CAR_Public/081001.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, October 1, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 195

                            Headlines

AON CORP: Court Affirms Approval of $38MM "Daniel" Suit Deal
AON CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal RICO Claims Dismissal in N.J. Suits
AON CORP: Securities Fraud, ERISA Lawsuits Still Pending in Ill.
APPLEBEE'S: Gilbert Randolph Leads Faulty Nutritional Ad Lawsuit
AWP DRUG LITIGATION: District Judge Approves 2 National Classes

BANKERS LIFE: Court Decertifies Class in Insurance Agent's Suit
BANKERS LIFE: Wants "Sandock" Lawsuit in Illinois Thrown Out
BANKERS LIFE: Wants Suit Over Long-Term Care Contracts Dismissed
BANKERS LIFE: Labor Violations Lawsuit Pending in California
BLUE CROSS: Wrongfully Enforced Subrogation Provision, Suit Says

BRYAN CAVE: Faces Ariz. Suit Over Illegal, Abusive Tax Shelters
CALIFORNIA: Assesses Illegal Death Tax, Lawsuit Alleges
CONSECO HEALTH: Fifth Circuit Affirms Certification in "Doiron"
CONSECO INC: May 10, 2010 Jury Trial Set for Securities Lawsuit
CONSECO INC: Settles Calif. Lawsuit Over Life Insurance Policies

CONSECO INSURANCE: Court Considers Dismissal of Annuities Suit
CONSECO LIFE: Illegal Rate Hikes Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.
DIRECTV INC: Automatically Extends Contracts, Oklahoma Suit Says
GEICO GENERAL: Sued Over Money from Collision Reimbursements
GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Cheats Policyholders, Fla. Lawsuit Alleges

HONDA MOTOR: N.J. Suit Alleges Acuras Have Defective Condensers
INLAND WESTERN: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Illinois
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Over Auction Rate Securities
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suits Over Guaranteed Investment Contracts
MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Parties Want "Bateman" Proceedings Stayed

MERRILL LYNCH: Shareholders Challenge $50-Billion Sale to BofA
METLIFE INC: Parties Seek Summary Judgment in N.Y. Lawsuit
METLIFE INC: Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Antitrust Case Appealed
METLIFE INC: Wants Florida Suit Over Claims Reduction Dismissed
METLIFE INC: Property, Casualty Suits vs. Units Still Pending

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Oklahoma Court Dismisses Claims in "Thomas"
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Serves Summary Judgment Motion in "Fiala"
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Improper Sales Practices Suits Still Pending
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Medical Provider Lawsuits Still Pending
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Minn.

MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces Lawsuit in Minnesota Over Euronet Offer
MONEYGRAM INT'L: ERISA Violations Suit Still Pending in Minn.
PLAYLOGIC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Copy Protection Software Lawsuit
RIDLEY INC: Reaches Partial Settlement in BSE Class Action Suits
WACHOVIA: Class Members Have Legal Options to Explore, TGN Says

WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Class Has Legal Options to Explore, TGN Says


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Brualdi Law Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
FANNIE MAE: Underwriters Charged with Securities Fraud in N.Y.
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Klayman & Toskes Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Brualdi Law Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
SPECTRANICS CORP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Colo.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


AON CORP: Court Affirms Approval of $38MM "Daniel" Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the approval of a
$38-million settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit
"Daniel v. Aon Corp."

Several lawsuits were initially filed against Aon Corp.'s units
-- Affinity Insurance Services Inc. and K&K Insurance Group --
alleging that they entered into profit-sharing relationships
with the underwriters without disclosing the income to their
policyholder clients.

The suits seek to determine whether the defendants' having
received or being eligible for receipt, without consent of its
clients, undisclosed commissions or kickbacks in connection with
the placement of insurance, violates the fiduciary or
confidential obligations imposed under Illinois law.  These
suits were later consolidated.

The consolidated lawsuit was filed on behalf of current or
former policyholders of the Aon Corp., Aon Group, and Aon
Services Group as class members alongside lead plaintiffs Alan
S. Daniel and the Williamson County (Illinois) Agricultural
Association.

On July 28, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On March 9, 2005, the court gave preliminary approval to a
nationwide class action settlement within the $38-million
reserve established in the fourth quarter of 2004.

The court granted final approval to the settlement in March
2006.  The parties that objected to the settlement appealed, and
in June 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the approval
of the settlement, 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.

For more details, contact the Settlement Administrator at:

         Daniel Settlement Administrator
         2807 Allen St., PMB #801
         Dallas, TX, 75204-4094
         Phone: 1-800-714-9815
         Web site: http://www.aon-daniel-settlement.com/

The suit is "Daniel v. Aon (Affinity), Case No. 1999-CH-11893,"
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Judge Julia
M. Nowicki, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Hartunian Futterman & How
         122 S. Michigan 1850
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-427-3600

Representing the company is:

         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 E. Randolph Dr.
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-2000


AON CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal RICO Claims Dismissal in N.J. Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in several purported class-action suits against
Aon Corp. that allege violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act are appealing the dismissal of their
claims by the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Beginning in June 2004, a number of putative class-action suits
were filed against Aon and other companies by purported classes
of clients under a variety of legal theories, including state
tort, contract, fiduciary duty, antitrust and statutory theories
and federal antitrust and RICO theories.

The federal actions were consolidated with the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, and a state court
collective action was filed in California.

In the New Jersey actions, the court dismissed the plaintiffs'
federal antitrust and RICO claims in separate orders in August
and October 2007.  The plaintiffs have appealed these
dismissals.

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

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three
operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which
acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage
their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk
with insurance carriers through its global distribution network;
Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting,
communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource
consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting;
and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance
products.


AON CORP: Securities Fraud, ERISA Lawsuits Still Pending in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corp. continues to face several purported class-action suits
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging violations of either the securities laws or the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Beginning in late October 2004, several putative securities
class-action suits were filed against Aon in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The first lawsuit
was filed on Oct. 28, 2004, under the caption "Wolintz v. Aon
Corporation, et al. Case No. 1:2004cv06962."

Also beginning in late October 2004, several putative ERISA
class-action suits were filed against Aon in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The first lawsuit
was filed on Oct. 28, 2004, under the caption "Kahn v. Aon
Corporation, et al, Case No. 1:2004cv06965."

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

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three
operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which
acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage
their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk
with insurance carriers through its global distribution network;
Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting,
communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource
consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting;
and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance
products.


APPLEBEE'S: Gilbert Randolph Leads Faulty Nutritional Ad Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Washington, DC, Sept. 10, 2008 -- Gilbert Randolph LLP,
along with the law firms Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson &
Gorny, P.C., SimmonsCooper LLC, and Hanly Conroy Bierstein
Sheridan Fisher & Hayes LLP, announced that they have filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas against Applebee's International, Inc., its corporate
parent DineEquity, Inc., and Weight Watchers, Inc., on behalf of
all U.S. citizens who have purchased meals from the Applebee's
Weight Watchers® Menu during the past four years.

     The complaint alleges that weight-loss organization and
restaurant conspired to mislead customers about nutritional
content of Weight Watchers Menu.

     Even more troubling is Weight Watchers' alleged role in
this scheme.  As one of the nation's most popular diet
organizations, Weight Watchers has a loyal following of people
trying to follow the Weight Watchers diet.  According to the
Complaint, however, Weight Watchers betrayed its supporters by
developing, advertising, and approving a menu that is
inconsistent with that diet.

     "All of these companies appear to be taking advantage of
customers who pay attention to nutritional information when they
eat at restaurants," says Gilbert Randolph's August J. Matteis,
Jr., Esq., one of the attorneys for the plaintiff.  "They
promise their customers healthier meals, but the food may not be
as healthy as advertised."

     Antonio Valiente, the named plaintiff, has been a loyal
Applebee's customer for years because of its Weight Watchers®
Menu.  "If I had known the truth, I never would have eaten at
Applebee's." says Mr. Valiente.

     The lawsuit alleges claims under Kansas consumer protection
law and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, and seeks class-wide damages and injunctive
relief.

The suit is "Valiente v. Dineequity, Inc. et al., Case Number:
2:2008cv02416," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil, presiding,
with referral to Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse.


AWP DRUG LITIGATION: District Judge Approves 2 National Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BOSTON, Sept. 29, 2008 -- Two major pharmaceutical
companies are facing the fire after U.S. District Judge Patti
Saris approved two national classes in the Average Wholesale
Price litigation, allowing plaintiffs to pursue litigation
against AstraZeneca (NYSE: AZN) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
(NYSE: BMY) under unfair and deceptive trade practice laws of
more than 30 states.

     Already producing multiple national settlements and a
bellwether bench trial, the case against the defendants claims
the pharmaceutical manufacturers grossly inflated the prices of
branded physician-administered drugs by misstating the Average
Wholesale Price (AWP) of these drugs in industry publications.

     The published AWP often sets the price that consumers,
insurance companies and other third-party payors pay for the
drug, and the lawsuit contends that consumers and third-party
payors often paid more than market value because of the drug
companies' deceptive AWP reporting.

     Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, co-lead counsel
in the case, announced approval of the two classes that includes
the third-party payor Medigap Supplemental Insurance class
(Medigap Class) and the consumer and third-party payor class for
Medicare part B drugs (TPPs).

     "Judge Saris' ruling is monumental and sets an important
precedent -- instead of a class confined to one state or
jurisdiction, we can now address the problem on a national
level," said Steve Berman, Esq., Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
managing partner.  "This is another huge victory for plaintiffs
who long paid astronomical prices for basic chemotherapy drugs."

     The first nationwide class, the Medigap Class, consists of
all third-party payors who made reimbursements for drugs based
on AWP for a Medicare Part B covered subject drug. The second
class is composed of any consumer or third-party payors who made
a payment for certain physician-administered drugs manufactured
by AstraZeneca or Bristol-Myers.  This also includes all third-
party payors who made reimbursements based on contracts
expressly using AWP as a pricing standard. The class period for
both parties is Jan. 1, 1991, to Jan. 1, 2005.

     The drugs in question are all prescribed to fight forms of
cancer including Zoladex from AstraZeneca and Blenoxane, Taxol,
Cytoxan, Robex and Vepesid from Bristol-Myers.  The lawsuit
claims the pharmaceutical companies inflated pricing from 27
percent to more than 1000 percent over the course of the
outlined class period.

     The defendants argue the class certification is
inappropriate because application of the laws of so many
jurisdictions renders trial unmanageable.  However, Judge Saris
states in her ruling that the Court will hold a separate trial
for each defendant.

     In January 2006, the court originally denied with prejudice
the motion to certify these two classes under unfair and
deceptive trade practices of states other than Massachusetts.
Since then, the plaintiffs have provided an adequate analysis of
different state statutes, convincing the court to allow
certification.

     According to the ruling, Judge Saris incorporated and
relied on the factual findings in other AWP cases for her most
recent opinion.  A bench trial held in November 2006, entered a
verdict against AstraZeneca and BMS with the same classes
outlined solely for the state of Massachusetts.  This gave the
court the opportunity to understand the complex factual and
legal disputes in this difficult area of drug pricing and
ultimately conclude that the case can in fact be tried on a
class-wide basis.

     Other settlements in the AWP case came in August of 2006
when GlaxoSmithKline agreed to a nationwide $70 million
settlement and May of 2007 when AstraZeneca agreed to a
$24 million settlement to Medicare Part B Zoladex users
nationwide. After a trial, the court in November 2007 ordered
AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb to pay nearly $14 million
to insurance companies and consumers in Massachusetts for the
companies' roles in unfair trade practices.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman, Esq. (Steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: +1-206-623-7292

               - or -

          Mark Firmani, Esq. (Mark@firmani.com)
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          2505 2nd Avenue, Suite 700
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Phone: +1-206-443-9357


BANKERS LIFE: Court Decertifies Class in Insurance Agent's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
entered an order decertifying the class in a class-action suit
against Bankers Life & Casualty Co., a subsidiary of Conseco,
Inc., over alleged misclassification of California insurance
agents as independent contractors.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles.  The suit is captioned "Holly Walker, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of
the general public v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company, an
insurance company domiciled in the State of Illinois, and Does 1
to 100, Case No. BC358690."

In her complaint, Holly Walker alleged that Bankers Life &
Casualty Company intentionally misclassified its California
insurance agents as independent contractors when they should
have been classified as employees.  She sought relief on behalf
of the class alleging claims for preliminary and permanent
injunction, misclassification, indemnification, conversion and
unfair business practices.

Bankers Life & Casualty Co. caused the case to be removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Oct. 18, 2006.

An order was entered on Nov. 20, 2006, transferring the case to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
under Case No. 06C6906.

The court has dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff's
allegations of preliminary and permanent injunction and
misclassification.

A first amended complaint was filed on June 12, 2007, adding
Carole Paradise as the new class representative and naming Holly
Walker as an individual plaintiff.  This complaint alleges
claims of indemnification, conversion, and unfair business
practices.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  Bankers Life & Casualty Company
subsequently filed a motion to decertify the class with the
district court, which granted the request on July 28, 2008,
according to Conseco, Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Walker v. Bankers Life And Casualty Company et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-06906," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Suzanne B. Conlon,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel A. Crawford, Esq. (dcrawford@quislaw.com)
          Quisenberry Law Firm
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 220
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-785-7966

Representing the defendants is:

          Shanthi V. Gaur, Esq. (sgaur@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson, P.C.
          200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-372-5520


BANKERS LIFE: Wants "Sandock" Lawsuit in Illinois Thrown Out
------------------------------------------------------------
Bankers Life & Casualty Co., a subsidiary of Conseco, Inc., is
seeking the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit
captioned "Sandock v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Case
No. 1:08-cv-03218."

On June 4, 2008, a purported class-action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
"Ruby Sandock, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company
Case No. 08-CV-3218."

The plaintiff is claiming breach of contract, consumer fraud and
deceptive business practices, and unjust enrichment on behalf of
the proposed national class and seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive and restitutionary relief.

The plaintiff alleges that Bankers Life & Casualty
systematically and intentionally failed to comply with standard
contractual waiver of premium provisions that are included in
its long-term care insurance policy contracts that it offers and
sells to consumers.

The suit alleges that Bankers Life & Casualty has a policy or
practice of continuing to charge and bill its insureds for
policy premiums after the insured has received 90 days of
benefits.

The company filed an answer on July 3, 2008, denying liability
and asserting that the action is not properly maintainable as a
class action.  It also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
according to Conseco, Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Sandock v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Case
No. 1:08-cv-03218," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Amy J. St. Eve, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert M. Foote, Esq. (rmf@foote-meyers.com)
          Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, LLC
          28 North First Street #2
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Phone: 630-232-6333

Representing the defendant is:

          Paul Peter Bolus, Esq. (pbolus@bradleyarant.com)
          Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP
          One Federal Place
          1819 Fifth Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205-521-8000
          Fax: 205-521-8800


BANKERS LIFE: Wants Suit Over Long-Term Care Contracts Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankers Life & Casualty Co., a subsidiary of Conseco, Inc., is
seeking the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit
alleging that it breached contract and took millions of dollars
in bad faith for long-term convalescent care policies, while
concealing the inevitability of rate hikes.

The plaintiffs, who are elderly policyholders, find themselves
forced to "let their LTC policy lapse when they need coverage
the most," and they said this has gone on since 1988 (Class
Action Reporter, March 28, 2008).

This class-action lawsuit -- filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington on March 19, 2007 -- is
brought on behalf of all persons who, beginning in 1988,
purchased long- or short-term convalescent care insurance
polices from Bankers in the State of Washington, and who have
been damaged:

     (1) by Bankers' misleading and deceptive non-disclosure,
         concealment and misrepresentation of material facts at
         the time of purchase and concerning the long-
         term stability of the premium rates for its LTC
         policies which were designed to and did conceal the
         inherent unreliability and heightened volatility of the
         assumptions not typical of other lines of insurance
         underlying Bankers' LTC premiums and the resulting
         certainty, or at least, heightened likelihood, that
         such premiums would need to be increased; and

     (2) by Bankers' raising premiums for in-force LTC policies
         once the negative effects of its unreliable and
         volatile pricing assumptions became imminent in breach
         of Bankers' contractual promise in its LTC policies
         that premiums would only be raised if there was an
         unforeseen change in federal or state law or regulation
         that changed Bankers' risk under the LTC policies.

LTC policies are designed to cover expenses incurred by people
when they are unable to take care of themselves due to an
injury, chronic illness, advanced age, or cognitive impairment.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that the assumed
         persistency rates used for pricing its LTC policies
         were not based on actual experience;

     (b) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that the
         anticipated interest rates assumed in pricing its LTC
         policies was in appropriate based on reasonable
         economic projections;

     (c) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that it failed
         to properly underwrite new risks;

     (d) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that it failed
         to maintain adequate reserves to cover future
         anticipated claims;

     (e) whether Bankers failed to disclose that its closing
         blocks of LTC policies would inevitably lead to rounds
         of premium increase;

     (f) whether Bankers' inherently unreliable, volatile and
         flawed pricing assumptions set forth in the complaint
         made future premium increases for its LTC policies
         inevitable, or at least significantly heightened the
         risk thereof which it never disclosed to consumers;

     (g) whether Bankers increased its premiums for plaintiffs'
         and class members' LTC policies in absence of a change
         in federal or state law that changed the risk Bankers
         assumed;

     (h) whether Bankers' actions described in the complaint
         violate Washington's Consumer Protection Act, RCW
         Section 19.86.020;

     (i) whether Bankers breached its contracts with plaintiffs
         and the class; and

     (j) the appropriate measure of damages, restitution and
         other remedies.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the suit as a class action, and
        appointing the plaintiffs as class representatives and
        the plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;

     -- compensatory damages;

     -- costs of litigation;

     -- all remedies available, pursuant to Washington's
        Consumer Protection Act, RCW Section 19.86 et seq.,
        including actual damages, treble damages, attorneys'
        costs, fees and expenses;

     -- restitution in such amount that plaintiffs and all class
        members paid for Bankers' services, or the profits and
        fees Bankers obtained for them;

     -- an order enjoining Bankers from raising its premiums on
        its LTC policies barring a truly unforeseen change in
        law that actually changes the nature of the risk Bankers
        assumed when it issued said policies; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be deemed necessary
        or appropriate.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 19,
2008, according to Conseco, Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Susan W. Taylor et al. v. Bankers Life and Casualty
Co., Case No. 08-0447," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Judge John C. Coughenour,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael E. Withey, Esq. (mike@witheylaw.com)
          Law Offices of Michael Withey PLLC
          601 Union Street
          Two Union Square #4200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-405-1800

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com)
          Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint
          2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-776-5902

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. (jnk@ssem.com)
          Specter Specter Evans & Manogue PC
          The 26th Floor Koppers Building
          436 Seventh Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-642-2300

Representing the defendants is:

          Eliot R. Hudson, Esq. (eliot.hudson@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US LLP
          153 Townsend Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94107-1957
          Phone: 415-836-2500


BANKERS LIFE: Labor Violations Lawsuit Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Bankers Life & Casualty Co., a subsidiary of Conseco, Inc., is
facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California over
various violations of labor laws.

The purported class-action complaint was filed on Jan. 16, 2008,
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Alameda.  The suit is captioned, "Robin Fletcher
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
Bankers Life and Casualty Company, and Does 1 through 100, Case
No. RG08366328."

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged nonpayment by Bankers
Life of overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, failure to reimburse expenses, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements to its sales representatives in the
State of California for the time period Jan. 16, 2004, to
present.

Additionally, the complaint alleges failure to pay wages on
termination and unfair business practices.

Conseco, Inc., reported no development in the matter in its
Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  The company focuses on serving the senior
and middle-income markets.  CNO sells its products through three
distribution channels: career agents, professional independent
producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines)
and direct marketing.  The company manages its business through
three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance
Group and Colonial Penn.


BLUE CROSS: Wrongfully Enforced Subrogation Provision, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross, Blue Shield and HMO Blue are facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alleging
that the companies have "wrongfully enforced a subrogation
provision for the last 13 years against its insureds, after
being specifically ordered by the Superior Court to stop this
practice," CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the report, the plaintiffs file this class action
suit to recover damages arising from Blue Cross' unlawful
practices.  The plaintiffs claim that those practices include
unfairly and deceptively demanding some or all of their
settlement proceeds from their third party settlement or
judgment when the proceeds which they received therefrom did not
serve to make them whole; expecting those insured under an ERISA
based plan administered by Blue Cross.

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to MGL Chapter 93A and
Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all
persons who received proceeds from the settlement or judgment of
a third party or a first party claim, and received demands for
payment from Blue Cross.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the individual plaintiffs and the class who
         presently are in possession of first or third party
         personal injury proceeds and are continuing to receive
         demands from Blue Cross for repayment, are entitled to
         a declaration stating that no such repayment is due;

     (b) whether the individual plaintiffs and the class who
         paid Blue Cross under such circumstances, are entitled
         to full repayment of amounts paid, together with a
         reasonable interest rate, from the date when those
         persons received their settlement checks, through the
         settlement or judgment of this claim;

     (c) whether Blue Cross may be enjoined from continuing to
         include the offending language in its contract, without
         also referring to the made whole doctrine; and

     (d) whether the individual plaintiffs and the class are
         entitled to the injunctive and monetary relief
         requested as well as punitive damages as outlined in
         MGL Chapter 93A Section 9(3).

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order determining that this action is a proper class
        action and certifying plaintiffs as representative of
        the class;

     -- an order determining and entering declaratory judgment
        for the plaintiffs and the class, wherein Blue Cross is
        required to amend its subscriber certificate/health
        insurance policy subrogation language to comply with the
        Superior Court's declaration, together with a judgment
        amount to compensate each such class plaintiff for
        damages suffered as a result of Blue Cross' invasion of
        a legally protected interest, together with all related
        court costs and attorneys' fees;

     -- an order determining and entering judgment for the
        plaintiffs and the class, in the exact amount of what
        each plaintiff paid to Blue Cross since march 31, 1995,
        together with a reasonable interest rate and all related
        court costs and attorneys' fees, in instances where the
        proceeds of those claims did not serve to make the
        plaintiffs whole; and

     -- an order awarding all class plaintiffs such monetary and
        equitable relief as may be deemed just and appropriate,
        together with all related court costs and attorneys'
        fees.

The suit is "John Hunt Jr., et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of Massachusetts, et al., Case No. 08-4254," filed in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John R. Yasi, Esq.
          Yasi & Yasi PC
          Two Salem Green
          Salem, MA 01970
          Phone: 978-741-0400


BRYAN CAVE: Faces Ariz. Suit Over Illegal, Abusive Tax Shelters
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bryan Cave law firm, its partner Richard C. Smith, American
Express Tax & Business Services (d/b/a Actuarial and
Administrative Services), and Pension Strategies are facing a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona over allegations that the companies
conspired to sell illegal and abusive pension plans and tax
shelters, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the report, this is a putative nationwide class
action suit in which the plaintiffs assert various claims
related to the design, marketing, and sale of life insurance
policies purchased by plaintiffs to fund defined benefit pension
plans that purportedly complied with section 412(i) of the
Internal Revenue Code.  These insurance policies, in fact,
jeopardized the qualified status of these plans and rendered
them to be "listed transactions" and abusive tax shelters.

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of:

     (1) all persons who, between Jan. 1, 1999, and the present,
         paid insurance premiums to Indianapolis Life on a
         PenPro policy, Vista PenPro policy, Executive VIP
         policy, Vista Executive VIP policy or a substantially
         similar policy that was used to fund a defined benefit
         plan under section 412(i) of the code;

     (2) all persons who, between Jan. 1, 1999, and the present,
         paid insurance premiums to Hartford on a Stag Whole
         Life policy or a substantially similar policy that was
         used to fund a defined benefit plan under section
         412(i) of the code;

     (3) all persons who, between Jan. 1, 1999, and the present,
         paid insurance premiums to Pacific Life on a Flex XII
         policy or a substantially similar policy that was used
         to fund a defined benefit plan under section 412(i) of
         the code; and

     (4) all persons who, between Jan. 1, 1999 and the present,
         paid insurance premiums to American General on a Value
         Master 5+ policy, or a substantially similar policy
         that was used to fund a defined benefit plan under
         section 412(i) of the code.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

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

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

     (c) whether the Insurance Policies issued to the class
         members were substantially similar to each other;

     (d) whether the defendants provided actuarial, legal or
         other services related to the design and marketing of
         the insurance policies, including but not limited to
         actuarial and legal opinions in which defendants
         rendered opinions regarding whether the insurance
         policies would comply with all requirements necessary
         to satisfy section 412(i);

     (e) whether the actuarial and legal opinions provided by
         the defendants to the various insurance companies
         marketing the insurance policies were substantially
         similar to each other;

     (f) whether the defendants were negligent, reckless, and
         engaged in intentional misconduct in rendering the
         legal services and opinions in connection with the
         insurance policies and section 412(i); and

     (g) whether the defendants knew or should have known that
         their actuarial and legal opinions were being used to
         market and sell the insurance policies.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- compensatory damages in an amount to be ascertained at
        trial;

     -- punitive or exemplary damages in an amount to be
        ascertained at trial;

     -- additional or treble damages pursuant to applicable
        state or federal law;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum
        rate permitted by contract, law or equity;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- all other relief, in law or in equity, to which
        plaintiffs may be entitled.

The suit is "Berry, et al. v. Bryan Cave, LLP, et al.,  Case
Number:  2:2008cv01768," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona, Judge Mary H. Murguia, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert W. Boatman, Esq.
          Patrick J. McGroder III, Esq.
          Mark A. Fuller, Esq.
          Shannon L. Clark, Esq.
          Gallagher & Kennedy PA
          2575 E. Camelback Road, Suite 1100
          Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225


CALIFORNIA: Assesses Illegal Death Tax, Lawsuit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
alleges that the State of California assesses an illegal "death
tax" through its Graduated Filing Fee on probate cases,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

CourtHouse did not report on any further details or updates
regarding the case.


CONSECO HEALTH: Fifth Circuit Affirms Certification in "Doiron"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
certification of a class in the purported class-action lawsuit
captioned "Doiron v. Conseco Health Ins., Case No. 3:04-cv-
00784-JJB-CN," which names Conseco Health Insurance Co. as a
defendant.

The purported statewide class action suit, captioned "Diana
Doiron, et al. v. Conseco Health Insurance Company, Case No. 61-
534," was initially filed on Sept. 24, 2004, in the 18th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana.

In her complaint, the plaintiff claims that she was damaged due
to Conseco Health Insurance's failure to pay claims made under
her cancer policy, and seeks compensatory and statutory damages
along with declaratory and injunctive relief.

Conseco had the case removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana on Nov. 3, 2004.

An order was issued on Feb. 15, 2007, granting the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The order specifically
certifies two sub-classes identifying them as the radiation
treatment sub-class and the chemotherapy treatment sub-class.

The company appealed the certification order to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and by order entered May 28,
2008, the Fifth Circuit affirmed class certification, but made
modifications to the class definitions.  Its subsequent petition
for rehearing was denied by order dated June 27, 2008, according
to Conseco, Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Doiron v. Conseco Health Ins., Case No. 3:04-cv-
00784-JJB-CN," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana, Judge James J. Brady, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Stanley P. Baudin, Esq. (sbaudin@pbclawfirm.com)
         Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP
         P.O. Drawer 71, 24110 Eden St.
         Plaquemine, LA 70764-0071
         Phone: 225-687-6396
         Fax: 225-687-6398

Representing the defendants is:

         Raymond J. Pajares, Esq.
         (rpajares@pajares-schexnaydre.com)
         Pajares & Schexnaydre, LLC
         103 Northpark Boulevard, Suite 110
         Covington, LA 70433
         Phone: 985-292-2000
         Fax: 985-292-2001


CONSECO INC: May 10, 2010 Jury Trial Set for Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A May 10, 2010 jury trial is scheduled for a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana against Conseco, Inc., and
some of its former officers.

After the company's predecessor announced its intention to
restructure on Aug. 9, 2002, eight purported securities fraud
class action suits were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana.  These suits were filed on
behalf of persons or entities that purchased the predecessor's
common stock on various dates between Oct. 24, 2001, and Aug. 9,
2002.

The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and allege
material omissions and dissemination of materially misleading
statements regarding, among other things, the liquidity of
Conseco and alleged problems in Conseco Finance Corp.'s
manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the
artificial inflation of the company's Predecessor's stock price.

On March 13, 2003, all the cases were consolidated into one in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
captioned, "Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Gary
Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, et al.,
Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB."

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.  The
plaintiffs then filed an amended consolidated class-action
complaint with respect to the individual defendants on Dec. 8,
2003.  A motion to dismiss the case was filed on behalf of the
individual defendants and on July 14, 2005, the court granted
the request.  The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
Aug. 24, 2005.

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
May 2, 2008.  The matter is scheduled for a jury trial on
May 10, 2010.

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

The suit is "Schleicher, et al. v. Wendt, et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-01332-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Judge David Frank Hamilton
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kwasi Abraham Asiedu, Esq. (laskido@hotmail.com)
         3858 Carson Street, Suite 204
         Torrance, CA 90503
         Phone: 310-792-3948
         Fax: 310-792-0600

              - and -

         Brian Joseph Barry, Esq. (bribarry1@yahoo.com)
         Law Offices Of Brian Barry
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307
         Los Angeles, CA 90046
         Phone: 310-788-0831
         Fax: 310-788-0841

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Kenneth Huffer, Esq.
         (steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com)
         Huffer & Weathers
         151 North Delaware Street, Suite 1850
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Phone: 317-822-8010
         Fax: 317-822-8088

              - and -

         Robert J. Kopecky, Esq. (rkopecky@kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis
         200 East Randolph Drive
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-2084
         Fax: 317-660-0412


CONSECO INC: Settles Calif. Lawsuit Over Life Insurance Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc., and certain subsidiaries, including Conseco Life
Insurance Co., settled a purported class-action suit in
California over its sale of life insurance policies.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on May 24, 2005, in
Illinois on behalf of a putative statewide class.  The suit,
captioned "William J. Harte, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company,
Case No. 05CH08925," was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division.

The lawsuit was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, then subsequently transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and consolidated and coordinated with "In re Conseco Life
Insurance Co. Cost of Insurance Litigation, MDL 1610."

The Harte matter was settled in June 2008, and will be dismissed
by the court on motion by the parties, according to Conseco,
Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  The company focuses on serving the senior
and middle-income markets.  CNO sells its products through three
distribution channels: career agents, professional independent
producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines)
and direct marketing.  The company manages its business through
three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance
Group and Colonial Penn.


CONSECO INSURANCE: Court Considers Dismissal of Annuities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss Conseco Insurance
companies in a consolidated consumer lawsuit filed against them
over sales of annuity products to seniors 65 years and older.

On Nov. 17, 2005, the complaint "Robert H. Hansen v. Conseco
Insurance Co., f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Co., Case No.
C0504726," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity
in 2000 and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed
national class over alleged:

      -- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
         Corrupt Organizations Act;

      -- elder abuse;

      -- unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices;

      -- unlawful, deceptive and misleading advertising;

      -- breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of breach
         of fiduciary duty; and

      -- unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust.

On Jan. 27, 2006, a similar complaint was filed in the same
court -- "Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois
company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C06-
00537."  Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity in 2003.

Each case alleged that the annuity sold was inappropriate and
that the annuity products in question are inherently unsuitable
for seniors 65 years old and up.

On March 3, 2006, a first amended complaint was filed in the
Hansen case adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment
and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

In an order dated April 14, 2006, the court consolidated the two
cases under the original Hansen case number and retitled the
consolidated action "In re Conseco Insurance Co. Annuity
Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation."

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part
and denied in part, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on April 27, 2007.

The second amended complaint includes the same causes of action
as the prior complaint, but added as defendants Conseco, Inc.,
Conseco Services, LLC, Conseco Marketing, LLC and 40|86
Advisors, Inc., while deleting Friou Jones as a named plaintiff.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint and it was granted in part and denied in part.

A motion to dismiss Conseco Inc., Conseco Services, Conseco
Marketing and 40|86 Advisors was filed on Sept. 14, 2007, and a
ruling on the motion has yet to be entered.

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

The suit is "Robert H. Hansen v. Conseco Insurance Co., Case No.
5:05-cv-04726-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Howard D. Finkelstein, Esq. (fk@classactionlaw.com)
         Finkelstein & Krinsk
         501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
         San Diego, CA 92101-3593
         Phone: 619-238-1333
         Fax: 619-238-5425

         Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C.
         2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         Fax: 602-274-1199

              - and -

         John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq. (jstoia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the defendants are:

         Thomas A. Doyle, Esq. (Thomas.A.Doyle@bakernet.com)
         James J. Dries, Esq. (James.J.Dries@bakernet.com)
         Mark L. Karasik, Esq. (Mark.L.Karasik@bakernet.com)
         Baker & McKenzie, LLP
         130 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 3500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-8000
         Fax: 312-861-2899


CONSECO LIFE: Illegal Rate Hikes Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Life Insurance Co. is still facing a purported class-
action suit that accuses it of illegally imposing staggering
rate hikes on policyholders that are so huge and so sudden that
they cannot possibly be based on expectations as to future
mortality.

The complaint is entitled, "Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of
the class of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
General Public v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, successor to
Philadelphia Life Insurance Company and formerly known as
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 08-01506
CAS."  It was filed on March 4, 2008, before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, (Class Action
Reporter, June 5, 2008).

The suit states that the court ruled against the defendant in a
previous national class-action suit, entitled "Rosenbaum et al.
v. Philadelphia Life Insurance Co., (Conseco's predecessor)."
After that ruling, Conseco Life was forced to return all the
unlawful cost of insurance charges, plus interest, to its
policyholders.

The policies at issue in this action have the exact same cost of
insurance provisions as the policies adjudicated by this Court
in the Rosenbaum Action, the complaint states.

Named plaintiff Celedonia X. Yue brings the action on behalf of
all owners of Valuelife and Valuterm universal life insurance
policies administered by defendant.  The plaintiff seeks an
injunction requiring the defendant to reverse the unlawful
increases in cost of insurance charges on the policies and to
fulfill their contractual and other obligations to the class.

The plaintiff also seeks a corresponding declaration that the
defendant must determine the cost of insurance charges for the
policies in accordance with the terms of the policies and
reinstate the cost of insurance charges that existed before the
recent unlawful increases.

The plaintiff further asks for corresponding monetary relief
requiring defendant to repay to the class, or restore to the
accumulation accounts of the policies, the amount of any
unlawful overcharges.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's actions to increase the cost of
         insurance charges on the policies violated the terms of
         the policies;

     (b) whether Conseco Life breached its contracts with the
         plaintiff and members of the class;

     (c) whether the defendant breached obligations of good
         faith and fair dealing owed to plaintiff and members of
         the class;

     (d) whether the defendant committed acts of unfair
         competition as defined by California Business and
         Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (e) whether the plaintiff and members of the class are
         entitled to specific performance, injunctive relief or
         other equitable relief against the defendant; and

     (f) whether the plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         receive incidental monetary relief or, alternatively,
         damages as a result of the unlawful conduct by the
         defendant alleged.

The plaintiffs request for judgment providing:

      -- injunctive relief to preliminarily and permanently
         enjoin the defendant, its representatives, and all]
         others acting with it or on its behalf:

         (a) from changing the cost of insurance and the
             attendant cost of insurance charges, other than for
             expectations as to future mortality experience,
             respecting the policies; and

         (b) from increasing the cost of insurance charges for
             the policies and requiring those charges to be
             returned to the levels that existed prior to the
             unlawful increases imposed by defendant;

      -- injunctive relief requiring the defendant, its
         representatives, and all others acting with it or on
         its behalf to reinstate any policyholder whose policy
         was canceled or surrendered as a result of the intended
         unlawful cost of insurance increases;

      -- incidental or other monetary relief in the form of
         repayments to the plaintiff and members of the class of
         all overcharges resulting from the cost of insurance
         increases complained of and payment of such amounts
         into the accumulation accounts of the policies;

      -- alternatively, general damages, consequential damages,
         and other incidental damages in a sum to be determined
         at the time of trial;

      -- restitutionary relief requiring defendant to disgorge
         and divest all money received from policyholders as a
         result of, or caused by, the artificial and sham
         increase in the cost of insurance (mortality) charges;

      -- a declaration that the increases in cost of insurance
         charges are in material breach of the policies and that
         defendant must determine the cost of insurance charges
         as explicitly set forth in the policies;

      -- attorneys' fees expended and incurred in recovery of
         benefits and enforcement of the terms of the policies
         against defendant in a sum to be determined at the time
         of trial;

      -- costs of suit incurred; and

      -- award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 25,
2008.  The plaintiff has not yet filed a motion for
certification of the class, according to Conseco, Inc.'s
Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Celedonia X. Yue et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance,
et al., Case No. CV08-01506 CAS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Timothy P. Dillon, Esq. (timothy@dillon.net)
          Law Office of Timothy P. Dillon
          361 Forest Avenue, Suite 205
          Laguna Beach, CA 92651
          Phone: 949-376-2800
          Fax: 949-376-2808

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@BFFB.com)
          Bonnet, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.
          2901 N. Central, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-776-5902
          Fax: 602-274-1199


DIRECTV INC: Automatically Extends Contracts, Oklahoma Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DirecTV Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
alleging it automatically extends customers' contracts by 18 to
24 months each time they replace an inoperable receiver, and
charging "early cancellation" fees of $360 to $480 if they
cancel before the extended contract expires, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This class action complaint seeks to remedy the unfair,
unlawful, deceptive and fraudulent conduct of the defendants in
connection with their business practices of charging consumers
"early cancellation fees" upon the consumer's cancellation of
his DirecTV programming service.

The plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure No. 23 on behalf of all persons in the United
States who were charged an "early cancellation fee" by
defendants in the last five years based upon DirecTV extending
the customer's programming commitment without the consumer's
knowledge and agreement.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants utilize unfair, unlawful, and
         deceptive business practices in charging "early
         cancellation fees" by extending programming commitment
         periods without the knowledge and agreement of the
         consumer;

     (b) whether defendants' conduct constitutes a violation of
         the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act;

     (c) whether defendants omitted and misrepresented
         material facts in connection with the
         replacement/exchange of satellite receivers to existing
         customers; and

     (d) whether defendants failed to clearly and conspicuously
         disclose to the consumer that the exchange/replacement
         of receivers constituted an agreement by the consumer
         to extend their programming commitment period.

The plaintiff requests judgment:

     -- for restitution and disgorgment;

     -- for compensatory damages sustained by plaintiff and all
        others similarly situated;

     -- for punitive damages;

     -- for injunctive relief;

     -- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

     -- for reasonable attorney fees;

     -- costs of suit; and

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

The suit is "Hershell P. Shockey, et al. v. DirecTV Inc., Case
Number: 5:2008cv01026," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma, Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kent R. Mcguire, Esq.
          Joe E. White, Jr.
          Charles C. Weddle, III
          White and Weddle Law Firm, PC
          5532 N. Western
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Phone: 405-858-8899
          Fax: 405-858-8844


GEICO GENERAL: Sued Over Money from Collision Reimbursements
------------------------------------------------------------
GEICO General Insurance Company is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Superior Court of Washington, County of
King, over allegations that it collects money from collision
reimbursements before fully compensating its policyholders,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This matter is brought as a class action pursuant to Washington
Superior Court Civil Rule 23 asserting claims for violations of
the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW Section
19.56.010 et seq., bad faith, conversion and breach of contract.

The plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of all persons in the
State of Washington who had a motor vehicle liability insurance
policy issued by GEICO that included collision coverage, where
GEICO obtained any measure of reimbursement for payments made
under that coverage before its insureds were first fully
compensated for the losses related to those payments.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's conduct, as alleged, constitutes
         deceptive, unfair, or otherwise unlawful business
         practices as construed under the Washington CPA;

     (b) whether defendant's conduct, as alleged, has occurred
         in the conduct of trade or commerce, as construed under
         the Washington CPA;

     (c) whether defendant's conduct, as alleged, impacts the
         public interest, as construed under the Washington CPA;

     (d) whether plaintiff, and the class, are entitled to an
         award of damages and, if so, the proper method of
         measuring such damages;

     (e) whether plaintiff, and the class, are entitled to
         treble damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to RCW
         Section 19.86.090;

     (f) whether plaintiff, and the class, are entitled to
         injunctive or other equitable relief and, if so, the
         nature and scope of any such relief; and

     (g) whether defendant's conduct, as alleged, constitutes
         bad faith, conversion, or breach of contract.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order declaring that the conduct and actions of
        defendant complained of are unlawful, and in violation
        of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW Section
        19.86.010 et seq.;

     -- an order that permanently enjoins defendant, and its
        agents from further violating the Washington Consumer
        Protection Act, RCW Section 19.86.0101 et seq., in the
        manner set forth;

     -- an award of damages to plaintiff, and the class, in an
        amount as is proven at trial;

     -- an award of treble damages to plaintiff, and the class,
        pursuant to RCW Section 19.86.090;

     -- an award of prejudgment interest and costs of suit,
        including expert witness fees;

     -- an award of attorneys' fees and expenses under any
        applicable grounds, including RCW Section 19.86.090 or
        any other basis; and

     -- such other and further legal and equitable relief as the
        court may deem proper.

The suit is "Cherie R. Wright, et al. v. GEICO General Insurance
Company, Case No. 08-2-33156-3SEA," filed in the Superior Court
of Washington, County of King.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Matthew J. Ide, Esq.
          Ide Law Office
          801 Second Avenue, Suite 1502
          Seattle, WA 98104-1500
          Phone: 206-625-1326


GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Cheats Policyholders, Fla. Lawsuit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Geovera Specialty Insurance -- formerly known as USF&G Specialty
Insurance -- is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, over allegations that it cheats policyholders
by refusing to pay the full replacement cost of destroyed
dwellings, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the report, this is a claim for declaratory and
monetary relief brought on behalf of a class whose aggregate
damages exceeds $15,000 exclusive of all interest, costs and
attorney's fees, as well as individual damages.

Pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 1.220(b)92)
and 1.220(b)(3), the plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of
all insureds who have USF&G insurance coverage with the same or
similar language as shown in the three endorsements and
insurance policy.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether endorsement US-01-11 (02-06) is void;

     (b) whether portions of endorsement US-82-01 (02-03) is
         void;

     (c) whether the defendant's policy of not paying
         replacement cost for dwelling coverage until
         replacement and repairs are made violates Fla. Stat.
         Section 627.7011(3);

     (d) whether the defendant violated Florida Statutes by not
         obtaining written refusals of "Law and Ordinance
         Coverage"; and

     (e) what the remedy is if the defendant violated any of
         Florida law.

The plaintiff requests judgment for damages, interest, costs and
any other relief the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Lisa Portwood, et al. v. Geovera Specialty
Insurance, Case No. 0844408," filed in the Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          B. Richard Newsome, Esq.
          P. Alexander Gillen, Esq.
          Newsome Law Firm
          20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 800
          Orlando, FL 32801-4641


HONDA MOTOR: N.J. Suit Alleges Acuras Have Defective Condensers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honda Motor Company, Ltd., is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging Acura auto air-conditioning systems have had defective
condensers and compressors since 1998, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The claim covers all Honda and Acura models since model year
1998, including the Accord, Civil, Odyssey, Element, CR-V, Fit,
Pilot, Ridgeline, S2000, RSX, TSX, TL, RL, RDX, and MDX.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the class vehicles contain defective
         condensers, compressors, and air conditioning
         systems;

     (b) whether Honda has failed to properly service, repair,
         correct or address the alleged defects and provide
         consumers with a non-defective vehicle;

     (c) whether Honda has breached its warranty due to the
         existence of the alleged defects;

     (d) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to revoke
         acceptance and rescind its contracts of sale and lease,
         as appropriate;

     (e) whether Honda has concealed and misrepresented
         information concerning the defects inherent in the
         condensers, compressors, and air conditioning systems
         of the class vehicles;

     (f) whether the class vehicles' condensers, compressors,
         and air conditioning systems are inherently defective
         and not of merchantable quality; and

     (g) whether the plaintiffs and the class, as a result of
         Honda's breach and misconduct, are entitled to
         injunctive relief and other relief, and the amount of
         such relief.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- entry of a preliminary injunction and permanent
        injunction, requiring defendants to immediately:

        * notify all members of the plaintiff class of the
          aforesaid defects;

        * institute a comprehensive recall of the class
          vehicles;

        * inspect all class vehicles currently owned or leased
          by members of the plaintiff class to determine the
          nature and extent of the defects and necessary
          repairs for each vehicle inspected;

        * fully and properly repair all class vehicles, as
          required, at defendants' sole expense;

        * provide ongoing annual inspections of all class
          vehicles owned by members of the plaintiff class to
          determine the nature and extent of the defects and
          necessary repairs of each vehicle inspected;

        * take all necessary steps to modify the design,
          manufacture, and quality control  for the class
          vehicles, to prevent the aforesaid defects from
          arising in any of the class vehicle models in the
          future;

     -- attorneys' fees;

     -- costs of suit; and

     -- such other relief as the court deems just and equitable.

The suit is "Jon Alin, et al. v. Honda Motor Company Ltd., Case
2:33-av-0000," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          David A. Mazie , Esq.
          Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
          Mazie Slater katz & Freeman, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: 973-228-9898


INLAND WESTERN: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc., is still facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws and common law causes of action.

The suit was filed on Nov. 1, 2007, by the City of St. Clair
Shores General Employees Retirement System in connection with
with the company's merger with its business manager/advisor and
property managers.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

       -- that the consideration paid as part of the merger was
          excessive;

       -- violations of Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
          thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
          based upon allegations that the Proxy Statement
          contains false and misleading statements or omits to
          state material facts;

       -- that the business manager/advisor and property
          managers and certain directors and defendants breached
          their fiduciary duties to the class; and

       -- that the merger unjustly enriched the business
          manager/advisor and property managers.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

       -- certification of the class action;

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

       -- unspecified monetary damages;

       -- nullification of any stockholder approvals obtained
          during the proxy process;

       -- nullification of the merger and the related merger
          agreements with the business manager/advisor and the
          property managers; and

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

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

The suit is "City of St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System v. Inland Western Retail Real Estate, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06174," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Robert W.
Gettleman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq. (levitt@whafh.com)
          Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 111
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Phone: 312-984-0000

               - and -

          Aya Bouchedid, Esq. (abouchedid@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700

Representing the defendants are:

          Joseph Edward Collins, Esq.
          (joseph.collins@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US LLP IL
          203 North LaSalle Street, 20th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-368-4000

               - and -

          James L. Thompson, Esq. (jthompson@jenner.com)
          Jenner & Block LLP
          330 North Wabash
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: 312-222-9350


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Over Auction Rate Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is the subject of two putative securities
class-action lawsuits in New York, relating to its sales of
auction rate securities.

The lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 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.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suits Over Guaranteed Investment Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiary, Bear, Stearns & Co.,
Inc., are facing a coordinated antitrust lawsuit in New York
over guaranteed investment contracts and other derivatives to
municipal issuers.

Initially, both companies were named as a defendant in the
several putative class action lawsuits filed in federal courts
in the Southern District of New York, the District of Columbia
the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of
California for alleged antitrust violations in connection with
the bidding or sale of guaranteed investment contracts and other
derivatives to municipal issuers.

On June 16, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the cases then before it transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, and it is
anticipated that later-filed federal cases will likewise be
transferred, 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.


MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Parties Want "Bateman" Proceedings Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter captioned "Michael Bateman v. American
Multi-Cinema, Inc. Case No. CV07-00171," which names Marquee
Holdings, Inc., as a defendant, are seeking a stay on all
proceedings in the case.

The class-action complaint was filed in January 2007 against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more
than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on receipts given to customers.  It imposes significant
penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have
been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses
incurred by the card holder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of
certification in a similar FACTA case.

The parties have requested the District Court to stay all
proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit
case.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for quarter ended July 3, 2008.

The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California Judge Gary A. Feess,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. (greg@spiromoss.com)
         Ira Spiro, Esq. (ira@spiromoss.com)
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

         David E. Novitski, Esq.
         Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
         333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
         Phone: 213-576-8097
         Fax: 213-576-8080


MERRILL LYNCH: Shareholders Challenge $50-Billion Sale to BofA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging its $50-billion sale to Bank of America for about
$29 per share, saying the amount significantly undervalues the
company, which is worth more than $1 trillion, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

According to the complaint, in approving the proposed
acquisition, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure by, inter
alia,:

     (1) agreeing to sell Merrill without first taking steps to
         ensure that plaintiff and class would obtain adequate,
         fair, and maximum consideration under the
         circumstances; and

     (2) engineering the proposed acquisition to benefit
         themselves and BofA without regard for Merrill's
         public shareholders.

Moreover, as alleged further, BofA aided and abetted the
individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.

Accordingly, this action seeks to enjoin the proposed
acquisition and compel the individual defendants to properly
exercise their fiduciary duties to Merrill's shareholders.

The plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to
Court of Chancery Rule 23, on behalf of all holders of Merrill
common stock who are being and will be harmed by the individual
defendants' actions.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the individual defendants have engaged in self-
         dealing, to the detriment of Merrill's shareholders;

     (b) whether the proposed acquisition is unfair to the
         class, in that the price is inadequate and is not the
         fair value that could be obtained under the
         circumstances;

     (c) whether BofA aided and abetted the individual
         defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty; and

     (d) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief
         and damages as a result of the wrongful conduct
         committed by defendants.

The plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

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

     -- declaring and decreeing that the proposed acquisition
        was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of
        the individual defendants and is therefore unlawful and
        unenforceable, and rescinding and invalidating any
        merger agreement or other agreements that defendants
        entered into in connection with, or in furtherance of,
        the proposed acquisition;

     -- preliminary and permanently enjoining defendants, their
        agents, counsel, employees and all persons acting in
        concert with them from consummating the proposed
        acquisition;

     -- directing the individual defendants to exercise their
        fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the
        best interests of Merrill's shareholders;

     -- imposing a constructive trust, in favor of plaintiff and
        the class, upon any benefits improperly received by
        defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct;

     -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this
        action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts
        fees; and

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

The suit is "County of York Employees Retirement Plan et al. v.
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., et al., Case No. 4066,"  filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Joseph Rusello, Esq.
          Rigrodsky & Long PA
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-295-5310


METLIFE INC: Parties Seek Summary Judgment in N.Y. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter "In re MetLife Demutualization
Litigation" have moved for summary judgment in the case, which
names Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and MetLife, Inc., as
defendants.

The suit was filed on April 18, 2000 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.  The plaintiffs served a
second consolidated amended complaint in the action in 2004.  In
that complaint, the plaintiffs assert violations of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the plan, claiming that the Policyholder
Information Booklets failed to disclose certain material facts
and contained certain material misstatements.  The suit is
seeking rescission and compensatory damages.

On June 22, 2004, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the claim of violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The court also denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the claim for violation of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.  In addition, in 2004, the court reaffirmed its earlier
decision denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment as
premature.

In July 2005, the federal trial court certified this lawsuit as
a class-action lawsuit against Metropolitan Life and MetLife.
By orders dated July 19, 2005, and Aug. 29, 2006, the federal
trial court certified a litigation class of present and former
policyholders.

The court has not yet directed the manner and form of class
notice.  The defendants have moved for summary judgment, and the
plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment, according to
MetLife's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Murray v. Metropolitan Ins., et al., Case No. 9:00-
cv-02258-TCP-AKT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Judge Thomas C. Platt, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John C. Crow, Esq. (crow@ssnyc.com)
          Stamell & Schager, LLP
          1 Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-566-4047
          Fax: 212-566-4061

Representing the defendants is:

          Carl Micarelli, Esq. (cmicarel@debevoise.com)
          Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-909-6000
          Fax: 212-909-6836


METLIFE INC: Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Antitrust Case Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter captioned "In Re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," which is pending with the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey are appealing the
dismissal of certain claims in the case, which names
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., and MetLife, Inc., as
defendants.

Plaintiffs have filed an amended class-action complaint
consolidating claims from separate actions that had been filed
in or transferred to the District of New Jersey in 2004 and
2005.  The consolidated amended complaint alleges that MetLife,
Metropolitan Life, several non-affiliated insurance companies
and several insurance brokers violated the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, and antitrust laws and committed other
misconduct in the context of providing insurance to employee
benefit plans and to persons who participate in such plans.

The plaintiffs seek to represent classes of employers that
established employee benefit plans and persons who participated
in such employee benefit plans.

In August and September 2007, the court issued orders granting
the defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice the federal
antitrust and the RICO claims.

In January 2008, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' summary judgment motion on the ERISA claims, and in
February 2008, the court dismissed the remaining state law
claims on jurisdictional grounds.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the court's
decisions, according to MetLife's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Wants Florida Suit Over Claims Reduction Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., will be seeking the dismissal of a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The American Dental Association and three individual providers
filed the purported class action suit against MetLife Inc. and
Cigna Corp. on May 19, 2003.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of in-
network providers who allege that their claims are being
wrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use
and programming of software.  The complaint alleges federal
racketeering and various state law theories of liability.

The district court granted in part and denied in part the
company's motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs have filed an
amended complaint, and the company said it will file another
motion to dismiss it.

MetLife, Inc. reported no further development regarding the
matter in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "American Dental Asso, et al. v. Cigna Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:03-cv-21266-FAM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Federico A.
Moreno, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan Louis Alpert, Esq. (jonalpert@aol.com)
          Alpert Law Firm
          401 E Jackson Street, Suite 1825
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-223-4131
          Fax: 813-228-9612

               - and -

          Robert J. Axelrod, Esq. (rjaxelrod@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block & Grossman
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-1373

Representing the defendant are:

          Hilarie Bass, Esq. (bassh@gtlaw.com)
          Greenberg Traurig
          1221 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-579-0745
          Fax: 305-579-0717

               - and -

          Samuel Alberto Danon, Esq. (sdanon@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-810-2500
          Fax: 305-810-2460


METLIFE INC: Property, Casualty Suits vs. Units Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of MetLife, Inc., are still facing various
property and casualty lawsuits in Louisiana and Mississippi in
connection with Hurricane Katrina, according to MetLife's
Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The company says that there are a number of lawsuits, including
a few putative class actions and "mass" actions, pending in
Louisiana and Mississippi against Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Insurance Co. relating to Hurricane Katrina.  The
lawsuits include claims by policyholders for coverage for
damages stemming from Hurricane Katrina, including for damages
resulting from flooding or storm surge.  The deadline for filing
actions in Louisiana has expired.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Oklahoma Court Dismisses Claims in "Thomas"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
dismissed certain claims in a purported class action lawsuit
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., in connection with the sale of certain
proprietary products by its distributors.

The suit, "Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et
al.," was filed against Metropolitan Life, MetLife Securities,
Inc., and MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.

The plaintiffs assert legal theories of violations of the
federal securities laws and violations of state laws with
respect to the sale of certain proprietary products (as opposed
to non-proprietary products) by the company's agency
distribution group.  They seek rescission, compensatory damages,
interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and expenses.

In January and May 2008, the court issued orders granting in
part the defendants' dismissal motion, dismissing all of the
plaintiffs' claims except for claims under the Investment
Advisers Act.

MetLife, Inc. reported no development in the matter in its
Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00121-F," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Judge Stephen P.
Friot, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         Fax: 405-239-2112

Representing the defendants are:

         Emiline T. Ebrite, Esq. (tebrite@gablelaw.com)
         David L. Kearney, Esq. (dkearney@gablelaw.com)
         Gable & Gotwals
         211 N Robinson Ave., 15th Fl.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-5500
         Fax: 405-235-2875


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Serves Summary Judgment Motion in "Fiala"
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., along with other defendants in
the matter "Fiala, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et
al.," which is one of several lawsuits challenging the fairness
of the company's plan of reorganization, is serving a motion for
summary judgment in the case.

The purported class-action suit specifically names as defendants
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., MetLife Inc., certain
individual directors, and the superintendent and the
underwriters for MetLife's initial public offering, Goldman
Sachs & Co. and Credit Suisse First Boston.

Initially, the Superior Court, N.Y. County, certified a class in
"Fiala," which was filed in March 17, 2000.  Another putative
class action complaint filed in New York State Court in Kings
County was consolidated with "Fiala."

The plaintiffs in the consolidated state court class action seek
compensatory relief and punitive damages.  In 2003, the trial
court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the case.

In 2004, the appellate court modified the trial court's order by
reinstating certain claims against Metropolitan Life, MetLife
and the individual defendants.  The plaintiffs in these actions
have filed a consolidated amended complaint.

On Jan. 30, 2007, the trial court signed an order certifying a
litigation class for the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants
violated section 7312 of the New York Insurance Law, but denying
the plaintiffs' motion to certify a litigation class with
respect to a common law fraud claim.

The trial court has directed various forms of class notice.  The
plaintiffs have begun distributing various forms of class
notice.

In July 2008, the defendants served their motion for summary
judgment, according to MetLife's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Improper Sales Practices Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.,
is still facing two purported class-action lawsuits alleging
improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance
policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products.

The two putative class-action suits involving sales practices
claims are pending against MLIC in Canada.  They are:

      1. "Jacynthe Evoy-Larouche v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
         (Que. Super. Ct., filed March 1998)," and

      2. "Ace Quan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Ont. Gen.
         Div., filed April 1997)."

In "Larouche," the plaintiff alleges misrepresentations
regarding dividends and future payments for life insurance
policies and seeks unspecified damages.

In "Quan," the plaintiff alleges breach of contract and
negligent misrepresentations relating to, among other things,
life insurance premium payments and seeks damages, including
punitive damages.

MetLife, Inc., reported no development regarding the cases in
its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Medical Provider Lawsuits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co., a subsidiary
of MetLife, Inc., is still facing several class-action lawsuits
relating to medical providers.

Two such putative nationwide class-action complaints have been
separately filed before the Illinois Circuity Court, Madison
County, on Feb. 26 and July 2, 2003.  Both are similarly
entitled as "Shipley v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. and
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co."

One suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged
underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of a
purportedly biased provider fee pricing system.  A motion for
class certification has been filed and briefed and is scheduled
to be heard in August 2008.

The second lawsuit alleges breach of contract arising from the
alleged use of preferred provider organizations to reduce
medical provider fees covered by the medical claims portion of
the insurance policy.  A motion for class certification has been
filed and briefed.

A third putative nationwide class-action lawsuit relating to the
payment of medical providers -- "Innovative Physical Therapy,
Inc. v. MetLife Auto & Home, et ano (D. N.J., filed Nov. 12,
2007)" -- has been filed against Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Insurance Co. in federal court in New Jersey.  A motion
to dismiss has been filed and briefed.

MetLife, Inc. reported no development regarding the matter in
its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors are facing a consolidated securities fraud class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

On March 28, 2008, the City of Ann Arbor Employees Retirement
System filed a complaint in the District of Minnesota against
the company and three of its officers.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and
alleges against company officers violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The suit alleges failure to adequately disclose, in a timely
manner, the nature and risks of the company's investments, as
well as unrealized losses and other-than-temporary impairments
related to certain of the company's investments.  The suit also
seeks recovery of losses incurred by stockholder class members
in connection with their purchases of the company's securities.

In April 2008, three others, Willie R. Pittman, Edward J.
Goodman Life Income Trust, and Manzoor Hussain, separately
filed complaints in the same court, making substantially the
same claims.  The Goodman matter names the company and four of
its officers and certain members of its board of directors.

Subsequent to June 30, 2008, the four cases were consolidated by
the court under the caption, "In re MoneyGram International,
Inc. Securities Litigation," according to the company's Aug. 13,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:08-cv-00883-DSD-JJG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge David S.
Doty, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com)
          Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
          651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
          Phone: 612-341-0400
          Fax: 612-341-0844

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          (jangelovich@npraustin.com)
          Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP
          205 Linda Dr
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Phone: 903-645-7333

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael J. Bleck, Esq. (mbleck@oppenheimer.com)
          Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP
          45 S 7th St, Ste 3300
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-607-7264
          Fax: 612-607-7100


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces Lawsuit in Minnesota Over Euronet Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Minnesota over an offer from Euronet Worldwide, Inc.,
to buy the company.

On Dec. 19, 2007, L.A. Murphy filed a complaint in Hennepin
County District Court, alleging a breach of fiduciary duties for
refusal to investigate an offer from Euronet Worldwide to buy
the company.

The complaint requested injunctive relief.  The court denied the
plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order to block
the Capital Transaction.

On April 3, 2008, the plaintiff subsequently amended her
complaint, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control,
mismanagement and corporate waste against various of the
company's officers and directors.

The complainant seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and
contribution and indemnification from defendants for the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty, according to the company's Aug. 13,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2008.

MoneyGram International, Inc. -- http://www.moneygram.com/-- is
a global payment services company that offers its products and
services to consumers and businesses primarily through its
network of agents and financial institution customers.  The
products and services it offers enable consumers to make
payments and to transfer money around the world.  The company's
business is conducted through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Travelers Express Company, Inc.  It conducts its business
through two segments: Global Funds Transfer and Payment Systems.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: ERISA Violations Suit Still Pending in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc., is still facing a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On April 22, 2008, Delilah Morrison, on behalf of herself and
all other MoneyGram 401(k) Plan participants, brought the action
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The complaint alleges claims under ERISA, including claims that
the defendants breached fiduciary duties by failing to manage
the plan's investment in company stock, and by continuing to
offer company stock as an investment option when the stock was
no longer a prudent investment.

It also alleges that the defendants failed to provide complete
and accurate information regarding company stock sufficient to
advise plan participants of the risks involved with investing in
company stock and breached fiduciary duties by failing to avoid
conflicts of interests and to properly monitor the performance
of plan fiduciaries and fiduciary appointees.

Finally, the complaint alleges that to the extent that the
company is not a fiduciary, it is liable for knowingly
participating in the fiduciary breaches as alleged.

For relief, the complainant seeks damages based on what the most
profitable alternatives to company stock would have yielded,
unspecified equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

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

The suit is "Morrison v. MoneyGram International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 0:08-cv-01121-PJS-JJG," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Shawn M. Perry, Esq. (shawn.perry@pppllp.com)
          Perry & Perry, PLLP
          5401 Gamble Dr. Ste. 270
          Mpls, MN 55416
          Phone: 952-546-3555

Representing the defendants is:

          Stephen P. Lucke, Esq. (lucke.steve@dorsey.com)
          Dorsey & Whitney LLP
          50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
          Mpls, MN 55402-1498
          Phone: 612-343-7947
          Fax: 612-340-8800


PLAYLOGIC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Copy Protection Software Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Playlogic Entertainment, Inc., is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The lawsuit against Playlogic, filed on June 26, 2007, is in
connection with alleged damages as a result of copy protection
software included in Age of Pirates – Caribbean Tales.

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

The suit is "Gindling v. Playlogic Entertainment, Inc., Case No.
1:07-cv-05610-JSR," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Jed S. Rakoff, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Oren Giskan, Esq. (ogiskan@gslawny.com)
          Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson, LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-847-8315
          Fax: 212-473-8096

               - and -

          Scott Adam Kamber, Esq. (skamber@kolaw.com)
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-920-3072
          Fax: 212-202-6364


RIDLEY INC: Reaches Partial Settlement in BSE Class Action Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
     WATERLOO, ON, Sept. 29, 2008 -- Crawford Class Action
Services reports that a national partial class action settlement
agreement has been reached between the plaintiffs and Ridley
Inc. relating to class action lawsuits that were commenced in
Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta in 2005.

     The lawsuits alleged that Ridley Inc. manufactured infected
feed fed to a cow diagnosed with bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) on May 20, 2003.  The Settlement does not
constitute any admission of liability by Ridley Inc. who
denies wrongdoing on its part.

     The court in Ontario has also certified the action as a
class action against the government of Canada, but the
government is seeking leave to appeal the certification order.

     Notice will be provided of the Ontario court's
certification of the BSE class action against the government of
Canada if the certification decision is not overruled on appeal.

     Ridley Inc., headquartered in Mankato, Minnesota and
Winnipeg, Manitoba, is one of North America's leading commercial
animal nutrition companies.  Ridley manufactures and distributes
a full range of animal nutrition products under a number of
highly regarded trade names.


WACHOVIA: Class Members Have Legal Options to Explore, TGN Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
     CORAL GABLES, Florida, Sept. 29, 2008 -- The Securities
Arbitration Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA, makes an
announcement to prospective class members of class action
lawsuit (Case No. 08 CV 6171) against Wachovia.

     Prospective class members need to determine which legal
process is more suitable for them to recover losses, either a
class action or an individual securities arbitration filed with
FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

     Investors can pursue a securities arbitration claim with
case facts that go beyond the scope of the allegations made in
the class action lawsuit, which represent FINRA sales practice
violations.  The securities arbitration process may provide an
opportunity for individual investors to recover a greater
percentage of their investment losses . Investors must "opt-out"
of a class action lawsuit in order to pursue a securities
arbitration claim, otherwise investors are excluded from this
legal option.

For more information, contact:

          David Chacin, Esq.
          Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA
          2100 Ponce De Leon Boulevard
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: 800-578-0137
          Web site:
http://www.stockmarketlosslawyer.com/securities-concentration.htm


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Class Has Legal Options to Explore, TGN Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
     CORAL GABLES, Florida, Sept. 29, 2008 -- The Securities
Arbitration Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA, makes an
announcement to prospective class members of class action
lawsuit (Case No. 07 CV 09801) against Washington Mutual (NYSE:
WM).

     Prospective class members need to determine which legal
process is more suitable for them to recover losses, either a
class action or an individual securities arbitration filed with
FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

     Investors can pursue a securities arbitration claim with
case facts that go beyond the scope of the allegations made in
the class action lawsuit, which represent FINRA sales practice
violations.  The securities arbitration process may provide an
opportunity for individual investors to recover a greater
percentage of their investment losses.  Investors must "opt-out"
of a class action lawsuit in order to pursue a securities
arbitration claim, otherwise investors are excluded from this
legal option.

For more information, contact:

          David Chacin, Esq.
          Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA
          2100 Ponce De Leon Boulevard
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: 800-578-0137
          Web site:
http://www.stockmarketlosslawyer.com/securities-concentration.htm


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Brualdi Law Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 26, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.,
commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce common stock during the
period between May 31, 2007, and May 28, 2008, for violations of
federal securities laws.

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


FANNIE MAE: Underwriters Charged with Securities Fraud in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 29, 2008 -- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman
& Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against these underwriters:

     -- J. P. Morgan Securities, Inc.;
     -- Lehman Brothers, Inc. (Pink Sheets:LEHMQ);
     -- Banc of America Securities LLC;
     -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; and
     -- Goldman Sachs & Co.

     The suit also names as defendants certain officers of these
companies.

     The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The class action was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Federal National Mortgage Association's (a/k/a
Fannie Mae's) $2.25 billion offering of 8.75% Non-Cumulative
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock, Series 2008-1 on or about
May 14, 2008, through September 5, 2008.

     The Offering involved the sale of approximately 45 million
shares of non-cumulative, convertible preferred stock.  It was
part of Fannie Mae's effort to raise at least $6 billion in new
capital through public offerings of new securities during May,
2008.  The new capital was to help shore up the Company's
balance sheet so that capital requirements could continue to be
satisfied, enhance shareholder value and provide stability to
the secondary mortgage market.  Fannie Mae's senior officers,
defendants here, repeatedly assured the marketplace that this
round of capital-raising would put the company on a sound
financial footing and that they believed that additional
infusions of cash would not be necessary for the foreseeable
future.

     The five Underwriter Defendants were the underwriters for
the Offering.  As such, they participated in the review and
drafting of the Offering Circular, which was the official sales
document for the Offering, solicited sales of the Offer, and
identified themselves, on the cover of the Offering Circular, as
the underwriters for the Offering.  The Underwriter Defendants
purchased 45 million shares of the Offering, delivered the
Offering Circular to prospective investors, and resold those
shares to investors in the Offering.

     The complaint alleges that the Underwriter Defendants'
statements made in connection with the Offering were materially
false and misleading because:

     (a) they grossly overstated Fannie Mae's capitalization,
         claiming that the Company had a substantial capital
         surplus when, in fact, it was including on its balance
         sheet, at full value, about $36 billion in deferred tax
         assets that were, in fact, valueless;

     (b) they failed to disclose the serious risk that current
         account changes under consideration by the FASB could
         force the Company to bring over $2 trillion of
         currently off-balance-sheet obligations onto its
         financial statements, depleting its capital surplus
         even further; and

     (c) the individual defendants falsely asserted that
         management believed that the current securities
         offerings of the company would be adequate to see the
         Company through the end of the year.

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

For more information, contact:

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


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Klayman & Toskes Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 26, 2008 -- The Securities Law Firm of
Klayman & Toskes has commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf
of purchasers of Federal National Mortgage Association
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 Fannie Mae
preferred shares, including Series Q (NYSE: FNM-PQ), Series R
(NYSE: FNM-PR), Series S (NYSE: FNM-PS), and Series T (NYSE:
FNM-PT), as safe, stable fixed-income investments. Fannie Mae
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 Fannie Mae 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 Fannie Mae is a quasi-governmental
enterprise, some investors were told by their full-service
brokers that if Fannie Mae 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 Fannie Mae preferred shares are not afforded
protection or insurance from the federal government.

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: Brualdi Law Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 19, 2008  -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Novatel Wireless Inc. securities during the period between
February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008, for violations of federal
securities laws.

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

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

     Over three months later, on August 19, 2008, defendants
admitted that the review was still ongoing, that it involved at
least six transactions representing $9.1 million in revenue, and
that when the review was completed a decision would be made as
to whether a restatement would be required.  As a result of
these disclosures, Novatel's stock price dropped from $8.40 to
$6.29 the next day, a 25% decline.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days
from September 16, 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: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BALA CYNWYD, Pennsylvania, Sept. 24, 2008 -- Law offices of
Brodsky & Smith, LLC, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of The Spectranetics Corp. between April 19, 2007, and
September 4, 2008.

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

     The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Spectranetics.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 28-29, 2008
  SUBPRIME LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT
    American Conference Institute
      Millennium Broadway\u2008Hotel
        New York, New York
          Phone: 888-224-2480

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 4-5, 2008
  FOOD\u2010BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      TBC, Phoenix, Arizona
        Phone: 888-224-2480

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *