CAR_Public/081015.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, October 15, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 205
  
                            Headlines

012 SMILE.COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Consumer Fraud Suits in Israel
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Faces Fla. Suit Over "Secondary Services"
DAVE & BUSTERS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Meal Breaks, Rest Periods
GEHL CO: Faces Wisconsin Litigation Over Manitou BF Offer
GEORGIA: Suppresses Voter Registration, Lawsuit Alleges

GREY WOLF: Faces Texas Litigation Over Precision Drilling Merger
GUARDIAN PRE-PAID: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Elder Abuse
HANSEN NATURAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
HOME DEPOT: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Dismissal of ERISA Suits
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Nov. 10 Hearing Set for N.J. Suit Deal

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuit in Ill. Over Spam Ads
MUSIC RETAILERS: N.Y. Judge Junks Digital Music Antitrust Case
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Wisconsin
PARTYGAMING PLC: Plaintiffs Plan to Appeal Dismissal of "Wong"

RAM ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Royalty Owners' Suit in Okla.
REMEC INC: June 2009 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
SAFECO CORP: Faces Policyholders' Suit Over Nondepreciable Items
STEEL DYNAMICS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Ill. Over Steel Products
STIFEL FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Auction Rate Securities

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Discovery Ongoing in Lawsuit Over EA Offer
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Plaintiff Agree to Stay Securities Suit
TEXAS: Insurance Division Accused of Denying Workers' Benefits
VOYAGER LEARNING: Reaches Settlement in Michigan Securities Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Firm to Seek ERISA Suit Class Certification

WELLS FARGO: Calif. Judge Refuses to Dismiss Overtime Lawsuit

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Gainey & Mckenna Files Securities Suit
AUTHENTEC INC: Izard Nobel Announces Fla. Securities Suit Filing
BIOVAIL CORP: KGS Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing in N.Y.
FANNIE MAE: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces N.Y. Suit Filing

GENERAL ELECTRIC Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
HANSEN NATURAL: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit
MEMC ELECTRONICS: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Securities Suit

               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                           *********


012 SMILE.COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Consumer Fraud Suits in Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------
012 Smile.Communications, Ltd., is facing several purported
consumer fraud class actions in Israel, according to the
company's Sept. 15, 2008 Form 10-F/A Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31,
2007.

During February and April 2008, three motions to certify class
action were filed with various District Courts in Israel,
against the company and several other international telephony
companies.

These motions allege that:

       -- the companies unlawfully charged consumers in excess
          of the tariffs published by them with respect to their
          calling card services,

       -- the calling cards provide an average of 50% of the
          units of time indicated to the purchasers of the
          cards,

       -- the companies deduct the time spent when a user
          unsuccessfully attempts to call someone utilizing the
          card,

       -- the companies calculate and collect payment not by
          units of round minutes as indicated,

       -- the companies provide misleading information about the
          number of "units" on the card,

       -- the companies formed a cartel that arranged and raised
          the prices of calling cards, and

       -- the companies improperly calculated the length of the
          international calls in whole-minutes units rather than
          in one-second units.  

012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012.net-- is a  
communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of
broadband and traditional voice services.  The company's
broadband services include broadband Internet access with a
suite of value-added services, specialized data services and
server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via
voice over broadband (VoB) and a wireless fidelity (WiFi)
network of hotspots across Israel.  Its traditional voice
services include outgoing and incoming international telephony,
hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services.  The
company offers its services to residential and business
customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and
international communication services providers, or carriers
through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the
Company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Faces Fla. Suit Over "Secondary Services"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Casualty Co. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and
for Miami-Dade County, Florida, alleging it refuses to cover
"secondary services" for home health care, in violation of
contract, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is an action seeking damages in excess of $15,000.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant refused to pay for care
rendered between the periods of October 31, 2005 through
November 5, 2005 and March 13, 2006 through April 8,2006, and
the amount due and owing exclusive of interest exceeds $15,000.

Plaintiff brings this action as a class action against Defendant
pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of:

     (1) All former and current CNA policy holders, for home
         health service insurance policies issued after October
         1, 1992, who have been denied and/or are being denied
         otherwise covered secondary service benefits because a
         policy holder failed to receive primary services during
         a week in which the Secondary Services were rendered
         and billed; and

     (2) All former and current assignees of CNA policy holders,
         for home health service insurance policies issued after
         October 1, 1992, who have been denied and/or are being
         denied otherwise covered secondary service benefits
         because a policy holder assignor failed to receive
         primary services during a week in which the Secondary
         Services were rendered and billed.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     a. Whether the Defendant has violated Florida Statute
        627.94071, which strictly prohibits requiring skilled
        care to trigger covered benefits; and

     b. Whether the Defendant has failed to pay otherwise
        covered secondary service benefits.

Plaintiff requests that the Court:

     -- Certify this action as a class action under Federal Rule
        of Civil Procedure 23;

     -- Declare that the Defendant violated Florida Statute
        627.94071, which strictly prohibits requiring skilled
        care to trigger covered benefits;

     -- Declare and interpret the scope and coverage
        of "Secondary Services" benefits under Defendant's
        Policy;

     -- Declare the Defendant has failed to pay otherwise
        covered secondary service benefits;

     -- Declare that the claims of Plaintiff and Class Members
        are covered and should be reimbursed under Defendant's
        Policy;

     -- Award Plaintiff and the Class damages for the unpaid
        Secondary Services, including pre-judgment interest on
        these amounts;

     -- Award Plaintiff and the Class their attorneys' fees,
        costs and expenses;
   
     -- Award Plaintiffs and the Class such further relief as is
        appropriate in the interests of justice; and

     -- Enjoin Defendant from further requiring skilled care to
        trigger covered benefits.

The suit is "Bell Care Nurses Registry, Inc. et al. v.
Continental Casualty Company dba CNA Insurance Company, Case No.
08-615465 CA 3," filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Representing plaintiff is:

          Steven M. Dunn, Esq.
          Steven M. Dunn, P.A.
          19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618
          Biscayne Building
          Miami, Florida 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-6192
          Fax: (305) 416-6196


DAVE & BUSTERS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Meal Breaks, Rest Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave & Buster's, Inc., is facing a purported class action in
California, alleging violations of California regulations
concerning mandatory meal breaks and rest periods, according to
the company's Sept. 16, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 3,
2008.

Initially, two class actions were filed against the company and
one of its subsidiaries in the State of California, alleging
violations of California regulations concerning mandatory meal
breaks and rest periods.  These two cases have been consolidated
and coordinated because the potential class members are
virtually identical.

Dave & Buster's, Inc. -- http://www.daveandbusters.com-- is an  
operator of restaurant/entertainment complexes.  Each
entertainment complex offers an array of entertainment
attractions.  The company's menu includes a variety of food and
beverage offering.  Its complexes cater primarily to adults aged
21 to 44 and operate seven days a week, typically from 11:30
a.m. to midnight on weekdays and 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on
weekends.  Its average complex is approximately 51,000 square
feet in size.  The average size of its complexes opened in
fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2008 was approximately 35,000 square
feet.  The company's menu places emphasis on meals, including
gourmet pastas, steaks, sandwiches, salads, and a selection of
desserts.  The company's locations offer an array of amusements
and entertainment options, including Million Dollar Midway games
and Traditional games.


GEHL CO: Faces Wisconsin Litigation Over Manitou BF Offer
---------------------------------------------------------
Gehl Co. is facing a purported class action, alleging that the
company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
company's shareholders by making materially inadequate
disclosures and material omissions from those disclosures with
respect to an offer by Manitou BF SA, according to the company's
Sept. 19, 2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On Sept. 16, 2008, a purported shareholder of Gehl Co. filed a
complaint seeking certification of a class action in the Circuit
Court in and for Washington County, Wisconsin docketed as "Chuck
Kandel v. William D. Gehl, et al., Case No. 2008-CV-000990."

The lawsuit named each of the company's directors, the company,
Manitou BF S.A., a French limited company, and Tenedor Corp., a
Wisconsin corporation, as defendants.  

It alleges, among other things, that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by
making materially inadequate disclosures and material omissions
from those disclosures with respect to the offer and that all
defendants further conspired and aided and abetted each other in
the commission of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  

The plaintiff is seeking relief that includes, among other
things, preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting
consummation of the Offer, rescission or recessionary damages if
the offer is consummated prior to the entry of the court's final
judgment, unspecified damages and payment of the plaintiff's
costs and expenses.

Gehl Co. -- http://www.gehl.com-- designs, manufactures and  
distributes compact equipment for construction and agriculture
applications.  The company's compact equipment and related
attachments are primarily used in a variety of earthmoving and
material handling applications where space, mobility and
manpower are at a premium.  Gehl also provides financing for its
dealers and their customers.  Gehl's compact equipment consists
of skid loaders, telescopic handlers, compact excavators,
compact track loaders, all-wheel-steer loaders and asphalt
pavers.  The company also provides an assortment of related
attachments, including pallet forks, augers and backhoes,
primarily for skid loaders.  While Gehl manufactures a majority
of the products it sells, it has also established strategic
alliances with select European and Asian compact equipment
manufacturers to distribute their products under its brand
names.


GEORGIA: Suppresses Voter Registration, Lawsuit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia alleges that the state is
taking away the voting rights of thousands of minority and
student residents by refusing to register them and by enforcing
a "voter registration list maintenance procedure" that knocks
eligible voters off the rolls, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This action challenges new voter registration list maintenance
procedures involving citizen checks, which serve as triggers for
other new procedures regarding absentee voting and voter
challenge hearings in the State of Georgia, and it seeks
declaratory relief and temporary and permanent injunctive relief
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 to halt the continued use of
these voting procedures in advance of the Nov. 4, 2008 election,
and to require that appropriate immediate remedial measures are
taken to ensure that all qualified and eligible voters in the
State of Georgia have access to the ballot on election day.

The class action says Georgia is disenfranchising people under
the ruse that it is complying with the Help America Vote Act.

Representing the class, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund,
and the ACLU say Georgia refused to register more than 2,000
people by claiming that their driver's license numbers or Social
Security numbers did not match state or federal databases.

Named plaintiff Jose Morales claims the Help America Vote Act
authorizes states to assign identifying numbers to voters, but
does not authorize states to use the error-plagued Social
Security database to disqualify voters.

Plaintiffs say the state's "new voter registration list
maintenance procedures involving citizen checks, which serve as
triggers for other new procedures regarding absentee voting and
voter challenge hearings in the State of Georgia".

The Help America Vote Act of 2002, which was passed to respond
"serious problems with the administration of elections in the
United States revealed by the 2000 presidential election," is
being used to deny Mr. Morales and other residents' their vote
in Georgia, the class says.

According to the complaint, "because the defendant has failed to
secure federal pre-clearance of the new voter registration list
maintenance procedures based on citizenship which affect voting,
the new voting procedures are legally unenforceable under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

Mr. Morales says he got a letter from the Cherokee County
Elections and Registration office telling him that if he did not
contact the office by Oct. 15 or appear at a hearing that day,
his name will be removed from voting rolls.

Mr. Morales, who has been a legal permanent resident since he
was a child, became a U.S. citizen in November 2007, and he got
a Georgia driver's license in April 2006. In September this
year, Morales, a university student, completed a voter
registration form on campus through a student organization.

About two weeks later, he received a letter indicating that he
would not be able to vote unless he showed evidence of
citizenship in court and that he would be removed from the voter
registration list if he could not prove his citizenship.

Mr. Morales brought his passport to the Cherokee County
Elections and Registration office to prove his citizenship and
received his voter registration card about a week later.
However, a few days later, Morales received certified mail from
the office which specified that he may not be able to vote in
the county because he may not be a U.S. citizen.

Plaintiffs say the 11th Circuit has found Georgia's "maintenance
procedure" policy illegal, but the state went ahead with it
anyway. They want the disenfranchisements stopped and the policy
enjoined.

The suit is "Jose Morales et al. v. Karen Handel, Civil Action
No. 1 08-CV-3172," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Elise Sandra Shore
          Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
          34 Peachtree St. NW Suite #2500
          Atlanta, Georgia 30303
          Phone: (678) 559-1071
          e-mail: eshore@MALDEF.org


GREY WOLF: Faces Texas Litigation Over Precision Drilling Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grey Wolf, Inc., is facing a purported class action in Texas in
connection with the company's proposed merger with Precision
Drilling Trust, according to the company's Sept. 24, 2008 Form
8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Sept. 4, 2008, Howard G. Ahrens filed a class-action petition
in a case, "Howard G. Ahrens, On Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Grey Wolf, Inc., Frank M. Brown, William
T. Donovan, Thomas P. Richards, Robert E. Rose, Trevor Turbidy,
Steven A. Webster, and William R. Zeigler, Cause No. 2008-
53565."  The case was filed in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas 127th Judicial District.  

The petitioner alleges that he is a shareholder of Grey Wolf,
Inc.  His lawsuit alleges that the company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the company's shareholders in
connection with the company's proposed merger with Precision
Drilling Trust by, among other things, failing to take steps to
maximize the value of the company to its public shareholders.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that the company aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the company's
directors.  

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proposed merger and also asks
for other relief, including an award of attorneys’ and experts’
fees.

Grey Wolf, Inc. -- http://www.gwdrilling.com/-- is a provider  
of contract land drilling services in the U.S.  The company's
customers include independent producers, and oil and natural gas
companies.  Grey Wolf, Inc. conducts all of its operations
through its subsidiaries.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
the company had 22,300 rig days contracted under term contracts,
as compared with 25,000 rig days under term contract as of Sept.
30, 2007, and 31,500 rig days under term contract as of Dec. 31,
2006.  As of Feb. 18, 2008, the company had 53 rigs working
under term contracts, representing 44% of its total rig fleet.
As of Feb. 18, 2008, Grey Wolf, Inc. had a rig fleet of 121
rigs, all of which were marketed.  The company conducts its
operations primarily in the domestic drilling markets, including
Ark-La-Tex; Gulf Coast; Mississippi/Alabama; South Texas; Rocky
Mountain, and Mid-Continent.  


GUARDIAN PRE-PAID: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Elder Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
alleged that two men and two insurers, operating as Guardian
Pre-Paid Legal Services, abused senior citizens by claiming to
offer advice on living trusts, then pushing unsuitable annuities
"that paid the agents large commissions for minimal work," the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The report claims that Lee Summit and Jeff Milton, two people
who did business as Guardian Pre-Paid Legal Services, are also
named defendants in the complaint.

The class claims that OM Financial Life Insurance and Superior
Life Insurance Services persuaded old folks to take out reverse
mortgages and use their home equity to buy the annuities "while
exposing the seniors to growing debt."

Superior owned and controlled Guardian, and used it "to run a
trust mill and generate annuity sales," the complaint states.

Plaintiffs demand restitution, an injunction and punitive
damages.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert Gianelli
          Gianelli & Morris
          626 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2921
          Phone: (213) 488-9667
          Fax: (213) 488-9208


HANSEN NATURAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Natural Corp. is facing two purported class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On Sept. 11, 2008, a federal securities class-action complaint
styled, "Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (ED CV 08-1249
SGL (Jcx))," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  

On Sept. 17, 2008, a second federal securities class-action
complaint styled, "Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (ED CV
08-01278 VAP)," was also filed in the District Court.

Both actions, filed by single individual shareholders
purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Hansen Natural
Corp. stock during the period May 23, 2007 through Nov. 8, 2007,
name as defendants the company, Rodney C. Sacks, and Hilton H.
Schlosberg.  The allegations of both complaints are
substantially similar.  

The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  They allege, among other things, that
during the class period, the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements that failed to disclose that:

       -- the company's second quarter sales results were
          "materially impacted by inventory loading as customers
          were induced to purchase more product before the
          company raised its prices in its Monster Energy drink
          line and its Java Monster drink line;"

       -- the company was "experiencing declining sales in its
           non-core drink lines;"

       -- the company was "experiencing production shortfalls
          with its Java Monster drink line;" and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants "lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the company and its prospects."

The complaints seek an unspecified amount of damages, according
to the company's Sept. 22, 2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Hansen Natural Corp. -- http://www.hansens.com/-- develops,  
markets, sells and distributes alternative beverage category
natural sodas, fruit juices and juice drinks, energy drinks and
energy sports drinks, fruit juice smoothies and functional
drinks, non-carbonated ready-to-drink iced teas, children's
multi-vitamin juice drinks, Junior Juice juices and flavored
sparkling beverages under the Hansen’s brand name.  It also
develops, markets, sells and distributes energy drinks under
brand names, such as Monster Energy, Lost Energy, Joker Mad
Energy, Unbound Energy and Ace brand names, as well as Rumba
brand energy juice.  The company also markets, sells and
distributes the Java Monster line of non-carbonated dairy-based
coffee drinks, natural sodas, natural sodas with supplements,
organic natural sodas, seltzer waters, sports drinks and energy
drinks under the Blue Sky brand name.  Its fruit juices for
toddlers are marketed under the Junior Juice brand name.


HOME DEPOT: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Dismissal of ERISA Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the
dismissal of three purported class actions against Home Depot,
Inc., which is alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, according to the company's Sept. 4,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 3, 2008.

Three purported, but uncertified, class actions were filed
against the company, The Home Depot FutureBuilder Administrative
Committee and certain of the company's current and former
directors and employees, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) in connection with the company's return-to-vendor and
stock option practices.  

On Sept. 10, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
and entered judgment for the defendants.  The plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal and, on July 31, 2008, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's
decision on standing, affirmed its finding that the plaintiffs
failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided under
ERISA, and remanded the matter to the District Court for further
adjudication.

The Home Depot, Inc. -- http://www.homedepot.com-- is a home  
improvement retailer.  It, together with its subsidiaries,
operates The Home Depot stores, which are full-service,
warehouse-style stores.  The Home Depot stores sell an
assortment of building materials, home improvement, and lawn and
garden products, which are sold to do-it-yourself customers, do-
it-for-me customers and professional customers.  In addition,
the company operates EXPO Design Center stores, which offer
products and services primarily related to design and renovation
projects.  As of Feb. 3, 2008, the company operated 2,234 stores
in total, which included 1,950 The Home Depot stores, 34 EXPO
stores, five Yardbirds stores and two THD Design Center stores
in the U.S. (including the territories of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands and Guam), 165 The Home Depot stores in Canada,
66 The Home Depot stores in Mexico and 12 The Home Depot stores
in China.


MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Nov. 10 Hearing Set for N.J. Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing on Nov. 10, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., to consider
final approval of the proposed settlement of a purported
securities fraud class action filed against Majesco
Entertainment Co., entitled "In Re: Majesco Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-03557-FSH-PS."

                       Case Background

In July 2005, four purported class-action complaints were filed
against the company and several of its current and former
directors and officers before the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The suits were brought on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the company's securities (Class Action
Reporter June 6, 2008).

On Sept. 12, 2005, a fifth purported class-action complaint was
filed in the same court on behalf of a class of individuals who
purchased shares of common stock in the company in a Jan. 26,
2005 offering, with six million shares of common stock
available.  

The complaint named as defendants the company, its current and
former officers, and certain financial institutions who served
as underwriters with respect to the Offering.

In December 2005, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint, which is now the operative
complaint.  The complaint names as defendants:

       -- the company,
       -- Carl Yankowski,
       -- Jan E. Chason,
       -- Jesse Sutton,
       -- Joseph Sutton,
       -- Morris Sutton,
       -- Laurence Aronson,
       -- F. Peter Cuneo,
       -- James Halpin,
       -- Louis Lipschitz,
       -- Marc Weisman,
       -- RBC Capital Markets Corp.,
       -- JMP Securities LLC,
       -- Harris Nesbitt & Corp.,
       -- Wedbush Morgan Securities Inc., and
       -- Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Offering and certain of the company press
releases and other public filings contained material
misstatements and omissions about the company financial
condition and prospects as well as its products.

The lead plaintiff asserts a claim under Section 11 of the U.S.
Securities Act against all the defendants on behalf of investors
who purchased in the Offering.  

The suit also asserts a Section 12(a)(2) claim against the
company and the financial institutions who served as
underwriters in connection with the Offering, and a Section 15
control person claim against defendants Carl Yankowski, Jan
Chason, Jesse Sutton, Joseph Sutton, and Morris Sutton.

The lead plaintiff also asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under against
the company and the Defendants and a claim under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the Defendants.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The
proposed class period for the Exchange Act claims is Dec. 8,
2004, through Sept. 12, 2005.

On Sept. 27, 2007, the company entered into settlement
agreements to settle the securities class action.

Under the terms of the settlement deal, which is subject to
notice to the shareholder class and court approval, the
company's insurance carrier will make a cash payment and the
company will contribute shares of its common stock with a market
value of $2.5 million.

The shares being contributed to the settlement will be
distributed to the settlement class if and when the court grants
final approval to the settlement and the settlement becomes
effective.

The suit is "In Re: Majesco Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-cv-03557-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Faith S. Hochberg, presiding.   

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq. (procco@lawssb.com)
         Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
         163 Madison Ave.
         P.O. BOX 1277
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
         Phone: 973-775-8997

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph Domenick Giacoia, Esq. (jgiacoia@cfgny.com)
         Capuder Fazio Giacoia
         90 Broad Street
         New York, NY 10004
         Phone: 212-509-9595


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuit in Ill. Over Spam Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corporation is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging it is
costing people money by sending spam text messages to cell
phones to try to lure people into playing "McDonald's Monopoly,"
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This case challenges defendant's practice of sending unsolicited
advertisements to consumers via text message.

McDonald's Monopoly is one of the burger giant's most successful
promos, the class claims.

Plaintiffs say McDonald's unsolicited mass spam blasts cost the
unwitting recipients money and violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff brings the lawsuit on behalf of all cellular telephone
account holders owning a cellular telephone number to which a
text message was sent advertising the commercial availability of
McDonald's property, goods or services without first obtaining
express invitation or permission to do so.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's automated calls contained material
         advertising the commercial availability of any
         property, goods, or services;

     (b) whether defendant's conduct is governed by the TCPA;

     (c) whether defendant's conduct violated the TCPA;

     (d) whether defendant's automated text message telephone
         calls violated the TCPA;

     (e) whether the class members are entitled to statutory
         damages; and

     (f) whether defendant violated the TCPA knowingly or
         willfully and, if so, whether the class members are
         entitled to trebled statutory damages.

Plaintiff requests that the court :

     -- find this action to be a proper class action and
        designate plaintiff and the undersigned counsel as the
        representative thereof;

     -- find that defendant's practices described violate the
        TCPA;

     -- enjoin defendant from further engaging in conduct which
        violates the TCPA;

     -- award statutory damages to plaintiff and the other
        members of the class;

     -- if deemed appropriate, award treble damages in favor of
        plaintiff and the other members of the class; and

     -- grant any and all other relief that the court may deem
        just and proper.

The suit is "Naomi Cooley et al. v. McDonald's Corporation, Case
No. 08CH88047," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Representing plaintiff are:

          Philip A. Bock
          Richard J. Doherty
          James M. Smith
          Bock & Hatch, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 658-5500


MUSIC RETAILERS: N.Y. Judge Junks Digital Music Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed a putative class action that
accused:

     -- Bertelsmann,
     -- Sony,
     -- EMI Music and

other major labels of conspiring to fix the price of digital
music, sold as CDs or downloads, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This multidistrict litigation involves allegations that the
defendants conspired to fix or maintain artificially the prices
of digital music.

Plaintiffs are 15 individuals from nine states who seek to
represent a putative nation-wide class of purchasers of digital
music.

Defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and, in the alternative, to strike certain portions of
the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12 (f).

According to the amended complaint, digital music is music that
is manufactured as a digital file. It is delivered in two
allegedly interchangeable formats: on compact discs and through
the internet. The amended complaint defines the relevant market
in this action as the market for sales of all digital music in
the United States.

In general the amended complaint alleges that defendants
conspired to inflate and maintain at supracompetitive levels the
price of digital music. They achieved this by fixing a high
price of and restraining the availability of internet music,
which in turn, buoyed the price of CDs "despite declining costs
of production associated with the introduction of new
technologies.

On Oct. 9, Judge Preska denied plaintiffs' motion ruling that
the plaintiffs failed to support their claims for violations of
the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws and unfair competition.

The suit is "In Re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
06 MDL No. 1780," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
NextWave Wireless, Inc. is facing several purported securities
fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, according to the company's Sept. 17,
2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On Sept. 16 and 17, 2008, three putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California against the company and certain of its officers.

The suits allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

They seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of company common stock during the period from March
30, 2007 to Aug. 7, 2008.

NextWave Wireless, Inc. -- http://www.nextwave.com-- is a  
mobile broadband and multimedia technology company that
develops, produces and markets mobile multimedia and wireless
broadband products, including fourth generation (4G) wireless
broadband semiconductors, device-embedded software for mobile
handsets, mobile television systems and mobile broadband network
equipment.  The company's mobile multimedia and wireless
broadband products and technologies are developed and marketed
through its NextWave Network Products and NextWave Mobile
Products operating units.  The company's customers include
mobile handset and wireless service providers, including Orange,
Motorola, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Panasonic, Sony Ericsson, T-Mobile
and Verizon Wireless.  


OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------
Oshkosh Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, according to the company's Sept. 22, 2008 Form 8-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Sept. 19, 2008, a purported shareholder of Oshkosh Corp.
filed a complaint, seeking certification of a class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
docketed as "Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Oshkosh Corporation
and Robert G. Bohn."

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company
violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially inadequate disclosures and material omissions leading
to the company's issuance of revised earnings guidance and
announcement of an impairment charge on June 26, 2008.

The suit is "Iron Workers Local No 25 Pension Fund v. Oshkosh
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00797-WEC," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge
William E. Callahan, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Guri Ademi, Esq. (gademi@ademilaw.com)
          Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
          3620 E Layton Ave
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 414-482-8000
          Fax: 414-482-8001

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 S. Service Rd – Ste. 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173


PARTYGAMING PLC: Plaintiffs Plan to Appeal Dismissal of "Wong"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Wong et al. v. Partygaming Ltd.
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02376-AA," are planning to appeal the
dismissal of their $5 million compensation class action against
PartyGaming plc, Online-Casinos.com reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the North
Eastern District of Ohio on Sept. 29, 2006.  It was filed by
plaintiffs Rose Wong and Patrick Gibson.

In general, the suit alleges violations of the Ohio state
consumer protection laws, breach of contract and
misrepresentation.  The plaintiffs claimed that the company had
misrepresented itself in claiming to have developed a "Collusion
Prevention System" that did not prevent two or more players from
collaborating in order to gain an unfair advantage over other
players.

The plaintiffs further alleged that the Party Gaming statement
was false, and that there were other players on the website who
possessed multiple accounts and otherwise colluded to the
disadvantage of other players, the report said.

According to the report, the duo further claimed that Party
Gaming was aware of the shortcomings but was unable or unwilling
to put an end to the problems and instead chose to conceal the
problem to the detriment of its players rather than lose
business.  The period cited by the plaintiffs started in January
of 2002.

However, the case ultimately turned on the website's Terms and
Conditions, which must be agreed to by players prior to any
gambling being accepted.

Recently, Judge Ann Aldrich found that those terms and
conditions specify that any legal action should be brought
before a court at the company's corporate headquarters in
Gibraltar.  The judge thus ordered the dismissal of the case.

The plaintiffs have served notice of intention to appeal the
decision, the report said.

The suit is "Wong et al. v. Partygaming Ltd. et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-02376-AA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
North Eastern District of Ohio, Judge Ann Aldrich.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joel Levin, Esq. (jl@levinandassociates.com)
          Levin & Associates
          1100 Tower at Erieview
          1301 East Ninth Street
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-928-0600
          Fax: 216-928-0016

               - and -

          Edward W. Cochran, Esq. (edwardcochran@adelphia.net)
          20030 Marchmont Road
          Shaker Heights, OH 44122
          Phone: 216-751-5546
          Fax: 216-751-6630

Representing the defendants are:

          Behnam Dayamin, Esq.
          Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
          875 15th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-551-1700
          Fax: 202-551-1705

               - and -
        
          Fritz E. Berckmueller, Esq. (fberckmueller@calfee.com)
          Calfee, Halter & Griswold
          1400 McDonald Investment Center
          800 Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-622-8671
          Fax: 216-241-0816


RAM ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Royalty Owners' Suit in Okla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAM Energy Resources, Inc., formerly Tremisis Energy Acquisition
Corp., reached a tentative settlement for a purported class
action filed by royalty owners in the District Court for Woods
County, Oklahoma, according to the company's Sept. 19, 2008 Form
8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit was filed against RAM Energy, Inc., certain of its
subsidiaries and various other individuals and unrelated
companies, in April 2002, by a lessor of certain oil and gas
leases from which production was sold to a gathering system
owned and operated by Magic Circle Energy Corp. or its wholly-
owned subsidiary, Carmen Field Limited Partnership.  The suit
covers the period from 1977 to a current date.

In 1998, both Magic Circle and CFLP became wholly owned
subsidiaries of RAM Energy, Inc.  The lawsuit was filed as a
class action on behalf of all royalty owners under leases owned
by any of the defendants during the period Magic Circle or CFLP
owned and operated the gathering system.

The petition claims that additional royalties are due because
Magic Circle and CFLP resold oil and gas purchased at the
wellhead for an amount in excess of the price upon which royalty
payments were based and paid no royalties on natural gas liquids
extracted from the gas at plants downstream of the system.

Other allegations include under-measurement of oil and gas at
the wellhead by Magic Circle and CFLP, failure to pay royalties
on take or pay settlement proceeds and failure to properly
report deductions for post-production costs in accordance with
Oklahoma's check stub law.

RAM Energy, Inc. and other defendants have filed answers in the
lawsuit denying all material allegations set out in the
petition.

The lawsuit was certified by the trial court as a class action
in January 2007.  The certification was upheld by the Oklahoma
Court of Civil Appeals in June 2008.  

Petitions for certiorari seeking review by the Oklahoma Supreme
Court of the class certification decision were timely filed by
the defendants in the lawsuit.

However, at the parties' request, consideration of the petitions
has been deferred pending final approval of the settlement that
was recently reached in the matter.

On Sept. 18, 2008, certain direct and indirect subsidiaries of
RAM Energy Resources, Inc. entered into an agreement that
tentatively effects a settlement of claims asserted in the
pending class action styled, "Sacket v. Great Plains Pipeline
Company, et al., District Court of Woods County, Oklahoma, Case
No. CJ-2002-70."

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to
court approval, the company and its subsidiaries will pay
$16.0 million of the aggregate $25.0 to be paid by all
defendants in full and complete settlement of all claims
asserted in the lawsuit relating to the payment of royalties on
production from class wells during the period July 1983 through
July 2008.  

RAM Energy Resources, Inc. -- http://www.ramenergy.com/--  
formerly Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corporation, is an oil and
gas company focused on the acquisition, exploration,
development, exploitation, production and management of oil and
gas properties, primarily in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.  On
May 8, 2006, RAM Energy Resources, Inc. merged with Tremisis
Energy Acquisition Corp.  In accordance with the merger
agreement, Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corp. has changed its
name to RAM Energy Resources, Inc.


REMEC INC: June 2009 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
set a tentative June 2009 trial for the consolidated securities
fraud lawsuit filed against REMEC, Inc.

On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the
company and certain former officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, alleging violations of
federal securities laws between Sept. 8, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2004.   

On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, was appointed lead counsel and its client was
appointed lead plaintiff.  

After several consolidated and amended complaints were filed,
challenged by the company and dismissed by the court with leave
to amend, the court denied REMEC's motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint on Sept. 25, 2006.

REMEC filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on Nov.
6, 2006, denying all liability and asserting certain affirmative
defenses.

Discovery has commenced and is ongoing.  The court granted
plaintiff's motion for class-certification on Nov. 21, 2007.

Trial has been continued to June 2009, according to the
company's Sept. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1,
2008.

The suit is "In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-1948," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller, presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: (213) 617-1200
         Fax: (213) 617-1975

         David W. Mitchell, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, California 92101-4297
         Phone: 619-231-1058 and 800-449-4900
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com

              - and -   

         Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
         Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP
         550 West C. Street, Suite 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 338-1133
         Fax: (619) 338-1139

Representing the defendants is:
        
         Robert W. Brownlie
         DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, US, LLP,
         401 "B" Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, California 92101
         Phone: (619) 699-2700 and 858-638-6886
         Fax: 858-677-1401
         Web site: http://www.dlapiper.com


SAFECO CORP: Faces Policyholders' Suit Over Nondepreciable Items
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safeco Corporation dba Safeco Insurance Companies is facing a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona alleging it cheats policyholders by
depreciating nondepreciable items, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all policyholders who
own or owned real property located in the United States which
was insured by defendant, who submitted to defendant a claim for
a covered loss to the insured's real property during the period
from four years prior to the filing of the original complaint in
this case to the present, which claim included nondepreciable
items such as general demolition, debris removal, or other
nondepreciable items, and received a payment from defendant
which improperly took depreciation on said nondepreciable items.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant is required to pay full cash value
         for nondepreciable events and/or such services, such as
         demolition, debris removal, etc;

     (b) whether defendant, either intentionally or negligently,
         has instituted a policy where it takes depreciation on
         nondepreciable events and/or services;

     (c) whether defendant's actions in assessing depreciation
         against nondepreciable items and/or services
         constitutes a breach of defendant's insurance or
         contract with its insurers; and

     (d) whether defendant's failure to pay full cash value on
         nondepreciable events and/or such services is not only
         contrary to law, but constitutes bad faith.

Plaintiff requests relief as follows:

     -- an order certifying the proposed class under Federal
        Rule 23 and appointing plaintiff as class representative
        and appointing plaintiff's counsel as class counsel;

     -- judgment for all damages caused by defendant's actions;

     -- judgment for exemplary damages as a result of
        defendant's bad faith;

     -- injunctive relief pursuant to federal and state law
        requiring defendant to stop its practice of underpaying
        claims involving nondepreciable items or events;

     -- attorney's fees, expenses and costs;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by
        law; and

     -- such other relief the court deems just, equitable and
        proper.

The suit is "Martin and Leslee Maust et al. v. Safeco
Corporation, Case Number: 4:2008cv00545," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge Cindy K
Jorgenson, presiding.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Joseph W. Watkins, PC
          301 South Convent Avenue
          Tucson, AZ  857101-2214
          Phone: (520) 882-9115
          Fax: (520) 882-7708


STEEL DYNAMICS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Ill. Over Steel Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc., is facing a purported antitrust class
action in Illinois in connection with its steel products,
according to the company's Sept. 19, 2008 Form 8-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Sept. 17, 2008, Steel Dynamics, Inc. was served with a class-
action antitrust complaint alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton,
Pennsylvania, against nine steel manufacturing companies,
including Steel Dynamics.  

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, alleges that the defendants conspired to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel
products were sold in the U.S. by artificially restricting the
supply of such steel products.  

The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all purchasers of steel products directly from the
defendants between Jan. 1, 2005 and the present, seeks treble
damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre-
and post-judgment interest.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. -- http://www.steeldynamics.com-- is a  
steel producer.  The company, with its acquisition of OmniSource
Corp., is a scrap processor in the U.S.  During the year ended
December 31, 2007, its consolidated shipments, excluding
shipments between its operating divisions, totaled 6.2 million
tons, which includes steel making, fabrication and scrap
processing.


STIFEL FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Auction Rate Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stifel Financial Corp. is facing a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri over
auction rate securities, according to the company's Sept. 23,
2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Initially, the company and Stifel Nicolaus have been named in a
civil suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on Aug. 8, 2008.  

The suit seeks class-action status for investors who purchased
and continue to hold auction rate securities offered for sale
between June 11, 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008 based on alleged
misrepresentations about the investment characteristics of
auction-rate securities and the auction markets through which
the securities are traded.

The suit is "Merrick v. Stifel Financial Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 4:08-cv-01167-HEA," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, Judge Henry E. Autrey,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq. (jrosemergy@careydanis.com)
          Carey & Danis
          8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-725-7700
          Fax: 314-721-0905

Representing the defendants are:

          Jeffrey J. Kalinowski, Esq
          Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP
          720 Olive Street
          24th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: 314-345-6000
          Fax: 314-345-6060
          e-mail: jeff.kalinowski@huschblackwell.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Discovery Ongoing in Lawsuit Over EA Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action against Take-
Two Interactive Software, Inc. over offers by Electronic Arts,
Inc., to acquire all of the company's shares, according to the
company's Sept. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July
31, 2008.

On March 7, 2008, Patrick Solomon, a stockholder of the company,
filed a purported class-action complaint with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.  

The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, allegedly refusing to
explore premium offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to acquire all
of the company's shares, enacting a bylaw amendment allegedly
designed to entrench the current board by preventing
stockholders from nominating and electing alternative directors,
agreeing to an amendment to a management agreement with
ZelnickMedia and issuing a proxy statement for the 2008 Annual
Meeting that allegedly contains misleading and incomplete
information.

The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
rescissory and other equitable relief and damages.

The plaintiff immediately moved for preliminary injunctive
relief, and the parties engaged in expedited discovery
proceedings.  However, several of the claims have been addressed
by the company's voluntary actions in issuing a supplemental
proxy statement, rescinding the notice by-law amendment,
granting additional time for any present or former stockholders
to nominate directors or propose business, and extending the
annual meeting date.  

After the company took such measures, the plaintiff agreed to
withdraw his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and the
annual meeting went forward without difficulty (and without any
stockholders nominating directors or proposing business).
Discovery on the remaining claims is ongoing.

New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. --
http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer  
and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware
and accessories.  The company operates in two segments:
publishing and distribution.  The publishing segment consists of
Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing
labels.  The company develops, markets and publishes software
titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms,
including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system;
Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment
systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and
for the personal computers and Games for Windows.  The company's
distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games
subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software,
hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in
North America.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Plaintiff Agree to Stay Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class-action lawsuit against Take-
Two Interactive Software, Inc. over offers by Electronic Arts,
Inc., to acquire all of the company's shares has stayed all
proceedings in the case.

On April 11, 2008, Michael Maulano, an alleged stockholder,
filed a purported class action in New York state court, New York
County, against the company and certain of its directors.  

The allegations are essentially the same as those in the case
filed by Patrick Solomon, with an additional complaint about the
"poison pill" adopted by the company's Board in March 2008.  

Because the action was duplicative, the plaintiff agreed to stay
all proceedings in the case in favor of the Solomon case,
according to the company's Sept. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 31, 2008.

New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. --
http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer  
and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware
and accessories.  The company operates in two segments:
publishing and distribution.  The publishing segment consists of
Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing
labels.  The company develops, markets and publishes software
titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms,
including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system;
Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment
systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and
for the personal computers and Games for Windows.  The company's
distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games
subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software,
hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in
North America.


TEXAS: Insurance Division Accused of Denying Workers' Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the District Court of Tarrant
County, Texas accuses the Texas Department of Insurance Division
of Workers' Compensation of arbitrarily denying benefits,
delaying hearings, and shuttling claimants from doctor to doctor
in search of the cheapest diagnosis possible, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Plaintiffs want the state's alleged abuses enjoined and a
protective order against retaliation.

The suit is "Meredith Sutton et al. v. Texas Department of
Insurance Division of Workers' Compensation," Cause No.
048 233164 08," filed in the District Court of Tarrant County,
Texas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Joan M. Durkin
          Durkin Law Offices, PC
          669 Airport Freeway, Suite 107
          Hurst, Texas 76053
          Phone: (817) 545-9700
          Fax: (817) 545-5071


VOYAGER LEARNING: Reaches Settlement in Michigan Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voyager Learning Co., formerly known as ProQuest Co., reached a
settlement in the consolidated securities fraud class action
filed against the company in Michigan.

Between February and April 2006, four putative securities class-
action complaints, now consolidated and designated as "In re
ProQuest Company Securities Litigation," were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the
company and certain of its former and then-current officers and
directors.

Each of these substantially similar lawsuits alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the
associated Rule 10b-5, in connection with the company's proposed
restatement.

On May 2, 2006, the court consolidated the four cases and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel.  By
stipulation of the parties, the consolidated lawsuit was stayed
pending restatement of the company's financial statements.

The lead plaintiffs subsequently asked the Court to lift the
stay of proceedings to enable them to file a consolidated
complaint, which they did on July 17, 2006.  

The defendants then filed motions for sanctions under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint.

Rather than respond to these motions, the lead plaintiffs moved
to reinstate the stay of proceedings, which was granted.

On Dec. 4, 2006, the Court again lifted the stay of proceedings
and ordered the lead plaintiffs to either respond to the
previously filed motions to dismiss and for sanctions, or to
file an Amended Consolidated Complaint.

On Jan. 24, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed their Amended
Consolidated Complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss on
March 15, 2007.

On July 22, 2008, Voyager Learning Co. reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated shareholder securities
class-action lawsuit.

The settlement will be funded largely by insurance.  Under the
terms of the agreement, the company would pay approximately
$5 million in fees and settlement amounts to settle the class
action with remaining amounts to be paid by the insurers.  

The settlement is subject to completion of a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement to be signed by the parties, preliminary
and final court approval and the participation of a sufficient
percentage of the putative class.  

There is no assurance that a final Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement will be completed, court approval will be obtained or
putative class member participation will be sufficient.

The court has indicated that all fact and expert discovery must
be completed by October 2008, but no dates have yet been set for
dispositive motions or trial.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept.
17, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: ProQuest Company Securities Litigation, Case
No. 2:06-cv-10619-AC-MKM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Avern Cohn, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stuart J. Berman, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-5108
          Phone: 610-667-7706

               - and -

          Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
          (pcafferty@caffertyfaucher.com)
          Cafferty Faucher
          101 N. Main Street, Suite 450
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Phone: 734-769-2144

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael J. Faris, Esq. (michael.faris@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5800
          Chicago, IL 60606-6401
          Phone: 312-876-7700
          Fax: 312-993-9767

               - and -

          George B. Donnini, Esq. (donnini@butzel.com)
          Butzel Long
          150 W. Jefferson, Suite 100
          Detroit, MI 48226-4430
          Phone: 313-225-7000
          Fax: 313-225-7080


WAL-MART STORES: Firm to Seek ERISA Suit Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. intends to file a motion requesting the
certification of a class of plaintiffs in the ongoing litigation
on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Wal-Mart
Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan.

The litigation filed against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is currently
pending in U.S. District Court in the Western District of
Missouri.

The complaint alleges that Wal-Mart breached its fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by
failing to provide prudent investment options for the
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan. In particular, the
lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart selected investment options that
were significantly more expensive than comparable or better
performing funds readily available in the marketplace.

Moreover, the suit alleges that, in violation of its fiduciary
duties, Wal-Mart allowed the Plan Trustee, Merrill Lynch, to
obtain kickback payments from the fund companies whose
investment options were selected for inclusion in the Plan.

The proposed class includes all persons, other than Defendants,
who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan and who
held assets in the Plan Investment Options at any time between
January 31, 2002 and the present.

Excessive fees and improper hidden kickbacks can have a
devastating impact on retirement savings over time.

For more information, contact:

          Jason Dillman, Paralegal
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          Phone: 800/776-6044
          e-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com
          Web site: http://www.erisafraud.com


WELLS FARGO: Calif. Judge Refuses to Dismiss Overtime Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California refused to dismiss a class action
accusing Wells Fargo of state and federal labor laws by failing
to pay overtime to credit managers, senior credit managers,
assistant managers and loan processors, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is a class action brought by plaintiffs:

     -- Angela Salgado,
     -- Olaf Winterton,
     -- Kristy Lafluer,
     -- Sara Barone,
     -- Toba Adina,
     -- Amanda Taula, and
     -- Matthew Harden

alleging that they, along with the proposed class, were
non-exempt employees covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and California laws and are entitled to overtime pay consistent
with the requirements of these laws.

Plaintiffs’ proposed FLSA class consists of All persons who did
not sign valid and binding arbitrations agreements with
Defendants, who are or have been employed by Defendants as a
credit manager, senior credit manager, assistant manager, or
loan processor in the State of California under the same first-,
second-, and third-level managers as the named Plaintiffs, at
anytime within three years prior to this action’s filing date
through the date of final disposition of this action.

Plaintiffs further allege that they worked within a particular
management chain and were subject to a single set of policies,
procedures, and/or practices with respect to the alleged
overtime violations.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ collective
action and class action claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, for summary
adjudication of those claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54.

They argued that plaintiffs’ collective action and class action
claims should be dismissed because plaintiffs are legally
precluded from asserting such claims pursuant to a prior court
order.

Plaintiffs asserted that none of the elements required to apply
issue preclusion are present in this case.

On Oct. 3, Judge Damrell denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the case, ruling that the issue has not been adequately raised
or briefed by the parties.

The suit is "Angela Salgado et al. v. Wells Fargo Financial,
Inc., Case No. CIV. 08-0795 FCD KJM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Gainey & Mckenna Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On October 9, 2008, Gainey & McKenna filed a class action in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all persons who purchased 7.70% Series A5 Junior
Subordinated Debentures of American International Group, Inc.
from the date of the Company's public offering on December 11,
2007, and all purchasers traceable thereto against certain
officers and directors of AIG and certain Underwriters of the
Offering, pursuant to Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77k, 77l and 77o.

     The Underwriters include:

     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
     -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,
     -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,
     -- UBS Securities LLC,
     -- Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC,
     -- Bank of America Securities LLC,
     -- Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.,
     -- The Bear Stearns Companies, LLC,
     -- RBC Capital Markets and
     -- Wells Fargo Securities.

The Complaint asserts that AIG's Prospectus contained both
material misstatements and omissions, which Plaintiff and the
Class relied upon to their detriment. The representations made
in the Company's Prospectus were materially false and misleading
because at the time of the Offering, AIG was already suffering
from several adverse factors that were not revealed and/or
adequately addressed in the document. These factors include, but
are not limited to, the fact that, contrary to representations
in the Prospectus:

     (i) AIG did not have a relatively small exposure to loss
         associated with credit swaps sold by certain variable
         interest entities;

    (ii) AIG's exposure to loss associated with credit
         protection assumed by AIG Financial Products Corp. and
         AIG Trading Group Inc., including their respective
         subsidiaries ("AIGFP") on portfolios of loans or debt
         securities was not remote, even in severe recessionary
         market scenarios; and

   (iii) AIG's financial statements and financial information,
         as contained in and incorporated by reference into the
         Prospectus, were not presented in conformity with
         generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP").

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 9,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

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


AUTHENTEC INC: Izard Nobel Announces Fla. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class-action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on behalf of those who purchased
or otherwise acquired the securities of AuthenTec betweenApril
28, 2008 and September 5, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that AuthenTec and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements concerning AuthenTec's business and
operations. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants'
failed to disclose or indicate the following:

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

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

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

    (iv) that AuthenTec lacked effective internal controls; and

     (v) as a result, defendant's statements during the Class
         Period regarding the Company's financial results and
         revenue growth lacked a reasonable basis.

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
          Tel.: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com


BIOVAIL CORP: KGS Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announced that a securities class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities and common stock of Biovail Corporation during the
period between December 14, 2006 and July 19, 2007, inclusive.

Biovail 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 information regarding the status of its new drug
development and the efficacy of the Company's controls and
procedures.

Specifically, the complaint charges that Biovail failed to
disclose that it knew or was reckless in not knowing that the
FDA required a "single dose study" to demonstrate the
bioequivalence of generic Wellbutrin XL, and that Biovail had
submitted only a multiple-dose study to demonstrate such
bioequivalence. Thus, despite statements made by Biovail to the
contrary, at no time during the Class Period could investors
expect FDA approval of this important Biovail drug.

Investors only learned the truth about the Company on July 20,
2007, when Biovail issued a release that ultimately revealed
that the FDA had issued a non-approval letter for its new drug
application for BVF-033. As a result of this belated disclosure,
shares of Biovail common stock fell to $20.03 -- over $5.50 per
share -- in the single trading-day.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 8,
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


FANNIE MAE: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP, a national law firm with offices in Little
Rock, Arkansas and Houston, Texas, announces that it filed, on
October 8, 2008, a class action filed in the United States
District Court for Southern District of New York against Fannie
Mae (NSYE:FNM) on behalf of purchasers of Fannie Mae's 8.25%
Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series S
who purchased the stock between December 11, 2007 and September
5, 2008, inclusive.

Fannie Mae is the nation's largest source of financing for home
mortgages.

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants --
including several former officers and directors of Fannie Mae
and the underwriters responsible for the Series S preferred
stock offering -- knew or recklessly disregarded that Fannie Mae
was grossly undercapitalized, in violation of Federal
regulations, because of its overwhelming investments in subprime
and Alt-A mortgages.

These assets were not properly accounted for in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Fannie Mae's
capital deficiency also was concealed because its deferred tax
assets and guaranty obligations were not properly accounted for
in violation of GAAP.

Since Fannie Mae was placed in conservatorship by the federal
government, the price of its Series S preferred stock has
declined precipitously from the $25 offering price and reached a
low of $1.51/share -- roughly 94% less than its offered value --
on September 18, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          John G. Emerson, Esq
          Scott E. Poynter, Esq
          Emerson Poynter LLP
          500 President Clinton Ave, Suite 305
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: 501.907.2555 or 800.663.9817
          Fax: 501.907.2556
          e-mail: fanniemae@emersonpoynter.com


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces N.Y. Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 10, 2008, a class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Federal National Mortgage Association.

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

The class period is from December 6, 2007 through September 5,
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
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (450) 239-2112
          e-mail: wfederman@aol.com
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
securities of General Electric Company during the period between
September 25, 2008 and October 1, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint includes claims against GE and certain of its
officers with violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint asserts that during an investor conference call on
September 25, 2008, defendants falsely represented that GE would
not require any additional fund raising through debt, equity, or
otherwise during the fourth quarter-ended December 31, 2008 but
that 5 days later, on October 1, 2008, the Company announced
that it planned to offer at least $12 billion of common stock in
a public offering.

The complaint further alleges that on October 2, 2008, GE
announced the offering was to be priced at $22.25 per share,
below the stock's prior day closing price of $24.50 per share
and below its 52 week low, an announcement that caused the value
of GE shares to decline significantly.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030


HANSEN NATURAL: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP today announced that it has filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Hansen Natural
Corporation common stock during the period between May 23, 2007
and November 8, 2007, inclusive.

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

The class action complaint alleges that the defendants issued
false and misleading statements concerning Hansen's business,
financial performance and prospects. According to the complaint,
defendants improperly failed to disclose that:

     (i) Hansen was experiencing declining sales in its non-core
         drink lines;

    (ii) the Company was experiencing production shortfalls with
         its Java Monster drink line; and

   (iii) Hansen's second quarter sales results were materially
         impacted by inventory loading as customers were induced
         to purchase more product before the Company raised its
         prices in its Monster Energy drink line and its Java
         Monster drink line.

Based on these alleged omissions, Hansen's common stock traded
at artificially inflated levels throughout the Class Period,
reaching as high as $68.11 per share on October 18, 2007. During
this time, the individual defendants allegedly sold over 2.3
million shares of their personally-held Hansen common stock for
gross proceeds in excess of $104.8 million.

On November 8, 2007, the Company announced its financial results
for the third quarter of 2007, the period ended September 30,
2007. For the quarter, the Company reported lower than expected
revenue growth and decreasing profit margins. In response, the
price of Hansen's common stock fell approximately 23%, closing
below $44 per share.

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 District of
Arizona on behalf of purchasers of Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corporation securities during the period between October 30,
2003 and September 23, 2008.

The complaint charges Medicis and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Medicis, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty pharmaceutical company in the United States and
Canada.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements about the Company's
financial performance. Specifically, defendants overstated the
Company's revenues and earnings by failing to account for
returns in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.

On September 24, 2008, before the market opened, the Company
issued a press release announcing that its Audit Committee had
concluded that the Company's financial statements for the
annual, transition and quarterly periods in fiscal years 2003
through 2007 and the first and second quarters of 2008, will
likely need to be restated and should no longer be relied upon.
According to the Company, the restatement was related to a
modification in the Company's technical interpretation of the
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles relating to sales
return reserve calculations. The Company's prior accounting
method, with respect to sales return reserves, accrued returns
at replacement cost rather than deferring the gross sales price,
based on the Company's view of the economic impact of returns on
its business. As a result of this disclosure, Medicis's stock
price dropped from $17.92 on September 23, 2008 to $15.58 the
next day.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
October 3, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

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


MEMC ELECTRONICS: Schiffrin Barroway Announces Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP gave
notice that a class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of
all purchasers of securities of MEMC Electronics Materials,
Inc.from June 13, 2008 through July 23, 2008, inclusive.

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

MEMC designs, manufactures, and sells silicon wafers for the
semiconductor industry worldwide. Its products include prime
polished wafers, such as OPTIA and annealed products; epitaxial
wafers consisting of thin silicon layer grown on the polished
surface of the wafer; and test/monitor wafers for testing
semiconductor fabrication lines and processes.

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

     (1) that the Company had experienced material disruptions
         in its Texas and Italy facilities;

     (2) that such disruptions had materially hindered the
         Company's ability to generate expected revenues;

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

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         previously issued guidance became lacking in any
         reasonable basis and required immediate revision.

On July 23, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
disclosed, for the first time, that in June 2008 there was a
failure of a heat-exchanger at the Company's Merano, Italy
facility that reduced the Company's second quarter polysilicon
output by almost five percent. Additionally, the Company
informed investors that a loose pipe fitting caused a fire at
the Company's Pasadena, Texas facility which resulted in a
shutdown of half the silane production for approximately a week.

This was the first revelation that the Company had suffered
significant problems at its production facilities. These
problems caused the Company's second quarter net sales to be
over $8 million less than the bottom range of the financial
guidance that the Company issued in April 2008.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell $11.57
per share, or 21.51 percent, to close on July 24, 2008 at $42.23
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact:

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


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
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  * * *