CAR_Public/081118.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 229

                            Headlines

AMAERICAN MEDICAL: Law Firm Wins $12M Insurance Suit Settlement
APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Hairline Cracks in iPhone 3G casings
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Fla. Court Dismisses Litigation Over Seroquel
AUTHENTEC INC: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Fla. Federal Court
CIGNA CORP: Briefing for "Amara" Appeals to End in December

CIGNA CORP: Faces N.J. Lawsuits Over Use of Ingenix, Inc.'s Data
CIGNA CORP: Renewed Motion to Dismiss Manage Care Case Pending
DOMINION RESOURCES: Jan. 21, 2009 Final Fairness Hearing Set
FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Attempt at Reviving Flaky Paint Lawsuit
HEALTHWAYS INC: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Complaint

HEALTHWAYS INC: Seeks Dismissal of Tenn. ERISA Violations Suit
KANSAS CITY: Continues to Face Policyholders' Litigation
MOTOROLA INC: Settlement in Iridium-Related Suit Gets Approval
MOTOROLA INC: "Silverman" Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill.
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Determination on Appeal to Injunction Pending

PORTLAND GENERAL: Briefing on Bid to Lift Stay to End on Nov. 25
QWEST CORP: Final Court Approval of QCII's Settlements Pending
QWEST CORP: Nov. 17 Hearing Set for Settlement of Suits v. QCII
QWEST CORP: QCII Defending Remaining Claims in Colorado Lawsuit
WACHOVIA CORP: To Defend Securities Brokerage Unit in Wage Suits

WACHOVIA CORP: Consolidated Action on Interchange Fees Ongoing

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ANADIGICS INC: Prower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit
DAKTRONICS INC: Glancy Binkow Files S.D. Securities Fraud Suit
DAKTRONICS INC: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
INTERNAP NETWORK: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Glancy Binkow Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********



AMAERICAN MEDICAL: Law Firm Wins $12M Insurance Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Barnes Law Group, LLC successfully represented a class
of Georgia consumers in a class action lawsuit who purchased
group health insurance from American Medical Security and United
Wisconsin.

     The firm achieved a substantial settlement from the class-
action suit which was approved by the court in September 2008.
Under the terms of the class action settlement of "Parker v.
American Medical Security," class action members will receive a
combined $12 Million in premium refunds and future credits.

     This class-action suit challenged the methodology used by
insurance companies to set renewal premiums, claiming this
method was unfair and discriminatory for Georgia small business
owners.

     "It took a while but we are very pleased with the results,"
said John Salter, a Barnes Law Group, LLC attorney who worked on
the class action suit continuously since it was filed in 2004.

     "Despite the size of the class, and the strong disapproval
people feel about health insurance generally, and this practice
in particular, there was not a single objection at the fairness
hearing, which we felt was a sign we did the right thing for the
class members."

For more details, contact:

          The Barnes Law Group, LLC
          Attorneys at Law
          31 Atlanta Street
          Marietta, Georgia 30060
          Phone: 770-227-6375
          Fax: 770-227-6373
          Web site: http://www.barneslawgroup.com/


APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Hairline Cracks in iPhone 3G casings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit over the
performance of its iPhone 3G on AT&T, Inc.'s network, but with
added allegations that the company is ignoring the occurrence of
hairline cracks in the handset's enclosure, The AppleInsider
reports.

The 23-page lawsuit was filed on Nov. 3, 2008 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District Court of New York by
Nassau County resident Avi Koschitzki.  Aside from Apple, it
also names AT&T as a defendant.

According to Mr. Koschitzki's complaint, "Based upon information
and belief the 3G iPhones demand too much power from the 3G
bandwidths and the AT&T infrastructure is insufficient to handle
this overwhelming 3G signal based on the high volume of 3G
iPhones it and Apple have sold."

It claims that due to the overloaded 3G network, it is quite
common for iPhone users to only be on the 3G network for a few
minutes before being bumped to the slower EDGE network despite
being in geographical areas allegedly rich with 3G network
coverage.

Mr. Koschitzki also claims that he is among several customers
who've noticed hairline cracks form in the iPhone 3G's casing at
or around the camera module, and adds that some customers have
noticed similar cracks immediately upon opening their new
iPhones' boxes for the first time, according to The
AppleInsider.

The complaint states, "Although Apple was and is aware that the
iPhones were and are defective, and that consumers have
experienced repeated instances of cracked housing, Apple has
nevertheless allowed the defectively designed iPhones to be sold
to the public."

The AppleInsider reports that Mr. Koschitzki, who is seeking
class-action status on his suit, is also unhappy with the
handful of iPhone Software updates released to date.  He says
they've failed to address a number of outstanding issues with
the phone, ranging from third-party application crashes at
launch to poor 3G reception.

The suit is "Koschitzki v. Apple Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2008-
cv-04451," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District Court of New York, Judge Jack B. Weinstein, presiding.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Fla. Court Dismisses Litigation Over Seroquel
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed a purported class-action lawsuit brought by several
union health and welfare benefit funds that claimed they were
tricked into paying hundreds of millions of dollars for
AstraZeneca plc's Seroquel anti-psychotic as a result of an
alleged off-label marketing campaign that misrepresented safety
and effectiveness, Ed Silverman of Pharmalot reports.

The funds, which sued the company under the Racketeering
Influenced Corrupt Organizations act, had claimed that they were
deceived by an off-label marketing campaign that misrepresented
Seroquel's safety and efficacy.

In dismissing the suit, Judge Anne Conway, said that the RICO
claims wouldn't stand as a class action because doctors
determining whether any misrepresentations about Seroquel
influenced prescribing behavior would require questioning the
physicians one by one--and patient by patient, according to the
Pharmalot report.

In her view, each doctor would have to be questioned separately
to determine their reasons for prescribing Seroquel and the
extent to which their decisions were influenced by AstraZeneca's
alleged misrepresenations, Pharmalot reports.

Judge Conway wrote, "In the context of this case, establishing
that plaintiffs' injuries were caused by defendants' misconduct
would require an inquiry into the specifics of each doctor-
patient relationship implicated by the lawsuit."

The judge also wrote, "Furthermore, as Defendant AstraZeneca
points out in its motion, this individualized inquiry would
likely have to be conducted with regard to each consumer
purchase transaction or third-party reimbursement payment made
over the last approximately ten years."


AUTHENTEC INC: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Fla. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
AuthenTec, Inc. is facing a shareholder lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging that
the company violated securities rules by misleading investors
and withholding information about slowing sales, The Florida
Today reports.

Several law firms have issued statements announcing a class-
action lawsuit against AuthenTec or saying that they are
investigating claims against the company.

Frederick Jorgenson, the company's vice president and general
counsel, told The Florida Today that he knows of only one
AuthenTec shareholder who initiated the lawsuit, but lawyers are
trying to recruit other shareholders to join the litigation.

He described the pending litigation as lawyers seeking extra
business and said such suits are somewhat commonplace when a
company's stock price declines.  He pointed out, "There are no
facts that support any kind of claim."

The Florida Today reported that the Brualdi Law Firm in New York
City announces that a class-action lawsuit has been initiated in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

According to the firm, the lawsuit was brought on behalf of
purchasers of AuthenTec, Inc. securities during the period
between April 28, 2008, through September 5, 2008, for
violations of federal securities laws (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 22, 2008).

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning AuthenTec's business and operations (a
mixed-signal semiconductor business that provides fingerprint
authentication sensors and solutions to the high-volume personal
computer, wireless device, and access control markets) were
materially false and misleading, including withholding that the
Company's sales growth was slowing; withholding that AuthenTec
was flooding its customers with inventory; and withholding that
the Company lacked effective internal controls.

It further alleges that only a matter of weeks after defendants
issued favorable revenue guidance and touted the Company's
financial performance, as well as AuthenTec's prospects for
sales and revenue growth, on September 7, 2008, the Company
revised downward its previously issued financial guidance which
caused the value of AuthenTec's shares to decline substantially.


CIGNA CORP: Briefing for "Amara" Appeals to End in December
-----------------------------------------------------------
Briefing of the appeals filed by both parties in the purported
class-action suit against CIGNA Corp. and the CIGNA Pension Plan
over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act will be completed by Dec. 17, 2008.

Both parties have appealed certain decisions made by U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut in the case,
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.

                         Case Background

On Dec. 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed the suit against the
company and the CIGNA Pension Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the CIGNA Pension Plan
who earned certain Plan benefits prior to 1998.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that:

       -- the Plan violated ERISA by impermissibly conditioning
          certain post-1997 benefit accruals on the amount of
          pre-1998 benefit accruals that these conditions are
          not adequately disclosed to plan participants; and

       -- the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against
          older employees.

The plaintiffs were granted class certification on Dec. 20,
2002.  They seek equitable relief.

A non-jury trial began on Sept. 11, 2006.  Due to the court's
schedule, the proceedings were adjourned and then the trial was
completed on Jan. 25, 2007.

On Feb. 15, 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor
of CIGNA Corp., and the CIGNA Pension Plan on the age
discrimination and wear away claims and finding in favor of the
plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims, but
deferred ruling on an appropriate remedy.

Then, on June 13, 2008, the court issued a decision ordering an
enhanced level of benefits from the existing cash balance
formula for the majority of the class, requiring class members
to receive their frozen benefits under the pre-conversion CIGNA
Pension Plan and their accrued benefits under the post
conversion CIGNA Pension Plan.

The court also ordered, among other things, pre-judgment and
post judgment interest.  It has stayed implementation of the
decision until the parties' appeals have been exhausted.

The suit is "Amara v. CIGNA Corp., et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-
02361-MRK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, Judge Mark R. Kravitz, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. (stephen.bruce@prodigy.net)
          805 15th St., NW Suite 210
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-289-1117
          Fax: 202-371-0121

               - and -

          Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq.
(tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com)
          Moukawsher & Walsh
          Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Phone: 860-278-7000
          Fax: 860-548-1740

Representing the defendants are:

          Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq. (bbabbitt@rc.com)
          Robinson & Cole
          280 Trumbull St.
          Hartford, CT 06103-3597
          Phone: 860-275-8209
          Fax: 860-275-8299

               - and -

          Jeremy Blumenfeld, Esq. (jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: 215-963-5258
          Fax: 215-963-5001


CIGNA CORP: Faces N.J. Lawsuits Over Use of Ingenix, Inc.'s Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIGNA Corp. is facing two putative class-action lawsuits brought
on behalf of members asserting that due to the use of Ingenix,
Inc.'s data, the Company improperly underpaid claims, an
industry-wide issue, 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 actions are:

   -- "Franco et al. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.,
      CIGNA Corporation and CIGNA Health Corporation;" and

  -- "Chazen et al. v.  Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.,
     CIGNA Corporation and CIGNA Health Corporation."

The Franco putative class action filed on March 22, 2004 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserts
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended (ERISA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) statute and state law on behalf of
members of CIGNA plans.

The plaintiff seeks to recover alleged underpayments in relation
to out-of-network claims for the period from 1998 to present.

On Aug. 6, 2008, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss for lack of standing while indicating that the named
plaintiff's unique situation might undermine her adequacy as a
class representative.  The parties are conducting significant
discovery.

On Aug. 15, 2008, the same counsel that filed the Franco case,
filed a second putative class-action lawsuit in the same court
as the Franco case on behalf of a different class
representative, David Chazen, in order to address potential
issues regarding Franco's adequacy as a class representative.

The alleged damages period in the Chazen case encompasses 2002
to present. The Company denies the allegations asserted in the
investigations and litigation.

The Company was previously a defendant in a third putative
class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of members asserting that
the Company conspired with other health care company defendants
in violation of the RICO statute and the Sherman Antitrust Act
to improperly depress reimbursements for out-of-network
benefits.  In August 2008, plaintiff dismissed the Company from
that case.

CIGNA Corp. -- http://www.cigna.com/-- is an investor-owned
health service organization in the U.S.  The Company's
subsidiaries are providers of healthcare and related benefits,
the majority of which are offered through the workplace,
including healthcare products and services; group disability,
life and accident insurance, and workers' compensation case
management and related services.  CIGNA's revenues are derived
principally from premiums, fees, mail order pharmacy, other
revenues and investment income.  The Company operates in five
business segments: HealthCare; Disability and Life;
International; Other Operations, and Run-off Reinsurance.


CIGNA CORP: Renewed Motion to Dismiss Manage Care Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIGNA Corp.'s renewed motion to dismiss the matter entitled,
"Amer. Dental Ass'n v. CIGNA Corp., et. al.," 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.

On April 7, 2000, several pending actions were consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in
a multi-district litigation proceeding captioned, "In re Managed
Care Litigation."

The consolidated cases include:

       -- "Shane v. Humana, Inc., et. al.," (The Company's
          subsidiaries added as defendants in August 2000),

       -- "Mangieri v. CIGNA Corporation," (filed Dec. 7, 1999
          with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
          of Alabama),

       -- "Kaiser and Corrigan v. CIGNA Corporation, et. al.,"
          (class of health care providers certified on March 29,
          2001) and

       -- "Amer. Dental Ass'n v. CIGNA Corp., et. al.," (a
          putative class of dental providers).

In 2004, the Court approved a settlement agreement between the
physician class and the Company.

A dispute over disallowed claims under the settlement submitted
by a representative of certain class member physicians is
proceeding to arbitration.

Separately, in April 2005, the Court approved a settlement
between the Company and a class of non-physician health care
providers.

Only the Amer. Dental Ass'n case remains unresolved.  On June 6,
2008, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case.

CIGNA Corp. -- http://www.cigna.com/-- is an investor-owned
health service organization in the U.S.  The Company's
subsidiaries are providers of healthcare and related benefits,
the majority of which are offered through the workplace,
including healthcare products and services; group disability,
life and accident insurance, and workers' compensation case
management and related services.  CIGNA's revenues are derived
principally from premiums, fees, mail order pharmacy, other
revenues and investment income.  The Company operates in five
business segments: HealthCare; Disability and Life;
International; Other Operations, and Run-off Reinsurance.


DOMINION RESOURCES: Jan. 21, 2009 Final Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 21, 2009 final fairness hearing is scheduled for the
settlement of the purported class-action suit, "Jones et al. v.
Dominion Resources Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
00671," 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 2006, Gary P. Jones and others filed the suit against
Dominion Transmission, Inc., Dominion Exploration and
Production, Inc., and Dominion Resources in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under Judge
Joseph R. Goodwin.

The plaintiffs are royalty owners, seeking to recover damages as
a result of the Dominion defendants allegedly underpaying
royalties by improperly deducting post-production costs and not
paying fair market value for the gas produced from their leases.

They seek class-action status on behalf of all West Virginia
residents and others who are parties to or beneficiaries of oil
and gas leases with the Dominion defendants.

Dominion Resources is erroneously named as a defendant as the
parent company of DTI and DEPI.

By order dated July 16, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved
settlement of the class-action suit and conditionally certified
a temporary settlement class.

The Court also dismissed Dominion Resources and added Dominion
Appalachian Development, LLC, as a defendant for the sole
purpose of settling the class claims.

Following preliminary approval by the Court, settlement notices
were sent out to potential class members.  Class members had
until Nov. 1, 2008 to opt out of the class.

The suit is "Jones et al. v. Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00671," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge Joseph
R. Goodwin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Michael W. Carey, Esq. (mwcarey@csdlawfirm.com)
           Carey Scott & Douglas
           P.O. Box 913
           Charleston, WV 25323
           Phone: 304-345-1234
           Fax: 304-342-1105

                - and -

           Marvin W. Masters, Esq. (mwm@themasterslawfirm.com)
           The Masters Law Firm
           181 Summers Street
           Charleston, WV 25301
           Phone: 304-342-3106
           Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

           Thomas J. Allen, Esq. (Thomas_J_Allen@dom.com)
           Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
           445 West Main Street
           Clarksburg, WV 26301
           Phone: 304-627-3332
           Fax: 304-627-3305

                - and -

           W. Henry Lawrence, IV, Esq.
           (Hank.Lawrence@steptoe-johnson.com)
           Steptoe & Johnson
           P.O. Box 2190
           Clarksburg, WV 26302-2190
           Phone: 304-624-8000
           Fax: 304-624-8183


FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Attempt at Reviving Flaky Paint Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Associate Judge Richard Tognarelli has rejected a
Lakin Law Firm bid to revive a giant nine-year-old class action
against Ford Motor Co., Steve Korris of The Madison County
Record reports.

On Oct. 29, 2008, Judge Tognarelli denied a motion to vacate or
reconsider an order he entered last December, decertifying a
class action over paint that flaked off Ford vehicles.

Back in December 2007, the judge had ruled that the case, which
reportedly involves approximately 27 million vehicles that Ford
built from 1989 to 1996, would overwhelm the court with mini-
trials.  He wrote that experts would have to inspect every car
to see if the owner belonged to the class, according to The
Madison County Record report.

The Lakin Law Firm had originally sued Ford in 1999 on behalf of
Joyce Phillips, a Lakin Law Firm secretary.  They claimed that
damages would have run into billions.

Ford moved to disqualify Ms. Phillips, arguing that her
interests as client and employee would conflict.

However, the Madison County Record reported that Circuit Judge
Philip Kardis denied disqualification, and in 2003, he certified
a class action for two classes.  One class would have alleged
common law fraud for Ford owners in 49 states, and the other
class would have alleged consumer fraud for Ford owners in 46
states.

Ms. Phillips withdrew as plaintiff for "personal reasons" in
2005, and was replaced Daniel Schopp.

When Judge Kardis retired, the case passed to Circuit Judge Andy
Matoesian, who then shed the case and others to lighten his
load.  Chief Justice Ann Callis later assigned the case to Judge
Tognarelli, an unelected associate judge.

Judge Tognarelli took up a decertification motion that Ford
filed after the Illinois Supreme Court delivered decisions that
limited class action lawsuits.

For Ford, Robert Shultz of Edwardsville argued that individual
issues predominated over common issues.

Robert Schmieder of the Lakin Law Firm argued that the class
suffered common damage from delamination due to Ford's failure
to protect paint from ultraviolet light.

In his December 2007 order, Judge Tognarelli agreed with Mr.
Shultz.  The judge specifically wrote, "The evidence submitted
demonstrates that there are many different kinds of paint
problems - delamination being only one of these."  He adds,
"Plaintiffs' contention that the sole cause of post-warranty
delamination is UV exposure is contrary to the evidence before
the Court."

Even if there was a single cause of delamination, Judge
Tognarelli wrote, the court would have to decide individual
questions of reliance, causation and warranty issues.  He
pointed out, "The individual issues involved in deciding these
questions for nationwide classes, or even an Illinois class,
would be overwhelming."

The judge also wrote that a separate set of questions about
class members who bought used Fords would multiply the
individual factual issues.  He added that Ford acknowledged
paint problems and spent millions fixing them.

The Lakin Law Firm moved to vacate or reconsider the order, and
Judge Tognarelli held a hearing in August 2008, and did not
change his mind.  The judge's Oct. 29, 2008 order disposed of
the motion in two short sentences, according to The Madison
County Record.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Healthways, Inc., is facing a consolidated amended complaint
filed on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Company
stock between July 5, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008, according to the
company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug.
31, 2008.

Beginning on June 5, 2008, the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and/or directors were named as
defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

On Aug. 8, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the two
related cases, appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel, and granted lead plaintiff leave to file a consolidated
amended complaint.

The amended complaint, filed on Sept. 22, 2008, alleges that the
Company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control
persons" of Healthways.

The amended complaint further alleges that certain of the
individual defendants also violated Section 20A of the Act based
on their stock sales.

The plaintiff purports to bring these claims for unspecified
monetary damages on behalf of a class of investors who purchased
Healthways stock between July 5, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008.

In support of these claims, plaintiff alleges generally that,
during the proposed class period, the Company made misleading
statements and omitted material information regarding:

the purported loss or restructuring of certain contracts with
customers,

the Company's participation in the Medicare Health Support
pilot program for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
and

the Company's guidance for fiscal year 2008. Defendants' motion
to dismiss the amended complaint is due to be filed on Nov. 6,
2008.

Discovery has not yet commenced in the consolidated case, and no
trial date has been set.

Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides
specialized, Health and Care Support solutions to help people
maintain or improve their health, and as a result, reduce
overall healthcare costs.  The company delivers its programs to
customers, which include health plans, governments, employers,
and hospitals, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and Guam.  It's programs focus on prevention,
education, physical fitness, health coaching, behavior change
and evidence-based medicine to drive adherence to proven
standards of care, medications and physicians' plans of care.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Seeks Dismissal of Tenn. ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Healthways, Inc. and the other defendants in a purported class-
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) filed a motion to dismiss on Oct.
29, 2008.

On July 31, 2008, the purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against
Healthways and certain of its directors and officers alleging
breaches of fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's
401(k) plan.

The central allegation is that Company stock was an imprudent
investment option for the 401(k) plan.  The named defendants
are: the Company, Board of Directors, certain officers, and
members of the Investment Committee charged with administering
the 401(k) plan.

The complaint was amended on Sept. 29, 2008.  The amended
complaint alleges that the defendants violated ERISA by failing
to remove the Company stock fund from the 401(k) plan when it
allegedly became an imprudent investment, by failing to disclose
adequately the risks and results of the Medicare Health Support
(MHS) pilot program to 401(k) plan participants, and by failing
to seek independent advice as to whether to continue to permit
the plan to hold Company stock.  It further alleges that the
Company and its directors should have been more closely
monitoring the Investment Committee and other plan fiduciaries.

The amended complaint seeks damages in an undisclosed amount and
other equitable relief.

According to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 31, 2008, discovery in this case has not yet
commenced.  A trial date of April 27, 2010 has been set.

Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides
specialized, Health and Care Support solutions to help people
maintain or improve their health, and as a result, reduce
overall healthcare costs.  The company delivers its programs to
customers, which include health plans, governments, employers,
and hospitals, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and Guam.  It's programs focus on prevention,
education, physical fitness, health coaching, behavior change
and evidence-based medicine to drive adherence to proven
standards of care, medications and physicians' plans of care.


KANSAS CITY: Continues to Face Policyholders' Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City Life Insurance Co. is still facing litigation
pursued on behalf of purported classes of policyholders.

The life insurance industry, including the Company, has been
subject to an increase in litigation in recent years.  Such
litigation has been pursued on behalf of purported classes of
policyholders and other claims and legal actions in
jurisdictions where juries often award punitive damages, which
are grossly disproportionate to actual damages.

No specific details regarding the litigation 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.

Kansas City Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.kclife.com/-- is a
financial services company. The Company operates in the life
insurance sector of the financial services industry in the
United States. KCL primarily consists of three life insurance
companies: Kansas City Life Insurance Company (Kansas City Life)
the parent company, and wholly owned subsidiaries Sunset Life
Insurance Company of America (Sunset Life) and Old American
Insurance Company (Old American).


MOTOROLA INC: Settlement in Iridium-Related Suit Gets Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The federal district court in the District of Columbia, on
Oct. 23, 2008, granted final approval of the settlement in the
Iridium-related lawsuit and dismissed the claims with prejudice.

The company has been named as one of several defendants in
putative class action securities lawsuits arising out of alleged
misrepresentations or omissions regarding the Iridium satellite
communications business.

On March 15, 2001, the lawsuits were consolidated in the federal
district court in the District of Columbia under Freeland v.
Iridium World Communications, Inc., et al., originally filed on
April 22, 1999.

In April 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle,
subject to court approval, to settle all claims against Motorola
in exchange for Motorola's payment of US$20 million.

According to its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 27, 2008, during the three months ended March 29, 2008,
the company recorded a charge associated with this settlement.

Headquartered in Schaumburg, Ill., Motorola, Inc. manufactures
wireless telephone handsets and designs and sells wireless
network infrastructure equipment like cellular transmission base
stations and signal amplifiers. The Company's home and broadcast
network products include set-top boxes, digital video recorders,
and network equipment used to enable video broadcasting,
computer telephony, and high-definition television.


MOTOROLA INC: "Silverman" Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola Inc. securities between July 19, 2006 and Jan. 5, 2007,
remains pending.

The lawsuit, "Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," was filed
against the company and certain current and former officers and
directors of the company on Aug. 9, 2007, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 as well as,
in the case of the individual defendants, the control person
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act.

According to its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 27, 2008, the factual assertions in the complaint consist
primarily of the allegation that the defendants knowingly made
incorrect statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues
for the third and fourth quarter of 2006.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief
relating to the purported inflation in the price of Motorola
shares during the class period.

An amended complaint was filed Dec. 20, 2007, and Motorola moved
to dismiss that complaint in February 2008.

On Sept. 24, 2008, the district court granted this motion in
part to dismiss Section 10(b) claims as to two individuals and
certain claims related to forward looking statements, among
other things, and denied the motion in part.

Headquartered in Schaumburg, Ill., Motorola, Inc. manufactures
wireless telephone handsets and designs and sells wireless
network infrastructure equipment like cellular transmission base
stations and signal amplifiers. The Company's home and broadcast
network products include set-top boxes, digital video recorders,
and network equipment used to enable video broadcasting,
computer telephony, and high-definition television.


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Determination on Appeal to Injunction Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A determination is pending on the appeal from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Montana's ruling that enjoined the
plaintiffs from taking any further action in the matter,
"McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Co., et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-00001-SHE," which names Northwestern Corp. as defendant.

The company was one of several defendants named in the class-
action suit filed by former shareholders of The Montana Power
Co., most of whom became shareholders of Touch America Holdings,
Inc., as a result of a corporate reorganization of the Montana
Power Co.

The suit claims that the disposition of various generating and
energy-related assets by The Montana Power Co. were void because
of the failure to obtain shareholder approval for the
transactions.

The plaintiffs in the suit are thus seeking to reverse those
transactions, or receive fair value for their stock as of late
2001, when shareholder approval should have been sought.

The company is named as a defendant due to the fact that it
purchased The Montana Power L.L.C., which the plaintiffs claim
is a successor to the Montana Power Co.

In June 2006, the company and the "McGreevey" plaintiffs entered
into an agreement to settle the claims that were brought.

In November 2006, a Bankruptcy Court finally approved the
agreement and the claims were discharged.  The plaintiffs'
attorneys and the company filed a joint motion to dismiss the
claims against the company in the McGreevey lawsuits and no
objections were filed.

On March 16, 2007, the federal court denied the motions to
dismiss the company from the McGreevey lawsuits questioning the
benefits of the settlement to be received by the class members
in the settlement and the authority of the plaintiffs' counsel
to have negotiated the settlement without a class having been
certified by the federal court.

On Jan. 11, 2008, the U.S. District Court in Montana suggested
that the settlement agreement was invalid because the
plaintiffs' attorneys had not secured the court's permission to
engage in settlement discussions.

The District Court enjoined the plaintiffs from taking any
further action in the matter.  The plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's January 11th injunction to the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, where on July 10, 2008, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral arguments.

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, NorthWestern does not anticipate a
resolution of this litigation before class representatives and
class counsel are approved by the U.S. District Court in
Montana. However, it believes that given the scope of the Order
confirming the Plan and the injunctions issued by the Delaware
Bankruptcy Court which channeled the claims to the D&O Trust,
the company has limited exposure to the plaintiffs for damages
arising from the McGreevey claims.

The suit is "McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-00001-SEH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana, Judge Sam E. Haddon, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Wade Dahood, Esq.
          Knight Dahood Mclean Everett & Dayton
          P.O. Box 727
          Anaconda, MT 59711-0727
          Phone: 406-563-3424
          Fax: 406-563-7519

          Milton Datsopoulos, Esq. (mdatsopoulos@dmllaw.com)
          Datsopoulos Macdonald & Lind
          201 W. Main, Central Square Building, Suite 201
          Missoula, MT 59802
          Phone: 406-728-0810
          Fax: 406-543-0134

               - and -

          Allan M. McGarvey, Esq. (amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com)
          McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey,
          745 S. Main Street
          Kalispell, MT 59901-2529
          Phone: 406-752-5566
          Fax: 406-752-7124

Representing the defendants is:

          Kimberly A. Beatty, Esq. (kim@bkbh.com)
          Browning Kaleczyc Berry & Hoven
          PO Box 1697
          Helena, MT 59624-1697
          Phone: 406-443-6820
          Fax: 406-443-6883


PORTLAND GENERAL: Briefing on Bid to Lift Stay to End on Nov. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the motion to lift the abatement in two purported
class-action suits filed by electric service customers against
Portland General Electric Co. is set to be completed by Nov. 25,
2008.

The two suits were filed on Jan. 17, 2003, in the Marion County
Circuit Court against Portland General, on behalf of two classes
of electric service customers.

These suits are:

      1. "Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland
         General Electric Co., Marion County Circuit Court,
         Case No. 03C 10639;" and

      2. "Morgan v. Portland General Electric Co., Marion
         County Circuit Court, Case No. 03C 10640."

The "Dreyer" case seeks to represent current Portland General
customers that were customers during the period from April 1,
1995, to Oct. 1, 2001 -- Current Class -- while the "Morgan"
case seeks to represent Portland General customers that were
customers during the period from April 1, 1995, to Oct. 1, 2001,
but who are no longer customers of the company -- Former Class.

The suits seek damages amounting to $190 million for the Current
Class and $70 million for the Former Class, with the inclusion
of a return on investment of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in the
rates Portland General charges its customers.

On April 28, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment and in July 2004, Portland General also
requested summary judgment in its favor on all of the claims.

On Dec. 14, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and partial summary judgment and denied
Portland General's own summary judgment request.  Portland
General filed for an interlocutory appeal, which was rejected on
Feb. 1, 2005.

On March 3, 2005, Portland General filed a Petition for a Writ
of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court, asking it to take
jurisdiction and command the trial judge to dismiss the
complaints or to show cause why they should not be dismissed.

On March 29, 2005, Portland General filed a second petition for
an Alternative Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court
seeking to overturn the class certification order.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling on
Portland General's Petitions for Alternative Writ of Mandamus,
abating the class action proceedings.

On Oct. 5, 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court issued an Order
of Abatement in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme
Court, abating the class actions, but inviting motions to lift
the abatement after one year.

On Oct. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the
abatement.  A hearing on this motion was held on April 10, 2008.
At the hearing, the Circuit Court declined to lift the
abatement.

The Circuit Court has encouraged the parties to attempt to agree
on steps that might be taken in preparation for a trial in the
event the Circuit Court lifts the abatement following the OPUC
order issued on Sept. 30, 2008.

On June 3, 2008, the Circuit Court scheduled a status conference
for Oct. 15, 2008 and set a tentative trial date for April 2009.

At the Oct. 15, 2008 status conference, the Circuit Court set a
schedule for the filing of briefs on the plaintiffs' motion to
lift the abatement.

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 schedule calls for the completion of
briefing by Nov. 25, 2008, and oral argument on Jan. 12, 2009.

Portland General Electric Co. -- http://www.portlandgeneral.com/
-- is a single, integrated electric utility engaged in the
generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail
sale of electricity in the State of Oregon.  PGE also sells
electricity and natural gas in the wholesale market to utilities
and power marketers located throughout the western U.S.


QWEST CORP: Final Court Approval of QCII's Settlements Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Corporation awaits final court approval of settlements
entered into by putative class representatives with Qwest
Communications International Inc. (QCII), Joseph Nacchio, and
Robert Woodruff.

QCII is the ultimate parent of the company. Mr. Nacchio is the
company's former chief executive officer while Mr. Woodruff is
its former chief financial officer.

Twelve putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of QCII's publicly traded securities between May 24,
1999 and Feb. 14, 2002, were consolidated into a consolidated
securities action pending in federal district court in Colorado
against QCII and various other defendants. The first of these
actions was filed on July 27, 2001.

Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendants issued
false and misleading financial results and made false statements
about QCII's business and investments, including materially
false statements in certain of QCII's registration statements.
The most recent complaint in this matter sought unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief. However, counsel for
plaintiffs indicated that the putative class would seek damages
in the tens of billions of dollars.

In November 2005, QCII, certain other defendants, and the
putative class representatives entered into, and filed with the
federal district court in Colorado, a Stipulation of Partial
Settlement that, if implemented, will settle the consolidated
securities action against QCII and certain other defendants. No
parties admit any wrongdoing as part of the QCII settlement.

Under the QCII settlement, QCII deposited approximately US$400
million in cash into a settlement fund. In connection with the
QCII settlement, QCII received US$10 million from Arthur
Andersen LLP. As part of the QCII settlement, the class
representatives and the settlement class they represent are also
releasing Arthur Andersen.

If the QCII settlement is not implemented, QCII will be repaid
the US$400 million plus interest, less certain expenses, and
QCII will repay the US$10 million to Arthur Andersen.

If implemented, the QCII settlement will resolve and release the
individual claims of the class representatives and the claims of
the settlement class they represent against QCII and all
defendants except Joseph Nacchio, the company's former chief
executive officer, and Robert Woodruff, its former chief
financial officer.

In September 2006, the federal district court in Colorado issued
an order approving the proposed QCII settlement on behalf of
purchasers of QCII's publicly traded securities between May 24,
1999 and July 28, 2002, over the objections of Messrs. Nacchio
and Woodruff. Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff then appealed that
order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

In addressing that appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that the
federal district court order overruling Messrs. Nacchio and
Woodruff's objections to the QCII settlement was not
sufficiently specific, and it remanded the case to the district
court with instructions to consider certain issues and to
provide a more detailed explanation for its earlier decision
overruling those objections. Subsequent to the remand, a
proposed settlement was reached involving the claims of the
putative class against Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff that, if
implemented, will also result in the implementation of the QCII
settlement.

On Aug. 4, 2008, QCII, Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff, and the
putative class representatives entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the Nacchio/Woodruff settlement) that, if
implemented, will, among other things, (i) settle the individual
claims of the putative class representatives and the class they
purport to represent against Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff, and
(ii) result in the withdrawal by Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff of
their objections to the QCII settlement and the resolution of
their indemnification dispute with QCII arising from the QCII
settlement.

Under the proposed Nacchio/Woodruff settlement, QCII would
contribute US$40 million, and Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff would
contribute a total of US$5 million of insurance proceeds. The
Nacchio/Woodruff settlement is subject to a number of conditions
and future contingencies, including that it (i) requires both
preliminary and final court approval, and (ii) provides QCII
with the right to terminate the settlement if class members
representing more than a specified amount of alleged securities
losses elect to opt out of the settlement.

No parties admit any wrongdoing as a part of the
Nacchio/Woodruff settlement, 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.

Qwest Corp. provides voice, data, Internet and satellite video
services within the 14-state region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The Company
is based in Denver, Colo.


QWEST CORP: Nov. 17 Hearing Set for Settlement of Suits v. QCII
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts court set a hearing for Nov. 17, 2008, to
consider final approval of the proposed settlement of putative
class actions filed against Qwest Corporation's ultimate parent
company, Qwest Communications International Inc.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
QCII on behalf of landowners on various dates and in various
courts in California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South
Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

For the most part, the complaints challenge QCII's right to
install its fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.

Complaints in Colorado, Illinois and Texas, also challenge
QCII's right to install fiber optic cable in utility and
pipeline rights-of-way.

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

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

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

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

The Illinois state court action purports to be on behalf of
landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. The Illinois federal court action
purports to be on behalf of landowners in Arkansas, California,
Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico,
Montana and Oregon.

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

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

On July 18, 2008, the Massachusetts court entered an order
preliminarily approving a settlement of all of the actions,
except the action pending in Tennessee.

Qwest Corp. provides voice, data, Internet and satellite video
services within the 14-state region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The Company
is based in Denver, Colo.


QWEST CORP: QCII Defending Remaining Claims in Colorado Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Corporation's ultimate parent company, Qwest
Communications International Inc., continues to defend against
the remaining claims in a putative class action filed in a
federal district court in Colorado.

The putative class action filed on behalf of certain of QCII's
retirees was brought against QCII, the Qwest Life Insurance Plan
and other related entities in connection with QCII's decision to
reduce the life insurance benefit for these retirees to a
US$10,000 benefit.

The action was filed on March 30, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that QCII and other
defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance
benefit at the levels in place before QCII decided to reduce
them.

Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit to
previous levels and certain equitable relief.

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

The retirees have amended their complaint to assert additional
claims, 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.

Qwest Corp. provides voice, data, Internet and satellite video
services within the 14-state region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The Company
is based in Denver, Colo.


WACHOVIA CORP: To Defend Securities Brokerage Unit in Wage Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corp. intends to defend its retail securities brokerage
subsidiary, Wachovia Securities, LLC, in multiple state and
nationwide putative class actions alleging unpaid overtime wages
and improper wage deductions for financial advisors.

In December 2006 and January 2007, related cases pending in U.S.
District courts in several states were consolidated for case
administrative purposes in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California pursuant to two orders of the
Multi-District Litigation Panel.

There is an additional case alleging a statewide class under
California law, which is pending in Superior Court in Los
Angeles County, California.

According to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated
Oct. 30, 2008, Wachovia believes that it has meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted in these lawsuits, which are
part of an industry trend of related wage/hour class action
litigation.

Wachovia Corp. -- http://www.wachovia.com/-- is a financial
holding company and a bank holding company.  It provides
commercial and retail banking, and trust services through full-
service banking offices in Alabama, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia and Washington, D.C.  It also provides various other
financial services, including mortgage banking, investment
banking, investment advisory, home equity lending, asset-based
lending, leasing, insurance, international and securities
brokerage services, through other subsidiaries.  The company's
retail securities brokerage business is conducted through
Wachovia Securities, LLC, and operates in 49 states.


WACHOVIA CORP: Consolidated Action on Interchange Fees Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The payment card association defendants and banking defendants
are defending the consolidated action regarding interchange
fees, according to Wachovia Corp.'s Current Report on Form 8-K
dated Oct. 30, 2008.

Wachovia Bank, N.A. and the Company are named as defendants in
seven putative class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of a
plaintiff class of merchants with regard to the interchange fees
associated with Visa and Mastercard payment card transactions.

These actions have been consolidated with more than 40 other
actions, which did not name the Company as a defendant, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Visa, Mastercard and several banks and bank holding companies
are named as defendants in various of these actions, which were
consolidated before the Court under orders of the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation.

The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims against
defendants based on alleged violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief.

The plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, Mastercard and their
member banks unlawfully collude to set interchange fees.  They
also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and Mastercard
rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered to
merchants are anticompetitive.

The Company, along with other members of Visa, is a party to
Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide that the
Company, along with other member banks of Visa, will share,
based on a formula, in any losses in connection with certain
litigation specified in the Agreements, including the
Interchange Litigation.

On Nov. 7, 2007, Visa announced that it had reached a settlement
with American Express in connection with certain litigation
which is covered by the Company's obligations as a Visa member
bank and by the Loss Sharing Agreement.

Wachovia Corp. -- http://www.wachovia.com/-- is a financial
holding company and a bank holding company.  It provides
commercial and retail banking, and trust services through full-
service banking offices in Alabama, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia and Washington, D.C.  It also provides various other
financial services, including mortgage banking, investment
banking, investment advisory, home equity lending, asset-based
lending, leasing, insurance, international and securities
brokerage services, through other subsidiaries.  The company's
retail securities brokerage business is conducted through
Wachovia Securities, LLC, and operates in 49 states.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ANADIGICS INC: Prower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD - Nov. 14, 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 New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Anadigics, Inc. ("Anadigics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ANAD) during the period between July 25, 2007 and February 12,
2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was
experiencing manufacturing inefficiencies associated with
increased production levels and would not be able to meet its
stated guidance due to its inability to meet demand and thus
lacked a reasonable basis for positive statements about the
Company's prospects.

     The complaint alleges that both the Company's revelation of
disappointing earnings on October 23, 2007 and its February 12,
2008 announcement of financial results for the fourth quarter
and year-end 2007 cause the value of Anadigics' common stock to
decline significantly.

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


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Nov. 14, 2008 -- Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling,
LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The class action is brought on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Series A Junior
Subordinated Debentures (the "Preferred Securities") of
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. ("Constellation Energy" or the
"Company") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the
Company's June 27, 2008 Preferred Securities offering
("Offering"), and who were damaged thereby.  The deadline to
file a motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff is November
21, 2008.

     The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted material facts
concerning Constellation Energy's business and financial
condition.

     On August 11, 2008, Constellation Energy informed investors
that it had understated its potential collateral obligations by
as much as $1.6 to $1.8 billion.

     Then, on September 15, 2008, investors and the market
became aware of Constellation Energy's exposure to Lehman's
bankruptcy, which negatively impacted Constellation Energy's
ability to engage in energy-related trades.

For more details, contact:

          Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. (sfuchs@zsz.com)
          Willy T. Gonzalez (wgonzalez@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 800-721-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969
          web site: http://www.zsz.com


DAKTRONICS INC: Glancy Binkow Files S.D. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Nov. 15, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of South
Dakota on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Daktronics, Inc. ("Daktronics" or the "Company"), between
November 15, 2006 and April 5, 2007, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     The Complaint charges Daktronics and certain of Daktronics'
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 Daktronics' stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

     Daktronics engages in the design, manufacture, marketing,
and support of electronic scoreboards, large electronic display
systems, and related marketing services. The Company offers
digital messaging solutions, software, and services for sports
venues, commercial, and transportation applications.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Daktronics' business, operations, and
prospects, 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 large orders were being delayed;

       -- that the Company was unable to control its operating
          expenses;

       -- that the marketplace for sports and digital billboards
          was softening, such that the Company was not able to
          book sufficient orders;

       -- that the Company was not performing according to
          internal expectations;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
          and

       -- that as a result of the above, the statements made by
          the Company and management during the Class Period
          lacked a reasonable basis.

     On April 5, 2007, Daktronics shocked investors when it
revised downward the Company's previously issued guidance for
the fiscal fourth quarter ending April 28, 2007. On this news,
shares of Daktronics declined $5.78 per share, more than 20%, to
close on April 9, 2007, at $22.13 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


DAKTRONICS INC: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Nov. 14, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of South Dakota on behalf of
purchasers of Daktronics, Inc. ("Daktronics" or "the Company")
common stock during the period between November 15, 2006 and
April 5, 2007 (the "Class Period") for violations of federal
securities laws.

     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 its 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:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


INTERNAP NETWORK: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Nov. 14, 2008 -- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky,
LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
investors of Internap Network Services Corp. ("Internap" or the
"Company") who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Internap between March 28, 2007 and March 18, 2008, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

     The complaint charges Internap and its Chief Executive
Officer with violations of the Exchange Act. Internap provides
Internet connectivity solutions to business customers who
require business applications such as e-commerce, video and
audio streaming, customer relationship management, voice over
Internet protocol, virtual private networks, and supply chain
management.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's alleged successful integration of
acquired businesses into its network and that such integration
purportedly improved performance for customers, helped increase
Internap's customer base and resulted in record revenues.

     According to the complaint, however, Internap allegedly hid
from the public that its customers were experiencing sever
network outages and that several hundred customers had requested
account credits.

     The complaint alleges that because of defendants' false and
misleading statements, Internap's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

     On March 18, 2008, the Company announced, inter alia, that
it would delay filing its Form 10-K Annual Report, that it would
send refunds to several hundred customers and that service
outages caused a reduction of revenue and caused customers to
request credits.

     On the following day, March 19, 2008, Internap's stock
price plummeted from $6.12 per share to a closing price of $4.09
per share, a decline of approximately 33%.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Lawrence D. Levit, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, N.Y. 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Glancy Binkow Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Nov. 14, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of the
securities of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation ("Pilgrim's Pride" or
the "Company"), between May 5, 2008 and September 24, 2008,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Pilgrim's Pride and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.

     Pilgrim's Pride is a producer of poultry products in the
United States, Mexico, and Puerto Rico.  Among other things, the
Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations and prospects.

     Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose:

       -- that the changes made by the Company to strengthen its
          competitive position, such as production cutbacks,
          plant closing, consolidation of operations and others,
          were insufficient for Pilgrim's Pride to be able to
          handle the challenges in the industry;

       -- that Pilgrim's Pride was unable to raise prices to
          offset higher costs;

       -- that the Company's margins were being effected due to
          its inability to use illegal workers;

       -- that the Company's efforts to hedge against changing
          costs were ineffective and actually more problematic
          and damaging to the Company's finances than
          beneficial;

       -- that as a result of the above, the Company's capital
          structure was deteriorating and in danger; and

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

     On September 25, 2008, before the market opened, Pilgrim's
Pride shocked investors when the Company revealed that as a
result of high feed-ingredient costs, continued weak pricing and
demand for breast meat, and the significant negative impact of
hedged grain positions during the quarter, the Company had
notified its lenders that Pilgrim's Pride expected to report a
significant loss in the fiscal fourth quarter.

     As a result of this news, the Company's shares declined, on
unusually heavy trading volume, to $3.84 per share on September
25, 2008, a significant decline from the closing price of $10.26
per share two days earlier on September 23, 2008.

For more 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


                            *********

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  * * *