CAR_Public/081124.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 24, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 233

                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Settles Del. Fenofibrate Formulations Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Discovery & Motion Practice Occur in Wash. Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Ala. Court Mulls Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit
EHARMONY: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Civil Rights Lawsuit
GMAC MORTGAGE: Faces Mass. Suit Challenging Right to Foreclose

JOE FRANCIS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Fla. Suit
KADANT INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Litigation
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Seeks Nixing of Claim in Del. Derivative Suit
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Still Faces "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" Lawsuit
KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer Announces Investigation

LAND O' LAKES: Faces Lawsuits Over Prices of Egg Products
MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Vista Capable" Suit in Wash.
NOVATEL WIRELES: To Defend Suits Over False Statements in Calif.
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Units Face Suits for Improper Reimbursement
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Lawsuit Over Early Retirement Benefits

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Faces Age Discrimination Suit in Kans.
ST. LAWRENCE: Canadian Court Issues Ruling in Residents' Lawsuit
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Colossus Software


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BRITANNIA BULK: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
INTERNAP NETWORK: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Lawsuit
SADIA S.A.: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
TALEO CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit Filing

WATERS CORP: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
WATERS CORP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing



                           *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Settles Del. Fenofibrate Formulations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. stated that it would pay about $184
million to resolve claims as part of the settlement in a
litigation related to the sale of fenofibrate formulations, RTT
News reports.

The drug manufacturer, in a Nov. 20, 2008 filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, noted that it intends to
treat the settlement payments as a specified item in the fourth
quarter 2008, reports RTT News.

The litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, involved direct purchaser class action
claims and claims brought by certain individual plaintiffs, who
reportedly alleged that Abbott created a monopoly and prevented
generic competition with its anticholesterol drug TriCor,
according to RTT News.


AFFINION GROUP: Discovery & Motion Practice Occur in Wash. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery and motion practice has occurred as of Oct.
31, 2008, in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit filed
in Washington against Affinion Group, Inc., which, prior to
2007, was known as the Trilegiant Corp.

On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The
Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant in the Superior
Court of Washington, Spokane County.  The claim asserts
violations of various consumer protection statutes.

The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
denied by the court.

The case is currently pending before the court, according to
Affinion Group, Inc's. Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com--
is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty
solutions to companies around the world.  Affinion partners with
other companies to develop customized marketing programs that
provide products and services to their end customers.


AFFINION GROUP: Ala. Court Mulls Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County has yet to rule
on a plaintiff's motion appealing its decision to compel
arbitration in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit,
according to Affinion Group, Inc's. Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Nov. 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC (now know as Affinion
Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC), and Allstate
Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County,
alleging, among other things, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and
violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive
practices act.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, but was remanded to the Circuit Court of
Alabama for Greene County.

The company has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008.  In granting the
company's motion, the court further ordered that any arbitration
with respect to this matter take place on an individual (and not
class) basis.

On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's order.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com--
is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty
solutions to companies around the world.  Affinion partners with
other companies to develop customized marketing programs that
provide products and services to their end customers.


EHARMONY: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Civil Rights Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victoria Chaney of the California Superior Court in Los
Angeles has allowed a lawsuit against eHarmony, an online dating
Internet site, to proceed as a class-action lawsuit, Chloe
Albanesius of PC Magazine reports.

Linda Carlson sued eHarmony in May 2007 for refusing to match
gay and lesbian couples.  The policy, she claimed, is a
violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prevents
business establishments from discriminating based on sexual
orientation.  For personal reasons, Ms. Carlson has since been
replaced by Nate Cardin as the lead plaintiff, according to PC
Magazine.

The complaint specifically claims that eHarmony, which an
evangelical and conservative Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren,
founded sometime in year 2000, refused to extend its dating
service to gays, lesbians and bisexuals (Class Action Reporter,
June 4, 2007).

The lawsuit says Linda Carlson was denied access when she tried
using the site's dating service in February 2007.  She wrote to
eHarmony telling them that its anti-gay policy is discriminatory
under the state's law.  The company didn't heed her and never
changed it.

According to attorney Todd Schneider, the suit seeks to change
the landscape and make a statement that gays and lesbians have
the right and desire to meet with other people with whom they
can fall in love with.  It also seeks to force eHarmony to end
its policy and to pay unspecified damages for those similarly
situated.

In November 2008, PC Magazine reported that Judge Chaney granted
the motion for class certification. The decision will allow gay,
lesbian and bisexual individuals who were denied service from
eHarmony dating back to 2004 to join the case as a class
participant.

Individuals do not have to prove actual injury to obtain
damages, just that they visited eHarmony and were denied
service, reports PC Magazine.

For more information, contact plaintiff's lawyer:

          Todd Schneider, Esq.
          Schneider & Wallace
          180 Montgomery Street Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone:  (415) 421-7100
          Fax:  (415) 421-1655


GMAC MORTGAGE: Faces Mass. Suit Challenging Right to Foreclose
--------------------------------------------------------------
GMAC Mortgage LLC of Fort Washington, Pa., and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Co. of Santa Ana, Calif., are facing a purported
class-action lawsuit, which contends that they lacks the legal
authority to press forward with home foreclosures in
Massachusetts because they haven't obtained required documents
verifying that they hold the mortgages, Robert Weisman of The
Boston Globe reports.

The suit was filed on Nov. 20, 2008 in Suffolk Superior Court on
behalf of Darlene Manson of Stoneham and Regine Michel of Hyde
Park.

The Boston Globe reports that Ms. Manson's home, where she's
lived for 35 years, was foreclosed on last March 2008 and she is
scheduled to be evicted next week.  The suit said Ms. Michel's
home, where she lives with two daughters, is scheduled for a
foreclosure sale next month.

According to attorney Gary Klein, Esq., who is representing both
women, the defendants bought the mortgages on the secondary
market, but haven't completed paperwork proving the mortgages
are assigned to them, as required by state law.

The case underscores the increasingly disorganized process of
financial firms buying, packaging, and selling mortgages to
third parties, a process that is often invisible to homeowners
and the public, reports the Boston Globe.

By turning the paperwork over to private parties rather than
going through registries of deeds, and moving forward with
foreclosures before they have the necessary documents, "the
lending community is turning the Massachusetts foreclosure
process into the Wild West," Mr. Klein, a partner at Roddy,
Klein & Ryan tells the Boston Globe.

Mr. Klein told the Boston Globe that he will seek class-action
status on behalf of what he estimated were thousands of other
borrowers in similar situations.  One of the goals is to buy
time for homeowners to stay in their properties until they can
be offered assistance by a federal rescue plan.

The lawsuit alleged, "Massachusetts' foreclosure process has
become an undisciplined and lawless rush to seize homes."  It
adds, "Many thousands of foreclosures are plainly void under
statute and settled Massachusetts case law."

For more details, contact:

          Gary Klein, Esq.
          Roddy Klein & Ryan
          727 Atlantic Ave. 2d Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: (617) 357-5500
          Fax: (617) 357-5030
          e-mail: info@roddykleinryan.com
          Web site: http://www.roddykleinryan.com/


JOE FRANCIS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Fla. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida has
refused to certify a class-action lawsuit against Joe Francis
and "Girls Gone Wild," which alleges that there might be
hundreds of underage girls who have been victimized by the video
company, David Angier of The News Herald reports.

In March 2008, the attorneys sued "Girls Gone Wild" on behalf of
four unnamed females, saying the girls ranged in age from 13 to
17 when they were filmed in stages of undress or performing
sexual activity (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2008).

Named as defendants in the matter are:

       -- Aero Falcons LLC;
       -- Mantra Films Inc;
       -- MRA Holdings LLC; and
       -- Joseph R. Francis.

In July 2008, Panama City lawyer D. Ross McCloy Jr., Esq., along
with Chicago attorneys Larry Selander, Esq., Wayne Mack, Esq.,
Thomas Dent, Esq., Rachael Pontikes, Esq., and Duane Morris,
Esq., amended the lawsuit.

The amended lawsuit maintains these allegations, but also places
the girls in three classes and sued the company on behalf of the
classes:

     -- Subclass 1, according to the lawsuit, is all minor girls
        in the nation "who defendants employed, used, persuaded,
        enticed or coerced into engaging in sexually explicit
        conduct for the GGW series."

     -- Subclass 2 is Florida minor girls who have been filmed
        flashing or engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

     -- Subclass 3 is Florida minor girls who "defendants and
        their agents coerced through payment to engage in
        sexually explicit conduct alone, with each other or with
        defendant (Joe) Francis."

According to Ms. Pontikes, Mr. Francis and his employees broke
Florida prostitution laws by soliciting "children to engage in
sex acts with each other, with defendant Francis" and paying
them with T- shirts and cash.

She also accused Mr. Francis of racketeering practices,
something he was charged with in Bay County in 2003, which were
dropped when the evidence against Mr. Francis was thrown out
because it was collected under a flawed search warrant.

Ms. Pontikes further said Francis and his companies, since the
beginning of their operation, promoted and produced videotapes
containing minor girls, which they sold and delivered through
the mail.

"Defendants are a criminal enterprise which has engaged in the
racketeering activities alleged as a matter of routine business
practice over an extended period through the actions, assets and
assistance of the defendants and has preyed upon and victimized
many children including the plaintiffs," Ms. Pontikes wrote.

The lawsuit asked for a minimum payment of $150,000 to each girl
for damages, but also said "Girls Gone Wild" is eligible for
punitive damages as well, which could significantly increase
that number.

Mr. Selander told The News Herald that a judge will have to
decide if class action status is appropriate in this case before
they can go forward.  If they get certification, then there
might be additional plaintiffs to investigate.

In ruling to deny a class certification motion, Judge Richard
Smoak stated that class-action would be inappropriate in a
lawsuit against Mr. Francis and "Girls Gone Wild," because
details of each individual within the classes would still have
to be explored, according to The News Herald.

Class action is certified in lawsuits in which plaintiffs are so
numerous that individual lawsuits would be impractical and
common questions of the plaintiffs predominate over individual
questions.

Judge Smoak wrote, "The court would be required to extensively
delve into the facts surrounding each plaintiff to determine if
she was injured and whether defendants' alleged pattern of
racketeering activity was the proximate cause of this injury."

Mr. Francis and his companies pleaded guilty in 2006 to federal
charges that they'd failed to maintain the proper records
proving that the girls in their videos were all adults.

Judge Smoak said in his ruling that because of improper record
keeping in 2002 and 2003, Mantra Films Inc., the producers of
the Girls Gone Wild DVDs, sold footage of at least two minors
engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Judge Smoak did not dismiss the lawsuit, only denied the request
for class certification.  The lawsuit can go forward, for now,
with the individual plaintiffs, reports The News Herald.

The suit is "Plaintiff B et al v. Francis et al., Case No. 5:08-
cv-00079-rs-ak," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida, Judge Richard Smoak, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas G. Dent, Esq. (tgdent@duanemorris.com)
          Duane Morris LLP
          190 South Lasalle St. Ste. 3700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312/499-6700
          Fax: 312/499-6701 (fax)

               - and -

          Robert Armistead Fleming, Esq.
          (rfleming@harrisonsale.com)
          Harrison, Sale, McCloy, Duncan & Jackson, Chartered
          304 Magnolia Ave. [32401]
          PO Drawer 1579
          Panama City, Fl 32402
          Phone: 850-769-3434
          Fax: 850-769-6121


Representing the defendant is:

          Ross Michael Babbitt, Esq.
          (rbabbitt@babbitt-lawfirm.com)
          Ross M. Babbitt Co LPA
          700 W St. Clair Ave., Ste. 300
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216/623-6346
          Fax: 216/274-9683


KADANT INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed a purported class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of a
putative class of consumers who purchased defective decking and
railing products manufactured by Kadant, Inc.'s discontinued
operation.

Specifically, the company was named as a co-defendant in a
consumer class action suit brought by Terrence Fisher, Joseph
Jennings, Paula Moore, and Larry Boylen on behalf of a putative
class of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing
products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and
October 2003.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, under Docket Number 1:07-CV-12375-
JLT, on Dec. 27, 2007, and notice was served on the company on
Jan. 7, 2008.  Other defendants named in the suit are Kadant
Composites LLC and Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc.

The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among other
things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade
practices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment, and it seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
punitive damages under various state consumer protection
statutes.  The plaintiffs claim that damages exceed $50 million.

On March 14, 2008, the company and its co-defendants filed
motions to dismiss all counts in the complaint.

On Nov. 20, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted motions to dismiss all claims against it
and the other defendants in the purported class-action lawsuit,
reports RTT News.

The suit is "Fisher, et al. v. Liberty Diversified Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-12375-JLT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph
L. Tauro, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          (nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com)
          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: 610-891-9880
          Fax: 610-891-9883

               - and -

          Kristen Marquis Fritz, Esq. (kfritz@tenlaw.com)
          Thornton & Naumes LLP
          30th Floor, 100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-720-1333
          Fax: 617-720-2445

Representing the defendants are:

          John G. Fabiano, Esq. (john.fabiano@wilmerhale.com)
          WilmerHale LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-742-9100
          Fax: 617-526-5000

               - and -

          Edward William Little Jr., Esq. (elittle@mccarter.com)
          McCarter & English, LLP
          225 Franklin street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-345-7018
          Fax: 617-204-8018


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Seeks Nixing of Claim in Del. Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corp.'s motion to dismiss a putative class action
claim brought by a plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor
shareholder is under submission, 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.

As part of a derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Chancery
Court on July 21, 2006, which has been stayed pending a ruling
on the motion to terminate a federal derivative action, a
plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder also asserted
a separate putative class action claim against the Company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers.

The plaintiff alleges that shareholders incurred damage due to
purported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting from
historical stock option granting practices.

KLA-Tencor Corporation -- http://www.kla-tencor.com/-- is a
supplier of process control and yield management solutions for
the semiconductor and related microelectronics industries.  Its
products are also used in a number of other industries,
including light emitting diode (LED) and data storage
manufacturing, and solar process development and control.  The
Company's portfolio of products, services and software are
designed to help integrated circuit (IC) manufacturers manage
yield throughout the entire fabrication process, from research
and development to final volume production.  In June 2008, KLA-
Tencor completed its acquisition of ICOS Vision Systems
Corporation NV, a supplier of packaging and interconnect
inspection solutions for the semiconductor industry.  Its
offerings are categorized into four groups: Defect Inspection,
Metrology, Product related services and Software.  In October
2008, the Company acquired Microelectronic Inspection Equipment
(MIE) business unit of Vistec Semiconductor Systems.


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Still Faces "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corp. is still facing of a purported class-action
suit that was recently remanded back to the Superior Court of
the State
of California for the County of Santa Clara.

The plaintiff, Chris Crimi, filed the putative class-action
complaint on Sept. 4, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Santa Clara against the company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of persons
who held KLA-Tencor common stock between Sept. 20, 2002, and
Sept. 27, 2006.

The suit alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty
and rescission based on alleged misstatements and omissions in
the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission concerning the company's past stock option grants.
It seeks unspecified damages based upon purported dilution of
the company's stock, injunctive relief, and rescission.

Aside from the company, the defendants named in the suit are:

   -- Edward W. Barnholt,
   -- H. Raymond Bingham,
   -- Robert T. Bond,
   -- Richard J. Elkus, Jr.,
   -- Stephen P. Kaufman,
   -- Kenneth Levy,
   -- Michael E. Marks,
   -- Dean O. Morton,
   -- Kenneth L. Schroeder,
   -- Jon D. Tompkins, and
   -- Richard P. Wallace.

The company filed a motion to stay the case pending the
resolution of other option-related litigation, as well as a
demurrer asking the court to dismiss the case on the ground that
the claims have no merit.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court sustained the company's demurrer and
granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.  The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint reasserting his original
claims and adding a claim under section 1507 of the California
Corporations Code on April 1, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the company removed the suit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.   The
Company then filed a motion to dismiss the action in the
Northern District of California, which was granted in part, with
the remaining claims being remanded back to the California
Superior Court on Sept. 12, 2008, 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 "Crimi v. Barnholt et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-02249-
CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. (mweiler@morganlewis.com)
          Attorney at Law
          One Market, Spear Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
          Phone: 415-442-1000
          Fax: 415-442-1001


KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer Announces Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, Nov. 20, 2008 -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is
investigating possible violations of the federal securities laws
by KV Pharmaceutical Company ("KV" or the "Company") (NYSE:KV-A)
(NYSE:KV-B).

     The investigation focuses on allegations that the Company
did not disclose potential violations of federal regulations and
FDA guidelines.

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


LAND O' LAKES: Faces Lawsuits Over Prices of Egg Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Land O'Lakes, Inc. is a named defendant in three of 14 class-
action lawsuits filed against producers of eggs and egg
products, according to company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In September and October 2008, a total of 14 class-action suits
were filed against a number of producers of eggs and egg
products in three different jurisdictions.

The complaints fall into two distinct groups: "those alleging a
territorial allocation conspiracy among certain defendants to
fix the price of processed 'egg products,' such as liquid or
dried eggs; and "those alleging concerted action by producers of
shell eggs to restrict output and thereby increase the price of
shell eggs."

The plaintiffs in these suits seek unspecified damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of all purchasers of eggs and egg
products, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, under the United
States antitrust laws.

The company is named a defendant in these cases:

   -- "Zaza Inc. v. Michael Foods, Inc., et al. (D. Minn.: 08-
      cv-05262);"

   -- "Oasis Foods Company v. Michael Foods, Inc., et al.
      (D.N.J.: 08-cv-05104);" and

   -- "Country Foods v. Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc. (E.D. Pa.:
      08-cv-4653)."

Land O'Lakes, Inc. -- http://www.landolakesinc.com/-- was
formed as a cooperative designed to meet the needs of dairy
farmers located in the Midwest.  The Company operates its
business through five segments, which includes Dairy Foods,
Feed, Seed, Agronomy and Layers.  Dairy Foods develops,
produces, markets and sells a variety of butter, spreads, cheese
and other related dairy products.  Feed develops, produces,
markets and distributes animal feed to both the lifestyle and
livestock animal markets.  Seed develops markets and sells seed
for a range of crops, including alfalfa, corn, soybeans and
forage and turf grasses.  Agronomy primarily consists of the
operations of Winfield Solutions, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary
established in September 2007 upon the distribution of wholesale
crop protection product assets to the Company from Agriliance
LLC.  Winfield operates as a wholesale distributor of crop
protection products.


MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Vista Capable" Suit in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of plaintiffs'
claims in a class-action lawsuit revolving around the company's
marketing before the debut of its Windows Vista operating system
in early 2007, Joseph Tartakoff of seattlepi.com reports.

The suit, captioned, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-
cv-00475-MJP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 8,
2008).

In early 2006, Microsoft executives approved a plan allowing PC
makers to designate computers as "Vista Capable" even if they
would only be able to run the most basic version of Vista,
called "Vista Home Basic," according to seattlepi.com.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that through the "Vista
Capable" program Microsoft violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and unjustly enriched itself because the false
designation drove up demand for personal computers and,
therefore, prices, reports seattlepi.com.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge
Marsha Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit filed
against Microsoft over allegations that the company unjustly
enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even
if they are not.  The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the
2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft
to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of
Windows Vista was delayed, according to the CAR report.

However, according to seattlepi.com, Judge Pechman did dismissed
plaintiffs' claim that Microsoft had deceived consumers into
buying PCs they would not otherwise have bought.  She instead
allowed them to argue that Microsoft had illegally driven up
prices.

A subsequent CAR report on March 13, 2008, stated that Microsoft
appealed against the court's decision affording class action
status to the Vista lawsuit.  However, in a brief order dated
April 21, 2008, the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit rejected Microsoft's request to overturn Judge Pechman's
decision.

In motions that the company filed with court on Nov. 20, 2008,
the company rebuts the claims and asks the judge to decertify
the class.  "Because it is clear that Plaintiffs cannot prove
any element of their 'price inflation' theory, Microsoft moves
for summary judgment," the company's filing reads.

In the filing, which was obtained by seattlepi.com, Microsoft
dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying argument that the most
basic version of Vista was not Vista because it lacked certain
features, including the Aero interface.

Microsoft's attorneys wrote, "The fact that Windows Vista Home
Basic lacks some features available in premium editions of
Windows Vista (as Microsoft always disclosed) shows only that
Microsoft properly markets Windows Vista Home Basic as a
distinct budget edition."  They re-iterated, "Windows Vista Home
Basic falls well within the Windows Vista family as a technical
matter."

In addition, Microsoft lawyers said that plaintiffs -- who have
calculated how much money Microsoft generated from the sales of
its operating systems on Vista Capable PCs -- had not shown that
that revenue was attributable to increased sales of the PCs
because of the program, reports seattlepi.com.

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          Web site: http://www.gordontilden.com/
          e-mail: office@gordontilden.com


NOVATEL WIRELES: To Defend Suits Over False Statements in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novatel Wireless, Inc. intends to defend two putative securities
fraud class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, according to company's Nov.
17, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Sept. 15 and Sept. 18, 2008, the putative securities class-
action lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons who allegedly
purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 5, 2007 and
Aug. 19, 2008.

One lawsuit names the company and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants.  The other lawsuit names the
company, certain of its current and former officers and the
members of Novatel's Audit Committee as defendants.

The complaints allege generally that the company issued
materially false and misleading statements during the relevant
time period regarding its financial results and the nature and
extent of the accounting review conducted by the Audit Committee
of its Board of Directors into the company's revenue cut-off
procedures, internal control and accounting related to certain
customer contracts.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and
costs.

Novatel Wireless, Inc. -- http://www.novatelwireless.com/-- is
a provider of wireless broadband access solutions for the
worldwide mobile communications market.  The Company's range of
products includes third generation (3G) wireless personal
computer (PC) card modems, embedded modems, communications
software and Fixed-Mobile Convergence (FMC) solutions for
wireless network operators, infrastructure providers,
distributors, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and
vertical markets worldwide.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Units Face Suits for Improper Reimbursement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s seven insurance subsidiaries
face putative state class-action lawsuits seeking certification
of a state or national class alleging, among others, improper
reimbursement of medical providers paid under workers
compensation and personal and commercial automobile insurance
policies.

No specific details regarding the class actions were disclosed
by the company in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

Selective Insurance Group, Inc. -- http://www.selective.com--
through its subsidiaries, offers property and casualty insurance
products and diversified insurance services and products.  The
company was incorporated in New Jersey in 1977 and its main
offices are located in Branchville, N.J.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Lawsuit Over Early Retirement Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., along with other defendants,
continue to face a class-action lawsuit entitled, "Harkness et
al. v. The Boeing Company et al.," 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. 25, 2008.

On Feb. 16, 2007, the action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas.  The defendants were served in
early April 2007.

The company, The Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Wichita
Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical Professional
Unit (SPEEA WTPU) employees and The Spirit AeroSystems
Retirement Plan for International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers (IAM) employees, along with The Boeing Company
and Boeing retirement and health plan entities, were sued by 12
former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or are employees of
the company's subsidiary, Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.

The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and general contract law
and purport to bring the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly situated individuals.

The putative sub-class members who have asserted claims against
the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005,
were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in
the Boeing pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting
service in the Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union,
were between the ages of 49 and 55 and who went to work for
Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.

Although there are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities are that the Spirit plans
wrongfully have failed to determine that certain plaintiffs are
entitled to early retirement "bridging rights" allegedly
triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing and that
the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully transferred
from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early retirement
"bridging rights" are not being afforded these individuals as a
result of their separation from Boeing, thereby decreasing their
benefits.

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are entitled to the
early retirement benefits, an injunction ordering that the
defendants provide the benefits, damages under breach of
contract claims and attorney fees.

The suit is "Harkness et al. v. Boeing et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-
01043-WEB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, Judge Wesley E. Brown, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas E. Hammond, Esq. (tehammond1@yahoo.com)
          Hammond, Zongker & Farris, L.L.C.
          727 North Waco, Ste. 200, P. O. Box 47370
          Wichita, KS 67201
          Phone: 316-262-6800
          Fax: 316-262-3770

               - and -

          Keira M. McNett, Esq. (kmcnett@dcbwash.com)
          Davis, Cowell & Bowe LLP
          1701 K. Street NW, Ste. 210
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-223-2620
          Fax: 202-223-8651

Representing the defendants are:

          Gregory L. Ash, Esq. (gash@spencerfane.com)
          Spencer Fane Britt & Browne
          40 Corporate Woods, Ste. 700
          9401 Indian Creek Parkway
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Phone: 913-345-8100
          Fax: 913-345-0736

               - and -

          James M. Armstrong, Esq. (jarmstrong@foulston.com)
          Foulston Siefkin LLP
          1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100
          Wichita, KS 67206-4466
          Phone: 316-291-9576
          Fax: 316-267-6345


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Faces Age Discrimination Suit in Kans.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. remains a defendant in an age
discrimination class-action lawsuit filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, 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.
25, 2008.

On Dec. 19, 2005, the action "Perry Apsley et al. v. The Boeing
Co., Onex Corp. and Spirit AeroSystems, Inc." was filed.  In
early March 2006, plaintiffs served the company and the other
defendants with the suit.

Generally, plaintiffs assert several claims and purport to bring
the case as a class action and collective action on behalf of
all individuals who were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas
or Tulsa, Oklahoma within two years prior to the date of the
Boeing Acquisition and who were terminated or not hired by
Spirit.

The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief for age
discrimination, interference with Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 rights, breach of contract and retaliation.

Additionally, plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and more than $1.5 billion in punitive
damages.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification and held that the plaintiffs may
send notice of the collective action to all former Boeing
employees who were terminated by Boeing on or after Jan. 1,
2002, were 40 years of age or older at the time of termination
and were not hired by Spirit.

Notice has been sent and individuals had until April 20, 2007 to
indicate their interest in joining the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and more than US$1.5 billion in punitive
damages.

The Asset Purchase Agreement requires Spirit to indemnify Boeing
for damages resulting from the employment decisions that were
made by us with respect to former employees of the commercial
aerostructures manufacturing operations at Boeing ("Boeing
Wichita") which relate or allegedly relate to the involvement
of, or consultation with, employees of Boeing in such employment
decisions.

The suit is "Apsley, et al. v. The Boeing Co., et al., Case No.
6:05-cv-01368-MLB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Texas, Judge Monti L. Belot presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq. (u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com)
         Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
         (l.williamson@swolawfirm.com)
         Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC
         301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center
         Wichita, KS 67202
         Phone: 316-261-5400
         Fax: 316-261-5404

Representing the defendants are:

         James M. Armstrong, Esq. (jarmstrong@foulston.com)
         Carolyn L. Matthews, Esq. (cmatthews@foulston.com)
         Foulston Siefkin, LLP
         1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100
         Wichita, KS 67206-4466
         Phone: 316-291-9576 and 316-267-6371
         Fax: 316-267-6345


ST. LAWRENCE: Canadian Court Issues Ruling in Residents' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     TORONTO, Nov. 20 -- St. Lawrence Cement (SLC) acknowledges
the decision released today by the Supreme Court of Canada on
the class-action lawsuit filed by a group of residents from
Beauport, Québec.

     SLC is pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada recognized
that the company committed no fault in operating the Beauport
cement plant prior to its decommissioning in 1997.
     However, the implications of today's confirmation by the
Supreme Court of Canada that a no-fault liability regime does
exist in the Province of Québec may have far reaching
implications for Canadian industry.

     This precedent setting decision will require further review
and detailed analysis, not only by SLC, but by all potentially
impacted Canadian companies, in order to better understand our
obligations consequent to this ruling.

     SLC does acknowledge that, despite using state-of-the-art
equipment to manage dust and consistently complying with all
regulatory requirements, there was annoyance to our neighbors
from the operation of the plant.

     SLC is very committed to the over 50 Canadian communities
in which we operate today.  As a responsible industry leader, we
are committed to doing the right thing for our employees and
neighbors while operations are active and when we decommission
sites.

     Today, community advisory boards are in place for both SLC
cement plants, we host regular community open houses to
demonstrate how our processes and technologies work, and we
actively engage with community members to understand their
issues and complaints and to resolve them as quickly as
possible.

     SLC is a leading producer and supplier of products and
services for the construction industry, serving customers across
Canada.  SLC employs approximately 3,000 Canadians and generates
annual revenues over $1.5 billion.


WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Colossus Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westfield Insurance Group, and Computer Science Corp. are the
the only two remaining defendants in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed in Arkansas court over the Colossus computer
software, Michelle Massey of The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Out of approximately 581 insurance companies originally sued,
only the Westfield Insurance remains.  Computer Science, the
owner of the Colossus computer software is the other defendant
left.

The original class-action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 7, 2005,
against insurance companies that use Computer Science Corp.'s
software Colossus, Insurance Services Office's software COA, and
Claim IQ's software Injury IQ, according to the Southeast Texas
Record.

The proposed class-action lawsuit alleges that insurance
companies use these programs to systematically undervalue
bodily-injury claim settlements in an effort to profit.

Recently, the Southeast Texas Record reports the proposed class
of plaintiffs filed the first amended motion for class
certification, announcing the remaining plaintiff seeking class
representation is Oklahoma resident Chad Hunter.

Mr. Hunter's bodily-injury accident at issue occurred in 2001
with OneBeacon Insurance Group responsible for the claim.  Mr.
Hunter settled his claims for $25,250 and released OneBeacon
Insurance Group from further liability.

Although he signed a release of liability, Mr. Hunter then
pursued OneBeacon again in the Colossus litigation and has
recently settled his claims against OneBeacon, allowing the
company to be dismissed from the Colossus lawsuit.

The plaintiffs maintain Mr. Hunter is an adequate class
representative due to the alleged scheme between insurance and
software companies.

The court document, obtained by the Southeast Texas Record
states, "Hunter asserts claims for which he seeks a joint and
several liability determination against defendants CSC and
Westfield based on their participation in the 'Overarching
Colossus Scheme' - that is, engaging in an overarching
fraudulent scheme to conceal the truth about Colossus from the
public and to wrongfully profit by using Colossus in the
adjustment of bodily injury claims, including UM/UIM claims."

However, the Southeast Texas Record reports that Westfield Group
is opposing the motion for class certification and seeking
dismissal arguing that this plaintiff cannot maintain the
lawsuit because there is no actual claim against them.  The
defendant states that Mr. Hunter has never been a Westfield
customer, submitted a claim, or had a policy with Westfield and
therefore has "lack of standing."

Further, Westfield argues that Mr. Hunter does not fulfill the
six requirements necessary for class representation:

       -- numerosity;
       -- commonality;
       -- typicality;
       -- adequacy;
       -- predominance; and
       -- (superiority).

The complaint asserts claims against Westfield for breach of
contract, insurance bad faith, unjust enrichment, fraud,
constructive fraud, and conspiracy.  With no insurance policy or
insurance claim against Westfield, the insurance company argues
Mr. Hunter cannot maintain those claims, reports Southeast Texas
Record.

Although this litigation has been pending for more than four
years, Westfield believes that the plaintiffs' counsel has been
unable to find a class representative with any connection to
Westfield.

With regard to the "overarching scheme" or civil conspiracy,
Westfield states it did not set savings targets with the
Colossus software but "used past bodily injury settlements as a
guide, thereby ensuring that it set Colossus to reflect the
actual values for claims, not some arbitrary savings target,"
according to the Southeast Texas Record report.

Elaborating further, Westfield insists that it has a clear
history of paying 40 percent more on settlements than the
Colossus benchmarks.

According to the most recent scheduling order, a hearing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss will be held on Dec. 1, 2008.  The
hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for
Dec. 2, 2008, reports the Southeast Texas Record.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BRITANNIA BULK: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BOCA RATON, Fl., Nov. 20, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given
that Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on behalf of shareholders
Britannia Bulk Holdings Inc. ("Britannia" or the "Company")
(PINKSHEETS: BBLKF) formerly (NYSE: DWT) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who acquired
Britannia Bulk Holdings Inc. common stock pursuant or traceable
to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with its June 17, 2008 initial public offering
("IPO").

     Britannia Bulk is an international provider of drybulk
shipping and maritime logistics services with a focus on
transporting drybulk commodities in and out of the Baltic
region.

     On June 17, 2008, Britannia Bulk accomplished its IPO of
8.3 million shares at $15.00 per share for net proceeds of
$116.2 million, pursuant to the Registration Statement.

     In its first day of trading, Britannia Bulk stock closed at
$13.85 per share.  Then, on October 28, 2008, Britannia Bulk
issued a press release announcing that the Company expected a
significant net loss for the third quarter of 2008 compared to
the net income achieved during the second quarter of 2008.  The
loss was due to problems with hedges the Company had entered
into earlier in the year which clearly violated the Company's
investment policy described in the Prospectus.

     Following this disclosure, the Company's stock collapsed to
$0.16 per share. The following day, the Company disclosed that
it had been notified by its lenders that they were accelerating
all of its subsidiary's obligations under a $170 million lending
facility.  This would ultimately result in the subsidiary being
placed into administration under insolvency laws in the United
Kingdom.

For more details, contact:

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Greg Stone, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway
          Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 394-3399
          Fax: (561) 394-3382
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


INTERNAP NETWORK: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     BALA CYNWYD, PA, Nov. 20, 2008 -- Law office of Brodsky &
Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Internap Network Services Corp. ("Internap" or the "Company")
between March 28, 2007 and March 18, 2008 (the "Class Period").

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

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

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Nov. 20, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP today announced that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of PharmaNet Development
Group, Inc. ("PharmaNet" or the "Company") common stock during
the period between November 1, 2007 and April 30, 2008 (the
"Class Period").

     The complaint charges PharmaNet and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     PharmaNet is a drug development services company that
maintains offices and facilities in North America, Europe, South
America, Asia, Africa and Australia and has clients in the
branded pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic drug and medical
device industries.

     The complaint alleges that the representations contained in
PharmaNet's press releases, SEC filings, conference calls and
presentations during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose that:

       -- the Company's backlog contained numerous contracts
          which were likely to be canceled;

       -- the Company had ramped up expenses in order to perform
          contracts even though there was a substantial
          likelihood that the contracts would be canceled;

       -- the Company was entering into contracts with highly
          risky biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies where
          the risk that the contract would be canceled was
          greatly increased; and

       -- given the above factors, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the Company, its business, backlog and earnings
          guidance.

     According to the complaint, on April 30, 2008, PharmaNet
issued a press release announcing its financial results for the
first quarter of 2008.

     For the quarter, the Company reported direct revenue of
$86.8 million and backlog of $482.9 million.  In response to the
announcement, the price of PharmaNet stock dropped from $23.86
per share to $17.10 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of PharmaNet common stock during the Class Period
(the "Class").

For more details, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/pharmanet/


SADIA S.A.: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 20, 2008 -- The law firm of Spector,
Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. announces that a securities class
action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of investors
who purchased American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of Sadia
S.A. Corporation ("Sadia" or the "Company") between April 30,
2008 through September 26, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Sadia
entered into undisclosed currency derivative contracts to
allegedly hedge against the Company's U.S. Dollar exposure.

     Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors:

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

       -- that the Company's financial statements were
          materially false and misleading in that they failed to
          account for the Company's massive exposure to currency
          market fluctuations; and

       -- that the Company's statements about its financial
          well-being and future business prospects lacked any
          reasonable basis when made.

     On September 26, 2008, the Company unexpectedly announced
that it would take a loss of approximately $410 million related
to the Company's 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."

     As a result of Defendants' admissions, the Company's ADRs
closed at $9.50 per share, down from the previous day's close of
$15.27, a decline of 38%.

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-844-5862
          e-mail: classaction@srkw-law.com
          Web site: http://www.srkw-law.com


TALEO CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, Nov. 20, 2008 -- Federman & Sherwood
announces that on November 14, 2008, a class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Taleo Corp.

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from October 4, 2005 through November 10, 2008.

     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


WATERS CORP: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Nov. 20, 2008 -- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC ("KGS") announces
that a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Waters Corporation
("Waters Corp." or the "Company") (NYSE: WAT) during the period
between January 24, 2007 and January 22, 2008, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  No class has yet been certified in this
action.

If you would like to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail
or call KGS Managing Partner Lewis Kahn, without obligation or
cost to you, toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100, via cell phone
after hours at 504-301-7900, or by email at
lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com.

     Waters Corp. and certain of its officers are charged with
violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for issuing a
series of materially false statements that concealed and failed
to disclose that the Company had published materially inaccurate
and false information regarding the Company's financial
condition.

     Specifically, the complaint charges that Waters Corp.
failed to disclose that it knew or was reckless in not knowing
that, throughout the Class Period:

       -- Waters Corp. was experiencing a slowdown in sales in
          the Japanese market as a result of decreased
          government regulation, which reduced the need for its
          products and services;

       -- that earnings were being materially impacted by an
          increased tax rate; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, Waters Corp. lacked a
          reasonable basis for publishing 2007 earnings
          guidance.

     Investors only learned the truth about the Company on
January 22, 2008, after Waters Corp. announced disappointing
financial results for 4Q and full-year 2007, and after
defendants had finished liquidating tens of millions of dollars
of their personally held Waters Corp. common shares.

     Moreover, following the publication of these belated
disclosures, shares of Waters Corp. declined precipitously --
falling $14.65 per share, or approximately 20%, to close at
$58.58 per share, on heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          e-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com


WATERS CORP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Nov. 20, 2008 -- Stull, Stull & Brody
announces that a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of purchasers of Waters Corporation ("Waters Corp." or
the "Company") common stock during the period between January
24, 2007 and January 22, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges Waters Corp. and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Waters Corp. provides high-performance
liquid chromatography products and services.

     The Company distributes its products worldwide to a wide
range of industries, such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and
environmental testing.

     The complaint alleges that the representations contained in
Water Corp.'s press releases, SEC filings, conference calls, and
presentations during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose:

       -- that the Company was experiencing a slowdown in sales
          in the Japanese market as a result of decreased
          government regulation, which reduced the need for the
          Company's products and services;

       -- that the Company's earnings were being materially
          impacted by an increased tax rate; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company had no
          reasonable basis for its 2007 earnings guidance.

     According to the complaint, on January 22, 2008, Waters
Corp. announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and
year-end 2007, the period ended December 31, 2007.

     Following this press release, the defendants held a
conference call with analysts and investors and revealed that
"an unexpected increase in [its] annual tax rate, among other
factors, adversely affected [its] bottom-line performance."

     Moreover, the Company stated that its Japanese sales were
"weaker than anticipated due to [] a change in the testing
protocols for drinking water analysis in Japan" which the
Company knew about since "last year."

     Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $14.65
per share, or approximately 20%, to close at $58.58 per share,
on heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased or otherwise acquired Waters Corp.'s common stock
during the Class Period, which is between January 24, 2007 and
January 22, 2008.


For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

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  * * *