CAR_Public/081125.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 25, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 234

                            Headlines

ABLE ENERGY: Defending Claims in Hicks Suit Over N.J. Explosion
ABLE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk CCIG Shareholders Suit
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling in "Bateman" Matter
AT&T INC: Jury Orders $17M Payment For Overcharging Customers
CROCS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Colo.

DBSI INC: Faces Idaho Fraud Litigation Seeking $2B in Damages
FINANCIAL SECURITY: Faces Consolidated Suit for Antitrust Breach
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Pa. Court Approves "Pollak" Suit Settlement
HARMONIX MUSIC: Faces Suit Over Faulty "Rock Band" Drum Pedals
MARQUEE HOLDINGS: "Bateman" Class Certification Ruling on Appeal

MIDAS INC: In Talks with Franchisees Over $168M Suit Settlement
NOAH EDUCATION: To Defend 3 Suits Over Oct. 2007 Securities IPO
PHYSICIANS MEDICAL: Law Firm Files WARN Violations Suit in Ala.
PIRIAN BROTHERS: Car Wash Employees File Labor Violations Suit
POINT BLANK SOLUTIONS: Appeal to Securities Fraud Suit Pending

SEMGROUP ENERGY: Faces Securities Suits Over Failure to Inform
SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Defends Sewer Ratepayers Case v. Bond Insurers
SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
TALEO CORP: Bull & Lifshitz Announces Securities Investigation
WACHOVIA CORP: Shareholders File N.C. Suit Over Wells Fargo Deal

WORKSTREAM INC: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved in Sept.

* Litigators Say Banks, Raters Face Subprime Lawsuits, New Rules


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing



                           *********


ABLE ENERGY: Defending Claims in Hicks Suit Over N.J. Explosion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Able Energy, Inc. continues to defend the claims in the class-
action suit styled, "Hicks vs. Able Energy, Inc.," according to
company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

Following an explosion and fire that occurred at the Company's
Facility in Newton, N.J., on March 14, 2003, and through the
subsequent clean up efforts, the Company has cooperated fully
with all local, state and federal agencies in their
investigations into the cause of this accident.

A lawsuit, entitled, "Hicks vs. Able Energy, Inc.," has been
filed against the Company by residents who allegedly suffered
property damages as a result of the March 14, 2003 explosion and
fire.  The Company's insurance carrier is defending the Company
as it relates to compensatory damages.  The Company has retained
separate legal counsel to defend the Company against the
punitive damage claim.

On June 13, 2005, the Court granted a motion certifying a
plaintiff class action which is defined as "All Persons and
Entities that on and after March 14, 2003, residing within a
1,000 yard radius of Able Oil Co.'s fuel depot facility and were
damaged as a result of the March 14, 2003 explosion."

The Company sought and received Court permission to serve
interrogatories to all class members and in November 2007,
answers to interrogatories were received by less than 125
families and less than 15 businesses.  The Company successfully
moved to exclude any and all persons and entities from the class
that did not previously provide answers to interrogatories.  The
class certification is limited to economic loss and specifically
excludes claims for personal injury from the Class
Certification.

The Company says in its latest regulatory filing that the Class
Claims for compensatory damages is within the available limits
of its insurance coverage.

On Sept. 13, 2006, the plaintiff's counsel made a settlement
demand of US$10 million, which, according to the Company's Form
10-K dated Nov. 17, 2008, is excessive and the methodology on
which it is based to be fundamentally flawed.

On May 7, 2008, this matter entered mediation.

As of Nov. 17, 2008, the date of the Company's Form 10-K Report,
mediation has not been successful but the Company remains open
to reasonable settlement discussions with the plaintiffs.

Able Energy, Inc. -- http://www.ableenergy.com/-- is engaged in
the retail distribution of and the provision of services
relating to home heating oil, propane gas, kerossene and diesel
fuels.  The Company offers complete heating, ventilation and
air-conditioning installation and repair services and markets
other petroleum products to commercial customers, including on-
road and off-road diesel fuel, gasoline and lubricants.


ABLE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk CCIG Shareholders Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
No decision has been issued with respect to a motion that sought
for the dismissal of the purported class-action complaint
brought by shareholders of CCI Group, Inc. against Able Energy,
Inc., according to the Able Energy's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

On Jan. 7, 2008, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer,
Gregory D. Frost, and its Vice-President of Business
Development, Frank Nocito, were served with a summons and
complaint in a purported class action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

This action, which seeks class certification, was brought by
shareholders of CCIG.

The complaint relates to a Share Exchange Agreement, dated July
7, 2006, between All American Properties, Inc. (Properties) and
CCIG, under which 70% of the outstanding and issued shares of
CCIG were exchanged for 618,557 shares of the Company's common
stock which were owned by Properties of which 250,378 shares
were to be distributed to the shareholders of CCIG and the
balance of the shares were to be used to pay debts of CCIG.

According to the its Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-K, neither the
Company nor Messrs. Frost or Nocito were parties to the Share
Exchange Agreement.

Properties remain the largest shareholder of the Company.

The Share Exchange Agreement was previously disclosed by the
Company in its Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on
July 7, 2006 as part of a disclosure of a loan by the Company to
Properties.

Each of the Company and Messrs. Frost and Nocito have filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The motion has been fully
briefed and submitted to the Court.

Able Energy, Inc. -- http://www.ableenergy.com/-- is engaged in
the retail distribution of and the provision of services
relating to home heating oil, propane gas, kerossene and diesel
fuels.  The Company offers complete heating, ventilation and
air-conditioning installation and repair services and markets
other petroleum products to commercial customers, including on-
road and off-road diesel fuel, gasoline and lubricants.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling in "Bateman" Matter
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter, "Michael Bateman v. American Multi-
Cinema, Inc. Case No. CV07-00171," which names as defendant AMC
Entertainment, Inc., as a defendant is appealing the denial of
his renewed motion for class certification of the case.

The suit was filed in January 2007, before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more
than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on electronic receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is
deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the cardholder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in an
appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the
situation where more than five digits of the credit card are
printed on a receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.  Plaintiff has appealed this
decision, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 2, 2008.

The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Gary A. Feess,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. (greg@spirmoss.com)
         Ira Spiro, Esq. (ira@spiromoss.com)
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

          David E. Novitskim, Esq.
          Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
          Phone: 213-576-8097
          Fax: 213-576-8080


AT&T INC: Jury Orders $17M Payment For Overcharging Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury in Kansas City, Kansas, has ordered AT&T, Inc. to
pay almost $17 million for overcharging customers in California
when passing along a federally mandated phone fee, The the
Kansas City Star reports.

However, in the same verdict reached on Nov. 19, 2008, jurors
determined there wasn't enough evidence showing the company
conspired with Sprint Nextel Corp. or then-competitor MCI to
overcharge customers nationwide for the Universal Service Fund,
according to the Kansas City Star report.

Barry Barnett, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told the
Kansas City Star that his side was "very pleased" with the
decision regarding the California customers and would ask the
judge to add up to $10 million in prejudgment interest to the
award.  He also told the Kansas City Star that the plaintiffs
were deciding whether to appeal the decision on the antitrust
accusations.

The antitrust case consolidated dozens of class-action lawsuits
filed across the country and covered customers who paid into the
Universal Service Fund between Aug. 1, 2001, and March 31, 2003,
reports the Kansas City Star.

According to the Kansas City Star, the case wound up in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, although it affects
only California consumers, because the federal Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred it there.  The panel is
empowered to transfer similar pending lawsuits brought in
multiple districts to a single jurisdiction.

The fund subsidizes the cost of running phone service to rural
areas, low-income customers and public facilities, such as
schools, libraries and rural hospitals.

Telecommunications companies are required to contribute to the
fund a percentage of their gross revenue from interstate and
international calls with the Federal Communications Commission
sets the contribution rate.  AT&T described the fee on its bills
as a "Universal Connectivity Charge," The Kansas City Star
reports.


CROCS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CROCS, Inc., faces a consolidated securities fraud class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of
Colorado.

Starting in November 2007, certain shareholders filed several
purported shareholder class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged
statements made by the company between July 27, 2007, and Oct.
31, 2007.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages on behalf of the
alleged class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award
of attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

These actions were consolidated and, in September 2008, the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel, according to the
company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2007.

The suit is "Dhingra, et al. v. CROCS, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:2007-cv-02351," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Robert E. Blackburn presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens, LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203-3507
          Phone: 303-861-1764
          Fax: 303-395-0393

          Joseph C. Cohen, Jr., Esq. (jcohen@wolfslatkin.com)
          Wolf, Slatkin & Madison, P.C.
          44 Cook Street #1000
          Denver, CO 80206-5827
          Phone: 303-355-2999
          Fax: 303-329-6826

               - and -

          Thomas P. McMahon, Esq. (tmcmahon@joneskeller.com)
          Jones & Keller, P.C.
          1625 Broadway, 16th Floor
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-573-1600
          Fax: 303-573-8133

Representing the defendants are:

          Brian Neil Hoffman, Esq. (bhoffman@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster, LLP
          370 17th Street
          Republic Plaza #5200
          Denver, CO 80202-5638
          Phone: 303-592-1500
          Fax: 303-592-1510


DBSI INC: Faces Idaho Fraud Litigation Seeking $2B in Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DBSI, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging
that it took in $500 million in illegal profits since October
2003 as a result of securities fraud, banking fraud and tax
fraud, including $160 million personally siphoned to president
and chief executive officer Doug Swenson, Simon Shifrin of the
Idaho Business Review reports.

The suit was filed on on Oct. 27, 2008 in Idaho's Fourth
Judicial District Court by a California trust on behalf of
tenant-in-common investors, according to the Idaho Business
Review.

It claims that DBSI:

       -- treated some securities as real estate transactions to
          avoid disclosures;

       -- induced investors to violate the federal tax code;

       -- reneged on promises not to sell fractional ownership
          interests to third parties;

       -- created a "Ponzi" scheme in which the proceeds from
          the marked-up sale of new properties were used to pay
          investors on existing properties; and

       -- intentionally concealed fair market values of
          properties it sold to investors, among other things.

In particular, the lawsuit says that two separate DBSI
affiliates, DBSI Securities LLC and For 1031 LLC, treated nearly
identical transactions differently as securities or real
estate.

According to court papers obtained by the Idaho Business Review
treating tenant-in-commons (TIC) solely as real estate requires
minimal disclosure and constitutes fraud.

The suit seeks $2 billion on behalf of all TIC investors since
October 2003 and dissolution or reorganization of the company,
reports the Idaho Business Review.


FINANCIAL SECURITY: Faces Consolidated Suit for Antitrust Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd., faces a
consolidated class action complaint for alleged violations of
antitrust laws in connection with the bidding of municipal
guaranteed investment contracts and derivatives, according to
the company's Nov. 17 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Between March and July 2008 seven putative class action lawsuits
were filed in federal court alleging antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry; an eighth was filed later in
July 2008.

Five of these cases name both the Company and FSA:

     -- "Hinds County, Mississippi et al. v. Wachovia Bank,
        N.A. et al., Case No. 08 CV 2516," filed on March 12,
        2008, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
        District of New York;

     -- "Fairfax County, Virginia et al. v. Wachovia Bank,
        N.A., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00432," filed on March 12,
        2008, before the U.S. District Court for the District of
        Columbia;

     -- "Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia
        Bank N.A.," filed on June 4, 2008 in the U.S. District
        Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:08-cv-
        956, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No. 1:08-cv-
        6342;

     -- "Mayor & City Counsel of Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia
        Bank N.A.," filed on July 3, 2008 in the S.D.N.Y., Case
        No. 1:08-cv-6142; and

     -- "Washington County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank N.A.,"
        filed on July 14, 2008 in the S.D.N.Y., Case No. 1:08-
        cv-6304.

Three of the cases name the Company only:

     -- "City of Oakland, California, v. AIG Financial Products
        Corp.," filed on April 23, 2008 in the U.S. District
        Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
        3:08-cv-2116, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No.
        1:08-cv-6340;

     -- "County of Alameda, California v. AIG Financial Products
        Corp.," filed on July 8, 2008 in the N.D. Cal., Case No.
        3:08-cv-3278, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No.
        1:08-cv-7034; and

     -- "City of Fresno, California v. AIG Financial Products
        Corp.," filed on July 17, 2008, in the U.S. District
        Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No.
        1.08-cv-1045, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No.
        1:08-cv-7355.

These cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the S.D.N.Y. as "In re Municipal Derivatives
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516 (MDL 1950)."

Interim lead counsel for the MDL 1950 plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in August 2008 alleging
violations of the federal antitrust laws. Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

The Plaintiffs Oakland, Alameda, and Fresno also allege
violations under California law, and the MDL 1950 court has
determined that it will handle federal claims alleged in the
Consolidated Complaint before addressing state claims.

The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

New York-based Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd. --
http://www.fsa.com/-- through its subsidiary, Financial
Security Assurance, Inc. provides guaranty insurance on
municipal bonds and asset-backed obligations.  The company
insures new issues and those already trading in the secondary
market; it also writes portfolio insurance for securities held
by investment funds.  The company is licensed as a guaranty
insurer in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands; it also operates in Europe and the Pacific Rim.
    

FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Pa. Court Approves "Pollak" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
approved a tentative settlement reached in the purported class-
action lawsuit, "Hayden, et al. v. Freightcar America, Inc.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-00201-KRG," which generally alleges violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, The
Associated Press reports.

On Aug. 15, 2007, a lawsuit was filed against FreightCar America
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania by Samuel W. Pollak, Jr., and Robert A. Hayden,
Jr., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 19, 2008).

The plaintiffs were subsequently amended to Kenneth J. Sowers,
Anthony J. Zanghi and Robert A. Hayden, Jr.  The plaintiffs are
employees at the Company's Johnstown, Pennsylvania manufacturing
facility and allege that they and other workers at the facility
were laid off by the Company to prevent them from becoming
eligible for certain retirement benefits, in violation of
federal law (General Corporate Litigation Updates, Dec 28,
2007).

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction requiring
the Company to return the laid-off employees to work.

About 100 workers, who are part of a class-action lawsuit, were
laid off when the plant stopped production in 2007.  They were
supposed to get their pensions, but many were laid off just shy
of their eligibility, WJACTV.com reports.

Judge Kim R. Gibson had already decided that the company was in
the wrong for trying to skimp on paying the pensions and a
settlement was worked out for several million dollars between
the company and the United Steel Workers Union.

WJACTV.com reported that on Nov. 17, 2008, former workers at a
Johnstown installation packed into a federal courtroom hoping to
hear a decision about the settlement.  The judge was expected to
make a call on the deal, but so far no decision has been handed
down.  However, the judge did say that he will make a decision
soon though he wants to put his explanation in writing.

Asked for comment about the amount workers might receive,
attorney John Stember, Esq., who is representing the workers
told WJACTV.com, "We can't put an exact dollar figure on it (the
settlement)."  He added, "The special pensions provide them with
a lot more than just a regular pension.  I think a fair estimate
would be in the $10 million to $20 million range."

WJACTV.com reported that during the Monday hearing, there were
also about 20 objections to the settlement, not from members of
the class-action lawsuit, but by other men trying to get in on
the settlement.  They worked for Freightcar for 20 years, but
are too young to be eligible for pensions.  Attorneys on both
sides said they feel bad for the men, but it should really have
no baring on the judge's decision.

On Nov. 19, 2008, A federal district judge in Johnstown, Pa.,
ruled that the settlement was fair and in the best interests of
the workers, according to The Associated Press.

The suit is "Hayden, et al v. Freightcar America, Inc., Case No.
3:07-cv-00201-KRG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Kim R. Gibson,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John Stember, Esq. (jstember@stemberfeinstein.com)
          Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC
          429 Forbes Avenue
          1705 Allegheny Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1639
          Phone: (412) 281-8400
          Fax: (412) 281-1007

Representing the defendants is:

          Joseph P. Milcoff, Esq. (jmilcoff@reedsmith.com)
          Reed Smith
          435 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886
          Phone: (412) 288-4108


HARMONIX MUSIC: Faces Suit Over Faulty "Rock Band" Drum Pedals
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit has been file against Harmonix
Music Systems, Inc., MTV Networks, its parent company Viacom,
Inc., and Electronic Arts, Inc. over faulty drum pedals in "Rock
Band," Tom Magrino of GameSpot reports.

"Rock Band" is a series of music video games developed by
Harmonix and MTV, and distributed by Electronic Arts for the
PlayStation 2 and 3, Xbox 360, and Wii game consoles.  It
expands upon Harmonix' earlier work on the Guitar Hero music
video games, and allows for up to four players to virtually
perform rock music songs on lead guitar, bass guitar, drums, and
vocals using special controllers modeled after musical
instruments.

According to GameSpot, the suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California by Monte Morgan on
behalf of those in a similar predicament.

The lawsuit contends that the aforementioned parties are in
violation of an implied warranty that all of the items sold with
the Rock Band kit were of 'merchantable quality and fit for the
purpose for which defendants marketed, advertised, and sold such
products to plaintiff and the proposed class, reports GameSpot.

The complaint also notes that despite MTV's and Harmonix's
awareness of the defect, they continue to sell the game,
GameSpot reported.  Evidencing this claim, the suit notes that
the new Rock Band 2 kick pedal now includes a metal plate, where
as the original drum kit still packs the plastic support piece.

The plaintiff and those he represents are seeking reimbursement
of the purchase cost for the Rock Band kit, for MTV and
Electronic Arts to cease selling the defective product, and any
other damages as deemed by the court, according to GameSpot.

The suit is "Morgan v. Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:08-cv-05211-BZ, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gretchen Arlene Carpenter, Esq.
          (gcarpenter@linkline.com)
          Strange & Carpenter
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-207-5055
          Fax: 310-826-3210


MARQUEE HOLDINGS: "Bateman" Class Certification Ruling on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter, "Michael Bateman v. American Multi-
Cinema, Inc. Case No. CV07-00171," which names Marquee Holdings,
Inc., as a defendant is appealing the denial of his renewed
motion for class certification of the case.

The class-action complaint was filed in January 2007, against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act.

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more
than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on receipts given to customers.  It imposes significant
penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have
been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses
incurred by the card holder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of
certification in a similar FACTA case.

The District Court stayed all proceedings in the case pending
the outcome of the Ninth Circuit case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the
situation where more than five digits of the credit card are
printed on a receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.  Plaintiff has appealed this
decision, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended Oct. 2, 2008.

The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California Judge Gary A. Feess,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. (greg@spiromoss.com)
         Ira Spiro, Esq. (ira@spiromoss.com)
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

         David E. Novitski, Esq.
         Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
         333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
         Phone: 213-576-8097
         Fax: 213-576-8080


MIDAS INC: In Talks with Franchisees Over $168M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement discussions are ongoing between Midas Canada Inc. and
Midas International Corp., subsidiaries of Midas, Inc., and two
Canadian franchisees over a proposed class action proceeding.

Two Canadian franchisees have filed a lawsuit in Ontario against
Itasca-based (Illinois) Midas Inc. on June 29, Chicago Tribune's
James P. Miller reports.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, claims that the
automotive services provider breached its franchise agreement
when it closed its manufacturing and distribution operations,
the report said.

The plaintiffs ask for monetary damages of approximately $168
million.

Midas believes the case is without merit and will vigorously
defend itself (Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2007).

Midas Canada and Midas International agreed to mediate the
claims asserted by two Canadian franchisees.  The mediation
concluded on Nov. 14, 2008 without a settlement.  However, the
parties have agreed to a further settlement discussion without
the aid of the mediator, according to the company's Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 18, 2008

Midas, Inc. -- http://midas.com/--  is a provider of automotive
repair and maintenance services with over 2,550 shops globally.
Midas retail shops, which are operated by the Company, its
franchisees and licensees, offer an array of automotive repair
and maintenance services.


NOAH EDUCATION: To Defend 3 Suits Over Oct. 2007 Securities IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Education Holdings Ltd. intends to defend itself in three
securities fraud class-action lawsuits filed in connection with
the company's October 2007 initial public offering, according to
its Nov. 17, 2008 Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

On Oct. 27, 2008, a securities fraud class-action suit,
entitled, "Seidel v. Noah Education Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case
No. 08-Civ-9203," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company.

The plaintiffs in this case allege that the registration
statement of our October 2007 initial public offering purported
to warn about the potential impact of increases in component
costs, but failed to disclose that the company was then
experiencing increased raw material costs.

The plaintiffs allege federal securities law violations and seek
unspecified damage.

On Nov. 3, 2008, two additional securities class-action
lawsuits, entitled, "Schapiro v. Noah Education Holdings, Ltd.
et al., Case No. 08-Civ-9427," and "Sebik v. Noah Education
Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 08-Civ-9509," were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company with substantially the same allegation.

Noah Education Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.noahtech.com.cn/--
provides interactive education content in China.  The company
develops and markets interactive, multimedia learning materials
mainly to complement prescribed textbooks used in China's
primary and secondary school curriculum, covering subjects, such
as English, Chinese, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology,
geography, political science and history.  It delivers its
content primarily through handheld digital learning devices
(DLDs), into which its content is embedded or subsequently
downloaded at over 8,500 points of sale, approximately 2,000
download centers, or through its Website, www.noahedu.com. In
addition, the Company sells electronic dictionaries (E-
dictionaries).


PHYSICIANS MEDICAL: Law Firm Files WARN Violations Suit in Ala.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Outen & Golden LLP of New York has filed a purported class-
action lawsuit seeking compensation for former employees  of
Physicians Medical Center Carraway, Bizjournals.com reports.

The suit, filed on Nov. 10, 2008 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Alabama, claims PMCC violated the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act when
it laid off 1,000 employees upon its closing on Oct. 20, 2008,
according to Bizjournals.com.

Attorney Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. of Outen & Golden told
Bizjournals.com that PCCC failed to give employees advanced
written warning of its closing and employees were not paid in
accordance with federal law.  She adds that a class-action suit
was the best option for affected employees.


PIRIAN BROTHERS: Car Wash Employees File Labor Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four car washes owned by brothers Benny and Nisan Pirian,
namely: Vermont Hand Wash, Celebrity Car Wash, Hollywood Car
Wash and Five Star Car Wash, are facing a purported class-action
lawsuit alleging violations of labor laws, reports James Parks
of http://blog.aflcio.org.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles Superior
Court in May 2008, covering an estimated 250 current and former
employees at the four car washes.

It alleges that the Pirians failed to pay minimum wage, failed
to provide overtime pay and denied meal and rest breaks during
shifts, among other violations of state and federal law.


POINT BLANK SOLUTIONS: Appeal to Securities Fraud Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals on the securities fraud class-action suit that was filed
against Point Blank Solutions, Inc., and certain individual
defendants, as well as the related shareholder derivative
action, are pending.

Initially, several securities class-action and shareholder
derivative lawsuits were filed against the company and certain
of the company's directors and officers.  Those lawsuits were
recently settled.

On June 25, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York approved the settlement.  One of the
objectors filed a notice of appeal on Aug. 1, 2008.

Both the derivative action and the securities class action have
been appealed, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Pompano Beach, Florida-based Point Blank Solutions, Inc. --
http://www.pointblanksolutionsinc.com/-- is a manufacturer and
provider of bullet, fragmentation and stab resistant apparel and
related ballistic accessories, which are used in the U.S. And
internationally by military, law enforcement, security and
corrections personnel, as well as government agencies.  The
company manufactures and sells a variety of body armor products
through its subsidiaries Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. and
Protective Apparel Corporation of America.  It also produces and
sells a variety of sports medicine, health support and other
products through a subsidiary, Life Wear Technology, Inc.  All
products are sold through contracts, a corporate sales force,
sales agents and a network of distributors.


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Faces Securities Suits Over Failure to Inform
--------------------------------------------------------------
SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. faces several securities class-
action suits over its failure to disclose information regarding
SemGroup, L.P, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form
12b-25 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company has been named as a defendant in securities class
action lawsuits that allege, among other things, that the
company failed to disclose that SemGroup, L.P was engaged in
high-risk crude oil hedging transactions that could affect its
ability to continue as a going concern or that SemGroup, L.P was
suffering from liquidity problems.

SemGroup, L.P. and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
on July 22, 2008.

SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. -- http://www.SGLP.com/-- owns
and operates a diversified portfolio of complementary midstream
energy assets.  SemGroup Energy Partners provides crude oil and
liquid asphalt cement terminalling and storage services and
crude oil gathering and transportation services.


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Defends Sewer Ratepayers Case v. Bond Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Syncora Holdings, Ltd. formerly Security Capital Assurance, Ltd.
intends to defend itself in the sewer ratepayers' class-action
suit filed against one of the company's operating businesses,
Syncora Guarantee Inc., and numerous other defendants.

On June 17, 2008, Charles Wilson, on behalf of himself and a
class consisting of every Jefferson County, Alabama sewer
ratepayer since January 1, 1993, filed the suit.

The suit alleges that through the wrongful conduct of the
members of the Jefferson County Commission, most notably Larry
Langford, the County incurred a bonded indebtedness of
approximately US$3.2 billion relating to improvements to its
sewer system.

The complaint alleges that the commissioners, in a conspiracy
with several individuals, financial companies, law firms, and
bond insurers, completed several swap transactions whereby the
bonds, which were primarily fixed interest securities, were
swapped to variable rate and auction rate securities.

These swaps, the complaint alleges, were done primarily to
facilitate the inappropriate payment of exorbitant fees to
several bond brokers and financial advisors.

With respect to the bond insurers, including Syncora Guarantee,
the complaint alleges that the insurers negligently insured the
bonds while allowing themselves to become undercapitalized and
downgraded by the rating services, which in turn downgraded the
bonds.

The plaintiffs allege damages on the ground that their sewer
rates are much higher than they otherwise would have been
without the wrongdoing of all parties.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss, according to the
company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Syncora Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.scafg.com/Holdings/--
formerly Security Capital Assurance Limited, is a holding
company whose operating subsidiaries provide financial guarantee
insurance, reinsurance, and other credit enhancement products to
the public finance and structured finance markets throughout the
U.S. and internationally.  The company's businesses consists of
Syncora Guarantee Inc. (formerly XL Capital Assurance Inc.) and
its wholly owned subsidiary, XL Capital Assurance (U.K.) Limited
(XLCA-UK) and Syncora Guarantee Re Ltd. (formerly XL Financial
Assurance Ltd.).  The segments of the company are financial
guarantee insurance and financial guarantee reinsurance.  The
financial guarantee insurance segment offers financial guarantee
insurance policies and credit-default swaps contracts.  The
financial guarantee reinsurance segment reinsures financial
guarantee policies and CDS contracts issued by other monoline
financial guarantee insurance companies.


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Syncora Holdings Ltd., on Oct. 14, 2008, filed a motion to
dismiss on behalf of the company and the individual defendants
in a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit in New
York, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In December 2007 and January 2008, three class-action lawsuits
were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  They are:

       -- "Brickman Investments, Inc. v. Security Capital
          Assurance Ltd et al.,"

       -- "2 West, Inc. v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et
          al.," and

       -- "Clarke v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et al."

Two of the lawsuits were filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's common shares in the secondary public
offering by XL Insurance Ltd., as selling shareholder, on or
about June 6, 2007.  The third lawsuit was filed on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from April 23, 2007, through Dec. 10, 2007, including
those who purchased shares in the secondary offering.

The complaints name the company, its president and chief
executive officer, its former executive vice president and chief
financial officer, and XL Insurance, as defendants, and they
allege various violations of the U.S. Securities Act and the
U.S. Exchange Act by the defendants.  Two of the complaints also
name the lead underwriters of the secondary offering as
defendants.

The complaints include claims that the defendants' public
statements, including the registration statement and prospectus
related to the secondary offering, contained false and
misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts
necessary to make the statements contained therein not
misleading.

On April 24, 2008, an order was entered consolidating these
actions under the caption "In re Security Capital Assurance Ltd.
Securities Litigation," and appointing the Employees' Retirement
System of the State of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff.

On Aug. 6, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. The
consolidated amended complaint adds Edward Hubbard, Executive
Vice President, as well as Richard Heberton, former chief credit
officer of XL Capital Assurance, Inc., as defendants and expands
the class period to include all persons who acquired the
company's securities from March 15, 2007, to March 18, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Security Capital Assurance Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-11086-DAB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Deborah A. Batts, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. (egleston@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414
          e-mail: 212-779-3218

          Irving Bizar, Esq. (Ibizar@Ballonstoll.com)
          Ballon, Stoll, Bader and Nadler
          729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-575-7900
          Fax: 212-764-5060

               - and -

          Richard A Speirs, Esq. (rspeirs@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969


TALEO CORP: Bull & Lifshitz Announces Securities Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Nov 21, 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 Northern District of California against
Taleo Corporation ("Taleo" or "Company") and certain of Taleo's
officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

     The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Taleo
securities from October 4, 2005 through November 10, 2008 (the
"Class Period").

     Taleo is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Dublin, California. Taleo describes
itself as the leader in on demand unified talent management
solutions that empower organizations of all sizes to assess,
acquire, develop, and align their workforces for improved
business performance.

     According to the class action complaint, during the Class
Period, defendants misled or failed to inform the investing
public regarding the Company's historical and current accounting
practices with respect to the timing for recognition of
application and consulting revenues under generally accepted
accounting principles in the United States ("GAAP").

     These policies, which reflected an inappropriate
application of GAAP designed to accelerate the recognition of
revenues, had been part of a scheme to defraud investors since
the Company's initial public offering in October 2005.

     As a result of this acceleration of revenues, Taleo was
able to present to investors a rosier picture of its financial
condition than the appropriate revenue figures would have
depicted. When the truth was revealed to the market, the price
of Taleo common stock dropped $3.06, or 28 percent, to $7.99.

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


WACHOVIA CORP: Shareholders File N.C. Suit Over Wells Fargo Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders who oppose Wachovia Corp.'s purchase have filed a
purported class-action lawsuit to block Wells Fargo & Co.'s
impending purchase of the bank, The Charlotte Observer reports.

In general, the lawsuit -- filed in Charlotte, N.C. court --
claims Wells Fargo is not offering a fair price for the troubled
bank, according to The Charlotte Observer.  The shareholders
want to force Wells Fargo to pay more for Wachovia than what the
bank's stock was trading at last year.

Although Wells Fargo needs the approval of Wachovia's
shareholders to make the purchase, The Charlotte Observer
reported that the ballot is nearly cinched because Wells Fargo
controls nearly 40 percent of the Wachovia shareholder vote.

According to The Charlotte Observer, Wachovia is Charlotte's
second-largest employer, with 20,000 local workers.

Local resident John Moore, a shareholder activist who is often
critical of management at Wachovia's annual meetings, told The
Charlotte Observer that he will vote against the deal because of
the potential job losses.

"It's about protecting people," Mr. Moore, 72, whose family owns
about 200,000 shares of the bank tells The Charlotte Observer.


WORKSTREAM INC: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved in Sept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed
against Workstream, Inc., its chief executive officer, and
former chief financial officer received the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York's final approval on Sept.
12, 2008.

The class action suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2005, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common shares
during the period from Jan. 14, 2005, to and including April 14,
2005.

The suit alleges, among other things, that management provided
the market misleading guidance as to anticipated revenues for
the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2005, and failed to correct this
guidance on a timely basis.

The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act,
and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well
as the award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel
and expert fees and costs.

In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which added additional plaintiffs and sought to elaborate on the
allegations contained in the complaint.

The defendant's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was denied.  The defendants have answered the amended
complaint, denying its material allegations.

The Court has certified the case as a class action and has
approved notice to the class.

The defendants contend that the deadline for taking discovery
has expired, but the plaintiffs have asked the Court for
additional time to pursue discovery.

The Company and the individual defendants have filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings, based upon a recent ruling of the
U.S. Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs have responded to that motion, which was argued
on Sept. 28, 2007, and is awaiting court decision.

According to the Company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2008.

The parties have agreed to settle the claims in consideration of
the payment of US$3 million by the Company's insurance carrier
and issuance by the Company of US$600,000 in common shares. The
Court held a hearing on June 24, 2008, to consider the fairness
of the settlement after notice of the settlement and the hearing
had been given to the class. No opposition to approval of the
settlement was presented at the hearing. On Aug. 13, 2008, the
Court entered a Final Judgment in the case, which became final
on Sept. 12, 2008.

The suit is "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al. v.
Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Judge Charles L. Brieant presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq. (ronen@sarrafgentile.com)
          Sarraf Gentile, LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 868-3610
          Fax: (212) 918-7967

               - and -

          Ralph M. Stone, Esq. (rstone@lawssb.com)
          Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310

Representing the defendants is:

          David M. Doret, Esq.
          H. Robert Fiebach, Esq.
          Cozen and O'Connor
          45 Broadway Atrium
          New York, NY 10006-3792
          Phone: 212-509-9400


* Litigators Say Banks, Raters Face Subprime Lawsuits, New Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top litigators have stated that the U.S. subprime mortgage
crisis has sparked more than 250 class-action lawsuits against
Wall Street banks and rating companies and will lead to rising
regulation in 2009, Walden Siew of Reuters reports.

According to Jonathan Sablone, a partner and co-chair of Nixon
Peabody's alternative investment litigation practice, global
hedge funds also face a new regulatory environment and massive
redemptions, and law firms are bracing for a flood of lawsuits
related to the collapse of the mortgage and structured debt
industry.

During a subprime mortgage conference in New York, Mr. Sablone
said, "There's going to be a tidal wave of litigation.
Invariably, when you're fighting over a limited pool, someone's
going to get left out."

Nixon Peabody has received many phone calls in preparation for
legal filings and expects a new wave to hit in January, Reuters
reports.

Mr. Sablone said, "From the institutional investor side, it's
all bad.  You're probably not getting a check. Come January 1,
you're probably getting a letter."

For the loosely regulated $1.7 trillion hedge fund industry,
more regulation is "inevitable," he said.  "Hedge funds were
fine as unregulated instruments when they were limited vehicles
for a chosen few," Mr. Sablone said.  "It doesn't make sense
when you have huge amounts of capital and pension funds
involved.  The rules have changed," he adds.

Reuters reported that rating companies also will be weighed down
by rising litigation costs.  Firms like Standard & Poor's and
Moody's Investors Service have been blamed for assigning top
"AAA" ratings for collateralized debt obligations that later
plummeted in value as homeowners defaulted on subprime mortgage
loans.

William O'Connor, a partner at Crowell & Moring LLP tells
Reuters, "The rock is being overturned.  The ratings are going
to be shook by these legal actions."

S&P, Moody's and Fitch Ratings so far have been successful
arguing that they serve a role as publishers, much like the free
press, and that their ratings represent opinions rather than
investment advice, reports Reuters.

"That industry may lose some of its First Amendment
protections," Peter Haveles, partner at Arnold & Porter LLP in
New York tells Reuters.

Panelists at the New York conference, sponsored by Duff &
Phelps, all agreed there will be few winners in the upcoming
fights, according to the Reuters report.

"Once you're in litigation, it's more about how to avoid the
biggest loss, not so much about winning," Mr. Sablone said. "The
buzzword for us right now in stress."


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Nov. 23, 2008 -- Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against PharmaNet Development Group, Inc. ("PharmaNet" or the
"Company") on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between November 1, 2007 and
April 30, 2008.

     The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
executive officers violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain public
statements made by PharmaNet during that period were materially
false and misleading because the statements failed to disclose
or indicate, among other things:

       -- that a substantial portion of the contracts in the
          Company's backlog were likely to be canceled;

       -- that the Company had increased its expenses in order
          to perform these contracts even though the contracts
          were likely to be canceled; and

       -- that as a result, statements made by the Company and
          management during that period about the Company's
          business, operations, and prospects lacked a
          reasonable basis.

     On April 30, 2008 PharmaNet announced that it was revising
downward its previously issued revenue guidance for 2008.  The
Company explained that cancellations over the fourth quarter of
2007 and the first quarter of 2008 of approximately $59 million
would negatively impact projected revenues for 2008 by
approximately $30 million.

     On this news, PharmaNet's shares declined $6.76 per share,
or 28.33 percent, to close on May 1, 2008 at $17.10 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

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




                            *********

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  * * *