CAR_Public/081014.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, October 14, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 204
  
                            Headlines

ADVANTAGE GENERAL: Faces Calif. Suit Over Labor Code Violations
AMARANTH ADVISORS: N.Y. Court Allows Investors to Pursue Claims
ANALOG DEVICES: Gainey & McKenna Counsel to 401(k) Suit in Mass.
DIEBOLD INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
DIEBOLD INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Securities Suit

DOLLAR GENERAL: Discovery Ongoing in Tenn. Suit Over Buck Merger
ESCALA GROUP: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 2
FANNIE MAE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Set Nov. 7
FORCE PROTECTION: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in S.C.
H&R BLOCK: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Lawsuit v. RSM Subsidiary

H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
H&R BLOCK: Settles Penn. Suit Over Electronic Filing Fees
H&R BLOCK: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Peace of Mind Program
LIFE INVESTORS: Sued in Miss. Over Radiation Therapy Non-Payment
MAXIM INTEGRATED: California Securities Fraud Litigation Stayed

MEDTRONIC INC: Seeks Dismissal of Minn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PEOPLESUPPORT INC: Has MOU to Settle Suit on Planned Essar Deal
PETTERS GROUP: Zimmerman Reed Files Suit on Behalf of Investors
POMEROY IT: David Pomeroy Withdraws Offer, Related Suit Junked
QUEST RESOURCE: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 4

REGIONS MORGAN: 401(k) ERISA Class Consolidated in Tenn. Court
ROADTRIPS INC: Faces Tex. Suit Over Beijing Olympics Tickets
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Nov. 24
TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Middleby Deal
WYNN LAS VEGAS: High Court Upholds Dismissal of Dealers' Suit

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTEC INC: Glancy Binkow Files Fla. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BIOVAIL CORP: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing
BIOVAIL CORP: Izard Nobel Announces Suit Filed in N.Y.
CANO PETROLEUM: Federman & Sherwood Announces N.Y. Suit Filing
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: KGS Announces Ariz. Suit Filing
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********


ADVANTAGE GENERAL: Faces Calif. Suit Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advantage General Construction is facing a class-action
complaint filed in Ventura County Court, Calif., alleging it
violated the Labor Code, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The CourtHouse News Service did not report any updates to the
case.


AMARANTH ADVISORS: N.Y. Court Allows Investors to Pursue Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, citing the risky nature of
speculations, allowed investors to proceed with claims that
Amaranth abused its dominant market position to manipulate the
price of natural gas futures on the New York Mercantile
Exchange, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiffs have filed this putative class action on behalf of a
class of all entities that purchased, sold, or held natural gas
futures or options on futures contracts between Feb. 16, 2006
and Sept. 28, 2006 against the Amaranth family of companies, its
brokers, its clearing house firm, and certain of their
employees.

Plaintiffs allege that during the class period, defendants
manipulated the prices of NYMEX natural gas futures contracts in
violation of Sections 6(c), 6(d) and 9(a)(2) of the Commodity
Exchange Act (CEA).

Defendants then moved to dismiss the case.  Recently, Judge
Scheindlin dismissed and granted in part the defendants'
motions.  Judge Scheindlin allowed the plaintiffs to pursue
their claim that Amaranth manipulated the settlement prices
while rejecting the defendants' argument that they never
directly manipulated any contract or underlying commodity.

She dismissed all claims that did not relate to the alleged
manipulation of settlement prices, stating that those plaintiffs
who have failed to allege that they were injured by the
manipulation have not stated claims. Similarly, as the complaint
currently stands, the class period cannot begin earlier than
February 23, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litigation,
Case No. 07 Civ. 6377," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of New York.


ANALOG DEVICES: Gainey & McKenna Counsel to 401(k) Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey & McKenna and Squiteri & Fearon, LLP are counsel to the
Plaintiff and the proposed class of all participants in the
Analog Devices, Inc. Investment Partnership Plan (the 401(k) who
purchased or held shares of Analog stock in the Plan at any time
between October 5, 2000 and the present.

They have filed a class action in the United States District
Court for District of Massachusetts which arises from the
options backdating at Analog and alleges that Analog and other
fiduciaries of the Plan violated their fiduciary duties to the
Plan's participants.

The lawsuit alleges that Analog and certain individuals who were
responsible for managing and administering the Plan failed to
disclose important information to the participants of the Plan,
including information about Analog's improper backdating of
stock options, and violated their fiduciary duties. The lawsuit
alleges that the violations of fiduciary duty caused losses to
the Plan and to the participants who invested in Analog stock.

Recently, the Court issued an important decision which denied
the Company's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. In particular, the
decision denied Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss and
sustained most of the claims in the action except for the claims
against three of the individuals who had been named as
fiduciaries -- Defendants Fuller, Johnsen and McAloon.

For more information, contact:

          T.J. McKenna
          Gainey & McKenna
          297 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 983-1300
          e-mail: tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com


DIEBOLD INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold, Inc. is facing a consolidated class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

Initially, several purported class actions were filed against
the company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, by shareholders and participants in the company's
401(k) savings plan, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties with
respect to the 401(k) plan.

These complaints seek compensatory damages in an unspecific
amount, fees and expenses related to such lawsuits and the
granting of extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief.

The suits are:

       -- "McDermott v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV170
          (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 24, 2006)."

       -- "Barnett v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV361 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 15, 2006)."

       -- "Farrell v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV307 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 8, 2006)."

       -- "Forbes v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV324 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 10, 2006)."

       -- "Gromek v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV579 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed March 14, 2006)."

The McDermott, Barnett, Farrell, Forbes and Gromek cases, which
allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the
401(k) plan, have been consolidated into a single proceeding,
according to the company's Sept. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re: Diebold ERISA Litigation, Case No. 5:06-cv-
00170-PCE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Judge Peter C. Economus, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John R. Climaco, Esq. (jrclim@climacolaw.com)
          Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli
          Ste. 1950
          55 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-621-8484
          Fax: 216-771-1632

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. (mgyandoh@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants are:

          Donald L. Havermann, Esq. (dhavermann@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 202-739-5072
          Fax: 202-739-3001
          

               - and -

          John M. Newman, Jr., Esq. (jmnewman@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-586-7207
          Fax: 216-579-0212


DIEBOLD INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "In re: Diebold Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:2005cv02873," are appealing the dismissal
of the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Initially, several purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
Diebold, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers
and directors, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.

These complaints seek compensatory damages in an unspecific
amount, fees and expenses related to such lawsuits and the
granting of extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief.

The lawsuits are:

       -- "Konkol v. Diebold Inc., et al., No. 5:05CV2873 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Dec. 13, 2005)."

       -- "Ziolkowski v. Diebold Inc., et al., No. 5:05CV2912
          (N.D. Ohio, filed Dec. 16, 2005)."

       -- "New Jersey Carpenter's Pension Fund v. Diebold, Inc.,
          No. 5:06CV40 (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 6, 2006)."

       -- "Rein v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV296 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 9, 2006)."

       -- "Graham v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No.5:05CV2997 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Dec. 30, 2005)."

The Konkol, Ziolkowski, New Jersey Carpenter's Pension Fund,
Rein and Graham cases, which allege violations of the federal
securities laws, have been consolidated into a single
proceeding.  

On Aug. 22, 2008, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint in the consolidated securities litigation and entered
a judgment in favor of the defendants.  

On Sept. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
litigation filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, according to the company's Sept.
30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re: Diebold Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:2005cv02873," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of Ohio, Judge Peter C. Economus, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Lauren S. Antonino, Esq.
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

          Lauren Block, Esq. (lblock@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg, Weiss & Bershad
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-631-8630
          Fax: 212-868-1229

               - and -

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli
          Ste. 1950
          55 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-621-8484
          Fax: 216-771-1632
          e-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          John M. Newman, Jr., Esq.
          Jones Day
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-586-7207
          Fax: 216-579-0212
          e-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Discovery Ongoing in Tenn. Suit Over Buck Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated class action filed
against Dollar General Corp. over its agreement and plan of
merger with Buck Holdings L.P. and Buck Acquisition Corp.

Initially, seven purported class action s were filed. The suits
alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the
proposed sale of the company to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
L.P., the parent of Buck Holdings and Buck Acquisition.  

Each of the complaints alleged, among other things, that Dollar
General's directors engaged in "self-dealing" by agreeing to
recommend the transaction to the shareholders of Dollar General
and that the consideration available to Dollar General
shareholders in the proposed transaction is unfairly low.

At the plaintiffs' request, each of these cases was transferred
to the Sixth Circuit Court for Davidson County, Twentieth
Judicial District, at Nashville, Tenn.  Then by order dated
April 26, 2007, the seven lawsuits were consolidated in the
court under the caption, "In re: Dollar General, Case No. 07MD-
1."

The Court then denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary
injunction to block the shareholder vote that was then held on
June 21, 2007.  

On June 22, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint
making claims substantially similar to those in the original
complaint.  The matter is currently in discovery.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
3, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2008.

Dollar General Corp. -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a  
discount retailer of general merchandise at everyday low prices.  
Through its stores, the Company offers a focused assortment of
basic consumable merchandise, including health and beauty aids,
packaged food and refrigerated products, home cleaning supplies,
housewares, stationery, seasonal goods, basic clothing and
domestics.  Dollar General stores serve primarily low-, middle-
and fixed-income families.


ESCALA GROUP: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set a Dec. 2, 2008 hearing for the final approval of the
proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re: Escala Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 06-CV-3518 (AKH)."

The complaint was filed in May 2006 on behalf of shareholders
and seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who acquired Escala securities from
Sept. 5, 2003 through and including May 8, 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 22, 2007).

It claims that Escala and a number of individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and 78t of the Commerce
and Trade Code, and SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 240.10b-5 of Title
17 of the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Escala is a New York City-based global collectibles merchant and
auction house network.  On Sept. 28, 2005, Escala announced that
it had changed its name from Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., to
Escala Group, Inc.  Prior to the name change, Escala traded on
the Nasdaq under the symbol GMAI.

According to the plaintiff's complaint, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, and/or omitted
material facts necessary to make those statements not
misleading, concerning Escala's financial results throughout the
class period.   

Among other things, defendants:

     -- claimed they were achieving record results, which were  
        actually achieved in part as a result of questionable  
        and potentially illegal activities of the company's  
        majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A.  
        of Spain;

     -- failed to maintain adequate internal systems,  
        procedures, and controls such that the company's  
        officers and directors were able to allow these  
        questionable and potentially illegal activities to  
        continue; and

     -- did not prepare Escala's financial statements in  
        accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting  
        Principles or SEC regulations.

On May 9, 2006, news emerged that Spanish officials had raided
the Madrid offices of Escala and its majority shareholder,
Afinsa, concerning what Spanish authorities described as a
glorified pyramid scheme.  Nine people have since been arrested
in Spain in relation to the scheme.

In reaction to this news, Escala's stock fell by approximately   
85% on heavy trading over the next few days while news continued
to be released regarding the alleged pyramid scheme.

On July 10, 2006, competing motions for consolidation of related
cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel
were filed with the court.   

On Aug. 29, 2006, a hearing on these motions was held and on
Aug. 31, 2006 Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein signed an order
consolidating all related actions into one class action,
entitled "In re Escala Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 06-cv-3518," and appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

On Oct. 13, 2006, lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
class action complaint.  On Dec. 18, 2006 defendant's filed
their motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted preliminary approval to a
settlement reached in the matter.  The settlement is subject to
various conditions, including notice to the class and final
approval by the court.

The proposed settlement of the class-action lawsuit provides for
the company to contribute an aggregate of $6 million in cash and
4 million newly issued shares of its stock to a settlement fund
for the benefit of the class; provided that if the average
closing price per share on the scheduled date of distribution is
less than $2, the company will issue additional shares so that
the total value of the shares issued is $8 million.  

In the event the average closing price per share on the
scheduled date of distribution is below $2 (and in certain other
circumstances), the company has the right to substitute cash for
stock.  A substantial portion of the cash contribution will be
funded by insurers.  

The settlement hearing for both proposed settlements will be
held on Dec. 2, 2008, at 4:00 p.m., before Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, according to the company's Oct. 3, 2008 Form 8-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 19, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Escala Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 06-CV-3518 (AKH)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue
          14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714

               - and -

          Roy Laurence Jacobs, Esq. (rljacobs@pipeline.com)
          Paskowitz & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street
          46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 867-1156
          Fax: (212) 504-8343

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur Harlod Aufses, III, Esq.
          (aaufses@kramerlevin.com)
          Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-715-9234
          Fax: 212-715-8000

               - and -

          Thomas Louis Kent, Esq. (thomaskent@paulhastings.com)
          Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
          75 East 55th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212)-318-6060
          Fax: (212)-230-7899


FANNIE MAE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Set Nov. 7
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP reminds investors of
Federal National Mortgage Association a.k.a Fannie Mae's
$2 billion offering of 8.25% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series T that were initially offered to the public on or about
May 13, 2008 (the Class Period), through September 6, 2008, that
November 7, 2008 is the deadline to petition the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.

The class includes investors who purchased shares on the
offering or afterwards, in the market. The Preferred Shares
traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Pomerantz filed a class
action in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, against:

     -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated;
     -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.;
     -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated;
     -- UBS Securities LLC ; and
     -- Wachovia Capital Markets LLC;

(collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants"); and four senior
executives of the company.

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 Offering involved the sale of approximately 80 million
shares of non-cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate
preferred stock, at an offering price of $25 per share. 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 managing 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 shares, and
identified themselves, on the cover of the Offering Circular, as
the underwriters for the Offering. The Underwriter Defendants
purchased 14 million shares each 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.

For more information, contact:

          Teresa Webb
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: (888) 476.6529 or (888) 4.POMLAW
          e-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com


FORCE PROTECTION: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Force Protection, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities fraud
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina, according to the company's Sept. 30, 2008 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On March 10, 2008, the first of 10 related class actions was
filed against the company and certain of its former and current
board members or officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on behalf of a proposed class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities during the period between Aug. 14, 2006 and Feb. 29,
2008.

The complaints seek class certification, and the allegations
include but are not limited to allegations that the defendants
violated the Exchange Act and made false or misleading public
statements and/or omissions concerning our business, internal
controls, and financial results.  

The plaintiffs assert that as a result of the defendants'
allegedly wrongful acts and omissions, members of the proposed
class have suffered significant losses and damages.

The individual class-action lawsuits were consolidated on June
10, 2008 under caption "In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH."

On June 20, 2008 a group of investors consisting of the
Laborers' Annuity and Benefit System of Chicago, Gary Trautman,
David J. Jager, Bhadra Shah, Panteli Poulikakos, George
Poulikakos, and Niki Poulikakos was appointed lead plaintiff.

The suit is "In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina, Judge C. Weston Houck,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. (jblock@bermanesq.com)
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo
          1 Liberty Square
          Eighth Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 615-542-8300

               - and -

          Jason S. Cowart, Esq. (jscowart@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross
          110 Park Avenue
          26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-661-1100

Representing the defendants are:

          Benjamin Lee, Esq. (blee@kslaw.com)
          King and Spalding
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-572-2820

               - and -

          Eleni Maria Roumel, Esq.    
          (eleni.roumel@nelsonmullins.com)
          Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough
          P.O. Box 1806
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Phone: 843-853-5200


H&R BLOCK: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Lawsuit v. RSM Subsidiary
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class action filed
with the California Superior Court, Orange County regarding
business valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc.

The suit is "Do Right's Plant Growers v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., RSM
McGladrey, Inc., H&R Block, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. 06 CC00137," filed on July 11, 2006.

The complaint contains allegations regarding business valuation
services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., including fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
fiduciary duty and unfair competition and seeks unspecified
damages, restitution and equitable relief.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
3, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial  
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.  


H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "In re H&R Block Securities
Litigation," are appealing the dismissal of their case against
H&R Block Inc.

On April 6, 2007, a putative class action styled, "In re H&R
Block Securities Litigation," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company
and certain of its officers.

The complaint alleged, among other things, deceptive, material
and misleading financial statements, failure to prepare
financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and concealment of the potential for
lawsuits stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the
company's operations.  It sought unspecified damages and
equitable relief.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint and granted
the plaintiffs leave to re-file the portion of the complaint
pertaining to the Company's financial statements.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed the complaint,
alleging, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading
financial statements and failure to prepare financial statements
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

At the defendant's behest, the court dismissed the re-filed
complaint on Feb. 19, 2008.  On March 11, 2008, the plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
3, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008.

The suit is "In Re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-
0236-CV-W-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles F. Speer, Esq. (cspeer@speerlawfirm.com)
          Speer Law Firm
          104 West 9th Street, Suite 305
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-472-3560
          Fax: 816-421-2150
          
               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714

Representing the defendants are:

          Sameer Advani, Esq. (sadvani@willkie.com)
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 7thAvenue
          New York, NY 10019-6099
          Phone: 212-728-8000
          Fax: 212-728-8111

               - and -

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-320-4858
          Fax: 650-565-5100

   
H&R BLOCK: Settles Penn. Suit Over Electronic Filing Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc., reached a settlement in the matter, "Erin M.
McNulty and Brian J. Erzar v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No.
02-CIV-4654," which was filed in the Court of Common Please of
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.

The suit, filed on Aug. 30, 2002, contains allegations that the
defendants deceptively portray electronic filing fees as a
necessary and required component of standard tax preparation
services and do not inform tax preparation clients that they
may:

       -- file tax returns free of charge by mailing the
          returns,
    
       -- electronically file tax returns from personal
          computers either free of charge are at significantly
          lower fees, and

       -- be eligible to electronically file tax returns free of
          charge via telephone.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and disgorgement of
all electronic filing, tax preparation and related fees
collected during the applicable class period.  

Class certification was granted in the case on Sept. 5, 2007.

In March 2008, the company reached a tentative agreement to
settle the suit for an amount not to exceed $2.5 million and
have accrued $1.7 million, representing the company's best
estimate of ultimate loss.  

The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on June
27, 2008, with a final fairness hearing scheduled for September
2008.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
3, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial  
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.  


H&R BLOCK: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Peace of Mind Program
----------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., a unit of H&R Block, Inc., is
still facing purported class actions in Illinois and Texas in
relation to the its Peace of Mind (POM) Program.

                      Illinois Litigation

One of the cases is the purported class action, "Lorie J.
Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil
Action 2003L000004," which was filed in the Circuit Court of
Madison County, Illinois.

The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2002 and granted class-action
status on Aug. 27, 2003.  The plaintiffs' claims consist of five
counts relating to the POM Program under which the applicable
tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for
additional tax assessments attributable to tax return
preparation error.

The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees
constitutes:

      -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license;

      -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it); and

      -- a breach of fiduciary duty.

In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes
consisting of all persons who from Jan. 1, 1997 to final
judgment:

      -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant H&R Block class member;

      -- reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R
         Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and

      -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block
Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded
from the plaintiff class.  

The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any
entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are
otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product.  

The trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion to
certify class certification issues for interlocutory appeal.
Discovery is proceeding.  No trial date has been set.

                       Texas Litigation

There is one other putative class action pending against the
company in Texas that involves the POM guarantee.

This case involves the same plaintiffs' attorneys that are
involved in the Marshall litigation, and contains similar
allegations.  No class has been certified in this case.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
3, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial  
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.  


LIFE INVESTORS: Sued in Miss. Over Radiation Therapy Non-Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Investors Insurance of America (fka Equity National Life
Insurance) is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi alleging
it refuses in bad faith to pay for radiation therapy for cancer
sufferers, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all Mississippi  residents
injured as of April 1, 2006 under Life Investors Insurance
Company of America (fka Equity National Life Insurance), cancer
policy form ENCAN2, ENCAN3, all riders thereto, and other
"similar policies" as defined in the complaint. The "similar
policies" means a Life Investors or Equity National policy
providing benefits for the treatment of cancer where benefits
are calculated on "actual charges" made or some multiple
thereof.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether under Mississippi insurance law the undefined
         term "actual charges" in the defendants' cancer
         policies, upon which benefits are based, means the
         amount of the actual charged billed by healthcare
         providers, as has been the practice since issuance of
         the policies, or the reduced amount ultimately accepted
         by providers from other insurance of third-party
         payors;

     (b) whether defendant's prior standard practice and uniform
         course of conduct establishes that the term "actual
         charges" in the policy means and refers to the amount
         billed by healthcare providers for treatments;

     (c) whether class members are entitled to a declaratory
         judgment holding that "actual charges" with respect to
         policy benefits for claims are amounts on the billing
         statements showing actual amounts charged, as opposed
         to the reduced amounts subsequently paid to said
         providers by third-party payors s reflected in EOBs or
         similar statements;

     (d) whether defendant has systematically refused and/or
         failed to pay the proper amount of "actual charges" as
         that term is properly applied;

     (e) whether defendant systematically notified plaintiff and
         members of the class by way of notices that it would
         refuse to pay benefits in the amount of "actual
         charges" as reflected in healthcare provider billing
         statements;

     (f) whether the letter was an anticipatory repudiation of
         certain obligations arising under its Cancer Only
         Policies with class members;

     (g) whether defendant has systematically refused and/or
         failed to pay the proper amount of "actual charges" as
         that term is properly defined;

     (h) whether class members who have been paid reduced
         amounts based on the defendant's new interpretation and
         practice are entitled to recover the difference by
         which the amounts of their benefits were reduced;

     (i) whether defendant's unilateral change in benefits was
         contrary to its contractual obligations under its
         contract for insurance and its implied duties of good
         faith and fair dealing under Mississippi law; and

     (j) whether the actions of defendant were intentional and
         of such a nature as to render the said defendant
         liable, under Mississippi law, for punitive damages in
         an amount sufficient to punish the wrongdoers, to deter
         similar conduct by the defendant in the future, and to
         serve as an example to deter like conduct by others, in
         addition to actual damages.

Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action
        and certifying an appropriate class pursuant to Rule 23
        of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- appointing named plaintiff as lead plaintiff and his
        counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- granting declaratory relief in the form of an Order of
        this Court, declaring the rights and liabilities of the
        parties under the subject contracts of insurance;

     -- granting injunctive relief in the form of an Order
        addressing the conduct of the defendant as requested, or
        in such other manner as the court deems appropriate;

     -- awarding the members of the class actual damages in the
        amounts shown by mathematical computation of the same in
        accordance with the ruling of the court regarding
        Mississippi law and the obligations of the defendant
        under the contracts of insurance, and for the costs of
        prosecuting this action by the plaintiff and the class,
        including attorneys' fees and expenses;

     -- assessing punitive damages in an amount sufficient to
        punish the defendant and to serve as an example to deter
        similar conduct by the defendant or others in the future
        taking into consideration the factors and procedures set
        forth in "Philip Morris USA v. Williams," and other
        applicable law regarding the constitutionality and
        purposes of punitive damages, including the factors
        enumerated in the Mississippi Punitive Damage Statute;

     -- awarding named plaintiff her expenses and a reasonable
        sum by way of compensation for her actions in bringing
        the defendant to justice;

     -- awarding plaintiffs' costs, expenses and attorneys' fees
        incurred in connection with this action;

     -- awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as the
        court deems appropriate; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as the court
        deems just and proper, including imposition of a
        constructive trust and/or such extraordinary equitable
        relief as permitted by law, equity or statutory
        provisions as the court deems proper to prevent unjust
        enrichment of the defendant and to ensure that the
        plaintiff and all class members have an effective remedy
        for the damage caused and injury suffered as a result of
        the defendant's wrongdoing.

The suit is "lee Berta Brown et al v. Life Investors Insurance
Company, Civil Action No. 2:08cv217-P-S," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Richard T. Phillips, Esq.
          Jason L. Nabors, Esq.
          Smith, Phillips, Mitchell Scott & Nowak
          P.O. Drawer 1586
          Batesville, MS 38606
          Phone: (662) 563-4613
          Fax: (662) 563-1546


MAXIM INTEGRATED: California Securities Fraud Litigation Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities fraud class action that was filed against
Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. in California federal court has
been stayed.

On Feb. 6, 2008, a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against Maxim and
its former chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer.

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to
the grants of stock options.  It seeks, on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during the period from
April 29, 2003 to Jan. 17, 2008, unspecified damages, interest
and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and
disbursements.  

The action has been stayed pending completion of the restatement
of the company's consolidated financial statements, according to
the company's Sept. 30, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended  
June 28, 2008.

The suit is "In re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:08-cv-00832-JW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter Arthur Binkow, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -  

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (MChitwood@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Promenade II, Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476
          
Representing the defendants are:

          Thad Alan Davis, Esq. (thaddavis@quinnemanuel.com)
          Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP
          865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-443-3000

               - and -  

          David Michael Friedman, Esq. (david.friedman@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP
          505 Montgomery Street
          Suite 2000
          San Francisco, Ca 94111-2562
          Phone: (415) 391-0600
          Fax: (415) 395-8095


MEDTRONIC INC: Seeks Dismissal of Minn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., is seeking for the dismissal of the
consolidated complaint in the matter, "Medtronic, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-04564," which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On Nov. 8, 2007, a class-action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers, alleging violations of
Section 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaint is brought on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased securities of Medtronic during the period June 25,
2007, through Oct. 15, 2007.  It alleges that "materially false
and misleading" representations were made as to the market
acceptance and use of the Fidelis defibrillator leads to
artificially inflate Medtronic's stock price.

Pursuant to court order, the caption of the case was changed to
"Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation," and a consolidated
putative class action complaint was filed on April 18, 2008.  

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint with prejudice, and a hearing date is scheduled
for Nov. 5, 2008, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2008 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 25, 2008.

The suit is "Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No.
07- 04564," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert C. Finkel, Esq. (rfinkel@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 3rd Ave
          New York, NY 10022
          212-451-9620

               - and -

          Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. (rhagstrom@zelle.com)
          Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette
          500 Washington Ave. S. Ste. 4000
          Mpls, MN 55415
          Phone: 612-339-2020
          Fax: 612-339-9100

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
          WilmerHale LLP
          399 Park Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-937-7220

               - and -

          Patrick S. Williams, Esq. (pwilliams@briggs.com)
          Briggs & Morgan, PA
          80 S. 8th St. Ste. 2200
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-977-8400
          Fax: 612-977-8650


PEOPLESUPPORT INC: Has MOU to Settle Suit on Planned Essar Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
PeopleSupport Inc. reached a memorandum of understanding to
settle the consolidated class action, "In re PeopleSupport, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. BC396257," which was filed
in California state court in connection to a proposed merger
agreement between the company and Essar Services, according to
the company's Oct. 2, 2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 2,
2008.

On Sept. 11, 2008, PeopleSupport, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission its
definitive proxy statement relating to a special meeting of
stockholders to be held on Oct. 8, 2008 to consider and vote on
a proposal to adopt the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated Aug.
3, 2008, by and among PeopleSupport, Essar Services, Mauritius,
a company organized under the laws of Mauritius, and Easter
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Essar.

                        Shore Litigation

A purported class action, "Larry Shore v. PeopleSupport, Inc.,
et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County against PeopleSupport and the PeopleSupport Board
of Directors in connection with the merger.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

       -- the PeopleSupport Board of Directors violated its
          fiduciary duties to the PeopleSupport stockholders by
          approving the merger and certain terms of the merger
          agreement related to termination of the merger
          agreement set forth in Section 7.6 of the merger
          agreement and PeopleSupport's ability to consider or
          accept alternative proposals set forth in Section 5.2
          of the Merger Agreement,

       -- PeopleSupport aided and abetted the PeopleSupport
          Board of Directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duty
          and

       -- the merger consideration is unfair and inadequate for
          reasons including but not limited to a temporarily low
          stock price and a prior acquisition offer.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting PeopleSupport and ESM from consummating the merger,
rescission of the merger to the extent already implemented, and
attorneys' fees and expenses.

                       Maness Litigation

On Sept. 8, 2008, a purported class action, "Robert Maness v.
PeopleSupport, Inc. et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County naming as defendants
PeopleSupport and the PeopleSupport Board of Directors, along
with Essar and Merger Sub.  

The Maness complaint makes allegations similar to the Shore
complaint and in addition alleges that the Proxy Statement fails
to disclose certain information which the plaintiff alleges
renders the Proxy Statement materially incomplete and
misleading.

                   Consolidation & Settlement

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Shore and Maness cases were consolidated
under the caption, "In re PeopleSupport, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. BC396257."

On Oct. 2, 2008, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, which is subject to the approval of
PeopleSupport's Board of Directors, to settle each of the
lawsuits.  

PeopleSupport, Inc. -- http://www.peoplesupport.com/-- is an  
offshore business process outsourcing (BPO) provider offering
customer management, transcription and captioning, and
additional BPO services from its centers in the Philippines,
Costa Rica and the U.S.  The company provides outsourced
services to a range of primarily U.S.-based clients that operate
predominantly within the travel and consumer, financial
services, technology, telecommunications, healthcare, insurance
and media industries.  It offers a range of customer management
services through multiple integrated communications channels,
such as customer service, inbound sales, direct response sales
services and accounts receivable management services.  The
transcription services involve transcribing voice recordings
into customized client reports.  Its captioning services include
both real-time and offline captioning.  Its BPO services,
including credit application processing, mortgage processing,
title searches and data verification.


PETTERS GROUP: Zimmerman Reed Files Suit on Behalf of Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmerman Reed announced its filing of a class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

This lawsuit is filed on behalf of more than one hundred
individuals, including area pastors, schools, and founders and
supporters of charitable and non-profit organizations.

The named Plaintiffs in the action are two investment groups,
called AI Plus and IOC; the two investment groups filed on
behalf of the losses of their 110 members.

The Complaint also is brought as a class action, on behalf of
all other individuals and non-profits who invested in their
transactions using Metro Gem, Inc. as its broker.

     The Class Action Complaint names:

     -- Petters Group Worldwide,
     -- Petters Company, Inc. (PCI),
     -- Enchanted Family Buying Company,
     -- Nationwide International Resources, Inc.,
     -- Thomas Joseph Petters,
     -- Robert Dean White,
     -- Deanna Coleman,
     -- Michael Catain, and
     -- Larry Reynolds,

for violations of federal, state and common laws.

The complaint alleges that Petters and the other Defendants
perpetrated a fraudulent scheme upon investors, in violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices (RICO) Act, the
Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota
Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, the Minnesota Uniform Securities Act, Fraudulent
Inducement, Conversion, Accounting and Unjust Enrichment.

According to the Complaint, Defendants effectuated the
fraudulent scheme by creating fictitious documents, provided to
current and potential investors as evidence that PCI was buying
and selling substantial goods and merchandise for a profit.

These goods, however, never existed. The complaint also alleges
that Defendants fraudulently pledged the non-existent goods and
merchandise as security for the investments, so that investors
believed their investments were secured.

Plaintiffs are predominantly investors from the Twin City
community who are non-profit organizations, founders and
managers of charitable organizations, pastors, faith-based
schools and supporters who have strong ties to these
organizations. Most of these individuals have served their
community for decades. The investors and their families have
suffered devastating financial losses as a result of Defendants'
racketeering and illegal scheme to defraud. Many have lost their
life savings. Defendants targeted Plaintiffs and illegally
obtained Plaintiffs' money by using brokers and agents who were
trusted and known to the charities and non-profit community.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages and other remedies under
federal, state, and common law.

The suit is "AI Plus, Inc et al. v. Petters Group Worldwide et
al., Case Number: 0:2008cv05456," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Carolyn Glass Anderson
          Zimmerman Reed
          651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
          Phone: (612) 341-0400


POMEROY IT: David Pomeroy Withdraws Offer, Related Suit Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomeroy IT Solutions, a technology and services solutions
provider, announced that its Board of Directors received
confirmation from David B. Pomeroy, II, that the joint proposal
he made to acquire the Company, along with his ComVest
Investment Partners III LP, is withdrawn.

On May 22, 2008, the Company disclosed that its Board of
Directors had received a letter from Mr. Pomeroy, the Company's
founder and largest stockholder, proposing to acquire, with
ComVest as his financial partner, all of the outstanding common
stock of the Company not owned by him for a price of $6.00 per
share. Mr. Pomeroy has now informed the Board that he is no
longer pursuing the acquisition of the Company with ComVest and
that he does not intend to seek out another financial partner or
other alternative financing for such purpose. The non-binding
indication of interest from Mr. Pomeroy and ComVest had been
referred to a Special Committee for review. The Special
Committee that was formed to review Mr. Pomeroy's offer as well
as explore a range of other alternative transactions that could
enhance stockholder value will continue to review alternatives
presented to the Committee.

"Notwithstanding the efforts that the Special Committee may have
been engaged in relative to Mr. Pomeroy and ComVest, the Company
has remained focused on our primary goal of returning Pomeroy to
consistent profitability," said Keith Coogan, CEO and President
of Pomeroy IT Solutions.

The Company also announced the dismissal of the purported class
action complaint that was filed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky
Boone Circuit Court against the Company, its directors, two of
its executive officers, and ComVest. The plaintiff's complaint,
which alleged, among other things, that the directors and
officers of the Company were in breach of their fiduciary duties
to shareholders in connection with the letter that the Company
received from Mr. Pomeroy, proposing to acquire, with ComVest,
all of the outstanding stock of the Company not owned by him,
was, upon motions made to the Court by the various defendants,
dismissed without prejudice by an order entered in the case on
October 6, 2008.

"The Company and its directors believed that the allegations in
the complaint were without merit, that it was premature for a
shareholder action to be filed in response to our mere receipt
of an unsolicited, non-binding indication of interest to acquire
the Company, and the Court's dismissal of the case is the proper
result," commented Mr. Coogan.

Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.pomeroy.com-- is a  
leading provider of IT infrastructure solutions focused on
enterprise, network and end-user technologies. Leveraging its
core competencies in IT Outsourcing and Professional Services,
Pomeroy delivers consulting, deployment, operational, staffing
and product sourcing solutions through the disciplines of Six-
Sigma, program and project management, and industry best
practices. Pomeroy's consultative approach and adaptive
methodology enables Fortune 2000 corporations, government
entities, and mid-market clients to realize their business goals
and objectives by leveraging information technology to simplify
complexities, increase productivity, reduce costs, and improve
profitability.


QUEST RESOURCE: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC reminds shareholders that November 4,
2008 is the deadline to file lead plaintiff applications in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma.

The securities lawsuit is filed on behalf of purchasers of the
common units of Quest Energy Partners L.P. pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering
on November 7, 2007 through August 25, 2008, and all persons who
purchased the securities of Quest Resource Corporation between
May 2, 2005 and August 25, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          e-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com


REGIONS MORGAN: 401(k) ERISA Class Consolidated in Tenn. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Samuel H. Mays, Jr. consolidated the Regions
Morgan Keegan ERISA cases filed on behalf of the participants
and beneficiaries of the Regions Financial Corporation 401(k)
Plan, the AmSouth Bancorporation Thrift Plan and the Morgan
Keegan & Company Revised Profit Sharing and Retirement Plan.

The Court also appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Stember
Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC as Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the
proposed Class.

"In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litigation" is currently
pending in the United States District Court Western District of
Tennessee. The litigation is on behalf of a Class of all persons
who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans whose
accounts included investments in Regions Financial Corp. common
stock and/or whose accounts included investments in the Regions
Morgan Keegan Select Funds (RMK Select Funds), which
underperformed and had high fees, and/or whose accounts included
investments in the RMK Select Intermediate Bond Fund or the RMK
Select High Income Fund (RMK Bond Funds), which lost substantial
value because of over investment in high risk asset and mortgage
backed securities and CDOs.

Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Plans' participants and
beneficiaries by:

     (1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans'
         assets held in Regions common stock;

     (2) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans'
         assets held in the RMK Select Funds and/or the RMK Bond
         Funds;

     (3) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
         the Class;

     (4) failing to monitor fiduciaries; (5) co-fiduciary
         liability; and

     (6) engaging in prohibited transactions.

For more information, contact:

          Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          Phone: (800) 776-6044
          e-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com
          Web site: http://www.erisafraud.com


ROADTRIPS INC: Faces Tex. Suit Over Beijing Olympics Tickets
------------------------------------------------------------
3P http://www.courthousenews.com/

Roadtrips, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging
it cheated customers nationwide by selling "guaranteed" tickets
to the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies and failing to
produce them, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiffs file this Class Action seeking damages on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated for breach of
contract. Plaintiffs and all Class Members purchased tickets to
the Opening Ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics from Defendant
Roadtrips.

Roadtrips allegedly solicited numerous customers throughout the
United States and the world to purchase "guaranteed" ticket and
travel packages for the Beijing Olympics. Roadtrips allegedly
failed to perform its end of the bargain, specifically by
failing to provide tickets to the Olympic Opening Ceremonies.
Roadtrips' failure to provide the tickets allegedly caused
Plaintiffs and the other Class Members to suffer direct and
consequential damages.

This suit is brought as a Class Action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all natural
persons, excluding the Defendant, its officers, directors,
and employees and any judge who may be assigned to hear this
controversy, who purchased Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony
tickets from Roadtrips and did not receive them.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     a. Whether Roadtrips breached its contracts with the
        Plaintiffs and other Class Members;

     b. Whether the Plaintiffs and other Class Members are
        entitled to the consequential damages of all amounts
        paid for their airfare, hotel, ground transportation and
        other travel expenses, in addition to the amounts they
        paid for Opening Ceremony tickets; and

     c. The type and measure of damages suffered by Plaintiffs
        and the Class Members.

Plaintiffs request that the Court:

     -- Certify this case as a Class Action under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- Award Plaintiffs and the other Class Members their
        actual and consequential damages, in an amount to be
        determined at trial, for the wrongful acts of the
        Defendant;

     -- Award Plaintiffs and the other Class Members the costs
        of suit, including discretionary costs pursuant to Rule
        54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- Award reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Section
        38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies code;

     -- Award Plaintiffs and the other Class Members pre-
        judgment and postjudgment interest;

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

The suit is "Barry Connelly et al. v. Roadtrips Inc., Civil
Action No. 4:08-CV-02987," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          James R. Moriarty
          Moriarty Leyendecker Erben, P.C.
          1150 Bissonnet Street
          Houston, Texas 77005
          Phone: (713) 528-0700
          Fax: (713) 528-1390


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Nov. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP -- representing shareholders of The
Spectranetics Corporation -- announced that November 24, 2008,
is the deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the
shareholder lawsuit.

All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of The Spectranetics Corporation between April 19,
2007 and September 4, 2008, inclusive, including shares acquired
through the Company's 401(k) Savings/Retirement Plan, may move
the Court not later than November 24, 2008, to serve as lead
plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

For more information, contact:

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


TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Middleby Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
TurboChef Technologies, Inc., is facing a purported class action
in Georgia, challenging TurboChef's proposed merger with
Middleby Corp.  

On Sept. 9, 2008, a purported shareholder class action was filed
in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, on behalf of
the public stockholders of TurboChef.

The complaint names TurboChef, Middleby and the current members
of TurboChefs board of directors as defendants.  Among other
things, the complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty by
TurboChef's directors in connection with approval of the Merger
Agreement, according to the company's Sept. 9, 2008 Form 8-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 16, 2008.

TurboChef Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.turbochef.com/-- is  
a provider of equipment, technology and services focused on the
high-speed preparation of food products.  The company's speed
cook ovens employ combinations of heating technologies to cook
food products at higher speeds than conventional heating
methods.  TurboChef caters to the global commercial primary
cooking equipment market.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
the company entered the U.S. residential oven market with the
introduction of its first speed cook oven model for the home.
Its first residential products target the premium segment of the
residential oven market and are priced at a point that is
appropriate for a consumer purchase. TurboChef also generates
revenues from licensing its technologies to food service
equipment manufacturers.


WYNN LAS VEGAS: High Court Upholds Dismissal of Dealers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Nevada Supreme Court rejected a class action filed by two
Wynn Las Vegas dealers over the resort's controversial tip-
sharing policy, KXNT reports.

Dealers Daniel Baldonado and Joseph Cesarz filed the suit on
Sept. 13, 2006.  It is seeking damages for compensation lost
under the new tip-sharing arrangements, which gave casino
supervisors a share of dealers' tips (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 29, 2006).

Court documents show that the two Wynn Las Vegas dealers believe
the Wynn policy violates Nevada state law covering tip pooling
because employers are sharing in the tips.

The suit asks for class-action status to include more than the
500 dealers affected by the change in the tips policy at the
resort.  

Plaintiffs' lawyer argued that the new tip-sharing policy
violates at least three Nevada laws:

     -- Nevada Revised Statutes 608.100, which requires that  
        dealers be paid what they've earned;

     -- another section of chapter 608 that prohibits improperly  
        withholding earned; and  

     -- Nevada Revised Statutes 608.120 that outlaws charging  
        workers illegal fee or commission to keep their jobs.

According to the lawsuit, the two dealers are seeking the wages
they lost because of the tip pooling and they want the program
stopped.

The suit states that the resort breached contracts of employment
by unilaterally, illegally, and without cause, withholding
certain portions of the casino dealers' tip pool and paying such
portions to other persons who were not casino dealers and were
not entitled to such payments.

The new tip-pooling program, announced to dealers during three
separate shift meetings on Aug. 21, was part of a table-games
division restructuring designed to lessen the wage disparity
between dealers and front-line supervisors.  On Sept. 1, Wynn
Las Vegas began allowing table game supervisors to share in the
tips earned by dealers.

On Dec. 6, 2006, Judge Douglas Herndon of the Clark County
District Court dismissed the suit (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
12, 2006).  Judge Herndon ruled that there was no contract of
employment between the dealers and Wynn, which meant that Nevada
law allows an employer to change any tip pooling policies.  He
noted that the company was not taking away tips, only widening
the pool of workers who share in the gratuities.

Subsequently, lawyers for Wynn Las Vegas filed a motion seeking
nearly $75,000 in attorney's fees after the dismissal (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2007).

Recently, the state's high court unanimously upheld Judge
Herndon's decision. The high court's ruling, written by Justice
Michael Douglas, says the issue does not belong in the courts
and instead should be taken up with the state labor
commissioner. The court also held that because the dealers are
so-called "at-will employees," meaning they don't have a
contract, the employer has the right to change the terms of the
job at any time.

Wynn Las Vegas, LLC -- http://www.wynnlasvegas.com/-- owns and
operates the Wynn Las Vegas hotel and casino resort on the Las
Vegas Strip, which opened in April 2005.  The company is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Wynn Resorts, Ltd. and finances
itself on a restricted group basis.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


AUTHENTEC INC: Glancy Binkow Files Fla. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a Class Action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of AuthenTec,
Inc. between April 28, 2008 and September 5, 2008, inclusive.

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

AuthenTec is a mixed-signal semiconductor company that provides
fingerprint authentication sensors and solutions to the high-
volume personal computer, wireless device, and access control
markets. The Company's sensors enable users to access and
control multiple functions on an electronic device by touching
or sliding a finger across the sensor.

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

     (1) that the Company's sales growth was slowing;

     (2) that AuthenTec was flooding its customers with
         inventory;

     (3) as such, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated;

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

     (5) as a result, statements made by the Company's
         management during the Class Period regarding the
         Company's financial results and strong revenue growth
         lacked a reasonable basis.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants issued favorable
revenue guidance and touted the Company's financial performance,
as well as AuthenTec's prospects for sales and revenue growth.
For example, on July 28, 2008 the Company provided revenue
guidance of $19 million to $20 million for the third quarter of
2008 and $72 million to $78 million for the full year of 2008.
On that date, during a conference call with analysts, the
Company told investors that "with regard (to) guidance,
notwithstanding the macroeconomic weakness that is impacting a
number of other technology companies, we expect our strong
growth to continue, supported by new product introductions and a
robust pipeline of design wins, which will drive increased
revenue on a year-over-year basis."

Shortly thereafter, on September 7, 2008, AuthenTec shocked
investors when the Company issued a press release in which it
revised downward its previously issued financial guidance. In
the press release, AuthenTec told investors that "the Company
attributes the reduction in estimated revenue to an overstocked
inventory position at a new customer and the impact of lower
than expected sales of higher-end notebooks. ..."

Moreover, during a conference call with analysts on the morning
of September 8, 2008, the Company further revealed to investors
that, "as it turns out, the effect of the downturn that has
impacted many others in the semiconductor industry seems to have
been masked to us by the fact that one of our newer customers
overbought in the second quarter and even into the beginning of
this quarter. This has led to an overstocking position on their
part and thus reduced forecasts for the remainder of the year
... we are still working to fully understand the impact and the
size of the inventory build, but at this point we are assuming
that it will take at least a quarter for them to work through
this inventory."

On this news, AuthenTec's shares declined $3.84 per share, or
60.1 percent, to close on September 8, 2008 at $2.55 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class
members.

For more information, contact:

          Lionel Z. Glancy
          Michael Goldberg
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


BIOVAIL CORP: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Biovail
Corporation securities during the period between December 14,
2006 and July 19, 2007.

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

Biovail is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
formulation, clinical testing, registration, manufacture, and
commercialization of pharmaceutical products utilizing advanced
drug-delivery technologies.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements about a drug in development
called BVF-033, a salt formulation of bupropion, an
antidepressant commonly known as Wellbutrin XL. Specifically,
defendants' statements failed to disclose that while the FDA
required a single dose study to demonstrate the bioequivalence
of generic Wellbutrin XL, defendants had submitted a multiple-
dose study to demonstrate the bioequivalence of BVF-033. Thus,
defendants' FDA application for BVF-033 failed to meet the
requirements set forth by the FDA such that approval was likely
to be materially delayed.

On July 20, 2007, before the market opened, the Company issued a
press release announcing that it had received a non-approval
letter from the FDA for its new drug application for BVF-033. As
a result of this disclosure, Biovail's stock price dropped from
$25.51 per share to $20.03 per share in a single day.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Biovail securities during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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


BIOVAIL CORP: Izard Nobel Announces Suit Filed in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announced that a lawsuit seeking class-action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased Biovail Corporation between December 14, 2006 and July
19, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Biovail and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements about a drug in development called
BVF-033, a salt formulation of bupropion, an antidepressant
commonly known as Wellbutrin XL.

Specifically, defendants' statements failed to disclose that
while the FDA required a single dose study to demonstrate the
bioequivalence of generic Wellbutrin XL, defendants had
submitted a multiple-dose study to demonstrate the
bioequivalence of BVF-033.

Thus, defendants' FDA application for BVF-033 failed to meet the
requirements set forth by the FDA such that approval was likely
to be materially delayed.

On July 20, 2007, before the market opened, Biovail issued a
press release announcing that it had received a non-approval
letter from the FDA for its new drug application for BVF-033.

On this news, Biovail's stock price dropped from $25.51 per
share to $20.03.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 8,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


CANO PETROLEUM: Federman & Sherwood Announces N.Y. Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 2008, a class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Cano Petroleum, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations that the Company issued a
series of false and material misrepresentations in its
registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in
connection with its Secondary Public Offering on June 26, 2008.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          e-mail: wfederman@aol.com
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: KGS Announces Ariz. Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announces that a securities class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, on behalf of purchasers of the stock of
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. (NYSE: MRX), between October 30,
2003 through September 24, 2008, inclusive.

Medicis and certain of its officers are charged with violating
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for issuing a series of
materially false statements that concealed and failed to
disclose that the Company had published materially inaccurate
and false financial statements since mid-2003. It was only on
September 24, 2008, that Medicis first revealed that it would be
forced to restate its financial statements for the five year
period -- from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2008 -- as a result of
failing to properly account for sales returns. Investors then
realized Medicis had artificially inflated its results during
that time, and shares of the Company immediately declined.

Interested parties may move the court no later than  December 2,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          e-mail: Lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Novatel Wireless, Inc. common stock during the
period between February 5, 2007 and August 19, 2008, inclusive.

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

The class action complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants misrepresented Novatel's financial performance. For
instance, 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 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 declined 25%.

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
          e-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com


                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *