CAR_Public/080923.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Tuesday, September 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 189

                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Wants Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Thrown Out
ANDERSON HOMES: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Defective Houses
BANKERS LIFE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Elder Abuse
CALIFORNIA: Court Revives Suit Over Illegal Aliens' College Fees
CIT GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York Court

CLARKS PEST CONTROL: Faces California Suit Over Termite Services
DENDREON CORP: Wants Amended Complaint in "McGuire" Dismissed
FUTURE FORD: Faces California Lawsuit Over Labor Law Violations
GREENFIELD ONLINE: Settles Connecticut Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GSI COMMERCE: Settles Text Message Ads Lawsuit for $7 Million

LEVITT CORP: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Florida
LORAL SPACE: Reaches Settlement in New York ERISA Litigation
LORAL SPACE: Stay on Discovery Proceedings in "Christ" Expires
MANNATECH INC: Reaches Deal in Texas Securities Lawsuit
MEDIS TECH: Awaits Court's Dismissal of New York Securities Suit

MIVA INC: Discovery Underway in Florida Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MIVA INC: Awaits N.Y. Court's Dismissal of "Payday Advance" Case
NETFLIX INC: Appeal Court Affirms Settlement Order in "Chavez"
NYMEX HOLDINGS: Wants Lawsuit Over Sale to CME Group Dismissed
NYMEX HOLDINGS: Suit Over CME Group Sale Still Pending in Del.

OCCAM NETWORKS: Court Nixes Few Claims in Calif. Securities Suit
ORSU METALS: Served with Statement of Claim Filed in Ontario
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery Ongoing in Georgia Securities Lawsuit
PXRE GROUP: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
QUEST SOFTWARE: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.

REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Sued for Using Unapproved Radar Devices
SHOCKLEY FINANCIAL: Faces Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Suit
SONUS NETWORKS: Awaits Dismissal of Mass. Securities Lawsuit
SOUTHERN STAR: Kansas Court Mulls Intervention Bid in "Price I"
SOUTHERN STAR: Court Yet to Allow Intervenor in "Price II" Case

STEC INC: Calif. Court Gives Initial OK to Hard Drives Suit Deal
TNS INC: Va. Court Grants Final OK to Securities Suit Settlement
TRIZETTO GROUP: Settles Multiple Lawsuits Over Apax Merger Deal
VCG HOLDING: Faces Suit in Minnesota Over Employment Practices
ZIPREALTY: Court Yet to Grant Final OK to $600T "Alexander" Deal

ZIPREALTY INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss "Simon" Lawsuit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BANKUNITED FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Fla.
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
CARTER'S INC: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Georgia
FIRST STRATEGIC: Brower Piven Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
HANSEN NATURAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in California

HARRIS STRATEX: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Delaware
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Missouri
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Lockridge Grindal Files Mo. Securities Lawsuit
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Brualdi Files Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit

OSHKOSH CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Wisc. Securities Fraud Suit
SSGA INTERMEDIATE: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
SYNCHRONOS TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********


21ST CENTURY: Wants Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Thrown Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Holding Co. is seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated amended securities fraud complaint that was filed
against it before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

From July 27, 2007, to Aug. 7, 2007, several securities class-
action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of
its executive officers before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased the company's securities during various
class periods as specified in the complaints.

These complaints were subsequently consolidated.  A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on behalf of the class on Jan. 22,
2008.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to accurately project
the company's business and financial performance during the
putative class period.  It seeks an unspecified amount of
damages and claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

The defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 25, 2008.  The plaintiff's response to
the dismissal motion was filed on April 22, 2008.  The Court has
set the hearing date for oral arguments on the motion to dismiss
for Aug. 20, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Kivun Mutual Funds Ltd v. 21st Century Holding
Company, et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-61057-JIC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge James
I. Cohn, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David J. George, Esq. (dgeorge@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 E Palmetto Park Road
          Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

               - and -

          Peter A. Binkow, Esq. (pbinkow@glancylaw.com)
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars
          Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160

Representing the defendants is:

          Lewis Franklin Murphy, Esq. (lmurphy@ssd.com)
          Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard
          40th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131-2398
          Phone: 305-577-2957
          Fax: 305-577-7001


ANDERSON HOMES: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Defective Houses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anderson Homes is facing a class-action complaint before the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Stanislaus,
over allegations it built and sold defective houses in the Vella
Estates development in Salida, CourtHouse News Service reports.

CourtHouse did not report any development or further detail
regarding the case.

The suit is "Leonel Aguilar et al. v. Anderson Homes, Case No.
631403," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Stanislaus.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Luke P. Ryan, Esq.
          Megan M. Chodzko, Esq.
          Roshni V. Patel, Esq.
          Shinnick & Ryan LLP
          1810 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101-2514
          Phone: 619-239-5900
          Fax: 619-239-1833


BANKERS LIFE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Elder Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bankers Life and Casualty Co. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California over allegations it commits financial elder abuse by
pressuring old folks into buying unsuitable deferred annuities,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This class action seeks redress for the defendants' improper and
misleading scheme to market and sell deferred annuities to
senior-citizens.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b) and the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California Local Rule 23-2.2 on behalf
of all persons who at the age of 65 or older purchased one or
more Bankers Life deferred annuities and who have suffered or
could suffer a penalty and surrender charge, including those
incurred on death for accessing their money before its maturity
date.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants improperly solicited, referred,
         marketed, issued, or sold deferred annuities to senior
         citizens, including plaintiffs and the class;

     (b) whether defendants committed unfair and unlawful
         business practices, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
         Code Section 17200, in their marketing, promotion,
         solicitation, sales and issuance of deferred annuities
         to plaintiffs and class members;

     (c) whether defendants engaged in unfair and unlawful
         advertising in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
         Section 17500;

     (d) whether defendants committed elder abuse as defined in
         Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15600 et seq.;

     (e) whether defendants were negligent in their marketing,
         promotion, solicitation, sales and issuance of deferred
         annuities to plaintiffs and class members;

     (f) whether defendants breached their common law fiduciary
         duties to plaintiffs and the class;

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

     (h) whether the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         injunctive relief.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- a temporary, preliminary and permanent order for
        injunctive relief enjoining defendants from pursuing the
        practices complained of;

     -- a temporary, preliminary and permanent order for
        injunctive relief requiring defendants to undertake an
        immediate public information campaign to inform members
        of the general public as to their prior practices and
        notifying the members of the proposed class of the
        potential for restitutionary relief;

     -- an order requiring disgorgement and restitution of
        defendants' ill-gotten gains and to pay restitution to
        plaintiffs, the class and the general public all funds
        acquired by means of any practice declared by the court
        to be unlawful, deceptive or unfair;

     -- an order certifying the class as defined;

     -- certification of the class pursuant to Cal. Code Civ.
        Pro. Section 382 for distribution of any amount
        recovered on behalf of the general public, or the class,
        via fluid recovery or cy pres recovery where necessary
        to prevent defendants from retaining any of the profits
        or benefits of their wrongful conduct;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of investigation
        and litigation under, among other statutes, Cal. Code
        Civ. Pro. Section 1021.5 and 2033.420; and Cal. Welf. &
        Inst. Code Section 15657.5 et seq. or the common fund
        doctrine;

     -- compensatory, special and general damages according to
        proof;

     -- punitive and exemplary damages under Cal. Civ. Code
        Section 3294;

     -- treble damages and penalties under Cal. Civ. Code
        Section 3345; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 6153,
        6175.4, 6175.5 and 17206.1; and Cal. Ins. Code Section
        789;

     -- double damages under Cal. Prob. Code Section 859;

     -- transfer of the wrongfully obtained amount and property
        under Cal. Prob. Code Sections 850-859 et seq.;

     -- rescission of the policies under Cal. Ins. Code Sections
        331 and 359;

     -- costs of suit, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
        and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem
        necessary or appropriate.

The suit is "Samuel Rowe, et al. v. Bankers Life and Casualty
Company, et al., Case No. CV 08-06149 PSG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Larry A. Sackey, Esq.
          Law Offices of Larry Sackey
          11500 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 550
          Los Angeles, CA 90064


CALIFORNIA: Court Revives Suit Over Illegal Aliens' College Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
A state appeals court has revived a lawsuit in connection with a
law that allows illegal immigrants and other non-residents to
pay the same college fees as California residents, Matt Krupnick
writes for Contra Costa Times.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 16, 2005, out-
of-state college students initiated the class action lawsuit
challenging the law that lets some illegal immigrants who
graduate from California high schools pay lower in-state fees at
the state's public colleges and universities.

The CAR report explained that the 2002 law allows students who
attend at least three years of high school in California to
qualify for the same in-state fee break given California
citizens, regardless of their immigration status.  The lower fee
levels can save students thousands of dollars a year.  For
example, out-of-state students pay nearly $24,000 a year to
attend the University of California, about $17,000 more than
California residents.

To be eligible for the exemption, undocumented immigrants must
promise to seek citizenship as soon as they are able.

The Yolo County Superior Court had earlier dismissed the
lawsuit.

However, according to an update from the Contra Costa Times, a
three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled last week that the
trial court had improperly dismissed the class-action suit
against California's three higher-education systems: the
community colleges, California State University and the
University of California.

In their 84-page opinion, the judges said the law creates a
"surrogate residence requirement" that is unfair to out-of-state
students who pay higher fees.

The suit was specifically brought on behalf of 42 plaintiffs,
including two children of former San Diego congressman, Rep.
Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad.  The plaintiffs' attorneys say that
the discriminatory policy affects 60,000 out-of-state students
who pay higher fees than in-state illegal immigrants and will be
seeking damages.

"Asking for more documentation from someone they perceive to be
here legally just turns the whole rule of law on its head," said
Rep. Bilbray, whose children were Virginia residents when they
started college.  "It's never passed the smell test."

The lawyers and spokespersons for the schools said thousands of
citizens whose families moved to California relatively recently
also use the exemptions.  Of the 1,639 UC students who received
exemptions in 2006-07, 271 were classified as "potential
undocumented" immigrants.

Moreover, Contra Costa Times notes, community-college leaders
estimated that their 109 schools granted 19,300 exemptions last
year.  About 10% are believed to be U.S. citizens.

A Cal State spokeswoman said that system does not collect data
on the exemptions.

According to Contra Costa Times, all three school systems were
deciding whether to appeal the appellate court's ruling.  If
they do not appeal, the case will head back to Yolo County for a
trial.

Mike Hethmon, Esq., of the Immigration Law Reform Institute, who
represents the plaintiffs, called the ruling historic and said
it could doom similar laws in a handful of other states.  It
also could affect other public benefits to illegal immigrants,
he said.

"This goes well beyond post-secondary education benefits," Mr.
Hethmon added.  "This is potentially a very sweeping decision in
all areas."


CIT GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group, Inc., is facing a securities fraud lawsuit, entitled
"Plumbers, Pipefitters and Apprentices Local No. 112 Pension
Fund v. CIT Group Inc. et al., Case No.  1:08-cv-06613-BSJ-THK,"
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The putative class-action lawsuit was filed on July 25, 2008,
against CIT, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer, asserting claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In particular,
the lawsuit alleges that during the putative class period from
April 18, 2007, to March 5, 2008, the company made false and
misleading statements and or omissions about its financial
condition, specifically by failing to account in its financial
statements for private student loans related to a pilot training
school, which plaintiff alleges were highly unlikely to be
repaid and should have been written off.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all those who purchased CIT
common stock during the putative class period, and seeks, among
other relief, unspecified damages and interest.

The suit is "Plumbers, Pipefitters and Apprentices Local No. 112
Pension Fund v. CIT Group Inc. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-06613-
BSJ-THK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Barbara S. Jones, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs)
          58 South Service Road
          Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants are:

          Israel David, Esq. (israel.david@friedfrank.com)
          Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
          One New York Plaza
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-859-8000
          Fax: 212-859-4000


               - and -

          Douglas H. Flaum, Esq. (FlaumDo@ffhsj.com)
          Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
          One New York Plaza
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-859-8259
          Fax: 212-859-4000


CLARKS PEST CONTROL: Faces California Suit Over Termite Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarks Pest Control of Stockton is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Superior Court of California in and for
the County of Contra Costa over allegations it takes money for
multi-year termite services but does not do the work, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

According to the report, the action arises out of the
defendant's pattern and practice of:

   -- failing to provide the subterranean termite prevention and
      control services they are required by statute, labels,
      good entomologic practice and contracts to provide;

   -- collecting fees for installation and maintenance of
      chemical barriers without fully applying or maintaining
      the barrier;

   -- collecting fees for periodic inspection without conducting
      the inspections or conducting the inspections in such a
      deficient manner that it fails to satisfy the purpose of
      the periodic inspection;

   -- placing properties under a contract to prevent termite
      infestation when the company knows the manner of
      construction will prevent effective fulfillment of the
      purpose of prevention services; and

   -- suppressing this information to generate income without
      providing services.

This action is brought  under the provisions of California Code
of Civil Procedure Section 382 and Civil Code Section 1781, and
case law binding or directing this Court on behalf of all
individuals, proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, and
other entities that are residents of or citizens of the State of
California or domiciled in the State of California that own any
home, condominium, apartment complex, commercial building, or
other structure, and improvements to real property located in
the State of California who have purchased contracts and
warranties from the defendant for termite control service or
whose contacts with other providers have been purchased or
assumed by the defendant.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on whether the defendant:

     (a) provided necessary services for the control,
         prevention, eradication, and inspection for termites;

     (b) was negligent in the execution of the service that it
         was to provide and failed to provide the services
         promised or otherwise required;

     (c) collected money without providing the services it was
         obligated to provide;

     (d) engaged in a pattern and practice of replacing existing
         service contracts with other service contracts to
         improperly excuse prior breaches of duties, limit
         liability, discourage collectively seeking remedies
         that may be infeasible to seek individually, and with
         other terms more favorable to the defendant;

     (e) illegally raised and collected annual renewal fees;


     (f) should be subjected to equitable relief including
         restitution, reformation of contacts, injunctions
         requiring or preventing certain actions, and required
         to pay compensatory damages; and

     (g) should be subjected to payment of punitive damages.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

      i. compensatory damages against the defendant according to
         proof;

     ii. incidental, consequential and punitive damages against
         the defendant according to proof;

    iii. equitable relief against the defendant in accordance
         with proof;

     iv. an order directing the defendant to compensate the
         plaintiff for all reasonable fees and costs incurred,
         including, but not limited to, the cost of retaining
         any expert and all discovery and deposition costs and
         expenses, and other costs of this litigation, as costs
         of this action, and awarding the plaintiff his
         reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses of this action;
         and

      v. such other and further relief, including, injunctive
         relief, declaratory relief, specific performance relief
         and other forms of equitable relief, as may be just,
         premises considered.

The suit is "John Schuman, et al. v. Clarks Pest Control of
Stockton Inc., et al., Case No. C 08-02325," filed in the
Superior Court of California in and for the County of Contra
Costa.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          H. Tim Hoffman, Esq.
          Arthur W. Lazear, Esq.
          Hoffman & Lazear
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510-763-570O


DENDREON CORP: Wants Amended Complaint in "McGuire" Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corp. is seeking the dismissal of an amended complaint
in the consolidated securities fraud class-action suit filed
against the company before the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

Initially, four proposed securities class-action suits have been
filed before the same court.  Three of these suits name Dendreon
and its chief executive officer as defendants and allege a
proposed class period of March 30, 2007, through May 8, 2007.

One suit names Dendreon, four of its executive officers, and two
members of its board of directors as defendants, and indicated a
class period of March 1, 2007, through May 8, 2007.

All four proposed class action suits purport to state claims for
securities law violations stemming from the company's
disclosures related to Provenge and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's actions regarding the company's pending
Biologics License Application for Provenge.

The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and
expenses.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under the
caption "McGuire v. Dendreon Corporation, et al.," and
designated a lead plaintiff.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs
opposed this dismissal request.

The Court held a hearing on the dismissal motion on March 27,
2008.  By order dated April 18, 2008, the Court favored the
defendants and dismissed the complaint, holding that the
plaintiffs failed to plead a claim against the company or the
individual defendants, and allowing them 30 days to file an
amended complaint.

The  lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2008,
adding the company's senior vice president as defendant.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 2, 2008.  Oral argument in connection with the dismissal
request has not been scheduled, according to the company's
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "McGuire et al. v. Dendreon Corporation et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00869-MJP," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Drew Derrick Hansen, Esq. (dhansen@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey
          1201 Third Ave.
          Ste. 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-516-3880

Representing the defendants is:

          Douglas W. Greene (dgreene@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          701 Fifth Ave.
          Ste. 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-883-2500
          Fax: 206-883-2699


FUTURE FORD: Faces California Lawsuit Over Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Future Ford Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Superior Court of the the State of California for the County of
Sacramento over allegations it violates labor laws in
Sacramento, Clovis, Roseville and Concord, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The plaintiffs allege that as a result of these and other
violations of state labor laws, the defendants have engaged in
and continue to engage in unfair and unlawful business practices
in violation of California Business and Professions Code section
17200 et seq., causing injury to the plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees of Future Ford throughout the State
of California.

Pursuant to CCP section 382, the plaintiffs bring this action on
behalf of all persons who are or have performed the duties of
Finance Managers at any automotive dealership owned or operated
by defendants Future Ford, Suburban Motors Inc., and Future
Automotive Group, in the State of 15 California during the
period commencing four years from the filing of this
complaint in this action through the entry of final judgment.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on whether:

     (a) the defendants' pay practices conform to the
         requirements of the California Labor Code;

     (b) the defendants have violated Labor Code Section 221
         by uniformly deducting charge-backs that were based on
         returned products from all commissions that were earned
         by Finance Managers, the named plaintiffs and members
         of the proposed Plaintiff Class earned sales
         commissions;

     (c) the defendants failed to pay members of the plaintiff
         class their full wages when due, in violation of Labor
         Code Sections 201, 202, 204 and 204.1, as a result of
         these charge backs;

     (d) the defendants failed to pay waiting time penalties
         for class members whose employment was terminated or
         who quit without receiving all wages due to them as a
         result of the charge back wage deductions and mandatory
         attendance at Friday morning sales meetings, as
         required by Labor Code section 203;

     (e) the defendants violated Labor Code Sections 226.7
         and 512 and the meal period provisions of Wage Order 4-
         2001 by having a policy or practice of failing to
         provide members of the putative plaintiff class with
         required meal periods;

     (f) the defendants failed to provide accurate itemized
         wage statements to members of the putative plaintiff
         class showing all hours worked and the correct
         applicable rates of pay, as required by Labor Code
         Section 226(a);

     (g) the defendants violated Labor Code Section 1174 by
         failing to keep accurate records of employee sales
         commission income, and charge back deductions, and
         other required documentation;

     (h) the defendants failed to pay at least minimum wages
         to members of the Plaintiff Class for all hours worked,
         as required by Labor Code Sections 1182.11, 1197, and
         the minimum wage provisions of Wage Order 4-2001; and

     (i) the defendants effectuated any or all of the above
         alleged violations through a common practice or scheme
         of charging back ("The Wash") or otherwise reducing
         employees' wages.

The plaintiffs also want the court to determine what relief is
necessary to remedy the defendants' alleged unfair and unlawful
conduct, as well as other questions of law and fact.

The plaintiffs pray for:

     1. certification of the action as a class action on behalf
        of the proposed plaintiff class;

     2. an injunction requiring the defendants to immediately
        and permanently cease and desist from engaging in the
        alleged unlawful conduct and unfair business practices;

     3. restitution of all "charge-back" wages, including unpaid
        compensation owed to the plaintiffs and members of the
        class in an amount according to proof;

     4. restitution of all wages and minimum wages owed to the
        plaintiffs and members of the class in an amount
        according to proof resulting from, among other things,
        attendance of mandatory meetings;

     5. waiting time penalties on amounts due upon termination
        of employment to members of the class who quit or
        have been discharged, as provided for by Labor Code
        Section 203 in an amount according to proof;

     6. restitution of all other wages and benefits due as the
        result of any unfair business practice, in an amount
        according to proof;

     7. actual and liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code
        Section 226(e);

     8. interest accrued on damages and penalties pursuant to
        Labor Code Section 218.6 and Civil Code Section 3287;

     9. attorneys' fees, statutory costs and litigation expenses
        in an amount the Court determines to be reasonable,
        pursuant to Labor Code Sections 218.5, 226, 1194 and CCP
        Section 1021.5; and

    10. such other and further relief as the court deems just,
        equitable, and proper.

The suit is "Kieth Berry, et al. v. Future Ford Inc., Case No.
34-2008-00022336-CU-DE-GDS," filed in the Superior Court of the
the State of California for the County of Sacramento.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark A. Talamantes, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Reisch, Esq.
          Talamantes/Villegas/Carrera, LLP
          1550 Bryant Street, Suite 725
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Phone: 415-861-9600
          Fax: 415-861-9622


GREENFIELD ONLINE: Settles Connecticut Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greenfield Online, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in the
purported class-action suit "Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union
No. 630 Pension Annuity Trust v. Greenfield Online, Inc., et
al., Docket No. 07-cv-1118 (VLB)," which was filed before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, according
to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

In July and August 2007, two putative federal securities fraud
class-action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's stock between Feb. 9, 2005, and Sept. 30, 2005.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Jan. 22, 2008, and
on April 3, 2008, the company and each of the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in
its entirety.

The amended complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the company, the company's
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and the
company's former President and Chief Executive Officer.

These claims are related to statements the company made on
Aug. 9, 2005, and Sept. 29, 2005, regarding its financial
projections for fiscal year 2005.  Specifically, the amended
complaint alleges, among other things, that the financial
statements were materially false and misleading because they
misrepresented the size of our online panel and they failed to
disclose that the company was engaged in improper accounting
practices.

Pursuant to an agreement in principle entered into during the
second quarter of 2008, the company and the individual
defendants entered into a Stipulation of Settlement to resolve
the issues raised in the class-action lawsuit.

The suit is "Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension
Annuity Trust v. Greenfield Online, Inc., et al., Docket No. 07-
cv-1118 (VLB)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Vanessa L. Bryant, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (Malba@CSGRR.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. (pklingman@sfmslaw.com)
          Shepard, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Phone: 860-526-1100
          Fax: 860-526-1120

               - and -

          Dixon M. Merkt, Jr., Esq. (dmerkt@dmoc.com)
          Lennon, Murphy & Lennon, LLC
          Tide Mill Landing
          2425 Post Road, Suite 302
          Southport, CT 06890
          Phone: 203-358-0800
          Fax: 203-348-2321

Representing the defendants is:

          David P. Atkins, Esq. (datkins@tylercooper.com)
          Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn , LLP- NH
          555 Long Wharf Dr., 8th Floor
          P.O. Box 1936
          New Haven, CT 06509-0906
          Phone: 203-784-8209


GSI COMMERCE: Settles Text Message Ads Lawsuit for $7 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached by GSI Commerce, Inc., and The
Timberland Company in a class action lawsuit relating to the
alleged transmission of unsolicited text message advertisements
to the cell phones of consumers nationwide.

The settlement, which was preliminarily approved on Sept. 11,
2008, by a federal court in Chicago, establishes a $7-million
cash settlement fund out of which payments in the amount of $150
will be made to each person who received such a text message.

Both Timberland and GSI have denied any wrongful conduct and
state that a completely separate and independent company was
responsible for securing the consents of the class members to
receive the text messages.

It is the first major nationwide settlement of its kind
involving claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act for the receipt of unauthorized text messages.  Attorneys
Jay Edelson, Esq., and Myles McGuire, Esq., of KamberEdelson LLC
and John G. Jacobs, Esq., and Bryan G. Kolton, Esq., of The
Jacobs Law Firm, Chtd. were appointed by the Court to serve as
attorneys for the class.

"The $150 cash payment made available to each class member
represents an exceptional result for consumers," explained Mr.
McGuire.

"We expect that this settlement will curb the instances of
unsolicited text message advertising by others in the industry
as well," commented Mr. Kolton.

As part of the settlement, GSI agreed to certain guidelines with
respect to any future mass mobile marketing campaigns.
Timberland was not involved in the selection of the company that
the defendants stated was responsible for securing consent from
class members to receive text messages.

The settlement further provides a donation in the amount of
$200,000 to a local charity.  The $7 million dollar fund will
provide a $150 cash payment to each class member who files a
valid and timely claim, unless the number of approved claims
exceeds the fund.

Further details regarding the Text Message Class Action
Settlement can be found at:

http://www.TimberlandTextSettlement.com/


LEVITT CORP: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levitt Corp. -- now known as Woodbridge Holdings Corp. -- is
still facing a securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
under the caption "Dance v. Levitt Corp. et al., No. 08-CV-
60111-DLG."

Robert D. Dance filed the purported class-action complaint
against Levitt Corp. and certain of its officers and directors
on Jan. 25, 2008, as a putative purchaser of the company's
securities, asserting claims under the federal securities law
and seeking damages.

The securities lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's securities beginning on Jan. 31,
2007, and ending on Aug. 14, 2007.  It alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing a series
of false and misleading statements concerning the company's
financial results, prospects and condition.

Woodbridge Holdings Corp. reported no development regarding the
matter in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Dance v. Levitt Corp., et al., No. 08-CV-60111-
DLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, Judge Donald L. Graham, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jay W. Eng, Esq. (jeng@bermanesq.com)
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          222 Lakeview Avenue
          Suite 900
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-835-9400
          Fax: 561-835-0322

               - and -

          Paul Jeffrey Geller, Esq. (pgeller@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 E Palmetto Park Road
          Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants is:

          Richard Bryan Jackson, Esq. (rjackson@swmwas.com)
          Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson
          150 W Flagler Street
          Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-789-3200
          Fax: 305-789-3395


LORAL SPACE: Reaches Settlement in New York ERISA Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications, Inc., settled a purported class-
action lawsuit entitled "In re: Loral Space ERISA Litigation."

In April 2004, two separate purported class-action suits were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by former employees of Loral Space & Communications
Ltd. (Old Loral) and participants in the Old Loral Savings Plan.
The two suits were consolidated into one action, captioned "In
re: Loral Space ERISA Litigation case."

In July 2004, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an
amended consolidated complaint against the members of the Loral
Space & Communications Ltd. Savings Plan Administrative
Committee and certain existing and former members of the
company's board of directors, including Bernard L. Schwartz.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages in the
amount of any losses suffered by the Savings Plan to be
allocated among the participants' individual accounts in
proportion to the accounts' losses, an order compelling
defendants to make good to the Savings Plan all losses to the
Savings Plan resulting from defendants' alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties and reimbursement of costs and attorneys'
fees.

The amended complaint alleges that:

     -- the defendants violated Section 404 of the Employee
        Retirement Income Security Act, by breaching their
        fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage the
        assets of the Savings Plan by including Old Loral
        common stock as an investment alternative and by
        providing matching contributions under the Savings Plan
        in Old Loral stock,

     -- the director defendants violated Section 404 of ERISA
        by breaching their fiduciary duties to monitor the
        committee defendants and to provide them with accurate
        information,

     -- the defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA by
        failing to provide complete and accurate information to
        Savings Plan participants and beneficiaries, and

     -- the defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA by
        breaching their fiduciary duties to avoid conflicts of
        interest.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the
Savings Plan at any time between Nov. 4, 1999, and the present
and whose accounts included investments in Old Loral stock.

The plaintiffs have also filed a proof of claim against Old
Loral with respect to the case and have agreed that in no event
will their claim against Old Loral exceed $22 million.

In April 2008, the plaintiffs and the company agreed in
principle to a settlement of the suit.  The settlement is
subject to execution of a definitive settlement agreement and
approval by the court, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Loral Space & Communications, Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/--
together with its subsidiaries is a satellite communications
company with activities in satellite manufacturing and
satellite-based communications services.


LORAL SPACE: Stay on Discovery Proceedings in "Christ" Expires
--------------------------------------------------------------
The stay on discovery proceedings in the securities fraud class-
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against certain officers of Loral Space &
Communications Inc. (New Loral) has expired.

In November 2003, Tony Christ, individually and as custodian for
Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas Orndorff and
Marvin Rich, filed a purported class-action complaint against
Loral Space officers Bernard L. Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses.  It alleges:

      -- that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
         Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
         material misstatements or failing to state material
         facts about Loral Space & Communications Ltd.'s (Old
         Loral) financial condition relating to the restatement
         in 2003 of the financial statements for the second and
         third quarters of 2002 to correct accounting for
         certain general and administrative expenses and the
         alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction
         with APT Satellite Co. Ltd.; and

      -- that each of the defendants is secondarily liable for
         these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section
         20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling
         person" of Old Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from July 31, 2002, through June 29, 2003, excluding
the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.

In October 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court.  The defendants filed an
answer to the complaint in December 2004.  Discovery in this
case had been stayed, but the stay ended in June 2008, according
to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Loral Space & Communications, Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/--
together with its subsidiaries is a satellite communications
company with activities in satellite manufacturing and
satellite-based communications services.


MANNATECH INC: Reaches Deal in Texas Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Mannatech, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in the
securities class-action lawsuit styled "Jonathan Crowell v.
Mannatech, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-00238-K,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Initially, the company was named in three separates securities
class action complaints.  The first suit was filed on Aug. 1,
2005, by Jonathan Crowell against the company and its chief
executive officer, Samuel L. Caster.

Mr. Crowell brought the putative class-action suit on behalf of
himself and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between August 10, 2004, and May 9, 2005,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

The second lawsuit was filed on Aug. 30, 2005, by Richard
McMurry against the company; Mr. Caster; Terry L. Persinger, the
company's president and chief operating officer; and Stephen D.
Fenstermacher, its chief financial officer.

The third case was filed on Sept. 5, 2005, by Michael Bruce
Zeller against the company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Persinger, and Mr.
Fenstermacher.

The three lawsuits were initially filed and consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.  On Jan. 29,
2007, the consolidated action was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  On March 29,
2007, upon joint motion of the parties, the consolidated suit
was transferred to the docket of Judge Ed Kinkeade.

The Mannatech Group, consisting of Austin Chang, Naomi Kuperman
(f/k/a Naomi S. Miller), John Ogden, and the Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, has been appointed as lead
plaintiffs, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP has been
appointed as lead counsel, and Provost Umphrey LLP has been
appointed local counsel for the putative class.

On July 12, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint, which is substantively
similar to the amended consolidated class action complaint filed
on March 22, 2007, and reported in the company's previous
filings, but expands the class period to July 5, 2007, and adds
references to a certain enforcement lawsuit which was filed by
the Texas Attorney General against the company on July 5, 2007,
and the subsequent drop in the company's stock price.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
consolidated class-action complaint on Aug. 27, 2007, arguing
that the complaint did not meet the heightened pleading
standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The
lead plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on Dec. 20, 2007,
and the company filed its reply brief in support of its motion
on Jan. 22, 2008.

Formal mediation was conducted before Judge Daniel Weinstein in
California on Nov. 20, 2007, involving the company, the
individual defendants in all pending securities and derivative
lawsuits, and counsel for plaintiffs in both the securities
class action and the various derivative actions.  Informal
discussions between the parties and Judge Weinstein continued
thereafter.

On March 20, 2008 the company announced that it had reached a
final settlement of the securities class action with the lead
plaintiff.  This settlement, which is subject to, among other
things, preliminary and final court approval, would resolve all
the claims in the litigation.

Without admitting any liability or wrongdoing of any kind, the
company agreed to authorize payment to the plaintiff class of
$11.25 million.  The company will pay $2.27 million in cash as
part of the settlement, and the remainder will be funded by the
company's insurer.  The company and the lead plaintiff's counsel
are continuing to negotiate final settlement terms and
documents.

On April 3, 2008, lead plaintiff filed a third amended
consolidated class action complaint, which is substantively
similar to the second amended complaint, and which expands the
class period to July 30, 2007.  Thus, the settlement class now
consists of the purchasers of the company's stock during the
period Aug. 10, 2004, through July 30, 2007.

The suit is "Crowell v. Mannatech Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
00238," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Judge Ed Kinkeade, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David J. George, Esq. (dgeorge@lerachlaw.com)
         Robert J. Robbins, Esq. (rrobbins@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         120 E Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants is:

         Edward S. Koppman, Esq. (ekoppman@akingump.com)
         Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
         1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 4100
         Dallas, TX 75201-4618
         Phone: 214-969-2846
         Fax: 214-969-4343


MEDIS TECH: Awaits Court's Dismissal of New York Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion by Medis Technologies, Ltd., seeking
the dismissal of a securities fraud class-action lawsuit.

The suit was filed on April 23, 2007, against the company and,
among others, the company's chief executive officer.  It alleges
that the company issued a false and misleading press release on
April 13, 2007, regarding sales of the company's "24/7" fuel
cell power packs to a major international company by overstating
the importance of those sales, which resulted in the company's
common stock being artificially inflated.

The suit seeks relief under Rule 10b-5 against all the
defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the company's chief executive
officer.

Thereafter, on Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed the first
amended class action complaint, which essentially alleges that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false and
misleading press release on April 13, 2007, stating that the
company had begun "commercial sales" of "Microsoft-Branded"
Power Packs to Microsoft.  The announcement is alleged to have
caused a temporary fluctuation in the stock price, causing the
stock to trade from $18.29 to as high as $24.10 per share before
closing at $20.32 per share.

The plaintiffs allege that the April 13 Press Release was
misleading because it failed to specifically state that the sale
to Microsoft was for a small quantity and that Microsoft
intended to use the Power Packs as give-aways.  Moreover, the
plaintiffs allege, the units were not Microsoft branded.

However, the April 13 Press Release explicitly conveyed the
landmark importance of the sale to the company and the fuel cell
industry, and the company has vigorously denied any allegations
of wrongdoing, standing by the truth of the April 13 Press
Release.

The plaintiffs' putative class includes those who "purchased the
common stock, call options, and/or sold put options of Medis for
the time period April 13, 2007 through April 17, 2007."

Discovery was stayed as per the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act, and on Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the first amended
complaint failed as a matter of law because it did not allege
"scienter," i.e., that the defendants acted with a culpable
intent.

The defendants argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs
could not allege any reason why the defendants would seek to
temporarily inflate the company's stock price.

The plaintiffs opposed the dismissal motion on Jan. 28, 2008,
arguing, among other things, that scienter was properly pled
because the defendants knew or should have known that they were
misrepresenting material facts.

The plaintiffs further asked the Court for permission to cross
move to strike certain exhibits relied on by the defendants and
to convert the dismissal motion into one for summary judgment,
lifting the stay of discovery.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' request, stating that it would
consider those issues in due course when it ruled on the
dismissal motion.

The defendants' reply papers on the dismissal motion were filed
on April, 24, 2008.  The Court held oral argument on the motion
on July 16, 2008, and disposition is now pending, according to
the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Kou v. Medis Technologies, Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-03230-PAC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Paul A. Crotty, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Phillip C. Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
          The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060
          Fax: 212-202-3827

Representing the defendant is:

          Deborah Hilarie Renner (drenner@sonnenschein.com)
          Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: 212-768-6896
          Fax: 212-768-6800


MIVA INC: Discovery Underway in Florida Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit filed against Miva, Inc. -- formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.
-- and certain of its officers and directors before the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class-
action complaints were filed, alleging that the company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual
defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control
persons" of MIVA.

The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a
class of the company's investors who purchased company stock
between Jan. 5, 2004, and May 4, 2005.  They allege generally
that, during the putative class period, the company made
misleading statements and omitted material information regarding
the goodwill associated with a recent acquisition and certain
material weaknesses in its internal controls.

The plaintiffs assert that the company and the individual
defendants made these misstatements and omissions in order to
keep its stock price high to allow certain individual defendants
to sell stock at an artificially inflated price.  They seek
unspecified damages and other relief.

On June 13 and July 7, 2005, the company and the other
defendants moved to dismiss each of these complaints for failure
to comply with the mandatory pleading requirements of the Reform
Act and also served answers to the complaints.

On July 27, 2005, the court consolidated all of the outstanding
lawsuits as "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation," selected
lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated cases, and
granted plaintiffs leave to file a consolidated amended
complaint.

The company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Sept. 8, 2005.  The dismissal motion
was granted by the court in December 2005.  The plaintiffs,
however, were granted leave to submit a further amended
complaint, which they filed on Jan. 17, 2006.

The defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case.  On
March 15, 2007, the court granted in large part the defendants'
dismissal request.  However, the court denied their motion to
dismiss as to certain claims relating to:

       -- removal of traffic sources,

       -- spyware,

       -- implementation of screening policies and procedures,
          and

       -- amounts of traffic purchased from distribution
          partners.

The defendants then filed a motion for amendment to the March
15, 2007 order to include certification for interlocutory appeal
or, in the alternative, for reconsideration.

In July 2007, the court denied the motion for amendment to the
March 15, 2007 order to include certification for interlocutory
appeal, but granted the motion for reconsideration as to the
issue of whether the plaintiffs pled a strong inference of
scienter in light of intervening precedent.

The court requested additional briefing on the scienter issue,
and on Feb. 15, 2008, entered an order dismissing one of the
individual defendants from the lawsuit and limiting the claims
that could be brought against another individual defendant.

The plaintiffs moved the court to certify a putative class of
investors, and the defendants had filed briefs in opposition to
this request.  On March 12, 2008, the court entered an order
certifying a class of those investors who purchased the
company's common stock from Feb. 23, 2005, to May 4, 2005.  The
court also dismissed two of the proposed class representatives
for lack of standing.

The plaintiffs have served discovery requests on the defendants,
and the discovery phase of the lawsuit is presently underway.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Judge John E. Steele presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Chris A. Barker, Esq.
          (cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com)
          Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
          300 W. Platt St., Suite 150
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: 813-489-1001
          Fax: 813-489-1008

               - and -

          Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
          (cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP
          5200 Town Center Circle, Ste. 600, Tower One
          Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018
          Phone: 561-361-5000
          Fax: 561-367-8400

Representing the defendant is:

          Joseph G. Foster, Esq. (jfoster@porterwright.com)
          Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, P.A.
          5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300
          Naples, FL 34108
          Phone: 239-593-2900
          Fax: 239-593-2990


MIVA INC: Awaits N.Y. Court's Dismissal of "Payday Advance" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to dismiss with prejudice all claims asserted against
MIVA, Inc., in the class action lawsuit captioned "Payday
Advance Plus, Inc. v. Findwhat.com, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-01923-JGK."

Payday Advance Plus Inc. filed the putative class action suit on
March 10, 2006, against the company and Advertising.com, Inc.
The complaint alleges that Advertising.com, a MIVA Media Network
distribution partner, engaged in click fraud to increase
revenues to themselves with MIVA's alleged knowledge and
participation.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a putative class of
individuals who have allegedly been overcharged by the
defendants and seeks monetary damages, restitution, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and other
remedies.

In May 2006, MIVA moved to dismiss the complaint.  In an order
dated March 12, 2007, the court denied the dismissal motion as
it pertains to the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, but
granted it as it relates to the remainder of the plaintiff's
claims.

On April 2, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
which it dropped its claims against Advertising.com.  The
amended complaint asserts only a claim for breach of contract
claim against MIVA.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on
Sept. 11, 2007.  The company filed its response on Oct. 15,
2007, and the motion is currently pending.

At the request of the plaintiff, the court stayed the litigation
in April 2008, pending resolution of a class action settlement
in a separate case, captioned "Lane's Gifts LLC, et al. v.
Yahoo! Inc., et al.," in Arkansas.

The plaintiff is a party to the settlement agreement in the
"Lane's Gifts" case, and, pursuant to the agreement, the
plaintiff has agreed to move to dismiss with prejudice all
claims it has asserted against the company in this lawsuit such
that this litigation would be settled and resolved in its
entirety.

The dismissal of "Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. Findwhat.com,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01923-JGK," is subject to the
approval of the New York court.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. Findwhat.com, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01923-JGK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John G.
Koeltl presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Robin Bronzaft Howald, Esq.
          Robert M. Zabb, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP
          Phone: 917-510-0009
                 310-201-9150
          Fax: 646-366-0895
               310-201-9160
          e-mail: hobbit99@aol.com
                  info@glancylaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Karl Geercken, Esq. (kgeercken@alston.com)
          Alston & Bird, LLP
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-210-9400
          Fax: 212-210-9444


NETFLIX INC: Appeal Court Affirms Settlement Order in "Chavez"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal, First District's affirmation of
the settlement judgment in the matter "Frank Chavez v. Netflix,
Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-04-434884" has become final after no
further appeal was made in connection with the decision.

On Sept. 23, 2004, Frank Chavez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed the class action suit against
Netflix in the California Superior Court for City and County of
San Francisco.

The company entered into an amended settlement under which
Netflix subscribers who were enrolled in a paid membership
before Jan. 15, 2005, and were a member on Oct. 19, 2005, are
eligible to receive a free one-month upgrade in service level
and Netflix subscribers who were enrolled in a paid membership
before Jan. 15, 2005, and were not a member on Oct. 19, 2005,
are eligible to receive a free one-month Netflix membership of
either the 1, 2 or 3 DVDs at-a-time unlimited program.

The Court issued final judgment on the settlement on July 28,
2006, awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of
$2.1 million.

The final judgment was appealed to the California Court of
Appeal, First Appellate District.  The appeal was heard on
April 2, 2008.

On April 21, 2008, the Court of Appeal affirmed the district
court's ruling.  The appeal period for the Court of Appeal's
affirmation has expired, and the decision is now final,
according to its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., A Foreign Corp. et
al., Case No. CGC-04-434884," filed in the California Superior
Court for City and County of San Francisco.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Adam Gutride Law Offices
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Phone: 415-271-6469

Representing the company is:

          Keith Eggleton, Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300


NYMEX HOLDINGS: Wants Lawsuit Over Sale to CME Group Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
NYMEX Holdings, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action lawsuit, "Greene v. NYMEX Holdings, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 3835-VCN," which was filed in connection with the
proposed sale of NYMEX to CME Group, Inc., according to NYMEX's
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On June 16, 2008, Shelby Greene, purportedly a NYMEX Holdings
shareholder and a Class A member of NYMEX Exchange, commenced
the putative class action suit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, on behalf of herself and all other Class A members,
against NYMEX Holdings, the members of its board of directors
and CME Group.

The complaint also seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction on
price, process and disclosure grounds.  The price claim alleged
in the complaint focuses on the consideration to be received by
the Class A members in connection with their membership
interests in NYMEX Exchange.

NYMEX Holdings and its directors filed a motion to dismiss the
Greene complaint on July 17, 2008.  CME Group filed a similar
motion.

NYMEX Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.nymex.com/-- is a provider
of financial services to the energy and metals industries.  It
is engaged in providing clearing and settlement services through
its clearinghouse to a range of participants in these
industries.  The two principal operating subsidiaries of NYMEX
Holdings are New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. and Commodity
Exchange, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of NYMEX
Exchange.  On NYMEX Exchange, customers primarily trade energy
futures and options contracts, including contracts for crude
oil, natural gas, heating oil and gasoline.  On COMEX,
customers' trade metals futures and options contracts, including
contracts for gold, silver, copper and aluminum.  In addition,
the company offers soft commodities futures contracts for
coffee, sugar, cocoa and cotton.


NYMEX HOLDINGS: Suit Over CME Group Sale Still Pending in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NYMEX Holdings, Inc., is still facing a consolidated class-
action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery filed in
connection with the proposed sale of NYMEX to CME Group, Inc.,
according to NYMEX's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Initially, on March 17, 2008, Cataldo J. Capozza, a NYMEX
Holdings shareholder and a former Class A member of NYMEX
Exchange commenced a putative class action suit in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, on behalf of himself and all other NYMEX
Holdings shareholders, against NYMEX Holdings, the members of
its board of directors and CME Group.

The complaint, which is captioned, "Capozza v. NYMEX Holdings,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3621-VCN" and seeks to enjoin the
company's merger with CME Group, alleges, among other things,
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to NYMEX
Holdings' shareholders by attempting to sell the Company for
inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant to an
inadequate and unfair process, and that CME Group aided and
abetted such breaches.

On April 21, 2008, NYMEX Holdings and its directors moved to
dismiss the complaint and to stay all discovery pending the
disposition of the dismissal request.  CME Group filed similar
motions.

On April 14 and 15, 2008, respectively, two additional putative
class actions were commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery
by Polly Winters and Joan Haedrich, both purportedly NYMEX
Holdings shareholders, on behalf of themselves and all other
NYMEX Holdings shareholders, against the same defendants.  The
Winters and Haedrich complaints contain allegations virtually
identical to those in the Capozza action.

On May 16, 2008, the Delaware Court of Chancery ordered that the
three actions be consolidated under the caption "In re NYMEX
Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 3621-VCN," and that all
subsequently filed actions concerning the same subject matter be
consolidated with them.

On June 20, 2008, Plaintiffs Capozza, Winters and Haedrich filed
an amended and consolidated class action complaint, along with a
motion for expedited proceedings, in anticipation of a motion
for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Special Meetings of
the shareholders of NYMEX Holdings and the NYMEX Exchange Class
A members relating to the Proposed Transaction (Preliminary
Injunction Motion).

The amended complaint alleges that the Proposed Transaction
resulted from an unfair and inadequate process and offers an
inadequate price.  It further alleges that the preliminary Form
S-4 Registration Statement for the Proposed Transaction, filed
on June 10, 2008, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, was materially incomplete and misleading and omitted
or misstated necessary information.  By the amended complaint,
the plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction
preventing the consummation of the Proposed Transaction.

On June 27, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and
amended class action complaint to correct certain typographical
errors in the amended complaint and to add CMEG NY Inc., the CME
Group merger subsidiary created for purposes of the Proposed
Transaction, as a defendant.  On July 9, 2008, NYMEX Holdings
and its directors moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.
CME Group filed a similar motion.

On June 30, 2008, NYMEX Holdings and its directors and CME Group
filed oppositions to the motion to expedite.  On July 11, 2008,
the Court granted that motion, and discovery commenced.
Subsequent thereto, the Court scheduled a hearing for Aug. 13,
2008, for the Preliminary Injunction Motion.

On Aug. 5, 2008, the plaintiffs agreed not to pursue the
Preliminary Injunction Motion and the Court removed the Aug. 13,
2008 hearing from its calendar.  This matter is otherwise
ongoing.  NYMEX Holdings and CME Group intend to defend
vigorously against the plaintiffs' allegations.

NYMEX Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.nymex.com/-- is a provider
of financial services to the energy and metals industries.  It
is engaged in providing clearing and settlement services through
its clearinghouse to a range of participants in these
industries.  The two principal operating subsidiaries of NYMEX
Holdings are New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. and Commodity
Exchange, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of NYMEX
Exchange.  On NYMEX Exchange, customers primarily trade energy
futures and options contracts, including contracts for crude
oil, natural gas, heating oil and gasoline.  On COMEX,
customers' trade metals futures and options contracts, including
contracts for gold, silver, copper and aluminum.  In addition,
the company offers soft commodities futures contracts for
coffee, sugar, cocoa and cotton.


OCCAM NETWORKS: Court Nixes Few Claims in Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed certain claims in a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit against Occam Networks, Inc., according to
the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

On April 26, 2007, and May 16, 2007, two putative class action
complaints were filed before the district court against the
company and certain of its officers.  The complaints allege that
the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect revenue recognition.

The complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount on behalf
of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the
period from May 2, 2006, and April 17, 2007.

On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated the
actions into a single case, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund --
The Decatur Plan -- as lead plaintiff, and approved its
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.  This consolidated complaint adds as defendants
certain of the company's current and former directors and
officers, its current and former outside auditors, the lead
underwriter of its secondary public offering in November 2006,
and two venture capital firms who were early investors in the
company.

The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants violated
sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect to revenue recognition that
required restatement.

The consolidated complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during the period from
April 29, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2007, damages of an unspecified
amount.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On July 1, 2008, Judge Christina A.
Snyder issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motions.  This order dismissed all claims against
certain of the company's current and former directors, the 20A
claim in its entirety, the section 10(b) claim against the
auditors and venture capital firms, and the section 11 claims
against the venture capital firms.  On July 16, 2008, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint to conform to the court's
July 1 order.

The suit is "Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-CV-02750," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori S. Brody, Esq. (lbrody@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-785-0800

               - and -

          Matthew Isaac Alpert, Esq. (malpert@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendants are:

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300

               - and -

          Philip T. Besirof, Esq. (pbesirof@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-6091


ORSU METALS: Served with Statement of Claim Filed in Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------
Orsu Metals Corporation (TSX:OSU)(AIM:OSU) has been served by
Bernard Szuszkiewicz -- as a proposed representative plaintiff
on behalf of persons who acquired securities of European
Minerals Corporation during the period from May 16, 2007, until
March, 31, 2008 -- with a Statement of Claim filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The plaintiffs are claiming general and special damages in the
amount of CND$50,000,000 and punitive damages in the amount of
CND$5,000,000.  The Claim relates to the announcement by EMC on
March 31 that it was reviewing its accounting for derivatives to
ensure compliance with certain provisions of the CICA Handbook
and that it anticipated that such review would result in a
restatement of EMC's interim financial statements for the first
three fiscal quarters of 2007.

The Company's directors have appointed legal council and are
currently preparing their defense.  The claim has not yet been
certified as a class action and Orsu believes that the Claim is
without merit and intends to vigorously dispute the Claim.

For more information, contact:

          Tania Tchedaeva
          Orsu Metals Corporation
          Company Secretary
          Phone: +44 (0) 20 7518 3999
          Fax: +44 (0) 20 7513 3998

          Gavin Dallas
          Orsu Metals Corporation
          Investor Relations
          Phone: +44 (0) 20 7518 3999
          Fax: +44 (0) 20 7513 3998
          e-mail: info@orsumetals.com
          Web site: http://www.orsumetals.com/

          Ryan Gaffney
          Canaccord Adams Limited
          Phone: +44 (0) 20 7050 6500

               - and -

          Keith Schaefer
          Vanguard Shareholder Solutions
          Phone: 604-608-0824


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery Ongoing in Georgia Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the matter captioned "In Re Wells Real
Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation Case No.
1:07-cv-00862-CAP," which names Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc. (Piedmont REIT) -- f/k/a/ Wells Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc. (Wells REIT) -- as a defendant.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a
purported class action suit and derivative complaint entitled
"Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Wells Real
Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al." before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells
REIT, and the officers and directors of Wells REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf
of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
         fees.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an
order enjoining the internalization transaction.  The court then
granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the
case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on
April 24, 2007.  In June 2007, the court granted a motion to
designate the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which contains the same counts as the original complaint, with
amended factual allegations based primarily on events occurring
subsequent to the original complaint and the addition of a
Piedmont officer as an individual defendant.

On March 31, 2008, the court granted in part a motion by the
defendants to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court
dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in
their entirety.  The court dismissed the remaining two counts
with the exception of allegations regarding the company's
failure to disclose in its proxy statement details of certain
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain
approval for Internalization omitted details of certain
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind
Internalization, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to
the defendants as consideration for Internalization.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain
defenses to the second amended complaint.  On June 23, 2008, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.  The parties
are presently engaged in discovery, according to Wells Real
Estate Fund X, L.P.'s Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge
Charles A. Pannell, Jr, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com)
         Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq. (mcates@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600


PXRE GROUP: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
PXRE Group, Ltd. -- now known as Argo Group International
Holdings, Ltd. -- is still facing a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Initially, several purported class-action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company; Jeffrey Radke, the company's chief
executive officer; and John Modin, the company's former chief
financial officer.   These suits were brought on behalf of a
putative class consisting of investors who purchased the
publicly traded securities of PXRE between July 28, 2005, and
Feb. 16, 2006.

Each of the class action complaints asserts nearly identical
claims and alleges that during the purported class period,
certain PXRE executives made a series of materially false and
misleading statements or omissions about PXRE's business,
prospects and operations, thereby causing investors to purchase
PXRE's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934
Act.

The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the
company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material
adverse facts:

      -- the full impact on PXRE's business of hurricanes
         Katrina, Rita and Wilma;

      -- the doubling of PXRE's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes to
         an estimated $758 million to $788 million; and

      -- the magnitude of the loss to PXRE and PXRE's potential
         loss of its financial-strength and credit ratings from
         A.M. Best.

Furthermore, the complaints allege, based on the foregoing
asserted facts, that PXRE's statements with respect to its loss
estimates for the 2005 hurricane season lacked any reasonable
basis.  The class-action suits seek an unspecified amount of
damages, as well as other forms of relief.

Pursuant to an opinion and order of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York dated March 30, 2007, these
lawsuits have been consolidated into one proceeding.

Argo Group reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The lawsuit is "In re PXRE Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-03410-KMK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Kenneth M. Karas,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. (jalieberman@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-661-1100
         Fax: 212-661-8665

              - and -

         Bradley Peter Dyer, Esq. (BPDyer@SSBNY.com)
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212 687-7230
         Fax: 212 490-2022

Representing the defendants is:

         Bruce Domenick Angiolillo, Esq.
         (bangiolillo@stblaw.com)
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
         425 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-455-2000
         Fax: 212-455-2502


QUEST SOFTWARE: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Software, Inc., is still facing a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, according to its Aug. 11, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The lawsuit, filed in October 2006, alleges that Quest Software,
Inc., and certain of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose and
concealing through various false statements and omissions that
they did not properly account for issuing stock option grants at
prices which were below fair market value on the actual grant
date.

Consequently, the price of Quest stock was artificially inflated
during the period starting Nov. 9, 2001, through July 3, 2006.

In January 2007, the Court appointed Middlesex Retirement System
as lead class plaintiff and entered a stipulated order
establishing a pleading schedule for the plaintiffs' first
amended complaint and the defendants' response.  The first
amended class action complaint was filed with the Court in March
2007.

In October 2007, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
under Section 10(b) with respect to Michael Lambert, the
Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and the plaintiffs'
claims under Section 20(a) with respect to the company and to
Doug Garn, the company's president, which claims have been
dismissed without prejudice.  The Court also held in abeyance
the plaintiffs' claims under Section 20A pending their filing of
an amended complaint due Dec. 1, 2007.

Otherwise, the Court denied the company's motion to dismiss as
it related to the company and other individual defendants.

Subsequently, the company and the individual defendants have
filed a motion with the U.S. District Court requesting
certification of the Court's order for interlocutory appellate
review.  This request was denied by the court.

The plaintiff then filed a second amended class-action complaint
in February 2008.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended class-action complaint in March 2008.  The court
denied the company's motion in July 2008.  The company thus
filed its answer to the second amended class-action complaint.

The suit is "Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest Software Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-06863-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
David O. Carter, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patricia I. Avery, Esq. (pavery@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper
          845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-451-9619

               - and -

          Blake M. Harper, Esq. (bmh@hulettharper.com)
          Hulett Harper Stewart
          550 West C Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-338-1133

Representing the defendants are:

          Koji F. Fukumura, Esq. (kfukumura@cooley.com)
          Cooley Godward Kronish
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Phone: 858-550-6000

               - and -

          Richard J. Cutler, Esq. (richard.cutler@dechert.com)
          AUSA - Office of US Attorney
          411 W 4th St., Ste. 8000
          Santa Ana, CA 92701-4599
          Phone: 714-338-3500


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Sued for Using Unapproved Radar Devices
--------------------------------------------------------
Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. is facing a lawsuit that could
become a class action for allegedly using radar that was not
approved for use in the United States, Patrick O'Grady writes
for the Phoenix Business Journal.

The lawsuit, which also names the town of Paradise Valley as a
defendant, was filed last month in Maricopa County Superior
Court by James G. Tavernetti of Paradise Valley.  Mr. Tavernetti
claims that a ticket he received in mid-July came from a mobile
van used by Redflex allegedly equipped with a British radar
system that had not been approved for such use by the Federal
Communications Commission.

Competitor American Traffic Solutions Inc. of Scottsdale set the
lawsuit in motion when it complained about the radar's use in a
DPS test program, Thomas Moring, Esq., who is representing
Mr. Tavernetti and potentially seeking class status for the
lawsuit, told Phoenix Business.  "That's what got us the
information that Redflex was using devices that weren't
certified by the FCC," he said.

Phoenix Business explains that FCC approval is required for all
speed radar devices, and the British-made system used on the DPS
(Department of Public Safety) speed vans was not authorized
until after the ATS complaint in early August.  It is unclear
from the lawsuit, however, what vans were responsible for
issuing Mr. Tavernetti his ticket in Paradise Valley.  Redflex
also has contracts with cities throughout the country, supplying
both speed and red-light cameras.

The report relates that the two vans used in the DPS pilot
program were removed from highways initially, but put back on
the road after the proper approvals were received.  Earlier this
month, DPS said it will keep its contract with Redflex for the
rollout of 100 speed cameras throughout the state.

ATS has appealed that action to the Arizona Department of
Administration, with a decision due by early next week, the
report says.

Mr. Tavernetti's lawsuit alleges Redflex was negligent and
committed fraud by using devices that were not approved in the
U.S.  The lawsuit does not specify the damages it seeks.

Mr. Moring said that while a speeding ticket from a mobile van
can run from $180 up, many people would not sue to get their
money back, which is why the lawsuit seeks class action status.

According to the report, Redflex officials say the company does
not comment on pending litigation.  The company still has a few
weeks to reply to the lawsuit in court paperwork, the report
notes.


SHOCKLEY FINANCIAL: Faces Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shockley Financial Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Nelnet, Inc., is facing a consolidated antitrust class-action
lawsuit in New York over municipal derivatives, according to
Nelnet's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Initially, SFC was named as a defendant in a total of eight
substantially identical purported class-action suits.  In each
of the lawsuits, certain financial institutions are named as
defendants.  The complaints allege that the defendants engaged
in a conspiracy not to compete and to fix prices and rig bids
for municipal derivatives (including guaranteed investment
contracts) sold to issuers of municipal bonds.

All the complaints assert claims for violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and fraudulent concealment and one complaint
also asserts claims for unfair competition and violation of the
California Cartwright Act.

On June 16, 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, which
consolidated several cases under the caption "Hinds County,
Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-
02516-VM."

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its regulatory filing.

The consolidated suit is "Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia
Bank N.A. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-02516-VM," pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Victor Marrero, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Magda Maria Jimenez, Esq. (mjimenez@bsfllp.com)
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
          333 Main St.
          New York, NY 10504
          Phone: 212-446-2333
          Fax: 212-446-2350

          Roland Gustaf Riopelle, Esq. (rriopelle@juno.com)
          Sercarz & Riopelle, L.L.P.
          152 West 57th Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-586-4900
          Fax: 212-586-1234

          Michael Morris Buchman, Esq. (mbuchman@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665

               - and -

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          (bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey LLP
          654 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10065
          Phone: 212-336-8334
          Fax: 212-336-8340


SONUS NETWORKS: Awaits Dismissal of Mass. Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on a motion that sought the dismissal of  a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
Sonus Networks, Inc.

Beginning in July 2002, several purchasers of the company's
common stock filed complaints before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against the company, certain of
its officers and directors, and a former officer under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.

The purchasers seek to represent a class of persons who
purchased the company's common stock between Dec. 11, 2000, and
Jan. 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages.

The class action complaints were essentially identical and
alleged that the company made false and misleading statements
about its products and business.

These cases were subsequently consolidated, and on March 3,
2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  In
April 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on various grounds.

On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the company's
dismissal motion, and later denied the request.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on
July 30, 2004.  This motion was granted by the court and a class
representative was then appointed.  The court also appointed the
law firm of Moulton & Gans as lead counsel.

After the court requested additional briefing on the adequacy of
the class representative, the class representative withdrew.
The lead counsel then filed a motion to substitute a new
plaintiff as the class representative.  On May 19, 2005, the
court held a hearing on the motion and took the matter under
advisement.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the court issued an order decertifying the
class and requiring the parties to submit a joint report
informing the court whether the cases have been settled and
whether the defendants would be seeking to recover attorney's
fees from the plaintiffs.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed motions to voluntarily
dismiss their complaints with prejudice.  On Oct. 5, 2005, the
court entered an order dismissing the cases.

However, on June 26, 2006, the court issued an order denying the
company's motion for recovery of attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 6, 2006, a purchaser of the company common stock filed a
complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts that is essentially identical to the Consolidated
Amended Complaint previously filed against the defendants.

The court has appointed as lead plaintiff the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi, which filed an amended
consolidated complaint.

In April 19, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this
amended consolidated complaint.  The court held a hearing on the
motion on Sept. 18, 2008, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re Sonus Networks Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:02-cv-11315-MLW," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Judge Mark L. Wolf, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert J. Berg, Esq.
         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
         10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414

              - and -

         Richard H. Weiss, Esq.
         Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach
         One Penn Plaza
         New York City, NY 10002
         Phone: 212-594-5300
         Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the company are:

         Daniel W. Halston, Esq. (daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com)
         Michelle D. Miller, Esq.
         (michelle.miller@wilmerhale.com)
         Jeffrey B. Rudman, Eqs. (jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com)
         Peter A. Spaeth, Esq. (peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Hale
         60 State Street
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-526-6654
         Fax: 617-526-5000


SOUTHERN STAR: Kansas Court Mulls Intervention Bid in "Price I"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on
a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming
entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by the
plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit "Will Price, et
al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 99 C 30, or
Price Litigation I."

The putative class action suit was filed on May 28, 1999,
wherein the named plaintiffs have sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
accounting and unjust enrichment, a fourth amended class action
complaint in the case alleges that the defendants have under-
measured the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for, the
natural gas they have obtained from or measured for the
plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead
for punitive damages.

On Aug. 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Southern Star.  Despite a denial by the court on April 10,
2003, of their original motion for class certification, the
plaintiffs continue to seek the certification of a class.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for a second
time was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on this
motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs.  It is
unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

The company reported no further developments regarding the case
in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding
company for its regulated pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its
only operating subsidiary.  Southern Star also owns the
development rights for Western Frontier, which could be
developed in the future.  The company owns and operate an
approximately 6,000 mile interstate natural gas pipeline and
associated storage facilities in the Midwest, serving customers
in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, Nebraska,
Wyoming, and Texas.


SOUTHERN STAR: Court Yet to Allow Intervenor in "Price II" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on
a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming
entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by the
plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Will Price, et al. v.
El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 03 C 23, or Price
Litigation II."

The putative class action suit was filed on May 12, 2003.  The
named plaintiffs from Price Litigation I have sued the same
defendants.

The plaintiffs in Price Litigation I sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting substantially identical legal and equitable theories,
as in Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the
defendants have undermeasured the British thermal units, or BTU,
content of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas
they have obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead
for punitive damages.

On Nov. 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with
the plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price
Litigation I, was fully briefed and the court heard oral
argument on this motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs.  It is
unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding
company for its regulated pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its
only operating subsidiary.  Southern Star also owns the
development rights for Western Frontier, which could be
developed in the future.  The company owns and operate an
approximately 6,000 mile interstate natural gas pipeline and
associated storage facilities in the Midwest, serving customers
in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, Nebraska,
Wyoming, and Texas.


STEC INC: Calif. Court Gives Initial OK to Hard Drives Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles gave preliminary approval to the proposed settlement in
a purported nationwide class-action lawsuit over STEC, Inc.'s
hard drive products.

The suit alleges that the company's description of the capacity
of its hard drives constitutes fraudulent, unfair, deceptive and
false advertising under California Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 and 17500 and violates the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

The suit was filed by Boris Brand on Oct. 6, 2006, alleging that
the company's description of the storage capacity on its hard
drives uses a decimal basis for measuring gigabytes which
results in a lower storage capacity when the hard drives are
incorporated into an operating system that uses a binary
gigabyte basis for measurement.  The plaintiff seeks
restitution, disgorgement, compensatory damages and injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

Reaching a tentative settlement, the company has agreed to
provide qualifying class members the means to claim a rebate of
6% of the purchase price of the storage device for a period of
three months from the announcement of the program.

In addition, the company will pay a portion of the plaintiff's
legal fees as determined by an arbitration proceeding which
concluded on March 10, 2008.  The court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on May 30, 2008, according to its
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

STEC, Inc., -- http://www.stec-inc.com/-- formerly SimpleTech,
Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and markets custom memory
solutions based on Flash memory and dynamic random access memory
(DRAM) technologies.


TNS INC: Va. Court Grants Final OK to Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
gave final approval to the settlement in a securities fraud
class-action lawsuit filed against TNS, Inc., according to the
company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The company; John J. McDonnell, Jr., chief executive officer;
and Henry H. Graham, Jr., chief financial officer, are
defendants in a putative class action suit filed in connection
with the company's secondary public offering of common stock in
September 2005.

The Cement Masons and Plasterers Joint Pension Trust,
purportedly on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
filed the putative class action as, "Cement Masons & Plasterers
Joint Pension Trust v. TNS, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06 CV 363,
CMH/BRP," on April 4, 2006.

The plaintiff claims that the Registration Statement filed in
connection with the secondary offering negligently failed to
disclose that:

      -- TNS' agreement with the Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
         to provide cashless vending to Pepsi had been
         delayed beyond Aug. 7, 2005;

      -- TNS was generating less revenues and income than it had
         anticipated from its contract with the Royal Bank of
         Scotland, because Royal Bank purportedly had overstated
         the number of transactions that TNS would be
         responsible for processing for Royal Bank; and

      -- TNS' International Services Division was experiencing
         declining revenues during that time period because of
         unfavorable foreign exchange rates.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on July 14,
2006.  The court denied this dismissal motion on Sept. 12, 2006,
and has since ordered the parties to conduct discovery in the
case.

In March 2007, the parties agreed to stay further discovery in
the case with the court's approval pending a mediation designed
to reach a settlement resolving the lawsuit.

The parties conducted a mediation in April 2007, and
subsequently entered into a settlement agreement in February
2008.

The settlement agreement provides for a cash settlement payment
of $3.6 million to be paid by the company's insurer and payment
of expenses of plaintiff's lead counsel not to exceed $50,000.
In exchange for the cash settlement payment and expense payment,
the company and all defendants would be released from all claims
of class members relating to the action.

The Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement on
April 1, 2008, and subsequently granted final approval of the
settlement agreement after a fairness hearing on June 20, 2008.

The first identified complaint is "Cement Masons and Plasters
Joint Pension Trust, et al. v. TNS Inc., et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Craig Crandall Reilly, Esq.
          (craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com)
          Law Office of Craig C. Reilly
          111 Oronoco Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Phone: 703-549-5354
          Fax: 703-549-2604

Representing the defendants is:

          Deirdre Gildea Johnson, Esq. (djohnson@dl.com)
          Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
          1101 New York Avenue NW
          Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005-4213
          Phone: 202-986-8000


TRIZETTO GROUP: Settles Multiple Lawsuits Over Apax Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The TriZetto Group settled several purported class-action suits
over a merger agreement with Apax Partners, L.P., according to
its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

                      Simonetti Litigation

On April 15, 2008, David P. Simonetti Rollover IRA filed a
verified class-action complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, entitled "David P. Simonetti Rollover IRA,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey H. Margolis, Donald J. Lothrop, Thomas B.
Johnson, Paul F. Lefort, Jerry P. Widman, Nancy H. Handel, L.
William Krause, Apax Partners, L.P., TZ Holdings, L.P., TZ
Merger Sub, Inc., and The TriZetto Group Inc., Defendants, C.A.
No. 3694-VCN."

The complaint sought, among other relief, certification of a
class of all common stockholders of TriZetto who allegedly were
harmed by the defendants' actions challenged in the complaint, a
declaration that the defendants had breached their fiduciary and
other duties, entry of an order requiring defendants to take
certain steps in connection with the proposed transaction,
compensatory damages, costs and disbursements, including
plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees.

On May 20, 2008, the plaintiff in the Simonetti Litigation filed
a first amended complaint, which added allegations that the
defendants allegedly failed to disclose material facts regarding
the Merger.

                 Consolidated California Action

In addition to the Simonetti Litigation, two putative class
action complaints were filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Orange, alleging substantially similar
claims as those alleged in the Simonetti Litigation.

On May 28, 2008, the two California putative class actions were
consolidated, and in June 2008, the Consolidated California
Action was stayed in favor of the Simonetti Litigation.

               City Of Fort Lauderdale Litigation

On June 10, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated California
Action filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, entitled "City Of Fort Lauderdale Police And
Firefighters' Retirement System And Police And Fire Retirement
System Of The City Of Detroit, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. Jeffrey H. Margolis, et al., C.A.
No. 3817-VCN," (together with the Simonetti Litigation, the
"Delaware Litigation" and collectively with the Consolidated
California Action, the "Merger Litigation").

                      Recent Developments

In addition, counsel for plaintiffs' in the Consolidated
California Action appeared as counsel in the Simonetti
Litigation and joined in the discovery and briefing in the
Simonetti Litigation in connection with the motion to
preliminarily enjoin the Merger.

On June 27, 2008, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a
memorandum opinion and order in the Simonetti Litigation,
granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for
a preliminary injunction enjoining the proposed Merger.

The Court preliminarily enjoined TriZetto from conducting or
allowing any vote by its stockholders to approve the proposed
Merger until TriZetto made curative supplemental disclosures
relating to certain potential financial benefits of the Merger
to TriZetto's financial advisor, UBS Securities LLC, and its
affiliates, upon consummation of the transactions contemplated
by the Merger Agreement, based on its interest in certain
convertible notes issued by TriZetto and related bond hedge and
warrant transactions entered into with TriZetto in 2007.  The
Court's Order provided that, upon application, the Order could
be vacated upon demonstration that TriZetto had provided
appropriate curative disclosure.

Following the Court's Order, counsel for the parties negotiated
the contents of the Financial Advisor Disclosure.  The parties
thereafter entered into a stipulation agreeing upon the
substance of the Financial Advisor Disclosure and submitted the
Financial Advisor Disclosure to the Court for its approval.  The
Parties jointly requested that the Court vacate its Order
preliminarily enjoining the Merger.

On July 2, 2008, the Court issued an order approving the
parties' stipulation and vacating the preliminary injunction
Order dependent on TriZetto providing the Financial Advisor
Disclosure forthwith.  TriZetto provided the Financial Advisor
Disclosure in the Definitive Additional Material, which was
filed with the SEC on July 2, 2008 and mailed to TriZetto's
stockholders on or about July 3, 2008.

                          Settlement

On July 8, 2008, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the Merger Litigation.  Under the terms
of the MOU, the parties agreed in good faith to attempt to agree
upon and execute an appropriate Stipulation of Settlement and
such other documentation as may be required to secure
certification of the Settlement Class (as defined to include all
record holders and beneficial owners of TriZetto common stock
(excluding defendants, their immediate families, and affiliates)
on any day during the period from April 11, 2008 (the date that
the proposed Merger was publicly announced) to and including the
effective date of consummation of the Merger, including the
legal representatives, heirs, successors and successors in
interest, transferees and assigns of all such foregoing holders
and owners, immediate and remote, and any person or entity
acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them and
each of them) and obtain pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery
Rules 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) final Court approval of the
settlement, and the dismissal of the Delaware Litigation and the
Consolidated California Action.

In addition to other customary provisions, the settlement will
provide releases to all defendants of any claims arising from
the process leading to the proposed Merger, any of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and any
disclosures made in connection with the Proxy Disclosure.  In
return, TriZetto agreed to provide additional explanation to
TriZetto's stockholders regarding certain matters disclosed in
the Proxy Disclosure.

In accordance with the agreement to settle the Merger
Litigation, the shares of common stock of TriZetto held by
TriZetto's executive officers were voted in the aggregate in the
same proportion as the vote cast by the other stockholders
voting on the Merger at the Special Meeting.

The parties to the litigation are in the process of finalizing
the Stipulation of Settlement to be submitted to the Court.

The TriZetto Group http://www.trizetto.com/-- devotes itself
to the companies that pay the doctor's bills.  Targeting health
plans, benefits administrators, and other health care payers,
TriZetto provides information technology products and services
designed to simplify provider network, transaction, and business
process management.  The company's application service provider
unit offers access to third-party medical billing software from
a variety of vendors.  Its proprietary offerings include an
Internet portal for payers and enterprise software for insurers
and benefits administrators.  In 2008 the company was acquired
and taken private by Apax Partners in a deal valued at $1.2
billion.


VCG HOLDING: Faces Suit in Minnesota Over Employment Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
VCG Holding Corp. and its Class Affairs unit are facing a
purported class-action in Minnesota over certain employment
practices, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

An ex-employee filed the lawsuit in December 2007, following his
termination from employment with Classic Affairs, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the company.

The plaintiff alleges that in connection with his employment, he
was subject to certain employment practices which violated
Minnesota law.  The initial action and subsequent pleading
assert that this matter is filed as a purported class-action
lawsuit.

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff moved
to amend his complaint to name additional plaintiffs and later,
to name Classic Affairs as a party defendant.

The company and classic Affairs have answered this complaint
denying all liability to the plaintiffs.  The parties have
engaged in written discovery, but no depositions have yet been
taken in this case.

The parties have attempted, via mediation, to resolve this case.
That mediation was unsuccessful.  As a result, the parties now
expect to engage in significant discovery activities and trial
is presently expected in the first half of 2009.

VCG Holding Corp. -- http://www.vcgh.com/-- is engaged in
owning and operating nightclubs that provide live adult
entertainment, food and beverage services.  The majority of the
clubs operate under the branded names PT's, Diamond Cabaret and
The Penthouse Club under non-exclusive licensing agreements.  As
of Dec. 31, 2007, the company operated 18 adult entertainment
nightclubs and one upscale dance club (collectively referred to
as the Clubs).  Three of the Clubs offer full service
restaurants with fine dining.  16 Clubs serve alcoholic
beverages.  It owns International Entertainment Consultants,
Inc., which provides management services to its nightclubs and,
on a fee basis, to non-owned affiliated nightclubs.  VCG Holding
classifies its operations into two segments: the operations of
the Clubs and the management of non-owned adult nightclubs.


ZIPREALTY: Court Yet to Grant Final OK to $600T "Alexander" Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda has yet to
grant final approval to the $600,000 settlement in a purported
class-action lawsuit captioned "Crystal Alexander, et al. v.
ZipRealty," which was filed against ZipRealty, Inc.

The suit was filed on May 18, 2007, by a former employee agent
of the company.  It sought monetary relief and alleged, among
other things, that the company's practices for compensating
agents and reimbursing expenses violate applicable law regarding
the payment of minimum wages and overtime.

The company reached a settlement agreement which called for a
payment of $600,000, plus applicable payroll taxes.  The
settlement agreement has received preliminary court approval and
is pending final court approval, according to the company's
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

ZipRealty, Inc. -- http://www.ziprealty.com/-- is a full-
service residential real estate brokerage firm.  The company's
Web site provides users with access to local multiple listing
services home listings data, as well as other relevant market
and neighborhood information.  Through its Website, registered
users can access a range of information and tools to research
and commence the process of buying or selling a home, including
direct access to local multiple listing service home listings
data, such as asking prices, home layouts and other features.
Each MLS is a database of available homes listed for sale by
participating member agents to facilitate broker cooperation.
The company also provides information in addition to MLS data,
including neighborhood attributes, new home listings, school
district information, comparable home sales data, maps and
driving directions.


ZIPREALTY INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss "Simon" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit, entitled
"Simon et al. v. ZipRealty, Inc.," which was filed before the
Los Angeles County Superior Court against ZipRealty, Inc., have
voluntarily dismissed the case.

The suit, which was filed on March 12, 2008, as a putative
class-action lawsuit, represented a class of all California
sales agents and a nationwide class of sales agents under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

It claimed that those sales agents are not exempt from minimum
wage and overtime laws, and brings claims for failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime, failure to maintain and provide
accurate payroll records, failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, and failure to reimburse expenses, as well as a claim
under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200,
all related to the same conduct.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, interest,
penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint without
prejudice, and thus this matter is no longer pending, according
to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

ZipRealty, Inc. -- http://www.ziprealty.com/-- is a full-
service residential real estate brokerage firm.  The company's
Web site provides users with access to local multiple listing
services home listings data, as well as other relevant market
and neighborhood information.  Through its Website, registered
users can access a range of information and tools to research
and commence the process of buying or selling a home, including
direct access to local multiple listing service home listings
data, such as asking prices, home layouts and other features.
Each MLS is a database of available homes listed for sale by
participating member agents to facilitate broker cooperation.
The company also provides information in addition to MLS data,
including neighborhood attributes, new home listings, school
district information, comparable home sales data, maps and
driving directions.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BANKUNITED FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of BankUnited Financial Corporation during the
period between April 18, 2006, and June 18, 2008, inclusive.

BankUnited is the holding company for BankUnited, FSB, which
provides consumer and commercial banking products and services
to consumers and businesses located primarily in Florida.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements including misrepresenting
the losses the Company was likely to suffer due to BankUnited's
poor underwriting standards and loan practices (particularly for
adjustable rate mortgages) that included BankUnited's
questionable appraisal processes and allowing borrowers to
secure "piggy-back" loans to fund a down payments.  When the
truth began to emerge, the value of BankUnited's stock declined.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action lawsuit on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce on the New York Stock Exchange, and
all U.S. purchasers of the securities of CIBC, and all U.S.
purchasers of the securities of CIBC, between May 31, 2007, and
May 28, 2008, inclusive.

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

CIBC is one of Canada's largest banking institutions, providing
various financial products and services to corporate,
government, and institutional clients in the U.S. and Canada.

The complaint alleges that the statements contained in CIBC's
press releases, SEC filings, conference calls and presentations
during the Class Period were materially false and misleading
when made because they failed to disclose that:

     (i) the Company did not make timely disclosure of material
         changes affecting the valuation of its investments in
         collateralized debt obligations consisting of U.S.
         subprime mortgages, in violation of U.S. Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles;

    (ii) the Company's hedged subprime exposure was nearly four
         times larger than its unhedged subprime exposure; and

   (iii) 35% of the Company's hedged subprime exposure was
         entrusted with ACA Financial Guaranty Corp, a
         substantially undercapitalized financial guarantor.

On December 6, 2007, CIBC released fourth quarter results that
stunned the banking community by revealing a surprisingly large
exposure to the troubled U.S. housing market.  CIBC said its
write-downs had already reached $1 billion, and warned of
significantly higher losses in the future related to its
$9.8 billion in hedged exposure to the subprime mortgage and CDO
market.  Upon this announcement, shares fell 8.4% over the next
two trading days, from $85.83 to $78.59.  But it was not until
May 29, 2008, that the Company's full exposure to U.S. subprime
mortgages was finally revealed.  On that date, CIBC swung to a
fiscal second-quarter loss as it took a $2.51 billion loss
related to its structured credit activities, and analysts said
the potential for more write-downs looms even though the bank
has taken charges totaling approximately $6 billion in the past
year.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the class of
purchasers of CIBC securities during the class period.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


CARTER'S INC: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
behalf of purchasers of Carter's Inc. common stock during the
period between February 21, 2006, and July 24, 2007, for
violations of federal securities laws.

This action seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
about their ability to turn the operations of acquired company
Oshkosh B'Gosh around.  On July 24, 2007, Carter's announced
that it was taking a large write-down ($142.9 million) on the
tangible assets/goodwill of its Oshkosh subsidiary.  The Carters
shares reacted negatively to the news, falling from $24.87 to
$22.75 per share by the end of trading on July 25, 2007,
representing an 8.5% decline in value.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 18,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-952-0602
                 877-495-1187


FIRST STRATEGIC: Brower Piven Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the shares of certain mutual
funds offered by First Trust Portfolios L.P., including shares
of the First Trust Strategic High Income Fund, First Trust
Strategic High Income Fund II and First Trust Strategic High
Income Fund III during the period between July 26, 2005, and
July 7, 2008, inclusive, and on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Funds
issued in connection with the Fund's initial public offerings.

The complaint charges the Funds and the Funds' registrants, the
Funds' adviser, First Trust Advisors L.P., the Funds' sub-
advisers and certain of the Funds' officers and directors with
violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Funds' portfolios and financial results.  The complaint alleges
that as a result of defendants' false statements, the Funds'
shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period and that, beginning in August 2007 and continuing through
July 2008, the Funds began to acknowledge the deterioration in
the Funds' portfolios.  The complaint further alleges that these
disclosures caused the price of the Funds' shares to decline.

According to the complaint, the true facts which were omitted
from the Registration Statements/Prospectuses or were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period included:

     -- that the Funds lacked effective controls and hedges to
        minimize the risk of loss from mortgage delinquencies
        which affected a large part of their portfolios;

     -- that the Funds lacked effective internal controls to
        ensure compliance with restrictions and limitations
        related to the Funds' investment portfolios and
        strategies;

     -- that the Funds were exposed to liquidity risk due to the
        illiquid nature of a large portion of the Funds'
        portfolios; and

     -- that that the Funds had misstated the extent of the risk
        from their exposure to mortgage-backed assets.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 12,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


HANSEN NATURAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Hansen Natural Corporation during the period between
May 23, 2007, and November 8, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges Hansen Natural and certain of its officers
and directors with violations under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that
misrepresented and failed to disclose:

     -- that Hansen Natural's second quarter sales results were
        materially impacted by customers' inventory loading
        before the Company raised its prices in certain of its
        products;

     -- that the Company was experiencing declining sales in its
        non-core drink lines; and that the Company suffered
        production shortfalls with its Java Monster drink line.

The complaint further alleges that the forgoing information
prevented defendants from having a reasonable basis for positive
statements during the Class Period about the Company and its
prospects and that when, on November 8, 2007, the Company issued
a press release announcing its financial results for the period
ended September 30, 2007, indicating lower than expected revenue
growth and decreasing profit margins, the value of the Company's
shares declined significantly.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 10,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


HARRIS STRATEX: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., between January 29, 2007, and
July 30, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges Harris Stratex and certain of its officers
and directors with violations under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements about the Company's financial
condition prior to and following its formation in early 2007
through the date of the merger of Stratex Networks, Inc., and
the Harris Microwave Communications Division.

The complaint alleges that on July 30, 2008, the Company
announced that because it had discovered accounting errors which
rendered its previously issued financial statements to be
inaccurate (reducing previously reported pre-tax income by $18
million to $25 million), the Company will restate earnings
reports from 2005 through the present.

The complaint further alleges that the Company announced that
its financial statements for the first three quarters of fiscal
2008 and the fiscal years 2005 through 2007 were no longer
reliable.  The complaint further states that as a result of
these announcements, the value of the Company's shares declined
significantly.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 14,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of MEMC Electronic Materials,
Inc., during the period between June 13, 2008, through July 23,
2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges MEMC and its Chief Executive Officer with
violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
problems MEMC was encountering at its production facilities in
Italy and Texas and that because of such production issues the
Company's financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2008
would be below target.

The complaint f further alleges that when the Company first
disclosed these production problems to investors, the value of
MEMC shares declined significantly.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Lockridge Grindal Files Mo. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action suit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri against MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., and its Chief
Executive Office that alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of MEMC common
stock during the period between June 13, 2008, through July 23,
2008, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose
problems MEMC was encountering at its production facilities in
Italy and Texas and that because of such production issues the
Company's financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2008,
would be below target.

In fact, as alleged in the Complaint, on July 23, 2008, the
Company first disclosed that in early June 2008 there was a
premature failure of a relatively new heat-exchanger at the
Company's Merano, Italy facility which caused second quarter
polysilicon output to be reduced by approximately 5%.  As
further alleged, at approximately the same time, on June 13,
2008, the Company's Pasadena, Texas production facility had to
be significantly shut down for approximately a week because of a
fire.  However, as alleged, Defendants failed to disclose these
material production problems to investors and the impact they
would have on the Company's financial results until July 23,
2008.  And, upon these revelations, it is alleged the price of
MEMC shares declined 22%, from $53.80 per share to $42.23 per
share on much heavier than usual trading volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Karen H. Riebel, Esq. (khriebel@locklaw.com)
          Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN  55401
          Phone: 612-339-6900


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Brualdi Files Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of NextWave Wireless, Inc. common stock
during the period between March 30, 2007, and August 7, 2008,
for violations of federal securities laws.

The Complaint charges that defendants issued materially false
statements by failing to disclose the following facts:

     (i) NextWave did not have adequate sources of liquidity to
         continue operations as it executed its growth strategy;

    (ii) defendants had no reasonable basis to make favorable
         statements that the Company's WiMAX semiconductor
         products would be available for commercial sale in the
         first half of 2008;

   (iii) NextWave's growth and acquisition strategy was not
         financially successful and did not provide the basis
         for continued growth because it was straining
         NextWave's fragile liquidity position and NextWave did
         not have the financial resources to continue its world-
         wide operations through the end of 2008; and

    (iv) NextWave failed to timely disclose that it had invested
         all of its marketable securities in extremely high-risk
         and illiquid auction rate securities.

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

For more information, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-952-0602
                 877-495-1187


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of
Novatel Wireless, Inc., has filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Novatel Wireless, Inc.
between February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008, inclusive.

The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Novatel's financial performance and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Novatel securities.

Novatel Wireless, Inc. provides wireless broadband access
solutions for the mobile communications market worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Novatel's financial performance were
materially false and misleading.  Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that defendants' public statements failed to disclose or
indicate the following:

     (1) that the Company improperly recognized revenue in
         violation of its own revenue cut-off procedures;

     (2) that, as a result of this improper revenue recognition,
         the Company misstated its financial results during the
         Class Period;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were not prepared
         in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles (GAAP);

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

     (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements were materially false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

On August 19, 2008, following the close of trading Novatel
shocked investors when it issued a press release which revealed
that the Audit Committee of the Company's board of directors had
reviewed the accounting for six transactions and made a
preliminary determination to move approximately $3.4 million of
revenues from the first quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of
2008.

Moreover, Novatel disclosed there was a possibility that the
Company may have to restate its audited financial statements for
the 2007 fiscal year.  As a result of this news, shares of
Novatel declined $2.11 per share, more than 25%, to close on
August 20, 2008, at $6.29 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020,
          Phone: 215-638-4847
                 888-638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


OSHKOSH CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Wisc. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of Oshkosh
Corporation common stock during the period between November 1,
2007, and June 25, 2008.

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

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
materially misled the investing public, thereby inflating the
price of Oshkosh's common stock, by publicly issuing materially
false and misleading statements and omitting to disclose
material facts necessary to make defendants' statements not
false and misleading.  As alleged in the complaint, these
statements and omissions were materially false and misleading in
that they failed to disclose the following adverse facts which
were known to defendants, or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (a) that synergies related to Oshkosh's European facility
         rationalization program for its refuse business, the
         Geesink Norba Group, were lower and the cost of such
         rationalization was higher than represented;

     (b) that the value of Oshkosh's European refuse business
         was impaired and overstated and should have been
         written down;

     (c) that Oshkosh's JLG access-equipment division was
         experiencing a dramatic decrease in demand; and

     (d) that, as a result of the foregoing, Oshkosh lacked any
         reasonable basis to maintain its financial guidance for
         fiscal 2008.

On June 26, 2008, Oshkosh announced that it was revising
downwards the estimates for its third quarter and full fiscal
2008 financial results because of, among other things, the
impairment of its goodwill associated with the Company's
European refuse collection vehicle manufacturer, the Geesink
Norba Group.  Following this disclosure, shares of Oshkosh
common stock dropped 33%, to close at $22.29 per share, on
extraordinary trading volume in excess of 10.8 million shares.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Oshkosh common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


SSGA INTERMEDIATE: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all investors who purchased
the SSgA Intermediate Fund within three years of September 11,
2008.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that defendants solicited investors to
purchase shares of the Fund by making statements in its
registration statement and supplemental prospectuses that
described the Fund's objective as one that "seeks a high level
of current income while preserving principal by investing
primarily in a diversified portfolio of debt securities with a
dollar-weighted average maturity between three and ten years."

The complaint further alleges that the registration statement
represented that the investment objective of the Fund was to
invest "at least 80% of its total assets in debt instruments"
and to invest in "debt instruments rated investment grade or
better."

As alleged in the complaint, these statements, among others,
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
reflect the actual risks associated with acquiring shares of the
Fund from the Fund's heavy investment in high-risk mortgage-
backed securities and securities tied to the value of subprime
mortgages which caused the Fund to suffer declines in net asset
value.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 10,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


SYNCHRONOS TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of Synchronoss Technologies Inc. common stock during
the period from February 4, 2008, through June 9, 2008.

The complaint charges that Synchronoss and certain of its
officers violated the Securities Exchange Act by issuing
materially false and misleading statements about its contract to
provide in-store activation of iPhones.  On June 10, 2008, the
Company announced that it will not participate in the on-site,
retail store activations associated with the 3G iPhone and
acknowledged that it had been aware of this material development
since at least May 2008 when the Company had issued revised
financial guidance.  As a result of this adverse disclosure, the
price of Synchronoss stock has dropped, damaging investors.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 7,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060
          Weekends Phone: 917-797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/




                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

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 S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F.
Dy, and Peter A. Chapman, 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  * * *