CAR_Public/081103.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 3, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 218

                            Headlines

APOLLO GROUP: No Discovery Yet in Arizona Securities Fraud Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Ariz. Securities Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Settlement Reached in Ariz. Title VII Litigation
C. R. BARD: April 2009 Trial Set for Antitrust Suit Catheters
C. R. BARD: Continues to Face Composix Kugel Mesh Patch Lawsuits

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Sued in Calif. Over Contracts Cancellation
CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Faces Colo. Suit Over Denied Medical Claims
EXTENDICARE HOMES: 10 Minnesota Nursing Homes Named in Lawsuit
EXTENDICARE REIT: Calls Minnesota Lawsuit Claims Baseless
GETTY IMAGES: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over "Premium Access"

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Schoengold Sporn Files N.Y. Suit Over XS Trust
LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Still Faces Several Manganese Lawsuits in Ohio
NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Still Faces Consolidated Suit in Calif.
NOAH EDUCATION: Issues Statement on Lawsuit Filed in N.Y.
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Settles Allied Waste Merger Related Lawsuits

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeals Jury Decision in Mo. Reimbursement Case
VERIZON COMMS: A.G. Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Privacy Lawsuits
YELLOW BOOK: Faces Florida Lawsuit Over Undelivered Books


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CADENCE DESIGN: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
CADENCE DESIGN: Federman & Sherwood Announces Calif. Suit Filing
CANO PETROLEUM: Holzer & Fistel Announces Suit Filing in N.Y.
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Brower Piven Announces Suit Filing in N.Y.
HARRIS STRATEX: Cohen Milstein Files Dela. Securities Fraud Suit

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Coughlin Stoia Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing



                           *********

APOLLO GROUP: No Discovery Yet in Arizona Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has yet to begin in a securities fraud class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona against Apollo Group, Inc., according to the company's
Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

The class-action complaint, captioned, "Teamsters Local 617
Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-02674-RCB," was filed on Nov. 2, 2006, and purported to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's
stock between Nov. 28, 2001, and Oct. 28, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly failing to
disclose alleged deficiencies in the company's stock option
granting policies and practices.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and other relief.  

On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate
attorneys, filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff
and approval of their designated counsel as lead counsel to
pursue the action.  The court later appointed The Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and approved the
lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.

On Nov. 23, 2007, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that the defendants made misrepresentations concerning
the company's stock option granting policies and practices,
traded while in possession of material non-public information,
violated duties of care, candor and loyalty, and engaged in
self-dealing.

The Lead Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and
civil conspiracy to commit fraud, and seeks unstated
compensatory and punitive damages and other relief on behalf of
the purported class.

Aside from the company, other named defendants are:

      -- John G. Sperling,
      -- Todd S. Nelson,
      -- Kenda B. Gonzales,
      -- Daniel E. Bachus,
      -- John M. Blair,
      -- Hedy F. Govenar,
      -- Brian E. Mueller,
      -- Dino J. DeConcini,
      -- Peter V. Sperling, and
      -- Laura Palmer Noone.

All defendants filed motions to dismiss the case on Jan. 22,
2008, which are now pending before the court.  Discovery in this
case has not yet begun.

The suit is "Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v.
Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge
Robert C. Broomfield, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

              - and -

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. (pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         1 N La Salle St., Ste. 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-377-1181
         Fax: 312-377-1184

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael J. Farrell, Esq. (mfarrell@jsslaw.com)
         Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC
         Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington, Ste. 1100
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2385
         Phone: 602-262-5900
         Fax: 602-495-2618

              - and -

         Joseph E. Floren, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         101 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10178-0060
         Phone: 212-309-6000


APOLLO GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Ariz. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated lawsuit against Apollo Group,
Inc., captioned, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT," appealed a ruling in
the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Aug. 31, 2008.

In October 2004, three class-action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  The court
consolidated the three pending class action complaints under the
caption, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT," and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed on May 16, 2005, by the lead plaintiff.

The Lead Plaintiff represents a class of the company's
shareholders who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004,
and Sept. 14, 2004.  

The consolidated complaint specifically named the company, Todd
S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales, and Daniel E. Bachus, as
defendants.  

On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel
E. Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from the case.  

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Act by the company for defendants'
allegedly material false and misleading statements in connection
with its failure to publicly disclose the contents of a
preliminary U.S. Department of Education program review report.

The case proceeded to trial on Nov. 14, 2007.  On Jan. 16, 2008,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs awarding
damages of up to $5.55 for each share of common stock in the
class suit, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  

The class shares are those purchased after Feb. 27, 2004, and
still owned on Sept. 14, 2004.  

The judgment was entered on Jan. 30, 2008, subject to an
automatic stay until Feb. 13, 2008.  

On Feb. 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to stay
execution of the judgment pending resolution of our motions for
post-trial relief, which were also filed on Feb. 13, 2008,
provided that we post a bond in the amount of $95.0 million.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the company posted the $95-million bond with
the Court.  

Oral arguments occurred on Aug. 4, 2008 as part of the company's
post-trial motions, during which the District Court vacated the
earlier judgment based on the jury verdict and entered judgment
in favor of Apollo and the other defendants.

The $95.0 million bond posted in February was subsequently
released on Aug. 11, 2008.  

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 29, 2008.  The plaintiffs'
brief is due on Dec. 15, 2008, and the defendants' brief is due
on Jan. 13, 2009.

The consolidated action is "In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-02147," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Judge James A. Teilborg,
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert D. Mitchell, Esq.
         (robertmitchell@mitchelllaw.com)
         Mitchell & Forest
         2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 618
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Phone: 602-468-1411
         Fax: 602-468-1311

              - and –

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the company is:

          Wayne W. Smith, Esq.
          Orange County Office
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: 949-451-4108
          Fax: 949-475-4709


APOLLO GROUP: Settlement Reached in Ariz. Title VII Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in a purported class-action
lawsuit against the University of Phoenix, Inc. (UPX), a unit of
Apollo Group, Inc., captioned, "Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. University of Phoenix, Inc., Case No. CV-06-2303-
PHX-MHM."

The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 25, 2006, by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission as a Title VII action against UPX.  It
was filed on behalf of four identified former employees and a
proposed class of unidentified former and current employees who
were allegedly discriminated against because they were not
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The complaint also alleges that some of the employees were
retaliated against after complaining about the alleged
discrimination.  

The EEOC did not serve its Complaint on UPX until Nov. 21, 2006.
UPX answered the Complaint on Dec. 8, 2006, denying the material
allegations asserted.  

An initial Scheduling Conference was held on Feb. 15, 2007.

During the course of discovery, the EEOC identified
approximately 45 additional class members on whose behalf it was
seeking relief.

UPX filed motions to strike almost all of these additional class
members on the basis that they failed to timely exhaust their
administrative remedies and meet other statutory prerequisites
to filing suit under Title VII.

The District Court denied University of Phoenix's motions to
strike on May 2, 2008 and University of Phoenix subsequently
filed a motion for certification to file an interlocutory appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

On May 20, 2008, the District Court granted University of
Phoenix's motion for certification and stayed discovery
regarding the additional class members pending the Ninth
Circuit's ruling.  

On Aug. 15, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied University of
Phoenix's request to file an interlocutory appeal.  As a result,
on Aug. 19, 2008, the District Court reopened discovery on all
class members and extended the discovery deadline for 90 days.

The parties subsequently reached a tentative settlement
resolving this action and have submitted a proposed consent
decree to the District Court for approval.  The settlement will
not be effective until approved by the District Court, according
to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
University of Phoenix, Inc., Case No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge
Mary H. Murguia, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Katherine J. Kruse, Esq. (katherine.kruse@eeoc.gov)
          EEOC
          3300 N. Central Ave., Ste. 690
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848
          Phone: 602-640-5029
          Fax: 602-640-5009

Representing the defendants is:

          William R. Hayden, Esq. (bhayden@swlaw.com)
          Snell & Wilmer LLP
          1 Arizona Ctr, 400 E. Van Buren
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-0001
          Phone: 602-382-6000
          Fax: 602-382-6070


C. R. BARD: April 2009 Trial Set for Antitrust Suit Catheters
-------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative April 2009 trial is scheduled for an antitrust
class-action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri against C. R. Bard, Inc., which
claims several companies colluded to monopolize the market on
urological catheter products, according to the company's Oct.
27, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The defendants named in the suit are:

    -- C.R. Bard, Inc.,
    -- Tyco International (U.S.), Inc., and
    -- Tyco Health Care Group.

The suit, filed on Feb. 21, 2007, was brought on behalf of all
persons or entities, including hospitals and other healthcare
providers in the U.S. who directly purchased Urological
Catheters produced, promoted, sold, marketed and distributed by
one or more of the defendants, from Jan. 1, 2002, through the
present (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2007).

Named plaintiff Southeast Missouri Hospital says the companies
use exclusionary compliance discounts, sole-source exclusive
dealing contracts and bundled discounts and rebates to restrict
and eliminate competition and charge inflated prices.

As a result of the defendants' unlawful conduct, the plaintiff
and the class allegedly paid prices for Urological Catheters
that were artificially inflated, and were foreclosed from the
opportunity to purchase more effective and innovatively advanced
Urological Catheters.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for itself and on behalf
of direct purchasers of Urological Catheters, as well as
recurring injunctive relief from these ongoing violations of
federal antitrust laws.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) whether the defendants engaged in a contract,
         combination or conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of, or allocate
         the market for Urological Catheters;

     (b) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators were
         participants in the contracts, combinations or
         conspiracies alleged herein;

     (c) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators
         engaged in conduct that violated Sections 1 and 2 of
         the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act;

     (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators
         engaged in unlawful, unfair or deceptive contracts,
         combinations or conspiracies among themselves, express
         or implied, to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize
         prices of Urological Catheters sold in and/or
         distributed in the U.S.;

     (f) whether the anticompetitive conduct of the defendants
         caused prices of Urological Catheters to be
         artificially inflated to non-competitive levels;

     (g) whether the defendants unjustly enriched themselves as
         a result of their inequitable conduct at the expense of
         the Class members;

     (h) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         injunctive relief;

     (i) whether plaintiff and other class members were injured
         by the conduct of defendants and, if so, the
         appropriate class-wide measure of damages

     (j) what is the scope of the relative market for Urological
         Catheters; and

     (k) whether defendants have market power in the Urological
         Catheter.

The plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the class, respectfully
prays:

     (1) that this action may be maintained as a class action
         pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
         Procedure, that plaintiff's counsel be appointed class
         counsel, and that reasonable notice of this action be
         given to the class;

     (2) that the acts alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to
         be unlawful restraints of trade in violation of
         Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of
         the Clayton Act;

     (3) that the class recover treble the damages determined to
         have been sustained by them, and that joint and several
         judgments be entered against defendants in favor of the
         class;

     (4) that defendants be enjoined from entering into the
         unlawful agreements discussed above;

     (5) that the class be granted the costs and expenses of
         suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided
         by law; and

     (6) that the class be granted such other and further relief
         as may be determined to be just, equitable and proper
         by the court.

A trial is currently anticipated to commence in April 2009.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1a58

The suit is "Southeast Missouri Hospital v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00031-TCM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Judge Thomas C.
Mummert, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Nathan Cihlar, Esq. (ncihlar@straus-boies.com)
          Straus & Boies, LLP
          4041 University Dr., Fifth Floor
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: 703-764-8700
          Fax: 703-764-8704

Representing the defendants is:

          Ryan B. Bowers, Esq. (rbowers@winston.com)
          Winston and Strawn LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-558-5600
          Fax: 314-558-5700


C. R. BARD: Continues to Face Composix Kugel Mesh Patch Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc., continues to face several lawsuits that were
filed or asserted against the company with respect to its Bard
Composix Kugel product intended for ventral hernia repair,
according to the company's Oct. 27, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

As of Oct. 23, 2008, approximately 840 federal and 1,180 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 2,090
plaintiffs, as well as three putative class actions, have been
filed or asserted against the company with respect to its
Composix Kugel and certain other core hernia repair products
(collectively, the Hernia Product Claims).

One class-action lawsuit consolidates eight previously-filed
class action lawsuits.  The company voluntarily recalled certain
sizes and lots of the Composix Kugel product beginning in
December 2005.  The actions generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.  

The putative class-action lawsuits, none of which has been
certified, seek:

       -- medical monitoring,

       -- compensatory damages,

       -- punitive damages,

       -- a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or
          attorneys' fees.

On June 22, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred Composix Kugel lawsuits pending in federal courts
nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island.  

The MDL court subsequently determined to include other hernia
repair products in the MDL proceeding.  

Approximately 1,160 of the state lawsuits, involving individual
claims by a substantially equivalent number of plaintiffs, are
pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with
the remainder in various other jurisdictions.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- is engaged in the   
designing, manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale of
medical, surgical, diagnostic and patient care devices.  The
Company sells a range of products worldwide to hospitals,
individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities
and alternate site facilities.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Sued in Calif. Over Contracts Cancellation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California alleging it cheats customers by charging
them for canceling before the end of a "purported contract
term," the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of persons and
entities who were injured by Cellco's business practice of
charging internet service customers an early termination fee
(ETF) if they cancel their internet service before the end of
the a contractual commitment.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the ETF is unjust, unreasonable and/or
         unenforceable;

     (b) whether the ETF is unjust and/or unlawful;

     (c) whether the ETF is an unenforceable penalty;

     (d) whether the ETF is an unlawful penalty in violation of
         Cal. Civ. Code Section 1671(d);

     (e) whether defendant's conduct constitutes deceptive,
         unfair and/or oppressive conduct;

     (f) whether defendant was unjustly enriched;

     (g) whether defendant's conduct violates California
         Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 172500
         et seq.;

     (h) whether defendant's conduct violates the California
         Consumer Legal Remedies Act;

     (i) whether the acts complained of warrant imposition of a
         constructive trust; and

     (j) whether plaintiff and class have been damaged and, if
         so, the proper measure of such damages.

The plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

     -- for an order certifying the class under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing
        plaintiff and his counsel of record to represent the
        class;

     -- for restitution, disgorgement and/or other equitable
        relief as the court deems proper;

     -- that pursuant to CLRA as well as sections 17203 and
        17204 of the Business and Professions Code, defendants
        be permanently enjoined from performing or proposing to
        perform any of the aforementioned acts of unfair,
        unlawful and fraudulent business practices;

     -- for compensatory damages sustained by plaintiff and all
        other similarly situated as a result of defendants'
        unlawful acts and conduct;

     -- for a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from
        engaging in the conduct and practices complained of;

     -- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
        including expert witness fees; and

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

The suit is "Garden Art Inc., et al v. Cellco Partnership, Case
NO. SACV 08-1210 AG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing plaintiff are:

          Brian S. Kabateck
          Richard L. Kellner
          Alfredo Torrejos
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          644 So. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Phone: (213) 217-5000
          Fax: (213) 217-5010


CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Faces Colo. Suit Over Denied Medical Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
CIGNA Healthcare of Colorado and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield
are facing a class-action complaint filed in the District Court
of Denver alleging it wrongfully denied medical claims, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Under Colorado law, CIGNA and Anthem are required to reimburse
insured for "clean claims," meaning claims for which CIGNA or
Anthem need no additional information to resolve the claim,
within a certain time period. CIGNA and Anthem must reimburse
electronically submitted clean claims within 30 days, and they
must reimburse clean claims submitted by other means (e.g. by
fax, hand-delivery, or US Mail) within 45 days after CIGNA and
Anthem receive the claim.

This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class
action pursuant to CRCP 23 on behalf of all individuals who from
Oct. 28, 2002 through the present who submitted claims to CIGNA
or Anthem on behalf of patients insured by VIGNA or Anthem, or
whose claims were submitted to CIGNA or Anthem by providers on
the individual's behalf and whose claims were not paid timely
pursuant to CRS Section 10-16-106.5:

      (1) did not receive 10% interest on electronically
          submitted clean claims paid after the 30th day;

      (2) did not receive 10% interest on non-electronically
          submitted clean claims paid after the 45th day; and/or

      (3) did not receive a 10% penalty on the amount of the
          claim ultimately paid when the claim was paid after
          the 90th day.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether CIGNA or Anthem failed to timely pay clean
         claims submitted electronically or by non-electronic
         means in violation of Section 106.5;

     (b) whether CIGNA or Anthem failed to timely pay all
         claims, including claims that required additional
         information for resolution, in violation of Section
         106.5;

     (c) whether CIGNA or Anthem failed to pay interest due and
         owing on untimely paid claims in violation of Section
         106.5;

     (d) whether CIGNA or Anthem failed to pay statutory
         penalties due and owing on untimely paid claims in
         violation of Section 106.5;

     (e) whether CIGNA's and/or Anthem's failure to timely pay
         claims constitutes a breach of the insurance contract
         respectively;

     (f) whether CIGNA's and/or Anthem's failure to timely pay
         claims was unreasonable, willful and wanton
         respectively;

     (g) whether CIGNA's and/or Anthem's failure to timely pay
         claims constitutes a breach of the implied covenant of
         good faith and fair dealing respectively;

     (h) whether CIGNA's and/or Anthem's retention of the
         interest and penalties owed to the class unjustly
         enriched CIGNA and/or Anthem respectively.

The plaintiff requests for judgment as follows:

     -- for an order certifying that this action may be
        maintained as a class action, appointing plaintiff and
        her counsel to represent the class, and directing that
        reasonable notice of this action be given by defendant
        to class members;

     -- for an order declaring that defendants violated CRS
        Section 10-16-106.5;

     -- for an award of the interest and penalties due under CRS
        10-16-106.5 and any accrued interest;

     -- for a judgment that defendants breached their contracts
        with plaintiff and the class members and an award of
        damages for the breaches;

     -- for a judgment that defendants breached their contracts
        with plaintiff and the class members in bad faith and an
        award of compensatory and exemplary damages;

     -- for a judgment that defendants have been unjustly
        enriched by their violation of Section 106.5;

     -- for an award of costs as allowed by law;

     -- for an award of attorneys' fees as may be allowed by
        law;

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

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

The suit is "Darlene Ley et al v. CIGNA Healthcare of Colorado
Inc., et al, Case No. 9388," filed in the District Court of
Denver.

Representing plaitniff are:

          Robert B. Carey
          Frances R. Johnson
          Megan Waples
          The Carey Law Firm
          2301 East Pikes Peak Avenue
          Colorado Springs, CO 80909
          Phone: (719) 635-0377
          Fax: (719) 635-2920
          e-mail: rob.carey@att.net or fjohnson@careylaw.com or
                  mwaples@careylaw.com


EXTENDICARE HOMES: 10 Minnesota Nursing Homes Named in Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     MINNEAPOLIS, Oct. 30, 2008 -- A class-action lawsuit (Case
#08CV5874) against long-term skilled nursing corporation
Extendicare and its 10 facilities in the state of Minnesota was
just filed in United States District Court, District of
Minnesota, in Minneapolis.

     Laura Bernstein vs. Extendicare Health Services, Inc. and
Extendicare Homes, Inc. was filed on behalf of Bernstein and all
residents who lived in a Minnesota Extendicare facility from
Oct. 29, 2002 through Oct. 29, 2008.

     The complaint alleges that Extendicare violates the
Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act by engaging in false
or deceptive advertising designed to lure elderly and infirm
individuals into believing that they will get the care they
need.

     The complaint contends that in spite of the claims made on
Extendicare's websites, in its brochures, and in other
promotional materials, it is, in fact, cheating its residents
and misrepresenting itself to prospective residents.

     "Extendicare facilities are consistently cited by the
Minnesota Department of Health Services for being in violation
of applicable laws and regulations that result in substandard
care for residents and violates their rights," says Minneapolis
plaintiff attorney Gale D. Pearson of Pearson, Randall,
Schumacher & LaBore. "Yet Extendicare's promotional materials
claim that the company offers high-quality, skilled nursing care
services and that it maintains quality standards above
government regulations."

     The complaint points to Extendicare's "Green Flag Policy"
and its "24/7 Extendicare Admission Policy" to demonstrate
Extendicare's "profit over people" actions. This policy is
comprised of three lists: "Green Flag," "Yellow Flag," and "Red
Flag." Various medical conditions are attributed to each list.

     In the long-term care and nursing care industry the
admissions and initial assessment process is one of the most
important functions a facility performs. This process determines
whether a facility can safely admit and provide adequate care to
a resident given the severity of the resident's medical
condition; the acuity level of residents already in the
facility, and the facility's available resources, including
quantity and quality of staff and available monetary resources.

     The complaint alleges that Extendicare's policy is that
anyone who shows up with one of the serious medical conditions
on the "Green Flag" list qualifies for "Automatic
Admissions/Always Yes Immediately."

     This policy does not take into account whether the facility
is able to meet the resident's needs or the needs of the
residents already residing in the facility. In fact, regardless
of the list the prospective resident's medical condition puts
him on, the only way he can be denied admittance is by an area
vice president who is not even on site.

     "I don't believe an area vice president who isn't even
onsite could possibly know if the local facility was able to
handle the needs of the patient or if the patient should be in a
hospital or another acute care facility," says Pearson. "It
seems to me that the emphasis is on increasing the census in
order to increase the profits, regardless of whether the
prospective patient needed care the facility couldn't give or if
he were a felon or even a sex offender."

     The complaint also alleges that the corporate-mandated
admissions contract given to incoming residents, and which they
must sign to be admitted, violates Minnesota law. The contract
includes a provision that says that residents agree to limit
Extendicare's liability in personal injuries or in loss of
personal property. Minnesota law (section 144.6501, subd.2)
expressly says that a nursing home's admission contract cannot
include such a waiver and that it may not include any provision
which is deceptive, unlawful, or unenforceable under state or
federal law.

     Extendicare's problems seem to range across the country. A
July 27, 2008 article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported
that Extendicare owns 26 nursing homes in Wisconsin. Twenty of
them have been cited for at least one serious care violation in
the past three years. The article also reports that in 2005,
Extendicare paid $2.3 million to Wisconsin in a civil settlement
over serious nursing home violations arising from the 2003 death
of a resident. Its Sun Prairie home, Willows Nursing &
Rehabilitation, was cited for poor care after two residents
died. Willows paid $198,045 in state and federal fines; it also
is on the federal list of the worst homes in the country.

     Extendicare is facing a similar class action lawsuit in
Washington. That suit was brought by The Garcia Law Firm of Long
Beach, Calif., and by Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Coluccio of
Seattle, Wash., both of whom are co-counsel with Pearson,
Randall, Schumacher & LaBore.

     "Stephen Garcia was the first attorney to successfully use
this strategy to force these long-term skilled nursing companies
into changing their ways," says Pearson. "The settlements he
made with companies in California and Oregon resulted in real
change, including the appointment of an independent monitor,
selected by Garcia, to ensure the nursing homes live up to their
agreements. If they don't, they go back to court."

     Mr. Pearson continues, "Everyone in Minnesota knows the
work my partner Ken LaBore has done in fighting elder and
nursing home abuse. We know that with the powerhouse duo of
LaBore and Garcia we can bring desperately needed change to
Minnesota's nursing home industry."

     Extendicare Homes, Inc. is a subsidiary of Extendicare
Health Services, Inc. and is the licensee of a number of long-
term nursing facilities. In the United States, Extendicare
Health Services, Inc., (EHSI), based in Milwaukee, Wisc., is a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Canadian company Extendicare Real
Estate Investment Trust (Extendicare REIT).

     Extendicare Health Services, Inc. operates, according to
its website, 191 senior care facilities in the United States
with approximately 19,200 beds.


EXTENDICARE REIT: Calls Minnesota Lawsuit Claims Baseless
---------------------------------------------------------
     MARKHAM, ONTARIO, Oct. 30, 2008  -- Extendicare Real Estate
Investment Trust ("Extendicare REIT") said claims made in a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court,
District of Minnesota, in Minneapolis against Extendicare Health
Services, Inc. and Extendicare Homes, Inc. (collectively
"Extendicare"), two wholly owned U.S. based subsidiaries of
Extendicare REIT, are incorrect and misleading.

     Extendicare will vigorously defend against the lawsuit in
court.

     The lawsuit is brought as a class action under Minnesota's
Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act; Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

     "We have just received the lawsuit and have not had
sufficient time to fully evaluate the complaint. However, based
on the information we have seen, this is a duplicate of the
lawsuit that was recently filed in the state of Washington, and
those same law firms are involved as co-counsel with this
Minnesota firm. It would appear that Extendicare is the latest
in a long list of nursing home providers targeted by the same
lawyer who previously filed a series of similar class-action
style lawsuits in other states," said Tim Lukenda, President and
CEO of Extendicare REIT.

     "Those lawsuits also alleged that nursing home providers
falsely advertised the quality of care they provided to
residents. This lawyer has not been successful in proving such
allegations in a court of law. Many providers have undoubtedly
been forced to settle these cases out of court rather than fight
the allegations and prove them to be false because of the costs
of litigation," Mr. Lukenda said.

     "We intend to vigorously and successfully defend this
lawsuit. The allegations being made are incorrect and
misleading, and clearly designed to maximize the recovery of
attorney's fees rather than benefit residents," said Mr.
Lukenda.

     Extendicare says it is remains committed to continuing to
provide quality care and services to its residents as it defends
the inflammatory allegations in this baseless lawsuit.

     Extendicare REIT, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is
a major provider of short and long-term care services for
seniors in North America. We operate 268 nursing and assisted
living facilities in North America, with capacity for
approximately 30,300 residents. As well, we offer medical
specialty services such as subacute care and rehabilitative
therapy services in the United States, and home health care
services in Canada, and employ approximately 38,100 people in
North America.


GETTY IMAGES: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over "Premium Access"
---------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 30, 2008 -- Kreindler & Kreindler LLP has
filed a class action lawsuit against Getty Images in the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of dozens of professional
photographers whose images were incorporated without their
permission into Getty's new product "Premium Access."

     According to Dan Nelson, a copyright attorney in Kreindler
& Kreindler LLP's New York office, Premium Access is not a
rights managed product. "Getty has shirked its responsibility as
a picture archive to track the use of plaintiffs' images, and to
set pricing per use in good faith on a commercially reasonable
basis."

     As a result, photographers have lost the ability to track
the uses being made of their images.

     Among the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit are some of the
world's leading photographers. Their photographs have been
licensed by Getty to major media clients for as little as $2.08
for extensive, untracked use. According to Nelson "Getty's
prices have severely undercut the market for comparable
photographs, damaged the future market for these photographs,
and violated both the Rights Managed Image Distribution
agreements Getty signed and the Uniform Commercial Code."

For more information, contact:

          Kreindler & Kreindler LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-5590
          Phone: 212-687-8181
          Fax: 212-972-9432


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Schoengold Sporn Files N.Y. Suit Over XS Trust
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Oct. 30, 2008 -- Schoengold Sporn Laitman &
Lometti, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned
"New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Lehman XS Trust Series
2005-5N, Lehman XS Trust Series 2005-7N, Lehman XS Trust Series
2005-9N, Lehman XS Trust Series 2006-2N, Lehman XS Trust Series
2006-16N, Structured Asset Securities Corporation, Mark L. Zusy,
Samir Tabet, James J. Sullivan and Lehman Brothers, Inc., Docket
No. 08-CV-6762."

     The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Lehman
XS Trust Mortgage Pass-through Certificates who purchased said
certificates pursuant or traceable to the common Registration
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 26, 2005.

     The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that
defendants made material misstatements and omissions in
connection with the offering regarding the collateral underlying
the certificates.

For more information, contact:

          Joel P. Laitman, Esq.
          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, New York 10038
          Tel:  (212) 964-0046
          Fax: (212) 267-8137
          Toll Free: (866) 348-7700
          Web site: http://www.spornlaw.com


LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Still Faces Several Manganese Lawsuits in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., continues to face several
federal lawsuits in Ohio involving claims of manganese-induced
illness, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

At Sept. 30, 2008, the company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging manganese induced illness involving claims by
approximately 2,344 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 437
claims from those previously reported.  In each instance, the
company is one of a large number of defendants.  

The claimants in cases alleging manganese induced illness seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  They allege that exposure to manganese contained in
welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop adverse
neurological conditions, including a condition known as
manganism.

At Sept. 30, 2008, cases involving 975 claimants were filed in
or transferred to federal court where the Judicial Panel on
MultiDistrict Litigation has consolidated these cases for
pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Ohio.

The plaintiffs have also filed eight class actions seeking
medical monitoring in state courts, six of which have been
removed and transferred to the MDL Court.  A motion to strike
all class action allegations in those six cases was granted by
the MDL Court on Aug. 4, 2008.  

The class action complaint filed in Ohio was also dismissed by
the plaintiff on Aug. 22, 2008, leaving only one potential state
court class action.

In addition, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint seeking
medical monitoring on behalf of current and former welders in
eight states, including three states covered by the single-state
class-action suits, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  This case was also transferred to the
MDL Court.

A motion to certify a medical monitoring class related to this
case was denied on Sept. 14, 2007 and the 16 individual
claimants dismissed their claims on March 20, 2008.  

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the company has been a co-defendant in
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 12,795 of
those claims were dismissed, 18 were tried to defense verdicts
in favor of the company and three were tried to plaintiff
verdicts.

In addition, 13 claims were resolved by agreement for immaterial
amounts and one claim was decided in favor of the company
following a summary judgment motion.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.lincolnelectric.com/-- is a full-line manufacturer  
and reseller of welding and cutting products.  Welding products
include welding power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic
welding packages, fume extraction equipment, consumable
electrodes and fluxes.  The company's welding product offering
also includes regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding
and cutting.


NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Still Faces Consolidated Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., and certain individual defendants
are still facing a consolidated securities fraud class-action
suit, "In re Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Securities Litigation,
07-cv-1111-IEG-RBB," which was filed filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

Initially, Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St.
Louis filed the suit on June 19, 2007, under the caption,
"Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc."

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the progress toward U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval and the potential for market success of
"indiplon" in the 15 mg dosage unit.

On June 26, 2007, a second purported class action with similar
allegations was filed with the same court.  That case was,
"Gopal Batra, Ph.D. v. Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc."

On Oct. 16, 2007, both purported class action lawsuits were
consolidated into one action under the caption, "In re
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, 07-cv-1111-
IEG-RBB."

The court also selected a lead plaintiff who filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative
complaint in the litigation.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the
potential for market success of indiplon in the 15mg dosage
unit.

On Jan. 11, 2008, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.   Following a hearing
on April 22, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss but
gave the lead plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

On June 11, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed the second
consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative
complaint in the litigation.

On July 8, 2008, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the SAC.  The court granted the motion to
dismiss on Sept. 23, 2008, but gave lead plaintiffs further
leave to file a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint (TAC).

On Oct. 23, 2008, rather than filing a TAC, the lead plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Election to Stand on the SAC, requesting that
the court enter a final judgment dismissing the matter so that
the lead plaintiffs could appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's Form Oct. 28,
2008 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 07-cv-1111-IEG-RBB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Irma
E. Gonzalez, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Daniel S. Drosman, Esq. (DanD@csgrr.com)
           Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
           655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Phone: 619-231-1058
           Fax: 619-231-7423

           Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (sberman@sbclasslaw.com)
           Schiffrin and Barroway
           280 King of Prussia Road
           Radnor, PA 19087-3481
           Phone: 610-667-7706

                - and -

           Evan Jason Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
           Brodsky & Smith, LLC
           9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
           Beverly Hills, CA 90212
           Phone: 310-300-8425
           Fax: 310-247-0160

Representing the defendants is:

           Ryan E. Blair, Esq. (rblair@cooley.com)
           Cooley Godward Kronish
           4401 Eastgate Mall
           San Diego, CA 92121
           Phone: 858-550-6000
           Fax: 858-550-6420


NOAH EDUCATION: Issues Statement on Lawsuit Filed in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
     SHENZHEN, China, Oct. 30, 2008  -- Noah Education Holdings
Ltd., a leading provider of interactive education content in
China, has been named in a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The lawsuit alleges claims for violations under Section 11
and Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.

     Noah denies the allegations of the complaint; it has
retained counsel and intends to defend itself vigorously in the
litigation.

     Noah Education Holdings Limited ("Noah") is a leading
provider of supplementary education content to China's
elementary and middle school students. Noah develops and markets
interactive educational content, software and delivery platforms
that combine traditional education content with digital and
multi-media technologies to cater to students' interests and
enhance academic efficiency and performance. Noah employs a
nationwide sales network, powerful brand image, and accessible
and diversified delivery platforms to attract students to its
innovative content. Noah delivers its education content via Noah
electronic educational products, Noah's online website and
after-school tutoring centers. The interactive and comprehensive
structure of Noah's offerings encourages students and teachers
to form knowledge-sharing communities around the Noah brand.
Noah was founded in 2004 and is listed on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol NED.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Settles Allied Waste Merger Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
     FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Oct. 30, 2008 -- Republic Services,
Inc. today announced that Republic, the individual members of
Republic's board of directors and Allied Waste Industries, Inc.  
have agreed in principle with the shareholder plaintiffs to
settle the purported class action lawsuits filed in Delaware and
Florida relating to the pending merger between Republic and
Allied.

     The class-action in Delaware was filed on July 25, 2008, in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by the New Jersey
Carpenters Pension Fund and the New Jersey Carpenters Annuity
Fund against the company and the members of the company's board
of directors, each individually (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
10, 2008).

     The suit seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction between
the company and Allied Waste Industries and compel the company
to accept the unsolicited bid made by Waste Management, Inc., on
July 14, 2008, or at least compel the company's board of
directors to further consider and evaluate the Waste Management
proposal.

     Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the claims of
the named plaintiffs and the proposed class of public
shareholders will be dismissed with prejudice, and the
defendants will be released from all claims related to the
merger transaction, the merger agreement, Republic's rejections
of unsolicited proposals from Waste Management, Inc. and any
public statements made in connection therewith.

     Finalization of the proposed settlement remains subject to
several conditions, including court approval and notice to the
shareholder class.

     Republic Services, Inc. -- http://www.republicservices.com/
-- is a provider of services in the domestic non-hazardous solid
waste industry. Its operations primarily consist of the
collection, transfer and disposal of non-hazardous solid waste.
The company provides non-hazardous solid waste collection
services for commercial, industrial, municipal and residential
customers through 136 collection companies in 21 states.  It
also owns or operates 94 transfer stations, 58 solid waste
landfills and 33 recycling facilities.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, its
operations were organized into five regions: Eastern, Central,
Southern, Southwestern and Western.  Each region is organized
into several operating areas and each area contains multiple
operating locations.  Each of the company's regions and
substantially all its areas provide collection, transfer,
recycling and disposal services.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeals Jury Decision in Mo. Reimbursement Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
     ST. LOUIS, Oct. 30, 2008 -- Schering-Plough Corporation
strongly believes that the decision reached by a jury in
Missouri related to reimbursement by Missouri's Medicaid program
of certain products sold by Warrick Pharmaceuticals, the
company's former generics subsidiary, was incorrect.

     The company said it will appeal and continues to maintain
that it complied with all applicable laws and regulations
governing reimbursement rules in Missouri.

     The company has prevailed in two other reimbursement cases.

     In November 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts found no liability for Warrick Pharmaceuticals
in a class action lawsuit involving several pharmaceutical
companies and the setting of average wholesale prices (AWPs) for
prescription products. In that case, the Court issued favorable
rulings for the company and dismissed all claims relating to
Schering-Plough's branded pharmaceutical products and Warrick's
generic albuterol sulfate solution. The Court entered judgment
in favor of Schering-Plough based on its ruling that Schering's
AWP were not inflated and entered judgment in favor of Warrick
based on its findings that Warrick's AWP had no effect on
Medicare reimbursement and resulted in no damages to class
plaintiffs.

     In December 2005, a West Virginia jury ruled in favor of
the company in a trial related to reimbursement by West
Virginia's Medicaid program of certain asthma products sold by
Warrick Pharmaceuticals. In the favorable verdict, the jury
agreed with the company's position that in connection with
reporting AWP the company complied with all applicable laws and
regulations governing the reimbursement rules in West Virginia.

     Schering-Plough -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an  
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world. The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


VERIZON COMMS: A.G. Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Privacy Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Attorney General of the U.S. has made several submissions to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
that sought for the dismissal of several purported privacy suits
in California that names Verizon Communications, Inc., and
several other telecommunications companies as defendants,
according to the company's Form Oct. 27, 2008 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Verizon, and a number of other telecommunications companies,
have been the subject of multiple class action suits concerning
its alleged participation in intelligence-gathering activities
allegedly carried out by the federal government, at the
direction of the President of the U.S., as part of the
government's post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist
attacks.

The plaintiffs generally allege that Verizon has participated by
permitting the government to gain access to the content of its
subscribers' telephone calls and records concerning those calls
and that such action violates federal and state constitutional
and statutory law.

Relief sought in the cases include injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees, and statutory and punitive damages.

On Aug. 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated and
coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  The Panel subsequently ordered that a number of
"tag along" actions also be transferred to the Northern District
of California.

On July 10, 2008, the President signed into law the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008, which provides for dismissal of these
suits by the court based on submission by the Attorney General
of the U.S. of certain specified certifications.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Attorney General made such a submission
in the consolidated proceedings which is currently under
consideration by the court.

Verizon Communications, Inc. -- http://www.verizon.com/-- is  
engaged in providing communication services.  The two segments
of the company are Wireline and Domestic Wireless.  Wireline
communications services include voice, Internet access,
broadband video and data, next generation Internet protocol
network services, network access, long distance and other
services.  The company provides these services to consumers,
carriers, businesses and government customers both domestically
and internationally in 150 countries.  Domestic Wireless'
products and services include wireless voice, data products and
other services, and equipment sales across the U.S.


YELLOW BOOK: Faces Florida Lawsuit Over Undelivered Books
---------------------------------------------------------
Yellow Book USA is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida claiming that rather than deliver Yellow
Books to "every home and business" in four cities, it dumped
hundreds of the books into a Dumpster, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This action is based on Yellow Book's breach of its obligations
to its customers who advertised in the 2008-2009 Yello Book
directory for the areas of Coral Springs, Parkland, Margate and
Tamarac, Florida. Yellow Book breached its obligations because
it dumped, at least, hundreds of the directories in a garbage
dumpster when those directories were supposed to have been
delivered by Yellow Book to businesses and residences in the
targeted areas.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all
persons/entites who purchased advertising space in Yellow Book's
2008-2009 directory for the territory.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the plaintiffs and the class purchased
         advertising space in Yellow Book's 2008-2009 directory
         for the territory;

     (b) whether Yellow Book failed to deliver the 2008-2009
         directory in the territory;

     (c) whether Yellow Book breached duties to plaintiff and
         the class members by failing to deliver the 2008-2009
         directory in the territory;

     (d) whether Yellow Book knew or should have known of
         previous failures to deliver its directory in the
         territory; and

     (e) whether Yellow Book concealed from plaintiff and the
         class members Yellow Book's previous failures to
         deliver its directory in the territory.

Plaintiff seeks an order of the court declaring that such acts
and practices of the defendant violate the Act, requiring Yellow
Book to immediately cease such unfair practices and enjoining
Yellow Book from continuing to conduct business via the unfair
and unconscionable acts and practices as complained of.  
Plaintiff additionally requests an order disgorging Yellow
Book's ill-gotten gains and awarding plaintiff and the members
of the class full damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is "A Customer First Air Conditioning & Refrigeration,
Inc. et al v. Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Company, Case
No. 0851584," filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

Representing plaintiff are:

          Joel S. Magolnick
          Miguel M. de la O
          De La O, Marko, Magolnick & Leyton
          3001 S.W. 3rd Avenue
          Miami, Florida 33129
          Phone: (305) 285-2000
          Fax: (305) 285-5555


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CADENCE DESIGN: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     DENVER, Oct. 30, 2008 -- Dyer & Berens LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
purchasers of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. common stock during
the period between April 23, 2008 and October 22, 2008.

     The complaint charges Cadence and certain of its current
and former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

     Cadence develops electronic design automation, or EDA,
software and hardware.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants misrepresented Cadence's financial performance and
prospects, overstated its revenues, and caused it to file false
and misleading financial statements with the SEC. More
specifically, defendants allegedly caused Cadence to improperly
report approximately $24 million in revenue in the first quarter
of 2008 and in the six months ended June 28, 2008 that will not
be earned until the later quarters and, therefore, should be
properly recognized ratably over the duration of the customer
contracts.

     On October 15, 2008, the Company announced the departures
of its Chief Executive Officer and four other senior executives.
In response to this surprise announcement, the price of Cadence
common stock dropped approximately 15%. Merely a week later, on
October 22, 2008, defendants stunned investors by acknowledging
that the Company was reviewing the recognition of revenue
related to customer contracts signed in the first quarter of
2008 and that it expected to restate its financial statements
not only for that quarter, but also the first half of 2008. As a
result of these disclosures, Cadence's stock price dropped
another 25%, as the artificial inflation caused by defendants'
false and misleading statements came out of the stock price.

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

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
          e-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com


CADENCE DESIGN: Federman & Sherwood Announces Calif. Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, Oct. 30, 2008  -- On October 29, 2008, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Cadence
Design Systems, Inc.

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

     The class period is from April 23, 2008 through October 22,
2008.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
December 29, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          e-mail: wfederman@aol.com
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


CANO PETROLEUM: Holzer & Fistel Announces Suit Filing in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, GA, Oct. 30, 2008 -- A shareholder class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against certain officers,
directors and underwriters of Cano Petroleum, Inc. on behalf of
purchasers of Cano stock whose purchases are traceable to the
Company's secondary offering of June 26, 2008.

     The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements to the
public in the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus,
in which the defendants allegedly misrepresented and/or
overstated the Company's proved reserve amounts.

For more information, contact:

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


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

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

     The complaint alleges that due to defendants' positive, but
false, statements, Constellation's stock closed at about $88.25
per share on June 9, 2008. The complaint further alleges that on
June 27, 2008, defendants consummated the sale of
Constellation's Preferred Securities pursuant to the false and
misleading Registration Statement, selling 18 million shares at
$25.00 per share for proceeds of approximately $435.8 million.

     The pleading states that in July 2008, the Company reported
favorable financial results and reaffirmed EPS guidance of
$5.25-$5.75 per share for 2008, but that in August 2008,
analysts questioned Constellation's accounting and the
implications of a credit downgrade.

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


HARRIS STRATEX: Cohen Milstein Files Dela. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, Oct. 30, 2008 -- The law firm Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of
all purchasers of Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. from January 29,
2007 to July 30, 2008, inclusive, including shareholders of
Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks,
Inc. for shares of Harris Stratex pursuant or traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus which became
effective January 8, 2008 (the Company's stock began trading on
January 29, 2007).

     The complaint charges the defendants with violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

     Harris Stratex designs, manufactures, and sells a range of
wireless networking products, solutions, and services to mobile
and fixed telephone service providers, private network
operators, government agencies, transportation and utility
companies, public safety agencies, and broadcast system
operators.

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

     (1) that the Company had understated its cost of sales;

     (2) that the Company had misstated its pre-tax income from
         2005 through 2008;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

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

     (5) that the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading at all relevant times; and (6)
         that the Company's Registration Statement and
         Prospectus were false and misleading when filed.

     According to the complaint, on July 30, 2008, the Company
announced that it had discovered serious accounting errors which
caused its reported financial statements for fiscal years 2005
through 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008 to be
incorrect. The complaint also alleges that the Company stated
that these financial statements should no longer be relied upon
and needed to be restated, and that the errors were the result
of one or more material weaknesses in its system of internal
controls. Finally, it is alleged that the cumulative effect of
these errors would decrease the Company's previously reported
pre-tax income by between approximately $18 million and $25
million. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $3.89
per share, or 34.61%, to close on July 31, 2008 at $7.35 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Tyler Gaffney
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
          e-mail: stoll@cmht.com or tgaffney@cmht.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Coughlin Stoia Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN DIEGO, Oct. 30, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
common stock during the period between May 5, 2008 and September
24, 2008.

     The complaint charges Pilgrim's Pride and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Pilgrim's Pride is a producer of poultry
in the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants misrepresented the Company's financial condition and
concealed the impact of the Company's capital problems on its
business and prospects. Due to defendants' positive, but false,
statements, Pilgrim's Pride's stock closed as high as $26.85 per
share in late May 2008.

     On September 24, 2008, after the market closed, Pilgrim's
Pride issued a press release announcing that it had notified its
lenders that it expected to report a significant loss in the
fiscal fourth quarter ending September 27, 2008, due to high
feed-ingredient costs, continued weak pricing and demand for
breast meat, and the significant negative impact of hedged grain
positions during the quarter.

     With the news of Pilgrim's Pride's significant losses, its
shares fell to $3.84 per share on September 25, 2008 from $10.26
per share on September 23, 2008, and from the Company's Class
Period high of $26.85 per share in late May 2008.

      According to the complaint, defendants were aware of the
following material undisclosed information which contradicted
their public statements during the Class Period:

     (a) the Company's hedges to protect it from adverse changes
         in costs were not working and in fact were harming the
         Company's results more than helping;

     (b) the Company's inability to continue to use illegal
         workers would adversely affect its margins;

     (c) the Company's financial results were continuing to
         deteriorate rather than improve, such that the
         Company's capital structure was threatened;

     (d) the Company was in a much worse position than its
         competitors due to its inability to raise prices for
         customers sufficient to offset cost increases, whereas
         its competitors were able to raise prices to offset
         higher costs affecting the industry; and

     (e) the Company had not made sufficient changes to its
         business model to succeed in the more difficult
         industry conditions.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Pilgrim's Pride common stock during the Class
Period.

For more information, contact:

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


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, CT, Oct. 30, 2008 -- The law firm of Izard Nobel
LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in
prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announced that a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of
those who purchased the common stock of Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation between May 5, 2008 and September 24, 2008,
inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Pilgrim's Pride and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
misrepresenting the Company's financial condition. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that:

     (i) the Company's hedges to protect it from adverse changes
         in costs were not working and in fact were harming the
         Company's results;

    (ii) the Company's inability to continue to use illegal
         workers would adversely affect its margins;

   (iii) the Company's financial results were continuing to
         deteriorate rather than improve, such that the
         Company's capital structure was threatened;

    (iv) the Company was in a much worse position than its
         competitors due to its inability to raise prices for
         customers sufficient to offset cost increases, whereas
         its competitors were able to raise prices to offset
         higher costs affecting the industry; and

     (v) the Company had not made sufficient changes to its
         business model to succeed in the more difficult
         industry conditions.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
December 29, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa
          Wayne T. Boulton
          Izard Nobel LLP
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Tel.: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com


                            *********

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  * * *