CAR_Public/081126.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 26, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 235

                            Headlines

CATERPILLAR INC: Tenn. Court Denies Request for Injunction Stay
CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Ambac Financial's Securities Suit Pending
CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Amended Complaint Over MAT Five Funds Filed
CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Awaits Approval of Analyst Suit Settlement
CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Bid to Dismiss American Home's Suit Pending

CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Consolidated ARS Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Falcon Strategies Suit Voluntarily Nixed
CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: "Miller" Litigation Voluntarily Dismissed
CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Motion to Dismiss "Leber" Complaint Pending
CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Suit by Louisiana Sheriff's Pending in N.Y.

ELI LILLY: Ontario Court Sides With Plaintiffs in Zyprexa Suit
ERNIE HAIRE: Loses Fla. VIN Etching Case, Files For Chapter 11
FREEDOM COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Calif. Carriers' Suit for $22M
HARRAH'S METROPOLIS: Faces TCPA Violations Lawsuit in Illinois
HORIZON BLUE: Settles Suit Over Coverage of Eating Disorders

NISOURCE INC: W.Va. Court Gives Final OK to "Tawney" Settlement
RAVI KOTHARE: Investors Reach $2.1M Settlement in N.J. Lawsuit
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Jamgotchian"
WELLS FARGO: Judge Adjourns Wachovia Hearing Without A Ruling


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DAKTRONICS INC: Barroway Topaz Files Securities Fraud Litigation
INTERNAP NETWORK: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                           *********

CATERPILLAR INC: Tenn. Court Denies Request for Injunction Stay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
denied Caterpillar, Inc.'s request for a stay of injunction in a
lawsuit over health insurance for retirees, Paul Gordon of the
Peoria Journal Star reports.

In denying the company's request, Judge Aleta Trauger stated
that Caterpillar cannot take health insurance premiums and other
costs from the pensions of some of its retirees while a Sept.
16, 2008 preliminary federal injunction is appealed.

Judge Trauger said in her ruling that Caterpillar failed to
adequately demonstrate it would be irreparably harmed if the
stay was not granted but said the evidence shows the retirees
would be harmed if it was granted because the company would
continue the deductions, reports the Peoria Journal Star.

The latter opinion came despite Caterpillar's warning that if it
prevails, the retirees in this case could be forced to pay large
arrearages of missed premiums and co-payments and that it would
force changes to the current levels of insurance coverage that
would not be to the retirees' benefit.

The Peoria Journal Star reports that the case in question in
this ruling is one brought by retirees and surviving spouses
from the company's Logistic Services division.  They are a
subclass of a larger class-action lawsuit brought by another
group of retirees that is still pending.

There is another lawsuit brought by a different class of
retirees pending, as well.

In the lawsuits, the retirees contend they are harmed by changes
Caterpillar made in 1992 to its contract with the United Auto
Workers, according to the Peoria Journal Star.

Prior to 1992, Caterpillar retirees were promised free health
care for life.  Those who retired between 1992 and 1998 a
period when there was no contract believe they should be
subject to pre-1992 terms.  The 1998 contract was the first
without that provision.

In the other lawsuit, surviving spouses of Caterpillar retirees
believe they, too, should receive free health care as promised
their spouses.  Caterpillar started charging them premiums in
2005.

In her ruling, Judge Trauger also rejected the company's
argument that it's likely to prevail on the appeal, the Peoria
Journal Star reports.


CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Ambac Financial's Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II reports in its Nov. 14,
2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, that the
consolidated amended class action complaint captioned, "In re
Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:08-cv-00411-NRB," is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc., along with numerous other firms,
has been named as a defendant in several lawsuits by
shareholders of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. for which CGMI
underwrote securities offerings.

These actions assert that CGMI violated Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933 arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements contained in the registration statements
and prospectuses issued in connection with those offerings.

Several of these actions have been consolidated under the
caption, "In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00411-NRB," and in which a
consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed on Aug.
22, 2008.

The suit is "In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00411-NRB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Naomi Reice Buchwald, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173

         Jill Sharyn Abrams, Esq. (jabrams@abbeyspanier.com)
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-889-3700
         Fax: 212-684-5191

              - and -

         Aviah Cohen-Pierson, Esq. (acohenpierson@kaplanfox.com)
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
         850 Third Avenue
         14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-687-1980
         Fax: 212-687-7714

Representing the defendants is:

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


CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Amended Complaint Over MAT Five Funds Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed in the
matter, "In Re MAT Five Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-
04152-NRB," on Oct. 2, 2008, according to Citigroup Fairfield
Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form  10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

Citigroup, Inc. faces several purported class-action lawsuits
alleging violations of the federal securities laws and Delaware
state law in connection with investments in MAT Five, LLC.

One of the complaints allege that MAT Five, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC and
Citigroup Fixed Income Alternatives violated Section 12(a)(2) of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Delaware law.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that from late 2006 and
continuing into early 2007, Citigroup, through Citigroup Fixed
Income Alternatives and Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC
targeted many of its clients who were interested in fixed-income
investments which would provide higher yields.

The defendants marketed the MAT Five Fund to these clients and
disseminated a false and misleading Private Placement Memorandum
in connection with the issuance of hundreds of millions of
dollars of shares.

The Private Placement Memorandum and related selling documents
were false and misleading because they represented that the Fund
was a secure, non-volatile investment.

In reality, the Fund was a high-risk investment which could lose
substantial value if the markets changed or if it was not
properly managed.

Indeed, MAT Five Fund management employed risky strategies and
lost.  On March 20, 2008, CAI wrote a letter to investors which
stated that the recent credit crunch had rapidly accelerated and
spread into the municipal bond markets.  As a result, the cash
positions and net asset values of the MAT Five Fund had been
severely impacted, and they were going to indefinitely suspend
the fund's income distributions in an effort to preserve
liquidity.  At the time of the letter, the Fund had declined to
less than 10% of its original value and no further distributions
were made to the plaintiffs.

The putative class-action lawsuits have been consolidated in the
Southern District of New York under the caption, "In Re MAT Five
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-04152-NRB."

Similar related actions have been commenced in California,
Delaware and New York state court.  The company removed the New
York state court action to federal court and currently is
responding to a motion for a preliminary injunction filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court action, which motion seeks to enjoin a
tender offer interest in MAT Five LLC.

Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited
partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative
trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests
including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward
contracts.  Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, acts as its general partner.  Citigroup
Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
which is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General
Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings
Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc.


CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Awaits Approval of Analyst Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the matter "In re: Salomon Analyst Metromedia
Litigation, Case No. 06-3225-cv," is subject of judicial
approval, according to Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P.
II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
vacated the District Court's order granting class certification
in the matter.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants Citicorp USA, Inc.,
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., their ultimate parent, Citigroup,
Inc., and SSB research analyst Jack Grubman engaged in a scheme
to defraud investors in Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc., in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78a et seq., and the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R
Section 240.10b-5, by issuing and disseminating research analyst
reports on Metromedia that contained materially false and
misleading statements and omissions of material facts.

On Oct. 1, 2008, the parties reached a settlement under which
Citigroup will pay US$35 million to members of the settlement
class that purchased or otherwise acquired MFN securities during
the class period. The settlement is subject of judicial
approval. The proposed settlement amount is covered by existing
litigation reserves.

Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited
partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative
trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests
including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward
contracts.  Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, acts as its general partner.  Citigroup
Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
which is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General
Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings
Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc.


CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Bid to Dismiss American Home's Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the complaint in "In re American Home
Mortgage Securities Litigation," remains pending, according to
Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

According to Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann's article on
the case (http://www.blbglaw.com/cases/00008),the securities
fraud class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors of
American Home Mortgage Investment Corp.

BLB&G disclosed that it filed an amended complaint in June 2008,
asserting claims on behalf of investors who purchased American
Home stock.

On Sept. 12, 2008, defendants, including Citigroup Inc. and
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., moved to dismiss the complaint in
In re American Home Mortgage Securities Litigation.

Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited
partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative
trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests
including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward
contracts.  Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, acts as its general partner.  Citigroup
Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
which is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General
Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings
Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc.


CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Consolidated ARS Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended complaint in "In re Citigroup Auction
Rate Securities Litigation, Master File No. 08 Civ. 3095
(LTS)(FM)," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint is brought on behalf of investors who purchased
auction rate securities underwritten and sold in auctions
managed by defendants Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets,
Inc. and Smith Barney (Citigroup ARS).

The complaint alleges that from Aug. 1, 2007, through Feb. 11,
2008, defendants manipulated the market for Citigroup ARS by
fostering the illusion that a valid market existed where buyers
and sellers came together, with supply and demand in balance,
allowing for the successful completion of auctions of Citigroup
ARS.  In fact, no such balance existed.

During the Class Period, defendants routinely and regularly
intervened to ensure that their auctions did not fail.  When
defendants ceased intervening into auctions for Citigroup ARS,
the auctions failed in their entirety, and the Citigroup ARS
market came to a sudden and immediate halt.  Investors were left
with billions of dollars of Citigroup ARS and no market to sell
their positions.

The complaint alleges that defendants have acted in violation of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and section
206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Further, the complaint alleges that defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties to certain Citigroup ARS purchasers and
have violated the Deceptive Practices Acts of Arizona, Florida,
Illinois, Maryland, Wisconsin, Colorado, Kentucky, New Mexico,
Nebraska, Idaho, Delaware, South Dakota and North Dakota.

On Aug. 25, 2008, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint, according to Citigroup
Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Citigroup Auction Rate Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 08 Civ. 3095 (LTS)(FM)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited
partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative
trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests
including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward
contracts.  Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, acts as its general partner.  Citigroup
Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
which is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General
Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings
Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc.


CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Falcon Strategies Suit Voluntarily Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II said in its Nov. 14,
2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, that the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on July
21, 2008, approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of
the purported class-action suit captioned, "Ferguson Family
Trust v. Falcon Strategies Two LLC et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-
04723-SHS."

The case names several entities of Citigroup, Inc., as a
defendants.

On May 20, 2008, an investor in Falcon Strategies Two LLC filed
a putative class action complaint against Falcon and several
Citi- related entities, among others, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws
and Delaware state law in connection with a tender offer for
interests in Falcon Strategies.

On June 17, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiff's application
for a preliminary injunction.

The suit is "Ferguson Family Trust v. Falcon Strategies Two LLC
et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-04723-SHS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Sidney H.
Stein, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Robert M. Rothman, Esq. (rrothman@csgrr.com)
           Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
           58 South Service Road, Suite 200
           Melville, NY 11747
           Phone: 631-367-7100
           Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants are:

           Charles Edward Davidow, Esq. (cdavidow@paulweiss.com)
           Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP
           1615 L Street, N.W., Ste. 1300
           Washington, DC 20036
           Phone: 202-223-7300
           Fax: 202-223-7420

                - and -

           Sean R. O'Brien, Esq. (sobrien@arkin-law.com)
           Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP
           590 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor
           New York, NY 10022
           Phone: 212-333-0200
           Fax: 212-333-2350


CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: "Miller" Litigation Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit, "Miller v. Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund, et
al., Civ. No. 3756 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2008)," was voluntarily
dismissed on Sept. 19, 2008, according to Citigroup Fairfield
Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

The lawsuit, which had been pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York and in which Citigroup
Global Markets Inc. had been named as a defendant, alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933 by a closed-end mutual fund issuer and two underwriters.

The suit alleges that the issuer's registration statement was
materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose the
likelihood and true risk of auction failures and that purchasers
of its securities would fare worse in the event of auction
failures than would purchasers of municipal auction rate
securities, Kimberly M. Melvin, a partner at Wiley Rein LLP,
writes on Aug. 7, 2008 (http://researcharchives.com/t/s?354f).

Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited
partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative
trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests
including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward
contracts.  Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, acts as its general partner.  Citigroup
Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
which is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General
Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings
Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc.


CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Motion to Dismiss "Leber" Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the purported class-action complaint in
the matter, "Leber v. Citigroup, Inc., Case No. 07 CIV 9329
(SHS)" is pending, according to Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund
L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

A participant in the Citigroup 401(k) Plan brought an action
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on
behalf of herself and a putative class of approximately 187,000
participants alleging that the Plan sponsor and related
fiduciaries breached fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited
self-dealing in selecting investment products and services
provided by Citigroup and its affiliates for the Plan.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Oct. 18, 2007, under the
caption, "Leber v. Citigroup, Inc., Case No. 07 CIV 9329 (SHS)."

Citigroup and its administration and investment committees filed
a motion to dismiss the class action complaint on Aug. 29, 2008.

Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited
partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative
trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests
including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward
contracts.  Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, acts as its general partner.  Citigroup
Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
which is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General
Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings
Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc.


CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Suit by Louisiana Sheriff's Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subprime-mortgage-related class-action suit styled, "Louisiana
Sheriff's Pension and Relief Fund v. Citigroup Inc., et al.," is
pending in New York state court, according to Citigroup
Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and several
current and former officers and directors, and numerous other
financial institutions, have been named as defendants in a
class-action lawsuit filed on Sept. 30, 2008, alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 arising out of offerings of Citigroup securities issued in
2006 and 2007.

Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited
partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative
trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests
including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward
contracts.  Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, acts as its general partner.  Citigroup
Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
which is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General
Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings
Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc.


ELI LILLY: Ontario Court Sides With Plaintiffs in Zyprexa Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied Eli Lilly & Co.'s attempt
attempt to limit the recovery of plaintiffs in a class-action
lawsuit over the company's schizophrenia drug Zyprexa, according
to AboutLawsuits.com.

The company originally attempted to limit plaintiffs' recovery
to just the damages they suffered.  However, the court's ruling
allows plaintiffs to pursue recovery of the money the drug maker
made off of sales of the drug.

The class-action lawsuit seeks over $700 million against the
drug maker for failing to warn about side effects of Zyprexa
like severe weight gain, diabetes, hyperglycemia, and
pancreatitis.

Zyprexa (olanzapine) is an atypical antipsychotic medication,
which has generated sales of about $4.8 billion a year
worldwide.

Bloomberg News reports that in the Canadian lawsuit, Eli Lilly
could face liability for enormous amounts of money with the
plaintiffs able to go after the company's sales.

According to Judge Sidney Lederman, who originally allowed the
claims in 2007, "the ramifications of exposure to this type of
liability will extend beyond the parties to affect not just the
pharmaceutical industry as a whole, but also the securities
market."

The company may still appeal the decision to the Supreme Court
of Canada, according to AboutLawsuits.com.


ERNIE HAIRE: Loses Fla. VIN Etching Case, Files For Chapter 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. is seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection after losing a multi-million-dollar class-action
lawsuit over vehicle identification number etching on
windshields, Michael Hinman of the Tampa Bay Business Journal
reports.

Ernie Haire reported assets and liabilities of between $10
million and $50 million.  According to documents filed with the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, the
dealership is listing its two largest unsecured creditors as
Moira Gilley of Temple Terrace and Benjamin Atkinson of Lutz at
$6.9 million and $5.8 million respectively as a result of the
October jury verdict

Ms. Gilley filed a lawsuit against Ernie Haire in 2002, claiming
the dealership charged her $200 for a theft-deterrent VIN
etching on her windshield she didn't ask for, part of nearly
$1,000 in optional charges she said were not revealed to her
when she purchased a 1997 Ford Taurus for $7,160, reports the
Tampa Bay Business Journal.

Previously, The Tampa Tribune reported that Florida circuit
court judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit that
accuses Ernie Haire Ford, a Tampa car dealership of defrauding
customers (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006).

With class certification, an estimated 12,000 customers of the
dealership may join the suit, which centers on the dealership's
marketing of a service known as "VIN etching."

In general, the suit alleges that the dealership did not fully
disclose on purchase documents several hundred dollars in
charges for etching the vehicle identification number on vehicle
windows as a theft deterrent.

In particular, the suit claims the dealership charged customers
several hundred dollars each for VIN etching and concealed the
cost within the sticker price, similar to items such as taxes
and tire disposal fees.

VIN etching was marketed as a theft deterrent by making the
car's VIN number more prominent.  However, Dan Clark, a Tampa
attorney for plaintiffs suing the dealership, describes it as "a
snake oil service," pointing out, "it's protection that doesn't
give anything."

Mr. Clark contends that unlike upgrade items such as a high-end
stereo or leather seats, the etching charge appeared on
documents late in the sale process and listed as "Vehicle Theft
Registration."

According to Mr. Clark, customers had to buy it (VIN etching),
had to pay for it, and only if they sat down with the items and
questioned 'what is this?' would they find out.

Jeff Carter, a lawyer for Haire maintains though that "the
dealership did nothing wrong."  He said that the case would
prove that "there is no basis or point of success for the
plaintiffs."

A state appellate court on Oct. 13, 2006, affirmed class-action
status for customers of the dealership, according to Mr. Clark.

The suit will cover Haire customers between August 1998 and
August 2003.  Mr. Clark estimates that if the case is successful
on all counts, the claims and penalties could add up to $40
million against the dealership.


FREEDOM COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Calif. Carriers' Suit for $22M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom Communications, Inc., which owns The Orange County
Register, has reached tentative $22 million settlement with the
newspaper's carriers after a long dispute over their employment
status, The Associated Press reports.

The a class-action lawsuit was filed in 2003 on behalf of more
than 5,000 newspaper carriers, who are considered independent
contractors by the company.  It claimed the classification was
unfair because it denied them overtime pay and mileage and
required them to pay fines out-of-pocket for late papers and
other delivery problems.

The deal, which came in the middle of trial, does not require
the newspaper to reclassify its carriers as employees.  The
company said instead that it would pay any of the class members
who filed claims, plus attorney fees as decided by the court.

The carriers' attorney, Daniel Callahan, Esq. told The
Associated Press in a telephone interview that he hoped for $12
million in legal fees.  He also predicted current and future
carriers would receive up to $6 million in benefits over the
next decade as a result of the settlement -- a number the
company said it disputed.

For more details, contact:

          Daniel Callahan, Esq. (daniel@callahan-law.com)
          Callahan & Blaine
          3 Hutton Centre Drive
          Ninth Floor
          Santa Ana, CA 92707
          Phone: (714) 241-4444
          Fax: (714) 241-4445
          Web site: http://www.callahan-law.com/


HARRAH'S METROPOLIS: Faces TCPA Violations Lawsuit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harrah's Metropolis Casino is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Illinois that was filed by a Missouri man who is
seeking to represent a nationwide class of individuals who
received a prerecorded telephone call from Harrah's advertising
its vacation services, Steve Gonzalez of The Madison County
Record reports.

Richard Vigus's complaint is challenging Harrah's policy and
practice of transmitting unsolicited prerecorded telephone calls
to residential telephone lines because that form of
telemarketing invades the privacy rights of others and violates
the law.

According to Mr. Vigus, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
prohibits a person within the U.S. from using or having an agent
use an autodialer or prerecorded voice to deliver a message to
residential telephone numbers, reports The Madison County
Record.

The complaint states, "The TCPA was enacted to protect privacy
rights."  It adds, "The TCPA provides a private right of action
for violations and provides statutory damages of $500.00 per
violation."

Mr. Vigus claims on July 6, 2007, Harrah's called his telephone
line and delivered a message using a pre-recorded voice message.
He claims Harrah's made the same phone call to at least 39 other
recipients.

According to the complaint, "Defendant did not seek or obtain
the prior express consent of, or an established business
relationship with, the 39 other recipients."

Mr. Vigus claims that Harrah's phone call violated the right to
privacy afforded to him and other members of the class.  The
complaint states, "Defendant knew or should have known that it
delivered a prerecorded message to Plaintiff advertising the
commercial availability of any property, goods, or services and
did not have the prior express consent of Plaintiff to make such
telephone contact and that no established business relationship
existed with Plaintiff."

The Madison County Record reported that Mr. Vigus is seeking the
following judgment:

       -- An award $500 for each violation of the TCPA;

       -- Treble damages of $1,500 for each violation if the
          court finds the violations to be willful or knowing;
          and

       -- An award of costs and attorneys fees.

He seeks to certify a nationwide class consisting of all
residential telephone customers who were called on that
residential telephone line on or after Nov. 5, 2004 by or on
behalf of Harrah's using a prerecorded voice to deliver a
message promoting their vacation services and did not provide
them with prior express consent to place the call and did not
have an established business relationship with Harrah's.

Mr. Vigus is represented by Brad Lakin, Paul Marks and Robert
Schmeider, II of the Lakin Law Firm in Wood River.  In addition,
Phillip Bock of Chicago, Brian Wanca of Rolling Meadows and Max
Margulis of Chesterfield, Mo., will represent Mr. Vigus and the
class, according to The Madison County Record.

The case has been assigned to Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  It was
originally assigned to Judge William Stiehl, also of the
Southern District of Illinois, but he entered an order of
recusal in the case, reports The Madison County Record.


HORIZON BLUE: Settles Suit Over Coverage of Eating Disorders
------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey reached a tentative
$3.6 million settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit,
styled, "Beye v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey,
Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-05337-FSH-PS," Henry Gottlieb of the New
Jersey Law Journal reports.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, is alleging that the company wrongfully
denied claims by eating-disorder patients.

According to the New Jersey Law Journal, settlement will,
subject to approval by a federal judge, provide about $1.18
million to certain insureds who couldn't get coverage for
extended bulimia and anorexia treatments under their Horizon
plans.

Horizon would treat future claims more liberally and make
internal reforms to resolve disputes over benefits for eating
disorders.  The reforms would apply to policies held by more
than 1 million of its 3.2 million insureds in New Jersey.

Additionally, Horizon would pay up to $2.45 million in fees to
the plaintiffs attorneys, led by Bruce Nagel of Nagel Rice in
Roseland, N.J.

The suit is a companion case to "Drazin v. Horizon Blue Cross
Blue Shield, Civ. 6-6219."  Previously, Mr. Nagel and attorneys
for Aetna asked Judge Faith Hochberg of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey to approve the settlement in the
Drazin matter.  In a joint motion, they said the deal is fair,
adequate and reasonable and provides a procedure that would
allow claimants to opt out.

As a companion case, "Beye v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of
New Jersey, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-05337-FSH-PS," would also be
settled, according to the New Jersey Law Journal.

The lawsuit's goal was to get the insurers to treat eating
disorders as biologically based mental illnesses (BBMI), such as
schizophrenia.  That would make eating-disorder patients
eligible for months of treatment, compared with what they were
getting: a few outpatient visits per calendar year and a few
days of inpatient benefits.

The proposed settlement envisions payments to about 500 Horizon
insureds who were turned down for extended coverage of eating
disorder treatments or who didn't file claims knowing they would
be turned down.

During the next four years, the New Jersey Law Journal reported
that Horizon and the company which  manages its claims, Magellan
Health Services Inc., would be required to submit disputes over
coverage to an eating-disorder specialist who would decide
whether the claimant's proposed treatment is medically
necessary.  The specialist's decision would be binding.

The settlement covers only the beneficiaries of fully insured
plans -- those funded by employers.  Enrollees in self-funded
plans, such as employee welfare and state worker health benefits
programs, would not automatically benefit from the more liberal
process.

Mr. Nagel, in a brief supporting the motion for preliminary
approval, said that more than 1 million insureds would be
covered and that an expert, who was not named, determined that
the reforms had a $20 million value.

The brief, a copy of which was obtained by the New Jersey Law
Journal stated, "This settlement has achieved the core
objectives of the litigation: parity status for eating
disorders, payment of past denials, and a change in the internal
appeals procedures."

The motion asked Judge Hochberg to appoint Mr. Nagel as class
counsel, but it did not say how the fee would be divided between
his firm and a firm that also was in the case, Mazie, Slater,
Katz & Freeman, LLC, reports the New Jersey Law Journal

The suit is "Beye v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New
Jersey, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-05337-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Faith
Hochberg, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq. (bnagel@nagelrice.com)
          Nagel Rice, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Suite 201
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 618-0400
          Fax: (973) 618-9194

               - and -

          Beth G. Baldinger, Esq. (bbaldinger@mskf.net)
          Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07054
          Phone: 973-228-9898

Representing the defendant is:

          David Jay, Esq. (jayd@gtlaw.com)
          Greenberg Taurig, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          P.O. Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Phone: (973) 360-7900


NISOURCE INC: W.Va. Court Gives Final OK to "Tawney" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County gave final
approval to a settlement reached in purported class-action suit
involving the rights of mineral owners, which names NiSource,
Inc., as a defendant, according to Carrie Jones of WSAZ-TV
reports.

The suit is entitled, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural
Resources, Inc."  It alleges that the defendants underpaid
royalties on gas produced on their land by improperly deducting
post-production costs and not paying a fair value for the gas
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2008).

In December 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
add NiSource and Columbia Natural Resources, as defendants.

The plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, also claimed
that the defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction of
post-production charges.

The court certified the case as a class action that includes any
person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due royalties
from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands lying
within the boundary of the state of West Virginia.

Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated
to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages
ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs.

In November 2008, a Roane County judge gave final approval to a
deal that settles the 6-year old case.  The money will be
divided up among 10,000 landowners, WSAZ-TV reports.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane
County, Judge Thomas Evans, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St.
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, West Virginia 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


RAVI KOTHARE: Investors Reach $2.1M Settlement in N.J. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A state Superior Court judge has approved a $2.1 million
settlement to some 25 investors who filed a class-action suit
against a South Jersey financial adviser who committed suicide
last year after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
began investigating him for fraud, Paula Saha of The Star-Ledger
reports.

The plaintiffs who will share the settlement money live in New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Arizona, Florida,
Illinois, and New Hampshire.  Each will receive sums ranging
from $2,500 to more than $500,000, depending on the size of
their losses.

The financial adviser, 45-year-old Ravi Kothare of Voorhees, was
found dead in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Camden County in
March 2007 with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.  At
the time, he was being investigated by the SEC for
misappropriating millions of his clients' dollars to prop up a
failing business venture.

Following Mr. Kothare's death, James Pastena and Denville
attorney G. Martin Meyers filed legal action against the law and
accounting firms Mr. Kothare was associated with and TD
Ameritrade, the brokerage house where the investors' accounts
were maintained.

Mr. Meyers told The Star-Ledger that Mr. Kothare effectively
stole more than $5 million of the plaintiffs' money over four
years.  He disguised the misappropriations with made-up
financial statements.

James and Diane Pastena of Succasunna were among Mr. Kothare's
clients.  They said Mr. Kothare had essentially bilked them of
their life savings, and the suicide left the future of their
case momentarily unclear.

However, on Nov. 21, 2008, Judge Stephen F. Smith signed off on
a settlement agreement with those parties that will at least
return some of the lost funds to the Pastenas and other
plaintiffs.

According to court records obtained by The Star-Ledger, $1.9
million of the settlement will come from TD Ameritrade.  Another
$230,000 will come from the group of accounting and law firms
affiliated with Mr. Kothare.

The court also approved attorney fees to Mr. Meyers and a
$20,000 "incentive" award to Mr. Pastena, for his work heading
up the class-action suit, the court documents said.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Jamgotchian"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the purported class-action lawsuit against
Scientific Games Racing LLC, Scientific Games International
Inc., and Scientific Games Corp. over "Quick-Pick" wagering
tickets is appealing a decision by Judge George H. King of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California which
dismissed the case, Jack Shinar of The Blood-Horse reported.

On Nov. 17, 2008, attorney Robert Goodin, Esq. filed the appeal
on behalf of Jerry Jamgotchian in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, reports The Blood-Horse.

Ryan Conley of The Blood-Horse previously reported that the
lawsuit, entitled "Jerry Jamgotchian, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, vs. Scientific Games
Corporation, Scientific Games Racing, LLC, Scientific Games
International, Inc. and Does one through ten, Case No. CV 08-
05121," was filed on Aug. 5, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
28, 2008).

The suit seeks, among other things, class certification and
damages in excess of $5,000,000 on behalf of a purported class
of persons who "bought 'Quick-Pick' wagering tickets through
Scientific Games' computerized pari-mutuel wagering system" from
July 1, 2007, until June 2, 2008, in California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New
York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas or Wisconsin.

Recently, Judge King dismissed the lawsuit against Scientific
Games over the "quick-picks" wagering situation, agreeing with
the company that state public policy prohibits such a complaint
as it was presented.

The judge entered the judgment on Oct. 23, 2008, after
considering Scientific Game's motion to dismiss the case.

Without specifically commenting on the merits of Mr.
Jamgotchian's complaint -- which included charges of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
and negligence -- Judge King in published civil minutes of his
decision instead focused on Scientific Game's primary dismissal
argument: That California case law prevents lawsuits by bettors
attempting to collect lost wagers.

Judge King wrote that the court didn't agree with Mr.
Jamgotchian's assertion that the complaint, which was filed as a
class-action lawsuit, was not about trying to recover lost bets.

"Moreover, though plaintiff claims that the identity of the
winning horse is irrelevant under this theory, we doubt that he
will seek to undo any transactions where he held a winning
ticket," he wrote.

In an accompanying order, Judge King ruled that the lawsuit is
dismissed with prejudice, which generally means that the lawsuit
can't be filed again.

Mr. Jamgotchian, who in interviews with The Blood-Horse also
criticized the California Horse Racing Board for its part in the
subsequent investigation and an eventual $200,000 settlement
with Scientific Games, was not happy with the court decision.

"Judge King failed to understand that our action was based on
(Scientific Games') outright fraud, breach of contract and other
claims which did not relate to gambling, (and) to Scientific
Games latest 'scheme' to defraud all (California) bettors," he
wrote in an e-mail statement to The Blood-Horse.  "What makes it
even worse is that CHRB chairman Richard Shapiro and the CHRB
condoned these illegal activities and 'partnered up' with
Scientific Games to continue defrauding California bettors, and
then even extended the Scientific Games contract (to provide
wagering products to the state)!"

"Based upon this illegal and despicable conduct by both
Scientific Games and the CHRB, why should anyone have confidence
that wagering in California has any integrity or safeguards?" he
continued. "The simple answer is that it doesn't, and the CHRB
won't require any such integrity or safeguards from their
'partner,' Scientific Games."

An attorney representing Scientific Games said the company was
pleased with Judge King's ruling.

"Scientific Games acted just the way the betting public should
want companies to act," said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of the
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm in Los Angeles.  "The company
moved quickly to work with regulatory authorities to resolve the
issues and to protect the betting public. California law is very
clear that these types of lawsuits are barred and meritless.
The district court got it exactly right.

"All of the claims in the complaint were utterly baseless on the
merits, but the district court didn't even have to reach those
issues because California law so obviously prohibited this
lawsuit in its entirety," he added.  "The false attacks on the
CHRB, Scientific Games and Judge King can't change the facts or
the law."

Mr. Jamgotchian said he and his legal counsel will consider
appealing to the California Supreme Court what he called an
"irresponsible ruling" by Judge King, and would also consider
filing claims to see if the CHRB and Scientific Game will
actually refund wagers based upon the settlement agreement.  The
settlement terms allows for holders of quick-picks tickets
purchased during the glitch-period to request refunds from
Scientific Games.

The suit is "Jamgotchian v. Scientific Games Corporation et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge George H. King,
presiding.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Adjourns Wachovia Hearing Without A Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Without issuing a ruling a North Carolina judge adjourned a
hearing in purported class-action complaint captioned, "Irving
Ehrenhaus v. John D. Baker, et al.," a purported class-action
lawsuit that seeks to to block Wells Fargo & Co.'s impending
purchase of Wachovia Corp.

Christina Rexrode of CharlotteObserver.com reported that Judge
Albert Diaz, with the N.C. Business Court in Charlotte,
adjourned the hearing, saying he would take the matter under
advisement.

The complaint, filed on Oct. 8, 2008 in the Superior Court for
the County of Mecklenburg in the State of North Carolina, names
as defendants Wachovia, Wells Fargo, and the directors of
Wachovia (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2008).

It alleges that the Wachovia directors breached their fiduciary
duties in approving the merger with Wells Fargo at an allegedly
inadequate price, and that the Wells Fargo directors aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The action seeks to enjoin the Wells Fargo merger, or to recover
compensatory or rescissory damages if the merger is consummated,
as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DAKTRONICS INC: Barroway Topaz Files Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     RADNOR, Pa., Nov. 24, 2008 -- The following statement was
issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, LLP: Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of South Dakota on behalf of all purchasers of securities of
Daktronics, Inc. ("Daktronics" or the "Company") from November
15, 2006 through April 5, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

     Daktronics is a supplier of large screen video displays,
electronic scoreboards, LED text and graphics displays, and
related control systems.

     More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

       -- that a significant number of the Company's orders were
          being delayed;

       -- that the Company was experiencing increased and
          uncontrollable operating expenses;

       -- that the Company was experiencing softness in its
          digital billboard and sports markets;

       -- that as a result, the Company was not performing
          according to internal expectations;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls; and

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

     On February 14, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that during the third fiscal quarter of 2007, it had
experienced less cash flow than expected due to higher equipment
costs in manufacturing expansion, greater costs incurred in
building new facilities and an increased debt level.

     Additionally, the Company stated that it finished the
quarter with higher than expected inventory levels "in
preparation for orders that have been delayed in booking."

     Finally, the Company stated that it estimated net sales for
the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007 to be in the range of $106
million to $118 million, with earnings in the range of $0.12 to
$0.19 per share.

     The Company indicated that these estimates were affected by
"lower than expected levels of orders in the third quarter," but
nonetheless maintained that the Company was "well positioned
with capacity to respond quickly to opportunities that may arise
during the fourth quarter that could impact these estimates."

     Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell
$8.00 per share, or 21 percent, to close on February 14, 2007 at
$30.09 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Then, on April 5, 2007, after the market closed, the
Company again shocked investors when it significantly revised
fourth quarter earnings estimates downward.

     The Company stated that it now expected net sales to be in
the range of $101 million to $105 million for the fourth
quarter, with earnings in the range of $0.06 to $0.12 per share.

     The Company further stated that it was unable to book
enough orders early in the fourth quarter" to justify its
earnings estimates. On this news, the Company's shares fell an
additional $5.78 per share, or 20.71 percent, to close on April
9, 2007 (the next trading day) at $22.13 per share, again on
unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact:

              Darren J. Check, Esq.
              David M. Promisloff, Esq.
              Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
              280 King of Prussia Road
              Radnor, PA 19087
              Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
              e-mail: info@btkmc.com


INTERNAP NETWORK: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Internap
Network Services Corporation ("Internap" or the "Company") on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between March 28, 2007 and March 18,
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 the Company during that period were
materially false and misleading because the statements failed to
disclose or indicate, among other things:

       -- that the Company had not successfully integrated its
          network following the Company's acquisition of
          Vitalstream Advertising and Media Services;

       -- that the Company was actually having significant
          integration problems causing service issues for
          Internap's customers;

       -- that as a result, the Company's customers were
          requesting account credits and Internap would have to
          refund money which the Company had previously reported
          and recognized as revenue; and

       -- that its customer count was inaccurate and overstated.

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


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     BALA CYNWYD, Pa., Nov. 24, 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
McDermott International Inc. ("McDermott" or the "Company")
between February 27, 2008 and November 5, 2008 (the "Class
Period").

     The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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

     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: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     DENVER, Nov. 24, 2008 -- Dyer & Berens LLP today announced
that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
investors of PharmaNet Development Group, Inc. ("PharmaNet" or
the "Company") who purchased common stock between November 1,
2007 and April 30, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements to the market
about the Company, its business, backlog and earnings guidance.

     For example, defendants allegedly 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 foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable
          basis for their positive statements about the Company.

     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 purchasers
of PharmaNet securities during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          (888) 300-3362
          (303) 861-1764
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *