CAR_Public/081027.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, October 27, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 213
  
                            Headlines

ANNAPOLIS PAINTING: Sued by Employees For Not Paying Overtime
BALISE AUTO: Faces Conn. Lawsuit Over Alleged Overcharging
BARCLAYS BANK: Faces Suit Over Unsolicited Juniper credit Cards
BEAUCHAMP DISTRIBRUTION: Faces Calif. Labor Code Violations Suit
BRIDGESTONE CORP: ADRs Holders Notified of Class Settlement

BULLSEYE COLLECTION: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over WWJD Acronym
CARA OPERATIONS: Faces Suit as a Result of the E.coli Outbreak
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Subprime Mortgages
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case
CITIGROUP INC: Still Awaits N.Y. Securities Suit Appeal Ruling

HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Reaches a Settlement With UBS Securities LLC
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Dec. 2
HOME LOAN: Reaches $2.5M Settlement for Calif. Labor Lawsuits
IKON OFFICE: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Scheduled Oct. 27
LENDINGTREE LLC: Faces FCRA Violations Litigation in California

MARICOPA COUNTY: Court Rules Against Sheriff in Jail Lawsuit
NESTLE WATERS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Termination Fees
QUEST ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 4
QUEST RESOURCE: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 11
SYNCHRONOS TECH: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 7


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Brower Piven Announces Suit Filing in N.Y.
FORTIS INVESTORS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ANNAPOLIS PAINTING: Sued by Employees For Not Paying Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class-action lawsuit was filed against Annapolis
Painting Services alleging that the company violated federal and
state wage laws by not paying overtime wages, Lisa Beisel writes
for Annapolis Capital.

So far, the plaintiffs' attorney told Annapolis Capital, 10
employees are taking part in the lawsuit, which could grow to at
least 50 workers.

According to the report, the move comes four months after the
business was raided by federal agents as part of an illegal
immigration investigation.  The report recounts that
Immigrations and Customs officers, along with county police,
targeted the company on June 30 and arrested 45 alleged
undocumented workers.

Annapolis Capital relates that Marcia Murphy, spokesman for the
U.S. Attorney Office, said no criminal charges have been filed
against the painting company's owner, Robert Bontempo Jr.  
Ms. Murphy could not confirm whether there is an ongoing
investigation.

The report says that documents filed las week in the U.S.
District Court in Baltimore claim that Annapolis Painting, one
of the region's largest painting contractors, and its president,
Mr. Bontempo, violated federal and state wage laws by not
properly paying some employees.  The lawsuit, brought by Cesar
Obdulio Gonzalez Corrado, Russell Cain and Adrian Morales on
behalf of themselves and other current and former employees,
alleges that the company failed to pay the workers time-and-a-
half for overtime hours.

The workers also allege the company made illegal deductions from
employee paychecks, including deductions for tools, materials,
and in some cases rent.  In other cases, employees had to pay
out-of-pocket for their own brushes and rollers, lawyers said.

The lawsuit also contends the company failed to pay its
employees for:

   * work done prior to their arrival on the job sites;

   * time spent traveling between the office and the job sites;

   * time driving to obtain materials for jobs;

   * work required during their lunch breaks; and

   * work following their departure from the job sites.

The lawsuit, filed by Brown, Goldstein and Levy, the Zipin Law
Firm, and the Law Offices of Jay S. Marks, seeks injunctive
relief and undetermined monetary damages, the report says.

"I think the government right now is very focused on immigration
law and not on the enforcement of labor rights against
unscrupulous employers," said Melissa Crow, Esq., a partner with
Brown, Goldstein and Levy, a Baltimore-based law firm.  "The
goal of this case is to hold employers accountable.  I think
this is a really proactive effort by workers, who have often
been victims, to assert their rights to make sure they get paid
the wages they're owed by their employer."

Until the attorneys know how many employees are involved and how
long they have all worked with the company, they will not set a
monetary amount they are seeking, Ms. Crow added.  Ms. Crow also
said she could not say whether the people involved in the
lawsuit were in the United States legally, but, she explained,
whether a person is an undocumented worker has no impact on the
fair wage issue, because state and federal law mandate time-and-
a-half pay for any employee who works more than 40 hours per
week.


BALISE AUTO: Faces Conn. Lawsuit Over Alleged Overcharging
----------------------------------------------------------
Balise Auto Sales, a six-outlet chain, and its closely related
companies Balise Ready Credit and Auto Credit Express are facing
a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut, alleging the companies overcharge
people with poor credit and misrepresent the added charge as
finance charges, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, in connection with
thousands of financed sales of motor vehicles, violated the
Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC Section 1601 et seq., by inflating
the stated cash price of motor vehicles sold pursuant to retail
installment sales contracts to consumers with poor credit
without disclosing the increased pricing as part of the finance
charge.

The plaintiffs also bring this suit on behalf of a class of
Connecticut residents under the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 42-110a et seq. and the
Connecticut Retail Installment Sales Finance Act, Conn. Gen.
Stat. Section 36a-770 et seq.

They claim damages, costs and a reasonable attorney's fee,
punitive damages, and declaratory relief.

The suit is "Sharron Poulin et al v. Balise Auto Sales Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:08CV1618(CSH)," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Daniel S. Blinn
          Consumer Law Group, LLC
          35 Cold Spring Road, Suite 512
          Rocky Hill, CT 06067
          Phone: (860) 571-0408
          Fax: (860) 571-7457


BARCLAYS BANK: Faces Suit Over Unsolicited Juniper credit Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays Bank Delaware is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging it sends people unsolicited "Juniper" credit cards, in
violation of the Truth in Lending Act, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The plaintiff brings this action to secure redress for the
sending of unsolicited and unauthorized credit cards by Barclays
Bank Delaware, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1642.

The Truth in Lending Act prohibits the sending of unsolicited
credit cards. 15 U.S.C. Section 1642 provides:

     Section 1642. Issuance of credit cards [TILA Section 132]

     No credit card shall be issued except in response to a
     request or application therefor. This prohibition does not
     apply to the issuance of a credit card in renewal of, or in
     substitution for, an accepted credit card.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons in the
United States to whom defendant sent a credit card because they
once had an ATA card, but whose accounts had been closed.

The plaintiffs ask  the Court to enter judgment in favor of
plaintiff and the class and against defendant for:

     (1) Statutory damages;

     (2) Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit;
         and

     (3) Such other and further relief as the Court deems
         proper.

The suit is "Bernard Krisner et al v. Barclays Bank Delaware,
Case No. 08CV6039," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Daniel A. Edelman
          Cathleen M. Combs
          James O. Latturner
          Cassandra P. Miller
          Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, L.L.C.
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Phone: (312) 739-4200
          Fax: (312) 419-0379


BEAUCHAMP DISTRIBRUTION: Faces Calif. Labor Code Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beauchamp Distribution and Jamison Services are facing class-
action complaints filed in Los Angeles Superior Court accusing
the companies of  violating the Labor Code, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

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


BRIDGESTONE CORP: ADRs Holders Notified of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 23, 2008 -- Purchasers of Bridgestone
Corporation ("Bridgestone") publicly traded common stock or
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during the period from
March 30, 2000 to and including August 31, 2000, and are not
otherwise excluded from the class, are notified of a possible
payment from the proposed settlement of a securities class
action.

     A settlement has been proposed in a class action about the
alleged artificial inflation of the price of Bridgestone
publicly traded common stock and ADRs during the Class Period.

     The settlement will provide a settlement fund of
$30,000,000 for the benefit of investors who purchased
Bridgestone publicly traded common stock or ADRs during the
period from March 30, 2000 to and including August 31, 2000.

     This action arises from the August 9, 2000 voluntary recall
by Bridgestone's U.S. subsidiary, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
now known as Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire LLC
("Firestone") of certain ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness AT tires.

     The Action involves allegations that Defendants Bridgestone
and Firestone made false and misleading statements in violation
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements designed to conceal and cover up alleged
defects of the ATX tires manufactured by Firestone.

     The Defendants deny that they did so or are liable in any
respect. The Court did not decide which side was right. But both
sides agreed to the settlement to resolve the case. The two
sides disagree on how much money Class Members could have
received had the lawsuit gone to trial.

            What Does the Settlement Provide?

     Defendants have agreed to pay $30,000,000 in cash in
settlement of this case. These funds will be distributed to
eligible Members of the Class who send in valid claim forms,
after payment of court-approved legal fees and Lead Counsel's,
Lead Plaintiff's (Patricia Ziemer) and Intervenor Plaintiff's
(Iowa Public Employees Retirement System) time and expenses, the
costs of claims administration, including the costs of printing
and mailing the Notice, the cost of publishing newspaper notice
and taxes and tax preparation fees (the "Net Settlement Fund").

Deadline to file for exclusion is on Jan. 23, 2009. Deadline to
file claims is on April 21, 2009.

The suit is "In re Bridgestone Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 3:01-0017," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee.


BULLSEYE COLLECTION: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over WWJD Acronym
----------------------------------------------------------
Bullseye Collection Agency is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
alleging it uses the Christian acronym WWJD - for What Would
Jesus Do? - on its debt collection notices, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

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

The suit is "Neill et al v. Bullseye Collection Agency, Inc.,
Case Number: 0:2008cv05800," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota.


CARA OPERATIONS: Faces Suit as a Result of the E.coli Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
     WINDSOR, ON, Oct. 24, 2008 - A class action was commenced
on behalf of all people who ate at Harvey's in North Bay,
Ontario between September 12, 2008 and October 12, 2008.

     The statement of claim alleges, among other things, that
Cara Operations Limited was negligent because it served food and
beverages that were contaminated with E.coli.

     The lawsuit alleges that the defendant is liable for
causing the outbreak. As a result of the outbreak, at least 207
people became ill with symptoms of E.coli.

     The plaintiffs are represented by Harvey Strosberg and
Sharon Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Glyn Hotz of Hotz
Lawyers.

     Mr. Strosberg said, "The allegations in this lawsuit are a
perfect example of the food safety issues that confront
Canadians today. The goal of this lawsuit is not only to obtain
compensation for individuals affected by this outbreak, but also
to ensure that the food service industry pays attention to
crucial issues concerning food inspection and safety."

     A judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hear
the motion for certification to determine whether this case can
proceed as a class action. The motion date has not yet been set.

Harvey's class action on the net:
http://www.harveysclassaction.ca

For more information, contact:

          Harvey Strosberg
          Sharon Strosberg
          Sutts, Strosberg LLP
          600 Westcourt Place
          251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor ON N9A 6V4
          Phone: (519) 561-6294

          - and -

          Glyn Hotz
          Hotz Lawyers
          40 Sheppard Avenue West, Suite 602
          Toronto, Ontario
          M2N 6K9
          Canada
          Phone: (416) 754-9962 x244


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Subprime Mortgages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., along with numerous others
financial institutions, was named as a defendant in several
lawsuits by shareholders of entities that originated subprime
mortgages, and for which CGM underwrote securities offerings.   

These actions assert that CGM violated Sections 11, 12, and 15
of the Securities Act, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements contained in the registration statements
and prospectuses issued in connection with those offerings.

Specifically, CGM has been named as a defendant in:

       -- two alleged class action lawsuits brought by
          shareholders of American Home Mortgage Investment
          Corp., pending in the U.S. District Court for the
          Eastern District of New York; and

       -- three alleged class action lawsuits brought by  
          shareholders of Countrywide Financial Corp. and its
          affiliates, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
          Central District of California.  

Citigroup has not yet responded to the complaints in these
actions.  A motion to remand to California state court has been
filed in one of the Countrywide-related actions.  

The plaintiffs in each of the class actions have sought
unspecified damages relating to the alleged losses sustained by
the class.

Citigroup Emerging Cta Portfolio LP reported no development in
the matter in its Sept. 25, 2008 Form 10-12G/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

New York, New York-based Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. --
https://www.citigroupcib.com/capital/index.html -- is the
brokerage and securities arm of banking behemoth Citigroup.  The
company provides brokerage, investment banking, and asset
management services to businesses, governments, and individuals.
The investment bank expanded in Japan with its parent company's
acquisition of a majority of Nikko Cordial in 2007; it has
offices in major citiies in the Americas, Europe/Middle
East/Africa, and Asia Pacific.  CGMI has venerable antecedents
-- it is the successor to Salomon Smith Barney and operates as
Smith Barney Investments, among other brands.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule
on a motion seeking review of the district court's decision
certifying a class in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst
Metromedia Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 7966."

Shareholders sued Citicorp, Inc. -- an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. -- Citicorp USA; Salomon Smith
Barney, now known as Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; and analyst
Jack Grubman for violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007).

The shareholders allege that the defendants issued false and
misleading analyst reports as to Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.
stocks.

The district court dismissed several claims, but allegations
that analyst reports containing false buy recommendations issued
between March 8 and July 25, 2001, survived.  The shareholders
moved for certification of a class as to these claims.

The plaintiffs had sought certification of the class comprised
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Metromedia from March 8, 2001, through July 25,
2001, inclusive, and who were therefore damaged.

In order to allege a violation of Section 10(b), a complaint
must allege with particularity that the defendant made
fraudulent misstatements or omissions in connection with the
sale or purchase of securities with scienter, upon which the
plaintiffs relied, that caused plaintiffs' economic loss.

Certification requires numerous class members to share common
claims.  

On June 20, 2006, Judge Gerard E. Lynch granted class
certification, ruling that all elements of Rule 23 were
satisfied.  He then appointed three law firms as class counsel,
finding that the firms were qualified to adequately represent
the interests of the class.

The three firms certified as class counsel are:

     -- Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP;
     -- Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP; and
     -- Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw.

The plaintiffs' motion to certify Technology Associates
Management Co. and Techgains I, II, III, IV and V as class
representatives is denied.

On Oct. 6, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit accepted an appeal of the class certification order,
which appeal was argued on Jan. 30, 2008, and remains pending.

Fact discovery has concluded, and expert discovery has been
stayed, by agreement of the parties, pending resolution of the
appeal.

Citigroup Emerging Cta Portfolio LP reported no development in
the matter in its Sept. 25, 2008 Form 10-12G/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit is "In Re: Salomon Metromedia, et al v. Salomon Smith
Barney, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-07966-GEL," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Gerard E. Lynch, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert Alan Abrams, Esq. (rabrams@katskykorins.com)
          Katsky Korins, LLP
          605 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10158
          Phone: (212) 716-3237
          Fax: (212) 716-3337

               - and -

          Richard A. Adams, Esq.
          Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer, LLP
          Century Bank Plaza
          2900 St. Michael Drive
          Suite 400
          Texarkana, TX 75505-6128
          Phone: (903) 334-7000

Representing the defendants are:

          Eric S. Goldstein, Esq. (egoldstein@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, L.L.P.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212)-373-3000
          Fax: (212)-492-0204

               - and -

          Robert Bruce McCaw, Esq. (robert.mccaw@wilmer.com)
          Wilmer, Cutler, Hale & Dorr, L.L.P.
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-230-8810
          Fax: 212-230-8888

    
CITIGROUP INC: Still Awaits N.Y. Securities Suit Appeal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc. has yet to hear whether or not a lawsuit
dismissed in August of 2004 will be revived, despite the fact
that plaintiffs filed an appeal in October of that year.

The plaintiffs filed the appeal in relation to the dismissal of
a consolidated securities class-action lawsuit they filed
against Citigroup, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The suit was brought on behalf
of purchasers of the company's common stock between July 24,
1999 and July 23, 2002.

The complaint sought unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and for common law fraud.

Fourteen virtually identical complaints were filed and
consolidated.  The complaints alleged that the company misstated
the extent of its Enron-related exposure, and that Citigroup's
stock price fell once the true extent of Citigroup's Enron
involvement became known.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2003,
which incorporated the allegations in the 15 separate actions
and added new material as well.

The amended complaint focused on certain transactions between
Citigroup and Enron and alleged analyst conflicts of interest.
The class period for the consolidated amended complaint
encompassed July 24, 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002.

On June 2, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs' response was filed
on July 30, and the company's reply was filed on Oct. 3, 2003.

On Aug. 10, 2004, Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The
plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal in October 2004.

Citigroup Emerging Cta Portfolio LP reported no development in
the matter in its Sept. 25, 2008 Form 10-12G/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified  
global financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding company.  As of March
31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into four major segments:
Consumer Banking, Global Cards, Institutional Clients Group and
Global Wealth Management.  In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized
its consumer group into two global businesses: Consumer Banking
and Global Cards.  In May 2008, the company has reorganized its
equity and debt business in Japan.  Nikko Citigroup Ltd, the
company's Japan investment banking unit, merged its equity and
debt underwriting teams into one.  In July 2008, Discover
Financial Services acquired Diners Club International from
Citigroup.  In August 2008, GE Capital Company announced the
completion of its acquisition of CitiCapital.  In October 2008,
Tata Consultancy Services Limited bought Citigroup's Indian
business processing outsourcing unit.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Reaches a Settlement With UBS Securities LLC
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Oct. 23, 2008 -- HealthSouth Corporation
announced that the Company and derivative stockholder plaintiffs
have reached an agreement in principle with UBS Securities, LLC
and UBS AG, Stamford Branch (together, "UBS"), as well as UBS's
insurance carriers, to settle litigation filed by the derivative
plaintiffs on the Company's behalf, captioned Tucker v. Scrushy,
in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama.

     This settlement agreement relates only to UBS and does not
affect the Company's claims against Richard Scrushy and the
other defendants in the Tucker action, or against the Company's
former independent auditors Ernst & Young. The settlement
agreement is subject to approval of the Court, and HealthSouth
estimates that the process for approval will take approximately
60 days.

     Under the settlement, HealthSouth will receive $100 million
in cash and a release of all claims by UBS including the release
and satisfaction of a judgment in favor of UBS, which is
currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. HealthSouth will be obligated to pay the
reasonable fees of the derivative plaintiffs' attorneys to be
approved by the Court. After deducting all of the Company's
costs and expenses in connection with the Tucker litigation,
HealthSouth, pursuant to the previously disclosed settlement
agreements in the consolidated federal securities litigation,
will pay 25 percent of the net proceeds, to plaintiffs in the
federal securities litigation. The balance of the proceeds will
be used by HealthSouth to reduce long-term debt.

     "This settlement represents another milestone in
HealthSouth's recovery of damages sustained by the Company under
prior management," said John Whittington, Executive Vice
President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. "HealthSouth
and the derivative plaintiffs intend to diligently and
vigorously pursue the claims against the remaining defendants
including Scrushy and Ernst & Young."

HealthSouth -- http://www.healthsouth.com-- is the nation's  
largest provider of inpatient rehabilitative services. Operating
in 26 states across the country and in Puerto Rico, HealthSouth
serves more than 250,000 patients annually through its network
of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, long-term acute care
hospitals, outpatient rehabilitation satellites, and home health
agencies. HealthSouth strives to be the nation's preeminent
provider of inpatient rehabilitation services.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Dec. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 24, 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm reminds
investors of the December 2, 2008 lead plaintiff deadline in the
class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of General
Electric Company common stock and call options during the period
beginning September 25, 2008 through and including October 1,
2008.

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

     The complaint asserts that during an investor conference
call on September 25, 2008, defendants falsely stated that GE
would not require any additional fund raising through debt,
equity, or otherwise during fourth quarter-ended December 31,
2008.

     On October 1, 2008 GE announced that it planned to offer at
least $12 billion of common stock in a public offering. On
October 2, 2008, before market open, GE announced the offering
was to be priced at $22.25 per share, well-below the stock's
prior day closing price of $24.50 per share and below its 52
week low. News that the stock offering was priced at less than
the current market price caused GE's stock price to fall over 9%
on October 2, 2008, damaging shareholders.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, New York 10118
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


HOME LOAN: Reaches $2.5M Settlement for Calif. Labor Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Home Loan Center, Inc., a mortgage subsidiary of Tree.com, Inc.
reached $2.5 million settlement for three purported class-action
lawsuits in California that generally alleges violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's Sept. 22,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is:

       -- "Richardson v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 07CC01337
          (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.);"

       -- "Johanson v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 07CC01405
          (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.);" and

       -- "D'Asero v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV08-384
          (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.)."

After a mediation on Aug. 15, 2008, the parties entered into a
tentative agreement for settlement of these three cases.  

Under the settlement agreement, HLC has agreed to pay a maximum
of $2.5 million for the Richardson, Johanson, and D'Asero cases,
inclusive of payments to class members as well as attorneys'
fees and costs.  The settlement agreement must be approved by
the court in order to become effective.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.lendingtree.com/-- through its  
various subsidiaries, operates a lending business and a real
estate business.  The Lending Business consists of online
networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well
as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan
brokers.  In addition, the Lending Business originates,
processes, approves and funds various types of residential real
estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and
HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan
settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement
Services.  The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-
enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates
offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com,
REALTORS.  In August 2008, IAC InterActiveCorp announced that it
completed the spin-off of Tree.com, Inc. (Tree.com).


IKON OFFICE: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Scheduled Oct. 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 23, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
announced a preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled
for Monday, October 27, 2008, at the Court of Common Pleas in
Franklin County, Ohio seeking to preliminarily enjoin the sale
of Ikon Office Solutions, Inc. to Ricoh Company Limited
("Ricoh").

     The class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2008.
The Complaint alleges that the proposed sale of Ikon to Ricoh
protects the interests of Ikon's directors and Ricoh at the
expense of Ikon's public shareholders.

     The Complaint also alleges that the directors concealed
material information from plaintiff and Ricoh's other public
shareholders in conjunction with the same.

For more information, contact:

          Richard B. Brualdi
          Gaitri Boodhoo
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 (toll free) or (212) 952-0602
          e-mail: gboodhoo@brualdilawfirm.com
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


LENDINGTREE LLC: Faces FCRA Violations Litigation in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
LendingTree, LLC, a Lending Business of Tree.com, Inc., is
seeking for the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit in
California, which is alleging violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

On July 29, 2008, Marvin Garcia filed a putative class-action
lawsuit against LendingTree, LLC in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  

The plaintiff previously had sued LendingTree in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, "Marvin
Garcia v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 08 Civ. 4551," but on July 28,
2008, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that action and
subsequently filed the present suit in federal court in
California.

On Sept. 12, 2008, a motion to dismiss was filed in this case,
according to the company's Sept. 22, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Marvin Garcia v. Lending Tree LLC et al., Case No.
8:08-cv-00841-CJC-AN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Cormac J. Carney,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Robyn C. Crowther, Esq. (crowther@caldwell-leslie.com)
          Caldwell Leslie and Proctor
          1000 Wilshire Bouevard Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2463
          Phone: 213-629-9040
          Fax: 213-629-9022

Representing the defendant is:

          Paul J. Bond, Esq. (pbond@reedsmith.com)
          Reed Smith LLP
          136 Main Street Suite 250
          Princeton, NJ 08543
          Phone: 609-520-6393
          Fax: 609-951-0824


MARICOPA COUNTY: Court Rules Against Sheriff in Jail Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Aug. 13, 2008, that a
decades-old lawsuit that alleges inhumane treatment at the
Maricopa County jails has been revived and will be heard by a
new judge.

According to the CAR report, the class-action lawsuit was first
filed in 1977, alleging that inmates who have not yet been
convicted of a crime are prevented from eating adequate food and
are denied health care and housing in violation of
constitutional provisions that protect them from punishment.

CAR noted that inmate attorneys, in papers filed with
the U.S. District Court in Phoenix, paint a horrifying portrait
of life inside Maricopa County jails, including overcrowded
intake units to cries for medical care that go unanswered.

Phoenix attorney Debra Hill, Esq., who represents the inmates in
the class-action lawsuit, said that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe
Arpaio and his staff provide unsafe jail environments for people
who are arrested and not even convicted.

In an update, Phoenix New Times relates that U.S. District Judge
Neil Wake ruled in a landmark class-action lawsuit that Maricopa
County jails do not meet constitutional standards.

Judge Wake's order comes on the heels of the revocation of Mr.
Arpaio's jail accreditation last month by the country's premiere
independent jail-healthcare-monitoring agency, Phoenix New Times
says.

"We won, basically," Ms. Hill said after Judge Wake's ruling.  
Ms. Hill represented the "class" of all pretrial detainees
awaiting court trials in Mr. Arpaio's jails.  The ACLU also
worked closely with Hill on the case.  Margaret Winter,
associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's
National Prison Project, said the ruling is a big win.

"Sheriff Arpaio's horrendous treatment of detainees, especially
those with severe medical and mental-health problems, has caused
terrible suffering for years," Ms. Winter said.  "Judge Wake's
decision should serve as a reminder that even a man who brags
about being the 'toughest sheriff in America' has to abide by
the Constitution."

The report states that details of Judge Wake's four-page
judgment and 83-page findings of fact will take attorneys a
little time to decipher.  In short, though, the order demands
that Mr. Arpaio's jails meet a number of specific standards.

For example, the report notes, "Defendants shall ensure that the
pretrial detainees' prescription medications are provided
without interruption."  In addition, "Defendants shall provide
pretrial detainees who are taking prescribed psychotropic
medications with housing in which the temperature does not
exceed 85 F."  Moreover, "Defendants shall provide food to
pretrial detainees that meets or exceeds the United States
Department of Agriculture's Dietary Guidelines for Americans."

According to Phoenix New Times, the order requires Mr. Arpaio
and the county to give Ms. Hill and the ACLU quarterly reports
about jail conditions.  If the jails do not comply with the long
list of new standards, then Ms. Hill and the ACLU can bring
violations back before Judge Wake.  The judge even set a time to
meet if Mr. Arpaio doesn't comply with the new standards --
December 5.

It's unlikely that the sheriff will be able, by early December,
to make much headway toward complying with the 16 big changes
ordered, the report points out.  Some -- such as one that
requires that only two inmates be incarcerated per cell at the
Towers Jail -- will be affected by prisoner overcrowding.

Under-staffing and poor record-keeping by the MCSO may also get
in the way of other changes coming about soon, Phoenix New Times  
says.  But the order leads advocates of humane jail conditions
to believe that the stubborn sheriff can no longer thumb his
nose at pleas for reform.

The name of the class-action suit has changed several times.  It
was originally "Hart v. Hill," then "Hart v. Arpaio," and now
"Graves v. Arpaio."


NESTLE WATERS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Termination Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Waters North America, and Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water
are facing a class-action complaint filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court alleging the companies include illegal early
termination fees and penalties in their contracts, the
CourtHouse News Service repots.

The CourtHouse News Service did not report on any other update
to the case.


QUEST ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 4
------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 24, 2008  -- The Rosen Law Firm reminds
investors of the November 4, 2008 lead plaintiff deadline in the
class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Quest Energy
Partners LP common units from the date of the Company's initial
public offering on or about November 7, 2007.

     The complaint charges Quest Energy and certain former and
present officers, and controlling entities, including Quest
Resource Corporation, with violations of Sections 11 and/or 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on Quest Energy's issuance
of a materially inaccurate Registration Statement and Prospectus
(the "Registration Statement") in connection with Quest Energy's
IPO.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, New York 10118
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


QUEST RESOURCE: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct 24., 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm reminds
investors of the November 11, 2008 lead plaintiff deadline in
the class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Quest Resource Corporation stock during the period from May 2,
2005 through August 25, 2008.

     The complaint charges Quest Resource and certain former and
present officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on Quest Resource's
failure to properly disclose related party transactions between
Quest Resource and its former CEO Jerry Cash.

     On August 25, 2008 Quest Resource announced that Jerry Cash
had resigned following an inquiry by the Oklahoma Department of
Securities in connection with questionable transfers of funds
between Quest and an entity controlled by Mr. Cash. Quest
Resource also announced that it had constituted a special
committee to conduct an internal investigation. As a result of
these adverse disclosures, the price of Quest Resource shares
dropped, damaging investors.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, New York 10118
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


SYNCHRONOS TECH: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct 24., 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm reminds
investors, and in particular, those with large financial losses,
of the important November 7, 2008 lead plaintiff deadline in the
class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Synchronoss
Technologies, Inc. common stock during the period from February
4, 2008 through June 9, 2008.

     The complaint charges that Synchronoss and certain of its
officers violated the Securities Exchange Act by issuing
materially false and misleading statements about its contract to
provide in-store activation of iPhones.

     On June 10, 2008, the Company announced that it will not
participate in the on-site, retail store activations associated
with the 3G iPhone and acknowledged that it had been aware of
this material development since at least May 2008 when the
Company had issued revised financial guidance.

     As a result of this adverse disclosure, the price of
Synchronoss stock has dropped, damaging investors.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, New York 10118
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Brower Piven Announces Suit Filing in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD, Oct. 22, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation announced that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. publicly traded securities
during the period between January 30, 2008 and September 16,
2008, inclusive , including the Series A Junior Subordinated
Debentures (the "Preferred Securities") (NYSE: CEG-PA), pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with the Company's June 27, 2008 Preferred
Securities offering.

     The complaint charges Constellation and certain of its
officers and directors and its underwriters with violations
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act
of 1933.

     The complaint alleges that due to defendants' positive, but
false, statements, Constellation's stock closed at about $88.25
per share on June 9, 2008. The complaint further alleges that on
June 27, 2008, defendants consummated the sale of
Constellation's Preferred Securities pursuant to the false and
misleading Registration Statement, selling 18 million shares at
$25.00 per share for proceeds of approximately $435.8 million.
  
     The pleading states that in July 2008, the Company reported
favorable financial results and reaffirmed EPS guidance of
$5.25-$5.75 per share for 2008, but that in August 2008,
analysts questioned Constellation's accounting and the
implications of a credit downgrade.

     The complaint goes on to state that, on September 15, 2008,
investors and the market became aware of Constellation's
exposure to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s ("Lehman")
bankruptcy, which affected the Company's ability to engage in
energy-related trades, which news caused the value of
Constellation's shares to decline approximately 50% from the
Company's Class Period high of $97.34 per share.

     According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose,
including in the Registration Statement/Prospectus, that
Constellation's characterization of depreciation expense
inflated the Company's reported cash flows; that the Company's
exposure to credit problems of trading partners was much greater
than represented; and that the Company was not on track to
report 2008 EPS of $5.25+ per share.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 21, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


FORTIS INVESTORS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 22, 2008 -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP today filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of Fortis, Fortis
S.A./N.V., Fortis NV [OTC: FORSF; FORSY]; [Brussels: FORB BB];
[EURONEXT: FORA]; [EURONEXT: FORB]; or [LUXSE: FOR] between
January 28, 2008 and October 6, 2008, inclusive against the
Company and certain officers and directors, alleging fraud under
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78(i)(b), 78(t) and 78t-1(a).

     Throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results. As a result of the dissemination of the
false and misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the
market price of Fortis securities was artificially inflated
during the Class Period. In ignorance of the false and
misleading nature of the statements described above, and the
deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by
said defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class
relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price
of Fortis securities. Had plaintiff and the other members of the
Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated
prices that were paid.

     The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
Company and the individual defendants falsely portrayed the
Company as relatively immune from the effects of the global
credit crisis and stated that the Company's capital position
remained strong and loan portfolio was solid. In actuality, the
Company was practically insolvent at all relevant times and
needed to sell assets at fire-sale prices and raise capital at
extraordinarily high rates to remain viable. Moreover, the
Company's balance sheet was impaired by billions of dollars of
poorly performing assets the Company acquired when it purchased
ABN AMRO in October 2007.

     The magnitude of the Company's severe liquidity crisis
first became apparent on September 29, 2008, when the
governments of three separate countries (Netherlands, Belgium,
and Luxembourg), agreed to bail-out the Company so long as it
would sell its troubled stake in ABN AMRO. Published reports
indicated that Fortis's sale of ABN AMRO would net considerably
less than Fortis had paid for it just months ago. The deal would
have given the three European nations a 49% stake in the
Company. The emergency infusion was in the form of 11.2 billion
euros ($16.9 billion). This unprecedented move, however, was not
enough to stem Fortis' continued decline.

     On Saturday, October 4, 2008, it was reported that the
Dutch government took over Fortis' operations for 16.8 billion
euros ($23 billion) in a deal that came less than a week after
the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg had agreed to invest
11.2 billion euros in Fortis. News that the famed financial
giant was in ruins and required nationalization further punished
Fortis' already bruised stakeholders.

     On October 14, 2008, Fortis traded on the Brussels exchange
at the lowest levels that it had ever seen since it was formed
18 years ago, after selling most of its operations to three
governments and BNP Paribas SA. Fortis, which resumed trading
after a six-day suspension, declined 78 percent to 1.22 euro,
valuing the Company at 2.86 billion euros ($3.91 billion).

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
December 22, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Martin Restituyo, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (800) 575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *