowlers, John Hilton and Dale
Heberlig of The Carlisle Sentinel reports.

The suit was filed by Shippensburg Park Lanes, a bowling alley
owned by James Salisbury, who claims that the alleged conspiracy
puts his business at a competitive disadvantage.

Jimbo Bowling Group Inc., Ms. Salisbury’s incorporated business
name, filed the class-action complaint.  He is represented by
attorney J. Chad Moore, Esq.

Asked for details about the case, Mr. Moore explains to The
Carlisle Sentinel via e-mail: “The suit is an attempt to address
two main issues.  The first is the lane certification process,
the second is the integrity of the game itself and the long-term
viability of the bowling business, particularly for independent

The suit was brought the suit on behalf of anyone owning a
bowling center between 1980 and 2007.  It is asking for
restitution of defendant’s wrongful profits, revenues, and

For more details, contact:

          J. Chad Moore
          Attorney at Law
          270 Market St.
          Millersburg, PA
          Phone: (717) 692-5533

* Milberg Weiss' Hired Plaintiff Gets Two Years Probation
U.S. District Judge John F. Walter sentenced retired attorney
Seymour Lazar to six months home detention and two years
probation for his role in plaintiff kickback scheme orchestrated
by Milberg Weiss, AP reports.  He also was fined $600,000.

Mr. Lazar, who is now 80 years old, pleaded guilty in a
plaintiff kickback scheme in October.  He admitted to
obstruction of justice, subscribing to a false tax return and
making a false declaration to the court.  Federal prosecutors
have said Mr. Lazar was paid about $2.6 million to be a
professional plaintiff and help Milberg Weiss in its lawsuits.  
Mr. Lazar has already repaid $1.5 million of the money, the
report said.

Judge Walter said Mr. Lazar could have faced up to 18 years in
federal prison, but his infirmity made him unsuitable for
prison, according to the report.

Mr. Lazar was the first of seven people who pleaded guilty in
the case to be sentenced.  Three of those who pled guilty were
former Milberg Weiss partners William Lerach, Steven Schulman
and David Bershad.

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars               

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals

January 29-30, 2008
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact:; 1-888-224-2480

February 7-8, 2008
Washington, DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 11-12, 2008
Mealey's Seminars
The Westin, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

February 14-16, 2008
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 27-28, 2008
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact:; 1-888-224-2480

February 28-29, 2008
American Conference Institute
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact:; 1-888-224-2480

March 27-28, 2008
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 9-12, 2008
Mealey's Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

April 10-11, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

May 1-2, 2008
Boston, Massachusetts
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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

July 10-11, 2008
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI;

July 30, 2008
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, Illinois
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI;

October 23-24, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

* Online Teleconferences

February 7, 2008
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

February 13, 2008
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

February 27, 2008
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

April 16, 2008
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221;

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

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

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN DENTAL: Abbey Spanier Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased
or acquired securities of American Dental Partners, Inc. between
August 10, 2005 and December 13, 2007 inclusive.

ADPI is a leading provider of business services to
multidisciplinary dental group practices in selected markets
throughout the United States. Park Dental Group ("PDG") located
in Minneapolis-St. Paul area, was one of the dental groups who
had a long-term contract agreement with ADPI, and provided ADPI
with significant revenue. Indeed, PDG accounted for 29 percent
of ADPI's consolidated net revenue in 2006.

The business relationship between ADPI and PDG worked well for a
number of years, but disputes arose in 2004. In February 2006,
PDG sued ADPI and its subsidiary. On December 12, 2007, in
connection with the lawsuit a jury found ADPI and/or its
subsidiary liable for breach of contract, breach of implied
covenants of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary
duty, and tortious interference with contract and prospective
advantage. The jury awarded PDG $88 million to compensate it for
the injuries caused it by ADPI and its subsidiary and punitive
damages of $42 million.

After the announcement of the jury verdict, ADPI's stock
plummeted from $19.70 a share on December 11, 2007 to $14.34 on
December 12, 2007, to $4.62 on December 13, 2007 after the
announcement of the punitive damage award.

The complaint charges ADPI and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price
of ADPI shares. More specifically, the complaint alleges that
ADPI financial statements throughout the Class Period were
materially false and misleading because defendants knew that a
substantial amount of ADPI's revenue and earnings were obtained
by conduct, which was wrongful and tortuous as, found by a jury
on December 12, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired ADPI securities during the Class

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Susan Lee
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700
          Toll Free: 1-800-889-3701
          E-mail: or

SHORETEL INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock of ShoreTel, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the
Company's July 3, 2007 Initial Public Offering.

The Complaint charges ShoreTel and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

ShoreTel is a provider of unified communications solutions,
enabling companies to integrate all communications--voice, data,
messaging--with their business processes.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that ShoreTel knew that it would be unable to compete
         with other companies offering similar products and
         services and would therefore be unable to attract a
         sufficient amount of new customers to maintain revenue
         levels and projections;

     (2) that the Company knew that demand for its service was
         waning due to an increase in alternative technology and
         that it would be unable to attract a sufficient number
         of new customers, as most consumers who desired such
         voice-integrated services were already customers of
         ShoreTel or of a competitor;

     (3) that the Company had excess inventory due to a decline
         in new demand for its products;

     (4) that the Company had prematurely stuffed its
         distribution networks, while at the same time, pulling
         sales forward into earlier periods;

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

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's   
         Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

On July 3, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO. In connection
with its IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and
Prospectus (collectively referred to as the "Registration
Statement") with the SEC. The IPO was a financial success for
the Company, as it raised over $75 million by selling 7.9
million shares of stock to the public at a price of $9.50 per

On January 7, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that its revenue for the second quarter would be in
the range of $29.7 to $30.7 million, far lower than its previous
expectation of $32 to $35 million, and significantly lower than
analysts had predicted. In response to this news, shares of the
Company's stock declined $7.06 per share, or 54 percent, to
close on January 7, 2008 at $6.02 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 17,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


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  * * *