CAR_Public/081028.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, October 28, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 214
  
                            Headlines

ADT SECURITY: Faces Colo. Lawsuit Over Illegal "Activation Fee"
ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Faces Wash. Suit Over Domestic Shipping Ops
ALLIANCEBERSTEIN: Top N.Y. Lawyer Explores Class Action v. Firm
BOB BAKER: Accused of Cheating Customers in California Lawsuit
BP PRODUCTS: Reaches $19.5M Deal in Ill. Refinery Pollution Case

CAI INC: Mass. Court Gives Final OK to $7M Explosion Settlement
EBAY INC: Faces Antitrust Litigation in New York Over "Coins"
ELI LILLY: Shareholders Challeng ImClone Buyout in N.Y. Lawsuit
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION: Overcharged Transcripts Copies, Suit Says
GOOGLE INC: Faces Ill. RICO Violations Suit Over "Typosquating"

HORIZON LINES: Faces Suits Over Domestic Ocean Shipping Services
KAUFMAN & BROAD: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Defective Homes
NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces Pa. Litigation Over Clothing Sales Tax
NISOURCE INC: Agreed to Settle "Tawney" Lawsuit for $380 Million
NORTHERN STATES: Minn. Court Sets Nov. 4 Hearing for "Hoffman"

OMNICOM GROUP: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Lawsuit
PCS NITROGEN: Residents File Suit Over Oct. 9, 2008 Acid Leak
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Calif. Lawsuit Over Wagering Tickets Dismissed
SILICON IMAGE: No Appeal Hearing Yet in Dismissed Calif. Lawsuit
STATE FARM: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Legal Expenses in Claims

TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Settles Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit in Texas
UNITED NATURAL: Faces $12.5MM Suit Over Millbrook Distribution
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Calif. Suit Over Late Fees Charges
XCEL ENERGY: Court Sets Nov. 3 Re-argument for "Comer" Appeal


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTEC INC: Goldman Scarlato Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
CITIGROUP MORTGAGE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
FORTIS NV: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing



                           *********


ADT SECURITY: Faces Colo. Lawsuit Over Illegal "Activation Fee"
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Security Services is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado alleging its  
dealers an illegal "activation fee" for new clients, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Security On-Line Systems brings this action as a class action
under Colo. R. Civ. P.  23 on behalf of all individuals,
corporations, partnerships or other legal entities that are or
were ADT authorized dealers at any time through and including
the date of the filing of the complaint.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether ADT breached its contract with the dealers as a
         result of the way in which ADT calculated net attrition
         rates under the Authorized Dealer Agreements;

     (b) whether ADT breached its contract with the dealers as a
         result of its refusal to make continuing equity
         payments on the basis of net attrition rates; and

     (c) whether ADT breached tis contract with the dealers
         whose Authorized Dealer Agreements were terminated as a
         result of its refusal to make buy out payments on the
         basis of net attrition rates.

The plaintiff requests for judgment as follows:

     -- determining that the action is properly maintained as a
        class action, certifying an appropriate class, and, if
        necessary, sub-classes, certifying plaintiff as the
        class representative and appointing plaintiff's counsel
        as class counsel.

     -- awarding compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs
        in an amount to be proven at trial;

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

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

The suit is "Security On-Line Systems, Inc. et al v. ADT
Security Services, Inc., Case NO. 2249," in the District Court
of Arapahoe County, Colorado.

Representing plaintiff are:

          John D. Fognani
          Perry L. Glantz
          Fritz W. Ganz
          177 Mills Street
          Collierville, TN 38017


ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Faces Wash. Suit Over Domestic Shipping Ops
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., and its main subsidiary, Matson
Navigation Co., Inc., are facing several purported class-action
lawsuits over their domestic shipping carrier operations that
was recently consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, according to the company's Oct.
24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Initially, the company and Matson were named as defendants in
civil lawsuits purporting to be class actions alleging
violations of the antitrust laws and seeking treble damages and
injunctive relief.

The company is aware of 24 such lawsuits that have been filed.
On Aug. 13, 2008 and Sept. 10, 2008, all such civil lawsuits
were transferred (one of which was transferred conditionally)
and consolidated into a consolidated civil lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington,
purporting to be a class-action lawsuit.  

Another domestic shipping carrier operating in the Hawaii and
Guam trades, Horizon Lines, Inc., also has been named as a
defendant in the consolidated civil lawsuit.

Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. -- http://www.alexanderbaldwin.com/--  
is a diversified corporation with most of its operations
centered in Hawaii.  The business industries of the company
constitute transportation, real estate and agribusiness.  The
company's ocean transportation operations, related shore side
operations in Hawaii, related intermodal, truck brokerage and
logistics services are conducted by its wholly owned subsidiary,
Matson Navigation Co., Inc. and two Matson subsidiaries.  Its
property development and agribusiness operations are conducted
by A&B and certain other subsidiaries of A&B.


ALLIANCEBERSTEIN: Top N.Y. Lawyer Explores Class Action v. Firm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raoul Lionel Felder, Esq., a matrimonial attorney is exploring a
class-action lawsuit against AllianceBerstein after recently
filing a lawsuit against the U.S. wealth manager, Wealth
Bulletin reports.

Mr. Felder told Wealth Bulletin that he is talking with other
disgruntled clients about a class-action lawsuit against
AllianceBerstein.  He explains, "We are exploring the
possibility of a class action," since according to him, "There
are many annoyed clients out there."

The New York City-based attorney also added that there were a
growing number of wealthy clients in the U.S. who were looking
at lawsuits against wealth managers because of being badly
advised.

Mr. Felder's individual case against AllianceBerstein allegedly
involves advisors at the firm placing his money in risky
investments after he asked for a more conservative approach to
be adopted.  He said the firm lost him $200,000 as a result and
has filed a $5.2m lawsuit.

Mr. Felder, who has written several books and has published
numerous articles related to matrimonial law, politics and
social issues, is listed in New York Law Journal's 100 Most
Powerful Lawyers in America and in all editions of Who's Who in
America and Who's Who in American Law.


BOB BAKER: Accused of Cheating Customers in California Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Baker Imports Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in San Diego Superior Court accusing it of cheating customers,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is brought and may be properly maintained as a class
action pursuant to provisions of California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 382 and Civil Code Section 1781(a) on behalf
of all persons who leased a vehicle from Bob Baker for personal
use and whose optional DMV electronic filing fee was not
properly disclosed on their lease and/or separately disclosed
from their lease.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants violated state consumer protection
         statutes;

     (b) whether defendants properly disclosed optional DMV
         electronic filing fees;

     (c) the amount of revenues and profits defendants received
         and/or the amount of monies or other obligations
         imposed on or lost by class members as a result of such
         wrongdoing;

     (d) whether class members are threatened with irreparable
         harm and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable
         relief and, if so, what the nature of such relief is;
         and

     (e) whether class members are entitled to payment of
         actual, incidental, consequential, exemplary, punitive
         and/or statutory damages plus interest thereon, and if
         so, what the nature of such relief is.

The plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

     -- an order certifying the class under the appropriate
        provisions of California law, and appointing plaintiff
        and his counsel to represent the class;

     -- for the declaratory, equitable, and/or injunctive relief
        requested;

     -- for general, special, and actual damages according to
        proof at trial;

     -- for rescission and/or restitution of all monies required
        to be expended;

     -- for incidental and consequential  damages according to
        proof at trial;

     -- for the specified causes of action, punitive and/or
        statutory damages;

     -- for pre-judgment interest at the legal rate;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as
        specified under, inter alia, Code of Civil Procedure
        Section 1021.5, and Civil Code Section 1717, 1780(d),
        and 2988.5 and 2988.9; and

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

The suit is "William E. Law et al v. Bob Baker Imports, Inc. et
al, Case No. 37-2008-00094532-CU-CO-CTL," filed in San Diego
Superior Court.

Representing plaintiff are:

          Hallen D. Rosner
          Christopher P. Barry
          John W. Hanson
          Rosner & Mansfield, LLP
          10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100
          San Diego, California 92131
          Phone: (858) 348-1005
          Fax: (858) 348-1150


BP PRODUCTS: Reaches $19.5M Deal in Ill. Refinery Pollution Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
BP Products North America has agreed to pay $19.5 million for
release from a class-action lawsuit over pollution from refinery
operations in Hartford, Illinois, Steve Korris of The Madison
County Record reports.

In general, the lawsuit alleges that negligent refinery
operations created an underground pool of petroleum that
releases harmful vapors into the air with each rainfall.

Oct. 15, 2008, the company and Edwardsville attorney Mark
Goldenberg, Esq., who represents residents and property owners
in Hartford, reported to Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison
County Circuit Court that they had reached a tentative
agreement.

Earlier this year, Shell Oil subsidiary Equilon and former
refinery owner Premcor paid $16 million for release from the
case.  Along with BP Products' impending release from the case,
Sinclair Oil and Apex Oil, are the only defendants left.

The Madison County Record reports that Sinclair Oil has filed
objections to BP Products' settlement on Oct. 20, 2008.

Under the settlement, BP Products will provide $7,755,000 to
compensate property owners for damages or loss of value.  The
company will also provide $5,170,000 to compensate residents for
loss of use or enjoyment.

Mr. Goldenberg's firm and four Missouri law firms -- Woody Law
Firm and the firm of Stueve Siegel Hanson, both of Kansas City,
and the Dysart Law Firm and the firm of Helfrey, Neiers and
Jones, both of St. Louis County -- will share a $6.5 million
fee.  The remainder, $75,000, will cover administrative costs.

The agreement releases claims against BP subsidiaries Atlantic
Richfield, ARCO Pipeline, and BP Pipelines.  Robert Olian of
Sidley Austin represented the company and its subsidiaries in
the case.

For more details, contact:

          Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq. (mark@ghalaw.com)
          Goldenberg Heller Antognoli Rowland & Short, P.C.
          2227 S. State Route 157
          P.O. Box 959
          Edwardsville, Illinois 62025
          Phone: (618) 656-5150
          Fax: (618) 656-6230


CAI INC: Mass. Court Gives Final OK to $7M Explosion Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts court gave final approval to a $7,000,000
settlement in a purported class-action lawsuit stemming from the
massive 2006 Danversport explosion, Julie Manganis of The Salem
News reports.

The court's approval paves the way for the release of funds to
residents and business owners affected by the Thanksgiving eve
blast at the CAI, Inc., and Arnel Co. plant.

According to The Salem News, the approval comes one month before
the second anniversary of the explosion, which occurred shortly
before 3 a.m. on Nov. 22, 2006.  

An investigation by the Chemical Safety Board concluded that a
production manager had left a steam heat valve on before leaving
the evening before the blast.  

Several hours later, vapors inside the ink-and-paint factory
ignited, causing the blast.  Though no one was killed or
seriously injured, more than 200 homes, 300 cars, 65 boats and
20 businesses were damaged or destroyed.

Kathy McCabe of Boston Globe reports that that CAI Inc., of
Georgetown, and Danvers-based Arnel Co. -- which co-owned the
factory that exploded into a fireball on Nov. 22, 2006 – were
named as defendants in the proposed class-action lawsuit filed
by Rachelle Borrelli of Waltham, a boat owner whose craft was
destroyed at Liberty Marina, which is next to the destroyed
factory.  She is seeking compensation for individuals, boat
owners, homeowners, businesses, and others affected by the blast
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008).

Michael Germano, Esq., of Boston, filed the lawsuit on behalf
Ms. Borrelli, who did not have enough insurance to cover her
losses.  He believes that there are many other property owners
like his client.

In Feb. 2007, Judge Richard Welch of the Newburyport Superior
Court granted a motion filed by Arnel to transfer the case into
a special Business Litigation session at Suffolk Superior Court
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2007).

Subsequently, the parties entered into talks regarding a
settlement of the case.

Under the proposed settlement, the companies would pay $1.4
million to about 100 property owners and $5.2 million to
insurance carriers, according to a settlement proposal filed in
Lawrence Superior Court.

Jan Schlichtmann, Esq., a Beverly environmental lawyer who
represented the plaintiffs, said "The settlement would be for
the benefit of anyone who was impacted by the explosion."

The settlement also would apply to 215 members of The
Danversport Trust, which formed last year to negotiate an out-
of-court settlement.


EBAY INC: Faces Antitrust Litigation in New York Over "Coins"
-------------------------------------------------------------
eBay, Inc., along with the American Numismatic Association, the
Professional Numismatists Guild, and the ANA president's coin
firm, are facing a purported class-action-lawsuit in New York
federal court, alleging anti-competitive conduct, David L. Ganz
of Numismatic News reports.

The suit, styled, "Universal Grading Service, John Callandrello,
Joseph Komito and Vadim Kirichenko, Case No. 1:2008cv03557," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on Aug. 29, 2008.

There are four named plaintiffs in the case.  They are:

       -- Universal Grading Service of New Jersey;

       -- John Callandrello, a UGS shareholder;

       -- Joseph Komito, a New Jersey coin dealer; and

       -- Vadim Kirichenko, a New York coin dealer.

They claim damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of costs,
interest and attorney's fees and permanent injunctive relief.

Basis for the claim is an allegation of conduct "constituting
violation of antitrust policies, as well as violation of
anticompetitive conduct."

There is also a claim for "civil conspiracy and trade libel"
pursuant to New York common law.  Under the rules of defamation,
truth is an affirmative defense to trade libel, if the action
complained of actually took place.

The plaintiffs claim a "conspiracy between [Barry Suppler & Co.,
LLC], ANA, PNG and eBay to obstruct the ability of the smaller
coin grading services to participate in the coin marketplace on
eBay."

The basis of the claim: In 2001, eBay "formed a group that
became known as the 'Internet rules committee' made up of coin
industry insiders, including Barry Stuppler, in his capacity as
then ANA governor and chairman of the ANA Consumer Protection
Committee (the precursor to the "Coins Community Watch Group"),
Doug Winter, a PNG dealer, and R. Steven Ivy," of Heritage.

The plaintiffs charge that through the effort of this group and
others, PNG, in conjunction with the Industry Council for
Tangible Assets and spearheaded by Mr. Stuppler, commissioned a
survey of rare coin authentication and grading services, which
it is claimed gave rise to false and damaging results because of
insufficient data.

With small grading companies like UGS never being referenced in
2006 Grading Service Survey, coupled with an eBay policy
permitting "only coins that have been graded by five grading
services (NGC, NCS, PCGS, ICG and ANACS) to be listed for sale
on eBay as "certified" coins," the plaintiffs claim these
actions are anti-competitive and illegal.

The plaintiffs hope to prove that the policies are "destroying
the competitive free market by prohibiting consumers and dealers
from purchasing or dealing in certified coins graded from any
coin grading service except for the ones listed in eBay's
policy."

According to Numismatic News, attorneys for the companies that
claim to be besmirched brought it as a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who
comprise the ... "class."  That includes "all companies and
individuals who provide coin grading services on the market for
coin auctions to the public at large and who have not been
certified by eBay as 'the authorized grading company" pursuant
to eBay's Counterfeit Currency and Stamps policy and who are
interested in pursuing this lawsuit.'  The class period is from
January 2004 to the present.

The lawsuit is also claiming that "eBay's policy enacted on
Sept. 17, 2007 ... is per se unlawful because it limits the flow
of goods in commerce."


The suit is "Universal Grading Service et al v. EBay, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:08-cv-03557-CPS-RML," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Charles P.
Sifton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marina Trubitsky, Esq. (dtcassociates@yahoo.com)
          Law Office of Marina Trubitsky
          11 Broadway
          Suite 861
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-732-7707
          Fax: 212-732-7708


ELI LILLY: Shareholders Challeng ImClone Buyout in N.Y. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed in New
York County Court aiming to stop Eli Lilly from buying ImClone
Systems for $6.5 billion, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Defendants include Carl Icahn and Lilly subsidiary Alaska
Acquisition Corp.

According to the report, Lilly wants ImClone's Erbitux to boost
its thin line of cancer drugs.

The deal will add as much as $3 billion to Lilly's corporate
debt, according to analysts' reports.

The plaintiffs call it a coercive tender offer.

Based in Indianapolis Eli Lilly and Co. discovers, develops,
manufactures and sells products in one business segment,
pharmaceutical products.


ESQUIRE DEPOSITION: Overcharged Transcripts Copies, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esquire Deposition Services is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois accusing it of overcharging for copies of transcripts,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Mark Elkins, brings this action to secure
redress for the actions of defendant charging for deposition
transcripts in amounts excess of allowed by the Northern
District of Illinois Local Rule 54.1(b), which adopted
transcript charges set forth by the Judicial Conference 28 USCS
Section 753.

The plaintiff bring suit on behalf of all persons or entities
(1) whose case was pending in the Northen District of Illinois
and they paid for deposition transcripts for that case (2) in
excess of the amounts allowed by Northern District of Illinois
Local Rule 54.1(b).

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     A. Whether defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
        Act when it charged in excess of the amounts allowed by
        Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 54.1(b) for
        deposition transcripts.

     B. Whether defendant was unjustly enriched when it charged
        in excess of the amounts allowed by Northern District of
        Illinois Local Rule 54.1(b) for deposition transcripts.

The plaintiff request that the court enter judgment in favor of
him and the class and against defendant for:

     -- Appropriate compensatory damages including
        reimbursement, restitution ad disgorgement from
        defendants of the benefits conferred by plaintiff and
        the class;

     -- Such other or further relief as the Court deems
        appropriate.

The suit is "Mark Elkins et al v. Esquire Deposition Services,
LLC, Case No. 08CV6067," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing plaintiff is:

          Keith J. Keogh
          Law Offices of Keith J. Keogh, Ltd.
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2000
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Phone: 312.726.1092
          Fax: 312.726.1093


GOOGLE INC: Faces Ill. RICO Violations Suit Over "Typosquating"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Google, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois over
"typosquatting," alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Jason Lee Miller of WebProNews explains that "typosquatting" is
the practice of registering a domain that is an errant version
of a popular website in order to gain traffic and ad clicks from
people who misspell or mistype their intended domain.  For
example, one might type bankofamrica.com instead of
bankofamerica.com.  "Typosquatting" has been illegal in the U.S.
since 1999, and is considered trademark infringement in most
countries.

Jordan Golson of The Industry Standard reports that under the
scam, which has been around for years, companies will buy
domains like "ccartoonnetwork.com" or "bankkofamerica.com"
hoping that users will misspell domain names when entering them
in the browser window.  Then, when users land on those pages,
they click the Google AdSense ads that are on the pages,
generating revenue for Google and the company that bought the
domain name.  The loser, says Harvard Business School professor
Benjamin G. Edelman, who is co-counsel in the lawsuit, is the
company whose trademarks have been infringed.

The suit is captioned, "Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:2007cv03371," and was filed on June 15, 2007.  It
accuses the search giant and various "typosquatting" companies
of trademark infringement.

Others named as defendants in the suit, include: Oversee.Net,
Sedo LLC, Dotster, Inc., Internet Reit, Inc. and several John
Does I-X.

Professor Edelman estimates Google makes between $32 and $50
million in gross profit each year -- potentially much more --
from placing its AdSense text ads on so-called "typosquatting"
sites.

The suit is "Vulcan Golf, LLC et al v. Google Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-03371," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Blanche M. Manning,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          William J. Harte, Esq. (wharte@williamharteltd.com)
          William J. Harte, Ltd.
          111 West Washington Street
          Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 726-5015

Representing the defendants are:

          Alison C. Conlon, Esq. (conlon@wildmanharrold.com)
          Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, LLP
          225 West Wacker Drive
          Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606-1229
          Phone: (312) 201-2000

               - and -

          Henry M. Baskerville, Esq.
          (hbasker@stetlerandduffy.com)
          Stelter & Duffy, Ltd.
          11 S. LaSalle
          Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 338-0200
          Fax: (312) 338-0070


HORIZON LINES: Faces Suits Over Domestic Ocean Shipping Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc., is facing several purported antitrust
class-action lawsuits in Alaska, Florida, Puerto Rico,
California, Oregon, and Washington over domestic ocean shipping
services, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 21, 2008.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust
Division of the Department of Justice into possible antitrust
violations in the domestic ocean shipping business.  

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, a
number of purported class action lawsuits were filed against the
company and other domestic shipping carriers.

Since April 22, 2008, fifty-four cases have been filed in the
following federal district courts:

       -- eight in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
          District of Florida,

       -- five in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
          District of Florida,

       -- eighteen in the U.S. District Court for the District
          of Puerto Rico,

       -- eleven in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
          District of California,

       -- two in the U.S. District Court for the Central
          District of California,

       -- one in the U.S. District Court for the District of
          Oregon,

       -- eight in the U.S. District Court for the Western
          District of Washington, and

       -- one in the U.S. District Court for the District of
          Alaska.

Each of the federal district court cases purports to be on
behalf of a class of individuals and entities who purchased
domestic ocean shipping services from the various domestic ocean
carriers.

The complaints allege price-fixing in violation of the Sherman
Act and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

All of the foregoing district court cases that relate to ocean
shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane were consolidated
into a single mutlidisrict litigation proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

All of the foregoing district court cases that relate to ocean
shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes were
consolidated into a MDL proceeding in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  

One district court case remains in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Alaska, relating to the Alaska tradelane.

Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly  
known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and
integrated logistics company.  The company's subsidiaries
include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC
(Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico,
Inc.(HLPR).  With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified
Jones Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the
company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets.
The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon
Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking
operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated
logistics services including relationships with third-party
truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets.  It
ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from
foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household
goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials
used in manufacturing.


KAUFMAN & BROAD: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Defective Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaufman & Broad of Northern California is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento alleging it built defective
homes in its Calvine development in Elk Grove, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Lien Nguyen, an individual, and as individual homeowner class
representative and all others similarly situated, are all
individuals residing within the City of Elk Grove, County of
Sacramento, State of California and own real property within the
housing development known as Calvine S.P.A.

The plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

     -- For damages according to proof thereof;
     -- For attorney's fees and costs of suit herein;
     -- For interest thereon at the maximum legal rate;
     -- For prejudgment interest on all sums awarded at the
        maximum legal rate; and
     -- For such other and further relief as the court may deem
        just and proper.

The suit is "Lien Nguyen et al v. Kaufman and Broad of Northern
California, Case No. 34-2008-00025031-CU-CD-GDS," filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento.

Representing plaintiff are:

          Luke P. Ryan, Esq.
          Megan M. Chodzko, Esq.
          Roshni V. Patel, Esq.
          Shinnick & Ryan LLP
          1810 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101-2514
          Tel: (619)239-5900
          Fax: (619)239-1833


NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces Pa. Litigation Over Clothing Sales Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Court of Common Plean in Philadelphia County
(Pennsylvania) alleging it charges sales tax on clothing in
defiance of a Pennsylvania law against it, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is a class-action suit brought on behalf of all
Pennsylvania purchasers whom defendant charged and collected an
amount purportedly representing Pennsylvania sales tax for
purchases of clothing or other items which were, in fact, exempt
from Pennsylvania sales tax.

The plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to the
provisions of Rule 1701 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure, et seq.

The plaintiff demands judgment and seeks the following relief:

     -- an order certifying this action as a class-action suit
        with the plaintiff as the representative of the class;

     -- a declaration that defendant's conduct was unlawful;

     -- an order enjoining defendant from charging amounts for
        purported sales tax for items exempt from sales tax
        under Pennsylvania law;

     -- an accounting, at defendant's expense, of all sums it
        collected for purported sales tax in connection with the
        sale of items exempt from Pennsylvania sales tax;

     -- an award of damages to plaintiff and other members of
        the class for actual damages sustained, for an amount
        three times the actual damages sustained and/or $100,
        whichever is greater, together with interest and costs;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their costs of suit
        together with reasonable attorney's fees; and

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

The suit is "Vanessa Stoloff et al v. The Neiman Marcus Group,
Inc.," filed in the Court of Common Plean in Philadelphia County
(Pennsylvania).

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alan M. Feldman
          Thomas More Marrone
          Thomas Martin
          Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner, Weinstock &
          Dodig
          25th Floor, 1845 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
          Phone: (215) 587-8300


NISOURCE INC: Agreed to Settle "Tawney" Lawsuit for $380 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource, Inc., and Chesapeake Energy Corp. have agreed to a
$380 million settlement of a class-action suit entitled "Tawney,
et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," over natural gas
royalty payments to West Virginia property owners, the Fort
Worth Star Telegram reports.

The plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, filed the
lawsuit before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County
in early 2003.

The suit alleges that the defendants underpaid royalties on gas
produced on their land by improperly deducting post-production
costs and not paying a fair value for the gas.

In December 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
add NiSource and Columbia Natural Resources, as defendants.  The
plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants fraudulently
concealed the deduction of post-production charges.

The court certified the case as a class action that includes any
person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due royalties
from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands lying
within the boundary of the state of West Virginia.

Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated
to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages
ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs.

On Jan. 27, 2007, the jury hearing the case returned a verdict
against all defendants in the amount of $404.3 million, which is
comprised of $134.3 million in compensatory damages and $270
million in punitive damages.

In January 2008, the defendants filed their petition for appeal,
and on March 24, 2008, they filed their amended petition for
appeal before the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

On May 22, 2008, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
refused the defendants' petition for appeal.  The defendants are
preparing a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari.

In Aug., NiSource, Inc., along with other defendants in the
purported class-action suit sought a review by the U.S. Supreme
Court of the $404-million verdict in the case (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 14, 2008).

Recently, the Roane County Circuit Court, granted preliminary to
a $380 million settlement of the class-action suit over natural
gas royalty payments to West Virginia property owners.

The settlement is substantially less than the original $404
million verdict, which included $270 million in punitive
damages. Interest had pushed that award to more than $450
million.

The settlement is a potential windfall for thousands of West
Virginia property owners who claim NiSource, and to a lesser
extent Chesapeake, are liable for underpaying royalties on
leased natural gas rights. NiSource, which operates gas and
electric utilities, and Chesapeake, a gas producer, are
successors to Columbia Natural Resources, which originally held
the leases.

NiSource said its share of the settlement would be $338.8
million.

Chesapeake's share would be $41.2 million, said Scott Rotruck,
vice president for corporate development.

Mr. Rotruck had no comment on the settlement before it gets
final approval.  But he did say the company's share will be
funded from cash on hand with no impact on ongoing operations.
Final approval could come after a Nov. 22, 2008 hearing.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane
County, Judge Thomas Evans, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St.
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, West Virginia 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


NORTHERN STATES: Minn. Court Sets Nov. 4 Hearing for "Hoffman"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Supreme Court set a Nov. 4, 2008 hearing for oral
argument on a plaintiff's appeal in the purported consumer
class-action lawsuit, "Hoffman vs. Northern States Power Co.,"
which seeks discretionary review of the case filed against
Northern States Power Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel
Energy, Inc.

The complaint, filed on March 15, 2006, was brought on behalf of
NSP-Minnesota's residential customers in Minnesota, North
Dakota, and South Dakota for alleged breach of a contractual
obligation to maintain and inspect the points of connection
between NSP-Minnesota's wires and customers' homes within the
meter box.

The plaintiffs assert that NSP-Minnesota's breach results in an
increased risk of fire and that it is in violation of tariffs on
file with the Minnesota Power Utilities Commission.  Thus, they
seek injunctive relief and damages in an amount equal to the
value of inspections plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota was required
to perform over the past six years.   

NSP-Minnesota filed a motion to dismiss the pleadings.  In
November 2006, the court issued an order denying NSP-Minnesota's
dismissal request.

On Nov. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by NSP-Minnesota, the
court certified the issues raised in NSP-Minnesota's original
motion as important and doubtful.  

The certification permits NSP-Minnesota to file an appeal, and
it has done so.  Briefs have been filed, and oral arguments were
heard Oct. 24, 2007.

On Jan. 22, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined that
the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine and
remanded the case to the district court for dismissal.

The plaintiffs have petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for
discretionary review, and on April 15, 2008, the court granted
the petition.

The matter has been briefed by both parties.  Oral argument has
been set for Nov. 4, 2008, according to Northern States' Oct.
24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com
-- is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the
U.S.


OMNICOM GROUP: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class-action
lawsuit filed against Omnicom Group, Inc., and certain of its
senior executives are planning to appeal the dismissal of their
case by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to the company's Oct. 23, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class action
complaints were filed.  The actions have been consolidated under
the caption, "In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 02-CV-4483 (RCC)," on behalf of a proposed class of
purchasers of the company's common stock between Feb. 20, 2001,
and June 11, 2002.

The consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the
company's public filings and other public statements during that
period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to
state material information relating to:

      -- the company's calculation of the organic growth
         component of period-to-period revenue growth;

      -- the company's valuation of and accounting for certain
         Internet investments made by its Communicade Group,
         which it contributed to Seneca Investments LLC in 2001;
         and

      -- the existence and amount of certain contingent future
         obligations in respect of acquisitions.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages plus costs and attorneys fees.  The defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint and, on March 28, 2005, the court
dismissed certain portions of the complaint.

The court's decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss
the remainder of the complaint did not address the ultimate
merits of the case, but only the sufficiency of the pleading.

Discovery was then concluded in the second quarter of 2007.  On
April 30, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for
class certification.  

In the third quarter of 2007, the defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claim.   

Subsequently, on Jan. 28, 2008, the court granted the
defendants' motion in its entirety, dismissing all claims and
closing the case.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to
appeal the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The appeal has been fully
briefed.  The parties await a date for oral argument before the
Court of Appeals.

The suit is "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Judge John Keenan presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Max W. Berger, Esq. (mwb@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1403
          Fax: 212-554-1444
          
               - and -

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com)
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
                 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants are:

          David Harold Braff, Esq. (braffd@sullcrom.com)
          Stacey Rubin Friedman, Esq. (friedmans@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-558-4705
                 212-558-4000
          Fax: 212-558-3333
               212-558-3588


PCS NITROGEN: Residents File Suit Over Oct. 9, 2008 Acid Leak
-------------------------------------------------------------
PCS Nitrogen, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
Louisiana, claiming that an Oct. 9, 2008 acid leak at a
fertilizer-producing plant endangered the health and safety of
the general public, 2TheAdvocate reports.

The lawsuit, filed in 18th Judicial District Court, maintains
the sulfuric acid leak not only created an immediate health
hazard, but caused plaintiffs "an ever-present fear … they will
suffer from disabling or terminal diseases in the future."  It
was filed by Iberville Parish residents, who are represented by
Walter C. Dumas, Esq.

Sulfuric acid is a hazardous substance that can inhibit
breathing and cause irritation to the eyes, throat and skin,
according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Web
site.

The lawsuit also alleges the leak at the Geismar plant was the
latest in a string of similar leaks at the plant that have
endangered the public, according 2TheAdvocate.

For more details, contact:

          Walter C. Dumas, Esq.
          Dumas & Associates, L.C.
          Lawyers Complex
          P.O. Box 1366
          1263 Government St.
          Baton Rouge, LA 70821-1366
          Phone: (225) 383-4701
          Fax: (225) 383-4719


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Calif. Lawsuit Over Wagering Tickets Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George H. King of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed a purported class-action suit
filed against Scientific Games Racing LLC, Scientific Games
International Inc., and Scientific Games Corp. over "Quick-Pick"
wagering tickets, Ryan Conley reports for The Blood-Horse.

The suit, entitled "Jerry Jamgotchian, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Scientific Games
Corporation, Scientific Games Racing, LLC, Scientific Games
International, Inc. and Does one through ten, Case No. CV 08-
05121," was filed on Aug. 5, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
29, 2008)

The suit seeks, among other things, class certification and
damages in excess of $5,000,000 on behalf of a purported class
of persons who "bought 'Quick-Pick' wagering tickets through
Scientific Games' computerized pari-mutuel wagering system" from
July 1, 2007, until June 2, 2008, in California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New
York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas or Wisconsin.

Recently, Judge King dismissed the lawsuit against Scientific
Games over the "quick-picks" wagering situation, agreeing with
the company that state public policy prohibits such a complaint
as it was presented.

The judge entered the judgment Oct. 23 after considering
Scientific Game's motion to dismiss the case.

Without specifically commenting on the merits of Mr.
Jamgotchian's complaint -- which included charges of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
and negligence -- Judge King in published civil minutes of his
decision instead focused on Scientific Game's primary dismissal
argument: That California case law prevents lawsuits by bettors
attempting to collect lost wagers.

Judge King wrote that the court didn't agree with Mr.
Jamgotchian's assertion that the complaint, which was filed as a
class-action lawsuit, was not about trying to recover lost bets.

"Moreover, though plaintiff claims that the identity of the
winning horse is irrelevant under this theory, we doubt that he
will seek to undo any transactions where he held a winning
ticket," he wrote.

In an accompanying order, Judge King ruled that the lawsuit is
dismissed with prejudice, which generally means that the lawsuit
can't be filed again.

Mr. Jamgotchian, who in interviews with The Blood-Horse also
criticized the California Horse Racing Board for its part in the
subsequent investigation and an eventual $200,000 settlement
with Scientific Games, was not happy with the court decision.

"Judge King failed to understand that our action was based on
(Scientific Games') outright fraud, breach of contract and other
claims which did not relate to gambling, (and) to Scientific
Games latest 'scheme' to defraud all (California) bettors," he
wrote in an e-mail statement to The Blood-Horse. "What makes it
even worse is that CHRB chairman Richard Shapiro and the CHRB
condoned these illegal activities and 'partnered up' with
Scientific Games to continue defrauding California bettors, and
then even extended the Scientific Games contract (to provide
wagering products to the state)!

"Based upon this illegal and despicable conduct by both
Scientific Games and the CHRB, why should anyone have confidence
that wagering in California has any integrity or safeguards?" he
continued. "The simple answer is that it doesn't, and the CHRB
won't require any such integrity or safeguards from their
'partner,' Scientific Games."

An attorney representing Scientific Games said the company was
pleased with Judge King's ruling.

"Scientific Games acted just the way the betting public should
want companies to act," said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of the
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm in Los Angeles. "The company
moved quickly to work with regulatory authorities to resolve the
issues and to protect the betting public. California law is very
clear that these types of lawsuits are barred and meritless. The
district court got it exactly right.

"All of the claims in the complaint were utterly baseless on the
merits, but the district court didn't even have to reach those
issues because California law so obviously prohibited this
lawsuit in its entirety," he added. "The false attacks on the
CHRB, Scientific Games and Judge King can't change the facts or
the law."

Mr. Jamgotchian said he and his legal counsel will consider
appealing to the California Supreme Court what he called an
"irresponsible ruling" by Judge King, and would also consider
filing claims to see if the CHRB and Scientific Game will
actually refund wagers based upon the settlement agreement. The
settlement terms allows for holders of quick-picks tickets
purchased during the glitch-period to request refunds from
Scientific Games.

The suit is "Jamgotchian v. Scientific Games Corporation et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge George H. King,
presiding.


SILICON IMAGE: No Appeal Hearing Yet in Dismissed Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to set a
hearing in connection with an appeal of the dismissal of the
fourth consolidated amended securities fraud complaint in a
purported class action suit against Silicon Image, Inc.,
according to the company's Oct. 24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The lawsuit, "Curry v. Silicon Image, Inc., Steve Tirado, and
Robert Gargus," was filed on Jan. 31, 2005, before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
case was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock from Oct. 19, 2004, to Jan. 24, 2005.

The suit asserts that the company and certain of its officers
and directors made alleged misstatements of material facts and
violated certain provisions of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the
U.S. Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.  In July     
2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
dropping individual defendant Robert Gargus, but adding another
defendant, Dr. David Lee.  The consolidated amended complaint
also expanded the class period from June 25, 2004, to April 22,
2005.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in September 2005.  

On Dec. 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint, which extended the end of the class period
from April 22, 2005, to Oct. 13, 2005, and added additional
factual allegations under the same causes of action against the
company, Mr. Tirado and Dr. Lee.  The complaint also added a new
plaintiff, James D. Smallwood.  

The defendants, on Feb. 9, 2006, filed a motion to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint.  This request was granted
by the court on June 21, 2006, with leave to amend.  

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended
complaint, which the defendants again sought to be dismissed.    

Subsequently, on Feb. 23, 2007, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, still
with leave to amend.  

The plaintiffs filed a fourth consolidated amended complaint,
which was again dismissed by the court at the defendants'
behest, without further leave to amend.  Final judgment was
entered in favor of the defendants on Sept. 25, 2007.

On Oct. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal of the
court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

Appellants' opening brief was filed on Feb. 28, 2008 and the
company's responsive pleading was filed April 14, 2008.  On May
16, 2008, appellants filed a reply brief.  The court has not yet
set a date for a hearing on the appeal.

The suit is "In Re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Judge Maxine M.
Chesney, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Aaron H. Darsky Esq. (adarsky@schubert-reed.com)
          Schubert & Reed, LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-788-4220
          Fax: 415-788-0161

          Merrick Scott Rayle, Esq. (mrayle@lshllp.com)
          Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP
          212 Wood Street
          Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227
          Phone: 831-333-0309
          Fax: 831-333-0325

              - and -

          Richard A. Speirs, Esq. (rspeirs@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 212-223-3900

Representing the defendants is:

          Emmett C. Stanton, Esq. (estanton@fenwick.com)
          Fenwick & West, LLP
          Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street
          Mountain View, CA 94041-2008
          Phone: 650-988-8500
          Fax: 650-938-5200


STATE FARM: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Legal Expenses in Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Fire & Casualty Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Superior Court of Washington, County of
King alleging it cheats policyholders of legal expenses in
claims and recoveries, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This matter is brought as a class action pursuant to Washington
Superior Court Civil Rule 23 asserting claims against State Farm
for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA),
RCW Section 19.86.010, et seq., Bad Faith, Conversion and Breach
of Contract.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons who
received PIP benefits from State Farm policies issued in the
State of Washington (PIP insureds) who then incurred legal
expense in effecting a recovery from a third party also insured
by State Farm, where State Farm recovered any of its PIP
payments from the PIP insured (through any means, including
offset or reimbursement) but did not pay its share of legal
expense.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plaintiff requests of th court the following:

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

     -- an order declaring that defendant must pay it share of
        legal expenses for the recoveries effected by its
        insureds in these circumstances;

     -- an order that permanently enjoins defendant, and its
        agents, from further violating the CPA in the manner set
        forth in the complaint;

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

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

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

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

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

The suit is "Olga Matsyuk et al v. State Farm Fire & Casualty
Company, Case No. 08-2-36263-9 SEA," filed in the Superior Court
of Washington, County of King.

Representing plaintiffs is:

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


TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Settles Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terremark Worldwide Inc. settled a North Texas class-action suit
alleging that certain employees weren't paid overtime,
Bizjournals.com reports.

According to the report, the litigation was filed earlier this
year against Irving's Data Return LLC, which Terremark acquired
in 2007 for around $85 million.

The lawsuit states that Data Return's staff were employed on a
40-hours-a-week basis, but that the company policy required them
to be "on call" 24 hours a day (Class Action Reporter, March 5,
2008).  It further suggests that staff were made to carry
Blackberries and respond to e-mails and telephone calls on an
ongoing basis.  

The complaints against the company suggested its actions did not
consider its staff's need for sleep and that lack of sleep had
caused some staff members' illness.

The suit is "Cranford v. Data Return LLC et al, Case Number:
3:2008cv00665," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Judge Jorge A. Solis, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert E. Goodman Jr., Esq.
          5956 Sherry Ln Ste 800
          Dallas, TX 75225-8035
          Phone: (214) 368-1765


UNITED NATURAL: Faces $12.5MM Suit Over Millbrook Distribution
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc. is facing a $12.5 million class-
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut over its merger with Millbrook Distribution
Holdings, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

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

The suit is "Bernstein v. United Natural Foods, Inc et al., Case
Number: 3:2008cv01609," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Mark R. Kravitz, presiding.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Calif. Suit Over Late Fees Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual and Countrywide Financial are facing a class-
action complaint filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Orange alleging the companies are charging
late fees for mortgage payments that were not late, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this action as a class action on behalf of
present and former borrowers/mortgagors whose single family,
owner-occupied dwelling within the State of California secured
by a mortgage or deed of trust serviced by one or more of the
defendants were charged one or more late fees when a payment had
been received by the defendant on or before its due date or
within the grace period provided by the contract.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether each member of the class has or had a mortgage
         on an owner-occupied single family dwelling that was
         serviced by one of the defendants;

     (b) whether each member was charged a late fee during a
         month when a payment had been tendered to one of the
         defendants on or before the due date or within the
         grace period of that due date; and

     (c) whether each member of the class sustained monetary
         damages by reason of a defendant's violation of
         California Civil Code Section 2954.4(b).

The plaintiffs request for relief as follows:

     -- for compensatory damages in an amount, according to
        proof at trial, representing the total of fees collected
        in violation of Civil Code Section 2954.4(b);

     -- for interest on all late fees charged in violation of
        Civil Code Section 2954.4(b) applicable from the date
        each unlawful late fee was charged. Said interest to be
        at the higher of the prevailing legal rate or the rate
        of interest defendant charged the plaintiff;

     -- for punitive or exemplary damages;

     -- for attorney fees and costs of the suit pursuant to the
        Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1021.5 and/or 1032; and

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

The suit is "Carol Salisbury et al v. Washington Mutual Inc., et
al, Case No. 00215593," filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Orange.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Julie A. Ringquist
          2155 Bellflower Blvd., #55
          Long Beach, CA 90815
          Phone: (562) 234-0212
          Fax: (866) 510-6563


XCEL ENERGY: Court Sets Nov. 3 Re-argument for "Comer" Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of  Appeals for the Fifth Circuit set for set  
re-argument on Nov. 3, 2008 an appeal in the matter, "Comer, et
al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.," which names Xcel
Energy, Inc., the parent of Minnesota-based Northern States
Power Co., as a defendant.

In April 2006, Xcel Energy received notice of a purported class-
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of Mississippi.

The lawsuit names more than 45 oil, chemical and utility
companies, including Xcel Energy, as defendants and alleges that
the defendants' CO2 emissions "were a proximate and direct cause
of the increase in the destructive capacity of Hurricane
Katrina."

The plaintiffs allege, in support of their claim, several legal
theories, including negligence and public and private nuisance
and seek damages related to the loss resulting from the
hurricane.

In August 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
against all the defendants on constitutional grounds.

In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Oral arguments
were presented to the Court of Appeals on Aug. 6, 2008.  

On Sept. 26, 2008, the Court of Appeals notified the parties
that this matter was set for re-argument on Nov. 3, 2008.  No
explanation was given for the decision, according to Northern
States' Oct. 24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          F. Gerald Maples, Esq. (federal@geraldmaples.com)
          Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
          (mmayberry@geraldmaples.com)
          F. Gerald Maples, PA
          902 Julia Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Phone: 504-569-8732

               - and -

          Randall Allan Smith, Esq. (rasmith3@bellsouth.net)
          Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. (smwiles@smithfawer.com)
          Smith & Fawer
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-525-2200
          Fax: 504-525-2205


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTEC INC: Goldman Scarlato Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     CONSHOHOCKEN, Pa., Oct. 24, 2008 -- Goldman Scarlato &
Karon, P.C., a law firm with offices in Pennsylvania and Ohio,
announced that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of AuthenTec, Inc. between April 28, 2008 and
September 5, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that Defendants mislead investors by withholding
material information regarding the Company's slowing sales
growth, its lack of internal financial controls, and by flooding
its customers with unneeded inventory.

     A short time after reassuring the market that revenue was
on track and that sales prospects were good, the Company revised
downward its previously issued financial guidance, causing the
Company's stock price to decline sharply.

For more information, contact:

          Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
          The Law Firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C.
          101 W. Elm Street, Suite 360
          Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428
          Phone: 888-753-2796


CITIGROUP MORTGAGE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 24, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on
behalf of an institutional investor in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. ("Citigroup
Mortgage") Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates and Asset-Backed
Pass-Through Certificates (collectively, the "Certificates")
pursuant and/or traceable to the false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements issued during
2007 (collectively, the "Registration Statements").

     The class includes purchasers of Certificates in the
following trusts:

     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2                               
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-WFHE4
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-6                                
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL2                               
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL3
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AMC1                           
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AMC2
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AMC3                             
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AMC4
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR1                           
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR4
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR5                           
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR7
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-OPX1                           
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-WFHE1(1)
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-WFHE2                        
     -- Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-WFHE3

(1) The WFHE Certificates are Asset-Backed
Pass-Through Certificates whereas the other Trust Series are
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates.

     The complaint charges Citigroup Mortgage, certain of its
officers and directors and the issuers and underwriters of the
Certificates with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

     Citigroup Mortgage was formed for the purpose of acquiring,
owning and transferring mortgage loan assets and selling
interests in them. Citigroup Mortgage is an affiliate of
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("Citigroup Global").

     The complaint alleges that on December 12, 2006, Citigroup
Mortgage and the defendant issuers caused the Registration
Statement to be filed with the SEC in connection with and for
the purpose of issuing billions of dollars of Certificates. The
Certificates were issued pursuant to Prospectus Supplements,
each of which was incorporated into the Registration Statement.
The Certificates were supported by pools of mortgage loans. The
Registration Statements represented that the mortgage pools
would primarily consist of loans generally secured by liens on
residential properties, including conventional and adjustable-
rate mortgage loans.

     The complaint alleges the Registration Statements included
false statements and/or omissions about:

     (i) the underwriting standards purportedly used in
         connection with the origination of the underlying
         mortgage loans;

    (ii) the maximum loan-to-value ratios used to qualify
         borrowers;

   (iii) the appraisals of properties underlying the mortgage
         loans; and

    (iv) the debt-to-income ratios permitted on the loans.

     According to the complaint, by the fall of 2007, the truth
about the performance of the mortgage loans that secured the
Certificates began to be revealed to the public, increasing the
risk of the Certificates receiving less absolute cash flow in
the future and the likelihood that investors would not receive
it on a timely basis. The credit rating agencies also began to
put negative watch labels on the Certificate tranches or
classes, ultimately downgrading many. As an additional result,
the Certificates are no longer marketable at prices anywhere
near the price paid by plaintiff and the Class and the holders
of the Certificates are exposed to much more risk with respect
to both the timing and absolute cash flow to be received than
the Registration Statement/Prospectus Supplements represented.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Certificates pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statements.

For more information, contact:

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


FORTIS NV: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD, Oct. 24, 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 all persons who
purchased the securities of Fortis, Fortis S.A./N.V., Fortis NV
(collectively, "Fortis" or the "Company") (PINKSHEETS: FORSF)
(PINKSHEETS: FORSY) (BRUX: FORB BB) (EURONEXT: FORA) (EURONEXT:
FORB) or (LUXEM: FOR) between January 28, 2008 and October 6,
2008, inclusive.

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

     The Complaint alleges that, during the class period, the
Company and the individual defendants falsely portrayed the
Company as having a strong capital position and a solid loan
portfolio when, as became apparent on September 29, 2008, the
Company was practically insolvent and needed to sell assets at
fire-sale prices and raise capital at extraordinarily high rates
to remain viable.

     The complaint further alleges that even after the
governments of three separate countries (Netherlands, Belgium,
and Luxembourg) agreed to bail-out the Company in a deal that
would have given the three European nations a 49% stake in the
Company in exchange for an emergency infusion in the form of
11.2 billion EUR ($16.9 billion).

     On October 4, 2008, it was reported that the Dutch
government took over Fortis' operations for 16.8 billion EUR
($23 billion). The complaint also alleges that as a result of
the Company's true financial condition being revealed, the value
of the Company's shares declined substantially.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.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  * * *