CAR_Public/081022.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, October 22, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 210

                            Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Appeal Court Ruling in "Marcoux"
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Withdraw Claims in Surcharges Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs in "McKay" Dismiss Claims v. Firm
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suits Over Prices & Surcharges Still Pending
AMTRAK: Riverside Reservation Agent Files $5-Million Lawsuit

AOL LLC: Faces California Lawsuit Over Ads Inserted in E-mails
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Certification of "Ellis" Bias Lawsuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Dismisses Claim in "Ward" Matter
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Mulls Appeal of $5.3M Judgment
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Certifies Class in Membership Lawsuit

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Denies Dismissal Bid v. "Hot Fuel" Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Denial of Overtime Pay
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Lawsuit Over Uncompensated Working Time
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suits in Wash. & Colo. Over Organic Milk
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review of Salmon Case

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settles Calif. Overtime Litigation for $16MM
CSX CORP: Seeks Dismissal of D.C. Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suit
DIRECT AUTO: Refuses to Sell Insurance to Military, Suit Claims
DOLLAR GENERAL: Toy Boats Recalled Due to Burn Hazard
ESURANCE INSURANCE: Faces Wash. Suit Over Refused Compensation

FOAM PRODUCTS: Price Fixing Alleged in New Jersey Lawsuit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Calif. Suit Claims Defective "Monogram" Refs
GENERAL POWER: Recalls Portable Generators Due to Fire Hazard
HARRIS STRATEX : Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 14
HOME SCIENCE: Recalls Magnets Due to Lead Paint Standard Breach

MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Fannie Mae Preferred Stock Series
MY WAY: Recalls Baby Walkers Due to Stairway Fall Hazard
NEW JERSEY: Philadelphia Lawyers Win $31 Million Jury Verdict
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Sends Bogus Bills, Washington Suit Claims
RESERVE MANAGEMENT: Faces NY Suit Over Primary Fund Involvement

SUNRISE SENIOR: To Seek Dismissal of D.C. Securities Fraud Suit
UNION OIL: Nov. 24 is Final Hearing for Patents Suit Settlement


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTEC INC: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida
CANO PETROLEUM: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
ELAN CORP: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Lawsuit in Colorado

SPECTRANETICS CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Lawsuit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Appeal Court Ruling in "Marcoux"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in  the matter "Marcoux et al. v. American
Airlines Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," which
names American Airlines Inc. as a defendant, are appealing a
recent ruling in the case handed down by the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

The suit, filed by Ann M. Marcoux, names as defendant:

      -- the Association of Professional Flight Attendants;

      -- the Union that represents the company's flight
         attendants; and

      -- American Airlines, Inc.

The suit asks on behalf of all of the company's flight
attendants or various subclasses damages allegedly resulting
from the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to
as the Restructuring Participation Agreement.

The RPA was one of three labor agreements that the company
successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing
for bankruptcy in 2003.

The Marcoux suit alleges various claims against the Association
of Professional Flight Attendants and American Airlines relating
to the RPA and the ratification vote on the RPA by individual
APFA members, including:

      -- violation of the Labor Management Reporting and
         Disclosure Act and the APFA's Constitution and By-laws;
         and

      -- violation by the APFA of its duty of fair
         representation to its members, violation by American of
         provisions of the Railway Labor Act through
         improper coercion of flight attendants into voting or
         changing their vote for ratification, and violations of
         the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
         of 1970.

On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various
state law claims against American, all but one of the LMRDA
claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of RICO.

On July 22, 2008, the district court granted summary judgment to
American and APFA concerning the remaining claimed violations of
the RLA and the duty of fair representation against American and
the APFA (as well as one LMRDA claim and one claim against the
APFA of a breach of its constitution).

On Aug. 20, 2008, a notice of appeal was filed on behalf of the
purported class of flight attendants, according to the company's
Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 16, 2008.

The suit is "Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Nina Gershon,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Emily Maruja Bass, Esq. (eb@basslaw.us)
         Law Offices of Emily Bass
         25 Washington Street, Suite 305
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Phone: 718-522-9705
         Fax: 718-522-9707

              - and -

         Martin Garbus, Esq. (mgarbus@dglaw.com)
         Mark J. Rachman, Esq. (mrachman@dglaw.com)
         Davis & Gilbert, LLP
         1740 Broadway, 21st floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-468-4800
         Fax: 212-468-4888

Representing the defendants are:

         Thomas Edward Reinert, Jr., Esq.
         (treinert@morganlewis.com)
         Melissa C. Rodriguez, Esq.
         (mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com)
         Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq. (sshaulson@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         101 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10178
         Phone: 212-309-6000
         Fax: 212-309-6273


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Withdraw Claims in Surcharges Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the consolidated class-action lawsuit "In re
International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. M:06-cv-01793-CRB," have dismissed their claims against
American Airlines, Inc., which was named as a defendant in the
matter.

Initially, around 52 purported class-action suits have been
filed in the U.S. against the company and certain foreign and
domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S.
antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges for passenger transportation.

These cases, along with other purported class action suits in
which the company was not named, were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re
International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation,
M 06-01793" on Oct. 25, 2006.

The plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.

On July 9, 2007, the company was named as a defendant in the
consolidated complaint.

On Aug. 25, 2008, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against
the company in this action, according to its Oct. 16, 2008 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Oct. 16, 2008.

The suit is "In re International Air Transportation Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:06-cv-01793-CRB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Lee Albert, Esq. (lalbert@magergoldstein.com)
         Mager & Goldstein, LLP
         One Liberty Place, 21st Fl., 1650 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-640-3280
         Fax: 215-640-3281

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

              - and -

         Steven A. Asher, Esq.
         Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher, LLC
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-545-7200
         Fax: 215-545-6535

Representing the defendants is:

         Debra J. Pearlstein, Esq. (debra.pearlstein@weil.com)
         Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: 212-310-8686
         Fax: 213-310-8007


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs in "McKay" Dismiss Claims v. Firm
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported Canadian class action lawsuit
"McKay v. Ace Aviation Holdings, et al.," agreed to dismiss
their claims against American Airlines, Inc.

On Jan. 23, 2007, the company was served with a purported class-
action complaint filed against it, AMR Corp., and certain
foreign and domestic air carriers in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia in Canada.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated Canadian
competition laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.  The complaint sought
compensatory and punitive damages under Canadian law.

On June 22, 2007, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims
against the company.   The dismissal is without prejudice and
the company could be brought back into the litigation at a
future date, according to the company's Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 16, 2008.

American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml-- is
the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp.  All of American's common
stock is owned by AMR.  American is a scheduled passenger
airline.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, American provided
scheduled jet service to approximately 170 destinations
throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe
and Asia.  In addition, American has capacity purchase
agreements with two wholly owned subsidiaries of AMR, American
Eagle Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. and two
independently owned regional airlines, which do business as the
American Connection (the American Connection carriers).  The AMR
Eagle and American Connection carriers provide connecting
service from eight of American's high-traffic cities to smaller
markets throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.
American is also a scheduled air freight carriers, providing a
range of freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suits Over Prices & Surcharges Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc., is still facing two purported class-
action lawsuits over allegations that the company violated U.S.
antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges for passenger transportation in Japan and Germany,
respectively.

The suits were filed on March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008,
under the captions:

       -- "Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-1444
          (N.D. Cal.);" and

       -- "LaFlamme v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-
          1079 (E.D.N.Y.)."

The plaintiffs in the Turner and LaFlamme cases are seeking
trebled money damages and injunctive relief.

The company reported no development regarding the cases in its
Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 16, 2008.

American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml-- is
the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp.  All of American's common
stock is owned by AMR.  American is a scheduled passenger
airline.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, American provided
scheduled jet service to approximately 170 destinations
throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe
and Asia.  In addition, American has capacity purchase
agreements with two wholly owned subsidiaries of AMR, American
Eagle Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. and two
independently owned regional airlines, which do business as the
American Connection (the American Connection carriers).  The AMR
Eagle and American Connection carriers provide connecting
service from eight of American's high-traffic cities to smaller
markets throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.
American is also a scheduled air freight carriers, providing a
range of freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.


AMTRAK: Riverside Reservation Agent Files $5-Million Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit seeking more than $5 million has been
filed against Amtrak by a reservation agent working at the
nationwide railroad's Riverside Call Center, Richard K. De Atley
writes for The Press-Enterprise.

According to the report, the suit claims that Amtrak failed to
pay for all the time agents work at the center.

Press-Enterprise recounts that the lawsuit was filed in June on
behalf of Dan W. Thomas, who said in court papers that he has
worked as a reservation agent at the call center since 1995.

"Throughout his employment with Amtrak, Plaintiff worked time
off the clock pre-shift, post-shift, and during time set aside
for meal breaks," the lawsuit claims.

The report further notes that Mr. Thomas claims the failure of
Amtrak to pay reservation agents for all their work time, and
failure to provide agents with accurate wage statements,
violates the state labor and business and professions code.

The lawsuit estimates damages in excess of $5 million and says
that the class of workers who the suit says should be added to
Mr. Thomas' action is "more than 500."

The report relates that Amtrak denied Mr. Thomas' allegations,
said it is not liable under law, and that his claims are barred
by several legal rules.  The company also said that there is no
reason for the court to turn the suit into a class action.

The lawsuit has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge
Stephen G. Larson, who also is presiding over an earlier,
separate lawsuit filed against Amtrak by reservation agents,
Press-Enterprise points out.


AOL LLC: Faces California Lawsuit Over Ads Inserted in E-mails
--------------------------------------------------------------
AOL LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California alleging
it inserted ads at the end of more than 100 million e-mails
without subscribers' permission, and won't allow them to cancel
the unwanted advertising on their private emails, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The class claims AOL has done this since March 2006.

Named plaintiff Frank Cecchini sued AOL on behalf of its
2 million customers who pay for e-mail -- about 20% of AOL's
total subscribership, he says.

Mr. Cecchini says AOL defrauds customers by inserting the email
ads without informing them, without their permission, and
without letting them cancel.  He says AOL thereby unjustly
enriches itself and competes unfairly.

Mr. Cecchini further says paid subscribers expect and should be
able to send e-mails without ads being inserted into them.  He
says they pay for this service -- unlike users of free services,
such as hotmail and Yahoo, which also insert the "footer" ads.

"These advertisements are annoying, confusing, intrusive and
misleading," the complaint states.  Mr. Cecchini says that's why
he pays for AOL email service, instead of using a free service.
He says AOL began inserting the ads for its business partners
around March 1, 2006, without telling its paid customers it was
doing so.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to FRCP Rule 23 on
behalf of all persons in the United States who paid for e-mail
services from AOL LLC since March 1, 2006.

Mr. Cecchini asks the court for:

     -- compensatory damages in an amount according to proof
        with interest;

     -- economic and special damages in an amount according to
        proof with interest;

     -- defendants to be found to have engaged in unfair
        competition in violation of section 17200 of the
        California Business and Professions Code;

     -- defendants to be found to have engaged in unfair
        competition in violation of section 17500 of the
        California Business and Professions Code;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- attorney fees, interest and costs of suit;

     -- an enhancement of attorneys fees pursuant to
        California Civil Code Section 1021.5; and

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

The suit is "Frank Cecchini et al. v. AOL LLC et al., Case No.
CV08-06845 CAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq. (chamner@hamnerlaw.com)
          Amy T. Wootton, Esq. (awootton@hamnerlaw.com)
          Kimberly A. Westmoreland, Esq.
          (kwestmoreland@hamnerlaw.com)
          Hamner Law Offices, LLC
          15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 860
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: 818-386-0444
          Fax: 818-386-0050


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Certification of "Ellis" Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is still appealing a decision granting
class-action status to a purported class-action lawsuit filed
over the alleged denial of promotion to certain female managers
of the company.

The case was brought as a class action on behalf of certain
present and former female managers in which the plaintiffs
allege denial of promotion based on gender in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California state law.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees.  Class
certification was granted on Jan. 11, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the Ninth Circuit granted a petition to hear
Costco's appeal of the certification.

On May 30, 2007, the District Court ordered a stay of the case
during the pendency of the appeal.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No.
3:04-cv-03341-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn H. Patel
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James M. Finberg, Esq. (jfinberg@lchb.com)
         Lexi Joy Hazam, Esq. (lhazam@lchb.com)
         Bill Lann Lee, Esq. (blee@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000
         Fax: 415-956-1008

              - and -

         Jocelyn Dion Larkin, Esq. (jlarkin@impactfund.org)
         Brad Seligman, Esq. (bseligman@impactfund.org)
         The Impact Fund, 125 University Avenue
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304
         Fax: 510-845-3654

Representing the defendants are:

         David D. Kadue, Esq. (dkadue@seyfarth.com)
         William Owen Kampf, Esq. (wkampf@la.seyfarth.com)
         Seyfarth Shaw LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-5211
                310-277-7200 x1515
         Fax: 310-201-5219


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Dismisses Claim in "Ward" Matter
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed a claim in the purported class-action lawsuit entitled
"Carrie Ward v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV08-02013 FMC
(FFM)," which was filed against Costco Wholesale Corp.

Initially, a purported class-action suit was filed in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles under the caption,
"Carrie Ward v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. BC-384334."
The putative class-action lawsuit, filed on Jan. 24, 2008, was
purportedly brought on behalf of two groups of former California
employees, namely an "Unpaid Wage Class" and a "Wage Statement
Class."

The "Unpaid Wage Class" focuses on an allegation that Costco
improperly deducts employee credit card balances from final
paychecks, while the "Wage Statement Class" focuses on an
allegation that Costco's final paychecks do not contain the
accurate and itemized information required for wage statements
by applicable law.

The claims in the suit are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

The suit was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under the caption "Carrie Ward v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV08-02013 FMC (FFM)."

On May 29, 2008, the Court granted Costco's motion to dismiss,
throwing out with prejudice the Labor Code 2236 (wage-
itemization) claims, according to the company's Oct. 16, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Carrie Ward v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No.
CV08-02013 FMC (FFM)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          D. Alan Harris, Esq. (aharris@harrisandruble.com)
          Harris and Ruble
          5455 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: 323-931-3777
          Fax: 323-931-3366

Representing the defendants is:

          David D. Kadue, Esq. (dkadue@seyfarth.com)
          Seyfarth Shaw
          2029 Century Park East Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3063
          Phone: 310-277-7200
          Fax: 310-201-5219


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Mulls Appeal of $5.3M Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Alameda has yet to rule on
an appeal by Costco Wholesale Corp. of a $5.3-million judgment
handed down in favor of the plaintiffs in the case entitled
"Anthony Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. RG-04150447."

The overtime compensation case certified as a class-action suit
on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California,
in which the plaintiffs principally allege that Costco's semi-
annual bonus formula is improper with regard to retroactive
overtime pay.

Claims in the case are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

Costco has filed an appeal challenging both the entry of a $5.3
million judgment in favor of the class and the accompanying
award of attorneys' fees.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Certifies Class in Membership Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California court certified a class in one of two purported
class-action lawsuits against Costco Wholesale Corp. in relation
to its membership renewal practices.

One of the suits is "Evans, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
Case No. BC351869," which was filed with the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles and later removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The other suit is "Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Index No.
06-007555," which was commenced in the Supreme Court of Nassau
County, New York and removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

The suits are asserting that the company violated various
provisions of California and New York common law and statutes in
connection with a membership renewal practice.

Under that practice, members who pay their renewal fees late
generally have their 12-month membership renewal periods
commence at the time of the prior year's expiration rather than
the time of the late payment.

The plaintiffs in the two actions seek compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement, preliminary and permanent injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment
interest and, in "Evans," punitive damages.

The court has certified a class in the Dupler action.

The company reported no further development regarding the cases
in its Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Denies Dismissal Bid v. "Hot Fuel" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a
motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated class action suit
captioned "In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840."

Initially, numerous putative class action suits were brought
around the U.S. against motor fuel retailers, including Costco
Wholesale Corp., over allegations that they have been
overcharging drivers by selling gasoline or diesel that is
warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to
compensate for heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect
of such expansion on the energy equivalent received by the
consumer.

The suits are:

      -- "Raphael Sagalyn, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);"

      -- "Phyllis Lerner, et al. v. Costco Wholesale
         Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.);"

      -- "Linda A. Williams, et al. v. BP Corporation North
         America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.);"

      -- "James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);"

      -- "Betty A. Delgado, et al. v. Allsups, Convenience
         Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.);"

      -- "Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 07-285 (D. Nev.);"

      -- "Mark Rushing, et al. v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.);"

      -- "James Vanderbilt, et al. v. BP Corporation North
         America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.);"

      -- "Zachary Wilson, et al. v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.);" and

      -- "Diane Foster, et al. v. BP North America Petroleum,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.)."

      -- "Mara Redstone, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.);"

      -- "Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et
         al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.);"

      -- "J.C. Wash, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case
         No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);"

      -- "Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
         et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.);"

      -- "William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
         Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.);"

      -- "Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tx.);"

      -- "S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al. v. Hess Corporation, et
         al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.);"

      -- "Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al.,
         Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah);" and

      -- "Mark Wyatt, et al. v. B. P. America Corp. dba Atlantic
         Richfield Company, et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D.
         Cal.)."

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action entitled "In re Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840," to Judge
Kathryn Vratil of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.

On Aug. 28, 2007, Judge Vratil held an initial scheduling
conference in this proceeding.  At that time, she ordered
plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint in these actions on
Oct. 19, 2007, and set a briefing schedule on challenges to this
consolidated complaint that calls for a hearing Jan. 11, 2008.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Denial of Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is facing a purported overtime class-
action lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The putative class-action suit was filed on Dec. 26, 2007,
against the company principally alleging denial of overtime.  It
alleges misclassification of certain California managers.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles under the caption, "Jesse Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., Case No. BC-382911."

Claims in the suit are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

The suit was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, under the caption "Jesse
Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al., Case No.
2:08-cv-01408-FMC-JWJ."

On March 6, 2008, Costco filed a motion to dismiss.  On May 15,
2008, the court partially granted the motion, dismissing the
Labor Code 226 claims and refusing to expand the statute of
limitations for the remaining claims.  An answer was filed on
May 27, 2008, according to the company's Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Jesse Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et
al., Case No. 2:08-cv-01408-FMC-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Florence-
Marie Cooper, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          D. Alan Harris, Esq. (aharris@harrisandruble.com)
          Harris and Ruble
          5455 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: 323-931-3777
          Fax: 323-931-3366

Representing the defendants is:

          David D. Kadue, Esq. (dkadue@seyfarth.com)
          Seyfarth Shaw
          2029 Century Park East Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3063
          Phone: 310-277-7200
          Fax: 310-201-5219


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Lawsuit Over Uncompensated Working Time
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in California over uncompensated working time, according
to the company's Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 31, 2008.

A case purportedly brought as a class-action lawsuit on behalf
of present and former hourly employees in California, in which
the plaintiff principally alleges that the company's routine
closing procedures and security checks cause employees to incur
delays that qualify as uncompensated working time and that
effectively deny them statutorily guaranteed meal periods and
rest breaks.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 2, 2008 in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, under the caption, "Anthony
Castaneda v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. BC-399302."

Claims in the lawsuit are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suits in Wash. & Colo. Over Organic Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is still facing two purported federal
class-action suits in Washington and Colorado in relation to
sales of organic milk.

The suits are:

      1. "Hesse v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D.
         Wash.);"

      2. "Snell v. Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449
         (D. Col.)."

Both actions claim violations of the laws of various states,
essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its
supplier Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic."

Costco has not yet responded to the complaints; Aurora has
maintained that it has held and continues to hold valid organic
certifications.

The complaints seek, among other things, actual, compensatory,
statutory, punitive and exemplary damages in unspecified
amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

The company has yet to respond to the consolidated complaint,
according to the company's Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Aug. 31, 2008.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review of Salmon Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The company is seeking for a U.S. Supreme Court review of  a
ruling in a in a purported class-action lawsuit against the
company relating to sales of farm-raised salmon, according to
the company's Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 31, 2008.

The case is known as "Farm Raised Salmon Coordinated Proceedings
(lead case, Kanter v. Safeway et al.), Los Angeles Superior
Court Case No. JCCP No. 4329."

The action alleges that the Company violated California law
requiring farm-raised salmon to be labeled as "color added."  It
asserts violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California False
Advertising Law, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks
restoration of money acquired by means of unfair competition or
false advertising and compensatory damages in unspecified
amounts, injunctive relief remedying the allegedly improper
disclosures, and costs and attorneys' fees.

A California Superior Court ruling dismissing the action on the
ground that federal law does not permit claims for mislabeling
of farm-raised salmon to be asserted by private parties was
reversed by the California Supreme Court; a petition seeking
review by the U.S. Supreme Court is pending.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settles Calif. Overtime Litigation for $16MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
A $16 million settlement was reached in one of two purported
class-action lawsuits against Costco Wholesale Corp. that were
purportedly brought on behalf of certain present and former
managers in California who principally allege that they have not
been properly compensated for overtime work.

Initially, two lawsuits were filed.  The suits are:

      1. "Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., U.S.
         District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-CV-2003 NAJ
         (JFS);" and

      2. "Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court
         for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-296369."

The Randall matter is currently in the class certification
briefing phase.  The Williams case has been stayed pending the
class certification outcome in the Randall case.

Claims in these actions are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the court in "Randall" granted in part and
denied in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
company intends to seek appellate review in part of that
decision.

On Feb. 21, 2008 the court in Randall tentatively granted in
part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  That order was signed/finalized by the court on
May 13, 2008.  The company is seeking appellate review in part
of that decision.

The Williams case has been stayed pending the class
certification outcome in "Randall," but the stay has not yet
been lifted.

The parties in "Randall" have agreed in principle on a partial
settlement of the action, requiring a payment of up to $16
million by the company, which was reserved for in 2008.  Any
settlement would be subject to court approval, according to the
company's Oct. 16, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 31, 2008.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


CSX CORP: Seeks Dismissal of D.C. Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp. and other major U.S. railroads is seeking for the
dismissal of a consolidated class-action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over
allegations that the individual railroads violated the U.S.
antitrust laws.

Since May 2007, at least 30 putative class-action lawsuits have
been brought in various federal district courts against CSX and
four other U.S.-based Class I railroads.

The lawsuits contain substantially similar allegations to the
effect that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to
contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal
conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws.  The lawsuits seek
unquantified treble damages allegedly sustained by purported
class members, attorneys' fees and other relief.

All but three of the lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a
class of shippers that allegedly purchased rail freight
transportation services from the defendants through the use of
contracts or through other means exempt from rate regulation
during defined periods commencing as early as June 2003 and were
assessed fuel surcharges.

Three of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of indirect
purchasers of rail services.  One additional lawsuit has been
filed by an individual shipper.

The class-action lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  The defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss and oral arguments were heard on Oct.
10, 2008.  The court is expected to rule on the Motion to
Dismiss within the next six months, according to the company's
Oct. 15, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008.

CSX Corp. -- http://www.csx.com/-- is a transportation company.
The company owns companies providing rail, intermodal and rail-
to-truck transload services, connecting more than 70 ocean,
river and lake ports.  CSX operates in two segments: rail and
intermodal.


DIRECT AUTO: Refuses to Sell Insurance to Military, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Auto Insurance and Northwest Insurance Network are facing
a class-action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois alleging the companies refuse to sell auto
insurance to people in the U.S. military, and rescinds their
coverage if they enlist, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Illinois
Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/101 et seq. as well as the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS
505/1 et seq. because defendants refused to provide automobile
insurance coverage to persons who are serving their country.

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of all Illinois
residents who are members of the military as defined by the
Illinois Human Rights Act who were denied automobile insurance
coverage or who had automobile insurance rescinded by defendants
because of their military status within the two years from the
date plaintiff filed the class action.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether plaintiff and the class members or a protected
         class as defined by the Illinois Human Rights Act;

     (b) whether defendants' practices are covered by the
         Illinois Human Rights Act under "financial credit"
         violations;

     (c) whether purchase of automobile insurance from
         defendants is a "public accommodation" as defined by
         the Illinois Human Rights Act;

     (d) whether defendants have an underwriting guideline to
         deny automobile insurance coverage to military
         personnel;

     (e) whether defendants' conduct violates the Illinois Human
         Rights Act;

     (f) whether defendants' conduct violates the Illinois
         Consumer Fraud Act; and

     (g) whether the members of the class have sustained damages
         and, if so, the proper measure of such damages.

Plaintiff requests judgment and relief as follows:

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

     -- find that defendants' practices described are
        discriminatory in violation of the Illinois Human Rights
        Act;

     -- find that defendants' practices described are unfair in
        violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act;

     -- enjoin defendants from further engaging in
        discriminatory conduct;

     -- award actual damages in favor of plaintiff and other
        members of the class;

     -- award compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and the
        other members of the class;

     -- award punitive damages in favor of plaintiff and other
        members of the class;

     -- award plaintiff and the other members of the class their
        costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
        reasonable attorney's and expert's fees; and

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

The suit is "Francisco Velez et al. v. Direct Auto Insurance Co.
et al., Case No. 08CH38945," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff are:

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


DOLLAR GENERAL: Toy Boats Recalled Due to Burn Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Merchandising Inc., of Goodlettsville, Tenn., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 200,000 battery operated toy "Speed Boats".

The company said the two battery terminals can come into contact
with each other, causing the battery to overheat, posing a burn
hazard to consumers.

Dollar General has received two reports of the batteries
overheating.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled toy speed boats are lightweight plastic toy boats
supported by an inflatable hull with "outboard" motors on them.
The motor uses two AA batteries.  The toy boat measures about 12
inches long by 8 inches wide and comes in various colors and
designs.

These recalled toy boats were manufactured in China and were
being sold at Dollar General nationwide from March 2008 through
July 2008 for $3 each.

A picture of the recalled toy boats can be found at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09012.jpg

Consumers are advised to take these toys away from young
children and return them to the store where purchased for a
refund or replacement product.

For additional information, contact Dollar General at
800-678-9258 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday,
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.dollargeneral.com/


ESURANCE INSURANCE: Faces Wash. Suit Over Refused Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Esurance Insurance and White Mountains Insurance Group are
facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington alleging the companies
refuse to compensate policyholders for the diminished value of
their cars damaged in accidents, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This action seeks to recover damages and obtain declaratory and
injunctive relief for the class, all of whom are insureds of
Esurance and who have been injured and suffered losses as a
result of the said misconduct.

This action is brought as a class action under FRCP 23 to
redress for Esurance's uniform and common practice of failing to
inform its policyholders of the full extent of their loss and to
pay all damages that their insureds are legally entitled to
recover on behalf of:

     (1) all persons in the United States whose claims were
         handled and paid by the Esurance, who received
         payment under their Esurance uninsured or underinsured
         property damage coverage after April 6, 2002, and did
         not receive payment for diminished value where the
         estimate, including supplements, to repair the vehicle
         was more than $1,000; the vehicle suffered structural
         (frame) damage and required body or paint work; and
         the vehicle was less than six years old (model year
         plus five) and had less than 90,000 miles on it at the
         time of the accident; and

     (2) all persons in the United States who received payment
         under their Esurance property damage collision or
         comprehensive coverages after April 6, 2002, and who
         were involved in an accident with either a hit-and-run
         driver or an uninsured motorist.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether plaintiff and the class had any obligations
         other than presenting their claim for property damage
         to Esurance in order to receive compensation for
         diminished value;

     (b) whether the Esurance failed to fulfill its contractual
         and claims handling obligations to its policyholders by
         not disclosing the presence of loss due to diminished
         value;

     (c) whether Esurance failed to fulfill its contractual and
         claims handling obligations to its policyholders by not
         adjusting claims to include diminished value;

     (d) whether Esurance breached its contract with class
         members by failing to pay diminished value;

     (e) whether Esurance failed to disclose information to
         avoid payment of diminished value; and

     (f) whether the plaintiff and the class have sustained
         damages and the proper measure of those damages.

Plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- an order certifying the above-entitled case as a
        class action as set forth in the complaint;

     -- a judgment which equals the difference between their
        vehicles' market value before they were damaged and
        their market value as properly repaired vehicles,
        together with pre-judgment interest;

     -- judgment for costs of suit and attorneys' fees;

     -- post-judgment interest on the judgment at the rate
        provided by law from the date of judgment until paid;

     -- treble damages per RCW 19.86 et seq;

     -- a declaratory judgment as requested;

     -- representative incentive fees; and

     -- such other relief as may be just and equitable.

The suit is "Su Shin et al. v. Esurance Inc. et al., Case No.
Case Number: 3:2008cv05626," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Judge Ronald B.
Leighton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          Lowenberg, Lopez & Hansen, PS
          950 Pacific Ave., Ste. 450
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Phone: 253-383-1964
          Fax: 253-383-1808
          e-mail: llhlaw@aol.com


FOAM PRODUCTS: Price Fixing Alleged in New Jersey Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
BASF, Dow Chemical, Huntsman International and Lyondell Chemical
Co. are facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging the
companies conspired to fix prices and allocate markets for
polyether polyol products, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The class of polymers is used in foam products such as
mattresses and car seats.

Plaintiffs in this case requested exclusion from a settlement in
a November 2004 antitrust class action that also involved Bayer
Corp.

Plaintiffs seek:

     (1) to recover treble damages and injunctive relief for
         violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act of 1890, 15
         USC Sections 15, 26;

     (2) to recover full consideration under the antitrust or
         similar laws of Colorado, Indiana, Tennessee and
         Wisconsin; and

    (3)  pursuant to Article 6 of the Council Regulation (EC)
         No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 (Regulation 1/2003), to
         recover the present value of actual damages sustained,
         including aggravated and exemplary damages, with
         appropriate interest, for infringement of Article 81
         of the Treaty on European Union and Consolidated
         Version of the Treaty Establishing the European
         Community, Maastricht, Rome, Amsterdam, 7 February
         1992, 25 March 1957, 2 October 1996 (36 LLM 56 (1998))
         (EC Treaty or EU Law), and any and all other
         applicable laws of the nations belonging to the
         European Union (EU Member State), including but not
         limited to, the United Kingdom, Germany, France,
         Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden,
         Poland, and Lithuania.

This antitrust action arises out of  a worldwide combination and
conspiracy among defendants and their co-conspirators to, inter
alia, fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices at which
polyether polyol products were sold, and to allocate customers
and markets for polyether polyols products, throughout the
world, including at least in the United States and Europe, from
at least as early as 1994 and continuing through at least
Dec. 31, 2004, the exact dates being unknown to plaintiffs.

In furtherance of their unlawful worldwide combination and
conspiracy, defendants and their co-conspirators combined and
conspired to fix the price agreements, and agreed to allocate
customers and markets for polyether polyol products.

Plaintiffs request the court to:

     -- enter judgment for plaintiffs declaring that the
        foregoing combination and conspiracy, and the acts done
        in furtherance thereof, were an unlawful restraint of
        trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     -- enter judgment for plaintiffs for the damages period and
        jointly and severally against defendants for treble the
        amount of the jury verdict and for attorney's fees,
        costs and prejudgment interest as provided for in
        Section 4 of the Clayton Act;

     -- enter judgment for plaintiffs and jointly and severally
        against defendants for the full consideration paid by
        plaintiffs for polyether polyol products purchased from
        defendants and their co-conspirators during the damages
        period in the states of Colorado, Indiana, Tennessee and
        Wisconsin;

     -- enter judgment for plaintiffs declaring that the
        implementation and effect of the cartel alleged
        constitutes a breach of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty
        and all other applicable EU Member States' laws,
        including but not limited to, the United Kingdom,
        France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands,
        Denmark, Sweden, Poland and Lithuania not to infringe
        Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty;

     -- enter judgment for plaintiffs for the present value of
        actual damages determined to have been sustained by them
        by virtue of defendants' infringements of EU Law, and
        for aggravated and exemplary damages, with appropriate
        interest, as allowed by law;

     -- enjoin defendants from continuing the unlawful
        conspiracy alleged, and from entering into any other
        combination, conspiracy or agreement having similar
        purposes or effects; and

     -- enter, and retain jurisdiction to enter, such further
        orders and decrees as may be necessary or appropriate to
        remedy the injury to plaintiffs or as the court deems
        appropriate.

The suit is "Carpenter Co., et al. v. BASF SE et al., Case 2:33-
av-00001," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Mauro M. Wolfe, Esq. (wolfem@dicksteinshapiro.com)
          Dickstein Shapiro LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-2714
          Phone: 212-277-6726


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Calif. Suit Claims Defective "Monogram" Refs
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric is facing a class-action complaint filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court alleging its "Monogram" refrigerators
allow too much internal moisture, causing dangerous mold, mildew
and rust, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The class covers "hundreds or thousands of Monogram 36-(inch)
refrigerators" bearing model numbers beginning ZIR36N and
ZIRS36.

The class claims GE admitted the defect in a 2003 service
bulletin to repairmen, but ordered them "not to share it with
consumers."

The class also claims that once the refrigerators are rewired
according to the service bulletin, they no longer meet the
advertised energy-saving levels.

Fairfield, Conn.-based General Electric Capital Corp., an
indirect subsidiary of General Electric Company, operates in
four segments: GE Commercial Finance, GE Money, GE Industrial,
and GE Infrastructure.


GENERAL POWER: Recalls Portable Generators Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Power Products LLC, of Loveland, Ohio, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 13,000 portable generators.

The company said the generator's fuel valve can be damaged by
the cover plate during shipment and cause a fuel leak and fuel
spillage during use, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

General Power Products has received 14 reports of damaged fuel
valves.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall includes the General Power Products 6000 Watt
portable generator and the Poulan Pro 6000 Watt portable
generator with serial numbers 060400483 through 060600725. The
serial number is stamped on the engine block which is located on
the front of the engine below the generator's control panel.
"General Power Products" and "6000 Generator" are printed on the
side of the General Power Products generator.  "Poulan Pro" and
"6000 watts" are printed on the side of the Poulan Pro
generator.

These recalled power generators were manufactured in China and
were being sold at hardware and home improvement stores
primarily located in Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio and
Texas from June 2008 through September 2008 for between $600 and
$800.

A picture of the recalled power generators is found at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09009a.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the generators
and contact General Power Products to determine if the
generator's fuel valve is damaged and, if it is, to receive a
free repair kit and instructions.

For additional information, contact General Power Products toll-
free at 877-428-3769 24 hours a day, seven days a week, or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.generalpowerproducts.com/


HARRIS STRATEX : Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Oct. 17, 2008 -- Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith announced a November 14, 2008, deadline to move to be a
lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Harris Stratex
Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: HSTX) between January 2007 and July 30,
2008, inclusive, including shareholders of Stratex Networks,
Inc. who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc. for shares
of Harris Stratex pursuant to the Company's registration
statement/prospectus that became effective January 8, 2007.

     The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Harris Stratex's business and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Harris
Stratex securities.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 14, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847
          Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


HOME SCIENCE: Recalls Magnets Due to Lead Paint Standard Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Home Science Tools, of Billings, Mont., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 400
Alnico Bar Magnets.

The company said the surface paints on the magnets contain
excessive levels of lead, which violates the federal lead paint
standard.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Alnico 3-inch long bar magnets.  The
magnets are painted red and blue, and were originally packaged
as a pair or as a component of a science kit.  The magnets were
sold as item number MG-BAR3AL.

These recalled bar magnets were manufactured in China and were
being sold at web retailers and by mail order between May 2008
and September 2008 for about $6.

A picture of the recalled bar magnets is found at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09011.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled magnets
away from children and contact Home Science Tools to receive
replacement magnets.

For additional information, contact Home Science Tools at (800)
860-6272 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. CT, or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.hometrainingtools.com/


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Fannie Mae Preferred Stock Series
----------------------------------------------------------------
     PR-CANADA.net, Montenegro -- The Securities Law Firm of
Klayman & Toskes, P.A.,announced that a class action lawsuit,
Case No. 08-cv-08609, has been filed against Merrill Lynch and
other Defendants on behalf of purchasers of Fannie Mae Preferred
Stock, Series S.

     Potential class members who purchased Fannie Preferred
Stock S from Merrill Lynch should consider whether they should
participate in the class action or file an individual securities
arbitration claim.

     According to the Complaint, the Defendants, including
Merrill Lynch, underwrote the offering for Fannie Mae Preferred
Stock S. However, in connection with the offering, the Complaint
alleges that the underwriters, including Merrill Lynch, knew or
recklessly disregarded that Fannie Mae was massively
undercapitalized, due to Fannie Mae's over-concentration in
subprime investments and Alt-A mortgages.  These assets were not
properly accounted for in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.  The share price of Fannie Mae Preferred
Stock S has significantly declined about 90%, from the IPO price
of $25 per share to about $2.05 per share, as of October 16,
2008.

     Further, brokers and financial advisors may have purchased
an unsuitable amount of Fannie Preferred Stock S in their
clients' accounts, thereby creating a significant over-
concentration.  Over-concentration exists when 10% or more of
the investment portfolio is invested in a single security or
sector.

For more information, contact:

          Steven D. Toskes, Esq.
          Jahan K. Manasseh, Esq.
          Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
          Peninsula Plaza
          2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 450
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 888-997-9956
          Web site: http://www.nasd-law.com/


MY WAY: Recalls Baby Walkers Due to Stairway Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
My Way Corp., of San Juan, Puerto Rico, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 800
baby walkers.

The company said the walkers violate the baby walker voluntary
standard and can fit through a standard doorway and are not
designed to stop at the edge of a step.  Babies using these
walkers can be seriously injured or killed.  No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled walkers were sold for babies 6 months and older.
The walkers were sold in the following colors: pink, red, green,
blue, and ivory.  The walkers have an activity tray with a
steering wheel and other toys.  "My Way Corp" is printed on a
sticker on the front of the walker.

These recalled baby walkers were manufactured in China and
were being sold at independent discount stores in Puerto Rico
from November 2004 through March 2008 for between $18 and $25.

A picture of the recalled baby walkers is found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09014.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these walkers immediately
and return them to the store where purchased for a full refund.

For additional information, contact My Way Corp. collect at 787-
758-5848 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


NEW JERSEY: Philadelphia Lawyers Win $31 Million Jury Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 20 -- On October 17, 2008, a Camden
County jury returned a unanimous verdict for $31,295,007 to
Nicolas M. Anderson against the County of Camden, New Jersey for
their failure to repair a highway and guardrail that they knew
were dangerous.

     Mr. Anderson was represented by Philadelphia personal
injury attorneys John Dodig and Jason Daria, both of the
Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner Weinstock & Dodig law
firm.

     The jury verdict from the Superior Court ofNew Jersey Law
Division, Camden County may represent the largest such verdict
ever from that Court in any motor vehicle accident case.

     On December 23, 2004, 18-year-old Nicholas M. Anderson was
driving his car on Raritan Avenue near its intersection with
Third Street in Waterford Township, Atco, NJ. A vehicle
traveling the opposite direction entered Mr. Anderson's lane of
traffic.  When he swerved to the right to avoid a head-on
collision, he went onto the shoulder which was approximately six
inches lower than the highway.  Being unable to swerve back onto
the highway because of the drop, his car went out of control and
hit the guardrail.  Upon impact, the guardrail penetrated the
driver's side door and severed Anderson's right leg.  He also
sustained major injuries to his left arm rendering it nearly
unusable.  Raritan Avenue and the guardrail in question are
owned, maintained and controlled by the Defendant, County of
Camden.

     The allegations against Camden County were that they knew
Raritan Avenue,at the place of Anderson's crash, was dangerous
and unsafe and they failed to fix it.  They also knew for 20
years that the guardrail was dangerous but by their own
admission, they did not comply with safety standards because
they do not repair dangerous conditions until there is an
accident.

     The unanimous jury verdict was entered stating that the
property in question was dangerous at the time of the accident
and Anderson's injuries were caused by the dangerous condition
which was foreseeable.  The verdict also stated that the County
of Camden had notice of the dangerous condition insufficient
time prior to the accident to protect against the dangerous
condition and that their failure to take any measures was
palpably unreasonable (the standard of care in New Jersey under
the NJ Tort Claims Act).


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Sends Bogus Bills, Washington Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington accusing it of charging a bogus $200
"early termination fee" to Internet subscribers, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this multi-state consumer class action suit
on behalf of Qwest internet service customers who are subject to
an invalid $200 Early Termination Fee (ETF) if they cancel their
Internet service before the end of a purported contractual
commitment of, in most cases, two years.

The plaintiffs say the contract indicates they are signing up on
a month-to-month basis, but that Qwest nails them for the bogus
fee anyway, claiming the contract was for 2 years.

The plaintiffs bring their claims on behalf of all Qwest
Internet service customers who, since October 15, 2002, have
been subject to an Early Termination Fee for canceling their
Internet service before the end of their alleged term
commitment.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     a. whether the plaintiffs and members of the class have
        agreed to enforceable term commitments longer than
        month-to-month or to enforceable ETFs;

     b. whether Qwest has subjected the plaintiffs and members
        of the class to ETFs;

     c. whether Qwest's ETFs are unenforceable penalties;

     d. whether Qwest's ETF is unjust, unreasonable or
        unenforceable;

     e. whether other provisions of Qwest's Subscriber Agreement
        are unconscionable, violate public policy or are
        otherwise unenforceable, such as the class action waiver
        and mandatory non-mutual arbitration provisions;

     f. whether Qwest's practices constitute unfair or deceptive
        trade practices;

     g. whether Qwest has been unjustly enriched;

     h. whether declaratory relief is appropriate; and

     i. whether plaintiffs and the Class members have been
        damaged, and if so, the proper measure of such damages.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:

     A. certifying the proposed class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
        P. 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3);

     B. designating plaintiffs as representatives of the Class
        and designating their counsel as Class Counsel,
        including an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3)
        designating the plaintiffs' counsel as interim class
        counsel;

     C. entering judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the class
        and against Qwest;

     D. declaring that the arbitration and class action waiver
        provisions and the alleged ETF imposed by Qwest on its
        customers are unenforceable, violate public policy, and
        are unconscionable;

     E. enjoining Qwest from any efforts to enforce the illegal
        and unenforceable provisions from which it purportedly
        benefits, including the term commitment and ETF
        provisions; requiring Qwest to amend its form documents
        to provide for execution by customers if Qwest seeks
        term commitments of over a year; and requiring Qwest to
        notify all existing customers subject to the existing
        version of the Subscriber Agreement of the
        unenforceability of the term commitment and ETF
        provisions and of any changes in terms of Qwest's
        documents;

     F. awarding plaintiffs and the class actual, statutory and
        exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs,
        including interest thereon; and

     G. granting such further relief as the Court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is "Vernon et al. v. Qwest Communications International
Inc et al., Case Number: 2:2008cv01516," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge
Thomas S. Zilly, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq. (bterrell@tmdlegal.com)
          Toby J. Marshall, Esq. (tmarshall@tmdlegal.com)
          Terrell Marshall & Daudt PLLC
          3600 Fremont Avenue North
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Phone: 206-816-6603
          Fax: 206-350-3528


RESERVE MANAGEMENT: Faces NY Suit Over Primary Fund Involvement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Management Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging it violated the Investment Company Act of 1940 by its
involvement in the Primary Fund, a money market fund whose value
fell below $1 a share due to investments in Lehman Bros.'
subprime paper, CourtHouse News Service reports.

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

The suit is "Goodman v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al,
Case Number: 1:2008cv08593," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.


SUNRISE SENIOR: To Seek Dismissal of D.C. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., plans to seek dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit pending against it in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Initially, two putative securities class-action complaints,
styled, "United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 880-Retail
Food Employers Joint Pension Fund, et al. v. Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07CV00102," and "First New York
Securities, L.L.C. v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:07CV000294," were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia on Jan. 16, 2007, and Feb. 8, 2007,
respectively.

Both complaints alleged securities law violations by Sunrise and
certain of its current or former officers and directors based on
allegedly improper accounting practices and stock option
backdating, violations of generally accepted accounting
principles, false and misleading corporate disclosures, and
insider trading of Sunrise stock.

Both sought to certify a class for the period Aug. 4, 2005
through June 15, 2006, and both requested damages and equitable
relief, including an accounting and disgorgement.

Pursuant to procedures provided by statute, two other parties --
the Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust and the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System -- appeared and jointly moved for the consolidation of
the two securities cases and for appointment as lead plaintiffs,
which requests the Court ultimately approved.

The cases were consolidated on July 31, 2007, under the caption,
"In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 07-CV-00102-RBW."

Thereafter, a stipulation was submitted pursuant to which the
new putative class plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2008.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and names as defendants the company,
Paul J. Klaassen, Teresa M. Klaassen, Thomas B. Newell, Tiffany
L. Tomasso, Larry E. Hulse, Carl G. Adams, Barron Anschutz, and
Kenneth J. Abod.

The defendants' responses will be due on Aug. 11, 2008.  The
company intends to move to dismiss the complaint at that time
and anticipates that the individual defendants will do so as
well, according to the company's Oct. 15, 2008 Form 10-K/A
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-00102-RBW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Reggie B.
Walton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq. (jonc@cuneolaw.com)
          Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: 202-789-3960
          Fax: 202-789-1813

               - and -

          Elizabeth Shattuck Finberg, Esq. (efinberg@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants are:

          Nathaniel Thomas Connally, III (ntconnally@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan & Hartson, LLP
          8300 Greensboro Drive, Ste. 1100
          McLean, VA 22102-3609
          Phone: 703-610-6100
          Fax: 703-610-6200

               - and -

          Laurie Beth Smilan, Esq. (laurie.smilan@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP
          11955 Freedom Drive, Suite 500
          Reston, VA 20190
          Phone: 703-456-5220


UNION OIL: Nov. 24 is Final Hearing for Patents Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Oct. 17, 2008 -- The United States District
Court for the Central District of California will hold a
fairness hearing on November 24, 2008 to consider whether to
approve a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit
involving Union Oil Company of California and Unocal
Corporation.

     The class action is entitled "In Re Reformulated Gasoline
(RFG) Antitrust & Patent Litigation, MDL Case No. 05-1671 CAS
(VBKx)" and involves claims that Unocal manipulated the
California gasoline market which resulted in higher gas prices.

     The lawsuit alleges that Unocal engaged in anticompetitive
behavior that drove up the prices for CARB-compliant summertime
reformulated gasoline in California.  Plaintiffs claim that
Unocal successfully convinced the California Air Resources Board
("CARB") to adopt its proprietary formula for summertime
reformulated gasoline.  However, the plaintiffs claim Unocal did
not tell CARB that it intended to keep its gasoline formulation
proprietary and charge competing oil companies royalties for
using its gasoline formula.  The plaintiffs claim this was
contrary to CARB's policies.

     The plaintiffs also claim that all CARB-compliant
summertime reformulated gasoline prices increased as a result of
Unocal's conduct.  Unocal denies that it did anything wrong or
that prices increased as a result of its actions.  The parties
agreed to the Proposed Settlement to resolve the case.

     The Class consists of all consumers who purchased CARB-
compliant summertime reformulated gasoline in the State of
California at any time during the period from January 1995 to
and including August 11, 2005.

     As part of the Proposed Settlement, Unocal deposited $48
million into a Settlement Fund.  There will be no money paid to
consumers because the cost of sending small reimbursements to
millions of Class Members is prohibitive.  Therefore, the money
will be distributed to qualified non-profit organizations
dedicated to improving air quality in California.  It is
intended that the money will be distributed to programs that
will focus on replacing high emissions vehicles and creating
programs to improve air quality or fuel efficiency.

     Deadline to file for exclusion is on November 7, 2008.

More details regarding the Reformulated Gasoline Antitrust &
Patent Litigation Settlement can be found at:
http://www.unocalsettlement.com/


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTEC INC: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 17, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of AuthenTec,
Inc. securities during the period between April 28, 2008,
through September 5, 2008, for violations of federal securities
laws.

     The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning AuthenTec's business and operations (a
mixed-signal semiconductor business that provides fingerprint
authentication sensors and solutions to the high-volume personal
computer, wireless device, and access control markets) were
materially false and misleading, including withholding that the
Company's sales growth was slowing; withholding that AuthenTec
was flooding its customers with inventory; and withholding that
the Company lacked effective internal controls.

     The complaint further alleges that only a matter of weeks
after defendants issued favorable revenue guidance and touted
the Company's financial performance, as well as AuthenTec's
prospects for sales and revenue growth, on September 7, 2008,
the Company revised downward its previously issued financial
guidance which caused the value of AuthenTec's shares to decline
substantially.

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

For more information, contact:

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


CANO PETROLEUM: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 17, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.,
commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers who
purchased the common stock of Cano Petroleum, Inc., issued
pursuant to a registration statement and prospectus filed with
the SEC in connection with Cano's June 26, 2008 secondary public
offering.

     The complaint charges certain of the Company's directors
and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933
including that the registration statement and prospectus filed
with the SEC for the Cano shares issued in the Secondary
Offering contained statements concerning proved reserve amounts
and standards that were materially false and overstated Cano's
proved reserves.

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

For more information, contact:

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


ELAN CORP: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 17, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.,
commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Elan
Corporation, PLC.  publicly traded stock or American Depository
Receipts during the period between June 17, 2008, through
July 29, 2008, for violations of federal securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements about
bapineuzumab, a drug Elan was developing in association with
Wyeth for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

     Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose unfavorable
results from a Phase II clinical study of bapineuzumab that Elan
and Wyeth conducted.  When those results were finally disclosed,
the price of Elan's ADRs plunged from $33.75 to $19.63 in one
day.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
December 15, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Oct. 17, 2008 -- Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona against Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation and various individuals on behalf of
purchasers of Medicis Pharmaceutical who purchased common stock
between October 30, 2003, and September 24, 2008.

     The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period Medicis
Pharmaceutical made false and misleading statements about the
Company's financial performance.

     On September 24, 2008, before the markets opened, the
Company issued a press release that it intends to restate its
financial statement for each of the accounting periods beginning
July 1, 2003, and ending June 30, 2008, and that investors
should no longer rely on these financial statements.  The
restatement is necessary because Medicis Pharmaceutical applied
an improper accounting method in determining reserves for sales
return during the Class Period. As a result of this disclosure,
Medicis Pharmaceutical's stock price dropped from $17.92 on
September 23, 2008, to $15.58 the next day.

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

For more information, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq. (eitan@bgandg.com)
          Eitan Kimelman
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-697-6484


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Lawsuit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
     RADNOR, Pa., Oct. 17, 2008 -- The law firm of Schiffrin
Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, gave notice that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of The Spectranetics Corporation  between April 26, 2005, and
September 3, 2008, inclusive.

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

     Spectranetics manufactures and sells the only excimer laser
approved in the United States, Europe and Japan for use in
minimally invasive cardiovascular procedures.

     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 engaged in illicit activities
         related to the promotion, use, testing, marketing and
         sales of catheter guidewires and balloon catheters
         manufactured by third parties outside the United
         States;

     (2) that the Company had improperly received shipments from
         an international source;

     (3) that the Company had marketed and sold certain of its
         products for unapproved use;

     (4) that a significant portion of the Company's revenues
         were generated by the sales of such products intended
         for unapproved use;

     (5) that the Company had made improper payments to medical
         professionals who participated in certain clinical
         studies for the Company;

     (6) that the Company had engaged in questionable
         compensation practices for certain of its employees;

     (7) that such questionable behavior would necessarily
         subject the Company to an extensive investigation by
         federal authorities into its business practices;

     (8) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls, including effective regulatory and compliance
         controls; and

     (9) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         statements were materially false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

     On September 4, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that a search warrant was executed at its offices by
the Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.

     The Company stated that the search warrant requested
information and correspondence relating to the promotion, use,
testing, marketing and sales regarding certain of the Company's
products, for payments made to medical personnel and an
identified institution for the Company's products; for the
promotion, use, testing, experimentation, delivery, marketing
and sales of catheter guidewires and balloon catheters
manufactured by certain third parties outside of the United
States; for information regarding two post- market studies the
Company completed during the period from 2002 to 2005, and for
payments made to medical personnel in connection with those
studies; and for compensation packages for certain of the
company's personnel.

     Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell
$4.27 per share, or 47.44 percent, to close on September 4,
2008, at $4.73 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 24, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 20, 2008 -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman,
LLC announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
against The Spectranetics Corporation and various individuals on
behalf of purchasers of Spectranetics who purchased common stock
between April 19, 2007, and September 4, 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 24, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-697-6484
          e-mail: eitan@bgandg.com


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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