CAR_Public/081029.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, October 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 215
  
                            Headlines

ALCOA INC: March 24, 2009 Trial Scheduled for Tenn. ERISA Suit
AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Settles Tenn. Lawsuit Over Altered Gems
ARCTIC GLACIER: Investors Files $165 Million Lawsuit in Canada
BCE INC: Shareholders Class Action Completely Without Merit
CANON USA: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Alleged Racial Discrimination

COMPUCREDIT CORP: Faces Calif. Subprime Credit-Card Abuse Suit
DIRECTV INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over $480 Early Termination Fees
EPICOR SOFTWARE: Sued in Calif. Over Elliott Associates' Offer
GOOGLE INC: Reaches Landmark Settlement with Authors, Publishers
GPT GROUP: Faces Shareholder Litigation Over Forecast Earnings

HONDA MOTOR: Faces N.J. Suit Over Defective Michelin PAX Tires
MATTEL INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Product Liability Suit
MATTEL INC: Still Faces Lead Contaminated Toys Suits in Canada
MONSANTO CO: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Texas Over  Glyphosate
MONSANTO CO: No Trial Dates Set for Biotechnology Traits Suits

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
OIL REFINERIES: Notified on Legal Claim Filed Against Subsidiary
OPES PRIME: Firm Re-Opens AU$100M Lawsuit After Securing Support
QANTAS AIRWAYS: Settles Price-Fixing Lawsuit for $20 Million
UAL CORP: California Court Yet to Approve Antitrust Suit Deal

UAL CORP: Dismissed From Air Cargo Surcharges Litigation in N.Y.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AIG INTERNATIONAL: Stull & Brody Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
FANNIE MAE: Patton Roberts Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
NOAH EDUCATION: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Holzer & Fistel Announces Colo. Suit Filing


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ALCOA INC: March 24, 2009 Trial Scheduled for Tenn. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A March 24, 2009 trial is scheduled for the class-action suit,
"Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.

The suit was filed on Nov. 17, 2006, by plaintiffs representing
approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or
Reynolds Metals Co., and spouses and dependents of such
retirees.  It alleges that the company violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor-Management
Relations Act by requiring the plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1,
2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments
and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription
drugs.

The plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care
plans violate their rights to vested health care benefits.  They
additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty
to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, back
payment of benefits and attorneys fees.

Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs claims as a class
action.  

During the fourth quarter, following briefing and argument, the
court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class,
bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty
claims, struck the plaintiffs jury demand, but indicated it
would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of Sept. 17,
2008.

In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24,
2009, 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 suit is "Curtis v. Alcoa Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2006-cv-
00448," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Judge Thomas W. Phillips, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq. (katapano@gmail.com)
          744 Broadway
          Albany, NY 12207
          Phone: 518-463-7501
          Fax: 518-463-7502

Representing the defendant is:

          John W. Woods, Jr., Esq. (jwoods@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams
          951 East Byrd Street
          Riverfront Plaza East Tower
          Richmond, VA 23219-4074
          Phone: 804-788-8629
          Fax: 804-343-4794


AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Settles Tenn. Lawsuit Over Altered Gems
---------------------------------------------------------------
America's Collectibles Network, Inc., doing business as Jewelry
Television, settled a false advertising lawsuit accusing it of
cheating the public by selling gemstones it falsely advertises
as green or red andesine-labradorite, JCK-Jewelers Circular
Keystone reports.

The suit, captioned, "Hurd v. America's Collectibles Network,
Inc., d/b/a/ Jewelry Television, No. 225508," was filed in Knox
County Circuit Court on June 5, 2008.  It was brought on behalf
of Theresa and Gary Hurd of Kodak, Tennessee, alleges that the
shopping network "fraudulently advertised and misrepresented"
the gemstone andesine-labradorite as being "highly coveted" and
"extremely rare" (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2008).

The plaintiffs have alleged that red and green andesine-
labradorite gemstones advertised by JTV as highly coveted,
extremely rare, and all natural, were in reality color enhanced,
the statement reads.

According to an earlier report by the JCK-Jewelers Circular
Keystone, the Hurds' suit says, "Defendants, a very large and
sophisticated company with in excess of $400 million in revenues
last year, knew or should have known that the gemstones it was
selling were shams and nothing more than the mass-produced
results of chemical facelifts in gemological beauty parlors. . .  
Defendant . . . obtained its sham product for pennies per carat
and sold it for extraordinary profits.  Because the sham
gemstones came from plentiful low-value yellow feldspar,
defendant was able to sell them for great profits while still
undercutting the per-carat price of real Oregon sunstone."

In October 2008, plaintiffs' attorneys and Jewelry Television
issued a joint statement saying they have reached a settlement
in the case, JCK-Jewelers Circular Keystone reports.

On Oct. 22, 2008, the Circuit Court for Knox County, Tennessee
certified a settlement class and granted preliminary approval to
a settlement.

A spokesperson for Coleman and Edwards, P.C., Knoxville, Tenn.,
one of the two law firms for the plaintiffs, (the other is
Wexler Wallace LLP, Chicago), told JCK-Jewelers Circular
Keystone that a Web site (http://www.andesineclassaction.com/)
that displays the joint statement has been provided as part of
the settlement agreement.  

In the settlement, Jewelry Television did not admit to any
wrongdoing.  The company said in the statement that "settling
the case rather than facing the continued cost and disruption of
fighting a potential class action was in the best interests of
the company, and would allow JTV to move forward with its
continued commitment to its customers."

The statement went on to say that the plaintiff attorneys and
their clients determined that the agreement is in the best
interest of those who purchased andesine-labradorite from JTV
during the period defined in the suit, "because it affords class
members the opportunity to submit claims for cash refunds and
Jewelry Television store credits."

The statement adds, "The settlement also provides for
disclosures, consumer education, and training for Jewelry
Television employees to make sure that future marketing of
andesine-labradorite complies with all relevant rules and
regulations."

For more details, contact:

          Gregory Coleman, Esq. (gcoleman@colemanedwardspc.com)
          Coleman and Edwards, P.C.
          4800 Old Kingston Pike
          Suite 120
          Knoxville, TN 37919
          Phone: 865-247-0080

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. (kaw@wexlerwallace.com)
          Edward A. Wallace (eaw@wexlerwallace.com)
          Wexler Wallace LLP
          55 West Monroe
          Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312.346.2222
          Fax: 312.346.0022


ARCTIC GLACIER: Investors Files $165 Million Lawsuit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
     LONDON, ON, Oct. 28, 2008 -- The law firm of Siskinds LLP
filed a $165 million class action against Arctic Glacier Income
Fund, an income fund listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

     Also named as defendants are Arctic Glacier's trustees,
Arctic Glacier Inc. and certain senior officers and directors of
Arctic Glacier Inc.

     The class action arises out of Arctic Glacier's recent
announcement of an investigation by the United States Department
of Justice into anti-competitive conduct in Arctic Glacier's
industry, the packaged ice industry.

     Subsequent to that announcement, Arctic Glacier announced
that it was suspending its distributions to its unit-holders,
and the price of its units collapsed.

     The Arctic Glacier class action is the 11th investor class
action filed by Siskinds LLP under Ontario's new investor
protection legislation - Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities
Act.

     The class action is brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired Arctic Glacier's units between March 22, 2002 and
September 15, 2008.

     Headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Arctic Glacier Income
Fund, through its operating company, Arctic Glacier Inc., is a
leading producer, marketer and distributor of high-quality
packaged ice in North America under the brand name of Arctic
Glacier(R) Premium Ice.  Arctic Glacier operates 34 production
plants and 47 distribution facilities across Canada and the
central, midwest, northeastern and west coast United States,
servicing more than 65,000 retail accounts.

For more information, contact:

          Dimitri Lascaris
          Siskinds LLP
          141 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1100
          Toronto, Ontario, Canada
          M5H 3L5
          Phone: (800) 461-6166 (Ext. 7844)


BCE INC: Shareholders Class Action Completely Without Merit
-----------------------------------------------------------
     MONTREAL, Quebec, Oct. 27, 2008 -- BCE Inc. stated that the
action brought under the Saskatchewan Class Action Act on behalf
of common shareholders of BCE is completely without merit and
will be vigorously defended in court.

     The Statement of Claim seeks, among other things, the
payment of BCE's second and third quarter common dividends,
damages and an injunction to halt the privatization transaction
until the dividends are paid.

     Pursuant to the Definitive Agreement relating to the
privatization transaction, as amended, the acquisition of the
company is scheduled to close on or before December 11, 2008.

     Headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, BCE Inc. (TSX/NYSE: BCE)
-- http://www.bce.ca/-- is a communications company, providing  
comprehensive and innovative suite of communication services to
residential and business customers in Canada.  Under the Bell
brand, the company's services include local, long distance and
wireless phone services, high-speed and wireless Internet
access, IP-broadband services, information and communications
technology services (or value-added services) and direct-to-home
satellite and VDSL television services.  Other BCE holdings
include Telesat Canada and an interest in CTVglobemedia.

Bell Canada -- http://www.bell.ca/-- is a wholly owned  
subsidiary of BCE Inc.  Bell offers integrated information and
communications technology services to businesses and
governments, and is the Virtual Chief Information Officer to
small and medium businesses.


CANON USA: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Alleged Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canon USA, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging it discriminates against black sales reps, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The litigation arises out of Canon's systemic company-wide
discriminatory treatment of its African American sales
representatives in violation of federal and applicable state
civil rights laws.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3),
plaintiffs seek to represent all African Americans employed in
Canon's sales forces at any time between Oct. 24, 2004 and the
present.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Canon violated the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as
         amended, 42 USC Section 1981 and the 1991 Civil Rights
         Act, as amended, 42 USC Section 1981 et seq. (Section
         1981) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
         amended, 42 USC Sections 2000e et seq. (Title VII) buy
         it acts and omissions alleged;

     (b) whether Canon has subjected its African American sales
         representatives with less favorable treatment with
         respect to numerous aspects of employment (including
         training and mentoring, compensation, account and
         territory assignments, allocation of resources, and
         promotions) than the treatment afforded to White sales
         representatives;

     (c) whether Canon has subjected its African American sales
         representatives with less favorable treatment than
         their White counterparts on the basis of race;

     (d) whether the employment policies or practices of Canon
         that have adversely affected its African American sales
         representatives violate Title VII under either a
         disparate treatment or disparate impact theory;

     (e) whether Canon failed to institute proper safeguards to
         reduce discrimination against African American sales
         representatives;

     (f) whether Canon's discriminatory employment practices
         constitute a "continuing violation"; and

     (g) whether Canon's discriminatory employment practices are
         sufficiently egregious to justify the imposition of
         punitive damages under Title VII.

The plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- declare that the practices described in the complaint
        exist at Canon and that they are unlawful;

     -- issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants,
        their officers, agents, employees and successors from
        engaging in the discriminatory employment practices
        complained of;

     -- issue a permanent mandatory injunction requiring that
        defendants adopt employment practices in conformity with
        the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
        1964, 42 USC Section 2000e, et seq. and 42 USC Section
        1981;

     -- award back pay and other job benefits sufficient to make
        the plaintiffs whole;

     -- award punitive damages appropriate to the proof at
        trial;

     -- award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including
        expert fees, pursuant to 42 USC Section 2000e and 42 USC
        Section 1988; and

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

The suit is "Linda Evans et al v. Canon USA Inc., et al, Civil
Case No. 08-4329," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Cyrus Mehri
          Janelle Carter
          Anna M. Pohl
          Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Ste. 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 822-5100


COMPUCREDIT CORP: Faces Calif. Subprime Credit-Card Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Compucredit Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
accusing it of subprime credit-card abuse, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The action arises under the CTOA, 15 USC Section 1679 et seq.

According to the report, Compucredit and Columbus Bank and Trust
allegedly push Aspire Visa credit cards to "rebuild your
credit," then take $257 in fees from the $300 in credit they
offer.

The defendants allegedly advertise that consumers can get $300
in credit, then immediately take $29 for an "account opening
finance charge," $6.50 per month as an "account maintenance fee"
and take an "annual fee" of $150.

The aggregate first-year fees come to $257 of the $300 credit
limit, or 85.7% of it, the class claims. They say these fees are
"buried in other information in the advertisements," in small
font, in violation of lending laws.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all natural persons
residing in the State of California as of the date of class
certification in this case who, within five years prior to the
commencement of this action, were issued as Aspire Visa credit
card by Columbus Bank and Trust and paid money to CompuCredit,
directly or through Columbus, on their Aspire Visa credit card
accounts.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether CompuCredit is a credit repair organization
         within the meaning of 15 USC Section 1679a(3)(A);

     (b) whether CompuCredit 's representations in its
         advertisements were untrue or misleading
         representations of its services in violation of 15 USC
         Section 1679b(a)(3);

     (c) whether CompuCredit charged money in advance for the
         performance of services which it had agreed to perform
         for the consumer before such services were fully
         performed;

     (d) whether CompuCredit furnished the disclosures required
         by 15 USC Section 1679c;

     (e) whether CompuCredit provided written contracts in
         compliance with 15 USC Section 1679d;

     (f) whether CompuCredit furnished a cancellation form as
         required by 15 USC Section 1679e;

     (g) whether Columbus is subject to 15 USC Section
         1679b(a)(3) and (4);

     (h) whether Columbus and/or CompuCredit engaged in,
         directly or indirectly, the commission of, or an
         attempt to commit, a deception on class members in
         connection with the extension of credit to class
         members pursuant to CompuCredit's marketing plan, in
         violation of 15 USC Section 1679b(a)4); and

     (i) whether Columbus used untrue or misleading
         representations of CompuCredit's services made by
         CompuCredit in its advertisements, in violation of 15
         USC Section 1679b(a)(3).

The plaintiff demand restitution and punitive damages.

The suit is "Wanda Greenwood et al v. CompuCredit Corp. et al,
Case No. C 08 4878," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jay Smith
          Laurie A. Traktman
          Gilbert & Sackman
          A Law Corporation
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, California 90010
          Phone: (323) 938-3000
          Fax: (323) 937-9139


DIRECTV INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over $480 Early Termination Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
DirecTV Inc. is facing a class-action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, accusing it of
cheating customers by charging up to $480 for early termination
of services, and automatically extending putative multi-year
contracts each time customers request change in service or a
replacement receiver, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action has been brought, and maybe properly maintained,
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)-(4), 23(b)(3) on
behalf of:

     (1) all former DirecTV customers nationwide who DirecTV
         charged an early cancellation fee; and

     (2) all DirecTV customers nationwide whose DirecTV service
         is subject to an early cancellation fee.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant has a practice of imposing early
         cancellation fees of up to $480 on subscribers who
         cancel DirecTV services;

     (b) whether the early cancellation fees defendant imposes  
         are invalid under Cal. Civ. Code Section 1671(d);

     (c) whether defendant failed to disclose or adequately
         disclose material information to subscribers, namely,
         that a change in service resulted in a new commitment
         period of either 18 or 24 months that is subject to an
         early cancellation fee of up to $480;

     (d) whether defendant's conduct as alleged violated Cal.
         Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.;

     (e) whether defendant's conduct as alleged is unlawful,
         unfair or deceptive in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
         Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (f) whether defendant's conduct as alleged constituted
         conversion;

     (g) whether defendant's conduct as alleged constituted
         money had and received;

     (h) whether as a result of the conduct alleged, defendant
         has unjustly enriched itself; and

     (i) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         damages, restitution, injunctive relief and declaratory
         relief.

The plaintiff demand judgment as follows:

     -- for an order certifying the proposed classes under
        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and
        appointing named plaintiff and his counsel of record to
        represent said classes;

     -- for an order pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
        17200 et seq. and Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq.
        requiring defendant to:

        (1) end its practice of unilaterally enrolling
            subscribers in commitment periods and imposing early
            cancellation fees based on those commitment periods;

        (2) end its collection efforts to obtain unpaid early
            cancellation fees; and

        (3) reverse all negative credit reports made to credit
            reporting agencies for failure to pay defendant's
            early cancellation fees.

     -- for an order pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
        17200 et seq. and the claim for unjust enrichment
        awarding restitution to class members who have paid
        early cancellation fees;

     -- for an order awarding plaintiff and class members
        compensatory and punitive damages against defendant for
        conversions and money had and received, in an amount to
        be determined at trial, together with prejudgment
        interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; and

     -- for an order awarding the plaintiff and the class
        members the reasonable costs and expenses of suit,
        including attorneys' fees, filing fees.

The suit is "Maureen Van Meter et al v. DirecTV Inc., Case No.
CV08-07032," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Rosemary M. Rivas
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Phone: (415) 398-8700
          Fax: (415) 398-8704


EPICOR SOFTWARE: Sued in Calif. Over Elliott Associates' Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Epicor Software is facing a class-action complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange,
alleging it breached its fiduciary duty by failing to properly
consider Elliott Associates' acquisition offer of $9.50 a share,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a stockholders' class action brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of Epicor, arising out of the breaches of
fiduciary duty by the company's board of directors related to
their rejection of and failure to properly consider the offer by
Elliot Associates to acquire all of Epicor's outstanding shares
of common stock for $9.50 per share.

The suit challenges the internal affairs or governance of Epicor
and hence is not removable to Federal Court under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 or the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA), 15 USC Section 78bb(f).

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all stockholders
of Epicor who are threatened with injury arising from
defendants' actions.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants have failed to take all reasonable
         steps necessary to ensure that Epicor's stockholders
         receive the maximum value realizable for their shares
         of Epicor common stock in a transaction effecting the
         change of corporate control; and

     (b) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class
         would be irreparably damaged if the proposed merger
         complained of was consummated.

The plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

     -- declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a
        class action and that plaintiff is a proper class
        representative;

     -- declaring that defendants have breached their fiduciary
        duties to plaintiff and the class;

     -- directing the individual defendants to exercise their
        duty of care by giving due consideration to any proposed
        business combination that would maximize the company's
        shareholder value;

     -- directing the individual defendants to exercise their
        fiduciary duties by eliminating any barriers that could
        be used to block any proposed business combination that
        would maximize the company's shareholder value;

     -- directing the individual defendants to adequately ensure
        that no conflicts of interest exist betwen the
        individual defendants and their fiduciary obligation to
        maximize shareholder value or, if such conflicts exist,
        to ensure that all conflicts are resolved in the best
        interests of Epicor's public stockholders;

     -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this
        action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
        fees; and

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

The suit is "Joseph Tola et al v. Epicor Software Corporation et
al, Case No. 30-2008 00124327," filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange.

Representing plaintiffs  is:

          Lionel Z. Glancy
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Fax: (310) 201-9160


GOOGLE INC: Reaches Landmark Settlement with Authors, Publishers
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 28, 2008 -- The Authors Guild, the
Association of American Publishers (AAP), and Google announced a
groundbreaking settlement agreement on behalf of a broad class
of authors and publishers worldwide that would expand online
access to millions of in-copyright books and other written
materials in the U.S. from the collections of a number of major
U.S. libraries participating in Google Book Search.

     The agreement, reached after two years of negotiations,
would resolve a class-action lawsuit brought by book authors and
the Authors Guild, as well as a separate lawsuit filed by five
large publishers as representatives of the AAP's membership.

     The class action is subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The agreement promises to benefit readers and researchers,
and enhance the ability of authors and publishers to distribute
their content in digital form, by significantly expanding online
access to works through Google Book Search, an ambitious effort
to make millions of books searchable via the Web.

     The agreement acknowledges the rights and interests of
copyright owners, provides an efficient means for them to
control how their intellectual property is accessed online and
enables them to receive compensation for online access to their
works.

If approved by the court, the agreement would provide:

     -- More Access to Out-of-Print Books -- Generating greater
        exposure for millions of in-copyright works, including
        hard-to-find out-of-print books, by enabling readers in
        the U.S. to search these works and preview them online;

     -- Additional Ways to Purchase Copyrighted Books --
        Building off publishers' and authors' current efforts
        and further expanding the electronic market for
        copyrighted books in the U.S., by offering users the
        ability to purchase online access to many in-copyright
        books;

     -- Institutional Subscriptions to Millions of Books Online

     -- Offering a means for U.S. colleges, universities and
        other organizations to obtain subscriptions for online
        access to collections from some of the world's most
        renowned libraries;

     -- Free Access From U.S. Libraries -- Providing free, full-
        text, online viewing of millions of out-of-print books
        at designated computers in U.S. public and university
        libraries; and

     -- Compensation to Authors and Publishers and Control Over
        Access to Their Works -- Distributing payments earned
        from online access provided by Google and,
        prospectively, from similar programs that may be
        established by other providers, through a newly created
        independent, not-for-profit Book Rights Registry that
        will also locate rightsholders, collect and maintain
        accurate rightsholder information, and provide a way for
        rightsholders to request inclusion in or exclusion from
        the project.

     Under the agreement, Google will make payments totaling
$125 million. The money will be used to establish the Book
Rights Registry, to resolve existing claims by authors and
publishers and to cover legal fees.

     The settlement agreement resolves Authors Guild v. Google,
a class-action suit filed on September 20, 2005 by the Authors
Guild and certain authors, and a suit filed on October 19, 2005
by five major publisher-members of the Association of American
Publishers:

     -- The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.;
     -- Pearson Education, Inc. and Penguin Group (USA) Inc.,
        both part of Pearson;
     -- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (NYSE: JWa and JWb); and
     -- Simon & Schuster, Inc. part of CBS Corporation (NYSE:
        CBS.A and CBS).

     These lawsuits challenged Google's plan to digitize, search
and show snippets of in-copyright books and to share digital
copies with libraries without the explicit permission of the
copyright owner.

     Holders worldwide of U.S. copyrights can register their
works with the Book Rights Registry and receive compensation
from institutional subscriptions, book sales, ad revenues and
other possible revenue models, as well as a cash payment if
their works have already been digitized.

     Libraries at the Universities of California, Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Stanford have provided input into the settlement
and expect to participate in the project, including by making
their collections available. Along with a number of other U.S.
libraries that currently work with Google, their significant
efforts to preserve, maintain and provide access to books have
played a critical role in achieving this agreement and, through
their anticipated participation, they are furthering such
efforts while making books even more accessible to students,
researchers and readers in the U.S. It is expected that
additional libraries in the U.S. will participate in this
project in the future.

     Google Book Search users in the United States will be able
to enjoy and purchase the products and services offered under
the project. Outside the United States, the users' experience
with Google Book Search will be unchanged, unless the offering
of such products and services is authorized by the rightsholder
of a book.

     "It's hard work writing a book, and even harder work
getting paid for it," said Roy Blount Jr., President of the
Authors Guild. "As a reader and researcher, I'll be delighted to
stop by my local library to browse the stacks of some of the
world's great libraries. As an author, well, we appreciate
payment when people use our work. This deal makes good sense."
"This historic settlement is a win for everyone," said Richard
Sarnoff, Chairman of the Association of American Publishers.

     "From our perspective, the agreement creates an innovative
framework for the use of copyrighted material in a rapidly
digitizing world, serves readers by enabling broader access to a
huge trove of hard-to-find books, and benefits the publishing
community by establishing an attractive commercial model that
offers both control and choice to the rightsholder."

     "Google's mission is to organize the world's information
and make it universally accessible and useful. Today, together
with the authors, publishers, and libraries, we have been able
to make a great leap in this endeavor," said Sergey Brin, co-
founder & president of technology at Google. "While this
agreement is a real win-win for all of us, the real victors are
all the readers. The tremendous wealth of knowledge that lies
within the books of the world will now be at their fingertips."

For more information about this agreement, visit:
http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/.

                       About the Authors Guild

The Authors Guild -- http://www.authorsguild.org-- representing  
more than 8,000 authors, is the nation's largest and oldest
society of published authors and the leading writers' advocate
for fair compensation, effective copyright protection, and free
expression.

            About the Association of American Publishers

The AAP is the national trade association of the U.S. book
publishing industry. AAP's more than 300 members include most of
the major commercial publishers in the United States, as well as
smaller and non-profit publishers, university presses and
scholarly societies. AAP members publish hardcover and paperback
books in every field, educational materials for the elementary,
secondary, postsecondary, and professional markets, scholarly
journals, computer software, and electronic products and
services. The protection of intellectual property rights in all
media, the defense of the freedom to read and the freedom to
publish at home and abroad, and the promotion of reading and
literacy are among the Association's highest priorities.

             About Google Inc. and Google Book Search

Google's innovative search technologies connect millions of
people around the world with information every day. Google Book
Search was launched in 2004, and today enables the full text
searching of more than a million books online. More than 20,000
publishers and 29 libraries around the world currently work with
Google to market their books through the service. Google is
headquartered in Silicon Valley with offices throughout the
Americas, Europe and Asia.


GPT GROUP: Faces Shareholder Litigation Over Forecast Earnings
--------------------------------------------------------------
The GPT Group is facing a purported shareholder class-action
lawsuit in an Australian court over alleged misleading and
deceptive statements about its rocky financial health, Eli
Greenblat of The Age reports.

The lawsuit, filed by the law firm of Slater & Gordon, Ltd.,
claims that GPT failed to comply with its continuous disclosure
obligations by informing the Australian Securities Exchange
(ASX) as its forecast earnings deteriorated.

The Age reports that the case is likely to revolve around
statements made by GPT on July 7, 2008, when GPT released a
statement to the ASX, in which its forecast earnings for the
2008 calendar year were slashed by 27%.

At that briefing, forecast operating income was downgraded to
AU$464 million, distributions per stapled security were slashed
30% to 20 and earnings per stapled security were cut from 29.4
to 21.2.

According to Slater & Gordon, "This was in stark contrast to
guidance provided by the company only six weeks prior and, in
response, the price of GPT stapled securities fell by 24% over
the following two days."

The Australian law firm added, "It will be alleged that GPT
provided forecasts to the market without reasonable basis and
failed to disclose the extent to which its earnings were being
supported by one-off asset sales."

Slater & Gordon are seeking shareholders who acquired stapled
securities in GPT between Feb. 28, 2008, and July 6, 2008.


HONDA MOTOR: Faces N.J. Suit Over Defective Michelin PAX Tires
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in Bergen County Court, Hackensack alleging it sells its cars
with defective Michelin PAX tires and wheels, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

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

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. -- http://world.honda.com-- is a Japan-
based company primarily engaged in the development, production
and sale of various motor products.


MATTEL INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Product Liability Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a multi-district litigation
pending in California captioned, "In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead
Paint Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:2007ml01897,"
which names Mattel, Inc., as a defendant.

Initially, about 22 lawsuits have been filed in the U.S.
asserting claims arising out of 2007 voluntary product recalls
by Mattel and Fisher-Price, as well as the withdrawal of red and
green toy blood pressure cuffs from retail stores or their
replacement at the request of consumers.

On Sept. 5, 2007, Mattel and Fisher-Price filed a motion before
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that all
federal actions related to the recalls be coordinated and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the JPML issued a transfer order, transferring
six actions pending outside the Central District of California
to the Central District of California for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with five actions already
pending in the same venue.

The remaining cases, the so-called "potential tag-along
actions," are either already pending in the Central District of
California or have been transferred there pursuant to the Jan. 3
and Jan. 17, 2008 conditional transfer orders issued by the
JPML.

These matters are all currently pending under MDL proceeding
captioned, "In re Mattel, Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability
Litigation, No. 2:07-ML-01897-DSF-AJW, MDL 1897 (C. D. Ca.)."

On March 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint in the MDL proceeding.  The plaintiffs
seek certification of a class of all persons who, from May 2003
through the present, purchased and acquired certain allegedly
hazardous toys.

The Consolidated Complaint defines hazardous toys as:

       -- those toys recalled between Aug. 2, 2007, and Oct. 25,
          2007, due to the presence of lead in excess of
          applicable standards in the paint on some parts of
          some of the toys;

       -- those toys recalled on Nov. 21, 2006, and Aug. 14,
          2007, related to magnets; and
   
       -- the red and green toy blood pressure cuffs voluntarily
          withdrawn from retail stores or replaced at the
          request of consumers.

The Consolidated Complaint refers to other, unidentified toys
that allegedly contain lead in excess of applicable standards or
unsafe magnets that have not been recalled.

Aside from Mattel and Fisher-Price, the Consolidated Complaint
names also names as defendants:

     -- Target Corp.,
     -- Toys 'R" Us, Inc.,
     -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
     -- KB Toys, Inc., and
     -- Kmart Corp.

Mattel has offered to assume the defense of and to indemnify the
retailers named in the Consolidated Complaint for the specific
claims raised in the Consolidated Complaint, which claims relate
to the sale of Mattel and Fisher-Price toys.

In the Consolidated Complaint, the plaintiffs assert claims for
breach of implied and express warranties, negligence, strict
liability, violation of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Act and
related Consumer Product Safety Rules, various California
consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek:

       -- declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining defendants
          from continuing the allegedly unlawful practices
          raised in the Consolidated Complaint;

       -- restitution and disgorgement of monies acquired by
          defendants from the allegedly unlawful practices;

       -- costs of initial diagnostic blood lead level testing
          to detect possible injury to plaintiffs and members of
          the class;

       -- costs of treatment for those who test positive to the
          initial diagnostic blood lead level testing;

       -- reimbursement of the purchase price for the allegedly
          hazardous toys; and

       -- costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 24, 2008, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint.  A hearing was held on the motions on
Sept. 8, 2008, and the court requested certain supplemental
briefing that is ongoing.  

Discovery has commenced and is ongoing, but is in the very early
stages, 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 suit is "In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 2:2007ml01897," pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Dale S. Fischer presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ivy D. Arai, Esq. (ivy@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 5th Ave Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292

          Ben Barnow, Esq. (b.barnow@barnowlaw.com)
          Barnow and Associates PC
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-621-2000
          Fax: 312-641-5504

               - and -

          Mila F. Bartos, Esq. (mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
          Duvall Foundry, 1050 30th St NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas E. Fennell, Esq. (tefennell@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          2727 North Harwood Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-220-3939


MATTEL INC: Still Faces Lead Contaminated Toys Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. is still facing several product liability lawsuits
in Canadian courts in connection with lead contaminated toys.

Since Sept. 26, 2007, eight proposed class-action complaints
have been filed in the provincial superior courts of these
Canadian provinces:

   -- British Columbia (Trainor v. Fisher-Price, filed Sept. 26,
      2007);

   -- Alberta (Cairns v. Fisher-Price, filed Sept. 26, 2007);

   -- Saskatchewan (Sharp v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 26,
      2007);

   -- Quebec (El-Mousfi v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 27, 2007,
      and Fortier v. Mattel Canada, filed Oct. 10, 2007);

   -- Ontario (Wiggins v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 28, 2007);

   -- New Brunswick (Travis v. Fisher-Price, filed Sept. 28,
      2007); and

   -- Manitoba (Close v. Fisher-Price, filed Oct. 3, 2007).

Mattel, Fisher-Price and Mattel Canada are defendants in all of
the actions, and Fisher-Price Canada is a defendant in two (El-
Mousfi and Wiggins).

All but one of the cases seek certification of both a class of
residents of that province and a class of all other residents of
Canada outside the province where the action was filed.

The classes are generally defined similarly in all of the
actions to include both purchasers of the toys recalled by
Mattel and Fisher-Price in August and September 2007 and
children, either directly or through their parents as "next
friends," who have had contact with those toys.

The actions in Canada generally allege that the defendants were
negligent in allowing their products to be manufactured and sold
with lead paint on the toys and negligent in the design of the
toys with small magnets, which led to the sale of defective
products.

The cases typically state claims in four categories:

       1. production of a defective product;

       2. misrepresentations;

       3. negligence; and

       4. violations of consumer protection statutes.

The plaintiffs generally seek general and special damages,
damages in the amount of money paid for testing of children
based on alleged exposure to lead, restitution of any amount of
money paid for replacing recalled toys, disgorgement of benefits
resulting from recalled toys, aggravated and punitive damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an award of
litigation costs and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions except one do not specify
the amount of damages sought.  In the Ontario action (Wiggins),
the plaintiff demands general damages of CDN$75 million and
special damages of CDN$150 million, in addition to the other
remedies.

In November 2007, the class-action suit commenced by Mr. Fortier
was voluntarily discontinued.  

In October 2008, counsel in the Quebec class-action lawsuit (El-
Mousfi) sought permission from the Court to discontinue that
action, and that request remains pending.

All of the actions in Canada are at a preliminary stage,
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.

Mattel, Inc. -- http://www.mattel.com/-- designs, manufactures  
and markets a variety of toy products worldwide through sales to
its customers and directly to consumers.


MONSANTO CO: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Texas Over  Glyphosate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas over its
alleged monopoly on glyphosate, according to the company's Oct.
23, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

On Aug. 10, 2007, an antitrust lawsuit was filed against the
company, entitled, "Texas Grain Storage, Inc. v. Monsanto
Company, Case No. 5:07-cv-00673-OLG."  It was brought on behalf
of a retailer of glyphosate named Texas Grain Storage, Inc.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a national class of all entities
that purchased glyphosate directly from the company since August
2003.

In the most recent court scheduling order, the court has
indicated it will set a hearing on plaintiff's motion to certify
a class.  The company expect that this hearing will occur in
March 2009.

The suit is "Texas Grain Storage, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, Case
No. 5:07-cv-00673-OLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Judge Orlando L. Garcia, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. (dabrahams@kohnswift.com)
          Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.
          One South Broad Street
          Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-238-1700

               - and -

          Steven M. Burton, Esq. (sburton@slmpc.com)
          Sheehy, Lovelace & Mayfield, P.C.
          510 North Valley Mills Dr.
          Suite 500
          Waco, TX 76710
          Phone: (254) 772-8022
          Fax: (254) 772-9297

Representing the defendant are:

          Sean P. Beaty, Esq. (BeatyS@Howrey.com)
          Howrey LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 783-0800
          Fax: (202) 383-6610

               - and -

          Ricardo G. Cedillo, Esq. (rcedillo@lawdcm.com)
          Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza
          McCombs Plaza
          755 E. Mulberry Ave.
          Suite 500
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Phone: (210) 822-6666
          Fax: (210) 822-1151 (fax)


MONSANTO CO: No Trial Dates Set for Biotechnology Traits Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
No trial dates have been scheduled for a consolidated federal
lawsuit and a state court class-action lawsuit against Monsanto
Co. and its subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. over
alleged price fixing and overpricing of biotechnology traits.

Starting the week of March 7, 2004, a series of purported class-
action lawsuits were filed in 14 different state courts against
Pioneer and the company.

The lawsuits allege that the company conspired with Pioneer to
violate various state competition and consumer protection laws
by allegedly fixing and artificially inflating the prices and
fees for Monsanto's various biotechnology traits and seeds
containing those traits and imposing certain use restrictions.

All of these cases have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and consolidated,
except for one case that was pending in state court in
Tennessee, which has been dismissed.

On May 27, 2008, the court entered a scheduling order setting
dates for class related discovery and requiring the plaintiffs
to file their motion for class certification by April 30, 2009.
No date is set for the class certification hearing, according to
the company's Oct. 23, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 31, 2008.

Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com-- together with its  
subsidiaries, is a global provider of agricultural products for
farmers.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. and several other major U.S. Railroads
are seeking the dismissal of the consolidated amended complaints
filed in several putative class action suits against them that
were consolidated in the District of Columbia.  

In general, the lawsuits allege that the individual railroads
conspired in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

As of Feb. 14, 2008, 18 antitrust class action complaints have
been filed against Norfolk Southern and the other Class 1
railroads in various federal district courts regarding fuel
surcharges (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2008).   

On Nov. 6, 2007, these actions were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia by the Judicial
Panel on Multi-district Litigation.  Consolidated amended class
action complaints were then filed against Norfolk Southern and
three other railroads on April 15, 2008.  

The complaints allege violations of federal antitrust laws and
other laws with regard to the railroads' fuel surcharge
programs.  

Motions to dismiss the consolidated complaints were filed by the
railroads on May 30, 2008, and discovery has been stayed pending
resolution of these motions.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- controls a  
freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co.  Norfolk Southern
Railway Co. is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of
raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods
primarily in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via
interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the U.S.
and parts of Canada.  


OIL REFINERIES: Notified on Legal Claim Filed Against Subsidiary
----------------------------------------------------------------
     HAIFA, Israel, Oct. 27, 2008 -- Oil Refineries Ltd. (TASE:
ORL.TA), Israel's largest oil refiner, announced that it has
received a notification from its subsidiary, Carmel Olefins Ltd.
(a private company in which the Company holds 50%, and in
respect to which the Company has signed an agreement to purchase
the balance of its shares as outlined in the press release dated
June 25, 2008) (hereinafter: "CAOL").

     Under the notification-

     -- On October 23, 2008 CAOL was presented with a request
        for the classification of a class action claim, as
        defined under the Class Action Law - 2006, filed by Mr.
        Arye Bernstein, on October 5, 2008, with the Tel-Aviv
        District Court (hereinafter: the "Requestor" or the
        "Request", respectfully). The Request was filed with
        respect to non-monetary damages caused, according to the
        Requestor, as a result of two smoke emissions events
        which occurred on September 15, 2003 and October 5, 2008
        (hereinafter: "the Events")

     -- The Requestor asks, in his Request, to represent the
        citizens of the Haifa Bay area and those who were
        present in the area (hereinafter: the "Group") and were
        exposed to the smoke emissions on the said dates.

     -- The Requestor claims that each of the members of the
        Group is to be compensated NIS 1,000 with respect to the
        damages claimed to have been caused.

     -- The Request does not quote the estimated number of the
        Group's members and does not quote the total amount that
        the Requestor claims needs to be compensated to the
        Group.

     -- The Request argue to have been filed following the
        results of the criminal process held against CAOL, under
        which CAOL was convicted, at its own admission, in a
        revised indictment relating to the events, by the
        Israeli Supreme Court.

     -- CAOL is currently studying the Request with the
        assistance of its legal advisors.

     The Company is not able to evaluate the chances and
consequences of the claim at this time.

     Oil Refineries Ltd. (ORL) -- http://www.orl.co.il--  
located in the bay area of the city of Haifa, is Israel's
largest oil refinery. ORL operates sophisticated and state-of-
the-art industrial facilities with refining capacity of 9
million tons of crude oil per year, with a Nelson complexity
index of 7.4, providing a variety of quality products used in
industrial operation, transportation, private consumption,
agriculture and infrastructure.

     The Company is also active in the area of Aromatics and
Polymers through wholly-owned Gadiv Petrochemical Industries
Ltd. and 50% owned Carmel Olefins Ltd. ORL is traded on the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange under the ticker ORL.


OPES PRIME: Firm Re-Opens AU$100M Lawsuit After Securing Support
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Slater & Gordon, Ltd., has re-opened its AU$100
million class-action lawsuit against Opes Prime Stockbroking,
Ltd., and its creditors ANZ Banking Group, Ltd. and Merrill
Lynch, after securing support from a U.S. litigation funder.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Slater & Gordon recently
secured the agreement of U.S.-based Comprehensive Legal Funding
LLC to accept new clients for the class-action lawsuit, subject
to the consent of the Federal Court.  With the agreement former
clients of the failed stockbroker have until Nov. 21, 2008 to
join the class-action lawsuit

The suit was filed in on May 30, 2008 by Slater & Gordon on
behalf of more than 50 former clients of Opes Prime.  It
generally alleges negligence and breaches of corporations law
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 3, 2008).

The lead claimant in the class-action lawsuit is Imobilari Pty.
Ltd, the investment company of a Sydney businessman who lost
several hundred thousand dollars as a result of the Opes Prime
collapse.

David Andrews of Slater & Gordon told The Sydney Morning Herald
that preliminary rounds have already occurred and they currently
await judgment on the strike-out application by the defendants,
a routine process in class-action lawsuits.

Mr. Andrews adds, "The class action also offers comfort to those
whose positions have changed from net creditor to net debtor
over the months passed, as we will be arguing in court that they
should revert to the position they were in prior to any
misrepresentations being made."


QANTAS AIRWAYS: Settles Price-Fixing Lawsuit for $20 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
     e-Travel Blackboard (Press Release), Australia -- For its
role in the international freight cartel, Qantas Airways has
settled with the Australian consumer watchdog for $20 million in
relation to its price-fixing actions between 2002 and 2006.

     Qantas has already settled its liabilities in the United
States, where it was slugged with a US$61 million fine last
year, which it has already paid off.

     This recent figure is for its actions in Australia, as part
of a global operation which saw as many as 30 carriers colluding
on their cargo fuel surcharges, and which are now being
investigated in different jurisdictions all around the world.

     "Qantas apologises unreservedly for the conduct of the
employees involved. All Qantas employees are expected to comply
with the law and we take any failure to comply very seriously,"
said Geoff Dixon, Qantas CEO in a media statement yesterday.

     "Since being advised of the allegations in May 2006, Qantas
has cooperated fully with investigations by the ACCC and all
other relevant antitrust regulators," he adds.

     Qantas says that it estimates that similar investigations
in other jurisdictions will continue to take place over the next
two years, in which the airline expects to cooperate.

     The $20 million fine was much smaller than it could have
been, though it is still the second largest fine of its kind in
Australian history, due to the fact that the board took action
and cooperated with the ACCC investigation.

     Though the regulatory body is now satisfied with this
turnout, Qantas could still expect a civil class action from
Melbourne-based Maurice Blackburn, who has already announced
that they have attracted hundreds of businesses and 20
multinationals to their case.

                 British Airways also settles

     British Airways has also settled its obligations for the
Australian jurisdiction, seeing an AU$5 million dollar fine from
the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

     BA's liabilities were also lowered because the airline took
action and cooperated with the ACCC.

     The AU$5 million fine will seem negligible for BA who has
already seen a GBP121.5 million from its own Office of Fair
Trading, which was followed quickly by a USD300 million fine
handed down by the US Department of Justice.

   
UAL CORP: California Court Yet to Approve Antitrust Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to approve a settlement agreement reached by UAL Corp.
resolving multiple putative class action suits that allege
violations of the antitrust laws with respect to passenger
pricing practices.

Those lawsuits have been consolidated or are pending
consolidation for pretrial activities in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

UAL has entered into a settlement agreement with a number of the
plaintiffs in the passenger pricing cases to dismiss the company
from the class action lawsuits in return for an agreement to
cooperate with the plaintiffs' factual investigation.

The settlement agreement is subject to review and approval by
the Federal Court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

UAL Corp. -- http://www.united.com/-- is a holding company  
whose principal subsidiary is United Air Lines, Inc., whose
operations consist primarily of the transportation of persons,
property and mail throughout the U.S. and abroad.


UAL CORP: Dismissed From Air Cargo Surcharges Litigation in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
UAL Corp. was dismissed from a consolidated class-action lawsuit
in New York with regards to certain surcharges included in
tariffs for carrying air cargo.

The company and other air cargo carriers have been named as
defendants in more than 90 class-action lawsuits alleging civil
damages as a result of a purported air cargo pricing conspiracy.

Those lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial activities in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The company was dismissed from the case on Oct. 3, 2008,
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.

UAL Corp. -- http://www.united.com/-- is a holding company  
whose principal subsidiary is United Air Lines, Inc., whose
operations consist primarily of the transportation of persons,
property and mail throughout the U.S. and abroad.
         

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AIG INTERNATIONAL: Stull & Brody Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Oct. 27, 2008 -- Stull, Stull & Brody filed a
lawsuit on October 27, 2008 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York seeking class action
status on behalf of purchasers of 7.70% Series A5 Junior
Subordinated Debentures of American International Group, Inc.
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public offering on
December 11, 2007.

     The Complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l and 77o against certain
officers and directors of AIG and certain Underwriters of the
Offering.

     The Underwriters include:

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Howard Longman, Esq.
          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 1-212-490-2022
          e-mail: TSVI@aol.com  at SSBNY@aol.com


FANNIE MAE: Patton Roberts Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Oct. 27, 2008 -- Patton Roberts, PLLC, a
national law firm with offices in Little Rock, Arkansas,
Texarkana, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana announces that it
filed, on October 8, 2008, a class action lawsuit against Fannie
Mae on behalf of purchasers of Fannie Mae's 8.25% Fixed-to-
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series S who
purchased the stock between December 11, 2007 and September 5,
2008, inclusive.

     Fannie Mae is the nation's largest source of financing for
home mortgages. The action was filed in the United States
District Court for Southern District of New York.

     In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants --
including several former officers and directors of Fannie Mae
and the underwriters responsible for the Series S preferred
stock offering -- knew or recklessly disregarded that Fannie Mae
was grossly undercapitalized, in violation of Federal
regulations, because of its overwhelming investments in subprime
and Alt-A mortgages. These assets were not properly accounted
for in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP). Fannie Mae's capital deficiency also was concealed
because its deferred tax assets and guaranty obligations were
not properly accounted for in violation of GAAP.

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

      Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 7, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jack "Jay" T. Patterson, II
          James C. Wyly
          Patton Roberts, PLLC
          111 Center Street, Ste. 1315
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: 501.372.3480 or 866.372.3480
          Fax: 501.372.3488
          e-mail: jpatterson@pattonroberts.com or
                  jwyly@pattonroberts.com


NOAH EDUCATION: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 27, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of those who purchased American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") of Noah Education Holdings, Ltd.  in or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about
October 19, 2007 (the "IPO" or the "Offering") to November 19,
2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933.

     The complaint charges Noah Education and the underwriters
of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act.

     Noah Education engages in the development, marketing, and
distribution of interactive education content in the People's
Republic of China.

     According to the complaint, on or about September 24, 2007,
Noah Education filed a Form F-1 Registration Statement (the
"Registration Statement") with the SEC for the Offering. On or
about October 18, 2007, the Prospectus with respect to the
Offering (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of the
Registration Statement, became effective and more than 9.8
million shares of Noah Education's ADSs were sold to the public
at $14.00 per ADS, thereby raising more than $137 million. The
complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing an increase
in raw materials costs which had negatively impacted its
earnings.

     On November 19, 2007, Noah Education issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the quarter ended September
30, 2007. Among other things, the Company reported that its
gross profit margins had dramatically declined from 59.4% in the
same period the prior year to 50.2% in the quarter. The press
release attributed the declining margins to "an increase in the
purchasing cost of certain raw material components of DLDs such
as flash chips and memory boards, during July and August." In
response to this news, the price of Noah Education ADSs dropped
from $12.46 per ADS to $6.72 per ADS on extremely heavy trading
volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Noah Education ADSs during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Holzer & Fistel Announces Colo. Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, GA, Oct. 27, 2008 -- Shareholder class action
lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado against The Spectranetics Corporation
(NASDAQ: SPNC) and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of purchasers of Spectranetics common stock, who
purchased shares between April 19, 2007 and September 4, 2008
inclusive.

     The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act
of 1934 by making false and misleading statements to the public
in its press releases and in its Securities Exchange Commission
filings.

     Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Company failed
to disclose adverse information regarding its medical products
and its potential violations of the Food and Drug
Administration's rules and regulations.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          Holzer & Holzer, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, Georgia 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          Toll-Free: (888) 508-6832
          e-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com or mdees@holzerlaw.com


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
October 28-29, 2008
  WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf
        San Francisco, California
          Phone: 888-224-2480

October 28-29, 2008
  SUBPRIME LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT
    American Conference Institute
      Millennium Broadway\u2008Hotel
        New York, New York
          Phone: 888-224-2480

October 29-30, 2008
  AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT LIABILITY
    American Conference Institute
      Sutton Place Hotel, Chicago, Illinois
        Phone: 888-224-2480

October 30-31, 2008
  SECURITIES FILINGS
    Practising Law Institute
      Gleacher Center
        Chicago, Illinois
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 5-7, 2008
  COMPREHENSIVE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS & COVERAGE CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino
        Las Vegas, Nevada
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 6-7, 2008
  BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Harvard Club
        New York, New York
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 6-7, 2008
  SECURITIES FILINGS
    Practising Law Institute
      San Francisco, California
        Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 7, 2008
  NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
    American Bar Association
      New York
        Phone: 800-285-2221

November 11, 2008
  MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION: LEGAL STRATEGIES AND BEST
    PRACTICES IN "HIGH-STAKES" CASES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York, New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 12-14, 2008
  SECURITIES REGULATION INSTITUTE
    Practising Law Institute
      New York Hilton, New York
        Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 13, 2008
  BAD FAITH LITIGATION DEFENSE COUNSEL SUMMIT
    American Conference Institute
      Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress, Orlando, Florida
        Contact: 888-224-2480

November 17-18, 2008
  LIFE INSURANCE IN THE SECONDARY MARKET CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Rittenhouse Hotel
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

December 4-5, 2008
  ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WHERE IS IT GOING? WHEN WILL IT END?
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      St. Anthony Hotel
        San Antonio, Texas
          Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

December 4-5, 2008
  FOOD\u2010BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      TBC, Phoenix, Arizona
        Phone: 888-224-2480

December 9-11, 2008
  DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Millennium Broadway Hotel, New York
        Phone: 888-224-2480

December 17-18, 2008
  TOP 10 INSURANCE ISSUES CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Loews Hotel
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

January 21-22, 2009
  14TH ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
    American Conference Institute
      TBD, New York, New York
        Phone: 888-224-2480

May 18-19, 2009
  5TH ANNUAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FORUM ON PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST
    American Conference Institute
      TBD, Washington, District of Columbia
        Phone: 888-224-2480

July 9-10, 2009
  CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND
    DEFENSE STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

July 9-10, 2009
  INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Langham Hotel
        Boston, Massachusetts
          Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
October 29, 2008
  LOW-LEVEL EXPOSURE CASES IN LEAD LITIGATION
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 30, 2008
  MRSA AND HOSPITAL INFECTIONS: THE NEXT WAVE OF CLASS
    INFECTIONS
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 30, 2008
  LITIGATION HOLD LETTERS
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

November 5, 2008
  UNDERSTANDING THE EXPOSURE RISK FROM ASBESTOS IN SOILS
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 7, 2008
  WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

November 19, 2008
  BENZENE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 19, 2008
  FALSE CLAIMS ACT & PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: AN UPDATE
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

November 20, 2008
  FASB UPDATE: CONVERGENCE, VOLATILITY & POTENTIAL LIABILITIES
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

December 4-5, 2008
  ASBESTOS LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

December 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
  
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS  
  (2004)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
       Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2005)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS  
  (2007)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 26TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS  
  (2008)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT
  DEVELOPMENTS
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
  YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
  WRITTEN DISCOVERY
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
  LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
  LawCommerce.Com
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
  SALES AND ADVERSTISING
    American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-285-2221
        e-mail: abacle@abanet.org


                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *