CAR_Public/080930.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Tuesday, September 30, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 194

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE CORP: Court Affirms No-Remand Decision in LAG's Lawsuit
ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery Still Ongoing in MUWA Members' Lawsuit
ALLSTATE CORP: La. Court Yet to Certify General Contractor Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: N.M. Supreme Court Reinstates Class in Fees Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Dismissal Appealed

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Agency Program Overhaul Suits Still Pending
AMERICAN INDEPENDENT: Faces Pa. Suit Over Pro-Rated Deductibles
APPLE INC: Judge Throws Out Illinois Lawsuit Over iPhone Battery
APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Sued Over Wrongful Calorie Count in Diet Menu
BEAR STEARNS: Faces Lawsuits in N.Y. Alleging ERISA Violations

BEAR STEARNS: Faces Two Lawsuits Over U.S. Feeder Funds
BEAR STEARNS: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
BILL HEARD: Workers File Alabama Suit Over WARN Act Violations
EGG PRODUCERS: Face Pa. Lawsuit for Conspiring to Fix Prices
ENERNOC: Securities Fraud Suits Still Pending in Massachusetts

H&R BLOCK: Faces Suit in Illinois Over Auction Rate Securities
HANOVER INSURANCE: Dismissal of Ky. Pension Plan Suit on Appeal
HANOVER INSURANCE: Faces Louisiana Suit Over "Rode Home" Program
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Court OKs Deal and Dismisses Merger Case
HARTE-HANKS: Court Intends to Issue Split Ruling in Calif. Suit

HEALTH NET: Rescinded Members' Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.
HUNTSMAN CORP: California Antitrust Lawsuit Remains Stayed
HUNTSMAN CORP: Class Certification Briefing Ongoing in MDL-1616
HUNTSMAN CORP: Urethane Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Massachusetts Court Stays "Moniz" Lawsuit

IKON OFFICE: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over $1.6-Billion Sale to Ricoh
INDYMAC BANCORP: Susman Represents Plaintiffs in Securities Suit
LEHMAN BROS: Preferred Series J Stock Investors File N.Y. Suit
NATIONAL WESTERN: Lawsuits Over Sale of Annuities Still Pending
NVIDIA CORP: Settles GPU Anti-trust Lawsuit for $850,000

PENN NATIONAL GAMING: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Maryland
PENN NATIONAL GAMING: Settles Pa. Suit Over PNG Merger Agreement
PMI GROUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
POINT BLANK: Objector Appeals Final Approval of Suit Settlements
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Court Allows Plaintiffs to Pursue Ketek Claims

SECURE COMPUTING: Faces Calif. Suit Over Unfair Sale to McAfee

* Settlement Provides $457,000 in Financial Aid for Students

* Canadian Govt's New Ancillary Fee Policy Rewards Rule Breakers


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Izard Nobel Files Securities Suit in New York
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Gainey & McKenna Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
FREDDIE MAC: Klayman & Toskes Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Suit in
OSHKOSH CORP: Brualdi Law Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wis.

SPECTRANICS CORP: Brualdi Law Files Colorado Securities Lawsuit



                           *********


ALLSTATE CORP: Court Affirms No-Remand Decision in LAG's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied an appeal
in a purported class action lawsuit filed by The Louisiana
Attorney General against Allstate Corp. and other insurers in
connection with a decision not to remand the matter to state
court.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Road Home fund recipients
alleging that the insurers have failed to pay all damages owed
under their policies.  It seeks a variety of remedies, including
actual and punitive damages in unspecified amounts and
declaratory relief.

The insurers removed the matter to federal court.  The district
court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the matter to
state court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
has upheld the denial of the remand motion.  The matter will now
proceed in federal court.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Co., Allstate
Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively, including
Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily engaged in the
personal property and casualty insurance business and the life
insurance, retirement and investment products business.  The
company conducts its business primarily in the U.S.  Allstate
provides insurance products to more than 17 million households
through a distribution network that utilizes a total of
approximately 14,900 agencies and financial specialists in the
U.S. and Canada.  It operates in four business segments:
Allstate Protection; Discontinued Lines and Coverages; Allstate
Financial, and Corporate and Other.


ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery Still Ongoing in MUWA Members' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class-action lawsuit
filed against the board members of the Mississippi Windstorm
Underwriters Association and an Allstate Corp. subsidiary.

The suit was filed by some members of MWUA against the MWUA
board members and the companies they represent, including an
Allstate subsidiary, alleging that the Board purchased
insufficient reinsurance to protect the MWUA members.

In general, the suit seeks a variety of remedies, including
actual and punitive damages in unspecified amounts and
declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending.  As
of the moment, discovery is ongoing.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Co., Allstate
Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively, including
Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily engaged in the
personal property and casualty insurance business and the life
insurance, retirement and investment products business.  The
company conducts its business primarily in the U.S.  Allstate
provides insurance products to more than 17 million households
through a distribution network that utilizes a total of
approximately 14,900 agencies and financial specialists in the
U.S. and Canada.  It operates in four business segments:
Allstate Protection; Discontinued Lines and Coverages; Allstate
Financial, and Corporate and Other.


ALLSTATE CORP: La. Court Yet to Certify General Contractor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
has yet to rule on a motion that seeks to certify a class in a
lawsuit against The Allstate Corp.

In the suit, the plaintiffs allege that they were entitled to,
but did not receive, payment for general contractor overhead and
profit or that the overhead and profit they received was not
adequate to compensate them for the entire costs of a general
contractor.

The company's motion to strike the class allegations was denied
and the parties are proceeding with discovery.  The plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is pending.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Co., Allstate
Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively, including
Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily engaged in the
personal property and casualty insurance business and the life
insurance, retirement and investment products business.  The
company conducts its business primarily in the U.S.  Allstate
provides insurance products to more than 17 million households
through a distribution network that utilizes a total of
approximately 14,900 agencies and financial specialists in the
U.S. and Canada.  It operates in four business segments:
Allstate Protection; Discontinued Lines and Coverages; Allstate
Financial, and Corporate and Other.


ALLSTATE CORP: N.M. Supreme Court Reinstates Class in Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Supreme Court reinstated the 13-state class of
Allstate Corp. policyholders in a certified class-action
lawsuit, which challenges the method by which the company
discloses installment fees.

The plaintiffs contend that installment fees must be disclosed
on the insurance policy itself, which would include the
declarations page, because the fees allegedly meet the legal
definition of "premium."  They seek repayment of installment
fees since October 1996.

The New Mexico trial court had initially certified the 13-state
class in 2005.  In 2007, the class, except for New Mexico, was
set aside on appeal.

In June 2008, the New Mexico Supreme Court reinstated the 13-
state class of Allstate policyholders who paid installment fees
from October 1996 to the present.  The court has denied the
company's motion for reconsideration, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Co., Allstate
Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively, including
Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily engaged in the
personal property and casualty insurance business and the life
insurance, retirement and investment products business.  The
company conducts its business primarily in the U.S.  Allstate
provides insurance products to more than 17 million households
through a distribution network that utilizes a total of
approximately 14,900 agencies and financial specialists in the
U.S. and Canada.  It operates in four business segments:
Allstate Protection; Discontinued Lines and Coverages; Allstate
Financial, and Corporate and Other.


ALLSTATE CORP: Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Dismissal Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a purported class-action suit challenging the
adjustment and settlement of Hurricane Katrina claims by
Allstate Corp. has been appealed.

In a putative class-action lawsuit in Louisiana, the federal
trial court ruled that Allstate's and other insurers' flood,
water and negligent construction exclusions do not preclude
coverage for damage caused by flooding in the New Orleans area
to the extent it was caused by human negligence in the design,
construction and maintenance of the levees.

Allstate and other insurers pursued an interlocutory appeal and
in June 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the trial court's ruling.

The matter has been remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings, which have been consolidated along with other
putative class and individual actions brought against the
company and other insurers, challenging the adjustment and
settlement of Hurricane Katrina claims.

In a case in Louisiana state court involving a similar challenge
to the flood exclusion of another carrier, the Louisiana Supreme
Court issued its ruling in April 2008 that the flood exclusion
is clear and unambiguous, and therefore valid and enforceable
regardless of whether the source of the flooding was natural or
man-made.  The Louisiana Supreme Court has denied the
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of its ruling.

In light of the Louisiana Supreme Court's ruling, the federal
trial court has issued an order that all claims for insurance
coverage for flood damage, where the policy has a flood
exclusion, are dismissed.

The plaintiffs' bar has moved for reconsideration of the federal
trial court's dismissal, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Co., Allstate
Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively, including
Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily engaged in the
personal property and casualty insurance business and the life
insurance, retirement and investment products business.  The
company conducts its business primarily in the U.S.  Allstate
provides insurance products to more than 17 million households
through a distribution network that utilizes a total of
approximately 14,900 agencies and financial specialists in the
U.S. and Canada.  It operates in four business segments:
Allstate Protection; Discontinued Lines and Coverages; Allstate
Financial, and Corporate and Other.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Agency Program Overhaul Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Co., which is owned by The Allstate Corp., is
still facing several purported class-action lawsuits relating to
its agency program reorganization, which was announced in 1999.

                   EEOC I & Romero I Lawsuits

These matters include a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging
retaliation under federal civil rights laws (EEOC I Lawsuit),
and a class action filed in August 2001 by former employee
agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA
violations (Romero I Lawsuit).

In March 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I
litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that,
among other things, certified classes of agents, including a
mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes
of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release
is voidable at the option of the release signer.

The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must
return to Allstate Insurance "any and all benefits received by
the [agent] in exchange for signing the release."  The court
further stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there
is no basis for claims of age discrimination."

The EEOC and the plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and
reconsider its memorandum and order, and on Jan. 16, 2007, the
judge denied their request.

In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motions for summary
judgment.  Following the plaintiffs' filing of a notice of
appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued
an order in December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was
not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal
law and is thus not appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the court
along with the merits of the appeal.

                       EEOC II Litigation

The EEOC also filed another lawsuit in October 2004 alleging age
discrimination with respect to a policy limiting the rehire of
agents affected by the agency program reorganization (EEOC II
Lawsuit).

In October 2006, the court granted partial summary judgment to
the EEOC.

Although the court did not determine that AIC was liable for age
discrimination under the ADEA, it determined that the rehire
policy resulted in a disparate impact, reserving for trial the
determination on whether AIC had reasonable factors other than
age to support the rehire policy.

In June 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirmed summary judgment in the EEOC's favor.  AIC filed a
petition for rehearing en banc.

                    ERISA Lawsuit on Appeal

AIC is also defending a certified class-action lawsuit filed by
former employee agents who terminated their employment prior to
the agency program reorganization.

The plaintiffs allege that they were constructively discharged
so that Allstate could avoid paying ERISA and other benefits
offered under the reorganization.  They claim that the
constructive discharge resulted from the implementation of
agency standards, including mandatory office hours and a
requirement to have licensed staff available during business
hours.

The court approved the form of class notice which was sent to
approximately 1,800 potential class members in November 2007.
Fifteen individuals opted out.

AIC's motions for judgment on the pleadings were partially
granted.  In May 2008, the court granted summary judgment in
AIC's favor on all class claims.  The plaintiffs moved for
reconsideration and in the alternative to decertify the class.

AIC opposed this motion and filed a motion for summary judgment
with respect to the remaining non-class claim.

                         ERISA Lawsuit

A putative nationwide class-action lawsuit has also been filed
by former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA,
including a worker classification issue.

These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the
Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent
independent contractors treated as employees for benefit
purposes.

This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was
the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed
and remanded to the trial court in 2005.

In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motion to dismiss the
case.  Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the
Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the
notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within the
meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the court
along with the merits of the appeal.

In all of these various matters, the plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief,
according to Allstate Life Insurance Co. of New York's Aug. 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Co., Allstate
Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively, including
Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily engaged in the
personal property and casualty insurance business and the life
insurance, retirement and investment products business.  The
company conducts its business primarily in the U.S.  Allstate
provides insurance products to more than 17 million households
through a distribution network that utilizes a total of
approximately 14,900 agencies and financial specialists in the
U.S. and Canada.  It operates in four business segments:
Allstate Protection; Discontinued Lines and Coverages; Allstate
Financial, and Corporate and Other.


AMERICAN INDEPENDENT: Faces Pa. Suit Over Pro-Rated Deductibles
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Independent Insurance Company is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania, over allegations that it cheats auto
policyholders by pro-rating any subrogation recovery over the
entire amount of the claim and reimbursing only the pro-rated
amount of the deductible, CourtHouse News Service reports.

CourtHouse says that this is a class action suit brought on
behalf of all individuals who, within four years prior to the
filing of the complaint, are or were Pennsylvania insured under
policies of automobile insurance issued by AIIC which provide
that the insured must pay a deductible amount of any loss
claimed under the collision coverage of the policy.

The plaintiff demands a court order:

     -- certifying this action as a class action with plaintiff
        as the representative of the class;

     -- declaring the defendant's conduct was and is unlawful;

     -- awarding plaintiff and other members of the class
        damages in an amount in excess of the statutory limits
        for arbitration which sum compensates them for their
        damages and losses, together with interest and costs;

     -- awarding plaintiff and other members of the class
        punitive damages;

     -- ordering an accounting, at defendant's expense, of all
        sums due plaintiff and all members of the class;

     -- awarding plaintiff his costs of suit, together with
        reasonable attorney's fees; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court deems
        necessary and proper.

The suit is "Brigette Amos, et al. v. American Independent
Insurance Company," filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Thomas More Marrone, Esq.
          Thomas Martin, Esq.
          Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner,
          Weinstock & Dodig
          25th Floor, 1845 Walnut Streer
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-567-8300


APPLE INC: Judge Throws Out Illinois Lawsuit Over iPhone Battery
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly dismissed a class action
lawsuit filed last year over the iPhone battery, Afterdawn.com
reports, citing Bloomberg News.

According to the Bloomberg report, the lawsuit was commenced by
an angry iPhone owner who claimed that Apple Inc. was misleading
customers by not informing them that the iPhone battery was not
user-replaceable and that battery would only last a little over
a year.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 31, 2007, the
suit, which names Apple Computer and AT&T, Inc., as defendants,
was filed by Jose Trujillo in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  The suit alleged that the two companies fraudulently
concealed an annual fee of $85.95 that all Apple iPhone
purchasers must pay for battery replacement.

The CAR report pointed out that AT&T is iPhone's exclusive
carrier, and along with Apple, retails the iPhone in their
stores.

Mr. Trujillo said the iPhone is designed so that only
authorized agents can replace the battery, which must be mailed
in, and that batteries must be replaced after 300 charges,
necessitating annual replacements, the CAR report noted.  Mr.
Trujillo also claimed that Apple and AT&T waited until July 5,
after the iPhone went on sale, to disclose these terms and
conditions.

However, Bloomberg says that Judge Kennelly threw out the case
and said, "Apple disclosed on the outside of the iPhone package
that the" battery has "limited recharge cycles and may
eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider. . .
Under the circumstances, no reasonable jury could find that
deception occurred."

Bloomberg says that AT&T may not be so lucky, as it attempted to
force the matter into arbitration as per their service terms.
The judge said that Mr. Trujillo did not have paper copies of
the TOS when he bought the phone and scheduled a hearing with
regard to AT&T.

The suit is "Jose Trujillo, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07CH19744," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          James Rowe, Esq.
          Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
          205 West Randolph, #1430
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-346-7950


APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Sued Over Wrongful Calorie Count in Diet Menu
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Sept. 11, 2008 -- A lawsuit filed in federal court in
Kansas City, Kansas, accuses Applebee's International of causing
consumers to unwittingly consume higher-than-advertised fat and
calories by mislabeling its Weight Watchers menu items.

     The racketeering lawsuit, which also names Applebee's
parent company, DineEquity of Glendale, Calif., and Weight
Watchers International of New York, seeks class-action
certification.  Among the counts listed in the lawsuit are
fraud, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy.

     The suit alleges that Applebee's, DineEquity and Weight
Watchers have perpetuated fraud on consumers, including the lead
plaintiff, Antonio Fidelis Valiente of Bethesda, Md.  A similar
legal complaint by Valiente was filed in June in federal court
in Los Angeles but has been withdrawn.  Another lawsuit filed in
June against Applebee's and other restaurant chains made similar
allegations but has also been withdrawn.  It is unclear whether
it has been refiled in another jurisdiction.

     The complaint said that as obesity has become a growing
problem in the U.S. and as people have sought ways to control
their fat and caloric intake, restaurant chains, including
Applebee's, have "lied to and taken advantage" of those
consumers.

     For instance, the suit says, Applebee's Weight Watchers
Cajun Lime Tilapia is advertised as having 6 grams of fat and
310 calories, but when tested was found to actually contain more
than twice as much fat (14.3 grams) and 25 percent more calories
(401) than advertised.

     DineEquity could not be reached for comment, but when the
suit was filed in June in California, a company spokesman said
DineEquity does not comment on pending litigation.

     According to the complaint, Mr. Valiente has eaten at
Applebee's restaurants in the Miami, Boston, Nashville, Tenn.,
and Washington areas at least 25 times since the casual dining
chain teamed up with Weight Watchers beginning in 2004.

     No phone number could be found for Mr. Valiente, but a
release put out by a law firm listed on the suit says that Mr.
Valiente had been a loyal Applebee's customer for years because
of its Weight Watchers menu.

     "If I had known the truth," Valiente said, "I never would
have eaten at Applebee's."

     The suit asks for unspecified damages, including that
Applebee's and Weight Watchers should be required to disgorge to
the plaintiffs any profits it made from selling the fraudulent
menu items.


BEAR STEARNS: Faces Lawsuits in N.Y. Alleging ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
is facing several purported class-action lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Initially, Bear Stearns and certain of its current and former
officers and directors were named as defendants in a number of
putative class-action lawsuits commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York purporting to
represent the interests of participants in the Bear Stearns
Employee Stock Ownership Plan during the time period of December
2006 through the present.

These actions allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs and to the other participants
and beneficiaries of the ESOP by:

       -- failing to prudently manage the ESOP's investment in
          Bear Stearns securities;

       -- failing to communicate fully and accurately about the
          risks of the ESOP's investment in Bear Stearns stock;

       -- failing to avoid or address alleged conflicts of
          interest; and

       -- failing to monitor those who managed and administered
          the ESOP.

In connection with these allegations, each plaintiff asserts
claims for violations under various sections of the ERISA, and
seeks reimbursement to the ESOP for all losses, an unspecified
amount of monetary damages and imposition of a constructive
trust, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Aug. 11, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company.  JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with branches in 17 states, and
Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is
the Company's credit card issuing bank.  JPMorgan Chase's
principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,
its United States investment banking firm.  The bank and non-
bank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well
as through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative
offices and subsidiary foreign banks.


BEAR STEARNS: Faces Two Lawsuits Over U.S. Feeder Funds
-------------------------------------------------------
Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
is facing certain purported class-action lawsuits in connection
with U.S. feeder funds.

Initially, two purported class-action lawsuits have been filed
on behalf of purchasers of partnership interests in the High
Grade and Enhanced Leverage U.S. feeder funds, respectively.

In each action, the plaintiff has asserted claims for, among
other things, breach of fiduciary duty.  The complaints also
purport to assert derivative actions with the High Grade and
Enhanced Leverage U.S. feeder funds as nominal defendants.

The relief being sought by these plaintiffs is unspecified
damages, costs and fees, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a
financial holding company.  JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with branches in 17 states, and
Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is
the Company's credit card issuing bank.  JPMorgan Chase's
principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,
its United States investment banking firm.  The bank and non-
bank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well
as through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative
offices and subsidiary foreign banks.


BEAR STEARNS: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
is facing several purported securities fraud class-action suits
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Various shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced the
purported class-action lawsuits against Bear Stearns and certain
of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of
Bear Stearns between Dec. 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008.

Five actions, commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, allege that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Bear
Stearns' business and financial results and that as a result of
those false statements, Bear Stearns' common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

In connection with these allegations, the complaints assert
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to JPMorgan Chase &
Co.'s Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company.  JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with branches in 17 states, and
Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is
the Company's credit card issuing bank.  JPMorgan Chase's
principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,
its United States investment banking firm.  The bank and non-
bank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well
as through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative
offices and subsidiary foreign banks.


BILL HEARD: Workers File Alabama Suit Over WARN Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Heard Enterprises, the country's biggest Chevrolet dealer,
is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama over allegations that
it violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act when it fired virtually all its 3,500 employees at 13
dealerships in six states, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The report notes that this is is a class action suit seeking
redress for Bill Heard's actions in firing, laying off or
otherwise terminating substantially all of its employees without
providing Notice, pay and benefits as required under the WARN
Act.

This is a class action properly maintained under Rule 23(b)(2)
and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf
of all persons who were employed by defendants and whose
employment was terminated in or about September 2008, without
receiving statutorily required notice and remuneration pursuant
to the WARN Act.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether and to what extent the defendants provided
         statutorily required Notice to the class prior to their
         termination;

     (b) when the defendants learned that it was no longer
         viable as a going concern;

     (c) whether the defendants' actions violated the WARN Act;

     (d) whether the defendants' actions were illegal and
         unjustified;

     (e) whether the plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         declaratory determination that defendants' failure to
         comply with the WARN Act is illegal and inequitable;

     (f) whether the defendants should be required to pay class
         members remuneration as provided for in the WARN Act;

     (g) whether the plaintiffs and the class are entitled to a
         temporary and permanent injunction against
         defendants; and

     (h) whether the plaintiffs and the class are entitled to an
         equitable accounting, imposition of constructive trust,
         and resulting restitution to plaintiffs and class
         members.

The plaintiffs request that the court enter an order:

     -- certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
        Rule 23(b)(2) and of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- requiring the defendants to pay each member of the class
        backpay for each day of the defendants' violation;

        (1) the average regular rate received by such employee
            during the last three years of the employee's
            employment; or

        (2) the final regular rate received by such employee;

     -- requiring the defendants to pay each member of the class
        benefits under an employee benefit plan described in
        section 1002(3) of this title, including the cost of
        medical expenses incurred during the employment loss
        which would have been covered under an employee benefit
        plan if the employment loss had not occurred;

     -- directing an equitable accounting, imposition of
        a constructed trust and resulting restitution via
        disgorgement to the class of the funds unjustly retained
        by the defendants; and

     -- awarding further relief and benefits as the cause of
        justice may require, including, but not limited to, an
        award of costs, attorneys' fees and expenses.

The suit is "Erica Lodge, et al. v. Bill Heard Enterprises,
Inc., Case Number:  5:2008cv01772," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Judge C. Lynwood
Smith Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Rebekah Keith McKinney, Esq.
          (mckinney@watsonjimmerson.com)
          Eric J. Atrip, Esq. (artrip@watsonjimmerson.com)
          Watson, Jimmerson, Martin, McKinney, Helms &
          Artrip, P.C.
          P.O. Box 18368
          203 Greene Street
          Huntsville, AL 35804
          Phone: 256-536-7423
          Fax: 256-536-2689


EGG PRODUCERS: Face Pa. Lawsuit for Conspiring to Fix Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 26, 2008 -- Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, P.L.L.C., filed a class action lawsuit against three egg
trade groups and 13 of the country's largest egg producers,
alleging that these entities unlawfully conspired to fix the
prices of shell eggs and egg products in violation of antitrust
laws.

     The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against:

     -- United Egg Producers, Inc.;
     -- United Egg Association;
     -- United States Egg Marketers, Inc.;
     -- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.;
     -- Hillandale Farms of PA., Inc.;
     -- Daybreak Foods, Inc.;
     -- Golden Oval Eggs, LLC;
     -- Michael Foods, Inc.;
     -- Michael Foods Egg Products Co.;
     -- Midwest Poultry Services, L.P;
     -- Moark LLC;
     -- Norco Ranch, Inc.;
     -- National Food;
     -- NuCal Foods, Inc.;
     -- Rose Acre Farms, Inc.; and
     -- Pilgrim's Pride Corp.

     The 71-page legal complaint alleges that the defendants
have engaged in an unlawful scheme to artificially fix and
inflate prices through restricting the supply of eggs.  The
cartel's horizontal agreement to reduce output has dramatically
increased costs for purchasers of shell eggs and egg products
and driven prices to historic highs throughout 2007 and 2008.
Meanwhile, during this same time period, the main perpetrators
of the scheme have enjoyed record profits.

     The lawsuit alleges that the conspiracy has been undertaken
primarily through a near industry-wide agreement to reduce the
number of laying hens (and thus, eggs) at various egg farms.  A
key component of this program was to marginally increase cage
space for laying hens under the auspices of animal husbandry.
However, as detailed in numerous internal industry documents,
the true goal of the program was to act as a "roadmap" for an
illegal supply restriction scheme.  As fewer hens were kept per
cage, UEP and its members agreed not to replace the lost
chickens by adding more cages or increasing capacity.  As a
result, egg supplies began to drop and prices soared in 2007 to
the present.

     Furthermore, cartel members agreed to manipulate molting
practices and to cull chickens sooner (but not replace them)
once their egg production had started to decline.  The
conspirators also implemented several below-cost export schemes
to deflate supply and raise domestic prices.

     The lawsuit is based on a six month investigation of
internal newsletters, documents, and industry statements -- many
of which have never been released to the public.  It also
follows recent pronouncements that the U.S. Department of
Justice has been investigating price collusion by at least three
of the defendants in the lawsuit:

     -- Michael Foods Inc.;
     -- Golden Oval Eggs LLC; and
     -- Moark LLC.

     All three companies issued statements indicating that they
are cooperating with federal authorities.

     "After an intensive investigation with numerous
confidential sources, we learned that the industry was using
animal welfare as a pretext for a naked price fixing scheme and
attempting to reduce the output of eggs," said Michael Lehmann,
Esq., a partner at Cohen Milstein who is representing the
plaintiffs. "As a result of the industry's scheme, in 2008
alone, wholesale egg prices averaged 40% higher than last year.
Through this lawsuit, we intend to recover the overcharges that
direct purchasers were forced to spend."

The suit is "T.K. Ribbing's Family Restaurant v. Untied Egg
Producers, Inc. et al., Case Number: 2:2008cv04653," filed in
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter, presiding.


ENERNOC: Securities Fraud Suits Still Pending in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
EnerNOC, Inc., is still facing several purported securities
fraud class-action suits before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

In March 2008, three purported class-action lawsuits were filed
before the Massachusetts District Court against the company,
several of its officers and directors and certain of the
underwriters from the company's November 2007 follow-on public
offering of its common stock.

The plaintiffs claim to represent those persons who purchased
shares of the company's common stock from Nov. 1, 2007, through
Feb. 27, 2008, and those persons who purchased shares of the
company's common stock in connection with the company's follow-
on public offering.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in various SEC filings, press releases and
other public statements.

The complaints allege various claims under the U.S. Securities
Act, the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  It seek, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified damages, fees and such other relief as the court may
deem just and proper.

The company reported no further development regarding the cases
in its Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2008.

EnerNOC, Inc. -- http://www.enernoc.com/-- is a developer and
provider of clean and intelligent energy solutions.  The company
uses its Network Operations Center to remotely manage and reduce
electricity consumption across a network of commercial,
institutional and industrial customer sites to enable a more
information-based and responsive, or intelligent, electric power
grid.  The company's customers are electric power grid operators
and utilities, as well as commercial, institutional and
industrial end users of electricity.  With approximately 2,189
customer sites in its demand response network and approximately
1,112 megawatts of demand response capacity under its management
as of Dec. 31, 2007, the company provides demand response
solutions to the commercial, institutional and industrial
market.


H&R BLOCK: Faces Suit in Illinois Over Auction Rate Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois over
allegations that it defrauded investors with false claims about
auction rate securities, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The report says that the plaintiff brings this action as a class
action under Sections 109b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
and continue to hold auction rate securities offered for sale by
defendants between Aug. 26, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008, inclusive.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by
         defendants' acts as alleged;

     (b) whether statements made by defendants to the investing
         public during the class period misrepresented or
         omitted material facts about the liquidity of and risks
         associated with ARS and the market for such securities;
         and

     (c) the extent to which members of the class have sustained
         damages and proper measure of such damages.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action,
        designating plaintiff as lead plaintiff and certifying
        as class representative under Rule 23 of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure and plaintiff's counsel as lead
        counsel;

     -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and
        the other class members against all defendants, jointly
        and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
        defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at
        trial, including interest;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs
        and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
        fees and expert fees;

     -- awarding extraordinary, equitable and injunctive
        relief as permitted by law, equity and the federal
        statutory provisions sued; and

     -- awarding such other and further relief as the court may
        deem just and proper.

The suit is "Peter La Grave, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-667," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Corey D. Sullivan, Esq.
          Joseph P. Danis, Esq.
          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          Carey & Danis, LLC
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-725-7700
          Fax: 314-721-0905


HANOVER INSURANCE: Dismissal of Ky. Pension Plan Suit on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit against The
Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., over a terminated employee's lump
sum distribution are appealing the dismissal of the case to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The suit was filed by Jennifer A. Durand in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky on March 12, 2007,
under the caption "Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance
Group, Inc., The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan."

Ms. Durand -- a former employee who received a lump sum
distribution from her Cash Balance Plan at or about the time of
her termination -- claims that she and others similarly situated
did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in
computing the lump sum, the company understated the accrued
benefit in the calculation.

The company filed a dismissal motion on the basis that the
plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies.  The motion
was granted without prejudice in a decision dated Nov. 7, 2007.

On Dec. 3, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of this
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group,
Inc., The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, Case
No. 3:07-cv-00130-CRS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, Judge Charles R. Simpson, III,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eli Gottesdiener, Esq. (eli@gottesdienerlaw.com)
         Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC
         498 Seventh Street
         Brooklyn, NY 11215-3613
         Phone: 718-788-1500
         Fax: 718-788-1650

              - and –

         Andrew S. Hartley, Esq. (andrew@hartleyerisalaw.com)
         The Law Office of Andrew Hartley, PLLC
         3423 Saybrook Road
         Lexington, KY 40503
         Phone: 859-271-3731
         Fax: 859-523-6112

Representing the defendants is:

         Angela Logan Edwards, Esq. (AEdwards@whf-law.com)
         Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, LLP
         101 S. Fifth Street, 2500 National City Tower
         Louisville, KY 40202-3175
         Phone: 502-581-8000
         Fax: 502-581-8111


HANOVER INSURANCE: Faces Louisiana Suit Over "Rode Home" Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana in connection with the State of
Louisiana's "Road Home" program, 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.

On Aug. 23, 2007, the State of Louisiana (individually and on
behalf of the State of Louisiana, Division of Administration,
Office of Community Development) filed a putative class-action
lawsuit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
State of Louisiana, entitled "State of Louisiana, individually
and on behalf of State of Louisiana, Division of Administration,
Office of Community Development ex rel The Honorable Charles C.
Foti, Jr., The Attorney General For the State of Louisiana,
individually and as a class action on behalf of all recipients
of funds as well as all eligible and/or future recipients of
funds through The Road Home Program v. AAA Insurance, et al.,
No. 07-8970."

The complaint named as defendants over 200 foreign and domestic
insurance carriers, including Hanover Insurance Group.  The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former
Louisiana citizens who have applied for and received or will
receive funds through Louisiana's "Road Home" program.

On Aug. 29, 2007, the plaintiff filed an Amended Petition in
this case, asserting a myriad of claims, including claims under
Louisiana's Valued Policy Law, as well as claims for breach of
contract, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
fiduciary duty and Louisiana’s bad faith statutes.

The plaintiff seeks relief in the form of, among other things,
declarations that:

       -- the efficient proximate cause of losses suffered by
          putative class members was windstorm, a covered peril
          under their policies;

       -- the second efficient proximate cause of their losses
          was storm surge, which plaintiff contends is not
          excluded under class members' policies;

       -- the damage caused by water entering affected parishes
          of Louisiana does not fall within the definition of
          "flood;"

       -- the damages caused by water entering Orleans Parish
          and the surrounding area was a result of man-made
          occurrence and are properly covered under class
          members' policies;

       -- many class members suffered total losses to their
          residences; and

       -- many class members are entitled to recover the full
          value for their residences stated on their policies
          pursuant to the Louisiana Valued Policy Law.

In accordance with these requested declarations, the plaintiff
seeks to recover amounts that it alleges should have been paid
to policyholders under their insurance agreements, as well as
penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, under the caption "Louisiana
State et al v. AAA Insurance et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05528-SRD-
JCW."

The suit is "Louisiana State, et al. v. AAA Insurance, et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-05528-SRD-JCW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Stanwood R.
Duval, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Frank Charles Dudenhefer, Jr., Esq. (fcdlaw@aol.com)
          Cummings, Cummings & Dudenhefer
          416 Gravier St.
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-523-2553

               - and -

          Calvin Clifford Fayard, Jr., Esq.
          (calvinfayard@fayardlaw.com)
          Fayard & Honeycutt
          519 Florida Ave., SW
          Denham Springs, LA 70726
          Phone: 225-664-4193

Representing the defendants are:

          Ralph Shelton Hubbard, III, Esq. (rhubbard@lawla.com)
          Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard
          60l Poydras St., Suite 2775
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-568-1990

               - and -

          Neil Charles Abramson, Esq. (abramson@phelps.com)
          Phelps Dunbar, LLP
          Canal Place, 365 Canal St., Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70130-6534
          Phone: 504-566-1311


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Court OKs Deal and Dismisses Merger Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery gave final approval to the
settlement in a consolidated class-action lawsuit in Delaware
against Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., over its acquisition by
affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC, and TPG Capital,
LP.

Initially, a purported class action complaint was filed on
Oct. 5, 2006, by Henoch Kaiman and Joseph Weiss before the
Delaware Court of Chancery, Civil Action No. 2453-N, against
Harrah's, its board of directors and certain other entities,
challenging the proposed transaction as inadequate and unfair to
Harrah's public stockholders.

Two similar putative class action suits were subsequently filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery:

     -- "Phillips v. Loveman, et al., Civil Action No. 2456-
        N;" and

     -- "Momentum Partners v. Atwood, et al., Civil Action No.
        2455-N."

On Oct. 19, 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the three Delaware cases under the heading "In Re Harrah's
Entertainment, Inc. Shareholder Litigation."

On Dec. 22, 2006, the Delaware plaintiffs' counsel filed an
amended and consolidated class-action complaint against the same
entities, with Apollo Management V, L.P., and Hamlet Holdings as
additional defendants.

The consolidated complaint alleges that Harrah's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties and that the Sponsors
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in
entering into the merger agreement.  It seeks, among other
relief, class certification of the lawsuit, an injunction
against the proposed transaction, compensatory and rescissory
damages to the class, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to plaintiffs.

On Feb. 14, 2007, the defendants began to produce documents in
response to the plaintiffs' initial discovery request.

Subsequent to the entering of a memorandum of understanding and
a stipulation of settlement by the parties, a Stipulation and
Order of Dismissal was submitted to the Delaware Court of
Chancery on April 29, 2008.

On June 12, 2008, the court entered an Order and Final Judgment
approving the settlement and dismissing the 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.

Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.harrahs.com/-- is a
global casino entertainment provider.  The business of the
company is primarily conducted, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Harrah's Operating Co., Inc.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, the Company owned or operated through various
subsidiaries 50 casinos in six countries, but primarily in the
U.S. and the U.K.  The casino entertainment facilities operate
primarily under the Harrah's, Caesars and Horseshoe brand names
in the U.S., and include land-based casinos, casino clubs,
riverboat or dockside casinos, casinos on Indian reservations, a
combination greyhound racing facility and casino and combination
thoroughbred racetrack and a harness racetrack and slot
facility.


HARTE-HANKS: Court Intends to Issue Split Ruling in Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court partially intends to issue
a split class certification ruling in a purported class-action
lawsuit against Harte-Hanks, Inc.

On March 23, 2001, inactive Harte-Hanks Shoppers employees Frank
Gattuso and Ernest Sigala filed a putative class action
complaint against Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., claiming that
Harte-Hanks Shoppers failed to comply with a California
statutory provision requiring an employer to indemnify employees
for expenses incurred on behalf of the employer.

The plaintiffs allege that Harte-Hanks Shoppers failed to
reimburse them for expenses in using their automobiles as
outside sales representatives and failed to accurately itemize
these expenses on the plaintiffs' wage statements.

The suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  The
putative class that the plaintiffs seek to represent has been
limited to all California Harte-Hanks outside sales
representatives who were not separately reimbursed apart from
their base salary and commissions for the expenses they incurred
in using their own automobiles after early 1998.

The plaintiffs seek indemnification and compensatory damages,
statutory damages, exemplary damages, penalties, interest, costs
of suit, and attorneys' fees.

Harte-Hanks Shoppers filed a cross-complaint seeking a
declaratory judgment that the plaintiffs have been indemnified
for their automobile expenses by the higher salaries and
commissions paid to them as outside sales representatives.  The
cross-complaint also alleges conversion, unjust enrichment,
constructive trust and rescission and restitution based on
mutual mistake.

On Jan. 30, 2002, the trial court ruled that the California
Labor Code Section 2802 requires employers to reimburse
employees for mileage and other expenses incurred in the course
of employment, but that an employer is permitted to pay
increased wages or commissions instead of indemnifying actual
expenses.

On May 28, 2003, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On Oct. 27, 2005, the California Court
of Appeal issued a unanimous opinion affirming the trial court's
rulings, including the interpretation of Labor Code Section 2802
and the earlier denial of class certification.  On Nov. 23,
2005, the Court of Appeal denied the plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's ruling that Labor Code Section 2802 permits lump sum
reimbursement and that an employer may satisfy its obligations
to indemnify employees for reasonable and necessary business
expenses under Labor Code Section 2802 by paying enhanced
taxable compensation.

The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the trial court
for further proceedings related to the class certification issue
and directed the trial court to consider whether these issues
could properly be resolved on a class-wide basis:

      1. Did Harte-Hanks Shoppers adopt a practice or policy of
         reimbursing outside sales representatives for
         automobile expenses by paying them higher commission
         rates and base salaries than it paid to inside sales
         representatives;

      2. Did Harte-Hanks Shoppers establish a method to
         apportion the enhanced compensation payments between
         compensation for labor performed and expense
         reimbursement; and

      3. Was the amount paid for expense reimbursement
         sufficient to fully reimburse the employees for the
         automobile expenses they reasonably and necessarily
         incurred.

On July 29, 2008, the trial court stated its intention to issue
a split class-action certification ruling, certifying a class
action with respect to these first two questions (adoption of a
policy or practice, and establishment of an apportionment
method) and denying class certification on the third question
(sufficiency of reimbursement).

Harte-Hanks, Inc. -- http://www.harte-hanks.com/-- is a
worldwide direct and targeted marketing company that provides
direct marketing services and shopper advertising opportunities
to a range of local, regional, national and international
consumer and business-to-business marketers.  The company
manages its operations through two operating segments: Direct
Marketing, which operates both in the U.S. and internationally,
and Shoppers, which operates in local and regional markets in
California and Florida.  Direct marketing services are targeted
to specific industries or markets with services and software
products tailored to each industry or market.  Direct Marketing
represented 63% of the company's total revenues during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.  Harte-Hanks Shoppers is an owner, operator
and distributor of shopper publications.  During 2007, Harte-
Hanks Shoppers accounted for approximately 37% of the company's
total revenues.


HEALTH NET: Rescinded Members' Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc., is still facing a putative class-action suit
filed in April 2008 before the Los Angeles Superior Court, in
which certain members allege that the company unlawfully
rescinded their coverage.

The suit generally seeks to recover the cost of medical services
that were not paid for as a result of the rescission, and in
some cases also seeks damages for emotional distress, attorney
fees and punitive damages.

The company reported no development regarding the matter in its
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Health Net, Inc. -- https://www.healthnet.com/ -- is an
integrated managed care organization that delivers managed
healthcare services through health plans and government-
sponsored, managed-care plans.  The company operates and
conducts its businesses through its subsidiaries.  Health Net's
health plans and government contracts subsidiaries provide
health benefits through its health maintenance organizations,
insured preferred provider organizations and point-of-service
plans to approximately 6.6 million individuals across the
country through group, individual, Medicare, (including the
Medicare prescription drug benefit commonly referred to as Part
D), Medicaid, TRICARE and Veterans Affairs programs.  The
company operates within two segments: Health Plan Services and
Government Contracts.


HUNTSMAN CORP: California Antitrust Lawsuit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit pending in a California state
court against Huntsman Corp. and several other defendants over
an alleged conspiracy to fix prices of certain rubber and
urethane products remains stayed.

The other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases,"
also known as "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," are also defendants in
this case.

The California action has been stayed pending disposition of the
"Polyether Polyols Cases."

Huntsman Corp. reported no further development regarding the
matter in its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2008.

Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is a manufacturer
of differentiated chemical products and inorganic chemical
products.  The company operates in four segments: Polyurethanes,
Materials and Effects, Performance Products and Pigments.  Its
products are used in a range of applications, including those in
the adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products,
durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical,
packaging, paints and coatings, power generation, refining,
synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries.  The
company's products include methyl diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI),
amines, surfactants, epoxy-based polymer formulations, textile
chemicals, dyes, maleic anhydride and titanium dioxide.
Polyether Polyols cases.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Class Certification Briefing Ongoing in MDL-1616
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification briefing is underway in a consolidated
antitrust class-action lawsuit filed against Huntsman Corp. and
several other defendants over an alleged conspiracy to fix
prices in the methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, toluene di-
isocyanate, and polyether polyols industries.

The suits are now consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols Cases"
in multi-district litigation known as "In re Urethane Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," by
virtue of an initial order transferring and consolidating cases
filed on Aug. 23, 2004.  The case is currently pending with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

Other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases" are
Bayer, BASF, Dow, and Lyondell.  These cases purport to be
brought on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers of MDI,
TDI and polyether polyols.

Bayer entered into a class-wide settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs that was approved by the court.

Class certification briefing is underway in these consolidated
cases.

Huntsman Corp. reported no further development regarding the
matter in its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2008.

The suit is "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616,
Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Nunzio Alioto, Esq. (malioto@tatp.com)
         Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP
         2280 Union Street
         San Francisco, CA 94123
         Phone: 415-563-7200
         Fax: 415-346-0679

              - and -

         Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. (artlaw@alltel.net)
         Arthur N. Bailey & Associates
         111 West Second Street, Suite 4500
         Jamestown, NY 14701
         Phone: 716-664-2967
         Fax: 716-664-2983

Representing the defendants are:

         Floyd R. Finch, Jr., Esq. (ffinch@blackwellsanders.com)
         Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, LLP
         4801 Main Street, Ste. 1000, P.O. Box 219777
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Phone: 816-983-8128
         Fax: 816-983-8080

              - and -

         James S. Jardine, Esq. (jjardine@rqn.com)
         Ray, Quinney & Nebeker
         36 South State Street, Suite 1400
         Salt Lake City, UT 84111
         Phone: 801-323-3337
         Fax: 801-532-7543


HUNTSMAN CORP: Urethane Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corp. and certain other firms continue to face putative
antitrust class-action lawsuits in Canada, alleging a conspiracy
to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, oluene di-
isocyanate, and polyether polyols industries.

The lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Justice in
Ontario, Canada, on May 5, 2006, and with the Superior Court in
Quebec, Canada, on May 17, 2006.

Huntsman Corp. reported no development in the cases in its
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is a manufacturer
of differentiated chemical products and inorganic chemical
products.  The company operates in four segments: Polyurethanes,
Materials and Effects, Performance Products and Pigments.  Its
products are used in a range of applications, including those in
the adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products,
durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical,
packaging, paints and coatings, power generation, refining,
synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries.  The
company's products include methyl diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI),
amines, surfactants, epoxy-based polymer formulations, textile
chemicals, dyes, maleic anhydride and titanium dioxide.


HUNTSMAN INT'L: Massachusetts Court Stays "Moniz" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
stayed the purported antitrust class-action lawsuit captioned
"Moniz v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-10259-NMG,"
which names Huntsman International, LLC, as one of the
defendants.

The company was named as a defendant in a proposed third amended
complaint in the putative class-action antitrust suit, which
alleges a conspiracy to fix prices of certain rubber and
urethane products, according to Huntsman Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Moniz v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-10259-NMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq. (kgilman@gilmanpastor.com)
          Gilman and Pastor, LLP
          225 Franklin Street, 16th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-742-9700
          Fax: 617-742-9701

Representing the defendants are:

          David T. Harvin, Esq. (dharvin@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins LLP
          First City Tower
          1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-758-2368
          Fax: 713-615-5269

               - and -

          Daniel P. Tighe, Esq. (dtighe@gtmllp.com)
          Griesinger, Tighe & Maffei, LLP
          176 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-542-9900
          Fax: 617-542-0900


IKON OFFICE: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over $1.6-Billion Sale to Ricoh
---------------------------------------------------------------
IKON Office Solutions is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the Court of Common Pleas in Franklin County, Ohio, over
allegations that its directors enriched themselves by more than
$20 million at the shareholders' expense in selling the company
to Ricoh for $1.6 billion, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the report, this is a shareholder class action on
behalf of all other public holders of IKON common stock.  It is
also a derivative action on behalf of nominal defendant IKON
against certain of the same defendants.

The suit arises from the defendants' actions in causing IKON to
agree to be sold to Ricoh in a transaction which protects and
advances the interests of IKON's directors at the expense of the
company, its public shareholders and other constituencies.

The plaintiff demands judgment:

     -- determining that this action is a proper derivative
        action and that plaintiff is a proper derivative
        representative;

     -- declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a
        class action, and that plaintiff is a proper class
        representative;

     -- declaring that defendants have breached their fiduciary
        duties to IKON, plaintiff and IKON's shareholders and/or
        aided and abetted such breaches;

     -- awarding plaintiff and IKON and its shareholders
        compensatory and rescissory damages as allowed by
        law;

     -- awarding interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and
        other costs, in an amount to be determined; and

     -- granting such other relief as the court may find just
        and proper.

The suit is "Advantage Investors, et al. v. Michael Espe, et
al., Case No. 08CV H 13580," filed in the Court of Common Pleas
in Franklin County, Ohio.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Steven Bacon, Esq.
          Breidenbach, O'Neal & Bacon
          131 North Ludlow Street, Suite 1060
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Phone: 937-234-0963
          Fax: 937-224-0965


INDYMAC BANCORP: Susman Represents Plaintiffs in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     HOUSTON, Sept. 26, 2008 -- On September 12, 2008, Susman
Godfrey was selected as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in a
securities class action suit against former officers of IndyMac
Bancorp.

     Judge George Wu of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California appointed Susman Godfrey as co-
lead counsel for plaintiffs in a series of cases consolidated as
"Folsom v. IndyMac Bancorp, Case No. CV 08-3812."

     Susman Godfrey partners Marc Seltzer, Esq., in Los Angeles
and Kenneth Marks, Esq., in Houston represent the plaintiffs.

     The plaintiffs allege that former IndyMac officers Michael
Perry and Scott Keys mislead the investing public about IndyMac
Bank's lending practices, financial condition, and risk profile
from April 26, 2007, until May 12, 2008.

     Also appointed to represent the plaintiffs is co-lead
counsel from Philadelphia-based Berger & Montague, P.C.

     IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE:NDE) is the holding company for
IndyMac Bank(R), a leading technology-based mortgage lender with
its award-winning e-MITS(R) platform to facilitate automated
underwriting, risk-based pricing and rate lock of home loans on
a nationwide basis via the Internet.  IndyMac provides mortgage
products and services through its business relationship
division, IndyMac Mortgage Bank, and its consumer direct
division, IndyMac Consumer Bank.


LEHMAN BROS: Preferred Series J Stock Investors File N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 26, 2008 -- On Sept. 24, 2008, Gainey &
McKenna filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Preferred Series "J" stock of
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. [OTC: LEHJQ.PK or LEHMQ.PK] from
the date of the Company's public offering on February 5, 2008,
and all purchasers traceable thereto against certain officers
and directors of Lehman and certain Underwriters of the
Offering, pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77k, 77l and 77o.

     The Underwriters include:

     -- Bank of America SecuritiesLLC [NYSE:BAC],
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc. [NYSE:C],
     -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. [NYSE:MER],
     -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. [NYSE:MS],
     -- UBS Securities LLC [NYSE:UBS], and
     -- Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC [NYSE:WB].

     The Complaint asserts that Lehman's Prospectus contained
both material misstatements and omissions, which Plaintiff and
the Class relied upon to their detriment.  The representations
made in the Company's Prospectus were materially false and
misleading because at the time of the Offering, Lehman was
already suffering from several adverse factors that were not
revealed and adequately addressed in the document; including the
failure to set aside adequate allowances to cover the Company's
ever increasing portfolio of underperforming sup-prime related
products and to adequately write-down commercial and residential
mortgage and real estate assets.  These factors were already
causing a material adverse affect on Lehman's business and
directly led to Lehman's September 15, 2008 announcement that it
was seeking protection under the Federal Bankruptcy Code in the
largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history.

     The Complaint alleges that Defendants could have -- and
should have -- discovered the material misstatements and
omissions in the Company's Prospectus prior to its filing with
the SEC and distribution to the investing public.  Instead, they
failed to do so as a result of a negligent and grossly
inadequate due diligence investigation.

     On September 15, 2008, Lehman filed a voluntary petition to
reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
in the largest bankruptcy filing in history and largely wiping
out the investment interests of the Class.

     As a result of the dissemination of the false and
misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market
price of Lehman Preferred J was artificially inflated during the
Class Period.  In ignorance of the false and misleading nature
of the statements described in the complaint, plaintiff and the
other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the
integrity of the market price of Lehman Preferred J.  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 24, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
          Gainey & McKenna
          295 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-1300


NATIONAL WESTERN: Lawsuits Over Sale of Annuities Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Co. is still facing several
purported class-action lawsuits in California which allege abuse
of the elderly and other state code violations over the sale of
certain deferred fixed annuities to seniors.

The company is a defendant in three class-action lawsuits.

In one case, the court has certified a class consisting of
certain California policyholders, age 65 and older, alleging
violations under California Business and Professions Code
section 17200.  The court has additionally certified a subclass
of 36 policyholders alleging fraud against their agent, and
vicariously, against National Western Life.

A second class-action lawsuit is in discovery with no class
certification motion pending.

The third class-action lawsuit was certified as a class by the
trial court, but ultimately reversed by the Texas Supreme Court.
Thereupon the plaintiff filed a new motion for class
certification, which request was denied by the trial court.  The
plaintiff filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals which, upon
joint motion of the parties, remanded the case to the District
Court for entry of an Agreed Order of Dismissal with prejudice,
which the District Court entered and closed the case.

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

Austin, Texas-based National Western Life Insurance Co. --
https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- is a stock life
insurance company doing business in 49 states, the District of
Columbia and four U.S. territories or possessions.


NVIDIA CORP: Settles GPU Anti-trust Lawsuit for $850,000
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleging that Nvidia Corp. and ATI
"conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of
graphics processing chips and cards," has reached a settlement
agreement, Scott Bicheno writes for HEXUS, citing an Nvidia
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The regulatory filing says that the settlement was reached on
Sept. 16 for the class action entitled "In re Graphics
Processing Units Antitrust Litigation."

According to the report, the class encompasses "purchasers who
bought graphics cards directly from the websites of ATI
Technologies ULC or NVIDIA in the United States during the
period December 4, 2002, to November 7, 2007."  The plaintiffs
were seeking triple damages and costs.

An earlier report by The Register recounted that in June 2007,
at least 51 separate complaints were lumped together and amended
into a single class action lawsuit against the GPU vendors in
the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California.
The complaint, The Register further recalled, alleges Nvidia and
ATI "conducted numerous secret meetings and communications in
which they conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize
prices of GPUs sold in the United States."

HEXUS relates that the recent SEC filing states that "The
Agreement calls for NVIDIA to pay $850,000 into a $1.7 million
fund to be made available for payments to the certified class.
We are not obligated under the Agreement to pay plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, costs, or make any other payments in connection
with the settlement other than our payment of $850,000."

HEXUS notes that while it is not stated, it must be assumed that
the other half of the $1.7 million will be paid by ATI (now
owned by AMD).

The report relates that a settlement with the sole remaining
indirect purchaser was reached on Sept. 9, which deal required
Nvidia to pay $112,500 in exchange for a dismissal of all
claims.


PENN NATIONAL GAMING: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Penn National Gaming Inc. is facing a purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland, entitled "Braude v. Penn National Gaming, Inc.,
Case No. 8:08-cv-01752-PJM."

On July 16, 2008, the company was served with a purported class-
action lawsuit brought by Herman Braude, on behalf of himself
and others who purchased shares of company stock between
April 1, 2008, and July 3, 2008.

The lawsuit alleges that the company's disclosure practices
relative to the proposed transaction with Fortress Investment
Group LLC and Centerbridge Partners, L.P., and the eventual
termination of that transaction were misleading and deficient in
violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint, which seeks class certification and unspecified
damages, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland.  Penn National Gaming expects to file its initial
responsive pleading late in the third quarter of 2008, according
to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Braude v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., Case No.
8:08-cv-01752-PJM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Judge Peter J. Messitte, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Herman Martin Braude, Esq.
          (hbraude@braudemargulies.com)
          Braude and Margulies PC
          1200 Potomac St NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 1-202-471-5400
          Fax: 1-202-471-5404


Representing the defendants is:

          Kevin B. Collins, Esq.
          Covington and Burling LLP (kcollins@cov.com)
          1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 1-202-662-5598
          Fax: 1-202-778-5598


PENN NATIONAL GAMING: Settles Pa. Suit Over PNG Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Penn National Gaming, Inc., reached a tentative settlement for a
purported class action lawsuit filed before a Pennsylvania court
over an announcement that the company had entered into a merger
agreement that would ultimately result in the company's
shareholders receiving $67.00 per share.

The company made the announcement on June 15, 2007.  The
announcement specifically stated that the company; its parent,
PNG Acquisition Co., Inc.; and its parent's subsidiary, PNG
Merger Sub Inc., had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of June 15, 2007, that provides, among other
things, for Merger Sub to be merged with and into the company,
as a result of which the company will continue as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of PNG Acquisition.
PNG Acquisition is owned by certain funds managed by the
affiliates of Fortress Investment Group LLC and Centerbridge
Partners, L.P. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 6, 2007).

In reaction to the announcement on August 2007, a complaint was
filed on behalf of a putative class of public shareholders of
the company, and derivatively on behalf of the company, with the
Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania.

The complaint names the company's Board of Directors as
defendants and the company as a nominal defendant.  It alleges,
among other things, that the Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the proposed transaction with
Fortress and Centerbridge for inadequate consideration, that
certain members of the Board of Directors have conflicts with
regard to the Merger, and that the company and its Board of
Directors have failed to disclose certain material information
with regard to the Merger.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a court order:

       -- determining that the action is properly maintained as
          a class action and a derivative action;

       -- enjoining the company and its Board of Directors from
          consummating the proposed Merger; and

       -- awarding the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The company and the plaintiffs have reached a tentative
settlement in which the company agreed to pay certain attorneys'
fees and to make certain disclosures regarding the events
leading up to the transaction with Fortress and Centerbridge in
the proxy statement sent to shareholders in November 2007.

Final settlement is contingent upon court approval and
consummation of the transaction with Fortress and Centerbridge.

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.

Penn National Gaming Inc. -- http://www.pngaming.com/-- is a
diversified, multi-jurisdictional owner and operator of gaming
properties, as well as horse racetracks and associated off-track
wagering facilities.


PMI GROUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The PMI Group, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

In March 12, 2008, the company and certain of its executive
officers were named in a securities class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, under the caption "Lori Weinrib v. The PMI Group,
Inc., L. Stephen Smith, David H. Katkov and Donald P. Lofe, Jr.,
Case No. 3:2008-cv-01405."

In March 2008, the company and the same executive officers were
named in a second securities fraud class-action complaint also
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  The second suit is captioned "Kimberly D. Holt
v. The PMI Group, Inc., L. Stephen Smith, David H. Katkov and
Donald P. Lofe, Jr."

These complaints allege that the company and the other
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as
well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results for the period between Nov. 2, 2006, and
March 3, 2008, the date the company announced preliminary
results for the fourth quarter of 2007 for certain of the
company's business segments.

The purported class-action lawsuits seek, among other relief,
determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 17, 2008, the court issued an order consolidating the
two actions for pretrial purposes.  On June 20, 2008, the court
appointed a lead plaintiff in the action, according to the
company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Weinrib v. The PMI Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:08-cv-01405-SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq. (shawnw@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

Representing the defendant is:

          Meredith N. Landy, Esq. (mlandy@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers
          2765 Sand Hill Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025-7019
          Phone: 650-473-2600
          Fax: 650-473-2601


POINT BLANK: Objector Appeals Final Approval of Suit Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
An objector has appealed the final approval of settlement
agreements entered into in a securities fraud class-action suit
that was filed against Point Blank Solutions, Inc., and certain
individual defendants, as well as the related shareholder
derivative action.

Initially, several securities class-action and shareholder
derivative lawsuits were filed against the company and certain
of the company's directors and officers.

Those lawsuits were recently settled.

On June 25, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York approved the settlement.  One of the
objectors filed a notice of appeal on Aug. 1, 2008, according to
the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Pompano Beach, Florida-based Point Blank Solutions, Inc. --
http://www.pointblanksolutionsinc.com/-- is a manufacturer and
provider of bullet, fragmentation and stab resistant apparel and
related ballistic accessories, which are used in the United
States and internationally by military, law enforcement,
security and corrections personnel, as well as government
agencies.  The company manufactures and sells a variety of body
armor products through its subsidiaries Point Blank Body Armor,
Inc. and Protective Apparel Corporation of America.  It also
produces and sells a variety of sports medicine, health support
and other products through a subsidiary, Life Wear Technology,
Inc.  All products are sold through contracts, a corporate sales
force, sales agents and a network of distributors.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Court Allows Plaintiffs to Pursue Ketek Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick Young has denied a
defense motion to sever the claims of 59 plaintiffs in a product
liability lawsuit filed against Sanofi-Aventis over its
antibiotic drug Ketek, Ann Knef writes for St. Clair Record.

The report recounts that plaintiffs from around the country sued
the French pharmaceutical company in November 2007 claiming
injury from using the drug designed to treat moderate
respiratory infections.  The suit claims that the drug company
knew there was an increased risk of Ketek consumers suffering
injuries or death from liver failure and hepatics injury.

The plaintiffs' lawyers, Christopher Cueto, Esq., of Belleville,
and John Driscoll, Esq., of St. Louis, have argued that
jurisdiction is proper in St. Clair County since the company
transacts business in Illinois, St. Clair Record relates.

According to the report, Mr. Cueto also has a pending consumer
fraud class action lawsuit against Sanofi-Aventis in St. Clair
County.  Filed earlier this year, the suit alleges the
pharmaceutical over-marketed Ketek while downplaying the drug's
risks.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 17, 2008, this
other suit was filed by a St. Clair County consumer, Jessica
Kent, alleging that Sanofi-Aventis engaged in a campaign of
"over-promoting Ketek in written marketing literature, in
written product packaging, and in direct to consumer advertising
via written advertisements and television commercial ads."

St. Clair Record says that in his order entered Sept. 9, 2008,
Judge Young also denied Sanofi-Aventis' motion to dismiss or
transfer the product liability claims of non-St. Clair County
residents for forum non conveniens.  ". . . Defendant has failed
to establish that the Plaintiffs' chosen forum is inconvenient
to the Defendant and that another forum is more convenient to
all parties," Judge Young wrote.  "In fact, the very nature of
this case is that there is no forum which has a predominate
factual connection to the litigation and could, therefore, be
considered more convenient than the forum selected by the
Plaintiffs."

The report notes that Sanofi-Aventis, represented by Stephen G.
Strauss, Esq., of Bryan Cave in St. Louis, stated in a proposed
order that "Plaintiffs seek to join in one lawsuit the claims of
60 different people from 27 different states."

"Plaintiffs were prescribed Ketek by different doctors and for
different purposes," Mr. Strauss wrote.  "Plaintiffs purchased
Ketek at different pharmacies, took Ketek during different
periods of time for different lengths of time, and were given
different information about the drug.  Plaintiffs have different
medical histories, allege varying degrees of injury, and were
treated by different doctors for those alleged injuries."

Mr. Strauss had proposed the claim of Dorothy Ray of Swansea
remain in St. Clair County; the claim of Cynthia Hamilton of
Alton be transferred to Madison County; the claims of other
state residents be given individual case numbers; and the claims
of 56 non-Illinoisans be dismissed, the report says.  He argued
at a hearing on Aug. 27 that the plaintiffs in product liability
claims against pharmaceuticals have "highly individualized
claims."

Judge Young ultimately denied Sanofi-Aventis's motions to sever
and to dismiss or transfer 59 of 60 plaintiffs' claims,
according to the report.


SECURE COMPUTING: Faces Calif. Suit Over Unfair Sale to McAfee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Computing is facing a class-action complaint before the
Los Angeles Superior Court over allegations that the company is
selling itself too cheaply to McAfee -- for $465 million, or
$5.75 per share -- CourtHouse News Service reports.

The shareholders claim that Secure Computing shares sold for $8
in March and the recent fall to $4.52 reflects the unstable
financial market, not an internal company problem.

The shareholders further claim that Secure, McAfee and co-buyer
Seabiscuit Acquisition Corp. agreed to unnecessary provisions
that short-circuited a fair sale process.  Because of a "no
shop" agreement, Secure's Board of Directors was unable to look
for competing offers, the complaint states.

According to the complaint, the agreement also insists on a
"standstill" provision that keeps Secure directors from even
discussing alternative sale plans.  The agreement also includes
a $16 million termination fee, which shareholders say make it
all but impossible to look for a fair offer.

The shareholders ask the Superior Court to enjoin the sale.  If
the sale is completed, the shareholders want damages, costs and
attorney fees.

Secure Computing Corp. provides enterprise gateway security
solutions in the United States.  The Company is based in San
Jose, Calif.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Bower, Esq.
          Harrington Foxx Dubrow Canter
          1055 West Seventh Street, 29th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-489-3222
          Fax: 213-623-7929


* Settlement Provides $457,000 in Financial Aid for Students
------------------------------------------------------------
     Students at UC Santa Cruz majoring in computer game design
-- an interdisciplinary program that provides a rigorous
background in the technical, artistic, and narrative elements of
creating interactive computer games -- are the lucky
beneficiaries of a settlement reached in a class action lawsuit
involving video gaming employees at Sony.

     As part of the settlement, UC Santa Cruz has been given
$457,909 to be used to provide financial aid for students
enrolled in the innovative computer game design program in
UCSC's Baskin School of Engineering.  Established in 2006,
UCSC's program was the first of its kind in the UC system -- and
one of just a handful nationwide.

     Earlier this spring, Sony also donated six Playstation
Portable Development Kits to UCSC's Baskin School of Engineering
for use by students in the campus's game design studio.

     "This gift will allow us to attract the best students in
the nation to come to UC Santa Cruz for our cutting-edge
computer game design program," said Jim Whitehead, UCSC
associate professor of computer science.  Mr. Whitehead had a
lead role in the design of the computer gaming major at the
university.

     "The donation of equipment and the financial aid funds are
strong indicators of Sony's belief in, and support, for our game
design program, and gives our students extraordinary
opportunities to be a part of creating new games," Mr. Whitehead
added.

     The development of interactive computer video games is a
multi-billion-dollar industry, catering to the legions of gaming
enthusiasts with a steady output of new games featuring ever
greater levels of technical sophistication.  The UCSC program
prepares students to take jobs in the computer game industry,
and also gives them the option of pursuing graduate study in
computer science.

     "I think it's fantastic to be able to offer scholarships to
incoming freshman," said UCSC associate professor of computer
science Michael Mateas, a leading researcher in the area of
artificial intelligence for computer games.  "We will use the
money to increase both quality and diversity in the gaming
program."

     "We look forward to working with Sony in the future, and
hope that this is just the beginning of a nice collaborative
relationship," he added.

     UCSC's computer game design program is administered by the
engineering school's Department of Computer Science and also
involves faculty in the Department of Film and Digital Media in
the campus's Arts Division.

     The major requires a core of computer science courses to
give students a solid grounding in the technical aspects of
creating computer games.  Additional courses in digital media
permit students to focus on games from an artistic perspective.
Electives allow students to explore relevant courses in art,
theater, film, music, and economics.


* Canadian Govt's New Ancillary Fee Policy Rewards Rule Breakers
----------------------------------------------------------------
     TORONTO, CANADA, Sept. 26, 2008 -- The government responded
to concerns raised by students by announcing the release of a
new protocol to govern ancillary fees collected from college
students.

     Ancillary fees are collected from students for non-academic
services that are above and beyond tuition fees.  Students
assert that while the new rules improve accountability, they may
simply entrench the collection of back-door tuition fees.

     "Rather than addressing students' concerns that college
administrators are collecting prohibited ancillary fees, the
government's new ancillary fee policy rewards rule breakers by
changing the rules," said Shelley Melanson, Ontario Chairperson
of the Canadian Federation of Students.

     The policy, which is slated to take effect in fall 2009,
will allow for ancillary fees to be increased by up to 20%
annually.

     "Students already face annual tuition fee increases between
four to eight percent," said Ms. Melanson.  "By allowing fees to
increase by up to 20 percent, students are again facing tuition
fee increases through the back door."

     A class-action lawsuit launched by two college students in
June 2007 brought public attention to prohibited ancillary fees
being charged at two Ontario colleges.  The court ruled the
matter to be the responsibility of the McGuinty government.
Rather than correcting many of the fees that were in called into
question by the two plaintiffs, the new policy simply makes many
of them permissible.

     "Students strongly support the new rules that require
approval from a students' unions before any ancillary fees can
be increased," said Ms. Melanson.  "It is very positive that
there will be a stronger democratic provision for accountability
included in the new policy, but without clear ancillary fee
regulations, the door is left open for colleges ask students to
make up for government underfunding."

     "We will try to work closely with the Ministry to ensure
the details of this policy are worked out in the interest of
Ontario's College students" said Ms. Melanson."

     The Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario unites over
300,000 college and university students and more than 35
students' unions throughout the province.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Izard Nobel Files Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, Conn., Sept. 26, 2008 -- The law firm of Izard
Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing
investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, commenced a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of those who purchased the securities of Canadian Imperial Bank
of Commerce on the New York Stock Exchange, and all U.S.
purchasers of the securities of CIBC between May 31, 2007, and
May 28, 2008, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that CIBC and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that:

     (i) CIBC did not make timely disclosure of material changes
         affecting the valuation of its investments in
         collateralized debt obligations consisting of U.S.
         subprime mortgages;

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

   (iii) 35% of CIBC's hedged subprime exposure was entrusted
         with a substantially undercapitalized financial
         guarantor.

     On December 6, 2007, CIBC revealed that its write-downs had
already reached $1 billion, and warned of significantly higher
losses related to its $9.8 billion in hedged exposure to the
subprime market.  Then, on May 29, 2008, CIBC took a
$2.51 billion loss related to its structured credit activities.

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

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 800-797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Gainey & McKenna Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 26, 2008 -- On September 18, 2008, Gainey &
McKenna 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
November 9, 2007, and September 5, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), 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.

     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.

For more information, contact:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
          Gainey & McKenna
          295 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-1300


FREDDIE MAC: Klayman & Toskes Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 26, 2008 -- The Securities Law Firm of
Klayman & Toskes filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie
Mac") securities.

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

     According to Klayman & Toskes' investigation so far,
several brokerage firms sold various series of Freddie Mac
preferred shares, including Series W (NYSE: FRE-PW), Series X
(NYSE: FRE-PX), Series Y (NYSE: FRE-PY), and Series Z (NYSE:
FRE-PZ), as safe, stable fixed-income investments.  Freddie Mac
preferred shares were sold to both retail and institutional
accounts looking to generate income.  However, many of these
clients were not advised of the risks associated with preferred
shares.  Additionally, several brokers and financial advisors
purchased an unsuitable amount of Freddie Mac preferred shares
in their clients' accounts, thereby creating a significant over-
concentration in a single security or sector.  Over-
concentration exists when 10% or more of the investment
portfolio is invested in a single security or sector.

     Furthermore, because Freddie Mac is a quasi-governmental
enterprise, some investors were told by their full-service
brokers that if Freddie Mac defaulted on the preferred shares,
then the United States government would insure their losses and
make them whole.  This information, however, was inaccurate.
Holders of Freddie Mac preferred shares are not afforded
protection or insurance from the federal government.

     Freddie Mac offered preferred shares to investors as late
as November 2007. Specifically, Freddie Mac made an initial
public offering of its preferred shares, Series Z, at an IPO
price of $25.55, in November 2007.  With this IPO, Freddie Mac
raised about $6 billion.  As of September 22, 2008, Series Z
preferred shares had declined 95%, trading at $1.25 per share.
Investors who held large, concentrated positions in Series Z
preferred shares have sustained significant investment losses.

For more information, contact:

          Steven D. Toskes, Esq.
          Jahan K. Manasseh, Esq.
          Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
          11 Broadway, Suite 715
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 888-997-9956
          Web site: http://www.nasd-law.com/


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Suit in
--------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, Connecticut, Sept. 19, 2008 -- The law firm of
Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing
investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of those who purchased the common stock of Novatel Wireless Inc.
between February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.

     The Complaint charges that Novatel and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false statements.  Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that Novatel was recognizing revenue in
violation of its own revenue cut-off procedures and Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles, thus rendering the Company's
publicly reported financial results materially false.  The
defendants also misrepresented the status of an internal
accounting review by the Company's Audit Committee.

     On May 13, 2008, defendants represented that Novatel was
unable to file its Form 10-Q with the SEC on time because of a
review of a single customer contract which they represented was
"substantially completed today."

     On August 19, 2008, defendants admitted that the review was
still ongoing, that it involved at least six transactions
representing $9.1 million in revenue, and that when the review
was completed a decision would be made as to whether a
restatement would be required.

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

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 800-797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/


OSHKOSH CORP: Brualdi Law Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 26, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of Oshkosh
Corporation common stock during the period between November 1,
2007, and June 25, 2008, for violations of federal securities
laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


SPECTRANICS CORP: Brualdi Law Files Colorado Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 26, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce common stock during the period between
March 16, 2007, to September 4, 2008, for violations of federal
securities laws.

     On September 4, 2008, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it had been served by the Food and Drug
Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with
a search warrant issued by the United States District Court,
District of Colorado.  The search warrant requested information
and correspondence relating to the promotion, use, testing,
marketing and sales of certain of the Company's products, among
other things.  As a result of this disclosure, Spectranetics'
closing stock price dropped from $9.00 per share on September 3,
2008, to $4.73 the next day, and trading was halted.
The action alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's business
operations and financial performance.  Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that:

     (a) the Company was improperly promoting its own products
         and the products of third parties;

     (b) the Company was improperly compensating personnel,
         including personnel involved in two post-market studies
         of Spectranetics' products from 2002-2005; and

     (c) the Company was receiving parts from an international
         source in violation of customs laws.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 24, 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/





                            *********

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  * * *