CAR_Public/081104.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 219

                            Headlines

AETNA INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Litigation in Pa.
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Face Subscribers' Antitrust Lawsuits
COMCAST CORP: Court Denies Certification Motions in "Brantley"
COMCAST CORP: Pa. Court Dismisses Certain Claims in ERISA Suit
COMCAST CORP: Pa. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Fly Ash Class Action Settlement Announced
CYBEX INT'L: Recalls 19,000 Treadmills Due to Fall Hazard
DYMO: Recalls LabelWriter Power Adapters Sold Due to Burn Hazard
EARTH FRIENDLY: Recalls Wooden Toys Due To Choking Hazards
HARMONY GOLD: Faces American Depositary Receipt Holder's Lawsuit

INDIANA: Ackerson Gets $500,000 Award for Indiana Farm Bureau
QWEST COMMS: Settles Majority of Rights-of-Way Lawsuits
QWEST COMMS: Still Faces Colo. Suit Over Reduction of Benefits
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Dec. 8 Hearing Set for Ga. Antitrust Lawsuit
UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Dismisses in "Lefari" Litigation

UNITED RENTALS: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Cerberus Merger
WEST CORP: Dec. 11, 2008 Hearing Set for "Ritt" Suit Settlement
WEST CORP: Dec. 22 Hearing Set for "Sanford" Suit Settlement
WEST TELEMARKETING: Faces FLSA Violations Litigation in Georgia


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CADENCE DESIGN: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
NOAH EDUCATION: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing



                           *********


AETNA INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Litigation in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc. is facing a purported securities fraud class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Initially, two purported class-action lawsuits were pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against Aetna and certain of its current or former officers
and/or directors.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority filed suit on behalf of all purchasers of Aetna common
stock between Oct. 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006.

The second lawsuit was filed on Nov. 27, 2007, by the Plumbers
and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund on behalf of all
purchasers of Aetna common stock between July 28, 2005 and July
27, 2006.

On June 3, 2008, plaintiffs in these two lawsuits filed a
consolidated complaint in the Pennsylvania Federal Court on
behalf of all purchasers of Aetna common stock between October
27, 2005 and July 27, 2006.  That consolidated complaint
supersedes and replaces the two previous complaints.

The plaintiffs allege that Aetna and four of its current or
former officers and/or directors, John W. Rowe, M.D., Ronald A.
Williams, Alan M. Bennett and Craig R. Callen, violated federal
securities laws.

They also allege misrepresentations and omissions regarding,
among other things, the company's medical benefit ratios and
health plan pricing practices, as well as insider trading by Dr.
Rowe and Messrs. Bennett and Callen.

The suit seeks compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees, among other remedies.

The suit is "Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
v. Aetna, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04451-TON," Judge Thomas
N. Oneill, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael P. Carroll, Esq.
          Davis, Polk & Wardwell
          450 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-450-4000

               - and -

          Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbclasslaw.com)
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706

Representing the defendants are:

          John M. Elliott, Esq. (jme@elliottgreenleaf.com)
          Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski PC
          Union Mtg Corp Ctr V
          925 Harvest Dr., Ste 300
          P.O. Box 3010
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Phone: 215-977-1004
          Fax: 215-977-1099

               - and -

          Michael S. Flynn, Esq. (michael.flynn@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk & Wardwell
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-450-4000


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Face Subscribers' Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. continues to face purported antitrust class-action
lawsuits filed by its subscribers in connection with the
company's certain subscriber exchange transactions with other
cable providers.

The company was named as defendant in two suits originally filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The potential class in the Massachusetts case is the company's
subscriber base in the "Boston Cluster" area, and the potential
class in the Pennsylvania case is the company's subscriber base
in the "Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," as those terms are
defined in the complaints.

In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber
exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in
unlawful "horizontal market restraints" in those areas and seek
damages pursuant to antitrust statutes, including treble
damages.

The company's motion to dismiss the Pennsylvania case on the
pleadings was denied and classes of "Philadelphia Cluster," and
"Chicago Cluster" subscribers were certified.

The company's motion to dismiss the Massachusetts case, which
was recently transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, was also denied.

The company is proceeding with discovery on plaintiffs claims
concerning the Philadelphia Cluster.  The plaintiffs claims
concerning the other two clusters are stayed pending
determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
29, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com/--
is a cable operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer
entertainment and communication products and services.


COMCAST CORP: Court Denies Certification Motions in "Brantley"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied certain certification motions in the purported class-
action lawsuit entitled, "Rob Brantley et al v. NBC Universal,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv06101," which names Comcast Corp.,
as a defendant.

The company was among the defendants named in the purported
class-action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Sept. 20, 2007.

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are:

       -- Rob Brantley,
       -- Darryn Cooke,
       -- William Costley,
       -- Beverly Costley,
       -- Christina Hills,
       -- Michael B. Kovac,
       -- Michelle Navarrette,
       -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and
       -- Joseph Vranich.

The defendants in the case are:

       -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
       -- Viacom Inc.,
       -- The Walt Disney company,
       -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Cable Inc.,
       -- Comcast Corp.,
       -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
       -- Cox Communiations, Inc.,
       -- The Directv Group, Inc.,
       -- Echostar Satellite LLC,
       -- Charter Communications, Inc., and
       -- Cablevision Systems Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video
programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who
distribute video programming via cable and satellite, which
preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers
on an a la carte (or channel-by-channel) basis in violation of
federal antitrust laws.

They seek treble damages for the loss of their ability to pick
and choose the specific channels to which they wish to
subscribe, and injunctive relief requiring each distributor
defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an a
la carte basis.

The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the
U.S. who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video
service provided by one of the distributor defendants.

In December 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
case.

On March 12, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, with
permission for the plaintiffs to replead their complaint.  On
March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs served an amended complaint.

The company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss an
amended complaint in April 2008.  In June 2008, the court denied
the motions to dismiss.

In July 2008, the company and the other defendants filed motions
to certify certain issues decided in the court's June 2008 order
for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Aug. 8, 2008, the court denied the certification motions,
according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Rob Brantley et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
          Blecher & Collins
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-622-4222

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk and Wardwell
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-752-2005

          John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com)
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513
          Phone: 213-243-4000

               - and -

          Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6321


COMCAST CORP: Pa. Court Dismisses Certain Claims in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
dismissed certain claims in a purported class-action lawsuit
against Comcast Corp. over alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, according to the company's Oct.
29, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit was filed on Feb. 15, 2008, on behalf of plaintiff
Robert Urban.  Aside from the company, the suit also named as
individual defendants:

       -- Brian L. Roberts;
       -- Ralph J. Roberts;
       -- S. Decker Anstrom;
       -- Kenneth J. Bacon;
       -- Sheldon M. Bonovitz;
       -- Edward D. Breen;
       -- Julian A. Brodsky;
       -- Joseph J. Collins;
       -- Michael Cook;
       -- Jeffrey A. Honickman;
       -- Judith Rodin;
       -- Michael I. Sovern;
       -- Lawrence J. Salva; and
       -- Unknown Fiduciary Defendants 1-30.

The proposed class comprises participants in the company's
retirement-investment (401)(k) plan that invested in the plan's
company stock account.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in managing the plan.  Mr. Urban is seeking
unspecified damages.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in June 2008, and in
July 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On Oct. 29, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part
that motion.  The Court dismissed a claim alleging that
defendants failed to provide complete and accurate disclosures
concerning the plan, but did not dismiss claims alleging that
plan assets were imprudently invested in company stock.

The suit is "Urban v. Comcast Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-
cv-00773-HB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq. (mdonovan@donovansearles.com)
          Donovan Searles, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-732-6067
          Fax: 215-732-8060

              - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gainey & McKenna
          295 Madison Ave., 4th Fl
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-1300

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas S. Gigot, Esq.
          Groom Law Group, Chartered
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-857-0620

              - and -

          M. Norman Goldberger, Esq. (mgoldberger@hangley.com)
          Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
          One Logan Square, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, pA 19103
          Phone: 215-496-7021

COMCAST CORP: Pa. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
dismissed a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit
filed against Comcast Corp., Comcast Chief Executive Officer
Brian Roberts, and other top executives, according to the
company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The executives are accused of inflating share price through
false and misleading reports while dumping 585,792 of their own
shares at artificially high prices, for more than $15 million.

Named plaintiff Marilyn Clark brought this action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of
all those who purchased the publicly-traded securities of
Comcast between Feb. 1, 2007, and Dec. 4, 2007, inclusive, and
who were damaged, thereby.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by
         defendants' acts as alleged;

     (b) whether statements made by defendants to the investing
         public during the class period misrepresented material
         facts about the business and operations of Comcast;

     (c) whether the price of Comcast common stock was
         artificially inflated during the class period; and

     (d) whether to what extent the members of the class have
         sustained damages and the proper measure of damages;

The plaintiff asks the court to:

     -- determine that this action is a proper class action,
        designating the plaintiff as lead plaintiff and
        certifying her as a class representative under Rule 23
        of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
        plaintiff's counsel as lead counsel;

     -- award compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and
        the other class members against all defendants, jointly
        and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
        defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at
        trial, including interest; and

     -- award the plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs
        and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
        fees and expert fees.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the case in February 2008.
The plaintiff did not respond, but instead sought leave to amend
the complaint, which the court granted.  The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint in May 2008 naming only the company and two
current officers as defendants.

The alleged class was comprised of purchasers of the company's
publicly issued securities between Feb. 1, 2007 and Dec. 4,
2007.

The plaintiff asserted that during the alleged class period, the
defendants violated federal securities laws through alleged
material misstatements and omissions relating to forecast
results for 2007.  The plaintiff sought unspecified damages.

In June 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  In an order dated Aug. 25, 2008, the Court granted
the company's motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff
permission to amend the complaint again.  The plaintiff has not
timely appealed the Court's decision, so the dismissal of this
case is final.

The suit is "Marilyn Clark et al. v. Comcast Corp. et al., Case
No. 08-CV-00052," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Harvey Bartle, III,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY, 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173

              - and -

         Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross
         1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102
         Phone: 215-561-3600
         Fax: 215-561-3000
         e-mail: bmgross@bernardmgross.com


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Fly Ash Class Action Settlement Announced
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, Oct. 31, 2008 -- Constellation Energy, The
Murphy Firm and the Law Offices of Peter Angelos today announced
that the parties have reached a settlement agreement regarding a
class action lawsuit filed by residents in Gambrills, Md. who
alleged they were damaged by the use of coal ash to reclaim a
sand and gravel quarry in Anne Arundel County.

     The settlement is subject to approval by the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City.

     The settlement provides for:

     -- The connection of 84 households, previously supplied by
        private wells, to public water;

     -- The establishment of two trust funds to compensate
        affected property owners and provide site enhancements
        in the neighborhood;

     -- The remediation and restoration of the former quarry
        site; and

     -- The commitment to cease future deliveries of new coal
        ash to the quarry.

     The costs and benefits of these expenditures and
improvements currently are estimated to be $45 million.

     "The settlement in this case marks a milestone in Maryland
environmental and legal history. When we filed this case we
challenged Constellation Energy to step up to the plate. With
this settlement they have done just that - enhancing and
preserving the quality of life of this entire community," said
Hassan Murphy, managing partner of The Murphy Firm. "This
settlement comes at the end of a legal process characterized by
long, hard fought, but good faith negotiations. The settlement
serves the plaintiffs' personal and economic rights and provides
for their future safety as well as long term restitution. The
Murphy Firm along with The Angelos Firm is honored to have
played a decisive role in bringing about a speedy, equitable
solution to a significant problem which presaged potential long
term, dangers to both the environment and human well-being. We
appreciate Constellation and its legal team for their commitment
to working out a solution which best serves all parties - sooner
than later."

     "We are pleased to have reached a settlement which we
believe is beneficial for the residents and the community," said
John Long, president of Constellation Power Generation, a
subsidiary of Constellation Energy. "We view this as a
constructive solution that resolves all outstanding issues and
affirms Constellation Energy's commitment to the environment and
the communities in which we operate."

     From 1995 to 2006, Constellation Energy placed coal ash at
the Waugh Chapel and Turner gravel quarries under an agreement
with site operator BBSS Inc. The placement of coal ash at the
site was permitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment
in order to reclaim excavated portions of the site for future
development. The coal ash, which is the residue that remains
after coal is burned from coal-fired plants, originated from
Constellation Energy's H.A. Wagner and Brandon Shores power
plants in Anne Arundel County.

Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com-- a
FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it
is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to
large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's
largest wholesale power seller.  Constellation Energy also
manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive
industries and utilities.  It owns a diversified fleet of 83
generating units located throughout the United States, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity.  The
company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), its regulated utility in
Central Maryland.


CYBEX INT'L: Recalls 19,000 Treadmills Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Cybex International Inc., of Medway, Mass., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
19,000 Cybex Treadmills.

The company said the treadmills can speed up unexpectedly while
in use due to a malfunction with the lower control board, posing
a fall hazard to consumers.

Cybex International has received 24 reports of incidents
involving the treadmill unexpectedly increasing speed, including
six reports of consumers falling. Three of those incidents
resulted in minor injuries.

The recall involves the Cybex 445T, 455T, 530T, 450T, 500T,
515T, and 520T treadmill models. The treadmills are black and
gray with rectangular uprights. The 530T style treadmill is 81
inches long by 32 inches wide. The 445T style treadmill is 72
inches long by 32 inches wide. The treadmills have a display
panel on a console as wide as the treadmill. "Cybex" and the
model number are written on the console.

These treadmills were manufactured in the United States and were
being sold at Cybex International and Cybex dealers nationwide
from January 2001 through September 2008 for between $5,500 and
$7,000.

Consumers are advised to immediately unplug and stop using the
recalled treadmills. Contact Cybex to receive a free replacement
fuse. If requested, a Cybex technician can install the fuse free
of charge. Cybex is directly contacting known purchasers.

For additional information, contact Cybex toll free at (866)
897-9199 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.Cybexintl.com


DYMO: Recalls LabelWriter Power Adapters Sold Due to Burn Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
DYMO, of Stamford, Conn., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 17,000 DYMO
LabelWriter Power Adapters used with printers.

The company said the power adapters can fail, causing the
printer to overheat. This can pose a burn hazard to consumers.

DYMO has received 11 reports of printers overheating and
emitting smoke and/or a burnt smell. No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves the external power adapters sold with the
following DYMO LabelWriter 400 series printers: DYMO LabelWriter
400, DYMO LabelWriter 400 Turbo, DYMO LabelWriter Twin Turbo,
DYMO LabelWriter Duo and DYMO Desktop Mailing Solution with
housing date codes 2407, 2507, 2607 or 2707. The date code is
printed on the plastic housing of the adapter. Power adapters
with "RoHS" printed on the top right of the product label are
not included in this recall.

These recalled LabelWriter Power Adapters used with printers
were manufactured in China and were being sold at office supply
stores, discount retailers, and various specialty retailers
nationwide from September 2007 through October 2008 for between
$100 and $250.

Consumers are advised to immediately unplug the recalled power
adapter from the wall socket and from their printer and contact
the firm to receive a free replacement external power adapter
kit.

For additional information, contact DYMO toll-free at (888) 658-
3904 between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET or visit the firm's Web sites:
http://www.dymo.comor http://global.dymo.com/poweradapter


EARTH FRIENDLY: Recalls Wooden Toys Due To Choking Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------
Earth Friendly LLC of Beaverton, Ore., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,000 Wooden Toys.

The company said small parts can detach and break from the toy,
posing a choking hazard to young children. In addition, the size
of the rattle handle violates voluntary rattle standards. No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves three models of wooden toys. Moee the car,
Cubby the stackable bear and the Bell rattle. The toys are
painted in glossy red, orange, green, red, black and yellow.

These recalled wooden toys were manufactured in India and were
being sold at toy specialty stores in Alaska, California,
Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington from April
2008 through September 2008 for between $12 and $22.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from children and contact Earth Friendly to exchange or refund
the product.

For additional information, contact Earth Friendly toll-free at
(888) 360-6292 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday. Consumers can also visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.earthfriendlyllc.com/recall


HARMONY GOLD: Faces American Depositary Receipt Holder's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Gold Mining Co. have been made aware of a pending class-
action suit in the U.S. whereby certain American Depositary
Receipt (ADR) holders are seeking damages against the company
pertaining to the company's business practices, according to the
company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2008.

The suit is over the company's alleged failure to disclose or
its misrepresentation of costs and production problems during
2007.

Harmony Gold Mining Co., Ltd. -- http://www.harmony.co.za/-- is
a gold producer.  The company's operations are located primarily
on the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa, including 10
underground operations, an open-pit mine and surface operations
that includes four provinces, Gauteng, North West Province,
Mpumalanga and the Free State.  Harmony's exploration portfolio
is focused on highly prospective areas in Papua New Guinea
(PNG), including the Wafi-Golpu project, although renewed
exploration activity has begun in South Africa.  During the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), Harmony produced
1.55 million ounces of gold, primarily from its operations in
South Africa.  As of June 30, 2008, Harmony's ore reserves
amounted to 50.5 million ounces of gold.  In December 2007,
Dioro Exploration NL completed the acquisition of the South Kal
Mine operations located near Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, from
Harmony.


INDIANA: Ackerson Gets $500,000 Award for Indiana Farm Bureau
-------------------------------------------------------------
     ZIONSVILLE, Ind., Oct. 31 -- Ackerson Kauffman Fex
announced that as a result of its successful representation of
property owners in Indiana and other states, $500,000 will be
paid to the Indiana Agricultural Law Foundation (IALF), a
nonprofit foundation created by the Indiana Farm Bureau.

     The United States District Court for Southern Indiana
finalized the distribution Wednesday, October 29, 2008. The
money comes from a class action settlement of a case pitting
landowners in Indiana and other states against Norfolk Southern
Railroad. The payment to the IALF is in addition to the money
damages and other compensation paid to farmers, homeowners and
businesses across Indiana and 15 other states.

     Nels Ackerson, class counsel for Indiana property owners,
said "Today's payment to the IALF represents the culmination of
over 10 years of legal work. We have set strong precedents in
this case and in other cases, and we have other property rights
class actions that are moving toward settlement. It is
gratifying to see the results of a full career of hard work.
Because of our firm's vigorous defense of the rights of property
owners, Indiana has become a national leader in the protection
of property rights."

     Indiana Farm Bureau President Don Villwock touted the award
as a victory for the people of Indiana. "These funds will help
us support landowners in protecting their property rights," he
said.

     Nels Ackerson became involved in a case like this one when
neighbors of the family farm in Indiana complained that
companies were laying fiber optic cable on their land without
permission. Ackerson Kauffman Fex soon discovered that the
violation of property rights was widespread, affecting thousands
of homeowners, farmers and businesses throughout the state. The
lawsuit that resulted in this award to IALF started in 2000 when
Tim Elzinga of Crown Point, Indiana called Nels Ackerson and
asked him to represent him and other landowners in Indiana
against a company call T-Cubed. The settlement made millions in
compensation available to property owners.

     Ackerson Kauffman Fex is nationally known for its
outstanding success in representing the rights of landowners
against large corporations and government entities. If approved
by the court, its pending lawsuit settlement will make
compensation available for the owners of over 16,000 pieces of
property in Indiana alone and 320,000 owners nationwide.


QWEST COMMS: Settles Majority of Rights-of-Way Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. reached a tentative
settlement to all but one of several putative class-action suits
filed against the company in state and federal courts with
regards to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain
rights-of-way, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

To recall, several putative class action lawsuits in connection
with the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-
way were filed against the company on behalf of landowners on
various dates and in various courts in California, Colorado,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.  For the
most part, the complaints challenge the company's right to
install fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.

The complaints in Colorado, Illinois and Texas, also challenge
the company's right to install fiber optic cable in utility and
pipeline rights-of-way.

The complaints allege that the railroads, utilities and pipeline
companies own the right-of-way as an easement that did not
include the right to permit the company to install its fiber
optic cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent.

Most actions (California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas,
Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and
Texas) purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in
the named plaintiffs' respective states.

The Massachusetts action purports to be on behalf of state-wide
classes in all states (other than Louisiana and Tennessee) in
which Qwest has fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way, and
also on behalf of two classes of landowners whose properties
adjoin railroad rights-of-way originally derived from federal
land grants.

Several actions purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state
classes.

The Illinois state court action purports to be on behalf of
landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin.

The Illinois federal court action purports to be on behalf of
landowners in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana and Oregon.

The Indiana action purports to be on behalf of a national class
of landowners adjacent to railroad rights-of-way over which the
company's network passes.

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust
enrichment, as well as punitive damages.

On July 18, 2008, the Massachusetts court entered an order
preliminarily approving a settlement of all of the actions
described above, except the action pending in Tennessee.  The
court also set a hearing for Nov. 17, 2008 to consider final
approval of the proposed settlement.

Denver, Colorado-based Qwest Communications International, Inc.
-- http://www.qwest.com/-- is a provider of voice, data and
video services.  The company operates most of its business
within its local service area, which consists of the 14-state
region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming. The company operates through three
segments: wireline services, wireless services and other
services.


QWEST COMMS: Still Faces Colo. Suit Over Reduction of Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc., is still facing a
purported class-action suit in connection with its decision to
reduce the life insurance benefit for certain of its retirees to
a $10,000 benefit, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The putative class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado on March 30, 2007, under the
caption "Kerber et al. v. Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00644-WDM-KLM."  It was brought on behalf
of certain of the company's retirees against the company, the
Qwest Life Insurance Plan and other related entities.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company and
other defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance
benefit at the levels in place before the company decided to
reduce them.  They seek restoration of the life insurance
benefit to previous levels and certain equitable relief.

The court ruled in the company's favor on the central issue of
whether the company properly reserved its right to reduce the
life insurance benefit under applicable law and plan documents.

The retirees have amended their complaint to assert additional
claims.

The suit is "Kerber et al. v. Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00644-WDM-KLM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Walker D. Miller,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Curtis L. Kennedy, Esq. (CurtisLKennedy@aol.com)
          Curtis L. Kennedy, Law Office of
          8405 East Princeton Avenue
          Denver, CO 80237-1741
          Phone: 303-770-0440
          Fax: 303-834-0360

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael Brian Carroll, Esq. (mcarroll@sah.com)
          Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.
          633 17th Street, #3000
          Denver, CO 80202-3624
          Phone: 303-299-8474
          Fax: 303-298-0940


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Dec. 8 Hearing Set for Ga. Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 8, 2008 hearing is set for the purported class-action
lawsuit, entitled, "Jacobs et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International,
Inc., Case No. 4:2007cv00002," are appealing certain rulings
entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 24, 2008.

The suit was filed on Jan. 5, 2007, and alleges violations of
federal antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic
mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain
distributors.

The action alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-Pedic
mattresses in the U.S. since Jan. 5, 2003, and seeks damages and
injunctive relief.

Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June
25, 2007, pursuant to a motion filed by the company.

Following a decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Leegin
Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.," on June 28, 2007,
the company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining counts of
the antitrust suit on July 10, 2007.

On Dec. 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result,
judgment was entered in favor of the company and the plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment," which request was denied in May 2008.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of these decisions on
May 14, 2008, the parties have fully briefed the matter, and
oral argument is currently scheduled for the week of Dec. 8,
2008.

The suit is "Jacobs et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
Case Number: 4:2007cv00002," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Robert L. Vining,
Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Phillip D. Bartz, Esq. (pbartz@mckennalong.com)
           McKenna Long & Aldridge
           1900 K Street, NW
           Washington, DC 20006
           Phone: 202-496-7500

                - and -

           Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com)
           Chitwood Harley Harnes
           2300 Promenade II
           1230 Peachtree Street, NE
           Atlanta, GA 30309
           Phone: 404-873-3900
           Fax: 404-876-4476

Representing the defendants are:

           Jesse Anderson Davis, Esq. (adavis@brinson-askew.com)
           Brinson Askew Berry Siegler Richardson & Davis
           P.O. Box 5513, 615 West First Street, Omberg House
           Rome, GA 30162-5513
           Phone: 706-291-8853

                 - and -

           William N. Berkowitz, Esq.
           (bill.berkowitz@bingham.com)
           Bingham McCutchen, LLP
           150 Federal Street
           Boston, MA 02110
           Phone: 617-951-8375


UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Dismisses in "Lefari" Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut State Superior Court, Judicial District of
Stamford-Norwalk dismissed with prejudice the purported class-
action lawsuit, "Donald Lefari v. United Rentals, Inc. et al.,"
which was filed in connection to the proposed acquisition of
United Rentals, Inc. by affiliates of Cerberus Capital
Management, L.P., 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.

Following the company's July 23, 2007 announcement of the merger
agreement with affiliates of Cerberus, two putative class-action
suits against the proposed acquisition were filed.

The first putative class-action suit was filed in Connecticut
State Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, on
July 23, 2007.

The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all common
stockholders of United Rentals names as defendants the company,
all of the company's directors, and Cerberus, and sought to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of the company by affiliates of
Cerberus.

On Sept. 19, 2007, the parties to the Lefari action entered into
a memorandum of understanding to settle the action and a
settlement agreement was expected to be negotiated by the
parties.

On Sept. 19, 2007, the parties to the Lefari action entered into
a memorandum of understanding to settle the action and a
settlement agreement was expected to be negotiated by the
parties.

On Sept. 28, 2007, a second lawsuit, captioned, "Nathan
Brundridge v. Wayland R. Hicks et al.," was also filed in
Connecticut State Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-
Norwalk.  This lawsuit named the company's current directors as
defendants.

On Dec. 23, 2007, the company terminated the merger agreement
with affiliates of Cerberus.  As a result, a condition precedent
of the proposed settlement of the Lefari action, the
consummation of the proposed acquisition, was not fulfilled.

The Brundridge II action was voluntarily withdrawn as to all
defendants on Jan. 30, 2008.  On Feb. 7, 2008, the parties to
the Lefari action filed a joint motion to withdraw with
prejudice the Lefari action.  By order dated July 31, 2008, the
Court granted the motion and dismissed the Lefari action with
prejudice.

United Rentals, Inc. -- http://www.ur.com/-- is an equipment
rental company.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, excluding
its traffic control operations, the company's network consisted
of 697 rental locations in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.  It
offers for rent over 2,900 classes of rental equipment,
including heavy machines and hand tools, to customers that
include construction and industrial companies, manufacturers,
utilities, municipalities, homeowners and others.


UNITED RENTALS: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Cerberus Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Rentals, Inc., is facing a consolidated class-action suit
in Connecticut over a merger agreement between the company and
Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.

Subsequent to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 announcement that
affiliates of Cerberus had notified the company that they were
not prepared to proceed with the purchase of the company on the
terms set forth in a merger agreement, three putative class-
action lawsuits were filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The plaintiff in each of the lawsuits sought to sue on behalf of
a purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's securities between Aug. 29, 2007, and Nov. 14,
2007.

The lawsuits named as defendants the company, its directors and
certain of its officers and alleged, among other things, that
the named plaintiff and members of the purported class suffered
damages when they purchased or otherwise acquired securities
issued by the company, as a result of false and misleading
statements and material omissions relating to the contemplated
merger with affiliates of Cerberus, contained in:

       -- proxy materials that the company disseminated and
          filed with the SEC in anticipation of the Oct. 19,
          2007 special meeting of stockholders; and

       -- certain of the company's filings with the SEC and
          other public statements.

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiff in each action
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 thereunder; and against the
individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaints in these actions sought unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, expenses and fees.

On Feb. 7, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions and appointing the Institutional Investor Group,
consisting of First New York Securities, L.L.C. and Omni
Partners LLP, as lead plaintiffs for the purported class.

The actions are now consolidated under the caption, "Vincent
DeCicco v. United Rentals, Inc., et al."

On March 24, 2008, pursuant to a schedule approved by the Court,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which,
among other things:

       -- amended the purported class period to include
          purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities
          from July 23, 2007, to Nov. 14, 2007;

       -- dropped as defendants one of the company's officers
          and all but one of the company's directors;

       -- named as additional defendants Cerberus, certain of
          its affiliates, its chief executive officer and one of
          its managing directors; and

       -- withdrew the previously asserted claim under Section
          14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder.

On May 16, 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in this action.  Briefing with
respect to those motions is complete, 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.

The suit is "Vincent DeCicco v. United Rentals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-01708-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet C. Hall, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. (rcappucci@Entwistle-Law.com)
          Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
          280 Park Ave., 26th Fl. West
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-894-7200
          Fax: 212-894-7272

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          David J. Elliott, Esq. (djelliott@daypitney.com)
          Day Pitney LLP
          242 Trumbull St.
          Hartford, CT 06103-1212
          Phone: 860-275-0100
          Fax: 860-275-0343

               - and -

          Alan R. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@kramerlevin.com)
          Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-715-9300
          Fax: 212-715-8000


WEST CORP: Dec. 11, 2008 Hearing Set for "Ritt" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 11, 2008 hearing was scheduled for the settlement in the
purported class-action lawsuit, "Brandy L. Ritt, et al. v. Billy
Blanks Enterprises, et al.," which relates to the marketing of
certain membership programs offered by West Corp.'s clients.

The original suit was filed in January 2001 in the Court of
Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, against two of the
company's clients.

The case, a purported class action, was amended for the third
time in July 2001 and West Corp. was added as a defendant at
that time.

The suit, which seeks statutory, compensatory, and punitive
damages as well as injunctive and other relief, alleges
violations of various provisions of Ohio's consumer protection
laws, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy in connection with the
marketing of certain membership programs offered by the
company's clients.

On Feb. 6, 2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  On July 21, 2003, the Ohio Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.

The plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint naming West
Telemarketing Corp. as an additional defendant.  A class was
subsequently certified by the Court.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated Aug.
19, 2008 which set forth the terms and conditions of a proposed
settlement of the litigation including the dismissal of the
litigation with prejudice and the entry of a final stipulated
judgment.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and, among other things, amended the class definition
for settlement purposes.  The Court scheduled a settlement
hearing for Dec. 11, 2008, according to the company's Oct. 29,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

West Corp. -- http://www.west.com/-- is a customer relationship
management solution provider, offering comprehensive customer
service outsourcing programs.


WEST CORP: Dec. 22 Hearing Set for "Sanford" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 22, 2008 final approval hearing is set for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Sanford v. West Corp. et al., No. GIC
805541," which accuses West Corp. of engaging in unlawful
business practice when it sent Memberworks, Inc. membership kits
to people who inquired about or purchased another product from
the company.

The litigation was filed on Feb. 13, 2003, with the San Diego
County, California Superior Court.  The original complaint
alleged:

     -- violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
        Act, California Civil Code SS 1750 et seq.;

     -- unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business practices in
        violation of California Business & Professions Code SS
        17200 et seq.;

     -- untrue or misleading advertising in violation of
        California Business & Professions Code SS 17500 et seq.;
        and

     -- common law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment,
        fraud and deceit, and negligent misrepresentation, and
        sought monetary damages, including punitive damages, as
        well as restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys
        fees and costs.

The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class of
persons in California who were sent a Memberworks membership kit
in the mail, were charged for an MWI membership program, and
were allegedly either customers of what the complaint contended
was a joint venture between MWI and West Corp. or West
Telemarketing Corp. or wholesale customers of West Corp. or West
Telemarketing.

West Telemarketing and West Corp. filed a demurrer in the trial
court on July 7, 2004.  The court sustained the demurrer as to
all causes of action in the plaintiff's complaint, with leave to
amend.  West Telemarketing and West Corp. received an amended
complaint and filed a renewed demurrer.

On Jan. 24, 2005, the court entered an order sustaining West
Corp. and West Telemarketing's demurrer with respect to five of
the seven causes of action.  On Feb. 14, 2005, West
Telemarketing and West Corp. filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings seeking a judgment as to the remaining claims.

On April 26, 2005, the court granted the motion without leave to
amend.  The court also denied a motion to intervene filed on
behalf of Lisa Blankenship and Vicky Berryman.  The court
entered judgment in West Corp.'s and West Telemarketing's favor
on May 5, 2005.  The plaintiff and proposed intervenors appealed
the judgment and the order denying intervention.

On June 30, 2006, the 4th Appellate District Court of Appeals
affirmed the entry of judgment against the original plaintiff,
Patricia Sanford, but reversed the denial of the motion to
intervene and remanded the case for the trial court to determine
whether Ms. Berryman and Ms. Blankenship should be added as
plaintiffs through intervention or amendment of the complaint.

On Dec. 1, 2006, the trial court permitted Ms. Berryman and Ms.
Blankenship to join the action pursuant to a second amended
complaint which contained the same claims as Sanford's original
complaint.  West Corp. and West Telemarketing filed a demurrer
to the second amended complaint.  The Court overruled that the
demurrer, with one exception, on Dec. 4, 2006.

On Feb. 16, 2007, after receiving briefing and hearing argument
on class certification, the trial court certified a class
consisting of:

      All persons in California, who, after calling defendants
      West Corp. and West Telemarketing Corp. (collectively
      "West" or "defendants") to inquire about or purchase
      another product between Sept. 1, 1998, through July 2,
      2001, were:

      (a) sent a membership kit in the mail;

      (b) charged for a MemberWorks, Inc. membership program;
          and

      (c) customers of a joint venture between MWI and West or
          were wholesale customers of West.

Not included in the class are defendants and their officers,
directors, employees, agents and/or affiliates."

On March 19, 2007, West and West Telemarketing filed a Petition
for Writ of Mandate and Request for Stay asking the appellate
court to first stay and then order reversal of the Superior
Court's class certification Order.

However, this Petition was denied on June 8, 2007.  Thereafter,
on June 18, 2007, West and West Telemarketing filed a Petition
for Review and Request for Stay in the California Supreme Court,
but this Petition was denied on June 27, 2007.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated Aug.
19, 2008, which set forth the terms and conditions of a proposed
settlement of the litigation including the dismissal of the
litigation with prejudice and the entry of a final stipulated
judgment.  The trial court on Sept. 5, 2008 preliminarily
approved the settlement.

The original class definition certified by the court was
conditionally amended and the court also certified for
settlement purposes a nationwide settlement subclass.  The
settlement hearing is scheduled to be held on Dec. 22, 2008,
according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

West Corp. -- http://www.west.com/-- is a customer relationship
management (CRM) solution provider, offering comprehensive
customer service outsourcing programs.


WEST TELEMARKETING: Faces FLSA Violations Litigation in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
West Telemarketing Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit
in the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Georgia under the
caption, "Tammy Kerce v. West Telemarketing Corporation," which
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to
West Corp.'s Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The suit was filed on June 26, 2007 by a former home agent, who
alleges that she was improperly classified as an independent
contractor instead of an employee and is therefore entitled to
minimum wage and overtime compensation.  The plaintiff seeks to
have the case certified as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiff's suit seeks statutory and compensatory damages.
On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional
Certification in which she requested that the Court certify a
class of all West home agents who were classified as independent
contractors for the prior three years for purposes of notice and
discovery.  West filed its Response in Opposition to the Motion
for Conditional Certification on Feb. 11, 2008.

On May 21, 2008, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification.  Individual agents have been sent
notice of the suit and have an opportunity to join or not join
the suit.

The suit is "Kerce v. West Telemarketing Corporation et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00081-AAA-JEG," filed in the U.S. Court for the
Southern District of Georgia, Judge Anthony A. Alaimo,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Mark David Johnson, Esq.
          (mjohnson@gilbertharrelllaw.com)
          Gilbert, Harrell, Sumerford & Martin, PC
          P.O. Box 190
          Brunswick, GA 31521-0190
          Phone: 912-265-6700
          Fax: 912-264-3917

Representing ht defendant is:

          Asher B. Griffin, Esq. (agriffin@scottdoug.com)
          Scott, Douglass & McConnico, LLP
          600 Congress Ave.
          Suite 1500
          15th Floor
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: 512-495-6300

  
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CADENCE DESIGN: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Nov. 01, 2008 -- Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. between
April 23, 2008 and October 22, 2008, inclusive.

     The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

     The Complaint charges Cadence and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Cadence's business and operations were
materially false and misleading.

     On October 22, 2008, Cadence shocked investors when it
delayed the announcement of its third-quarter financial results
and disclosed that Cadence was reviewing, in conjunction with
the Company's independent accountants and legal advisors, the
recognition of revenue related to customer contracts signed
during the first quarter of 2008. Cadence revealed that the
Company initiated the review after preliminarily determining
during its regular review of its third quarter results that
approximately $24 million of revenue relating to these contracts
was recognized during the first quarter of 2008, but should have
been recognized ratably over the duration of the contracts
commencing in the second quarter of 2008. Cadence further
disclosed that the Company expects to restate its financial
statements for the first quarter of 2008 and the first half of
2008 to correct the revenue recognition with respect to these
contracts.

     On this news, shares of Cadence declined $1.10 per share,
more than 25%, to close on October 23, 2008, at $3.22 per share,
on unusually heavy volume.

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

For more information, contact:

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




NOAH EDUCATION: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD, Oct. 31, 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 who
purchased American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Noah Education
Holdings, Ltd. pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering on or about October 19, 2007 (the "IPO" or the
"Offering") to November 19, 2007.

     The Complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of
1933 against the Company and three underwriters of the Company's
offering of ADSs as a result of the failure of the Registration
Statement and Prospectus for the offering of Noah Education's
ADSs on or about October 18, 2007 to disclose that the Company
was experiencing an increase in raw materials costs which had
negatively impacted its earnings.

     The complaint further alleges that after and as a result of
the Company's announcement on November 19, 2007, its gross
profit margins had dramatically declined from 59.4% in the same
period the prior year to 50.2% in the quarter, attributing the
declining margins to "an increase in the purchasing cost of
certain raw material components of handheld digital learning
devices (DLDs) such as flash chips and memory boards, during
July and August," the value of Noah Education ADSs declined
significantly.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
December 26, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Nov. 01, 2008 -- Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of all persons or entities who acquired the common stock
of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation between May 5, 2008 and September
24, 2008, inclusive.

     The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the Company's financial condition, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Pilgrim's Pride stock.
Pilgrim's Pride produces poultry products in the United States,
Mexico and Puerto Rico.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants knew
the following material undisclosed information which
contradicted their public statements:

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

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

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

     (4) that 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

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

After the market closed on September 24, 2008, Pilgrim's Pride
issued a press release to comment on recent trading activity in
the Company's common stock. Therein, the Company revealed that
as a result of high feed-ingredient costs, continued weak
pricing and demand for breast meat, and the significant negative
impact of hedged grain positions during the quarter, the Company
had notified its lenders that Pilgrim's Pride expected to report
a significant loss in the fiscal fourth quarter. On this news,
shares plunged to $3.84 per share on September 25, 2008, a
significant decline from the closing price of $10.26 per share
two days earlier on September 23, 2008.

For more information, contact:

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