CAR_Public/081112.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 12, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 225

                            Headlines

AIG MARKETING: Law Firm Drops Suit Over Payouts in Medical Bills
AVAYA INC: Second Circuit Rejects Appeal in "Bonime" Litigation
AVON PRODUCTS: Calif. Court Nixes Suit Over Unordered Products
AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit
AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Lawsuit Dismissal Bid

AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of New York ERISA Violations Suit
ELECTRONICS ARTS: Faces Lawsuits in Pa., Mo. Over SecuROM DRM
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Jury Awards $28.1M in Retired Players' Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Keller Rohrback Announces ERISA Investigation
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in ERISA Litigation Remain Pending

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Bouder" Overtime Lawsuit Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Overtime Suit Transferred to N.J.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: CHS Electronics' Suit Settled in June 2008
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Brokers' Suit Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling on Motions in "Saunders" Pending

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Briefing Schedule on Appeals Not Yet Set
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Nov. Trial Set for Ex-Shareholders' Lawsuit
U.S. STEELMAKERS: Seventh Antitrust Litigation Filed in Illinois
VISTEON CORP: Dismissal of Mich. Securities Fraud Suit Affirmed


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DAKTRONICS INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
DAKTRONICS INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
DAKTRONICS INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
GENERAL GROWTH: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing
NOAH EDUCATION: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing
SADIA S.A.: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


AIG MARKETING: Law Firm Drops Suit Over Payouts in Medical Bills
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lakin Law Firm dropped a purported class-action suit against
AIG Marketing, Inc. and Illinois National Insurance Co., after
U.S. taxpayers bought the company, Steve Korris of The St. Clair
Record reports.

Specifically, one of the law firm's clients Thomas Springman
withdrew a motion to certify a class action against a unit of
American International Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois on Sept. 26, 2008,
according to The St. Clair Record report.

According to Jonathan Piper of the Lakin firm, "The parties have
now reached a settlement in principle on an individual basis,
subject to documentation."

Earlier this year, the St. Clair Record reports that Treasury
Secretary Henry Paulson had announced that AIG would collapse if
American taxpayers didn't prop it up.  He arranged for taxpayers
to purchase 79.9 percent ownership of AIG.

Originally, Mr. Springman sued AIG Claims Services and Illinois
National Insurance in Madison County circuit court in 2003.  He
alleged that AIG Claims Services, processing a car crash for
Illinois National, improperly reduced payouts on his medical
bills.

Attorneys for AIG Claims Services responded that Mr. Springman
sued the wrong outfit.  They reported that AIG Marketing handled
his claim.

In 2007, the Lakin law firm amended Mr. Springman's complaint
and sued AIG Marketing.  AIG Marketing removed the suit to
federal court on Oct. 19, 2007, arguing that a switch of
defendants created a new action under the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005, an act that restricts new class actions to federal
courts.

Upon its transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, the suit was entitled, "Springman v. AIG
Marketing, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00737-GPM-DGW."

The Lakins moved for remand, however, Judge Patrick Murphy
denied it.  On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed Judge Murphy's decision to keep the case.  The
case returned to Murphy on May 8, 2008.

On May 30, 2008, Jonathan Piper of the Lakin firm moved to
certify a double class-action.

One class would pursue a breach of contract claim against
Illinois National.  The class would include all persons that
Illinois National insured, or their medical providers, whose
payments were reduced by certain software since 1997.

The other class would pursue a consumer fraud claim against AIG
Marketing.  The class would include all persons that AIG insured
whose payments were reduced through the same software since
2000.

AIG Marketing opposed class certification Aug. 6, 2008, and
moved for summary judgment, according to The St. Clair Record
report.


AVAYA INC: Second Circuit Rejects Appeal in "Bonime" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has rejected an
appeal in the matter, "Bonime v. Avaya Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01630-CBA-CLP," Mark Hamblett of The New York Law Journal
reports.

The complaint was originally filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on April 7, 2006, alleging
violations of the the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  It was
brought on behalf of plaintiff Harold Bonime by attorney Todd C.
Bank, Esq.

The plaintiff claims that telecommunications equipment company
Avaya had its business partners send faxes to the purported
class members, a violation of the consumer protection act that
exposed Avaya to a claim for actual monetary damages or $500,
whichever is greater, according to The New York Law Journal
report.

Judge Carol Amon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York dismissed the case in late 2006.  That
decision was later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, where Judges Guido Calabresi, Barrington D.
Parker and, sitting by designation, Judge Stefan Underhill of
the District of Connecticut, heard the appeal.

Writing for the court, Judge Parker said the lawsuit sits "at
the intersection of two procedurally unusual laws -- the TCPA,
which creates a federal claim designed to be brought in state
court," and the Class Action Fairness Act, "which gives federal
courts original jurisdiction over certain class actions brought
under state law."

The New York Law Journal reports that while over 40 states have
laws against invasive telemarketing solicitations, the states do
not have jurisdiction over interstate calls, so Congress filled
the gap by passing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which
created a private right of action allowing a plaintiff, "if
otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of the court of a
State," to bring an action in an appropriate court of that
state.

In "Gottlieb v. Carnival Corp., 436 F.3d 335 (2d Cir. 2006),"
The New York Law Journal reports that the circuit interpreted
Section 227(b)(3) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as
intending to "confer exclusive state court jurisdiction over
private rights of action under the TCPA."

But, the court in "Gottlieb" also answered another question,
ruling "Congress did not divest the federal courts of diversity
jurisdiction over private actions under the TCPA" since "nothing
in Section 1332(a) indicates that diversity jurisdiction does
not exist where federally-created causes of action are
concerned."

That did not solve the question in this case, however, since Mr.
Bank, and his would-be class of plaintiffs tried to ground
jurisdiction in the Class Action Fairness Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2)(A), which confers original federal jurisdiction over
any class action where at least one plaintiff and one defendant
are from different states and the amount in controversy is over
$5 million, according to The New York Law Journal report.

Another factor in the analysis is that New York courts have held
that state CPLR 901(b) bars class actions under New York law
unless the relevant statute specifically authorizes class
actions.

The decision to "bring a putative class action in federal court
under Section 1332(d)(2)(A) is undoubtedly motivated by his
desire to avoid the barrier erected by C.P.L.R. 901(b)," Judge
Parker said.  "This tactic, while inventive, fails."

The New York Law Journal reports that Mr. Bank had argued that
the Erie Doctrine, "Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64
(1938)," which holds that state substantive law applies to state
law claims in federal court, does not apply in this case because
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is a federal law.  He also
argued that because the CPLR was procedural and not substantive,
it does not apply to Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases in
federal court.

But, Judge Parker said that Mr. Bank's argument was "beside the
point" because "Congress directed that the consumer protection
law be applied as if it were a state law."

Applying the Erie Doctrine, Judge Parker said, "leads to the
conclusion that the federal courts must apply C.P.L.R. 901(b)
when faced with putative New York class actions brought under
the TCPA even when a plaintiff has invoked federal diversity
jurisdiction," according to The New York Law Journal.

In the end, the Second Circuit rejected the appeal.

The suit is "Bonime v. Avaya Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-01630-CBA-
CLP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, Judge Carol B. Amon, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Todd C. Bank, Esq. (TBLaw101@aol.com)
          Law Office of Todd C. Bank
          119-40 Union Turnpike
          Fourth Floor
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: 718-520-7125

Representing the defendant is:

          Glenn Charles Colton, Esq. (gcolton@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          40th Floor
          New York, NY 10019-6033
          Phone: 212-497-7759
          Fax: 212-999-5899


AVON PRODUCTS: Calif. Court Nixes Suit Over Unordered Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles
County dismissed with prejudice the purported class-action
lawsuit, "Blakemore, et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al.,"
according to its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Commenced in March 2003, the purported class-action lawsuit was
filed on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. sales representatives
who, "since March 24, 1999, received products from Avon they did
not order, thereafter returned the unordered products to Avon,
and did not receive credit for those returned products."

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, restitution and injunctive relief for alleged unjust
enrichment and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code.

The company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three
subsequent amended complaints, asserting that they failed to
state a cause of action.  The Superior Court sustained these
demurrers and dismissed the plaintiffs' causes of action except
for the unjust enrichment claim asserted by one plaintiff.  The
court also struck the plaintiffs' class allegations.

The plaintiffs sought review of these decisions by the Court of
Appeal of the State of California and, in May 2005, the Court of
Appeal reinstated the dismissed causes of action and the class
allegations.

In January 2006, the company filed a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' asserted nationwide class.  In February 2006, the
trial court declined to grant the motion, but instead certified
the issue to the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory basis.

In April 2006, the Court of Appeal denied the company's motion
and instructed the trial court to consider the issue at a
subsequent point in the proceedings.

In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification on behalf of "all Avon Sales Representatives who,
since March 24, 1999, and while residing in California, received
products from Avon they did not order, returned the unordered
products to Avon, paid for the unordered products, and/or paid
shipping costs for their return and did not receive
reimbursement therefore by Avon or Avon initially made
reimbursement therefore by means of a credit and later reversed
the credit."

In June 2008, Avon filed its opposition to the motion for class
certification.

On Sept. 5, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' Request for
Dismissal with prejudice.  The case is officially closed.

The suit is "Blakemore et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., B174825,
B175973," filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County under Judge Wendell Mortimer.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jeffrey Huron, Esq.
         Huron Law Group
         1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-284-3400
         Fax: 310-772-0037
         Web site: http://www.huronlaw.com/


AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class-action lawsuit, captioned
"Kendall v. Employees' Retirement Plan of Avon Products and the
Retirement Board," are appealing the dismissal of the case to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The suit was filed by a retired employee of Avon Products, Inc.
who, before retirement, had been on paid disability leave for
approximately 19 years.  It was commenced in April 2003 before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The initial complaint alleged that the Employees' Retirement
Plan of Avon Products violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and, as a consequence, unlawfully reduced the
amount of the plaintiff's pension.

The plaintiff sought a reformation of the Retirement Plan and
recalculation of benefits under the terms of the Retirement
Plan, as reformed for the plaintiff and for the purported class.

In November 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging additional ERISA violations and seeking, among other
things, elimination of a social security offset in the
Retirement Plan.

The purported class includes "all Plan participants, whether
active, inactive or retired, and their beneficiaries and/or
Estates, with one hour of service on or after Jan. 1, 1976,
whose accrued benefits, pensions or survivor's benefits have
been or will be calculated and paid based on the Plan's unlawful
provisions."

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

In September 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion
to dismiss and the plaintiff thereafter filed a notice of appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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

Avon Products, Inc. -- http://www.avoncompany.com/-- is a
global manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products.
Its products fall into three product categories: Beauty, which
consists of cosmetics, fragrances, skin care and toiletries
(CFT); Beauty Plus, which consists of fashion jewelry, watches,
apparel and accessories, and Beyond Beauty, which consists of
home products and gift and decorative products.


AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Lawsuit Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
against Avon Products, Inc., filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, are opposing a
motion by the company to dismiss the suit.

In August 2005, the company reported the filing of two class
action complaints for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws.  These actions are:

     1. "Nilesh Patel v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.," and

     2. "Michael Cascio v. Avon Products, Inc. et al."

The two actions were subsequently consolidated before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Master
File Number 05-CV-06803) under the caption "In re Avon Products,
Inc. Securities Litigation."

A consolidated amended class action complaint for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in December
2005, naming Avon, an officer and two officer/directors as
defendants.

The consolidated action, brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 3, 2004, and Sept. 20, 2005,
seeks damages for alleged false and misleading statements
"concerning Avon's operations and performance in China, the U.S.
. . . and Mexico."  It also asserts that during the class
period, certain officers and directors sold shares of the
company's common stock.

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint, asserting, among
other things, that it failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.  The plaintiffs have opposed that motion.

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

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-06803-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian Philip Murray, Esq. (bmurray@murrayfrank.com)
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892

              - and -

         Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com)
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 212-964-0046

Representing the defendants is:

         Peter C. Hein, Esq. (PCHein@wlrk.com)
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: 212-403-2000


AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of New York ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc., is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against the company and
certain other defendants before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court of New York over alleged violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In October 2005, the company reported the filing of two class
action complaints for alleged ERISA violations:

      1. "John Rogati v. Andrea Jung, et al.;" and

      2. "Carolyn Jane Perry v. Andrea Jung, et al."

These cases were subsequently consolidated under the caption,
"In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File Number
05-CV-06803," and a consolidated complaint for alleged ERISA
violations was filed in December 2005 before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the company,
certain officers, its Retirement Board and others as defendants.

The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
Avon Products Inc. Personal Savings Account Plan and the Avon
Products Inc. Personal Retirement Account Plan and on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan "for whose individual
accounts the Plan purchased or held an interest in Avon
Products, Inc. . . . common stock from Feb. 20, 2004, to the
present."

The consolidated complaint asserts breaches of fiduciary duties
and prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA arising out
of, inter alia, alleged false and misleading public statements
regarding the company's business made during the class period
and investments in company stock by the Plan and Plan
participants.

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, asserting that it failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.  The plaintiffs have
opposed that motion.

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

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master
File Number 05-CV-06803," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com)
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 212-964-0046

              - and -

         Brian Philip Murray, Esq. (bmurray@murrayfrank.com)
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892

Representing the defendants are:

         Peter C. Hein Wachtell, Esq. (PCHein@wlrk.com)
         Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: 212-403-2000

              - and -

         Melissa C. Rodriguez, Esq.
         (mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         101 Park Avenue, 37th Floor
         New York, NY 10178
         Phone: 212-309-6394
         Fax: 212-309-6273


ELECTRONICS ARTS: Faces Lawsuits in Pa., Mo. Over SecuROM DRM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. is facing two purported class-action suits
over its controversial SecuROM digital rights management (DRM)
software used on the publisher's P.C. titles, Adam Hartley of
TechRadar.com reports.

                     Pennsylvania Litigation

One case filed in Pennsylvania, makes an issue over DRM software
installed in EA's  critically-lauded and massively popular game,
Spore.

Richard Eldridge claims that EA's Spore Creature Creator Free
Trial Edition secretly installed SecuROM on his PC, which he
claims is "deceptive and unlawful."

TechRadar.com reports that the lawsuit reads, "The inclusion of
undisclosed, secretly installed DRM protection measures with a
program that was freely distributed constitutes a major
violation of computer owners' absolute right to control what
does and what does not get loaded onto their computers, and how
their computers shall be used...

It goes on to state, "[SecuROM] cannot be completely
uninstalled. Once installed it becomes a permanent part of the
consumer's software portfolio..."

                       Missouri Litigation

In another, separate case, Dianna Cortez from Missouri, has made
a similar claims against EA over the use of SecuROM on The Sims
2: Bon Voyage, which, the claimant argues caused immediate
problems with her PC, according to TechRadar.com.

Ms. Cortez was only able to remove SecuROM from her machine by
reformatting her PC and she is arguing that EA is guilty of
engaging in "unfair business practices" and conduct that is
"immoral, unethical, oppressive [and] unscrupulous..."


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Jury Awards $28.1M in Retired Players' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 10, 2008 -- More than 2,000 retired
professional football players scored a major legal victory in a
San Francisco federal courtroom today when jurors awarded a
$28.1 million verdict against the National Football League
Players Association and its licensing and marketing division.

     The verdict reached before the Hon. William H. Alsup in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
requires the NFLPA union and its subsidiary, Players Inc., to
compensate thousands of retired players.  Jurors found that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to market
retired players' licensing rights under a group licensing
authorization contract covering the licensing of electronic
games, collectibles and other merchandise.  The verdict included
$21 million in punitive damages.

     The jury of eight women and two men reached their decision
following nearly three weeks of trial.  The original claim was
filed nearly two years ago with professional football legend
Herb Adderley as the class representative.

     Mr. Adderley and the victorious former NFL players were
represented by attorneys from the national law firms of McKool
Smith, P.C., and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. The McKool
Smith team included firm principal Lew LeClair, senior counsel
Jill Naylor and associates Brett Charhon and Anthony Garza. The
Manatt, Phelps group included firm partners Ronald S. Katz, Chad
S. Hummel and L. Peter Parcher, in addition to associates Ryan
S. Hilbert and Noel S. Cohen.

     "This verdict is a great victory for the men who devoted
their lives to building professional football," says Mr. LeClair
of McKool Smith, attorney for the retired players.  "We are
thankful the jury decided to right this wrong."

     During trial, several former NFL stars testified about the
benefits promised by the union that were never received, and the
difficulties in gaining information about the NFLPA's finances
and licensing agreements.

     The suit is "Parrish et al v. National Football League
Players Incorporated, Case No. 3:2007cv00943," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

For more details, contact:

          Lewis T. LeClair, Esq. (lleclair@mckoolsmith.com)
          McKool Smith
          300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
          Dallas TX 75201
          Phone: 214.978.4984
          Fax: 214.978.4044
          Web site: http://www.mckoolsmith.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Keller Rohrback Announces ERISA Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P. today
announced that it is investigating Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
("Pilgrim's Pride" or the "Company") for potential violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA").

The investigation focuses on investments in Company stock in the
Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan").

     Keller Rohrback's investigation involves concerns that
Pilgrim's Pride and other administrators of the Plan may have
breached their ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties of loyalty and
prudence to participants and beneficiaries of the Plan.  A
breach may have occurred if the fiduciaries failed to manage the
assets of the Plan prudently and loyally by investing the assets
in Company stock when it was no longer a prudent investment for
participants' retirement savings.

For more details, contact:

          Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          Phone: (800) 776-6044
          e-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com
          Web site: http://www.erisafraud.com


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in ERISA Litigation Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissed claims against Prudential Financial,
Inc. in the matter tagged, "In re Employee Benefit Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," are pending in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Purported class-action lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs
have been consolidated in the multidistrict litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In August and September 2007, the court dismissed the anti-trust
and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims.

In January 2008, the court dismissed the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act claims with prejudice.

In February 2008, the court dismissed the state law claims
without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s Oct.
30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial
services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe
and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it
offers an array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, investment management, real
estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint
venture, retail securities brokerage services.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Bouder" Overtime Lawsuit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit, entitled, "Bouder v. Prudential
Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America,
Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359" is pending, according to the company's
Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit, filed in October 2006, is claiming that the company
failed to pay overtime to insurance agents who were registered
representatives in violation of federal and state law, and that
improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in
violation of state law.

In March 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a nationwide class, according to the
company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2008.

The suit is "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential
Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge
Dennis M. Cavanaugh, presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15,
2008)

Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial
services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe
and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it
offers an array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, investment management, real
estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint
venture, retail securities brokerage services.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Overtime Suit Transferred to N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit against Prudential Financial,
Inc., and Prudential Insurance Co. in California in connection
with overtime pay and benefits was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey in September 2008.

In March 2008, a purported nationwide class-action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The suit, captioned "Wang v. Prudential Financial,
Inc. and Prudential Insurance, Case No. 3:08-cv-00526-LAB-NLS,"
was filed on behalf of agents who sold the company's financial
products.

The complaint alleges claims that the company failed to pay
overtime and provide other benefits in violation of state and
federal law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts.

The suit is "Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential
Insurance, Case No. 3:08-cv-00526-LAB-NLS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge
Larry Alan Burns, presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15,
2008)

According to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, in September 2008, the Wang litigation was
consolidated with the suit, entitled, "Bouder v. Prudential
Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America,
Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359."

Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial
services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe
and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it
offers an array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, investment management, real
estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint
venture, retail securities brokerage services.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: CHS Electronics' Suit Settled in June 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action, captioned, "CHS Electronics Inc. v.
Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. et al.," which names Prudential
Securities, Inc. as a defendant, was settled in June 2008.

In August 2000, Prudential Securities was named as a defendant,
along with other underwriters, in a purported class action,
captioned, "CHS Electronics Inc. v. Credit Suisse First Boston
Corp. et al.," which alleges on behalf of issuers of securities
in initial public offerings that the defendants conspired to fix
at 7% the discount that underwriting syndicates receive from
issuers in violation of federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification in September 2004,
and for partial summary judgment in November 2005.  The summary
judgment motion has been deferred pending disposition of the
class certification motion.

In April 2006, the district court denied class certification.

In September 2007, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the district court's decision denying class certification and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

In a related action, captioned, "Gillet v. Goldman Sachs et
al.," the plaintiffs allege substantially the same antitrust
claims on behalf of investors, though only injunctive relief is
currently being sought.

In June 2008, the CHS Electronics and Gillet matters were
settled by all defendants, according to Prudential Financial,
Inc.'s Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial
services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe
and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it
offers an array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, investment management, real
estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint
venture, retail securities brokerage services.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Brokers' Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc., continues to face a multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California that accuses the company of improperly classifying
stockbrokers as exempt employees under state and federal wage
and hour laws.

The suits -- recently consolidated in California for coordinated
trial proceedings -- also name as defendants Prudential
Securities, Inc. and Prudential Equity Group LLC.

Two of the complaints -- "Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC,
and Prudential Securities Incorporated," and "Goldstein v.
Prudential Financial, Inc." -- were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Goldstein complaint purports to have been filed on behalf of
a nationwide class. The Janowsky complaint alleges a class of
New York brokers.

Three complaints were filed in the California Superior Court and
purport to have been brought on behalf of classes of California
brokers.  These suits are captioned:

       1. "Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential
          Securities Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC;"

       2. "DiLustro v. Prudential Securities Incorporated,
          Prudential Equity Group, Inc. and Wachovia
          Securities;" and

       3. "Carayanis v. Prudential Equity Group LLC and
          Prudential Securities Inc."

The Carayanis complaint was subsequently withdrawn without
prejudice in May 2006.

In June 2006, a purported New York state class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, captioned "Panesenko v. Wachovia Securities, et al."

The Panesenko complaint is alleging that the company failed to
pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal
law and that improper deductions were made from the
stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law.

In September 2006, Prudential Securities was sued in "Badain v.
Wachovia Securities, et al.," a purported nationwide class-
action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York.

The complaint alleges that Prudential Securities failed to pay
overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law
and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers'
wages in violation of state law.

In December 2006, all cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California by the
Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings.

The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages,
recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

No further developments in the consolidated matter were
disclosed in the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial
services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe
and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it
offers an array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, investment management, real
estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint
venture, retail securities brokerage services.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling on Motions in "Saunders" Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to
rule on motions filed by both parties in a purported class-
action suit "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund,
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00560-JFM," according to Prudential
Financial, Inc.'s Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The suit was one of several consolidated under the multi-
district proceeding entitled, "In re: Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation, MDL-1586, Master Docket Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md-
15862, 04-md-15863, and 04-md-15864."

In July 2006, in "Saunders," the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland had granted the plaintiffs leave to refile
their federal securities law claims against and Prudential
Securities, Inc.

In August 2006, the second amended complaint was filed alleging
federal securities law claims on behalf of a purported
nationwide class of mutual fund investors seeking compensatory
and punitive damages in unspecified amounts.

In July 2008, the company moved for summary judgment and the
plaintiffs moved for class certification in "Saunders,"
according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund,
et al.,, Case No. 1:04-cv-00560-JFM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland, Judge J. Frederick Motz,
presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial
services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe
and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it
offers an array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, investment management, real
estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint
venture, retail securities brokerage services.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Briefing Schedule on Appeals Not Yet Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has
yet to notify the briefing schedule on the appeals to the
settlement of a putative class-action lawsuit against Blue Cross
and Blue Shield plans in the United States, including Triple-S,
Inc., Triple-S Management Corp.'s managed care subsidiary.

On May 22, 2003, a putative class action suit was filed by
Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D. and Michael Kutell, M.D., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated and the Connecticut
State Medical Society against the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association (BCBSA) and substantially all of the other Blue
Cross and Blue Shield plans in the United States, including TSI.

The class-action complaint alleges that the defendants, on their
own and as part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay
and diminish the payments due to doctors so that they are not
paid in a timely manner for the covered medically necessary
services they render.

TSI, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss the
complaint on multiple grounds, including but not limited an
arbitration right and the applicability of the McCarran Ferguson
Act.

The parties were ordered to engage in mediation by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and 24
plans, including TSI, actively participated in the mediation
efforts.  The mediation resulted in the creation of a Settlement
Agreement that was filed with the Court on April 27, 2007.

On April 19, 2008, the Court issued the final order approving
the settlement.  However, certain physicians who were unable to
either prevent the final approval of the settlement or modify
the terms of the agreement, appealed before the Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.  The appeals were lodged from late
July to early August 2008.  The clerk has yet to notify the
briefing schedule, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Triple-S Management Corp. operates in the insurance industry in
Puerto Rico.  The Company is based in San Juan, P.R.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Nov. Trial Set for Ex-Shareholders' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An argumentative hearing will be held during November 2008, in a
lawsuit brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of
heirs of the Triple-S, Inc.'s former shareholders.

TSI is Triple-S Management Corp.'s managed care subsidiary.

On Oct. 23, 2007, Ivonne Houellemont, Ivonne M. Lens and Antonio
A. Lens, heirs of Dr. Antonio Lens-Aresti, a former shareholder
of TSI, filed a suit against TSI in the Court of First Instance
for San Juan, Superior Section.

The plaintiffs are seeking the return of 16 shares (prior to
giving effect to the 3,000-for-one stock split) that were
redeemed in 1996, a year after the death of Dr. Lens-Aresti, or
compensation in the amount of US$40,000 per share which they
allege is a share's present value, alleging that they were
fraudulently induced to submit the shares for redemption in
1996.

At the time of Dr. Lens-Aresti's death, the bylaws of TSI would
not have permitted the plaintiffs to inherit Dr. Lens-Aresti's
shares, as those bylaws provided that in the event of a
shareholder's death, shares could be redeemed at the price
originally paid for them or could be transferred only to an heir
who was either a doctor or dentist.

The plaintiffs' complaint also states that they purport to
represent as a class all heirs of the TSI' former shareholders
whose shares were redeemed upon such shareholders' deaths.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
claims as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
company's motion to dismiss, alleging that the two year statute
of limitations is not applicable to the redemption of the stock
by Triple-S that took place in 1996.

On March 3, 2008, the company filed a reply to plaintiffs'
opposition to the motion to dismiss.  In its reply, the company
renews its motion to dismiss and further argued that plaintiffs'
argument is wrong because the statute of limitations has
expired, pursuant to tunder term provided under the Uniform
Security Act of Puerto Rico for cases of this nature.

In the November 2008 hearing, the court will listen to both
sides before resolving the motion to dismiss.

The company's management believes that the statute of
limitations has expired and expects to prevail in this
litigation, according to its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Triple-S Management Corp. operates in the insurance industry in
Puerto Rico. The Company is based in San Juan, P.R.


U.S. STEELMAKERS: Seventh Antitrust Litigation Filed in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
A seventh class-action lawsuit was filed on Oct. 29, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
seeking damages from 8 U.S. steelmakers under antitrust laws,
SteelGuru reports.

The case was submitted by attorneys for Pennsylvania-based Alco
Industries, described on its web site as an employee owned
corporation, which consists of eight diversified manufacturing
companies located in the U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Alco's companies manufacture foundry equipment, commercial tanks
and pressure vessels, bearing housings, tools and dies,
electrical insulation materials and more.

The defendants named in Alco's filing are:

       -- ArcelorMittal USA,
       -- U.S. Steel,
       -- Nucor,
       -- Gerdau Ameristeel,
       -- Steel Dynamics,
       -- AK Steel Holding,
       -- SSAB Swedish Steel, and
       -- Commercial Metals.

In general, the suit alleges that the defendants conspired to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel
products were sold in the U.S. during the class period present.

The suit is "Alco Industries, Inc. v. Arcelormittal et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-06197," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Amy J. St. Eve, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael Jerry Freed, Esq. (mfreed@fklmlaw.com)
          Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road
          Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Phone: (224) 632-4500

Representing the defendants are:

          Jonathan Stuart Quinn, Esq. (jquinn@reedsmith.com)
          Reed Smith LLP
          10 South Wacker Drive
          40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 207-6443
          Fax: (312) 207-6400

               - and -

          Andrew Stanley Marovitz, Esq.
          Mayer Brown LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 782-0600
          e-mail: courtnotification@mayerbrown.com


VISTEON CORP: Dismissal of Mich. Securities Fraud Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a securities fraud suit filed against Visteon
Corp., on Aug. 26, 2008, was affirmed on appeal by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In February 2005, a shareholder lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the
Company and certain current and former officers of the Company.

In July 2005, the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi was appointed as lead plaintiff in this matter.

In September 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which alleges, among other things, that the Company
and its independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, made misleading statements of
material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in
order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period between
June 28, 2000 and Jan. 31, 2005.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim was granted.

Visteon Corp. supplies automotive systems, modules and
components to international vehicle manufacturers and the
automotive aftermarket.  It has four business segments: Climate,
Electronics, Interiors and Other. The Company is headquartered
in Van Buren Township, Mich.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DAKTRONICS INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of South Dakota on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Daktronics, Inc. ("Daktronics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DAKT)
during the period between November 15, 2006 and April 5, 2007,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges Daktronics and certain of its
officers and directors with violations under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for making positive projections of is future
prospects because, during the Class Period, they failed to
disclose difficulty the Company was having with its digital
billboard and sports markets business, that several large orders
had been delayed and that operating expenses were not under
control.

     As a result of the Company revising its fiscal fourth
quarter estimates and projections for growth in 2008 on April 5,
2007, the value of Daktronic's common stock declined.

For more details, contact:

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


DAKTRONICS INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     OKLAHOMA CITY, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Federman & Sherwood
announces that on November 7, 2008, a class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
South Dakota against Daktronics Inc.

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from November 15, 2006 through April 5, 2007.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more details, contact:

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


DAKTRONICS INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, Nov. 10, 2008 -- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP,
which has significant experience representing investors in
prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of South Dakota on behalf of
those who purchased the common stock of Daktronics, Inc.
("Daktronics" or the "Company") between November 15, 2006 and
April 5, 2007 (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Daktronics and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following:

       -- that the Company was experiencing softness in its
          digital billboard and sports markets and was not
          performing according to internal expectations;

       -- that several of the Company's large orders were being
          delayed;

       -- that Daktronics was unable to control its operating
          expenses; and

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

     According to the complaint, on April 5, 2007, after the
markets closed, Daktronics issued a press release revising its
fiscal fourth quarter 2007 estimates and giving its initial
order growth guidance for fiscal year 2008.  On this news, the
price of Daktronics common stock fell $5.78 per share, or
approximately 20%, to close at $22.13 per share.

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


GENERAL GROWTH: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     MINNEAPOLIS, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Charles H. Johnson &
Associates 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" or the "Company") publicly traded
securities during the period April 30, 2008 through October 26,
2008 (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint alleges that 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:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN  55112
          Phone: (651) 633-5685


NOAH EDUCATION: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman,
LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of those who purchased American Depository Shares
("ADSs") of Noah Education Holdings, Ltd. in or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on or about October
19, 2007 to November 19, 2007 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges Noah Education and certain of its
officers, directors with violation of the Securities Act of
1933.

     On or about September 24, 2007, Noah Education filed form
F-1 Registration Statement with the SEC for the IPO.  On or
about October 19, 2007 Noah Education conducted its IPO.  The
IPO was a financial success for the Company, as it raised over
$137 million by selling 9.85 million of the Company's ADSs to
investors at a share price of $14.00.

     Then on November 19, 2007, Noah Education disclosed that
that its gross profit margins had dramatically declined from
59.4% in the same period the prior year to 50.2% in the current
quarter, due largely to "an increase in the purchasing of
certain raw materials components... during July and August."  In
response to this news, the price of Noah Education ADSs dropped
from $12.46 per ADSs to $6.72 on extremely heavy trading volume.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          Phone: 212-697-6484
          e-mail: eitan@bgandg.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     MINNEAPOLIS, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Charles H. Johnson &
Associates announces that a class action has been commenced in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
("Pilgrim's Pride" or the "Company") publicly traded securities
during the period May 5, 2008 through September 24, 2008 (the
"Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       -- 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

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

For more details, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN  55112
          Phone: (651) 633-5685


SADIA S.A.: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all purchasers of American Depository Receipts
(ADRs) and/or common stock of Sadia S.A. ("Sadia")(NYSE: SDA)
between May 1, 2008 and September 26, 2008, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Sadia's business, operations and financial
condition, thereby artificially inflating the price of Sadia
securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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



               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, 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  * * *