CAR_Public/081106.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 6, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 221

                            Headlines

ADT SECURITY: Employees File Suit in Tex. Over Unpaid Overtime
APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over PowerBook G4 Memory Slots
DELL INC: Denies Allegations in Calif. Discrimination Lawsuit
DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal
DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron

GARFIELD COUNTY: Legal Costs Soaring in Colo. Jail Litigation
HANSEN NATURAL: Bull & Lifshitz Initiates Investigation
HARTFORD LIFE: Appeals to Junked Claims in Two Pending Lawsuits
JABIL CIRCUIT: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla.
LOEWS CORP: Appellants' Brief in Calif. Litigation Due Dec. 22

MASCO CORP: Expects Late 2008 Hearing on Litigation Settlement
MASCO CORP: Still Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Insulation Installation
OFFICE DEPOT: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
ROBERT HALF: Faces Calif. Litigation Temps Reimbursement, Wages
SELECT COMFORT: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Moldy Products

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery in K-DUR Suits Completed in 3Q 2008
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Judgment Bids in N.J. Securities Suit Pending
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Lawsuits by Third-Party Payors Still Pending
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Remanded N.J. Lawsuit Over Savings Plan Ongoing
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Still Faces VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE Lawsuits

SONOCO PRODUCTS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in South Carolina
SOUTH KOREA: Exporters Files Suit v. Banks Over Forex Losses
SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Early Termination Fees
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Several Stockholder Lawsuits
VISTAPRINT LTD: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Membership Discounts

XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTEC INC: Cohen Milstein Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
CADENCE DESIGN: Brodsky & Smith Announces Filing of Stock Suit
CADENCE DESIGN: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Litigation
CADENCE DESIGN: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GENERAL GROWTH: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing

GROWTH PROPERTIES: Stull Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing
NOAH EDUCATION: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing



                           *********

ADT SECURITY: Employees File Suit in Tex. Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Security Services, Inc. is facing a purported class-actino
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas that was filed by employees who claim that the company has
violated federal law by failing to pay the workers for overtime,
Michelle Massey of The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The suit was file on Oct. 28, 2008 by Bryan Champion, Ronnie
Danage, John Engelke, Curtis Green, Max Murphy and David
Thompson under the caption, "Champion et al v ADT Security
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:2008cv00417."  It alleges violations
of the Federal Labor Standards Act

The Southeast Texas Record  reports that the proposed class of
plaintiffs consists of service and maintenance technicians,
commercial installers, installation technicians, residential
installers or installation technicians who were responsible for
the installation, maintenance, inspection and repair of ADT
devices in commercial and residential security systems for the
past three years.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs argue they were
employed in excess of 40 hours per week but not properly
compensated for their time.

The plaintiffs allege ADT knew its employees were not receiving
overtime compensation for all hours worked and "willfully
engaged in unlawful conduct by failing to record all of the
time…"

According to the complaint, to be quickly dispatched to
customer's locations, the plaintiffs were required to take
company vehicles home.  However, the plaintiffs state that were
not paid for travel time to and from home or to office or work
sites.  To be paid in excess of the regular workweek, the
plaintiffs state they would need prior approval from managers or
supervisors.

The plaintiffs seek damages for lost wages, liquidated damages
equal to the sum of unpaid overtime, attorneys' fees and
prejudgment interest, according to The Southeast Texas Record.

The suit is "Champion et al v ADT Security Services, Inc., Case
No. 2:2008cv00417," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Judge T. John Ward, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael Charles Smith, Esq. (michaelsmith@siebman.com)
          Siebman Reynolds Burg Phillips & Smith, LLP
          713 South Washington
          Marshall, TX 75670
          Phone: 903-938-8900
          Fax: 19727674620


APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over PowerBook G4 Memory Slots
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
that the company has not done enough to remedy a memory slot
defect that has affected a number of PowerBook G4 machines over
the years, Justin Berka of Ars Technica reports.

The suit is captioned, "Gomelsky v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
5:2008cv04969," which was filed on Oct 30, 2008 by Giorgio
Gomelsky.

The issue began garnering attention way back in 2005 when
multiple reports of PowerBook G4 lower memory slot failures
appeared, according to Ars Technica.

The most recent legal complaint, as seen by Ars Technica,
mentions that slower slot failures are more common, but that
upper slot failures can also occur.

The issue normally appears at some point (even months) after
memory is installed in the second slot, at which point all sorts
of weirdness can happen, including inability to boot the
notebook or degraded performance.  Since the memory slots are
attached to the motherboard, repairing the memory slot defect is
quite costly.

Apple did initiate an extended memory slot warranty in 2006, but
the issue only covered machines in the range of serial numbers
that had already been affected by the problem.

The plaintiff's PowerBook G4 had a bad memory slot, but the
serial number was outside the extended warranty range and he was
out of luck.

Ars Technica reports that Mr. Gomelsky argued in his that the
company acknowledged that there was a problem by creating the
extended warranty program, but that the company didn't do enough
to fix things for affected users.

In addition, the plaintiff claims in his suit that Apple didn't
do a good job of letting people know about the problem or the
extended warranty.

Mr. Gomelsky is thus asking for damages, for Apple to refund the
money of anyone who bought a defective PowerBook, and for fees
and costs, Ars Technica reports.

The suit is "Gomelsky v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:08-cv-04969-
PVT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Judge Patricia V. Trumbull, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robyn Carrico Crowther, Esq.
          (crowther@caldwell-leslie.com)
          Caldwell Leslie & Proctor P.C.
          1000 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-629-9040
          Fax: 213-629-9022


DELL INC: Denies Allegations in Calif. Discrimination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dell, Inc. is denying allegations that massive layoffs at the
computer maker have unfairly targeted women and employees over
40, Antone Gonsalves of InformationWeek reports.

The allegations stem from a class-action lawsuit filed on Oct.
29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of
California by four women, all former senior employees in Dell's
human resources department.  The suit is captioned, "Chapman et
al v. Dell Inc., Case No. 3:08-cv-04945-MHP."

In addition to discrimination in layoffs, the plaintiffs claim
Dell systemically discriminates in blocking women across the
company from entering the top ranks, according to
InformationWeek.

The four senior HR women, namely Mildred J. Chapman, Angela
Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey and Bethany Riches, accuse the
world's second largest computer manufacturer of systemic
discrimination in blocking women across the company from
breaking into the top ranks of what a Dell male Vice President,
Michael Summers, calls the "old boy networks in Dell" (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 31 ,2008).

The plaintiffs, who as HR specialists are intimately familiar
with the company's employment practices, seek to change Dell's
discriminatory policies regarding pay, job placement, promotion,
and termination.

The lawsuit demands $500 million in damages for a class of
thousands of current and former Dell female managers and
executives, and older employees disproportionately affected by
the company's mass layoffs in 2007 and 2008.

InformationWeek reports that the plaintiffs are claiming that
Dell engineered layoffs of more than 8,000 employees, singling
out women and older employees.  As a result, Dell's upper-
management ranks have swelled to about 80% male.

The suit claims each of the plaintiffs lost more than $1 million
in projected salary increases, promotion grants, and short- and
long-term incentive awards, according to the InformationWeek
report.

The plaintiffs allege that chief executive Michael Dell, along
with others on the 14-member executive leadership team and other
senior male executives, carried out or assisted in the
discriminatory acts described in the complaint.

The four plaintiffs and the class are represented in this matter
by Steven L. Wittels, David W. Sanford, and Janette Wipper, who
head teams of lawyers from Sanford Wittels & Heisler's San
Francisco, Washington, D.C. and New York City offices.

On Nov. 3, 2008, Dell denied the allegations.  A Dell spokesman
told InformationWeek "We believe the claims in the suit are
without merit."  The spokesman added, "Dell does not tolerate
discrimination in any aspect of employment and will vigorously
defend any claim that we are not acting in accordance with the
law or our policies."

The suit is "Chapman et al v. Dell Inc., Case No. 3:08-cv-04945-
MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court Northern District of
California, Judge Marilyn H. Patel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Thomas Marc Litton, Esq. (tmlitton@gmail.com)
          Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP
          120 Montgomery Street
          Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone:  415-421-4770
          Fax: 415-421-4784


DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal
with regard to the decertification of a purported class action
lawsuit that accuses DENTSPLY International, Inc., of
misrepresenting its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S., and Richard Nathan,
D.D.S., filed a class action complaint in San Francisco County,
California.

The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of
the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who
have purchased it for use in oral surgery.

The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006,
with respect to the suit's breach of warranty and unfair
business practices claims.  The class is defined as California
dental professionals who purchased and used one or more Cavitron
ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical
procedures on their patients.

The company filed a motion for decertification of the class,
which request was granted.  The plaintiffs have appealed this
decertification order to the California Court of Appeals.

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.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International, Inc., continues to face a purported
class-action lawsuit alleging that the company's Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers was sold in breach of contract and warranty.

The company allegedly misrepresented the potential uses of the
product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water.

On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, D.D.S., and Robert Jaffin,
D.D.S., filed a complaint against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for Cavitron
scalers and asserts putative class action claims on behalf of
dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs have filed their request for class certification
to which the company has filed its response.

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.

The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge R. Barclay
Surrick, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

        Alan Klein, Esq. (aklein@duanemorris.com)
        Duane Morris LLP
        30 South 17th St.
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
        Phone: 215-979-1000
        Fax: 215-979-1020

Representing the defendants is:

        Richard G. Placey (rplacey@mmwr.com)
        Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP
        123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor
        Philadelphia, PA 19109
        Phone: 215-772-7424


GARFIELD COUNTY: Legal Costs Soaring in Colo. Jail Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garfield County has paid nearly $570,000 in outside attorney
fees to defend a purported class-action lawsuit, alleging
prisoners at the county jail have been subjected to excessive
force, The Associated Press reports.

County attorney Don Deford told AP that the litigation has
increased legal fees, because of huge amount of interviews and
document research required.

                        Case Background

In July 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado
filed a class-action complaint in U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of prisoners in the Garfield
County Jail (Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2007).

The suit alleges that the jail's use pepper ball guns, restraint
chairs, Tasers, pepper spray, and electroshock belts violates
widely accepted standards of law enforcement and corrections
professionals, as well as the manufacturers' and vendors'
training and recommendations for safe and appropriate use.

It claims that prisoners shot with pepper balls or drenched with
pepper spray are regularly strapped into the restraint chair-
sometimes for hours-without being provided any opportunity to
decontaminate.

Court documents claimed that prisoners going to court are often
forced to wear a remote-controlled electroshock belt during
transport to court and during hearings.  With a push of a
button, a deputy can deliver an incapacitating and painful
eight-second-long electric shock of 50,000 volts.

The suit alleges that deputies deliberately taunt prisoners to
heighten their anxiety while they are wearing the electroshock
belt by playing "mind games" and suggesting that the prisoners
are about to be shocked.

It notes that electroshock weapons, pepper spray, and restraint
chairs have all been associated with a number of in-custody
deaths, and that the jail's unregulated use of these devices in
combination poses especially serious risks to prisoners' safety.

Two of the four named plaintiffs have serious mental health
problems, but the jail has allegedly denied their repeated
requests for mental health care.   They have been reportedly
strapped into the restraint chair a total of 12 times between
them, sometimes for over six hours.

The organization amended its suit on Aug. 1, 2006 to include
allegations that the sheriff denies mental health care to
indigent county jail prisoners and imposes harsh discipline
without due process (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2006).

In the amended complaint, ACLU said the policy violates U.S. And
Colorado constitutions and Colorado law, requiring that serious
mental health needs of prisoners should be treated even when
they don't have money.  The county waives the $100 requirement
in cases in which the prisoner asking psychiatric help is
hallucinating or suicidal.


HANSEN NATURAL: Bull & Lifshitz Initiates Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP is investigating possible
illegal conduct as alleged in proposed class action lawsuits
(the "Class Actions") filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and a derivative
complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Riverside against Hansen Natural
Corporation ("Hansen" or the "Company").

The actions name as defendants certain of Hansen's officers and
directors.  The Class Actions are brought on behalf of all
purchasers of common stock from May 23, 2007 and through
November 8, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The derivative action ("Derivative Action") is brought
derivatively on behalf of the Company.

Hansen is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 550 Monica Circle, Suite 201, Corona,
California 92880.  Hansen, through its subsidiaries, engages in
the development, marketing, sale, and distribution of beverages
in the United States and Canada.

The class action complaints allege that, during the Class
Period, Hansen and certain of its officers and directors
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by issuing materially false and
misleading statements that failed to disclose that:

       -- the Company's second quarter sales results were
          "materially impacted by inventory loading as customers
          were induced to purchase more product before the
          Company raised its prices in its Monster Energy drink
          line and its Java Monster drink line";

       -- the Company was "experiencing declining sales in its
          non-core drink lines";

       -- the Company was "experiencing production shortfalls
          with its Java Monster drink line"; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants "lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the Company and its prospects."

The derivative complaint alleges, among other things, that
between May 2007 and the present, the defendants directed the
Company to issue a series of improper statements concerning its
business prospects.

The complaint further alleges that while the Company's shares
were purportedly artificially inflated because of those improper
statements, certain defendants sold Company stock while in
possession of material non-public information regarding the
Company's "true" business prospects.

The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary
duty for improper financial reporting, breaches of fiduciary
duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information,
violations of Cal. Corp. Code Sections 25402 and 25403, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and
unjust enrichment, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
adoption of corporate governance reforms, and equitable and
injunctive relief.

For more details, contact:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Bull & Lifshitz, LLP
          Phone: (212) 213-6222
          Fax: (212) 213-9405
          e-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com


HARTFORD LIFE: Appeals to Junked Claims in Two Pending Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissal of claims in two consolidated amended
complaints filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased insurance through broker defendants are pending,
according to Hartford Life Insurance Company's Oct. 29, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Following the New York Attorney General's filing of a civil
complaint against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., and Marsh,
Inc., in October 2004, alleging that certain insurance
companies, including The Hartford, participated with Marsh in
arrangements to submit inflated bids for business insurance and
paid contingent commissions to ensure that Marsh would direct
business to them, private plaintiffs brought several lawsuits
against The Hartford predicated on the allegations in the Marsh
complaint, to which The Hartford was not party.

Among these is a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

There are two consolidated amended complaints filed in the
multidistrict litigation, one related to conduct in connection
with the sale of property-casualty insurance and the other
related to alleged conduct in connection with the sale of group
benefits products.

The Company is named in the group benefits products complaint.

The complaints assert, on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased insurance through broker defendants, claims under
the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, state law, and in the case of the group
benefits products complaint, claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The claims are predicated upon allegedly undisclosed or
otherwise improper payments of contingent commissions to the
broker defendants to steer business to the insurance company
defendants.

The district court has dismissed the Sherman Act and RICO claims
in both complaints for failure to state a claim and has granted
the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the ERISA claims
in the group-benefits products complaint.  The district court
further has declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims, has dismissed those state law claims
without prejudice, and has closed both cases.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of claims in both
consolidated amended complaints, except the ERISA claims.

Hartford Life Insurance Company provides retail and
institutional investment products such as variable and fixed
annuities, private placement life insurance  and retirement plan
services; and individual life insurance products including
variable universal life, universal life, interest sensitive
whole life and term life. The Hartford, Conn.-based company has
four reporting segments: Retail Products Group, Retirement
Plans, Institutional Solutions Group and Individual Life.


JABIL CIRCUIT: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jabil Circuit, Inc. is still facing a consolidated securities
fraud lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, captioned, "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v.
Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No. 8:06-cv-01716" against the
company and various of its present and former officers and
directors.

The suit was brought on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs
comprised of persons who purchased shares of the company between
Sept. 19, 2001, and June 21, 2006.

It asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
as well as under Section 20(a) of that Act.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants had
engaged in a scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant dates of
options for various senior officers and directors, causing the
company's financial statements to understate management
compensation and overstate net earnings, thereby inflating the
company's stock price.

In addition, the suit alleged that the company's proxy
statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its
option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of
its shares on the trading date immediately prior to the date of
the grant.

A second putative class action suit, containing virtually
identical legal claims and allegations of fact, captioned,
"Steven M. Noe v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No., 8:06-cv-
01883," was filed on Oct. 12, 2006.

The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and
on Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust
Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action.

On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
the company's publicly traded securities between Sept. 19, 2001,
and Dec. 21, 2006, and names the company and certain of its
current and former officers, including:

     -- Forbes I.J. Alexander,
     -- Scott D. Brown,
     -- Wesley B. Edwards,
     -- Chris A. Lewis,
     -- Mark T. Mondello,
     -- Robert L. Paver, and
     -- Ronald J. Rapp,

as well as certain of the company's directors:

     -- Mel S. Lavitt,
     -- William D. Morean,
     -- Frank A. Newman,
     -- Laurence S. Grafstein,
     -- Steven A. Raymund,
     -- Lawrence J. Murphy,
     -- Kathleen A. Walters, and
     -- Thomas A. Sansone.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder

It contained allegations of fact and legal claims similar to the
original putative class action and, in addition, alleged that
the defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and
circumstances that led the company, on June 12, 2006, to
announce that it was lowering its prior guidance for net
earnings for the third quarter of fiscal year 2006.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint asserting claims
substantially similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
it replaced but adding allegations relating to the restatement
of earnings previously announced in connection with the
correction of errors in the calculation of compensation expense
for certain stock option grants.

At the company's request, the Court, on April 9, 2008, dismissed
the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint without
prejudice, but with leave to amend the complaint by May 12,
2008.

On May 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.  The Second Amended Class Action Complaint
asserts substantially the same causes of action against the same
defendants, predicated largely on the same allegations of fact
as in the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
except insofar as plaintiffs added KPMG LLP, the company's
independent registered public accounting firm, as a defendant
and added additional allegations with respect to:

       -- pre-class period option grants,

       -- the professional background of certain defendants,

       -- option grants to non-executive employees,

       -- the restatement of the Company's financial results for
          certain periods between 1996 and 2005, and

       -- trading by the named plaintiffs and certain of the
          defendants during the class period.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint also includes an
additional claim for insider trading against certain defendants
pursuant to Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 promulgated pursuant to the
Exchange Act.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
29, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil
Circuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-01716-SDM-EAJ," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under
Judge Steven D. Merryday.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William E. Hoese (whoese@kohnswift.com)
         Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
         1101 Market St., Suite 2400
         Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
         Phone: 215-238-1700

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Chapman, Esq. (michael.chapman@hklaw.com)
         Holland & Knight, LLP
         100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100, PO Box 1288
         Tampa, FL 33601-1288
         Phone: 813-227-8500
         Fax: 813-229-0134


LOEWS CORP: Appellants' Brief in Calif. Litigation Due Dec. 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appellants' brief in the a class-action lawsuit filed on
behalf of certain California individual long term health care
policyholders against CNA Financial Corporation and Continental
Casualty Company is due to be filed on Dec. 22, 2008.

CNA Financial is a a 90% owned subsidiary of Loews Corp.

The class-action is styled, "Shaffer v. Continental Casualty
Company, et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, CV06-2235 RGK."

The action alleges that CCC and CNA knowingly or negligently
used unrealistic actuarial assumptions in pricing these
policies.

On Jan. 8, 2008, CCC, CNA and the plaintiffs entered into a
binding agreement settling the case on a nationwide basis for
the policy forms potentially affected by the allegations of the
complaint.

Following a fairness hearing, the Court entered an order
approving the settlement.

This order was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

CNA believes it has meritorious defenses to this appeal and
intends to defend the appeal vigorously, 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.

Loews Corp. is a holding company. Its subsidiaries are engaged
in these lines of business: commercial property and casualty
insurance, can Financial Corp.; the production and sale of
cigarettes, Lorillard, Inc.,; the operation of interstate
natural gas transmission pipeline systems, Boardwalk Pipeline
Partners, LP; the operation of offshore oil and gas drilling
rigs, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc.; the operation of hotels,
Loews Hotels Holding Corp. and the distribution and sale of
watches and clock, Bulova Corp.


MASCO CORP: Expects Late 2008 Hearing on Litigation Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corp., in its Form 10-Q dated Oct. 29, 2008, says it
anticipates that a hearing will be conducted by the end of 2008
to obtain preliminary court approval of the settlement terms in
an alleged employment-related class-action lawsuit.

Several California-based installation subsidiaries of the
Company were named as defendants in an alleged employment-
related class action lawsuit arising under state law.

The subsidiaries recently reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle this litigation for approximately US$9
million, 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.

Masco Corp. -- http://www.masco.com/-- manufactures,
distributes and installs home improvement and building products.
Masco operates in five segments: Cabinets and Related Products,
Plumbing Products, Installation and Other Services, Decorative
Architectural Products, and Other Specialty Products.


MASCO CORP: Still Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Insulation Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corp. continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit
in Georgia in connection with insulation installation.

Early in 2003, a suit was brought against the company and a
number of its insulation installation companies with the federal
court in Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that certain practices
violate provisions of the federal antitrust laws. The complaint
requests class action certification.

The company reported no further 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.

Masco Corp. -- http://www.masco.com/-- manufactures,
distributes and installs home improvement and building products.
Masco operates in five segments: Cabinets and Related Products,
Plumbing Products, Installation and Other Services, Decorative
Architectural Products, and Other Specialty Products.


OFFICE DEPOT: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the company
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Initially, two putative class-action complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its executive officers,
alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in
November 2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor
program funds.

Each of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, and are captioned as:

       * "Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia
         McKay (Case Number, 07-14348)," filed on Nov. 6, 2007;
         and

       * "Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve
         Odland and Patricia McKay (Case Number, 07-81038),"
         filed on Nov. 5, 2007.

On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in "Nichols v. Office Depot,
et. al.," moved to consolidate the two class action lawsuits.

On March 21, 2008, the court entered an order consolidating the
cases.  The lead plaintiff in the consolidated case, the New
Mexico Educational Retirement Board, filed a consolidated
amended complaint on July 2, 2008.

On Sept. 2, 2008, Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to
state a claim, 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. 27, 2008.

The suit is "Nichols v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-14348-DTKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David J. George, Esq. (dgeorge@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Alleghney Building
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1618
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-338-2266

Representing the defendants is:

          Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq. (aflindsay@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan & Hartson
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-459-6500
          Fax: 305-459-6550


ROBERT HALF: Faces Calif. Litigation Temps Reimbursement, Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Half International, Inc. is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit, which alleges that temporary employees in
California were "improperly denied expense reimbursement and
wages for time purportedly spent preparing for interviews, and
traveling to and attending interviews with, alleged clients of."
Robert Half's, The San Jose Mercury News reports.

The complaint was filed Sept. 16, 2008 in California Superior
Court by plaintiff Donald R. Green "on behalf of himself and a
putative class of all temporary staffing employees" in the
state.  Mr. Green is seeking "penalties and equitable and legal
remedies under Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code and Sections 1194 and 2802 of the California
Labor Code."


SELECT COMFORT: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Moldy Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Select Comfort Corp. is facing a purported a class-action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California over moldy products.

On April 25, 2008, a lawsuit was filed against one of the
company's subsidiaries in state court in California by one of
the company's customers.

The suit asserts various claims related to products liability
and misrepresentation and seeks class certification.  It alleges
that products sold by the company prior to 2006 had a unique
propensity to develop mold, alleges that the plaintiff suffered
adverse health effects, and seeks various forms of legal and
equitable relief.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Court granted the company motion to
dismiss and strike the purported class action claims, and
allowed the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, 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.
27, 2008.


The suit is "Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corporation et
al., Case No. 5:08-cv-02746-JF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy
Fogel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert M. Gagliasso, Esq.
          Bustamante O'Hara & Gagliasso
          River Park Tower
          333 W. San Carlos Street
          8th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95110
          Phone: 408-977-1911
          Fax: 408-977-0746

Representing the defendants are:

          Dianne L. Sweeney, Esq. (dianne@pillsburylaw.com)
          Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: (650) 233-4500
          Fax: (650) 233-4545


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery in K-DUR Suits Completed in 3Q 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. reports that during the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2008, discovery has been completed in several
purported antitrust class-action suits filed before the federal
and state courts against the Company with regards to the drug K-
DUR.

Schering-Plough Corp. had settled patent litigation with Upsher-
Smith, Inc. and ESI Lederle, Inc. relating to generic versions
of K-DUR, the company's long-acting potassium chloride product
supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and
Upsher Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications.

Following the commencement of an Federal Trade Commission
administrative proceeding alleging anti-competitive effects from
those settlements, which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's
favor, alleged class action suits were filed in federal and
state courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-
DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle.

These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of
action.

These suits seek unspecified damages, 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.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- 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.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Judgment Bids in N.J. Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment in the federal securities
litigation filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey by a purported class of Schering-Plough Corp.
shareholders are pending.

Following Schering-Plough's announcement that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) had been conducting inspections of its
manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had
issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with
current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were
filed against the Company and certain named officers.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material
information and making material misstatements.

Specifically, they allege that Schering-Plough failed to
disclose an alleged serious risk that a new drug application for
CLARINEX would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing
issues, and they allege that the Company failed to disclose the
alleged depth and severity of its manufacturing issues.

These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001,
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
shares of Schering-Plough stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb.
15, 2001.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.

The Court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003.

Notice of pendency of the class action was sent to members of
that class in July 2007.

Discovery has been completed, and motions for summary judgment
have been briefed, 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.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- 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.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Lawsuits by Third-Party Payors Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of third-party
payors against Schering-Plough Corp. are still pending,
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.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, Schering-Plough
made cash payments of US$435 million for the settlement of the
investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Massachusetts involving certain of the Company's sales,
marketing and clinical trial practices and programs, cash
payments of US$9 million of employee termination costs related
to the 2006 manufacturing streamlining and US$6 million related
to integration planning.

Several purported class action litigations were filed following
the announcement of the settlement of the Massachusetts
Investigation.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek damages on behalf of third-
party payors resulting from the allegations of off-label
promotion and improper payments to physicians that were at issue
in the Massachusetts Investigation.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- 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.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Remanded N.J. Lawsuit Over Savings Plan Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A remanded putative class-action complaint filed against
Schering-Plough Corp. for breach of fiduciary duties under the
Company's Employee Savings Plan (Plan) is ongoing in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On March 31, 2003, the Company was served with a putative class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging that Schering-Plough, retired
Chairman, CEO and President Richard Jay Kogan, its Plan
administrator, several current and former directors, and certain
former corporate officers breached their fiduciary obligations
to certain participants in the Plan.

The complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses allegedly
suffered by the Plan.

The complaint was dismissed on June 29, 2004.  The plaintiffs
appealed.  On Aug. 19, 2005 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit reversed the dismissal by the District Court.

The matter has been remanded back to the District Court for
further proceedings, 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.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- 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.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Still Faces VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. is still facing several purported class-
action suits in connection with the sale and promotion of the
VYTORIN, ZETIA, and ENHANCE products.

Since mid-January 2008, Schering-Plough has become aware of or
been served with litigation, including:

        -- civil class-action lawsuits alleging common law and
           state consumer fraud claims in connection with
           Schering-Plough's sale and promotion of the Merck &
           Co., Inc./Schering-Plough joint-venture products'
           VYTORIN and ZETIA;

        -- several putative shareholder securities class action
           lawsuits (where several officers are also named
           defendants) alleging false and misleading statements
           and omissions by Schering-Plough and its
           representatives related to the timing of disclosures
           concerning the ENHANCE results, allegedly in
           violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
           Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

        -- a putative shareholder securities class action
           lawsuit (where several officers and directors are
           also named), alleging material misstatements and
           omissions related to the ENHANCE results in the
           offering documents in connection with Schering-
           Plough's 2007 securities offerings, allegedly in
           violation of the Securities Act of 1933, including
           Section 11; and

        -- several putative class action suits alleging that
           Schering-Plough and certain officers and directors
           breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA and
           seeking damages in the amount of losses allegedly
           suffered by the Plans.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com/-- is a
global science-based healthcare company with prescription,
consumer and animal health products.  Through internal research
and collaborations with business partners, Schering-Plough
discovers, develops, manufactures and markets advanced drug
therapies.


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonoco Products Co. is still facing a securities fraud lawsuit
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, under the caption, "Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System, City of v. Sonoco Products Company et al., Case No. 08-
cv-02348."

The company was served with the complaint, filed by the City of
Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, on July 7, 2008.

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 7, 2007, and
Sept. 18, 2007, except officers and directors of the company.

It alleges that the company issued press releases during the
class period that were materially false and misleading because
the company allegedly had no reasonable basis for the earnings
projections contained in the press releases, and that such
information caused the market price of the company's common
stock to be artificially inflated.

The complaint also names certain company officers as individual
defendants and seeks an unspecified amount of damages plus
interest and attorneys' fees.

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. 28, 2008.

The suit is "Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, City of v.
Sonoco Products Company et al., Case No. 4:2008cv02348," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina,
Judge Terry L. Wooten, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
          (wehopkins@hopkinscampbell.com)
          Hopkins and Campbell
          P.O. Box 11963
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: 803-256-6152
          Fax: 803-256-6155

Representing the defendants is:

          William Clarence Boyd, Esq. (bboyd@hsblawfirm.com)
          Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd
          P.O. Box 11889
          Columbia, SC 29211-1889
          Phone: 803-779-3080
          Fax: 803-765-1243


SOUTH KOREA: Exporters Files Suit v. Banks Over Forex Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
Several South Korean exporters filed a purported class-action
lawsuit against 13 major banks, both local and foreign, saying
the currency options they hold should be nullified amid huge
losses caused by the won's steep decline, The Dow Jones
Newswires reports.

Hundreds of small exporters took out the options contracts known
as "knock-in knock-out" (KIKO) in recent years to hedge against
currency movements.

If the dollar soars beyond a given range, the firms stand to
mark up hefty losses on their contracts, according to The Dow
Jones Newswires.

The won's steep fall of around 30% against the dollar this year
has hit them hard.  Combined losses reached 1.7 trillion won
($1.3 billion) as of August, according to the Financial Services
Commission (FSC) watchdog.

Exporters say the banks failed to explain the high risk
associated with the options and passed on their own forex losses
to the exporters, the report said.

Kim Moo-Song, a representative for a group of 97 exporters
filing the suit, said that when the dollar soars exorbitantly
against the won, the options violate the principle of good
faith.  "The system doesn't function as a hedge," he told Yonhap
news agency.

The Dow Jones Newswires reports that the suit involves 13
foreign and local banks, including U.S. Citibank, Britain's
Standard Chartered Bank and South Korea's Shinhan Bank, and
Korea Exchange Bank.

According to a report by the FSC last month, Korea Exchange
Bank, Citibank and Shinhan Bank accounted for 70% of all
companies involved in the KIKOs.

FSC said Korea Exchange Bank traded with 209 firms, whose
combined losses amounted to KRW322.5 billion.  Citibank sold the
options to 134 firms that suffered KRW408.9 billion in combined
losses, followed by Shinhan Bank with 117 firms that lost
KRW327.2 billion.

The options "are unfair and violate the principle of good faith,
which makes them invalid," Mr. Kim was quoted as saying.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Early Termination Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. is facing a $1.2 billion federal class-
action lawsuit because of early-termination fees the company
charged, The Triangle Business Journal reports.

The suit was filed on Oct. 29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, under the caption, "Lee
et al v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-
04959-SC."  The plaintiffs in the case are Larry Lee, Lisa
Whitlock, Randy Whitlock, and Shahin Shokoofandeh.

In general, the suit alleges that the $150 to $200 fees violated
the Federal Communications Act and laws in every state, and says
the fees from 1999 to present total about $1.2 billion,
according to The Triangle Business Journal.

The suit is "Lee et al v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Case
No. 3:08-cv-04959-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Samuel Conti, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq. (sbursor@bellatlantic.net)
          Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor
          500 Seventh Avenue
          10th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-989-9113
          Fax: 212-989-9163

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. (aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com)
          Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road
          Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: (925) 945-0200
          Fax: 925-945-8792

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          (ltfisher@bramsonplutzik.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road
          Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0200
          Fax: 925-945-8792

               - and -

           Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
           Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
           369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
           New York, NY 10017-6531
           Phone: 212-983-9330
           Fax: 212-983-9331 (fax)
           e-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Several Stockholder Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. is facing several purported
class-action lawsuits alleging it made false and misleading
statements about its relationship with AT&T in connection with
the activation of Apple iPhones, Michael Deak of The Scarlet
Scuttlebutt reports.

The company provided software that allowed purchasers of iPhones
to activate their phones through their home computers.  AT&T is
the exclusive provider in the U.S. of iPhone service.

According to the stockholders' lawsuits, filed both in federal
and state courts, the relationship with AT&T accounted for about
80 percent of Synchronoss' revenue.  Synchronoss was paid by the
number of iPhones activated by using its software, The Scarlet
Scuttlebutt report stated.

The lawsuits claim that Synchronoss, starting in February 2008,
failed to disclose to investors numerous warning signs that its
relationship with AT&T was in jeopardy because the new
generation of iPhones was going to be activated in stores,
instead of home computers.  That switch would remove Synchronoss
from the activation process, according to the suits.

However, Synchronoss continued to tell investors that its
prospects for growth were bright, the lawsuits contend, even
though the company knew it might be losing the business.

On May 10, 2008 Synchronoss officials, in a conference call with
stock analysts and investors, said revenue would decline by
about $30 million because the number of iPhones being activated
without the company's software was increasing, according to the
lawsuits.

The company's stock price then fell $9.86, about 43.06 percent,
to $13.04 per share.

A month later, Synchronoss announced it would not be involved in
the activation of the new 3G iPhone, which caused its stock
price to fall on June 10 by 17 percent to $11.03.

The lawsuits allege that Synchronoss' "misstatements" created an
"unrealistically positive assessment" of the company and its
financial well-being, causing its stock to be overvalued and
"artificially inflated," according to The Scarlet Scuttlebutt.


VISTAPRINT LTD: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Membership Discounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
VistaPrint, Ltd., and its subsidiaries are facing several
purported class-actions lawsuits in various federal courts in
connection with certain membership discount programs, 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.

                        Texas Litigation

On July 29, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
against VistaPrint Corp., VistaPrint USA, Inc., Vertrue, Inc.
and Adaptive Marketing, LLC.

Adaptive Marketing, LLC is a Vertrue, Inc. company that provides
subscription-based membership discount programs, including
programs that are offered on the company's VistaPrint.com
website (Vertrue, Inc. and Adaptive Marketing, LLC are sometimes
collectively referred to herein as the Vertrue Defendants).

The Texas complaint alleges that the defendants violated, among
other statutes, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices-Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Theft Liability
Act, in connection with certain membership discount programs
offered to VistaPrint customers on the company's VistaPrint.com
website.  It also seeks recovery for unjust enrichment,
conversion, and similar common law claims.

                        Other Litigation

Subsequent to the filing of the Texas complaint, on July 31,
2008, Aug. 25, 2008, Sept. 3, 2008, Sept. 10, 2008 and Sept. 11,
2008, nearly identical purported class-action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the U.S.
District Court for the District of Florida, respectively,
against the same defendants, and in one case VistaPrint Ltd., on
behalf of different plaintiffs.

The complaints in each of these nearly identical lawsuits
include substantially the same purported Federal and common law
claims as the Texas complaint but contain different state law
claims.

                    Massachusetts Litigation

In addition, on Aug. 28, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit
asserting substantially the same Federal and common law claims
as the Texas complaint, but containing a state law claim under
the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, was filed by a
different plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, against VistaPrint Ltd., VistaPrint USA, Inc.
and the Vertrue Defendants.

Among other allegations, the plaintiffs in each action claim
that after ordering products on our VistaPrint.com website they
were enrolled in certain membership discount programs operated
by the Vertrue Defendants and that monthly subscription fees for
the programs were subsequently charged directly to the credit or
debit cards they used to make purchases on VistaPrint.com, in
each case purportedly without their knowledge or authorization.

The plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants failed to disclose
to them that the credit or debit card information they provided
to make purchases on VistaPrint.com would be disclosed to the
Vertrue Defendants and would be used to pay for monthly
subscriptions for the membership discount programs.

The plaintiffs have requested that the Defendants be enjoined
from engaging in the practices complained of by the plaintiffs.
They also are seeking an unspecified amount of damages,
including statutory and punitive damages, as well as pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs for the purported class.

                      Recent Developments

On Sept. 8, 2008, VistaPrint USA, Inc. filed an Answer to the
Texas Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, and on Sept. 9, 2008, VistaPrint USA,
Incorporated filed a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Subsequently, on or about September 16, 2008, the plaintiff in
one of the cases pending before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts filed a Motion before the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking the consolidation and
transfer of pretrial proceedings in all of the outstanding cases
to the Massachusetts District Court.

Following that, on or about Sept. 24, 2008 and Sept. 25, 2008,
the Vertrue Defendants and VistaPrint USA, Incorporated and
VistaPrint Limited, respectively, filed motions before the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all of
the outstanding cases, as well as any cases subsequently filed
involving similar facts or claims, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

All of the purported class action lawsuits in which the
Defendants have been served were subsequently stayed pending
resolution of the motions for consolidation and transfer pending
before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

VistaPrint, Ltd. -- http://www.vistaprint.co.uk-- is an online
provider of coordinated portfolios of customized marketing
products and services to small businesses worldwide.  The
company offers a spectrum of products and services ranging from
business cards, brochures and post cards to apparel, invitations
and announcements, holiday cards, calendars, creative design
services, copywriting services, direct mail services,
promotional gifts, signage and Website design, and hosting
services.  Its Internet-based order processing systems receive
and store individual orders on a daily basis and, organize these
orders for production and delivery to its customers.


XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy, Inc., continues to face a purported class-action
lawsuit filed in January 2006 before the District Court of Texas
County, Oklahoma by royalty owners of natural gas wells in
Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs in the suit, "Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc.,"
allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted to them the
royalties to which they are entitled.  They seek an accounting
regarding the natural gas and other products produced from their
wells and the prices paid for the natural gas and other products
produced, and for payment of the amount allegedly owed since
June 2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming
amounts owed for additional time.

A hearing on class certification has not been scheduled.  The
plaintiffs have not alleged, in their petition, an amount they
are seeking.

XTO Energy has informed the trustee -- Bank of America, N.A. --
that it believes that it has strong defenses to this lawsuit and
intends to vigorously defend its position.

However, if XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments
or receives a judgment against it, the trust -- Hugoton Royalty
Trust -- will bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment
related to production from the underlying properties.

Additionally, if a judgment or settlement increases the amount
of future payments to royalty owners, the trust would bear its
proportionate share of the increased payments through reduced
net proceeds.

XTO Energy further informed the trustee that, although the
amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently
determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is not
currently expected to be material to the trust's annual
distributable income, financial position or liquidity.

Hugoton Royalty Trust 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.

XTO Energy Inc. -- http://www.xtoenergy.com/-- and its
subsidiaries are engaged in the acquisition, development,
exploitation and exploration of producing oil and gas
properties, and in the production, processing, marketing and
transportation of oil and natural gas.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTEC INC: Cohen Milstein Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on behalf of its client and on behalf
of other similarly situated purchasers of AuthenTec, Inc.
("AuthenTec" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AUTH) common stock
during the period between April 28, 2008 and September 5, 2008,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges AuthenTec and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"). AuthenTec is a mixed-signal
semiconductor company that provides fingerprint authentication
sensors and solutions to the high-volume personal computer,
wireless device, and access control markets. The Company's
sensors enable users to access and control multiple functions on
an electronic device by touching or sliding a finger across the
sensor.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
Defendants issued numerous materially false and misleading
statements which caused AuthenTec's securities to trade at
artificially inflated prices. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants' public statements were false and
misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the following:

       -- that the Company's sales growth was slowing;

       -- that AuthenTec would not meet its previously-issued
          financial guidance;

       -- that AuthenTec was flooding its customers with excess
          inventory;

       -- as such, the Company's financial results were
          materially inflated;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
          and

       -- as a result, statements made by the Company's
          management during the Class Period regarding the
          Company's financial results and strong revenue growth
          lacked a reasonable basis.

     The complaint further alleges that Company insiders sold a
substantial amount of AuthenTec stock during the Class Period.

     According to the complaint, on September 7, 2008, AuthenTec
shocked investors when the Company issued a press release in
which it revised downward its previously-issued financial
guidance.  In the press release, AuthenTec told investors that
"the Company attributes the reduction in estimated revenue to an
overstocked inventory position at a new customer and the impact
of lower than expected sales of higher-end notebooks. . . "  It
is also alleged that during a conference call with analysts the
next day, the Company further revealed that, "as it turns out,
the effect of the downturn that has impacted many others in the
semiconductor industry seems to have been masked to us by the
fact that one of our newer customers overbought in the second
quarter and even into the beginning of this quarter.  This has
led to an overstocking position on their part and thus reduced
forecasts for the remainder of the year . . . we are still
working to fully understand the impact and the size of the
inventory build, but at this point we are assuming that it will
take at least a quarter for them to work through this
inventory."  The complaint alleges that on this news,
AuthenTec's shares declined $3.84 per share, or more than 60%,
to close on September 8, 2008 at $2.55 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

     If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
December 8, 2008, request that the Court appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff of the class.  Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of
their choice or may choose to remain an absent class member.

For more details, contact:

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

CADENCE DESIGN: Brodsky & Smith Announces Filing of Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Cadence Design Systems,
Inc.("Cadence" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CDNS) between April
23, 2008 andOctober 22, 2008 (the "Class Period").

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

     The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, therebyartificially inflating
the price of Cadence.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          E-mail: atclients@brodsky-smith.com


CADENCE DESIGN: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the securities of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. ("Cadence" or the
"Company"), between April 23, 2008 and October 22, 2008,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Cadence and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business, operations and
prospects, caused Cadence's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

     Cadence develops electronic design automation software and
hardware for electronics companies worldwide. Its products and
services are used to design and develop integrated circuits and
electronics systems.

     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. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that defendants' public statements were false and
misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the following:

       -- that the Company improperly recognized revenue;

       -- that as a result, the Company misstated its financial
          results during the Class Period;

       -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared
          in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls; and

       -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial
          statements were materially false and misleading at all
          relevant times.

     On October 15, 2008 Cadence's stock declined more than 15%
after the Company disclosed that Michael Fister had resigned as
President, Chief Executive Officer, and director of the company,
and that four other Cadence executives had also resigned.

     Thereafter, 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, as a result, Cadence
expects to restate its financial statements for the first
quarters 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.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


CADENCE DESIGN: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
     The law form of Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that
it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all purchasers of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. ("Cadence" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: CDNS) common stock during the period
between April 23, 2008 and October 22, 2008 (the"Class Period").

     The complaint charges Cadence and certain of its current
and former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. During the Class Period, the Complaint alleges that
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 over the duration of the customer
contracts.

     If you are a purchaser of Cadence common stock during the
Class Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court to
be appointed a "lead plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.  Any such request must satisfy
certain criteria and be made on or before December 29, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (ormdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


GENERAL GROWTH: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP announces that a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of those who purchased the common stock of General Growth
Properties, Inc. ("General Growth" or the "Company") between
April 30, 2008 and October 26, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that General Growth and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, defendants represented that General Growth
had the ability to refinance billions of dollars in debt that
was coming due in the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009 on
acceptable terms.  In fact, General Growth did not have access
to such financing.

     Further, defendants failed to disclose that the Company's
President and its Chief Financial Officer had received loans
from the Chief Executive Officer's family trust in violation of
the Company's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.

     On September 22, 2008, General Growth announced that it was
pursuing a comprehensive evaluation of its financial and
strategic alternatives.  On October 3, 2008, the Company
suspended its dividend and then, on October 27, 2008, announced
it was marketing for sale its portfolio of retail properties in
Las Vegas.  On this news, General Growth's stock fell from
$21.42 on September 19, 2008 to less than $2.00 per share on
October 27, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com


GROWTH PROPERTIES: Stull Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of
General Growth Properties, Inc. ("General Growth") (NYSE:GGP)
common stock during the period between April 30, 2008 and
October 26, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges General Growth and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  General Growth is a self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements about General
Growth's access to financing. Specifically, defendants
represented that General Growth had the ability to refinance
billions of dollars in debt that was coming due in the fall of
2008 and spring of 2009 on acceptable terms.  In fact, General
Growth did not have access to such financing.  Further,
defendants failed to disclose that the Company's President/Chief
Operating Officer and its Chief Financial Officer had received
loans from the Chief Executive Officer's family trust in
violation of the Company's own Code of Business Conduct and
Ethics.

     On September 22, 2008, the Company announced that it was
pursuing a comprehensive evaluation of its financial and
strategic alternatives.  On October 3, 2008, the Company
suspended its dividend and then, on October 27, 2008, announced
it was marketing for sale its portfolio of retail properties in
Las Vegas.

     On this series of disclosures, General Growth's stock price
collapsed, falling from $21.42 on September 19, 2008 to less
than $2.00 per share on October 27, 2008, or nearly 95% from its
Class Period high of $43.83 per share.

For more details, contact:

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


NOAH EDUCATION: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain
investors of Noah Education Holdings, Ltd. ("Noah Education" or
the "Company") who purchased its American Depositary Shares in
or traceable to the Company's initial public offering between
October 19, 2007 (the "IPO") and November 19, 2007 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Noah Education and the lead underwriters
for the IPO with violations of the federal securities laws.  The
complaint alleges certain statements made by the Company in
connection with the IPO were false and misleading and failed to
disclose to the market certain material facts about the
Company's business operations and financial performance.

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
("Pilgrim's Pride" or the "Company") between May 5, 2008 and
September 24, 2008 (the "Class Period").

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

     The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Pilgrim's Pride.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          E-mail: atclients@brodsky-smith.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, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, 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  * * *