CAR_Public/081120.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, November 20, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 231

                            Headlines

ALLIANT ENERGY: Contesting Suit Over Cash Balance Pension Plan
ALLIED WASTE: Expects Hearing on Suit Before Stockholder Meeting
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Denies Motion in ERISA Litigation
APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Faces Kans. Suit Over "Weight Watchers" Menu
CIGARETTE MAKERS: N.M. Appeals Court Revives Price-Fixing Case

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Bull & Lifshitz Announces Investigation
DAKTRONICS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in South Dakota
DHL EXPRESS: Faces WARN Violations Lawsuit in Ill. Over Layoffs
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid for Class Certification Denied Last July 30
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Irwin's Suit Junked by Calif. Court on Sept. 19

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court Reverses Dismissal of Conn. Stock Suit
INFINITE ENERGY: Faces $5M Litigation From Dry Cleaners in Ga.
L-1 IDENTITY: Appeal in Junked Consolidated Suit Argued in Aug.
MICHAEL BIANCO: Settles Mass. Suit Over Non-Payment of Overtime
OGE ENERGY: Utility Faces Customers' Billing Practices Complaint

PANERA BREAD: Seeks Dismissal of Mo. Securities Fraud Litigation
PANERA BREAD: Still Faces California Labor Code Violations Suit
PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Labor-Related Lawsuit in California
PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Announces Securities Fraud Investigation
SADIA S.A.: Milberg LLP Announces Securities Fraud Investigation

SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Appeal Ruling in "Galura" Action
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Expects Class Certification Bid Filed in 4Q08
WESTERN CANADA: Faces Suit Over Scratch 'n Win Lottery Tickets


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DAKTRONICS INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
HARDINGE INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing
NOAH EDUCATION: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
SADIA S.A.: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing



                           *********


ALLIANT ENERGY: Contesting Suit Over Cash Balance Pension Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alliant Energy Corp. is contesting the putative class action
lawsuit filed against the Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension
Plan (Plan), according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The complaint, filed in February 2008, alleges that Plan
participants who received a lump sum distribution prior to their
normal retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which
they were entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) because the Plan applied an
improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance
account to their normal retirement age.

The purported class includes all persons vested or partially
vested in the Plan who received a lump sum distribution of the
cash balance formula benefit since January 1998.

In August 2008, the court denied the Plan's motion to dismiss
the action, and the parties are proceeding with discovery.

Alliant Energy Corp. -- http://www.alliantenergy.com-- is a
public utility holding company.  The Company has four primary
first tier subsidiaries of Alliant Energy are: Interstate Power
and Light Company (IPL), Wisconsin Power and Light Company
(WPL), Alliant Energy Resources, Inc. (Resources) and Alliant
Energy Corporate Services, Inc. (Corporate Services).


ALLIED WASTE: Expects Hearing on Suit Before Stockholder Meeting
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing in a consolidated amended class-action lawsuit against
Allied Waste Industries, Inc. is likely to occur prior to the
company's and Republic Services, Inc.'s stockholder meetings to
consider the proposed merger between the two, 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.

A verified consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed
on behalf of the securities holders of Republic against the
company, Republic and certain of Republic's officers and
directors (the Individual Defendants) on Sept. 24, 2008 (the
Amended Complaint) in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware, consolidating two class action lawsuits previously
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The company was named as a defendant only in the second of the
previously filed lawsuits.

The Amended Complaint asserts a claim against the Individual
Defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties in connection
with the proposed merger of Republic and the company, and
asserts a claim against the company for aiding and abetting the
Individual Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the proposed merger will
result in a material dilution of Republic shareholders'
ownership and holdings, a loss of control over Republic and
potentially a loss of Republic's investment grade rating.

The Amended Complaint further alleges as to Republic and the
Individual Defendants that: Waste Management, Inc. made superior
proposals on July 14 and Aug. 11, 2008 to purchase all of the
shares of Republic, which Republic and the Individual Defendants
improperly failed to pursue; Republic and the Individual
Defendants adopted certain improper defensive measures to thwart
a superior proposal, including a stockholders' rights plan and
certain bylaw amendments; and Republic and the Individual
Defendants are responsible for issuance of an amended joint
proxy statement/prospectus in connection with the proposed
merger, which is materially false and misleading.

The Complaint alleges as to the company that it aided and
abetted the Individual Defendants in their breaches of fiduciary
duties by actively and knowingly encouraging and participating
in the breaches to obtain substantial financial benefits of the
merger.

The plaintiffs seek to: preliminarily and permanently enjoin
defendants from closing the proposed merger; rescind the merger
if it is consummated; preliminarily and permanently enjoin
enforcement of the defensive measures implemented by Republic;
have an order entered directing the Individual Defendants to
fully evaluate alternatives to the proposed merger; obtain an
accounting for all damages suffered by plaintiffs and the class
as a result of defendants' wrongful conduct; and obtain an award
of plaintiffs' costs, expenses and fees.

They have requested that the Court schedule a hearing on a
motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

Allied Waste Industries, Inc. -- http://www.alliedwaste.com is
a non-hazardous, solid waste management company.  The Company
provides collection, transfer, recycling and disposal services
for more than eight million residential, commercial and
industrial customers. Allied serves its customers through a
network of 291 collection companies, 161 transfer stations, 161
active landfills and 53 recycling facilities in 124 markets
within 37 states and Puerto Rico.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Denies Motion in ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied
a motion that sought for the certification of a class in a suit
against American Electric Power Co., Inc., which alleged
violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
three putative class action complaints were filed against AEP,
certain executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging
violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an
investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP
stock.  The suits, which were later consolidated, were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Aside from American Electric Power, other defendants named are
American Electric Power Service Corp.; E. Linn Draper, Jr.; and
Thomas V. Shockley, III.

In July 2006, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification and dismissed all claims without prejudice.

In August 2007, the appeals court reversed the trial court's
decision and held that the plaintiff did have standing to pursue
his claim.  The appeals court remanded the case to the trial
court to consider the issue of whether the plaintiff is an
adequate representative for the class of plan participants.

In September 2008, the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification and ordered briefing on whether the
plaintiff may maintain an ERISA claim on behalf of the Plan in
the absence of class certification, according to the company's
Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Judge Algenon L. Marbley, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          Stull, Stull and Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-687-7230
          e-mail: ssbny@aol.com

          James Edward Arnold, Esq. (jarnold@cpaslaw.com)
          Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
          471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-469-1400

               - and -

          Joseph J. Braun, Esq. (jjbraun@strausstroy.com)
          Strauss & Troy - 1
          The Federal Reserve Bldg.
          150 E Fourth St., 4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
          Charlie L. Divine, Esq.
          Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Issa Mikel, Esq.
          George S. Wang, Esq.
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3954
          Phone: 212-455-2000
          Fax: 212-455-2502
          Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/


APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Faces Kans. Suit Over "Weight Watchers" Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------
Applebee's International, Inc., its parent company DineEquity,
Inc., and Weight Watchers, Inc. are facing a purported federal
class-action lawsuit contending that Applebee's "Weight
Watchers" menu items aren't as healthy as advertised, according
to Mondaq News Alerts.

The suit, captioned, "Valiente v. Dineequity, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:2008-cv-02416," was filed on Sept. 9, 2008 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas by Antonio Fidelis
Valiente.

It alleges claims under Kansas consumer protection law and the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and
seeks class-wide damages and injunctive relief (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 1, 2008).

The plaintiff class includes all customers who purchased items
from the Weight Watchers menu at Applebee's since it was
introduced in 2004.

Gilbert Randolph LLP, along with the law firms Bartimus,
Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny, P.C., SimmonsCooper LLC, and
Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes LLP, filed the
suit on behalf of Mr. Valiente  and all U.S. citizens who have
purchased meals from the Applebee's Weight Watchers Menu during
the past four years.

The complaint alleges that weight-loss organization and
restaurant conspired to mislead customers about nutritional
content of Weight Watchers Menu.

Even more troubling is Weight Watchers' alleged role in this
scheme.  As one of the nation's most popular diet organizations,
Weight Watchers has a loyal following of people trying to follow
the Weight Watchers diet.

According to the complaint, however, Weight Watchers betrayed
its supporters by developing, advertising, and approving a menu
that is inconsistent with that diet.

"All of these companies appear to be taking advantage of
customers who pay attention to nutritional information when they
eat at restaurants," says Gilbert Randolph's August J. Matteis,
Jr., Esq., one of the attorneys for the plaintiff.  "They
promise their customers healthier meals, but the food may not be
as healthy as advertised."

Antonio Valiente, the named plaintiff, has been a loyal
Applebee's customer for years because of its Weight Watchers
Menu.  "If I had known the truth, I never would have eaten at
Applebee's." says Mr. Valiente.

The suit is "Valiente v. Dineequity, Inc. et al., Case Number:
2:2008-cv-02416," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, Judge Kathryn H. Vratil, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alyson A. Foster, Esq. (fostera@gilbertrandolph.com)
          Gilbert Randolph LLP
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-772-2441
          Fax: 202-772-2442

          Kenneth J. Brennan, Esq. (kbrennan@simmonscooper.com)
          SimmonsCooper, LLC
          707 Berkshire Boulevard
          P.O. Box 521
          East Alton, IL 62024
          Phone: 618-259-2222
          Fax: 618-259-2251

               - and -

          James P. Frickleton, Esq. (jimf@bflawfirm.com)
          Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson, & Gorny - Leawood
          11150 Overbrook Drive, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Phone: 913-266-2300
          Fax: 913-266-2366

Representing the defendants are:

          Sarah Esmaili, Esq. (sarah.esmaili@aporter.com)
          Arnold & Porter, LLP
          275 Battery St., Suite #2700
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-356-3078
          Fax: 415-356-3099

               - and -

          Kara Trouslot Stubbs, Esq. (stubbs@bscr-law.com)
          Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, L.L.C. - KC
          2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2533
          Phone: 816-471-2121
          Fax: 816-472-0288


CIGARETTE MAKERS: N.M. Appeals Court Revives Price-Fixing Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Court of Appeals revived a class-action lawsuit
against several cigarette makers for allegedly engaging in a
price-fixing conspiracy, The Associated Press reports.

The ruling overturned a 2006 decision by a Santa Fe County
district court against New Mexico consumers who brought the
damage lawsuit against tobacco companies, including Philip
Morris, Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., according to The
Associated Press.

AP reported that before the class-action lawsuit went to trial,
District Judge James Hall granted summary judgment in favor of
the tobacco companies.

However, the Court of Appeals says that was improper for the
claims against some of the companies -- Philip Morris, R.J.
Reynolds and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

The Court of Appeals though upheld a portion of Judge Hall's
decision in favor two other cigarette manufacturers, Lorillard
Tobacco Co., and the Liggett Group, reports The Associated
Press.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Bull & Lifshitz Announces Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Nov. 18, 2008 -- The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz,
LLP is investigating possible illegal conduct as alleged in a
proposed class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland against
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. ("Constellation" or the
"Company") for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA").

     The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of all persons
who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Employee
Savings Plan and the Represented Employee Savings Plan for Nine
Mile Point (the "Plans") between January 30, 2008 and the
present (the "Class Period") and whose Plan accounts included
investments in Constellation common stock.

     Constellation is a Maryland corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Baltimore, Maryland. Constellation
is an energy company that conducts its business through various
subsidiaries.

     According to the class action complaint, during the Class
Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts
concerning Constellation's financial well-being, business
operations and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose:

       -- the extent of its credit exposure to trading partners,
          including Lehman Brothers Holding Inc., which
          negatively affected the Company's ability to engage in
          energy-related trades;

       -- that the Company's financial results were inflated by
          questionable accounting practices; and

       -- that it was not on track to meet its 2008 earnings
          guidance.

     Bull & Lifshitz, LLP is investigating whether, based on the
foregoing allegations, Constellation stock was an imprudent
investment for the Plan.  Violations may have occurred in at
least two ways:

       -- by continuing to offer Constellation common stock as a
          Plan investment when it was imprudent to do so, and

       -- by maintaining the Plan's investment in Constellation
          stock in the Plan when it was imprudent to do so.

For more details, contact:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Bull & Lifshitz, LLP
          18 East 41st Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 213-6222
          Fax: (212) 213-9405
          e-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com


DAKTRONICS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in South Dakota
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daktronics, Inc. is facing two purported securities fraud class-
actions lawsuits in South Dakota that was filed by investors who
claim the Brookings-based firm misled them as to the health of
the company, The Sioux Falls Argus Leader reports.

The suits were filed in U.S. District Court in South Dakota on
Nov. 7, 2008, and Nov. 14, 2008, respectively.  They were filed
under the captions, "Edward Chambers v. Daktronics, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 4:2008-cv-04176," and "Robert Maggs v. Daktronics, Inc.
et al., Case No. 4:2008-cv-04182."

The plaintiffs allege the company mislead investors in order to
raise the company's stock price.  Specifically, they say
Daktronics executives mislead investors to think that the
company was in great financial shape during the fourth quarter
of 2006.  Months later Daktronics executives downgraded
projected sales by millions of dollars, according to KELOLAND
TV.

The lawsuits claim insiders went on to sell company shares worth
almost three million dollars.

The shareholders bringing the lawsuits are asking for a jury
trial.  Both lawsuits seek class-action status, which would
allow more investors to join in the legal actions.

Aside form the company, Daktronics President and Chief Executive
Officer James Morgan; and Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
William Retterath were also named as defendants in both of the
lawsuits, reports the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.


DHL EXPRESS: Faces WARN Violations Lawsuit in Ill. Over Layoffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
DHL Express (USA) and its Germany-based parent company, Deutsche
Post World Net are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in
Illinois for allegedly violating a federal law regarding
layoffs, Lorene Yue of Crain's Chicago Business reports.

The suit was filed by John Ellis, a former DHL Express employee,
and Timothy Price, a current worker on Nov. 13, 2008 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  It is
generally alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Restraining Notification (WARN) Act.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status limited to
effected DHL Express employees in the Chicago area.  They want a
judge to rule that DHL Express violated WARN and require the
company to comply with the law.

Lee Winston, a Birmingham, Ala.-based attorney representing
Messrs. Ellis and Price tells Crain's Chicago Business, "You
have to give 60 days' notice, and workers are entitled to 60
days of pay.  We are asking for 60 days' pay and benefits."

The WARN Act states that most companies with at least 100
workers must provide 60 days' notice of impending job cuts or
layoffs.

The suit claims that 33% of DHL Express workers in Chicago,
Franklin Park, Lisle and Alsip will lose their jobs.  Mr. Ellis
stated in the suit that he was notified on Nov. 7, 2008 that his
job was eliminated, without warning, reports Crain's Chicago
Business.

The suit states, "By the time Mr. Ellis was issued his letter,
he had already been separated from employment without receipt of
any benefits or notification."

Mr. Price will remain employed with DHL Express until Dec. 1,
2008, but claims he did not receive the required 60 days'
notice, according to the Crain's Chicago Business report.

The suit is "Ellis et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-06541," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge
Matthew F. Kennelly, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Roderick T. Cooks, Esq. (rcooks@winstoncooks.com)
          Winston Cooks, LLC
          The Penick Bldg
          319-17th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 502-0970


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid for Class Certification Denied Last July 30
----------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, on
July 30, 2008, denied in its entirety the motion for class
certification of the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security
Act plans in class actions filed against Express Scripts, Inc.

The lawsuits are:

   -- "Minshew v. Express Scripts, Case No. Civ.4:02-CV-1503,"
      filed on Dec. 12, 2001; and

   -- "New England Health Care Employees Welfare Fund v. Express
      Scripts, Inc., Case No.4:05-cv-1081," filed on Oct. 28,
      2004.

The plaintiffs assert that certain of the company's business
practices, including those relating to its contracts with
pharmaceutical manufacturers for retrospective discounts on
pharmaceuticals and those related to our retail pharmacy network
contracts, constitute violations including fiduciary duties
under the ERISA, common law fiduciary duties, state common law,
state consumer protection statutes, breach of contract, and
deceptive trade practices.

The putative classes consist of both ERISA and non-ERISA health
benefit plans as well as beneficiaries.

The various complaints seek money damages and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification of the
ERISA plans and for partial summary judgment on the issue of the
company's fiduciary status under ERISA.  These motions have been
fully briefed and argued.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the company filed a cross motion for summary
judgment on the issue of its fiduciary status under ERISA.

On July 30, 2008, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
of the ERISA plans was denied by the Court in its entirety.  In
addition, the Company's motion for partial summary judgment on
the issue of its ERISA fiduciary status was granted in part.

The Court found that the Company was not a fiduciary with
respect to generic drug pricing, selecting the source for drug
pricing, establishing formularies and negotiating rebates, or
interest earned on rebates before the payment of the contracted
client share.  The Court found that the Company was an ERISA
fiduciary only with respect to the calculation of certain
amounts due to clients under a therapeutic substitution program
in effect, 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.

Express Scripts, Inc. -- http://www.express-scripts.com/-- is a
pharmacy benefit management (PBM) in North America.  The Company
provides a range of services to its clients, which include
health maintenance organizations (HMOs), health insurers, third-
party administrators, employers, union-sponsored benefit plans,
workers' compensation plans and government health programs. The
Company operates in two segments: Pharmacy Benefit Management
Services (PBM) and Specialty and Ancillary Services (SAAS).


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Irwin's Suit Junked by Calif. Court on Sept. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for Alameda
County, on Sept. 19, 2008, entered the dismissal in the class-
action suit, "Irwin v. AdvancePCS, et al." against Express
Scripts, Inc.

The case is brought by plaintiff alleging his right to sue as a
private attorney general under California law.  It purports to
be a class action against the company and other Pharmacy Benefit
Management defendants on behalf of self-funded, non-Employee
Retirement Income Security Act health plans; and individuals
with no prescription drug benefits that have purchased drugs at
retail rates.

The complaint alleges that certain business practices engaged in
by the company and by other PBM defendants violated California's
Unfair Competition Law.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages
and injunctive relief.

This case has been coordinated with the AFSCME case in Los
Angeles County Superior Court.

The company's motion for judgment on the pleadings in its favor
was granted on June 23, 2005, with plaintiffs given leave to
file an amended complaint which they did on July 22, 2005.

A third amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on April
8, 2006.

On Sept. 19, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case
and the court entered the dismissal, 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.

Express Scripts, Inc. -- http://www.express-scripts.com/-- is a
pharmacy benefit management (PBM) in North America.  The Company
provides a range of services to its clients, which include
health maintenance organizations (HMOs), health insurers, third-
party administrators, employers, union-sponsored benefit plans,
workers' compensation plans and government health programs.  The
Company operates in two segments: Pharmacy Benefit Management
Services (PBM) and Specialty and Ancillary Services (SAAS).


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court Reverses Dismissal of Conn. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a
lower court ruling that dismissed a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit brought against The Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc., and its top officers, Mark
Hamblett of The New York Law Journal reports

Initially, two securities class action complaints, now
consolidated, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut alleging claims against the company and
certain of its executive officers under Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 6, 2008).

The consolidated amended complaint alleges on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders that the company and the four
named individual defendants, as control persons of the company,
failed to disclose to the investing public that The Hartford's
business and growth was predicated on the unlawful activity
alleged in the NYAG Complaint.

The NYAG Complaint was filed by New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer on Oct. 14, 2004.  It was a civil complaint over
insurance fraud that was filed against Marsh, Inc., and Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., alleging that certain insurance
companies participated with Marsh in arrangements to submit
inflated bids for business insurance and paid contingent
commissions to ensure that Marsh would direct business to them.

The class period alleged in the consolidated class action suit
is Aug. 6, 2003, through Oct. 13, 2004, the day before the NYAG
Complaint was filed.  The complaint seeks damages and attorneys'
fees.

The New York Law Journal reported that the plaintiffs in this
putative class-action lawsuit sued the company and senior
officers in 2004 claiming they were induced to buy stock at an
inflated price because the company concealed kickbacks, bid-
rigging and price manipulation schemes by insurers and brokers.

Judge Christopher Droney of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut took judicial notice of media reports
that he said were "storm warnings" on The Hartford and he ruled
the plaintiffs were on inquiry notice effective July 25, 2001,
the date a similar suit was filed against Hartford subsidiaries
in California Superior Court.  Because the lawsuit was not filed
until 2004, Judge Droney dismissed the action as barred by the
two-year statute of limitations, according to The New York Law
Journal report.

The plaintiffs then appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On Nov. 17, 2008, a panel form the the Second Circuit --
composed of Judges Peter Hall and Debra Ann Livingston and,
sitting by designation, Southern District of New York Judge
Colleen McMahon -- vacated the dismissal, The New York Law
Journal reported.

In ruling to reverse the dismissal of the case, the panel
decided that general news reports about kickbacks between
insurance companies and brokers were not enough to constitute
"storm warnings" for purchasers of stock in The Hartford
Financial Services Group.

The suit is "Staehr v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01740-CFD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Christopher F.
Droney, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Erin Green Comite, Esq. (ecomite@scott-scott.com)
         Scott & Scott
         108 Norwich Ave., P.O. Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06415
         Phone: 860-537-5537
         Fax: 869-537-4432

              - and -

         Tor Gronborg, Esq. (torg@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 631-231-7423

Representing the defendants are:

         Jack C. Auspitz, Esq. (jauspitz@mofo.com)
         Morrison & Foerster
         1290 Avenue of The Americas
         New York, NY 10104-0050
         Phone: 212-468-8000
         Fax: 212-468-7900

              - and -

         Timothy Andrew Diemand, Esq. (tdiemand@wiggin.com)
         Wiggin & Dana
         One Cityplace, 185 Asylum St.
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-297-3738
         Fax: 860-525-9380


INFINITE ENERGY: Faces $5M Litigation From Dry Cleaners in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Infinite Energy, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by a group of Atlanta dry cleaners who are claiming that
the energy provider tried to fleece them by locking them into
three-year contracts with artificially inflated rates after
Hurricane Katrina, The Atlanta Business Chronicle reports.

According to the Atlanta Business Chronicle, the lawsuit, which
is seeking class action and $5 million in damages, was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Specifically, it seeks class-action status for more than 600
Korean-American, Asian-American and other dry cleaners who are
part of Korean Cleaners' Association of Atlanta (KCAA) and all
dry cleaners in Atlanta use natural gas for their business.

The suit claims the Gainesville, Fla.-based company fraudulently
coerced the dry cleaners into signing long-term contracts at
$1.14 or $1.149 per therm immediately after Hurricane Katrina,
which disrupted the drilling, refining and transportation of
natural gas supplies and caused a short-term spike in the cost
of natural gas, according to Atlanta Business Chronicle report.

The plaintiffs contend that Infinite Energy is still trying to
hold them to those inflated rates three years after natural gas
prices re-stabilized.

The suit argues Infinite has tried to hold all members of the
KCAA to the higher rates despite the plaintiffs' formal attempts
at negotiation to reduce the rates and despite that many members
never agreed to the higher rate.

The plaintiffs' attorney is David Pardue of the Atlanta law firm
Hartman, Simons, Spielman & Wood LLP, according to the Atlanta
Business Chronicle.

For more details, contact:

          David L. Pardue, Esq. (dpardue@hssw.com)
          Hartman, Simons, Spielman & Wood LLP
          6400 Powers Ferry Rd.,
          N.W., Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: (770) 226-1347
          Fax: (770) 858-1095


L-1 IDENTITY: Appeal in Junked Consolidated Suit Argued in Aug.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on the appeal from the dismissed consolidated
class action against L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc.'s recently
acquired business, Digimarc Corporation, was held before a
three-judge panel on Aug. 26, 2008, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

In connection with the company's August 2008 acquisition of Old
Digimarc, which consisted of its Secure ID Business following
the spin-off of its digital watermarking business, the company
assumed certain legal proceedings of Old Digimarc.

In 2004, three purported class-action lawsuits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against Old
Digimarc and certain of its then-current and former directors
and officers on behalf of purchasers of Old Digimarc's
securities during the period April 17, 2002 to July 28, 2004.
These suits were later consolidated into one action for all
purposes.

The amended complaint, which sought unspecified damages,
asserted claims under the federal securities laws relating to
the restatement of Old Digimarc's financial statements for 2003
and the first two quarters of 2004 and alleged that Old Digimarc
issued false and misleading financial statements and issued
misleading public statements about its operations and prospects.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the court granted Old Digimarc's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and entered judgment in Old
Digimarc's favor.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeal was fully briefed, according to the company's Oct.
31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.l1id.com/-- provides
a range of identity solutions and services that enable
governments, and businesses to enhance security, establish a
biometric-based identity, protect personal data and support
various intelligence requirements. L-1 operates in two business
segments: the Identity Solutions segment and the Services
segment.


MICHAEL BIANCO: Settles Mass. Suit Over Non-Payment of Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bianco, Inc., settled a purported class-action lawsuit
in Massachusetts entitled, "Chach et al v. Bianco et al., case
No. 1:2007-cv-10915" by agreeing to pay current and former
workers $850,000 in overtime, Brian R. Ballou of The Boston
Globe.

The suit, which generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the for
the District of Massachusetts on May 15, 2007.  It names as
defendants:

       -- Michael Bianco, Inc.;
       -- Front Line Defense, Inc.;
       -- Francesco Insolia;
       -- Marguerite Insolia;
       -- Suzanne Thompson; and
       -- Gloria Melo.

Named as plaintiffs in the suit are:

  -- Flor Chach;
       -- Elsy Hernandez;
       -- Digna Mendoza;
       -- Pedro Pacheco;
       -- Carlos Simaj-Morente; and
       -- Gilberto Vieira.

The plaintiffs are charging that the company set up a fake
corporation, Front Line Defense Inc., to avoid paying overtime
wages.

Employees said they were required to clock out at 5 p.m. after
working a full day shift at Michael Bianco and then clock back
in at 5:30 p.m. for Front Line.  They received checks from both
companies, to make it appear they had not exceeded 40 hours a
week, reports The Boston Globe.

According to Audrey Richardson, senior attorney for Greater
Boston Legal Services, which has represented many of the
workers, "Most of the time, the workers were doing the same work
on the same machine as they did during the day.

Workers who clocked the most hours will receive up to $8,000 in
back overtime pay.  The six employees who brought the lawsuit
will receive an additional $2,000 above the back pay they are
entitled to, compensation for coalescing the group of workers,
Ms. Richardson told The Boston Globe.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Audrey R. Richardson, Esq. (Arichardson@gbls.org)
          Greater Boston Legal Services
          197 Friend Street
          Boston, MA 02114
          Phone: 617-603-1662
          Fax: 617-371-1222

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq. (pgordon@gordonllp.com)
          Gordon Law Group
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: 617-536-1800
          Fax: 617-536-1802

               - and -

          Christa C. von der Luft, Esq. (cvonderluft@nutter.com)
          Nutter, McClennen & Fish
          World Trade Center West
          155 Seaport Boulevard
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: 617-439-2627
          Fax: 617-310-9627

Representing the defendants is:

          Diane M. Saunders, Esq. (dsaunders@morganbrown.com)
          Morgan, Brown & Joy, LLP
          200 State Street
          11th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-523-6666
          Fax: 617-367-3125


OGE ENERGY: Utility Faces Customers' Billing Practices Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
OGE Energy Corp.'s electric utility, Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Company (OG&E), faces a complaint of billing practices in the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC).

On June 19, 2006, two OG&E customers brought a putative class
action, on behalf of all similarly situated customers, in the
District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, challenging certain
charges on OG&E's electric bills.

The plaintiffs claim that OG&E improperly charged sales tax
based on franchise fee charges paid by its customers.  The
plaintiffs also challenge certain franchise fee charges,
contending that such fees are more than is allowed under
Oklahoma law.

OG&E's motion for summary judgment was denied by the trial
judge.

OG&E filed a writ of prohibition at the Oklahoma Supreme Court
asking the court to direct the trial court to dismiss the class
action suit.

In January 2007, the Oklahoma Supreme Court "arrested" the
District Court action until, and if, the propriety of the
complaint of billing practices is determined by the OCC.

In September 2008, the plaintiffs filed an application with the
OCC asking the Commission to modify its order which authorizes
OG&E to collect the challenged franchise fee charges.

According to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, motions to set a procedural schedule and
determine notice requirements for the matter are scheduled to be
heard by the OCC on Nov. 6, 2008.

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and
energy services provider offering physical delivery and related
services for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the
south central United States.  The Company conducts its
activities through four business segments: electric utility;
natural gas transportation and storage; natural gas gathering
and processing, and natural gas marketing. The electric utility
segment generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric
energy in Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Its operations are
conducted through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E).


PANERA BREAD: Seeks Dismissal of Mo. Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Co. is seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Intially, on Jan. 25, 2008, and Feb. 26, 2008, two purported
class-action lawsuits were filed against the company and three
of its current or former executive officers by the Western
Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust and by Sue Trachet,
respectively, on behalf of investors who purchased the company's
common stock during the period between Nov. 1, 2005, and July
26, 2006.

Each complaint alleges that the company and the other defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 under the U.S.
Exchange Act in connection with its disclosure of system-wide
sales and earnings guidance during the period from Nov. 1, 2005,
through July 26, 2006.

Also, each complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other
relief as the court might find just and proper.

On June 23, 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and the Western
Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust was appointed lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On Aug. 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which extended the class period to Nov. 1, 2005 through July 26,
2007.

On Oct. 6, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss all of
the claims in the lawsuit, according to the company's Oct. 31,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 23, 2008.

The suit is "Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust
v. Panera Bread Co., et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-00120-ERW," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Judge E. Richard Webber, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia, LLP
          58 S. Service Road
          Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

               - and -

          Don R. Lolli, Esq. (dlolli@dysarttaylor.com)
          Dysart and Taylor
          4420 Madison Avenue
          Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Phone: 816-931-2700
          Fax: 816-931-7377

Representing the defendants are:

          Miranda Hooker, Esq. (miranda.hooker@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer and Cutler
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          617-526-6000

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Kalinowski, Esq.
          (jeff.kalinowski@huschblackwell.com)
          Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP
          720 Olive Street
          24th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: 314-345-6000
          Fax: 314-345-6060


PANERA BREAD: Still Faces California Labor Code Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Co. continues to face a purported class-action suit
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Northern California.

The suit was filed on March 19, 2008, against the company and
one of its subsidiaries by Marion Taylor, a former employee.  It
alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor
Code for failure to pay termination compensation and failure to
provide rest and meal periods.

The suit seeks, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find
just and proper.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 23, 2008.

The suit is "Taylor v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No.
3:08-cv-01519-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Northern California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7100
          Fax: 816-714-7101

Representing the defendants is:

          Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq. (MHEdwards@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Phone: 415-433-1940
          Fax: 415-743-6641


PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Labor-Related Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Co. continues to face a purported class-action suit
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern
California, entitled "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case
No. 3:08-cv-01071-SC."

The suit was filed on Feb. 22, 2008, against the company and one
of its subsidiaries by a former employee of the company, Pati
Johns.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code for
failure to pay overtime and termination compensation.  It seeks,
among other relief, collective and class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find
just and proper.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 23, 2008.

The suit is "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No.
3:08-cv-01071-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Northern California, Judge Samuel Conti, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7100
          Fax: 816-714-7101

Representing the defendants is:

          Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq. (MHEdwards@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Phone: 415-433-1940
          Fax: 415-743-6641


PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Announces Securities Fraud Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, Nov. 18, 2008 -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is
investigating possible violations of the federal securities laws
by PharmaNet Development Group, Inc. ("PharmaNet" or the
"Company").

     The investigation focuses on allegations that the Company
knew but failed to disclose that many of its contracts with bio-
technology and pharmaceutical companies were likely to be
cancelled, and therefore the Company lacked any reasonable basis
for its positive statements about its future.

For more details, contact:

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


SADIA S.A.: Milberg LLP Announces Securities Fraud Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Milberg LLP is investigating possible
illegal conduct as alleged in a proposed class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all investors who purchased
Sadia S.A. ("Sadia" or the "Company") American Depository
Receipts (ADRs) (NYSE: SDA) (BOVESPA: SDIA4) in and/or common
stock between May 1, 2008 through September 26, 2008, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

     The lawsuit charges Sadia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Sadia is a producer and marketer of food products and
exports their products throughout the world.

     According to the lawsuit, Sadia entered into undisclosed
currency derivative contracts to purportedly hedge against the
Company's U.S. dollar exposure.  The Company characterized the
amounts of these contracts as "nominal."

     However, these contracts violated Company policy in that
they were far larger than necessary to hedge normal business
operations and resulted in a loss of $365 million.

     As a result of Defendants' admission of violating Company
policy regarding currency hedging, the American Depository
Receipts of Sadia S.A. closed at $9.50 per share, down from the
previous day's close of $15.27, a decline of approximately 38%.

For more details, contact:

          Lori G. Feldman
          Andrei Rado
          Peter Safirstein
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor
          New York, NY  10119-0165
          Phone: (800) 320-5081
          e-mail: contactus@milberg.com
          Web site: http://www.milberg.com


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Appeal Ruling in "Galura" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. intends to continue its appeal and
defense in the matter "Galura, et al. v. Sonic Automotive, Inc."

In this action, originally filed on Dec. 30, 2002, in the
Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, the plaintiffs
allege that the company and its Florida dealerships sold an
anti-theft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of
any customer of any of the company's Florida dealerships who
purchased the anti-theft protection product since Dec. 30, 1998.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief on behalf of this class of customers.

In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the requested class of customers, but the court
has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in the
lawsuit.

Sonic subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's class
certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals.

In April 2007, the Florida Court of Appeals partially affirmed
the trial court's class certification, and overruled a portion
of the trial court's class certification.

No court has made a finding to date regarding actual liability
in this lawsuit, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  As of Feb. 22,
2008, the company operated 169 dealership franchises at 144
dealership locations, representing 33 different brands of cars
and light trucks, and 34 collision repair centers in 15 states.
Each of Sonic's dealerships provides services, including sales
of both new and used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement
parts and performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint
and repair services, and arrangement of extended service
contracts, financing and insurance and other aftermarket
products for its automotive customers.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Expects Class Certification Bid Filed in 4Q08
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. expects that before the end of 2008, the
claimants in the consolidated arbitration will file a Motion for
Class Certification as a national class action including all of
the states in which the company operates dealerships, excluding
California and Florida.

Several private civil actions have been filed against the
company and several of its dealership subsidiaries that purport
to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs and
make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and
insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner.

One of these private civil actions has been filed in South
Carolina state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 10 of
its South Carolina subsidiaries.

This group of plaintiffs' attorneys has filed another private
civil class action lawsuit in state court in North Carolina
seeking certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs.

The South Carolina state court action and the North Carolina
state court action have since been consolidated into a single
proceeding in private arbitration.

Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of this class of customers.

According to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, Sonic will oppose Claimants' Motion for
Class Certification, if it is filed.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  As of Feb. 22,
2008, the company operated 169 dealership franchises at 144
dealership locations, representing 33 different brands of cars
and light trucks, and 34 collision repair centers in 15 states.
Each of Sonic's dealerships provides services, including sales
of both new and used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement
parts and performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint
and repair services, and arrangement of extended service
contracts, financing and insurance and other aftermarket
products for its automotive customers.


WESTERN CANADA: Faces Suit Over Scratch 'n Win Lottery Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Western Canada Lottery Corp. and other agencies are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit over Scratch 'n Win tickets,
Prince Albert Daily Herald reports.

According to the Merchant Law Group, the lawsuit is being
brought on behalf of people who bought tickets from a game in
which the top prizes had already been sold.

The suit also names lottery commissions in Alberta, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and the Yukon, reports The Prince Albert Daily
Herald.

The Merchant Law Group is asking for "not less than" CDN$100
million and an injunction enjoining the lottery corporation from
selling tickets for which the top prizes can no longer be won.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DAKTRONICS INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Nov 18, 2008 -- Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Daktronics, Inc.
("Daktronics") between November 15, 2006 and April 5, 2007,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
South Dakota.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Daktronics' business, operations and
prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Daktronics 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


HARDINGE INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, GA, Nov. 18, 2008 -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
New York against certain officers and directors of Hardinge,
Inc. ("Hardinge" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of
Hardinge stock who purchased between February 22, 2007 and
February 21, 2008.

     The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading public
statements concerning the Company's financial condition.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants failed
to disclose that the Company was experiencing slowing sales due
to outdated machinery and failed to timely record an impairment
in the value of Hardinge's inventory.

For more details, contact:

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


NOAH EDUCATION: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Nov. 18, 2008 -- Federman & Sherwood announces that on
October 27, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Noah Education Holdings, Ltd. (NYSE: NED).

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 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
connected to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on or
about October 19, 2007 and extends through November 19, 2007.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


SADIA S.A.: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     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 Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased the American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of Sadia
S.A. ("Sadia" or the "Company") (NYSE: SDA) between April 30,
2008 and September 26, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Sadia and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following:

       -- Sadia entered into currency derivative contracts to
          hedge against U.S. dollar exposure that were imprudent
          and twice as large as positions called for by the
          Company's hedge policy;

       -- that Sadia's financial statement failed to account for
          its exposure to currency market fluctuations; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          statements about its financial well-being and future
          business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
          basis when made.

     On September 26, 2008, Sadia announced a loss of
approximately $410 million related to investments in currency
contracts hedging against the U.S. dollar.

     Sadia acknowledged that the nature and amounts of these
currency contracts fell far outside "the purpose of protecting
the activities of the Company exposed to exchange variation." On
this news, Sadia's ADRs fell 38% to close at $9.50 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



                            *********

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  * * *