CAR_Public/080924.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

         Wednesday, September 24, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 190

                            Headlines

ALLTEL CORP: Faces Ga. Suit Over Illegal Early Termination Fees
ATRICURE INC: Court Considers Renewed Dismissal Bid in IPO Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Retirement Tax Shelter
BIMINI CAPITAL: Securities Fraud Suits Still Pending in Florida
CBRE REALTY: Wants Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Connecticut Nixed

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Unlawful Tariffs Collection Lawsuit Dismissed
COMPREHENSIVE CARE: Court Gives $325,000 Award in Merger Suits
DRUG COS: Wholesale Drug Pricing Suit Deal Gets Preliminary OK
EL POLLO: "Amezcua" Labor Suit in Calif. Stayed While on Appeal
EL POLLO: April 2009 Hearing Set for Asst. Shift Managers' Suit

EPL INTERMEDIATE: Faces Labor Violations Lawsuit in California
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Limited Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Labor Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Title Insurance Rates
GLOBALSTAR CANADA: Settles Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Quebec
GLOBALSTAR: Nov. 3 Certification Hearing Set for Consumer Suit

GLOBALSTAR INC: Wants N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
HEELYS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Texas
LAWN MOWER MAKERS: Texas Deceptive Advertising Suit Seeks $5MM
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Pension Funds to Pursue Case v. Lehman Officers
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Seeks Supreme Court Review of "McClain" Case

PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Jerusalem Over Call Records
RESERVE FUND: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Amends Securities Fraud Suit
STATE FARM: Faces Lawsuit in N.J. Over Insurances for Homes
VEOLIA TRANSPO: Sued Over Inadequate Rest Breaks for Workers


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BANKUNITED FINANCIAL: Brualdi Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Suit
CARTER'S INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Ga. Securities Fraud Suit
CHINA SHENGHOU: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Suit

FIRST STRATEGIC: Dyer & Berens Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
HANSEN NATURAL: Dreier LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
HARRIS STRATEX: Roy Jacobs Files Delaware Securities Fraud Suit
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Brualdi Law Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mo.
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit

NOVATEL WIRELESS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in Calif.
REDDY ICE: Shuman Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Michigan
RESERVE FUND: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********

ALLTEL CORP: Faces Ga. Suit Over Illegal Early Termination Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alltel Corporation is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
alleging the company charges cell-phone customers illegal early
termination fees, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this action to redress the defendant's
wrongful practice of imposing early termination fees on its
customers, which fees are unlawful penalties.

According to the report, the action is brought on behalf of all
consumer subscribers who had cell phone accounts with the
defendant and whose contracts contain an early termination fee
provision (also called Early Cancellation Fee) or who have been
charged an early termination fee by the defendant.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the ETF is an unlawful penalty;

     (b) whether the defendant's conduct violated the Federal
         Communications Act;

     (c) whether the defendant charged ETFs;

     (d) whether the ETF is unjust;

     (e) whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched;

     (f) whether the defendant intended the ETF to subsidize the
         cost of cellular telephones;

     (g) whether declaratory relief is appropriate; and

     (h) whether the plaintiffs and the class have been damaged,
         and if so, the proper measure of such damages.

The plaintiffs ask the court for an order:

     -- finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for
        maintenance as a class action set forth in Fed. R. Civ.
        P. 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3), and certifying the
        class;

     -- designating the plaintiffs as class representatives and
        their counsel as class counsel;

     -- declaring that the ETF is not a liquidated damages
        clause and is an unlawful penalty in violation of OCGA
        Section 13-6-7;

     -- declaring that the defendant violated the Servicemembers
        Civil Relief Act;

     -- granting preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
        enjoining the defendant from engaging in all deceptive,
        unjust, and unreasonable practices described;

     -- awarding monetary damages for the injuries caused by
        the alleged unlawful conduct, including all damages
        provided for by statute and all consequential and
        incidental damages and costs suffered by plaintiffs and
        the other class members as a result of the defendant's
        wrongful conduct;

     -- requiring the defendant to disgorge all revenues
        received from the imposition of its early termination
        fees;

     -- granting additional appropriate declaratory relief
        including, but not limited to, an order declaring the
        arbitration clause, and ban on class arbitration,
        unenforceable;

     -- awarding pre- and post-judgment interest;

     -- awarding attorney's fees; and

     -- granting such further relief as the court deems just.

The suit is "Linda Coates, et al. v. Alltel Corp., Case No. 1
08-CV-2935," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
          Wade H. Tomlinson, Esq.
          Alan G. Snipes, Esq.
          Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP
          3455 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 925
          Atlanta, GA 30326-3243
          Phone: 404-523-7706


ATRICURE INC: Court Considers Renewed Dismissal Bid in IPO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a renewed bid by AtriCure, Inc., to have a
purported securities class-action lawsuit, entitled "Levine v.
AtriCure, Inc., Case No. 06 CV 14324," dismissed.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws
and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from the company's Initial Public
Offering in August 2005 through Feb. 16, 2006.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.  This motion was denied in
September 2007, and a motion for reconsideration of that denial
is pending.

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 "Levine v. Atricure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
14324-RJH," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Richard J. Holwell,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

         Douglas M. Kraus, Esq. (dkraus@skadden.com)
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-735-3000 x2510
         Fax: 917-777-2510


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Retirement Tax Shelter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County
alleging it sold customers an "illegal and abusive" 412(i)
retirement tax shelter, exposing them to fines and tax
penalties, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this suit pursuant to Civil Rule of
23(b)(3) on behalf of all persons and entities residing in the
State of Washington who at any time between Feb. 13, 2004, and
the present held a Section 412(i) Retirement Plan purchased or
arranged from or through Bank of America.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants sold the insurance policies to
         be used to fund the 412(1) plans;

     (b) whether the defendants knew or should have known that
         the insurance policies would be used to lend to class
         members to fund the 412(i) plans;

     (c) whether the defendants knew or should have known that
         the insurance policies contained provisions that, when
         used to fund 412(i) plans, could subject the plans to
         being deemed abusive  and non-qualified plans by the
         IRS;

     (d) whether the insurance policies sold to the class
         members were substantially similar to each other;

     (e) whether the defendants were negligent, reckless, and
         engaged in intentional misconduct in selling the
         insurance policies to the class members;

     (f) whether the defendants failed to disclose material
         information in the marketing and selling of the
         insurance policies and 412(i) plans to the class
         members;

     (g) whether the insurance policies were sold and marketed
         to the class members pursuant to standard scripts,
         marketing materials, or sales pitches provided by Bank
         of America or others;

     (h) whether the misrepresentations made to the class
         members were materially uniform such that reliance
         could be established by generalized proof;

     (i) whether the defendants steered its customers to other
         professionals for the purpose of portending to bolster
         customer's decisions to purchase 412(i) plans and
         the insurance sold therein;

     (j) whether the fees or commissions charged or earned by
         the defendants were excessive and unreasonable; and

     (k) whether the defendants conspired and aided and
         abetted each other in furtherance of the unlawful acts
         alleged.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- certification of the action as a class action and
        appointment of the plaintiff as class representative and
        his counsel of record as class counsel;

     -- money damages to be proved at trial;

     -- disgorgement of all amounts received by defendants
        arising from sale of the plans;

     -- indemnity against all liabilities occasioned by
        plaintiff as a result of the abusive 412(i) plan.

     -- prejudgment interest on all liquidated sums;

     -- plaintiff's statutory attorney's fees and costs;

     -- an injunction, including an injunction under RCW
        19.86 prohibiting defendants from engaging in similar
        future conduct; and

     -- all further relief to which members of the proposed
        class may be entitled at law or in equity.

The suit is "Allan J. Kollar, et al. v. Bank of America
Corporation, Case NO. 08-2-32353-6 SEA," filed in the Superior
Court of the State of Washington for King County.

The plaintiffs' counsel is:

          Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4000
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292


BIMINI CAPITAL: Securities Fraud Suits Still Pending in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bimini Capital Management, Inc., is still facing two purported
securities fraud class-action suits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.


On Sept. 17, 2007, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida by William Kornfeld
against the company, certain of the company's current and former
officers and directors, Flagstone Securities LLC, and BB&T
Capital Markets, alleging various violations of the federal
securities laws and seeking class action certification.

On Oct. 9, 2007, another complaint was filed in the same court
by Richard and Linda Coy against the same defendants, also
alleging various violations of the federal securities laws and
seeking class action certification.

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

Bimini Capital Management, Inc. -- http://www.biminicapital.com/
-- formerly Opteum Inc., is primarily in the business of
investing in mortgage-backed securities.  Bimini Capital is
operating as a real estate investment trust.


CBRE REALTY: Wants Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Connecticut Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBRE Realty Finance, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a
purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The lawsuit, which was filed against CBRE Realty Finance and its
chief financial officer and former chief executive officer on
Oct. 30, 2007, is seeking remedies under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.

The suit alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
relating to the company's October 2006 initial public offering
contained material misstatements and material omissions.

Specifically, the suit alleges that management had knowledge of
certain loan impairments and did not properly disclose or record
such impairments in the financial statements.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock
between Sept. 29, 2006, and Aug. 6, 2007, and seeks damages in
an unspecified amount.

Amended complaints filed on March 25, 2008, and May 6, 2008,
added as defendants the company's chairman and the underwriters
that participated in the company's October 2006 initial public
offering.

On July 29, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
putative class action suit in 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.

The suit is "Hutchison v. Cbre Rlty Finance Inc et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-01599-SRU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Stefan R. Underhill, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. (nkulesa@izardnobel.com)
          Izard Nobel, LLP
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 860-493-6292
          Fax: 860-493-6290

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (Drosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert S. Fischler, Esq.
          (robert.fischler@ropesgray.com)
          Ropes & Gray LLP
          1211 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-8704
          Phone: 212-596-9000
          Fax: 212-596-9090

               - and -

          Jennifer Ann Black, Esq. (jblack@mccarter.com)
          McCarter & English
          Financial Center, Suite 304A
          695 E. Main St.
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Phone: 203-399-5921
          Fax: 203-399-5821


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Unlawful Tariffs Collection Lawsuit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. announced the dismissal with prejudice of
the motion for certification as a class action of a lawsuit
filed in August 2001 against the Company in the District Court
of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by one of its subscribers and amended (after
being transferred to the District Court of Central Region) in
2006.

The lawsuit alleged collection of air time tariffs and
subscriber fees not in accordance with the agreement with the
subscribers.

Had the lawsuit been certified as a class action, the amount
claimed was estimated by the plaintiff to be ILS1.26 billion,
plus punitive damages at a rate of not less than 100% of the
amount of the judgment.

For more information, contact:

          Shiri Israeli
          Investor Relations Coordinator
          Phone: +972-52-998-9755
          e-mail: investors@cellcom.co.il

               - and -

          Ehud Helft (ehud@gkir.com)
          Ed Job (ed.job@ccgir.com)
          Investor Relations Contact
          CCGK Investor Relations
          Phone: +1-866-704-6710 (US)
                 +1-646-213-1914


COMPREHENSIVE CARE: Court Gives $325,000 Award in Merger Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court of Delaware awarded $325,000 in fees and
expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel involved in class-action
suits that were filed against Comprehensive Care Corp. in
connection with the company's now mutually terminated Agreement
and Plan of Merger with Hythiam, Inc.

Initially, the company and nine current and former board members
were named as defendants in two class action complaints filed by
two shareholders on Jan. 23, 2007, and Feb. 1, 2007,
respectively.

In the similar complaints, filed in the Chancery Court of
Delaware, the plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive and other
equitable relief to prevent Hythiam from acquiring 49.95% of
the company's outstanding common shares that it does not
currently own (either directly or through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Healthcare Investment Partners, LLP [Woodcliff])
from the remaining minority shareholders.

The plaintiffs allege that the consideration proposed to the
minority shareholders by Hythiam is inadequate, through coercive
means, without fair process and through material misleading
information.

On May 25, 2007, the parties mutually terminated the Agreement
and Plan of Merger.  The plaintiffs' counsel has acknowledged
that the lawsuits are now moot and has agreed to dismiss them.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their
case without prejudice, with the court reserving jurisdiction
for their fee application.

On Oct. 10, 2007, the company requested that the court dismiss
the case with prejudice, and not allow legal fees to be awarded
to the plaintiffs' counsel.

On June 19, 2008, the Chancery Court awarded $325,000 in fees
and expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel, 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.

Comprehensive Care Corp. -- http://www.compcare.com/--
primarily through its wholly owned subsidiary, Comprehensive
Behavioral Care, Inc., provides managed care services in the
behavioral health and psychiatric fields.


DRUG COS: Wholesale Drug Pricing Suit Deal Gets Preliminary OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts has preliminarily approved the settlement of a
class action suit against publishers of wholesale drug prices,
and certified a separate class action against McKesson
Corporation, a large drug wholesaler.

These related lawsuits concern the pricing of more than 450
brand-name drugs and could result in significant savings for
consumers and Third-party payors (TPPs).

First Databank and Medi-Span publish data sometimes called the
Average Wholesale Price (AWP) of drugs. T he AWP is often used
as a factor in determining drug prices and can be used as a
factor in determining some co-payments for the brand-name drugs
at issue in the lawsuits.  The FDB-McKesson lawsuit claims that
FDB and McKesson wrongfully inflated the mark-up factor used to
determine the AWP of certain drugs.  The Medi-Span lawsuit
claims that Medi-Span negligently published the AWP price of
certain prescription drugs based on information received from
FDB.  As a result, some consumers and insurers allegedly
overpaid for hundreds of drugs.  FDB, McKesson, and Medi-Span
deny any wrongdoing.

FDB and Medi-Span have separately agreed to settle their
lawsuits and will pay a total of $1.5 million into a Settlement
Fund to benefit a class of consumers and TPPs such as insurance
companies, union health and welfare plans, and self-insured
employers.  The proposed Settlements also require FDB and Medi-
Span to lower the mark-up factor used to determine the AWP for
the drugs at issue in the lawsuits.  As a result, plaintiffs
allege a substantial decrease in drug costs may occur in the
future.

Included in the FDB/Medi-Span proposed Settlements are consumers
and TPPs that paid or reimbursed for all or a percentage of the
cost of prescription drugs based on the AWP published by FDB
from January 2000 to the present or the AWP published by Medi-
Span from December 2001 to the present.  Consumers who paid a
flat or fixed co-payment for the drugs are not included.  Some
Pharmacy Benefit Managers may not be included.

Included in the McKesson Class Action are consumers who paid
percentage co-payments and TPPs that reimbursed for certain
brand-name prescription drugs based on AWP pricing between
August 1, 2001, and March 15, 2005, and whose co-payments or
reimbursements were based on the AWP published by FDB or Medi-
Span for the drugs.  Consumers who paid a flat or fixed dollar
co-payment or are uninsured are not included.

Consumers and TPPs may remain in the FDB/Medi-Span proposed
Settlements or the McKesson Class Action by doing nothing, but
they will be bound by the Court's rulings.  Consumers and TPPs
may also exclude themselves and keep their rights to sue
FDB/Medi-Span and McKesson.  Consumers and TPPs must exclude
themselves in writing or via email by November 15, 2008.  If an
individual or entity previously excluded themselves in the
FDB/Medi-Span proposed Settlements, they must do so again.  The
Court will determine whether to approve the FDB/Medi-Span
proposed Settlements at a Fairness Hearing on December 17, 2008,
at 3 PM.  For the McKesson Class Action, a trial is now set for
December 1, 2008.

Membership in the Classes varies.  Depending on which of the
Classes a consumer or TPP may belong to, they will need to
separately decide whether to exclude themselves from the
McKesson Class Action or the FDB/Medi-Span proposed Settlements.
A decision not to participate in one does not affect
participation in the other.

"The FDB/Medi-Span proposed Settlements and the McKesson Class
Action will hopefully allow consumers and TPPs to experience a
savings in the future due to the anticipated decrease in drug
costs," said Steve W. Berman, Esq., of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Counsel for the Plaintiffs in this case.

Further details regarding the Wholesale Drug Pricing Settlement
can be found at: http://www.AWPClassActions.com/


EL POLLO: "Amezcua" Labor Suit in Calif. Stayed While on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit against El Pollo Loco, Inc. -- a
wholly owned subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc. -- filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, is being stayed while it is pending before the Court of
Appeal.

Generally, the lawsuit alleges violations of California labor
laws and the California Business and Professions Code.  The
plaintiff, Salvador Amezcua, filed the suit on Oct. 18, 2005, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, based on,
among other things, failure to pay overtime compensation,
unlawful deductions from earnings and unfair competition by the
company.

The suit requested remedies that include compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 16, 2006, Carlos Olvera replaced Mr. Amezcua as the
named class representative.

The court denied EPL's motion to compel arbitration, and the
company has appealed that decision.  The matter is subject to an
automatic stay while it is pending before the Court of Appeal.

EPL Intermediate, Inc. 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 25, 2008.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.elpolloloco.com/--
formerly EPL Holdings, Inc. own, operate and franchise
restaurants specializing in marinated, flame-grilled chicken.
The company is a subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc.


EL POLLO: April 2009 Hearing Set for Asst. Shift Managers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative April 14, 2009 hearing is slated for the purported
class-action lawsuit against El Pollo Loco, Inc. -- a wholly
owned subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc. -- that was filed
before a state court in Los Angeles County.

In April 2007, Dora Santana filed the purported class action
complaint on behalf of all "Assistant Shift Managers."  The
plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations including working off
the clock, failure to pay overtime, and meal break violations on
behalf of the purported class, currently defined as all
Assistant Managers from April 2003 to present.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery on the limited
issue of class certification.

The court has ordered the plaintiff to file her Motion for Class
Certification by Dec. 16, 2008.  Trial is set for April 14,
2009, according to EPL Intermediate's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended
June 25, 2008.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.elpolloloco.com/--
formerly EPL Holdings, Inc. own, operate and franchise
restaurants specializing in marinated, flame-grilled chicken.
The company is a subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Faces Labor Violations Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Intermediate, Inc., is facing a purported class-action suit
in California that was filed by a former assistant manager of
the company, according to EPL Intermediate's Aug. 11, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 25, 2008.

On May 30, 2008, former assistant manager Jeannette Delgado
filed a purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of all hourly
(i.e. non-exempt) employees of EPL in state court in Los Angeles
County alleging violations of certain California labor laws and
the California Business and Professions Code including failure
to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest
periods and unfair business practices.  By statute, the
purported class extends back four years to May 30, 2004.

The plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.elpolloloco.com/--
formerly EPL Holdings, Inc. own, operate and franchise
restaurants specializing in marinated, flame-grilled chicken.
The company is a subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Limited Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery is ongoing in a purported class-action lawsuit
against EPL Intermediate, Inc., filed before the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On April 16, 2004, former managers Haroldo Elias, Marco Ramirez
and Javier Rivera filed the purported class action suit against
EPL on behalf of all putative class members composed of former
and current general managers and restaurant managers from April
2000 to present.  The suit alleges certain violations of
California labor laws, including alleged improper classification
of general managers and restaurant managers as exempt employees.

The requested remedies include compensatory damages for unpaid
wages, interest, certain statutory penalties, disgorgement of
alleged profits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs
as well as certain injunctive relief.

The court has lifted the stay on the class action pursuant to a
recent California Supreme Court decision.  The matter is now
proceeding in Superior Court, and the parties are conducting
limited discovery on the issue of class certification.

EPL Intermediate, Inc., 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 25, 2008.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.elpolloloco.com/--
formerly EPL Holdings, Inc. own, operate and franchise
restaurants specializing in marinated, flame-grilled chicken.
The company is a subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Title Insurance Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., and several of its affiliates
are facing several purported class action lawsuits in New York
over an alleged conspiracy to inflate rates for title insurance.

In February 2008, 13 putative class-action lawsuits were
commenced against several title insurance companies, including
Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., Chicago Title Insurance
Co., Security Union Title Insurance Co., and Ticor Title
Insurance Co. (Fidelity Affiliates).  The complaints also name
Fidelity National Financial as a defendant based on its
ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc., a New York State-approved rate service organization which
is also named as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as
injunctive relief.

Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.  There are now approximately 63 complaints pending
alleging that the company and its affiliates conspired with
their competitors to unlawfully inflate rates for title
insurance in every major market in the United States.

A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to
consolidate and coordinate these actions in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York.  However, that
motion was denied.

The cases are generally being consolidated before one district
court judge in each state and a filing of consolidated
complaints and motion practice are scheduled to be filed,
according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fntg.com/-- is
a holding company that is a provider, through its subsidiaries,
of title insurance, specialty insurance and claims management
services.  The company also provides flood insurance, personal
lines insurance and home warranty insurance through its
specialty insurance subsidiaries.  In addition, FNF is a
provider of outsourced claims management services to corporate
and public sector entities through its minority-owned
subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc., and a provider of
information services in the human resources, retail, and
transportation markets through another minority-owned affiliate,
Ceridian Corporation.  FNF's operating business segments include
Fidelity National Title Group, which provides core title
insurance and escrow and other title related services, and
Specialty Insurance, which consists of certain subsidiaries that
issue flood, home warranty, homeowners, automobile and other
personal lines insurance policies.


GLOBALSTAR CANADA: Settles Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Quebec
-----------------------------------------------------------
Globalstar Canada, a unit of Globalstar, Inc., settled a
purported consumer fraud class-action lawsuit filed against it
in the Superior Court in Quebec, Canada.

On April 24, 2007, Jean-Pierre Barrette filed a motion for
authorization to institute a class action in Quebec, Canada,
Superior Court against Globalstar Canada.  Mr. Barrette asserts
claims based on Quebec law related to his alleged problems with
Globalstar Canada's service.

The company moved to disqualify Mr. Barrette because of his
association with the law firm representing him and to transfer
the case to the district of Montreal.

The court recently granted the company's motion for a change of
venue, and the plaintiff's counsel substituted a new designated
representative for the purported class.

In June 2008, Globalstar Canada and the plaintiff settled the
case for an immaterial amount.  The settlement was approved by
the court on June 25, 2008, and class members had until July 28,
2008, to exclude themselves from the class, according to the
company's Aug. 11 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Globalstar, Inc. -- http://www.globalstar.com/-- is a provider
of mobile voice and data communication services via satellite.
Using in-orbit satellites and ground stations, which it refers
to as gateways, the company offers voice and data communications
services to government agencies, businesses and other customers
in over 120 countries.


GLOBALSTAR: Nov. 3 Certification Hearing Set for Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative Nov. 3, 2008 hearing was scheduled for a purported
class-action lawsuit filed against Globalstar, Inc., which
alleges violations of the California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 and California Civil Code section 1750, et seq.,
the Consumers' Legal Remedies Act.

The suit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 7, 2007, by Kenneth
Stickrath and Sharan Stickrath, under Case No. 07-CV-01941.

The plaintiffs allege that members of the proposed class
suffered damages from March 2003 to the present because
Globalstar did not perform according to its representations with
respect to coverage and reliability.  They claim that the amount
in controversy exceeds $5.0 million but do not allege any
particular actual damages incurred.

On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and
the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On
Sept. 25, 2007, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the company's dismissal motion.

Subsequently, on Oct. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint, and Globalstar filed a reply and
second motion to dismiss.

On Feb. 6, 2008, the judge granted Globalstar's motion in part
and denied it in part, thereby narrowing the scope of the case.
A mandatory mediation session was held on March 10, 2008, and
discovery related solely to the issue of certification of the
class was completed in April 2008.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
Globalstar's motion for summary judgment is scheduled for
Nov. 3, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 11 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Stickrath, et al. v. Globalstar, Inc., Case No.
3:07-cv-01941-TEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Thelton E. Henderson,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael Andrew McShane, Esq. (mmcshane@audetlaw.com)
          Audet & Partners LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-568-2555
          Fax: 415-568-2556

Representing the defendant is:

          Elizabeth I. Rogers, Esq.
          (elizabeth.rogers@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
          1117 California Avenue
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-858-6000
          Fax: 650-858-6100


GLOBALSTAR INC: Wants N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Globalstar, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class-action suit filed against the company in
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.

In February 2007, Ladmen Partners, Israel Bollag and Margueritte
Sherrard, filed three separate purported class action complaints
against the company, its chief executive officer and its chief
financial officer (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2007).

The suits allege that the company's registration statement
related to its initial public offering in November 2006
contained material misstatements and omissions.

The actions cited a drop in the trading price of the company's
common stock that followed its filing, on Feb. 5, 2007, of a
current report on SEC Form 8-K relating in part to changes in
the condition of the company's satellite constellation.

The Court consolidated the three cases as "Ladmen Partners, Inc.
v. Globalstar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-0976 (LAP)," and
appointed Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund as lead plaintiff.

On Aug. 15, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a securities class
action consolidated amended complaint reasserting claims against
the company and the company's CEO and CFO, and adding as
defendants the three co-lead underwriters of the IPO Wachovia
Capital Markets, LLC; JPMorgan Securities, Inc.; and Jefferies &
Co., Inc.

On Nov. 15, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.  The amended complaint seeks, on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's common stock who purchased shares in
the IPO, recovery of damages under Sections 11 and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and rescission under Section
12(a)(2) of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

On Feb. 15, 2008, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint.  The plaintiff's response to these
motions was filed on April 15, 2008, and the defendants' reply
memorandum was filed May 15, 2008.

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

The suit is "Ladmen Partners, Inc., et al. v. Globalstar, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-0976 (LAP)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Loretta A.
Preska, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Joel Paul Laitman, Esq. (jplaitman@aol.com)
          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-964-0046
          Fax: 212-267-8137

Representing the defendants are:

          Lewis Clifford Craig, Esq. (craigc@taftlaw.com)
          Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
          425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
          Cincinnati, Oh 45202-3957
          Phone: 513-381-2838
          Fax: 513-381-0205

               - and -

          Mitchell A. Lowenthal, Esq. (maofiling@cgsh.com)
          Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP
          1 Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-225-2000
          Fax: 212-225-3499


HEELYS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heelys, Inc., is still facing a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

The company, its former chief executive officer, its chief
financial officer, and its directors, who signed the company's
registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with its Dec. 7, 2006 initial public
offering -- along with Capital Southwest Corp., Capital
Southwest Venture Corp., and the underwriters for the IPO -- are
defendants in a lawsuit originally filed on Aug. 27, 2007, by
plaintiff Brian Rines, individually and on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to or
traceable to the IPO registration statement.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933.  The plaintiff seeks an order
determining that the action may proceed as a class action,
awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the
other class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel
fees and expert fees.

Four similar lawsuits were also filed in September and October
2007 before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, by plaintiffs Vulcan Lee, John Avila, Gerald Markey, and
Robert Eiron on behalf of the same plaintiff class, making
substantially similar allegations under Sections 11, 12, and 15
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and seeking substantially
similar damages.

These lawsuits have been transferred to a single judge and have
been consolidated into a single action.  An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on March 11, 2008.

The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus used in
connection with our IPO contained misstatements of material fact
or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make
the statements made not misleading relating to among other
allegations, safety concerns and injuries associated with the
company's products and their alleged impact on demand,
visibility into its sales channel and competition from
knockoffs, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and requests substantially similar
damages and relief as previously mentioned.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint, according to the company's
Aug. 11 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its regulatory filing.
The suit is "Rines v. Heelys Inc., et al,. Case No. 3:07-cv-
01468-K," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Judge Ed Kinkeade, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Willie Briscoe, Esq. (wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com)
          Preston Commons West
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Phone: 214-706-9314
          Fax: 214-706-9315

               - and -

          Roger F. Claxton, Esq. (roger@claxtonhill.com)
          Claxton & Hill PLLC
          10000 N. Central Expwy., Suite 725
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Phone: 214-969-9029
          Fax: 214-953-0583

Representing the defendants are:

          Karen L. Hirschman, Esq. (khirschman@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-220-7795
          Fax: 214-220-7716

               - and -

          Rodney Acker, Esq. (racker@fulbright.com)
          Fulbright & Jaworski
          2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201-2784
          Phone: 214-855-7446
          Fax: 214-855-8200


LAWN MOWER MAKERS: Texas Deceptive Advertising Suit Seeks $5MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several companies are facing a class action lawsuit over
allegations that they have misrepresented the horsepower of
their lawn mowers and mower engines in an attempt to charge
higher prices, Lawn & Landscape reports.

The class action complaint was filed by Gene Bennett, Clarence
Laird and Laci Canion on Sept. 10, 2008, in the Marshall
Division of the Eastern District of Texas against these
companies:

   -- Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
   -- Deere & Co.,
   -- Tecumseh Products,
   -- Briggs and Stratton,
   -- Kawasaki Motors,
   -- MTD Products,
   -- Toro Company,
   -- American Honda Motor,
   -- Electrolux Home Products,
   -- Kohler Company,
   -- Platinum Equity, and
   -- Husqvarna Outdoor Products.

According to the complaint, these companies have used horsepower
to "label, categorize, and market" their lawn mowers and lawn
mower engines.  "The more horsepower generated by a lawn mower's
engine, the better and faster the lawn mower is able to
perform," the court filing explains.

The complaint also asserts that these companies, since 1994,
knowingly misrepresented the horsepower through statements and
representations, which include product labeling and owner's
manuals.  The plaintiffs argue that the misrepresentations
allowed the companies to market and sell identical engines as
different products at different prices.

The suit claims that many of the companies formed groups to
discuss labeling standards.  Deere, Tecumseh, Briggs and
Stratton, Kawasaki, MTD, Toro, Honda, Electrolux, and Kohler
formed the "Power Labeling Task Force," which the plaintiffs
allege was used to "meet, discuss, conspire, conceal and further
their fraudulent horsepower misrepresentations."  The Power
Labeling Task Force created a disclaimer titled "Understanding
Horsepower" and placed it on the Outdoor Power Equipment
Institute's Web site.

The complaint argues this information further misled the public
and was an effort to conceal the fraudulent horsepower labeling
practices.  The Web site discusses such factors as atmospheric
conditions as a contributing to the lack of horsepower.

According to the plaintiffs, many other labeling methods were
used to conceal the actual horsepower generated by the
respective lawn mower's engine.  These methods included the use
of "gross" horsepower, which is the theoretical horsepower an
engine could achieve under ideal laboratory conditions.  Or the
use of the "torque" on lawn mower engine's labels, despite that
"engineers assert that torque is not an appropriate quantifier
of power," the plaintiffs state.

Lawn & Landscape says that the class action is seeking more than
$5 million in damages, specifically asking for a rescission of
each sale and for the disgorgement of all profits from over-
payments.

According to the report, the proposed class will include every
Texan and Texas corporation (with assets less than $25 million)
from 1994 that has acquired by purchase or lease a lawn mower
with an engine manufactured by the defendants with horsepower
less than represented.

Causes of action filed against the defendants include breach of
express warranty for goods, breach of contract, conspiracy,
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act
violations and unjust enrichment.

According to court records, the named defendants currently sell
nearly six million lawn mowers in the United States per year.

Lawn & Landscape relates that the suit demands a jury trial.

Longview attorneys John D. Sloan Jr., Esq., Laureen F. Bagley,
Esq., and Garrett W. Wilson, Esq., of the Sloan, Bagley, Hatcher
and Perry Law Firm will represent the plaintiffs and the
proposed class.

U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the lawsuit.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Pension Funds to Pursue Case v. Lehman Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Aug. 14, 2008, that two
local government pension funds are leading a U.S. class
action lawsuit against Lehman Brothers over sub-prime losses.

According to the CAR report, the Lothian Pension Fund and the
Northern Ireland Local Governmental Officers Superannuation
Committee are leading a group of pension funds from around the
world in the case.  The schemes allege that the investment
banking giant caused them major financial losses as a result of
sub-prime investments.

In an update, Sara Utecht of Professional Pensions writes that
Lothian Pension has confirmed it will continue with the class
action case against the officers and directors of Lehman
Brothers.

Specifically, an LPF spokeswoman told Professional Pensions
that, following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers investment
bank, the class action case against Lehman is stayed but a case
against the officers of the company will continue.

"If the case is won, the settlement would be paid from the
officers and directors insurance cover and/or the officers
personally," the spokeswoman said.

Lehman also said that it would continue its lawsuit against the
directors named in the action after the bank collapsed last
week.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Seeks Supreme Court Review of "McClain" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lufkin Industries Inc. filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
in the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the court review the
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in
the matter, "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No.
9:97-cv-00063-HC," a race discrimination lawsuit filed by
present and former employees of the company.

An employee and a former employee of the company filed the class
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas on March 7, 1997, alleging race discrimination.

Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas, in
February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas, in August 1998.  In April
1999, the District Court issued a decision that certified a
class for this case, which included all black employees employed
by the company from March 6, 1994, to the present.

The case was closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties
unsuccessfully attempted mediation.  Trial for this case began
in December 2003, but was postponed by the District Court and
was completed in October 2004.  The only claims made at trial
were those of discrimination in initial assignments and
promotions.

On Jan. 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that the company discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions.  The District
Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a
shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the
company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall,
together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%.

On Aug. 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back-
pay award for the class of affected employees would be
$3.4 million -- including interest to Jan. 1, 2005 -- and
provided a formula for attorney fees that the company estimates
will result in a total not to exceed $2.5 million.

In addition to backpay with interest, the District Court
enjoined and ordered the company to cease and desist all
racially biased assignment and promotion practices and ordered
the company to pay court costs and expenses.

The company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and
on Sept. 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

On April 3, 2007, the company appeared before the appellate
court in New Orleans for oral argument in this case.  The
appellate court subsequently issued a decision on Feb. 29, 2008,
that reversed and vacated the plaintiff's claim regarding the
initial assignment of black employees into the Foundry Division.

The appellate court also denied the plaintiff's appeal for class
certification in order to claim disparate treatment.  The
plaintiff's claim on the issue of the company's promotional
practices was affirmed but the backpay award was vacated and
remanded for recomputation in accordance with the opinion.

The District Court's injunction was vacated and remanded with
instructions to enter appropriate injunctive relief.  Finally,
the issue of the plaintiff's attorney's fees was remanded to the
district court for further consideration in accordance with
prevailing authority.

The plaintiff and the company subsequently filed requests for
rehearing with the court on March 20, 2008, in order to address
significant issues.

On April 10, 2008, the company was informed that the Fifth
Circuit had denied both requests for a rehearing.

At present, however, the district court will conduct further
proceedings on the injunctive relief to be entered, back pay and
plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees.

The Fifth Circuit's opinion to reverse and affirm portions of
the District Court's decision, together with the assignment of a
different judge for this case in the District Court (the trial
judge who wrote the trial court decision is deceased) prevents
the company from estimating the back pay or attorneys' fees
award at this time.

The District Court will interpret the Fifth Circuit's
instructions and take additional evidence to determine these
issues.

On July 2, 2008, the company filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the court
review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No.
9:97-cv-00063-HC," filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Judge Judge Howell Cobb, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Morris J. Baller, Esq. (mjb@gdblegal.com)
          Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen
          300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510-763-9800
          Fax: 1-510-835-1417

          Timothy Borne Garrigan, Esq.
          (tbgstugar@cox-internet.com)
          Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter
          2803 North Street, P.O. Box 631902
          Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902
          Phone: 936-560-6020
          Fax: 1-936-560-9578

Representing the company is:

          Christopher V. Bacon, Esq. (cbacon@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins
          1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77002-6760
          Phone: 713-758-2222
          Fax: 1-713-615-5014


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Jerusalem Over Call Records
-----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. (TASE:PTNR), a leading
Israeli mobile communications operator, disclosed that it was
served on September 21, 2008, with a lawsuit requesting
certification as a class action.  The lawsuit was filed against
Partner in the District Court of Jerusalem.

The claim alleges that Partner wrongfully charges certain
subscribers for call records sent to them by mail.
If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed from Partner is estimated by the Plaintiff to be
approximately ILS50 million.  Also, the Plaintiff seeks some
mandatory relief.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and at this
preliminary stage is unable to evaluate the probability of
success of the lawsuit or the range of potential exposure, if
any, with any degree of certainty.

For more information contact:

          Emanuel Avner - Chief Financial Officer
          (emanuel.avner@orange.co.il)
          Oded Degany - Carrier, Investor & Int'l Relations
          (oded.degany@orange.co.il)
          Partner Communications Company Ltd.
          Phone: +972-54-7814951
                 +972-54-7814151
          Fax: +972-54-7815961
               +972-54 -7814161
          Web site: http://www.orange.co.il/investor_site/


RESERVE FUND: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Amends Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. and its
co-counsel filed a class action amended complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of plaintiff and a proposed class of purchasers of shares of The
Reserve Fund's Primary Fund (NASDAQ: RFIXX) during the period
September 28, 2007, through September 16, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that the Fund and the Fund's underwriter,
investment adviser, officers and trustees and the other related
Defendants, violated Sections 11, 12(A)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements
and omissions concerning the lack of true diversification of the
Fund's assets, safety of principal, access to liquidity and
exposure to at least face value debt of $785 million of the now
defunct Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., that the Fund's risk
profile was not only "marginally higher" than cash, the high
vulnerability of the money market fund to suddenly drop below $1
per share to as low as $.95 per share, and the fact that the net
asset value of the money market fund was speculative and
inflated.  Thus, the Fund's Registration Statement and
Prospectus, for period September 28, 2007, through September 16,
2008, were materially false and misleading.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on his own behalf and on
behalf of the Class.

For more information, contact:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Toll-free: 800-660-7843


STATE FARM: Faces Lawsuit in N.J. Over Insurances for Homes
-----------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Insurance and Superior Home Mortgage are facing a
class-action complaint filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, County of Camden alleging the companies illegally demand
that homeowners insure their houses for more than the
replacement value, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit is a class action seeking declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and damages challenging the policies and
practices of defendants relating to their common course of
conduct in their insurance valuation and calculation of real
property in a manner that violates lawful practices established
by NJSA (New Jersey Statutes Annotated) 17:36-5.19 and NJAC (New
Jersey Administrative Code) 3:1-13.1(c), respectively.

The plaintiffs allege that the violation of these statutory
provisions by defendants constitutes a violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, NJSA 56:8-1, et seq.

This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class
action pursuant to Rule 4:32 of the New Jersey Court Rules on
behalf of all persons in New Jersey who, since Aug. 1, 2002 (or
such date as discovery may disclose) entered into insurance
policies with State Farm to obtain fire insurance coverage and
the premium was based on insurance for a value greater than the
value of the replacement cost of the property, and who entered
into mortgages with Superior Mortgage and in connection with
those mortgages were required to obtain coverage exceeding
replacement costs of the premises on the property.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the mortgage value calculation of the insurance
         policies into which plaintiffs and the other members of
         the class violated NJSA 17:36-5.19;

     (b) whether a violation of NJSA 17:36-5.19 can constitute a
         violation of, or is a per se violation of, the Consumer
         Fraud Act;

     (c) whether State Farm  otherwise violated the Consumer
         Fraud Act;

     (d) whether Superior Mortgage has conducted business in New
         Jersey in violation of NJAC 3:1-13.1(c);

     (e) whether a violation of NJAC 3:1-13.1(c) can constitute
         a violation of, or is a per se violation of, the
         Consumer Fraud Act;

     (f) whether Superior Mortgage otherwise violated the
         Consumer Fraud Act; and

     (g) to what remedies may plaintiffs and the class be
         entitled and how said remedies could be calculated.

The plaintiffs demand judgment:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to Rule 4:32 of the New Jersey Court of Rules
        and declaring that plaintiffs are proper representatives
        of the class;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the other members of the class
        damages, including statutory damages, as a result of the
        wrongs alleged;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the other members of the class
        pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as a result of
        the wrongs complained of;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the other members of the class
        their costs and expenses in this litigation, including
        reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees and other
        costs and disbursements;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the members of the classes an
        order declaring that State Farm's actions violated NJSA
        17:36-5.19;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the members of the class an
        order declaring that Superior Mortgage's actions violate
        NJAC 3:1-13.1(c);

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the members of the classes
        injunctive relief compelling State Farm to cease its
        actions that violate NJSA 17:36-5.19;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the members of the classes
        injunctive relief compelling Superior Mortgage to cease
        its actions that violate NJAC 3:1-13.1(c); and

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the members of the classes such
        other and further relief as may be just and proper under
        the circumstances.

The suit is "Leo Malatino, et al. v. State Farm Fire and
Casualty et al, Case No. 4707 08," filed in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, County of Camden.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLC
          1311 Mamaroneck Ave., Suite 220
          White Plains, N.Y. 10605
          Phone: 914-997-5656
          Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.com/


VEOLIA TRANSPO: Sued Over Inadequate Rest Breaks for Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Veolia
Transportation for failing to give workers proper rest breaks,
cbs8.com reports.

The report relates that Veolia was the employer of an engineer
who was blamed for the deadly Metrolink crash near Los Angeles.

According to cbs8.com, the class action is a combination of two
lawsuits filed before the crash in Chatsworth.

The report says that 25 people were killed in the crash a week
ago, while 21 people remain hospitalized.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BANKUNITED FINANCIAL: Brualdi Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of Bank United Financial Corporation common
stock during the period between April 18, 2006, and June 18,
2008, for violations of federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements about BankUnited.
Specifically, defendants misrepresented:

     (a) the losses the Company was likely to suffer due to
         BankUnited's poor underwriting standards, which losses
         would occur once interest rates reset on the billions
         of dollars of pay-option arms (adjustable rate
         mortgages where borrowers had the ability to choose
         their payment amount during the initial period of the
         loan);

     (b) BankUnited's sketchy appraisal process, which permitted
         borrowers to obtain mortgages in excess of their
         ability to pay and in excess of the value of the
         underlying property; and

     (c) BankUnited's policies with regard to "piggy-back"
         loans, which are essentially second mortgages made at
         the time a home is purchased to fund a down payment.

When the truth began to come to light, BankUnited's stock price
plunged, damaging innocent investors.

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: 877-495-1187 (toll free)
                 212-952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on Sept. 19,
2008, 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
between May 31, 2007, and May 28, 2008, inclusive.  The lawsuit
was filed against CIBC and certain of its officers and
directors.

This action seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The action alleges that Defendants misled
investors by falsely representing that CIBC's exposure to
subprime CDOs was not a major risk issue and failing to
accurately describe its total exposure to the U.S. subprime
mortgage market.  Such reassurances were repeated by the
Defendants throughout the Class Period in order to artificially
support CIBC's stock price in the midst of a weakening subprime
mortgage market.

Additional disclosures through the end of the Class Period
revealed the full extent of CIBC's exposure to toxic subprime
mortgage-backed securities, causing the Company's stock to
plummet to $63.93 per share on June 6, 2008, after the final
curative disclosure on May 29, 2008, was digested by the market
-- a drop of more than 40% from CIBC's Class Period high.

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

For more information, contact:

          Eric J. Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY  10005
          Phone: 800-321-0476
                 212-907-0700


CARTER'S INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Ga. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow filed a class action lawsuit on September 19,
2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of Carter's, Inc. between February 21, 2006, and
July 24, 2007, inclusive.

The lawsuit was filed against Carter's and certain officers and
directors.

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:

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq. (arado@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY  10005
          Phone: 800-321-0476
                 212-907-0700


CHINA SHENGHOU: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., has
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of its client and on
behalf of other similarly situated purchasers of China Shenghuo
Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. common stock during the period
between July 23, 2007, through August 20, 2008, inclusive.

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

CSP is a Delaware Corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Kunming within the Yunnan province of the
People's Republic of China.  CSP and its subsidiaries engage in
the research, development, manufacture, and marketing of
pharmaceutical, nutritional supplement, and cosmetic products.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
issued numerous materially false and misleading statements and
violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principle's which caused
CSP's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices.  More
specifically, the complaint alleges that on August 20, 2008, the
Company announced that it would delay the filing of its second
quarter Form 10-Q with the Securities Exchange Commission due to
"a pending internal investigation being conducted by the
[Company's] Audit Committee of the Board of Directors . . .
regarding errors in the accounting for certain sales
representative commission advances and trade receivables, the
Company's internal controls, the Company's personnel involved
and related matters."

Moreover, the complaint alleges that the Company announced that
"pending conclusion of the investigation, the Company will
restate its financial statements for its fiscal periods ended
June 30, September 30, and December 30, 2007, and fiscal quarter
ended March 31, 2008, and [that they] . . . should not be relied
upon at this time."  Lastly, the complaint alleges that the
Company warned its investors that it "may face potential
delisting proceedings by the American Stock Exchange ('AMEX')."

According to the complaint, on this news, the Company's share
price fell almost 20% to close at $1.89 on August 20, 2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 22,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Tyler Gaffney, Esq. (tgaffney@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: 888-240-0775
                 202-408-4600


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (NYSE:CEG) publicly traded
securities during the period between January 30, 2008, and
September 16, 2008, including the Series A Junior Subordinated
Debentures (Preferred Securities), pursuant and traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's June 27, 2008 Preferred Securities
offering.

The complaint charges Constellation and certain of its officers
and directors and its underwriters with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.
Constellation is an energy company that conducts its business
through various subsidiaries.

The complaint alleges that due to defendants' positive, but
false, statements, Constellation's stock closed as high as
$88.25 per share on June 9, 2008.  On June 27, 2008, defendants
consummated the sale of Constellation's Preferred Securities
pursuant to the false and misleading Registration Statement,
selling 18 million shares at $25.00 per share for proceeds of
approximately $435.8 million.

In July 2008, the Company reported favorable financial results
and reaffirmed EPS guidance of $5.25-$5.75 per share for 2008.
In August 2008, analysts questioned Constellation's accounting
and the implications of a credit downgrade.  Then, on
September 15, 2008, investors and the market became aware of
Constellation's exposure to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s
bankruptcy, which affected the Company's ability to engage in
energy-related trades.  With this news, Constellation's shares
plunged to $47.99, a 50% drop from the Company's Class Period
high of $97.34 per share.

According to the complaint, defendants were aware of the
following material undisclosed information which contradicted
their public statements, including in the Registration
Statement/Prospectus:

     (a) defendants were inflating Constellation's results
         through manipulations relating to the characterization
         of depreciation expense which inflated the Company's
         reported cash flows;

     (b) the Company's financial results were inflated by overly
         optimistic assumptions which were reflected in mark-to-
         market accounting;

     (c) the Company's exposure to credit problems of trading
         partners was much greater than represented -- in fact,
         one of Constellation's key trading partners, Lehman,
         was having severe financial problems; and

     (d) the Company was not on track to report 2008 EPS of
         $5.25+ per share.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Constellation publicly traded securities during
the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
                 619-231-1058


FIRST STRATEGIC: Dyer & Berens Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of certain investors of mutual funds offered by First
Trust Portfolios L.P., including shares of the: (1) First Trust
Strategic High Income Fund, (2) First Trust Strategic High
Income Fund II, and (3) First Trust Strategic High Income Fund
III, between July 26, 2005, and July 7, 2008, inclusive.

The lawsuit also seeks to recover damages on behalf of certain
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the
Funds issued in connection with the Funds' initial public
offerings.

The complaint charges the Funds, the Funds' registrants, the
Funds' adviser (First Trust Advisors L.P.), the Funds' sub-
advisers (Hilliard Lyons Asset Management and Valhalla Capital
Partners, LLC), and certain of the Funds' officers and directors
with violations of the federal securities laws.

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

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com/


HANSEN NATURAL: Dreier LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP commenced a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Hansen Natural Corp. from
May 23, 2007, through November 8, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges Hansen and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  As a result of defendants' false statements and omissions
during the class period, Hansen common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices.

Hansen, through its subsidiaries, engages in the development,
marketing, sale, and distribution of beverages in the United
States and Canada.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding
Hansen's beverage sales and financial results.  Among other
things, the Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented
and concealed that:

     (i) Hansen's second quarter 2007 sales results were
         materially impacted by inventory loading as customers
         were induced to purchase more product before the
         Company raised its prices for two of its beverage
         lines:

    (ii) Hansen was experiencing a decline in sales of its non-
         core drink lines;

   (iii) the Company's Java Monster drink line was experiencing
         production shortfalls; and

    (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants did not have a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements
         concerning the Company's business prospects.

On November 8, 2007, Hansen reported lower than expected revenue
growth and decreasing profit margins in a press release
announcing the Company's financial results for the third quarter
2007.

On that day, following the defendants' revelations, Hansen
common stock fell $13.17 per share, to close at $43.50 per share
on heavy trading volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Dreier LLP
          499 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-328-6100
          Fax: 212-328-6101
          e-mail: info@dreierllp.com


HARRIS STRATEX: Roy Jacobs Files Delaware Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on
behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Harris Stratex
Networks, Inc., from January 29, 2007, through July 30, 2008,
inclusive, including former shareholders of Stratex Networks,
Inc., who exchanged their shares for shares of Harris Stratex
in a merger completed in January 2007.

The lawsuit was filed against Harris Stratex and certain
officers and directors.

It is alleged in the complaint that on July 30, 2008, the
Company announced that it had discovered accounting errors which
caused its previously issued financial statements to be
incorrect.  According to the announcement, the Company will
restate its financial statements from 2005 through the present.
The Company reported these accounting errors will cut previously
reported pre-tax income by $18 million to $25 million.  As a
result of the restatement, the Company announced that its prior
financial statements for the first three quarters of fiscal 2008
and the fiscal years 2005 through 2007 should no longer be
relied upon.  Harris Stratex's share price fell in reaction to
the announcement from $11.24 to $7.35 per share -- a 34.61%
decline in value, and has not recovered.

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

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Toll Free: 1-888-884-4490


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Brualdi Law Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., disclosed that a lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of MEMC Electronic
Materials Inc. common stock during the period between June 13,
2008, and July 23, 2008, for violations of federal securities
laws.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

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: 877-495-1187 (toll free)
                 212-952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of NextWave
Wireless Inc. (Nasdaq:WAVE) common stock during the period March
30, 2007, through August 7, 2008.

The complaint charges NextWave, a mobile broadband and
multimedia technology company, and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented
and failed to disclose that:

     (1) NextWave did not have adequate liquidity to continue
         operations as it executed its growth strategy and
         continued making aggressive worldwide acquisitions;

     (2) NextWave did not have the wherewithal to launch its new
         WiMAX semiconductor products in the first six months of
         2008;

     (3) NextWave did not have financial resources to continue
         as a going concern;

     (4) NextWave did not have the financial resources to
         continue to operate its world-wide operations through
         the end of 2008;

     (5) NextWave had invested all of its marketable securities
         in high-risk and illiquid auction rate securities and
         had misrepresented these investments on its balance
         sheet included in its financial statements; and

     (6) 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.

On August 7, 2008, after the market closed, NextWave issued its
second quarter 2008 financial results, announcing it had only
$71.1 million in cash and similar instruments available as of
June 30, 2008, and, unless it raised money, its cash would run
out at the beginning of October 2008. Upon this news, shares of
the Company's stock fell by more than 90%, to close at $0.95 per
share.

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Susan R. Gross, Esq. (susang@bernardmgross.com)
          Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free)
                 215-561-3600
          Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com/


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action suit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Novatel Wireless Inc. common stock during the
period between February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.

The complaint charges Novatel and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Novatel is a provider of wireless broadband access
solutions for the worldwide mobile communications market.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented Novatel's financial performance.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that the Company was recognizing
revenue in violation of its own revenue cut-off procedures and
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, thus rendering the
Company's publicly reported financial results materially false.

The defendants also repeatedly misrepresented the status of an
internal accounting review by the Company's Audit Committee.  On
May 13, 2008, the defendants represented that the Company was
unable to file its Form 10-Q with the SEC on time because of a
review of a single customer contract which they represented was
"substantially completed today."  Over three months later, on
August 19, 2008, the defendants admitted that the review was
still ongoing, that it involved at least six transactions
representing $9.1 million in revenue, and that when the review
was completed a decision would be made as to whether a
restatement would be required. As a result of these disclosures,
Novatel's stock price dropped from $8.40 to $6.29 the next day,
a 25% decline.

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

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
                 619-231-1058


REDDY ICE: Shuman Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shuman Law Firm commenced a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan on behalf of purchasers of Reddy Ice Holdings Inc.
common stock during the period between August 10, 2005, and
March 6, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges Reddy Ice and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial performance and
prospects.

According to the complaint, from at least 2002 to the present,
defendants engaged in a continuing conspiracy in restraint of
trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices
for packaged ice in violation of the federal law.  In addition,
defendants divided up the packaged ice market so that they would
not compete with other packaged ice makers.

On March 6, 2008, after the markets closed, Reddy Ice issued a
press release announcing that "federal officials executed a
search warrant at the Company's corporate office in Dallas on
March 5, 2008."  Upon this news, on the next trading day, shares
of the Company's stock fell $7.73 per share, or 33%.

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

For more information, contact:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com)
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com)
          The Shuman Law Firm
          885 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80203
          Phone: 866-974-8626
          Fax: 303-484-4886
          Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/


RESERVE FUND: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United State District Court, Southern
District of New York, against the financial adviser, the
underwriter, and the trustees of the Reserve Fund.

The action was brought on behalf of investors who owned shares
in any class of the Primary Fund, a series of the Reserve Fund,
who had not requested redemption of their shares by 3 p.m.
E.S.T. on September 16, 2008.

The Reserve Fund is an investment trust organized under
Massachusetts law, headquartered in New York City. The Trust
consists of Mutual Funds, of which the Primary Fund is a series.
The Primary Fund is a money market mutual fund that is required,
by law, to invest in only the highest quality securities and
debt obligations.

The complaint alleges that in violation of its legal
obligations, as imposed by the Investment Company Act and the
SEC's Rule 2A-7 thereunder, the Primary Fund had invested in,
and continued to invest in, approximately $785 million in
commercial paper and other debt obligations issued by Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc. (Pink Sheets:LEHMQ).  As Lehman's
financial difficulties mounted in recent months, its debt
obligations became high-risk securities that were inappropriate
for money market funds to hold.

The Complaint further alleges that by Friday, September 12,
2008, Lehman's financial situation had become desperate; yet
defendants continued to hold the debt obligations.  On Sept. 15,
2008, when Lehman filed for bankruptcy, defendants were still
holding onto $785 million of the Company's debt obligations,
which were now worthless.  By the afternoon of September 16,
defendants had allowed about a dozen institutional investors to
withdraw a total of over $40 billion from the fund, at the "net
asset value" price of $1.00 per share.  That is the per share
value that the Reserve Fund, like virtually all money market
funds, strives to maintain.  However, the shares were actually
worth less than that when they were redeemed.  It was not until
the markets closed on September 16 that defendants issued a
press release announcing that the net asset value of the fund
had belatedly been reduced to 97 cents per share, a shocking and
extremely rare development known in the industry as "breaking
the buck."  The press release announced that investors who had
sought redemption up to 3 p.m. that day would receive $1 per
share, but that subsequent requests for redemption would be at
the 97 cents price, and that payments for those shares would be
withheld for up to 7 days.

As spelled out in the complaint, defendants violated Section 8
of the Investment Act of 1940 by deviating from the Fund's
fundamental investment objectives without approval by the
shareholders of the Fund and by allowing massive redemptions by
a favored few investors at an inflated price of $1.00 per share.
These actions gave an unfair advantage to certain fund investors
at the expense of others, and in a manner which violated the
Fund's stated procedure as well as defendants' fiduciary
obligations to investors.

For more information, contact:

          Teresa L. Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 888-476-6529
                 888-4.POMLAW


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
September 22-24, 2008
  MEALEY'S NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION SUPERCONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, Arizona
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

September 23-24, 2008
  DEFENDING CONSUMER FRAUD ECONOMIC INJURY CLAIMS
    American Conference Institute
      Union League, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
        Phone: 888-224-2480

October 2-3, 2008
  LITIGATION AND TRIAL STRATEGIES SUPERCONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Four Seasons, Miami, Florida
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 6-7, 2008
  GLOBAL REINSURANCE FORUM
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Ritz-Carlton Boston Commons, Boston, Massachusetts
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 15-16, 2008
  STRUCTURED FINANCE AND DERIVATIVES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Lighthouse Executive Conference Center & Theater
        New York, New York
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 20-21, 2008
  SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTE
    Practising Law Institute
      San Francisco, California
        Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

October 21-22, 2008
  AUCTION RATE SECURITIES
    American Conference Institute
      Helmsley Park Lane Hotel
        New York, New York
          Phone: 888-224-2480

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

October 27-28, 2008
  POSITIONING THE CLASS ACTION DEFENSE FOR EARLY SUCCESS
    American Conference Institute
      FireSky Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, Arizona
        Phone: 888-224-2480

October 28-29, 2008
  WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf
        San Francisco, California
          Phone: 888-224-2480

October 28-29, 2008
  SUBPRIME LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT
    American Conference Institute
      Millennium Broadway Hotel
        New York, New York
          Phone: 888-224-2480

October 29-30, 2008
  AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT LIABILITY
    American Conference Institute
      Sutton Place Hotel, Chicago, Illinois
        Phone: 888-224-2480

October 30-31, 2008
  SECURITIES FILINGS
    Practising Law Institute
      Gleacher Center
        Chicago, Illinois
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 5-7, 2008
  COMPREHENSIVE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS & COVERAGE CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino
        Las Vegas, Nevada
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 6-7, 2008
  BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Harvard Club
        New York, New York
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 6-7, 2008
  SECURITIES FILINGS
    Practising Law Institute
      San Francisco, California
        Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 7, 2008
  NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
    American Bar Association
      New York
        Phone: 800-285-2221

November 11, 2008
  MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION: LEGAL STRATEGIES AND BEST
    PRACTICES IN "HIGH-STAKES" CASES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York, New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 12-14, 2008
  SECURITIES REGULATION INSTITUTE
    Practising Law Institute
      New York Hilton, New York
        Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 13, 2008
  BAD FAITH LITIGATION DEFENSE COUNSEL SUMMIT
    American Conference Institute
      Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress, Orlando, Florida
        Contact: 888-224-2480

November 17-18, 2008
  LIFE INSURANCE IN THE SECONDARY MARKET CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Rittenhouse Hotel
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

December 4-5, 2008
  ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WHERE IS IT GOING? WHEN WILL IT END?
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      St. Anthony Hotel
        San Antonio, Texas
          Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

December 4-5, 2008
  FOOD‐BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      TBC, Phoenix, Arizona
        Phone: 888-224-2480

December 9-11, 2008
  DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Millennium Broadway Hotel, New York
        Phone: 888-224-2480

December 17-18, 2008
  TOP 10 INSURANCE ISSUES CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Loews Hotel
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

January 21-22, 2009
  14TH ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
    American Conference Institute
      TBD, New York, New York
        Phone: 888-224-2480

May 18-19, 2009
  5TH ANNUAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FORUM ON PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST
    American Conference Institute
      TBD, Washington, District of Columbia
        Phone: 888-224-2480

July 9-10, 2009
  CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND
    DEFENSE STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

July 9-10, 2009
  INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Langham Hotel
        Boston, Massachusetts
          Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
September 1-30, 2008
  AUSTIN BAR PRESENTS: BENCH BAR CONFERENCE 2008 - LITIGATION
    TOPICS
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2008
  CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
    LIABILITY
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2008
  DEBT ELIMINATION SCAMS AND THE INTERNET (TOGETHER WITH THE HBA
    COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMER LAW SECTION)
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: ACCORD AND SATISFACTION, NOVATION, RELEASES AND
    OTHER CONTRACTS ISSUES
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: BUSINESS TORTS
    CLEOnline.Com
      Phone: 512-778-5665
        e-mail: info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: PREPARING CORPORATE DEFENDANTS FOR DEPOSITIONS
    CLEOnline.Com
      Phone: 512-778-5665
        e-mail: info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: TAKING AN EQUITY POSITION IN A CLIENT: BUSINESS
    AS USUAL?
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: WHAT CORPORATIONS AND EXECUTIVES NEED TO KNOW
    ABOUT WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

September 1-30, 2008
  LITIGATING POST-SALE HOUSE CASES IN TEXAS: CLAIMS AGAINST
    SELLERS, REALTORS AND INSPECTORS
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

September 23, 2008
  CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

September 25, 2008
  SHAREHOLDER SUITS AND THE SUBPRIME MARKET
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 21, 2008
  EFFECTIVE USE & TIMING OF FINANCIAL EXPERTS IN COMMERCIAL
    LITIGATION
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 22, 2008
  COMPELLING STATISTICAL EVIDENCE: MINING, MODELING AND
    PRESENTING QUANTITATIVE FINANCIAL EVIDENCE TO JURIES
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 29, 2008
  LOW-LEVEL EXPOSURE CASES IN LEAD LITIGATION
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 30, 2008
  MRSA AND HOSPITAL INFECTIONS: THE NEXT WAVE OF CLASS
    INFECTIONS
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 30, 2008
  LITIGATION HOLD LETTERS
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

November 5, 2008
  UNDERSTANDING THE EXPOSURE RISK FROM ASBESTOS IN SOILS
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 7, 2008
  WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

November 19, 2008
  BENZENE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 19, 2008
  FALSE CLAIMS ACT & PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: AN UPDATE
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

November 20, 2008
  FASB UPDATE: CONVERGENCE, VOLATILITY & POTENTIAL LIABILITIES
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

December 4-5, 2008
  ASBESTOS LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

December 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2004)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
       Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2005)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

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

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 26TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2008)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

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

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT
  DEVELOPMENTS
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

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

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
  WRITTEN DISCOVERY
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

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

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
  LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
  LawCommerce.Com
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
  SALES AND ADVERSTISING
    American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-285-2221
        e-mail: abacle@abanet.org






                            *********

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  * * *