CAR_Public/080925.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

         Thursday, September 25, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 191

                            Headlines

ABC LEARNING: Faces AU$100MM IMF-Sponsored Suit by Shareholders
ACI WORLDWIDE: Appeal Against $24.5MM Suit Deal Still Pending
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Four N.Y. Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
APPLIED ENERGETICS: Securities Lawsuit Still Pending in Arizona
AUTO INSURERS: Defrauded Spanish-Speaking Motorists, Suit Says

CITIZENS INC: Counsel Seeks to Recertify Class in "Daccach" Suit
CYNOSURE INC: Mass. Court Yet to Certify Class in TCPA Lawsuit
DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in California
DOWNEY SAVINGS: "Holman" Labor Suit Still Pending in California
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Wants "Skirchak" Arbitration Proceeding Nixed

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued in Calif. Over 'Spore' Hijacks Computers
EMERY WORLDWIDE: WARN Violations Lawsuit Still Pending in Ohio
ESCALA: Court Grants Final OK to Shareholder Lawsuit Settlement
GRILL CONCEPTS: Settles One of Two Calif. Ex-Employees' Lawsuits
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit in Ohio

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Consolidated Ohio Securities Suit
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Lawsuits Over Certain Transactions
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio
LOJACK CORP: Plaintiffs Want "Rutti" Remanded to State Court
MGIC INVESTMENTS: Faces Stockholder Lawsuits in Mich. and Wis.

MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Defective XBox 360
ORBCOMM INC: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in New Jersey
PAYDAY LOAN: Sued in Ill. Over Alleged Illegal Interest Charges
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Mediation Failed to Settle N.Y. Suit
PUBLIC STORAGE: Calif. Court Affirms Dismissal of "Simas" Matter

QUANEX CORP: Lawsuit Over Gerdau Subsidiary Merger Dismissed
RESERVE FUND: Amended Securities Fraud Complaint Filed in N.Y.
SELECTBUILD CONSTRUCTION: Faces Calif. Labor Law Violations Suit
SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Municipal Derivatives

SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Faces Suit in Ala. Over County's Sewer System
TYSON FOODS: 5th District Dismisses Appeal for Summary Judgment
VIOLETFLAME: Faces Nebraska Suit Over Fraudulent Husker Products
VONAGE HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Yet to Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits
VONAGE HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in IPO Suit


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

FEDERAL NATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
FREDDIE MAC: Vianale & Vianale Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
HANSEN NATURAL: Holzer & Fistel Files Calif. Securities Lawsuit
HARRIS STRATEX: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in Delaware
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Holzer & Fistel Files Calif. Securities Suit

QUEST RESOURCE: Cohen Milstein Files Okla. Securities Fraud Suit
SPECTRANICS CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SYNCHRONOS TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files Suit in N.J.



                           *********


ABC LEARNING: Faces AU$100MM IMF-Sponsored Suit by Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Learning Centres Ltd. is facing a $100-million class action
lawsuit by furious shareholders as the company prepares to
restate its financial accounts for the past two years,
NEWS.com.au reports.

According to The Australian, Australia's largest litigation
funder, IMF, is sponsoring the class action suit against the
country's biggest corporate childcare provider for compensation
in the Federal Court next month.  IMF is funding the lawsuit on
a "no win, no pay" basis.

NEWS.com notes that the lawsuit will hinge on disclosures in ABC
Learning's 2007-08 audited accounts, due to be filed with the
Australian Securities Exchange next week.

IMF managing director John Walker said that hundreds of
shareholders had signed up for the class action, although none
wanted to be named publicly.  The NEWS.com report relates that
shareholders must have purchased shares between February 27,
2006, and July 30, 2008, to join the suit.

The case could take one to three years, the report says.

IMF has employed legal firm Maurice Blackburn to represent the
shareholders in the case.

The firm's overview of the claim, sent to potential litigants
and obtained by The Australian on Tuesday, says the proposed
proceedings against ABC Learning are for "non-disclosure and
misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to ABC's 2006, 2007
and 2008 accounts and profit and earnings forecasts by ABC in
relation to those accounts."

NEWS.com relates that shareholders would seek the difference
between the amount paid for the shares and the "true value of
the shares had the truth been known at the time of purchase."
Alternatively, they could claim their losses between purchase
and sale.

According to the report, the case specifically alleges that ABC
overstated its pretax earnings by $30 million in 2006 and
$11 million in 2007 by wrongly including lump-sum payments as
earnings.  In 2007, the company failed to disclose to the market
the risk of having to pay $18 million in disputed payroll tax
and $11 million in disputed tax penalties, or that it had
already paid $4 million in a settlement in June, the case
further alleges.  The suit also claims that ABC failed to
disclose prior to February this year that its revenue included
fees paid by childcare center developers.

NEWS.com points out that trading in ABC shares has been
suspended for the past month.


ACI WORLDWIDE: Appeal Against $24.5MM Suit Deal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal against a $24.5-million settlement in a securities
fraud class-action lawsuit against ACI Worldwide, Inc. -- f/k/a
Transaction Systems Architects, Inc.

In November 2002, two class-action complaints were filed before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska against the
company and certain individuals alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Pursuant to a court order, the two complaints were consolidated
as "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc., et al.," with Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
as designated lead plaintiff.

                        Second Complaint

A second amended consolidated class action complaint filed in
the case alleged that during the purported class period, ACI
Worldwide and the named defendants misrepresented the company's
historical financial condition, results of operations and the
company's future prospects, and failed to disclose facts that
could have indicated an impending decline in the company's
revenues.

That second amended complaint also alleged that, prior to August
2002, the purported truth regarding the company's financial
condition had not been disclosed to the market.

The company and the individual defendants initially filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In response, on Dec. 15, 2003,
the Court dismissed, without prejudice, Gregory Derkacht, the
company's former president and chief executive officer, as a
defendant, but denied the dismissal motion with respect to the
other defendants.

On July 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification wherein, for the first time, the lead plaintiff
sought to add Roger M. Wally as additional class representative.
On Aug. 20, 2004, the defendants filed their opposition to that
motion.  On March 22, 2005, the Court issued an order certifying
the class of persons that purchased the company's common stock
from Jan. 21, 1999, through Nov. 18, 2002.

On Jan. 27, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking a
dismissal of the lead plaintiff and certain other class members,
as well as a limitation on damages based upon plaintiffs'
inability to establish loss causation with respect to a large
portion of their claims.

On Feb. 6, 2006, additional class representative Roger M. Wally
filed a motion to withdraw as a class representative and class
member.

On April 21, 2006, and based upon the pending motion for
judgment, a motion to intervene as a class representative was
filed by the Louisiana District Attorneys Retirement System.
LDARS had attempted to be named as lead plaintiff in the case.

On July 5, 2006, the Magistrate denied LDARS' motion to
intervene, which denial LDARS appealed to the District Judge.

On May 17, 2006, the Court denied the motion for judgment on the
pleadings as being moot based on the Court's granting lead
plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint, which it did
on May 31, 2006.

                         Third Complaint

The Third Complaint alleges the same misrepresentations as the
previous, while simultaneously alleging that the purported truth
about the company's financial condition was being disclosed
throughout that time, commencing in April 1999.  It seeks
unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.

On June 14, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Third Complaint pursuant to Rules
8 and 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The lead
plaintiff opposed the motion.

                           Settlement

Prior to any ruling on the motion to dismiss, on Nov. 7, 2006,
the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement for
purposes of settling all of the claims in the Class Action
Litigation, with no admissions of wrongdoing by the company or
any individual defendant.

The settlement provides for an aggregate cash payment of
$24.5 million, of which net of insurance the company contributed
approximately $8.5 million.

The Court approved the settlement on March 2, 2007, and it
ordered the case dismissed with prejudice against the company
and the individual defendants.

                      Settlement Objection

On March 27, 2007, James J. Hayes, a class member, filed a
notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit appealing the Court's order.  The company responded to
this appeal in accordance with the Court of Appeals' orders and
procedures.  The appeal has not yet been decided on.

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

The suit is "Desert Orchid Partners, LLC, et al. v. Transaction
Systems Architects, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-CV-0553," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Judge
Joseph F. Bataillon presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joel H. Bernstein, Esq. (jbernstein@labaton.com)
         Labaton Sucharow LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: 212-907-0869
         Fax: 212-883-7069

              - and -

         J. Allen Carney, Esq. (acarney@cauleybowman.com)
         Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, P.L.L.C.
         11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
         Little Rock, AR 72212
         Phone: 501-312-8500
         Fax: 501-312-8505
         Web site: http://www.cauleybowman.com/

Representing the defendants are:

         William G. Dittrick, Esq. (wdittrick@bairdholm.com)
         Baird Holm LLP
         1500 Woodmen Tower
         Omaha, NE 68102-2068
         Phone: 402-344-0500
         Fax: 402-344-0588

              - and -

         Joel Held, Esq. (joel.held@bakernet.com)
         Baker & McKenzie, LLP
         2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Phone: 214-978-3090
         Fax: 214-978-3099


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Four N.Y. Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ambac Financial Group Inc. is still facing a consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Initially, a suit, entitled "Reimer v. Ambac Financial Group,"
was filed on Jan. 16, 2008.  It was brought on behalf of buyers
of Ambac's shares from Oct. 19, 2005, to Nov. 26, 2007.  The
complaint charges Ambac and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial
results related to its insurance coverage on collateralized debt
obligations contracts.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were:

       -- that the company lacked requisite internal controls to
          ensure that the company's underwriting standards and
          its internal rating system for its CDO contracts were
          adequate, and, as a result, the company's projections
          and reported results issued during the Class Period
          were based upon defective assumptions and
          manipulated facts;

       -- that the company's financial statements were
          materially misstated due to its failure to properly
          account for its mark-to-market losses;

       -- that, given the deterioration and the increased
          volatility in the mortgage market, the company would
          be forced to tighten its underwriting standards
          related to its asset-backed securities, which would
          have a direct material negative impact on its premium
          production going forward;

       -- that the company had far greater exposure to
          anticipated losses and defaults related to its CDO
          contracts containing subprime loans, including even
          highly rated CDOs, than it had previously disclosed;

       -- that the company had far greater exposure to a
          potential ratings downgrade from one of the credit
          ratings agencies than it had previously disclosed; and

       -- that defendants' Class Period statements about the
          company's selective underwriting practices during the
          2005 through 2007 timeframe related to its CDOs backed
          by subprime assets were patently false, as the
          company's underwriting standards were at best
          aggressive and at a minimum were completely
          inadequate.

Three other suits were later filed, making substantially the
same allegations as the Reimer action.  These suits are:

     1. "Babic v. Ambac Financial Group Inc., et al." (filed on
        or about Feb. 7, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for
        the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08-CV-1273);

     2. "Parker v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., et al." (filed
        on or about Feb. 22, 2008, in the U.S. District Court
        for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08-CV-
        1825); and

     3. "Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association v. Ambac
        Financial Group, Inc., et al." (filed on Feb. 26, 2008,
        in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
        of New York, Case No. 08-CV-1918).

In March 2008, certain plaintiffs filed motions for appointment
as lead plaintiff, approval of their selection of counsel as
lead counsel for the class, and consolidation of the four class
action suits.

On May 9, 2008, the court appointed as lead plaintiff the "U.S.
Public Pension Funds," which consists of the Public Teachers'
Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago, the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System, and the Public Employees' Retirement System
of Mississippi.  The court also appointed Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman LLP and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead
co-counsel for the class.  The class action lawsuits were also
consolidated.

A consolidated amended complaint is currently due in the
consolidated securities class-action suit on Aug. 22, 2008,
according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 29, 2008.

The suit is "In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00411-NRB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Naomi Reice Buchwald, 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

         Jill Sharyn Abrams, Esq. (jabrams@abbeyspanier.com)
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-889-3700
         Fax: 212-684-5191

              - and -

         Aviah Cohen-Pierson, Esq. (acohenpierson@kaplanfox.com)
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
         850 Third Avenue
         14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-687-1980
         Fax: 212-687-7714

Representing the defendants is:

         Peter C. Hein, Esq. (PCHein@wlrk.com)
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: 212-403-2000


APPLIED ENERGETICS: Securities Lawsuit Still Pending in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Energetics, Inc. -- formerly Ionatron, Inc. -- is still
facing a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

In July 2006, two class action complaints were filed by George
Wood and Raymond Deedon, respectively, against Applied
Energetics and its founders.

Each of the class action suits was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona and allege, among other
things, violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, claiming that the company
issued false and misleading statements concerning the
development of its counter-IED product.

The court consolidated these cases, and a consolidated amended
complaint was served.  The action has been dismissed against
individual defendants Joseph C. Hayden and Stephen W. McCahon
with prejudice, and is proceeding against the company and the
remaining defendants.

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 29, 2008.

The suit is "George Wood, et al. v. Ionatron, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-00354," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alison K. Clark, Esq. (aclark@sbclasslaw.com)
          Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

               - and -

          Richard Glenn Himelrick, Esq. (rgh@tblaw.com)
          Tiffany & Bosco PA
          Camelback Esplanade II
          2525 E. Camelback Rd., 3rd Floor
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: 602-255-6021
          Fax: 602-255-0103

Representing the defendants are:

          Joel Philip Hoxie, Esq. (jhoxie@swlaw.com)
          Snell & Wilmer LLP
          1 Arizona Ctr., 400 E. Van Buren
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-0001
          Phone: 602-382-6000
          Fax: 602-382-6070

               - and -

          Harris N. Cogan, Esq. (hncogan@blankrome.com)
          Blank Rome LLP
          405 Lexington Ave., The Chrysler Bldg
          New York, NY 10174
          Phone: 212-885-5566
          Fax: 212-885-5001


AUTO INSURERS: Defrauded Spanish-Speaking Motorists, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed in Utah's 3rd District Court
accuses certain Utah insurance agencies of defrauding Spanish-
speaking customers by deliberately not informing them of the
availability, cost and purpose of buying uninsured and under-
insured motorist protections, Carlos Mayorga writes for The Salt
Lake Tribune.

According to the report, the lawsuit names as defendants
Florida-based United Automobile Insurance Company, as well as
Utah-based El Sol Insurance, Amigos Insurance, and Las Americas
Insurance.

The suit, which was commenced by Jim McConkie, Esq., alleges
that the defendants, who almost exclusively serve Spanish-
speaking customers, urge customers to sign an English-language
form waiving the uninsured and under-insured motorist
protections.  Mr. McConkie said that the majority of the
customers cannot read or interpret the form.

"We've been made aware in the last couple of years of various
practices that we think may defraud the Hispanic populations and
benefit, financially, insurance companies," Mr. McConkie told
Salt Lake Tribune.

"They are supposed to disclose the price and how much it costs,"
Mr. McConkie said, adding that the information is "not on the
forms we have in our possession."  He also said the add-on
coverages are relatively inexpensive, and while some states
require drivers to have the extra coverage, Utah does not.

Utah law does require insurance agents to fully inform new
customers about the consequences of being hit by a driver who is
underinsured or uninsured, Mr. McConkie further related.

According to the report, the suit alleges the defendants
"breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing when the
intentionally misled their customers to chose the option to
reject uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage or chose
that option for them."

The fraud benefits the insurance company because many Spanish
speakers are clustered into the same zip codes, Mr. McConkie
explained.  And when those uninsured or underinsured people
crash into each other, the insurance companies ends up not
having to pay those claims, he said.

Salt Lake Tribune says that United Automobile did not respond to
a request for comment.  The other agents were also unable to
respond, the report notes.


CITIZENS INC: Counsel Seeks to Recertify Class in "Daccach" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's counsel in a decertified class-action lawsuit
filed by Fernando Hakim Daccach against Citizens Insurance Co.
of America, Citizens Inc., Harold E. Riley and Mark A. Oliver is
seeking to recertify the class.

The lawsuit was originally filed on August 6, 1999, in the Texas
District Court, Austin, Texas.  A class was originally certified
by the trial court, and later affirmed by the Court of Appeals
for the Third District of Texas.

The suit alleges that certain life insurance policies that the
company made available by its primary life insurance subsidiary
to non-U.S. Residents, when combined with a policy feature that
allows policy dividends to be assigned to two non-U.S. Trusts
for the purpose of accumulating ownership of the company's Class
A common stock, along with allowing the policyholders to make
additional contributions to the trusts, were actually offers and
sales of securities that occurred in Texas by unregistered
dealers in violation of the registration provisions of the Texas
securities laws.  The remedy sought was rescission and return of
the insurance premium payments.

The company appealed the grant of class status to the Texas
Supreme Court, and oral arguments occurred on Oct. 21, 2004.

On March 2, 2007, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of
Appeals' affirmation of the trial court's class certification
order, decertified the class, and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with the Texas Supreme
Court's opinion.

As a result of the ruling, no class-action lawsuit is presently
certified, and the plaintiff's counsel is seeking to recertify
the class.  In order to recertify the class, the lead plaintiff
must establish that he is qualified to represent the purported
class and that the res judicata effect of a class action will
not have a deleterious effect on the putative class members,
according to Citizen's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com/-- is an insurance
holding company serving the life insurance needs of individuals
in the U.S. and in more than 35 countries.  The company's core
operations include issuing and servicing, which intern include
ordinary whole life insurance policies predominantly to high net
worth, high income foreign residents, principally in Latin
America and the Pacific Rim, through approximately 2,600
independent marketing consultants; ordinary whole life insurance
policies to middle income households in the Midwest and the
southern U.S. through approximately 600 independent marketing
consultants; and final expense and limited liability property
policies to middle to lower income households in Louisiana
through approximately 300 employee agents in its home service
distribution channel.  The Company's business consists of three
primary operating business segments: Life Insurance, Home
Service Insurance, and Other Non-insurance Enterprises.


CYNOSURE INC: Mass. Court Yet to Certify Class in TCPA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County has yet to
rule on a motion that sought class certification in a purported
class-action lawsuit against Cynosure, Inc., over allegations
that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In May 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a lawsuit against the
company under the TCPA.  The lawsuit alleges that the company
violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by
facsimile.  It is seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief,
costs and attorneys fees.

The complaint specifically alleges that Cynosure violated the
TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the
plaintiff and other recipients without the prior express
invitation or permission of the recipients.

Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile
advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per
facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per
facsimile for knowing or willful violations.

Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that
approximately three million facsimiles were sent on the
company's behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000
individuals.

On Feb. 6, 2008, several months after the close of discovery,
the plaintiff served a motion for class certification, which the
company vigorously opposed on numerous factual and legal
grounds, including that a nationwide class action may not be
maintained in a Massachusetts state court by Dr. Weitzner, a New
York resident; individual issues predominate over common issues;
a class action is not superior to other methods of resolving
TCPA claims; and Dr. Weitzner is an inadequate class
representative.

The company also believes it has many merit defenses, including
that the faxes in question do not constitute "advertising"
within the meaning of the TCPA and many recipients had an
established business relationship with us and are thereby deemed
to have consented to the receipt of facsimile communications.

The court held a hearing on the plaintiff's class certification
motion on June 17, 2008, and has yet to enter a ruling,
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.

Cynosure, Inc. -- http://www.cynosurelaser.com/-- develops,
manufactures and markets treatment systems, which are used by
physicians and other practitioners to perform non-invasive
procedures to remove hair, treat vascular lesions, rejuvenate
skin through the treatment of shallow vascular lesions and
pigmented lesions, and temporarily reduce the appearance of
cellulite.  The company markets and sells its products to the
dermatology, plastic surgery and general medical markets,
domestically and internationally.


DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Downey Financial Corp. is facing two purported shareholder
class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, 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.

Two purported shareholder class-action lawsuits, one brought on
behalf of Waterford Township General Employees Retirement
System, Case No. CV-08-03261, and the other brought on behalf of
Stephen J. Mihalacki, Case No. SACV08-00609, that were filed on
May 16, 2008, and June 2, 2008, respectively, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Downey Financial Corp. and certain of its current and former
officers and certain former directors.

The complaints, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased
Downey Financial Corp.'s common stock during Oct. 16, 2006, to
March 14, 2008, seek unspecified damages for alleged violation
of federal securities laws, claiming that the defendants made
misleading statements and omissions regarding Downey's business
and financial results, thereby artificially inflating the common
stock price.

Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants
concealed that:

       -- Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A.'s portfolio
          of option ARMs contained millions of dollars worth of
          impaired and risky securities;

       -- Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A. had been
          aggressive in acquiring loans from mortgage brokers
          that were highly risky;

       -- Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A. had failed
          to properly account for highly leveraged loans;

       -- Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A. Had
          inadequate underwriting practices, which led to large
          numbers of loan defaults; and

       -- Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A. had not
          adequately reserved for option ARM loans.

A motion to consolidate the two actions is pending, after which
it is expected that the plaintiffs will file a consolidated
complaint.

Downey Financial Corp. -- http://www.downeysavings.com/-- is a
savings and loan holding company.  Downey Savings and Loan
Association is the company's wholly owned subsidiary. The
company is also involved in real estate investments.  Its
banking activities focus on attracting funds from the general
public and institutions and obtaining borrowings; originating
and investing in loans, primarily residential real estate
mortgage loans, investment securities and mortgage-backed
securities, and originating and selling loans to investors in
the secondary markets.


DOWNEY SAVINGS: "Holman" Labor Suit Still Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Downey Savings and Loan Assoc., F.A. -- a subsidiary of Downey
Financial Corp. -- is still facing a purported class-action suit
filed by two former traditional branch employees before the Los
Angeles Superior Court, California.

The suit was filed on Oct. 29, 2004, under the caption, "Margie
Holman and Alice A. Mesec, et al. v. Downey Savings and Loan
Association, Case No. BC323796."  It seeks unspecified damages
for alleged unpaid regular and overtime wages and bonuses,
inadequate meal and rest breaks, and related claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status to represent all
other current and former Downey Savings employees who held the
position of Customer Service Supervisor and Customer Service
Representative at Downey Savings' in-store branches at any time
from Oct. 29, 2000, to date.

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.

Downey Financial Corp. -- http://www.downeysavings.com/-- is a
savings and loan holding company.  Downey Savings and Loan
Association is the company's wholly owned subsidiary. The
company is also involved in real estate investments.  Its
banking activities focus on attracting funds from the general
public and institutions and obtaining borrowings; originating
and investing in loans, primarily residential real estate
mortgage loans, investment securities and mortgage-backed
securities, and originating and selling loans to investors in
the secondary markets.


DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Wants "Skirchak" Arbitration Proceeding Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An arbitrator in a dispute between Dynamics Research Corp. and
the plaintiffs in the matter "Skirchak, et al. v. Dynamics
Research Corporation, Case No. 1:05-cv-11362-MEL," has yet to
rule on a motion by the company seeking the dismissal of the
arbitration proceeding.

The suit was filed against the company on June 28, 2005, before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  It
was characterized as a class action employee suit, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain
provisions of Massachusetts General Laws.

On April 10, 2006, the Court entered an order granting in part
the company's motion to dismiss the civil action and to compel
compliance with its mandatory dispute resolution program,
directing that the parties arbitrate the aforementioned claims,
and striking the class action waiver which was part of the
dispute resolution program.

Following the Court's decision, the plaintiffs commenced an
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association,
asserting the same claims as they asserted in the District
Court.

An arbitrator has been selected, but no substantive action has
occurred in the arbitration.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the company filed an appeal in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, specifically appealing the
portion of the District Court's decision that the class action
waiver is not enforceable.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, on Nov. 19, 2007, concurred with the
District Court's opinion that the matter should proceed in
arbitration and remanded the matter to the District Court.

The parties have informed the District Court that they will
proceed in arbitration as a class action.

In the arbitration, the company has filed a motion to dismiss
the proceeding and a request for summary disposition, asserting
that the company is entitled to use the "window of correction"
provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act's regulations and that
the arbitration should be dismissed without further action in
the arbitration.  The motion is pending before the arbitrator.

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, "Skirchak, et al. v. Dynamics Research Corporation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-11362-MEL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Morris E. Lasker,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Elayne N. Alanis, Esq. (ealanislaw@verizon.net)
          3rd Floor, 10 Tremont St.
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-263-1203
          Fax: 617-723-4729

Representing the defendants are:

          Carrie J. Campion, Esq. (ccampion@nixonpeabody.com)
          Jeffrey B. Gilbreth, Esq. (jgilbreth@nixonpeabody.com)
          David S. Rosenthal, Esq. (drosenthal@nixonpeabody.com)
          Nixon Peabody, LLP
          100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-345-1045
                 617-345-1000
                 617-345-6183
          Fax: 866-812-2847


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued in Calif. Over 'Spore' Hijacks Computers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, a leading maker of computer games, is facing a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging it defrauds consumers
through its "Spore" game, which "completely wipes their hard
drive" and replaces it with an undisclosed program that prevents
the computer from operating under some circumstances and
disrupts hardware operations, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The report says that the plaintiff brings this action pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons or entities globally who
purchased a Spore computer game as an end-user.

The class claims that "Spore," a virtual reality simulation
game, contains "a second, undisclosed program" called SecuROM, a
"form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) for computer games."

Consumers are not warned about the program, which is installed
without notice and cannot be uninstalled, the complaint states.
The secret SecuROM program is "secretly installed to the command
and control center of the computer (Ring 0, or the Kernel), and
surreptitiously operated, overseeing function and operation on
the computer, preventing the computer from operating under
certain circumstances and disrupting hardware operations," the
complaint states.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether EA failed to disclose the presence of an
         additional program on the Spore gamedisk;

     (b) whether EA should have separately disclosed the
         presence of an addition DRM program on the Spore
         gamedisk, and the extent and nature of that program;

     (c) whether EA should have disclosed, and is liable for its
         failure to disclose, prior to the purchase of the
         SecuROM program, the precise details and nature of the
         program, where and how it would install, and how it
         would operate, prior to any installation of the
         program;

     (d) whether EA should have disclosed, and is liable for its
         failure to disclose, prior to the installation of the
         SecuROM program, the precise details and nature of the
         program, where and how it would install, and how it
         would operate, prior to any installation of the
         program;

     (e) whether EA should have obtained informed consent from
         the user, prior to the installation of the SecuROM
         program;

     (f) whether EA concealed crucial details concerning the
         presence operation, function, and uninstallability of
         the SecuROM DRM program to the class and the public;

     (g) whether EA's actions in concealing the crucial
         details concerning the presence, operation, function,
         uninstallability of the SecuROM DRM program were likely
         to deceive the public;

     (h) whether EA made representations that the Spore
         computer game was of a particular standard or quality,
         which it did not have;

     (i) whether EA made representations that the Spore computer
         game had characteristics, uses, benefits, or qualities
         which it did not have;

     (j) whether, by its conduct, the defendant has engaged in
         unfair or unlawful business practices with respect to
         the advertising, marketing, and sale of the Spore
         computer game;

     (k) whether, by its conduct, the defendant has engaged in
         unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising of
         the Spore computer game;

     (l) whether EA violated consumer protection statutes and
         state deceptive business practices statutes;

     (m) whether, by its conduct, EA has trespassed on the
         computers of all persons who installed the Spore
         computer game;

     (n) whether California law applies to all claims and
         claimants in this action; and

     (o) the nature and extent of damages and other remedies to
         which the conduct of the defendant entitles the class
         members.

The plaintiffs demand disgorgement of unjust profits and damages
for trespass, interference, unfair competition and consumer law
violations.

The suit is "Melissa Thomas, et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc.,
Case No. C 08 04421," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


EMERY WORLDWIDE: WARN Violations Lawsuit Still Pending in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emery Worldwide Airlines, a subsidiary of Con-way, Inc., is
still facing a labor-related class-action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act in connection with employee layoffs
and ultimate terminations due to the August 2001 grounding of
Emery Worldwide's airline operations and the shutdown of the
airline operations in December 2001.

The court subsequently certified the lawsuit as a class action
on behalf of affected employees laid off between Aug. 11 and
Aug. 15, 2001.

The WARN Act generally requires employers to give 60-days
notice, or 60-days pay and benefits in lieu of notice, of any
shutdown of operations or mass layoff at a site of employment.

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

The suit is "Bledsoe, et al. v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, et
al., Case No. 3:02-cv-00069-WHR-SLO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Walter H. Rice,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         David Gerard Torchia, Esq. (davet@tktlaw.com)
         Tobias & Kraus
         414 Walnut Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-241-8137
         Fax: 513-241-8137

Representing the company are:

         Michelle R. Arendt, Esq. (marendt@ulmer.com)
         Thomas H. Barnard, Jr., Esq. (tbarnard@ulmer.com)
         Ulmer and Berne
         Penton Media Building
         1300 E. Ninth Street, Suite 900
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 216-931-6056
         Fax: 216-931-6057

              - and -

         Jacqueline Schuster Hobbs, Esq.
         (Jacqueline.Hobbs@Cinergy.com)
         Cinergy Services, Inc.
         139 East Fourth Street 25ATII
         Cincinnati, OH 45201-0960
         Phone: 513-287-1238
         Fax: 513-287-2996


ESCALA: Court Grants Final OK to Shareholder Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
     IRVINE, California, Sept. 23, 2008 -- Escala Group
(ESCL.PK), a global collectibles company in stamps, coins,
precious metals trading, and art and antiques, announced that
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has granted preliminary approval of the settlement of
the securities class action and shareholder derivative action
commenced against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in May 2006.

     As previously announced, as part of the derivative
settlement, the Company will recover $5.5 million from insurers
on behalf of certain of the named defendants on both
proceedings.  The Company has also agreed to adopt certain
corporate governance policies and procedures, and to pay all
court-approved attorneys' fees, up to a maximum of $925,000,
together with approved expenses not to exceed $70,000.  The
Company's insurer will fund $475,000 of these amounts.

     The proposed settlement of the class action litigation
provides for the Company to contribute an aggregate of
$6 million in cash and 4 million newly issued shares of its
stock to a settlement fund for the benefit of the class;
provided that if the average closing price per share on the
scheduled date of distribution is less than $2, the Company will
issue additional shares so that the total value of the shares
issued is $8 million.  In the event the average closing price
per share on the scheduled date of distribution is below $2 (and
in certain other circumstances), the Company has the right to
substitute cash for stock.  A substantial portion of the cash
contribution will be funded by insurers.

     The Company's net cash payment obligations under the
proposed settlements, after taking into account recoveries, is
approximately $1 million.

     The settlement hearing for both proposed settlements will
be held on December 2, 2008, at 4:00 p.m., before the Honorable
Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge, at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The purpose of the class action settlement hearing will
be to determine:

     (a) whether the economic terms of the settlement should be
         approved as fair, just, reasonable and adequate to lead
         plaintiff and the settlement class;

     (b) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement
         proceeds is fair, just, reasonable and adequate; and

     (c) whether the application by lead counsel for an award of
         attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved and the
         extent of a reasonable fee.

     The purpose of the hearing for the settlement of the
derivative action is to determine whether the proposed
settlement terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate.  The Court
will also consider whether to approve plaintiffs' counsel's fees
and reimbursement of expenses.

     If approved by the Court, all claims against the Company
and its current and former officers and directors will be
dismissed with prejudice and without any admission of liability
or wrongdoing.

     Additional information regarding the settlement agreements
will be set forth in the Company's Report on Form 8-K, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Escala Group, Inc. -- http://www.escalagroup.com/-- operates as
a global collectibles merchant and auction house network with
operations in North America, Europe, and Asia, as well as on the
Internet.


GRILL CONCEPTS: Settles One of Two Calif. Ex-Employees' Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grill Concepts, Inc., settled one of two purported class-action
lawsuits filed in California by its former hourly restaurant
employees, 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 29, 2008.

One of the company's former hourly restaurant employees filed a
class action complaint in June 2004 before the Superior Court of
California of Orange County against the company.  The company
requested to move the suit from Orange County to Los Angeles
County, and this motion was granted.

The lawsuit was then refiled before the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles in December 2004.  The
plaintiff alleged violations of California labor laws with
respect to providing meal and rest breaks.  It sought
unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments on
behalf of the plaintiffs and other purported class members.

In April 2007, the California Supreme Court unanimously held
that payments for missed meal or rest breaks are considered
wages or premium pay, not penalties.  As a result, claims for
missed meal and rest breaks under the California Labor Code will
be governed by a three or four-year statute of limitations for
the payments required under the Labor Code, rather than a one-
year statute.

The case has been placed in a stay status pending mediation in
the summer of 2008.

A second class action complaint of the same nature was filed on
April 4, 2008, in the Supreme Court for the County of Los
Angeles.  The company has requested that the case be combined
with the first class action suit.

On July 16, 2008, through non-binding mediation, the company
reached an agreement in principle to settle the first ongoing
class action lawsuit relating to employee meal and rest breaks.

The settlement, whose terms must still be finalized and is
subject to preliminary and final approval by the court, contains
a not-to-exceed amount, based on claims made by eligible class
members.  The tentative settlement also requires a minimum
payment of 50% of the total settlement amount after attorney's
fees, administrative costs and plaintive incentive awards.

The company is currently awaiting an executed memorandum of
understanding evidencing the terms of the proposed settlement,
which will require court approval to become binding.  It expects
the settlement to be paid out during the first half of fiscal
2009.

Grill Concepts, Inc. -- http://www.dailygrill.com/-- develops,
owns, operates, manages and licenses full-service upscale casual
dining restaurants under the name Daily Grill and fine dining
restaurants under the name The Grill on the Alley.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares, Inc., is facing a consolidated class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Between Feb. 20 and 29, 2008, three putative class-action
lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against the company, the Huntington
Bancshares Incorporated Pension Review Committee, the Huntington
Investment and Tax Savings Plan Administrative Committee, and
certain of the company's officers and directors purportedly on
behalf of participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan between
July 1, 2007, or July 20, 2007, and the present.

The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duties in violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act relating to the
company's stock being offered as an investment alternative for
participants in the Plan.  They seek money damages and equitable
relief.

On May 13, 2008, the three cases were consolidated into a single
action, 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 "Riccio v. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated et
al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00165-GLF-TPK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Gregory L. Frost,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Mark D. Lewis, Esq. (mlewis@kitricklaw.com)
          Kitrick & Lewis Co LPA
          515 E. Main Street, Suite 515
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-224-7711

          Jeffrey Phillip Harris, Esq.
          (jharris@statmanharris.com)
          Statman Harris & Eyrich
          441 Vine Street
          Suite 3700
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4704
          Phone: 513-621-2666

               - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants is:

          Walter C. Carlson (wcarlson@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-853-7000
          Fax: 312-853-7036


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Consolidated Ohio Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, 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.

Between Dec. 19, 2007, and Feb. 1, 2008, two putative class-
action suits were filed against the company and certain of its
current or former officers and directors purportedly on behalf
of purchasers of securities during the periods from July 20,
2007, to Nov. 16, 2007, or from July 20, 2007, to Jan. 10, 2008.

These complaints allege that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by issuing a series of allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning our financial results,
prospects, and condition, relating, in particular, to its
transactions with Franklin Credit Management.

On June 5, 2008, the two cases were consolidated into a single
action.

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

The suit is "Stephen Ellman, et al. v. Huntington Bancshares,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 07-CV- 01276," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge
Michael H. Watson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David P. Meyer, Esq. (dmeyer@dmlaws.com)
          David P. Meyer & Associates Co LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-224-6000
          Fax: 614-224-6066

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert Ward Trafford, Esq.
          (rtrafford@porterwright.com)
          Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
          41 S. High Street, Suite 2800
          Columbus, OH 43215-6194
          Phone: 614-227-2000
          Fax: 614-227-2149


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Lawsuits Over Certain Transactions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares, Inc., is facing three lawsuits in Ohio
all in connection with Huntington's acquisition of Sky Financial
Group, Inc., certain transactions between Huntington and
Franklin Credit Management Corp., and the financial disclosures
relating to such transactions, 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 three putative derivative class-action lawsuits were filed
between Jan. 16, 2008, and April 17, 2008, before:

   1. the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio;

   2. the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio;
      and

   3. the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio.

The suits named as defendants certain of Huntington's current or
former officers and directors, and variously allege breaches of
fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment.  Huntington is named
as a nominal defendant in each of these actions.

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

Huntington Bancshares, Inc. -- https://www.huntington.com/ -- is
a multi-state diversified financial holding company.  Through
its subsidiaries, the company provides full-service commercial
and consumer banking services, mortgage banking services,
automobile financing, equipment leasing, investment management,
trust services, brokerage services, reinsurance of private
mortgage insurance, reinsurance of credit life and disability
insurance, retail and commercial insurance agency services, and
other financial products and services.  The company has three
lines of business: Regional Banking, Dealer Sales, and the
Private Financial and Capital Markets Group (PFCMG).  A fourth
segment, Treasury/Other, includes the company's treasury
function.  The company's only banking subsidiary is The
Huntington National Bank.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares, Inc., is facing a purported securities
fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, according to the company's Aug. 11,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 7, 2008, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
against Huntington, as successor in interest to Sky Financial
Group, Inc., and certain of Sky Financial's former officers on
behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Sky Financial
common stock in connection with and as a result of Sky
Financial's October 2006 acquisition of Waterfield Mortgage Co.

The complaint seeks to allege that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with the issuance of allegedly false and misleading
registration and proxy statements leading up to the Waterfield
acquisition and their disclosures about the nature and extent of
Sky Financial's lending relationship with Franklin Credit
Management Corp.

The suit is "Tom v. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00443-JLG-TPK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge James L. Graham,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq. (moul@mmmb.com)
          Murray Murphy Moul & Basil
          1533 Lake Shore Drive
          Columbus, OH 43204
          Phone: 614-488-0400

               - and -

          Geoffrey L. Harrison, Esq.
          (gharrison@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey LLP
          1000 Louisiana Street
          Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-653-7807
          Fax: 713-654-3367

Representing the defendants are:

          Walter C. Carlson, Esq. (wcarlson@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-853-7000
          Fax: 312-853-7036

               - and -

          Robert Ward Trafford, Esq.
          (rtrafford@porterwright.com)
          Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
          41 S. High Street, Suite 2800
          Columbus, OH 43215-6194
          Phone: 614-227-2000
          Fax: 614-227-2149


LOJACK CORP: Plaintiffs Want "Rutti" Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit, captioned
"Mike Rutti, et al. v. Lojack Corporation, Inc. et al.," filed a
motion asking the court to remand the matter to a California
State Court.

The suit was filed on April 5, 2006, before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against LoJack
Corp.  It was filed by an employee alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the
California Business & Professions Code.  It seeks class-action
status.

The plaintiffs contend that the company improperly credited
break time and overtime pay and seeks unspecified monetary and
injunctive relief.

In September 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed the plaintiff's federal law
claims, which represented the largest part of the company's
potential exposure.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs filed state law claims in
California State Court.  In January 2008, the company removed
the state law claims to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The plaintiffs then filed a motion to
remand the case back to California State Court.

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

The suit is "Mike Rutti, et al. v. Lojack Corporation, Inc., et
al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00350-DOC-JC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge David O.
Carter, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

        John Glugoski, Esq. (jglugoski@righettilaw.com)
        Righetti Law Firm P C
        456 Montgomery Street Suite 1400
        San Francisco, CA 94104
        Phone: 415-983-0900

Representing the defendant is:

        Dan Chammas, Esq. (dchammas@mwe.com)
        McDermott Will & Emery LLP
        2049 Century Park East 34th Floor
        Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
        Phone: 310-277-4110


MGIC INVESTMENTS: Faces Stockholder Lawsuits in Mich. and Wis.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corp. is facing several purported stockholder
class-action lawsuits in Michigan and Wisconsin, according to
the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Initially, four purported stockholder class-action complaints
have been filed against the company and several of its
officers. They are:

     1. "Wayne County Employees' Retirement System v. MGIC
        Investment Corporation," filed in May 2008;

     2. "Plumbers' & Pipefitters' Local #562 Pension Fund v.
        MGIC Investment Corporation," filed in May 2008;

     3. "Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund v. MGIC Investment
        Corporation," filed in June 2008; and

     4. "Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association v. MGIC
        Investment Corporation," filed in July 2008.

With the exception of Wayne County Employees' Retirement System,
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, all of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The complaints generally allege that through the officers named
in the complaints, the company violated the federal securities
laws by failing to disclose or misrepresenting C-BASS'
liquidity, the impairment of its investment in C-BASS, the
inadequacy of the company's loss reserves and that we were not
adequately capitalized.  The collective time period covered by
the lawsuits begins on Oct. 12, 2006, and ends on Feb. 12, 2008.

The complaints seek damages based on purchases of the company's
stock during this time period at prices that were allegedly
inflated as a result of the purported misstatements and
omissions.

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

MGIC Investment Corp. -- http://www.mgic.com/-- is a holding
company and, through its wholly owned subsidiary Mortgage
Guaranty Insurance Corp., provides private mortgage insurance in
the U.S.  MGIC is licensed in all 50 states of the U.S., the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam.  One of MGIC's
subsidiaries is licensed in Australia and another is in the
process of becoming licensed in Canada.  In addition to mortgage
insurance on first liens, the company, through its subsidiaries,
provides lenders with various underwriting and other services
and products related to home mortgage lending.  The company has
ownership interests in less than majority owned joint ventures
and investments, principally Sherman Financial Group LLC and
Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC, which it
refers to as C-BASS.  Sherman is principally engaged in
purchasing and collecting for its own account delinquent
consumer receivables.


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Defective XBox 360
------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County
of Sacramento alleging it sold defective XBox 360 video game
consoles for years though it knew they were defective and froze
with circular, flashing red lights known as the "red ring of
death," CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the report, this is a class action filed on behalf
of a class of persons who either purchased or became owners of a
Microsoft XBOX 360 video game console and whose console became
inoperable, froze and malfunctioned, often accompanied by
circle-shaped flashing red lights on the front of the console
commonly referred to as the "red ring of death".

The complaint alleges that the sale of video game consoles is a
multi-billion dollar industry comprised of three primary
competitors, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.  Every two to three
years, a new generation of gaming consoles is released with
faster processing speeds allowing for ever-increasing
sophistication and graphics capabilities.  Each new generation
causes extraordinary excitement in the gaming console.
Microsoft and its competitors compete vigorously for this
consumer excitement and the market share generated thereby.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     a. whether the XBOX 360 consoles share a common defect;

     b. whether Microsoft represented, through its words and
        conduct, that its XBOX 360 consoles had characteristics,
        uses or benefits that they did not actually have, in
        violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
        Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq. (CLRA);

     c. whether Microsoft represented, through its words and
        conduct, that its XBOX 360 consoles were of a particular
        standard, quality, or grade when they were of another,
        in violation of the CLRA;

     d. whether Microsoft advertised XBOX 360 consoles with the
        intent not to sell them as advertised, in violation of
        the CLRA;

     e. whether Microsoft's active concealment of and failure
        to disclose the true nature of its XBOX 360 consoles was
        likely to mislead or deceive within the meaning of
        California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL);

     f. whether Microsoft's active concealment of and failure
        to disclose the true nature of its XBOX 360 consoles is
        unfair within the meaning of the UCL, in that the harm
        to consumers and the public of such conduct outweighs
        its benefits;

     g. whether Microsoft's active concealment of and failure
        to disclose the true nature of its XBOX 360 consoles is
        unlawful within the meaning of the UCL, in that it
        constitutes a violation of the CLRA;

     h. whether Microsoft had a duty to provide Plaintiff and
        the Class with full and fair disclosure of the
        characteristics of its XBOX 360 consoles, including,
        but not limited to, the excessive failure rate and the
        onset of the "red ring of death";

     i. whether Microsoft engaged in false advertising within
        the meaning of the UCL when it represented, through its
        advertising, warranties, and other representations, that
        its XBOX 360 consoles had characteristics that they do
        not actually have, or omitted to disclose material facts
        regarding its XBOX 360 consoles, including, but not
        limited to, the excessive failure rate and the onset of
        the "red ring of death";

     j. whether Microsoft should be declared financially
        responsible for notifying all Class members of the true
        nature of its XBOX 360 consoles, including, but not
        limited to, the excessive failure rate and the onset of
        the "red ring of death"; and

     k. whether Microsoft should be ordered to disgorge, for the
        benefit of the Class, all or part of its ill-gotten
        profits received from the sale of the XBOX 360 consoles,
        and to make restitution to plaintiffs and the members
        of the Class.

The plaintiffs asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class and any subclasses the
        Court deems appropriate, appointment the named plaintiff
        as class representative and his counsel of record as
        class counsel;

     -- equitable and injunctive relief, including, but not
        limited to, an order requiring Microsoft to publicly
        announce and implement a program to refund the price of
        the XBOX 360 consoles, according to proof;

     -- an order requiring restitution, disgorgement and
        imposing a constructive trust upon Microsoft's revenues
        or profits attributable to its unjust enrichment as to
        the members of the class, including, but not limited to,
        those excess profits from the sale of the XBOX 360,
        according to proof;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as appropriate
        and at the maximum legal rate;

     -- reasonable costs and attorney's fees, as allowed by law,
        and from the common fund, and for all costs associated
        with administration of the common fund;

     -- a declaration of financial responsibility on the part of
        Microsoft for the costs of class notification;

     -- such other and further relief as the Court deems just
        and proper.

The suit is "Reshelle Cable, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation,
Case No. 34-2008-00022468-CU-NP-GDS," filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Sacramento.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Keith D. Cable, Esq.
          Cable Law Offices
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Phone: 916-608-7995
          Fax: 916-984-5775


ORBCOMM INC: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
ORBCOMM, Inc., continues to face a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On Sept. 20 and 25, 2007, two separate plaintiffs filed
purported class-action complaints before the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the company and certain
of its officers.

On June 2, 2008, the Court consolidated the actions, appointed
Erwin Weichel, David Peterson and William Hunt as lead
plaintiffs and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of co-
lead and liaison counsel.

On July 17, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint against the company and certain of its officers, and
added as defendants the two co-lead underwriters of the
company's initial public offering -- UBS Securities LLC and
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
company's registration statement related to its IPO in November
2006 contained material misstatements and omissions in violation
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The action cited, among other things, a drop in the trading
price of the company's common stock that followed disclosure on
Aug. 14, 2007, of a change in the company's definition of
billable subscriber communicators and reduced guidance for the
remainder of 2007 released with the company's 2007 second
quarter financial results.

The action seeks to recover compensatory and rescissory damages,
on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased common stock
in and traceable to the company's IPO on or about Nov. 3, 2006,
through Aug. 14, 2007.

The suit is "Blake Partners, Inc. v. ORBCOMM, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-04517-WHW-CCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Judge William H. Walls, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq. (jwh@njlawfirm.com)
          Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLC
          Park 80 Plaza West-One
          Saddlebrook, NJ 07663
          Phone: 201-845-9600

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          1040 Kings Highway, North
          Suite 601
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Phone: 856-795-7250

Representing the defendants are:

          Carl Greenberg, Esq. (cgreenberg@budd-larner.com)
          Budd Larner, PC
          150 John F. Kennedy Parkway, CN 1000
          Short Hills, NJ 07078-0999
          Phone: 973-379-4800

               - and -

          William F. Clarke, Jr., Esq. (wclarke@skadden.com)
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NJ 10036
          Phone: 212-735-3000


PAYDAY LOAN: Sued in Ill. Over Alleged Illegal Interest Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Payday Loan Stores of Illinois is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging it charges illegal interest of
more than 700%, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of all persons who
have entered into a consumer credit arrangement with the
defendant, for which one Truth in Lending Statement specifies
"post-dated check" as defendant's security interest and explains
that new post-dated checks must be provided upon each payment,
and another Truth in Lending Statement specifies a specific
check number as the defendant's security interest, where the
date of the contract is on or after one year of filing of this
action.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     a. whether the defendant used the same contradictory form
        Truth in Lending statements with its customers;

     b. whether the defendant thereby violated the TILA; and

     c. Damages.

The plaintiff asks the court to grant the class:

     (a) actual damages;

     (b) statutory damages;

     (c) attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and

     (d) any other relief the court deems proper.

The suit is "Jade Carpenter, et al. v. Payday Loan Stores of
Illinois, Inc., Case No. 08CV5355," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Alexander H. Burke, Esq. (ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com)
         Burke Law Offices, LLC
         155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 732
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-729-5288
         Fax: 312-729-5289


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Mediation Failed to Settle N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated shareholder lawsuit filed against
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., that entered into mediation
failed to reach a settlement of the case.

The first of the six cases that were later consolidated was
filed against the company and certain of its officers and
directors on Aug. 3, 2005.  The cases were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of stockholders of
the company that purchased shares between Feb. 9, 2005, and
Nov. 15, 2005.

The plaintiffs also named as defendants the underwriters in the
company's initial public offering and a private equity fund that
was a selling stockholder in the offering.

The district court has appointed a lead plaintiff, who, on
Dec. 23, 2005, filed a consolidated class action complaint
asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lead plaintiff generally alleged that the company issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements in
connection with its initial public offering and thereafter with
regard to:

     -- the accounting issues described in the company's press
        release issued on or about Nov. 15, 2005; and

     -- the alleged failure to disclose that demand for certain
        of the company's products was declining and that the
        company was planning to withdraw several products from
        the market.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.

Pursuant to the company's request, the court, in a pretrial
ruling on July 10, 2006, dismissed claims that the management
acted fraudulently.  The court also dismissed all claims against
the company and the individual defendants arising under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York certified a class consisting of all persons
who purchased the common stock of the company pursuant to, or
traceable to, the company's initial public offering on or about
Feb. 9, 2005, through Nov. 15, 2005.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the parties to the action engaged in mediation
to explore the terms of a potential settlement of the pending
litigation.  However, no settlement agreement was reached during
mediation.

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

The suit is "In re Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-cv-06924-CLB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Charles L. Brieant presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          William J. Ban, Esq. (wban@barrack.com)
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          Fax: 215-963-0838

               - and -

          Russell James Gunyan, Esq. (rgunyan@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7267
          Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants are:

          Todd R. David, Esq. (todd.david@alston.com)
          Alston & Bird, L.L.P.
          One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: 404-881-7357
          Fax: 404-527-8717

               - and -

          John Gueli, Esq. (jgueli@shearman.com)
          Shearman & Sterling LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-848-4744
          Fax: 212-848-7179


PUBLIC STORAGE: Calif. Court Affirms Dismissal of "Simas" Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Court of Appeals in California affirmed the dismissal of a
purported class-action lawsuit against Public Storage, Inc.,
over the company's sale of storage insurance.

The lawsuit -- "Simas v. Public Storage, Inc." -- was filed in
January 2006 before the Superior Court of California, Orange
County, against the company on behalf of a purported class of
individuals who bought insurance coverage at the company's
facilities.

The plaintiffs allege that the company does not have a license
to offer, sell and transact storage insurance.  The suit was
brought under California Business and Professions Code Section
17200.

The company filed a demurrer to the complaint.  While the
demurrer was pending, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to
allege a national class and claims for unfair business
practices, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and
negligent and intentional misrepresentation.

Ultimately all claims except for unjust enrichment were
dismissed.  A subsequent demurrer was filed and sustained
without leave to amend.  The case was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed the trial court's ruling and on June 26,
2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal
of the case, 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.

Public Storage -- http://www.publicstorage.com/-- formerly
Public Storage, Inc., is an equity real estate investment trust
(REIT).  It is a fully integrated, self-administered and self-
anaged REIT that acquires, develops, owns and operates self-
storage facilities.


QUANEX CORP: Lawsuit Over Gerdau Subsidiary Merger Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
     HOUSTON, Sept. 23, 2008 -- Quanex Building Products
Corporation, an industry-leading manufacturer of value-added,
engineered materials and components for the building products
market, announced the dismissal of the putative shareholder
class action lawsuit "Momentum Partners v. Raymond A. Jean, et
al., Cause No. 2008-01592," filed in the 125th Judicial District
of Harris County, Texas.

     The lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder of Quanex
Corporation and asserted claims relating to the spin-off of
Quanex Building Products and the subsequent merger of Quanex
Corporation into a subsidiary of Gerdau S.A.

     The suit named Quanex Corporation, Gerdau, and Quanex
Corporation's directors (who currently serve as directors of
Quanex Building Products) as defendants.

     On March 14, 2008, the district court denied plaintiff's
motion to enjoin the transactions, which closed successfully on
April 23, 2008.

     After failing to obtain injunctive relief, plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety by filing a
motion for nonsuit on September 9, 2008.

Houston, Texas-based Quanex Building Products Corp. --
http://www.quanex.com/ns/index.html-- is a manufacturer of
engineered materials and components for the U.S. building
products market.  The Company operates in two segments:
Engineered Building Products and Aluminum Sheet Building
Products.  On April 23, 2008, Quanex Corp. completed a spin-off
of its building products segment and the subsequent merger of
the remaining Quanex Corp. with a subsidiary of Gerdau SA.


RESERVE FUND: Amended Securities Fraud Complaint Filed in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 23, 2008 -- A class action amended
complaint was filed on September 19, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York by the law firm of
Stull, Stull & Brody and its co-counsel, on behalf of plaintiff
and a proposed class of purchasers of shares of The Reserve
Fund's Primary Fund (NASDAQ: RFIXX)during the period Sept. 28,
2007, through Sept. 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 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 (ANAV) was speculative and
inflated.

     Thus, the Fund's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued September 28, 2007, pursuant to which members of the
proposed class purchased or acquired shares of the Fund during
the Class Period, was materially false and misleading.

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street,
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll-free: 800-337-4983
          e-mail: tsvi@aol.com


SELECTBUILD CONSTRUCTION: Faces Calif. Labor Law Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selectbuild Construction and a slew of its affiliates are facing
a class-action complaint in Los Angeles Federal Court alleging
it violates the Labor Code, CourtHouse News Service reports.

CourtHouse did not report on any other details and updates
regarding the case.

SelectBuild Construction (formerly BMC Construction) acts as
hired hands for homebuilders.  The company is a subsidiary of
Building Materials Holding Corporation that provides
construction services to high-volume US homebuilders.  Its
construction-related services include component manufacturing,
concrete foundation and slab placement, shell construction, wood
framing, plumbing installation, millwork installation, materials
procurement and handling, trim carpentry, and project
estimating.  SelectBuild also makes trusses and wall panels and
provides risk management services for its customers. SelectBuild
once operated primarily in the western US but has expanded in
the Mid-Atlantic region and in Florida.


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Syncora Holdings Ltd. -- formerly Security Capital Assurance,
Ltd. -- is facing a consolidated securities fraud class-action
lawsuit in 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 December 2007 and January 2008, three class-action lawsuits
were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  They are:

       1. "Brickman Investments, Inc. v. Security Capital
          Assurance Ltd et al.,"

       2. "2 West, Inc. v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et
          al.," and

       3. "Clarke v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et al."

Two of the lawsuits were filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's common shares in the secondary public
offering by XL Insurance Ltd., as selling shareholder, on or
about June 6, 2007.  The third lawsuit was filed on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from April 23, 2007, through Dec. 10, 2007, including
those who purchased shares in the secondary offering.

The complaints name the company, its president and chief
executive officer, its former executive vice president and chief
financial officer, and XL Insurance, as defendants, and they
allege various violations of the U.S. Securities Act and the
U.S. Exchange Act by the defendants.  Two of the complaints also
name the lead underwriters of the secondary offering as
defendants.

The complaints include claims that the defendants' public
statements, including the registration statement and prospectus
related to the secondary offering, contained false and
misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts
necessary to make the statements contained therein not
misleading.

On April 24, 2008, an order was entered consolidating these
actions under the caption "In re Security Capital Assurance Ltd.
Securities Litigation," and appointing the Employees' Retirement
System of the State of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff.

On Aug. 6, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The consolidated amended complaint adds Edward Hubbard,
Executive Vice President, as well as Richard Heberton, former
chief credit officer of XL Capital Assurance, Inc., as
defendants and expands the class period to include all persons
who acquired the company's securities from March 15, 2007, to
March 18, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Security Capital Assurance Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-11086-DAB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Deborah A. Batts, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. (egleston@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414
          e-mail: 212-779-3218

          Irving Bizar, Esq. (Ibizar@Ballonstoll.com)
          Ballon, Stoll, Bader and Nadler
          729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-575-7900
          Fax: 212-764-5060

               - and -

          Richard A Speirs, Esq. (rspeirs@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Municipal Derivatives
---------------------------------------------------------------
Syncora Holdings Ltd., formerly Security Capital Assurance,
Ltd., is facing a multi-district litigation in New York over
municipal derivatives, 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 March and April, 2008, three-class action lawsuits were
commenced in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District
of New York, District of Columbia, and Northern District of
California on behalf of all state, local and municipal
government entities that purchased municipal derivatives from
the company or the other defendants in the period from Jan. 1,
1992, through Dec. 31, 2006.

The three lawsuits are:

      i. "Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank N.A., et
         al.,"

     ii. "Fairfax County, Virginia, et al. v. Wachovia Bank
         N.A., et al.," and

    iii. "City of Oakland, California v. AIG Financial Products
         Corp., et al.,"

The complaints name a number of providers and brokers of
municipal derivatives, including Syncora Holdings, as
defendants, and they allege a conspiracy among the defendants to
fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the price of, and to rig bids
and allocate customers and market for, municipal derivatives.
The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On June 16, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring the actions to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption,
"In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation," for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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

               - and -

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


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Faces Suit in Ala. Over County's Sewer System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Syncora Holdings Ltd., formerly known as Security Capital
Assurance, Ltd., is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in
Alabama over Jefferson County's sewer system, according to the
company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

On or around June 17, 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, on behalf of all
persons and entities that paid rates with respect to the
County's sewer system from Jan. 1, 2003, to the present.

The suit asserts claims against, among others, the company,
another bond insurer, numerous financial institutions, and
certain current and former County commissioners, alleging
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy,
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment in connection with the issuance of the County’s sewer
system warrants, certain conduct occurring thereafter and the
operation of the sewer system.  It does not seek any specific
amount in damages from any defendant.

Syncora Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.scafg.com/Holdings/--
formerly Security Capital Assurance Limited, is a holding
company whose operating subsidiaries provide financial guarantee
insurance, reinsurance, and other credit enhancement products to
the public finance and structured finance markets throughout the
U.S. and internationally.  The company's businesses consists of
Syncora Guarantee Inc. (formerly XL Capital Assurance Inc.) and
its wholly owned subsidiary, XL Capital Assurance (U.K.) Limited
(XLCA-UK) and Syncora Guarantee Re Ltd. (formerly XL Financial
Assurance Ltd.).  The segments of the company are financial
guarantee insurance and financial guarantee reinsurance.  The
financial guarantee insurance segment offers financial guarantee
insurance policies and credit-default swaps contracts.  The
financial guarantee reinsurance segment reinsures financial
guarantee policies and CDS contracts issued by other monoline
financial guarantee insurance companies.


TYSON FOODS: 5th District Dismisses Appeal for Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Fifth District Appellate Court has dismissed an appeal by
Tyson Foods for summary judgment in a Madison County class
action suit filed over allegations that the company putting too
much water in prepackaged chicken, Ann Knef writes for Madison
County Record.

The report recounts that Tyson had filed a motion for summary
judgment on the basis that federal law preempts the plaintiffs'
claims.  However, that request was denied by Madison County
Circuit Judge Ralph Mendelsohn.  Tyson then appealed Judge
Mendelsohn's ruling.

In an opinion released on Sept. 19, 2008, Justice Stephen Spomer
wrote that Tyson's appeal lacks appellate jurisdiction.

"The defendant's jurisdictional statement invokes the
jurisdiction of this court to review interlocutory orders
granting, modifying, refusing, dissolving, or refusing to
dissolve or modify an injunction," Judge Spomer wrote.  He also
said that the cases cited by Tyson in its appeal dealt with
"whether the preemption issue was within the scope of the review
of a properly appealable order granting or denying a motion to
stay proceedings or a motion for a preliminary injunction."

"The question in all the cases cited by the defendant was
whether or not the preemption issue was sufficiently related to
the authority of the circuit court to enter the properly
appealable order granting or denying the injunction or stay in
order to place the preemption issue within the scope of review,"
the judge added.  "The cited cases do not stand for the
proposition that the preemption issue is always appealable as an
interlocutory appeal as of right under Illinois Supreme Court
Rule 307(a). To hold otherwise would be to ignore the long-
standing principle that only final judgments or orders are
appealable unless the particular order falls within one of the
eight specified exceptions enumerated by Illinois Supreme Court
Rule 307."

Justices Bruce Stewart and Richard Goldenhersh concurred with
Judge Spomer, the report notes.

Madison County Record recounts that lead plaintiffs Timothy A.
Rogers and Alan Westfall, who propose to represent a class
involving 33 states, filed the lawsuit in 2001.


VIOLETFLAME: Faces Nebraska Suit Over Fraudulent Husker Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Violetflame LLC and Charles Hackshaw are facing a class-action
complaint filed in the District Court of Douglas County,
Nebraska, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action complaint under the Nebraska Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, RRS Section 87-301 et seq,
specifically RRS Section 87-302 and Section 87-303 and the
Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, RRS Section 59-1601, et seq,
specifically, RRS Section 59-1609 thereof.

The suit is "Husker Siding & Windows, Inc., et al. v.
Violetflame LLC," filed in the District Court of Douglas County,
Nebraska,.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph J. Skudlarek, Esq.
          (JJSkudlarek@jjskudlarek.com)
          1055 NOrth 115 Street, Suite 200
          Omaha, NE 68154
          Phone: 402- 827-4324
          Fax: 402-934-4107


VONAGE HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Yet to Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a motion seeking the consolidation of several
purported consumer fraud class action lawsuits against Vonage
Holdings Corp.

Initially, the company was named in several purported class
action complaints filed in California, New Jersey, Ohio and
Washington.  The suits allege a wide variety of deficiencies
with respect to the company's business practices, marketing
disclosures, e-mail marketing and quality issues for both phone
and fax service.

These cases seek relief under various state consumer protection
statutes, federal anti-spam laws, and common law theories.  Some
of the actions allege that the company failed to adequately
disclose terms of service, including how the money-back
guarantee and the free month of service operate.  Various
plaintiffs allege that the disconnect fees are improper and that
the company failed to honor promised rebates.

In addition, some plaintiffs allege the company falsely
represented cost savings for its customers and deceptively
describe the nature and quality of our service.  Other
plaintiffs claim its facsimile service is defective.

These various class action suits, on behalf of both nationwide
and state classes, pending in New Jersey, Washington and
California, are generally alleging that the company:

       -- delayed and refused to allow consumers to cancel
          their company service;

       -- failed to disclose procedural impediments to
          cancellation;

       -- failed to adequately disclose that their 30-day money
          back guarantee does not give consumers 30 days to try
          out the company's services;

       -- suppressed and concealed the true nature of its
          services and disseminated false advertising about the
          quality, nature and terms of the company's services;

       -- imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and

       -- invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of
          Service to the detriment of customers.

On May 11, 2007, the plaintiffs in one action petitioned the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for transfer and
consolidation of the pending actions to a single court for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The motion was heard on July 26, 2007, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, and the MDL Panel, in an order dated Aug. 15, 2007,
transferred the pending actions to the U.S. Court for the
District of New Jersey, where they were consolidated under the
caption "In re Vonage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation,
MDL No. 1862, Master Docket No. 07-CV-3906 (USDC, D.N.J.)."

On Oct. 1, 2007, the counsel for one group of plaintiffs asked
the court for appointment of co-lead counsel of the actions, and
requested time to file an amended consolidated complaint.  The
court has not yet ruled on the motion.

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

Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider
of broadband telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber
lines as of Dec. 31, 2006.  Utilizing its voice-over-Internet
protocol (VoIP) technology platform, the Company offers low-cost
communications services.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in IPO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a motion that sought the dismissal of an amended
complaint in a consolidated class-action suit over Vonage
Holdings Corp.'s initial public offering.

In June and July 2006, Vonage, several of the company's officers
and directors, and the firms who served as underwriters in the
company's IPO, were named as defendants in several similar
purported class action lawsuits.

The cases were filed in these courts:

   -- U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,

   -- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,

   -- Supreme Court of the State of New York (subsequently
      removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
      District of New York), and

   -- Superior Court of New Jersey (subsequently removed to the
      U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey).

The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws
on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common
stock in connection with the company's IPO.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
omitted and misstated certain facts concerning the IPO's
Customer Directed Share Program.  Some complaints also allege
that the IPO prospectus contained misrepresentations or
omissions concerning certain of the company's products and the
prior experience of some of its management.

On Jan. 9, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all complaints to the District of New Jersey.

Following briefing, on Sept. 7, 2007, the Court appointed
Zyssman Group as the lead plaintiff, and the law firm of
Zwerling, Schachter and Zwerling, LLP, as lead counsel.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which generally alleges that:

     -- the defendants made misstatements regarding subscriber
        line growth and average monthly churn rate;

     -- the defendants failed to disclose problems with
        facsimile transmissions and a pending fax litigation
        case;

     -- the defendants failed to disclose all patent
        infringement claims and issues; and

     -- the Directed Share Program suffered from various
        infirmities.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the defendants filed their motions to dismiss
the Amended Complaint, and briefing on the matter was completed
in April.  The court has not yet ruled on the motion, 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.

Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider
of broadband telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber
lines as of Dec. 31, 2006.  Utilizing its voice-over-Internet
protocol (VoIP) technology platform, the Company offers low-cost
communications services.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

FEDERAL NATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 23, 2008 -- On September 18, 2008, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Federal National Home Mortgage
Association [NYSE:FNM] between Nov. 9, 2007, and Sept. 5, 2008,
inclusive, against the Company and certain officers and
directors, alleging fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and
78t(a) and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by
the SEC, including Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5.

     The case name is styled "Fogel Capital Management, Inc. v.
Federal National Home Mortgage Association."  A copy of the
complaint filed in this action is available at the Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at
http://www.whafh.com/

     Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made statements to
Plaintiff and the other investors that were materially false and
misleading because they failed to warn investors that the
Company was undercapitalized and would continue to be
undercapitalized even after raising billions of dollars in
capital via preferred stock offerings.

     Defendants also issued false financial reports which
misrepresented the Company's financial condition and inflated
the Company's reported net worth.  Defendants improperly
accounted for Fannie Mae's investments, deferred tax assets and
guaranty obligations, thus overstating the Company's assets and
understating its liabilities in order to avoid having the
Company's net worth fall below the minimum capital amount
required by regulators.

     On September 7, 2008, as part of the largest government
bailout in history, federal regulators, concerned about the
continued undercapitalization of Fannie Mae and worried of an
imminent collapse, seized control of Fannie Mae and placed it
into a conservatorship.  The result of the Government's action
was that the Company's already beleaguered stock price plummeted
another 90% to close at $0.73 per share on September 8, 2008,
wiping out almost all shareholder value in the Company.

     As a result of the dissemination of the false and
misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market
price of Fannie Mae securities was artificially inflated during
the Class Period.  In ignorance of the false and misleading
nature of the statements described in the complaint, and the
deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by
said defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class
relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price
of Fannie Mae securities.  Had plaintiff and the other members
of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated
prices that were paid.

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

For more information, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Martin Restituyo, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/


FREDDIE MAC: Vianale & Vianale Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BOCA RATON, Florida., Sept. 23, 2008 -- The law firm of
Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a class action lawsuit on Sept. 23,
2008 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased Freddie Mac 8.375%
Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series Z (NYSE:FRE-
PZ).

     The action names some of the underwriters for the Series Z
Preferred stock:

     -- Goldman Sachs & Co.,
     -- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and
     -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

     The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Freddie Mac Series Z Preferred who purchased shares in or
traceable to the November 29, 2007 initial public offering for
this security.

     The complaint alleges that the defendant underwriters
violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.
Plaintiff alleges that the Offering Circular and other offering
materials for the $6 billion preferred stock offering, failed to
warn investors about Freddie Mac's fatal exposure to mortgage-
related losses, poor underwriting standards and risk management
procedures, and the negative impact of those failings on the
adequacy of Freddie Mac's capital.  Defendants were underwriters
of the Series Z Preferred initial public offering.  They sold
the shares to the public in a firm commitment underwriting at
$25 per share less than a year ago. The shares now trade at $2
per share.

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

For more information, contact:

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. (kvianale@vianalelaw.com)
          Julie Prag Vianale. Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll Free)
                 561-392-4750


HANSEN NATURAL: Holzer & Fistel Files Calif. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, Georgia, Sept. 23, 2008 -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel,
LLC, filed a shareholder class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Hansen Natural Corporation common stock
during the period between May 23, 2007, and November 8, 2007.

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

     The complaint alleges Hansen Natural issued false and
misleading public statements and disclosures concerning the
Company's financial condition, including the Company's failure
to disclose that its second quarter sales results were
artificially high, that the Company was experiencing decline
sales for several of its products and that the Company was
experiencing production shortfalls with its Java Monster drink
line.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days
from September 11, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Toll-free: 888-508-6832


HARRIS STRATEX: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 19, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.,
commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of purchasers of Harris Stratex
Networks Inc. securities during the period between January 29,
2007, and July 30, 2008, for violations of federal securities
laws.  Also included are those who exchanged shares of Stratex
Networks Inc. for shares of Harris Stratex pursuant to the
registration statement/prospectus that became effective on
January 8, 2007.

     The Complaint charges that Harris Stratex and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements about its
financial condition prior to and following its formation in
early 2007 through the date of the merger of Stratex Networks
and the Harris Microwave Communications Division.

     On July 30, 2008, Harris Stratex announced that it had
discovered accounting errors which rendered its previously
issued financial statements to be incorrect.  According to the
announcement, the Company will restate earnings reports from
2005 through the present.  The Company reported these accounting
errors will cut previously reported pre-tax income by
$18 million to $25 million.

    Interested parties may move the court no later than Nov. 14,
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/


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Holzer & Fistel Files Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, Georgia, Sept. 23, 2008 -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel,
LLC, filed a shareholder class action lawsuit 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.

     The complaint alleges Novatel issued false and misleading
public statements and disclosures concerning the Company's
financial condition, including misrepresenting its revenues and
the status of an internal accounting review.

     Purchasers of Novatel common stock during the Class Period
have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a
"lead plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days
from September 16, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Toll-free: 888-508-6832


QUEST RESOURCE: Cohen Milstein Files Okla. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, Sept. 23, 2008 -- The law firm Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., filed a securities class action suit
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the common units of Quest Energy Partners L.P.
(NasdaqGM:QELP) pursuant and traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's Initial Public Offering on November 7, 2007,
through August 25, 2008, and on behalf all persons who purchased
the securities of Quest Resource Corporation (NasdaqGM:QRCP)
between May 2, 2005, through August 25, 2008.

     The Complaint charges Quest Energy and its parent company,
Quest Resource, among others, with violations of federal
securities laws.

     Quest Resource is engaged in the exploration, development,
production and transportation of natural gas.  Quest Energy is
the gas and oil production operation arm of Quest Resource and
engages in the acquisition, exploitation and development of oil
and natural gas properties.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Quest Resource's and Quest Energy's
business and operations were materially false and misleading.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that related party transactions, which existed at the
time of Quest Energy's IPO, between Quest Energy and Rockport
Energy -- an entity controlled by Quest Energy's chief executive
officer, violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and
SEC regulations.  These failures by defendants caused Quest
Resource's disclosures on related party transactions to be
materially incomplete and false.

     On August 25, 2008, the Company announced, among other
things, the resignation of its CEO, Jerry Cash, the formation of
a Joint Special Committee to conduct an investigation of
improper transfers of Company funds by Cash to Rockport Energy,
and an inquiry launched by the Oklahoma Department of Securities
in connection with the improper transfers.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 4, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


SPECTRANICS CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Sept. 23, 2008 -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
filed a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of The Spectranetics Corporation between April 19,
2007, and September 4, 2008, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Spectranetics and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.  Among other things, plaintiff claims that
defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business and operations caused Spectranetics' stock price to
become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

     Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets and
distributes single-use medical devices used in minimally
invasive procedures within the cardiovascular system for use
with Spectranetics' excimer laser system.

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

     (1) that the Company lacked effective regulatory compliance
         controls;

     (2) that the Company was illegally and extensively
         marketing its laser and catheters for uses that had not
         been approved by the United States Food and Drug
         Administration (FDA);

     (3) that the Company failed to report to the FDA that tests
         found its laser caused significant damage to stents it
         was using in the clinical trial;

     (4) that the Company illegally tested several products on
         patients without FDA approval;

     (5) that the Company lacked effective internal controls;
         and

     (6) as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated.

On September 4, 2008, Spectranetics shocked investors when
reports surfaced that Federal Officials had served search
warrants on the Company and NASDAQ halted trading of
Spectranetics' common stock.  That evening, Spectranetics issued
a press release disclosing that the Company was jointly served
by the FDA and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with a
search warrant relating to the promotion, use, testing,
marketing, and sales of certain Spectranetics products, and
payments made to medical personnel and an identified institution
for this application.  The search warrant also requested
information about two post-market studies completed during the
period from 2002 to 2005 and payments to medical personnel in
connection with those studies, as well as information regarding
compensation packages for certain Spectranetics personnel.

     On this news, NASDAQ subsequently halted trading of shares
in Spectranetics, but only after Company shares had already
fallen $4.27 per share, or 47 percent, to $4.73 per share on
unusually heavy trading volume.  The following day, September 5,
2008, shares of Spectranetics were allowed to resume trading and
closed at $5.63 per share, a decline of $3.37 per share, or 37
percent, from the September 3, 2008 closing price of $9.00 per
share.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class
members.

For more information, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Toll Free: 888-773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com


SYNCHRONOS TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     RADNOR, Pa., Sept 23, 2008 -- The law firm of Schiffrin
Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, gave notice that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of Synchronoss Technologies Inc. from February 4, 2008, through
and June 9, 2008, inclusive.

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

     Synchronoss is a provider of on-demand transaction
management software to Tier One communications service
providers.  The Company provides software that allows consumers
to activate cellular phones on wireless networks.  Of particular
note was the Company's cooperation with AT&T, which accounted
for almost 80 percent of Synchronoss's revenue.  AT&T is the
exclusive carrier for the Apple iPhone in the United States, and
a significant number of iPhones were activated using
Synchronoss's software.  While some iPhones are not activated on
AT&T's network (and are referred to as "unlocked"), the Company
maintained during the Class Period that they continued to expect
significant revenue from the iPhone contract with AT&T.  At no
point prior to May 2008 did the Company suggest that this
contract was in danger.

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

     (1) that the Company's software would no longer be used to
         activate new iPhones after July 11, 2008;

     (2) that the foregoing was the true reason that the Company
         had reduced its revenue outlook in May 2008;

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

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

     On May 6, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
"materially lowered" its 2008 financial expectations due to
reduced revenues associated with the iPhone.  However, the
Company continued to maintain that it expected to generate
millions of dollars in revenue from activating iPhones.  Upon
the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $9.86
per share, or 43.06%, to close on May 7, 2008, at $13.04 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Then, on June 10, 2008, the Company disclosed that its
technology would no longer be used to activate iPhones beginning
July 11, 2008, when the new generation iPhone was to be
introduced.  In a filing with the SEC reporting this news, the
Company stated that this shocking development "was already taken
into consideration when we provided our revised financial
outlook on our first quarter 2008 financial results conference
call."

     On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.28
per share, or 17.13 percent, to close on June 10, 2008, at
$11.03 per share, also on unusually heavy trading volume.

     The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

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

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
                 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F.
Dy, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *