CAR_Public/081201.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 1, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 238

                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Amended Fraud Complaint
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs Dismiss N.Y. Retirement Plan Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Second Circuit Denies Appeal inn "Ross" Matter
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Summary Judgment Sought in "Marcus" Litigation
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Third Cicuit Mulls Appeal in "Homa" Litigation

AMEX BANK: Continues to Face "Marcotte" Litigation in Montreal
AMEX BANK: December Trial Set for "Adams" Case in Quebec Court
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defending "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in "Vogel" Lawsuit
BLOCKBUSTER INC: "End of Late Fees" Program Suits Still Pending

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Facebook Members' Privacy Suit in Calif.
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit Pending in Texas
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Suits on Contract Law Breach Pending in Canada
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Tex. Court Dismisses Claims in "Halaris" Suit

CAREMARK RX: Plaintiffs Dismisses "Irwin" Litigation in Calif.
CAREMARK RX: Stay on "Lauriello" Lawsuit in Ala. to be Lifted
CASH AMERICA: Ga. Court Declines to Review Payday Loans Lawsuit
CITIGROUP INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Litigation in N.Y.
CITIGROUP INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. State Court

INTEL CORP: Still Faces Suits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices
KIT DIGITAL: To Defend Suit Over ROO HDD's Acquisition of Wurld
WILSHIRE ENTERPRISES: Faces N.J. Suit Over NWJ Apartment Merger

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ARACRUZ CELULOSE: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********




AMERICAN EXPRESS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Amended Fraud Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has granted a motion that sought for the dismissal of the
amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class-
action lawsuit filed against the American Express Company, under
the caption, "In re American Express Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-5533 (RMB)."

Beginning in mid-July 2002, 12 putative class-action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In October 2002, these cases were consolidated under the
caption, "In re American Express Company Securities Litigation."

These lawsuits allege violations of the federal securities laws
and the common law in connection with alleged misstatements
regarding certain investments in high-yield bonds and write-
downs in the 2000-2001 time frame.

The purported class covers the period from July 26, 1999 to July
17, 2001.  The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages as
well as disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and interest.

On March 31, 2004, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In August 2006, the Court of Appeals, without expressing any
views whatsoever on the merits of the cases, vacated the
District Court's judgment and remanded all claims to the
District Court for further proceedings.

More particularly, the Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court's ruling that two of the plaintiff's claims in an amended
complaint did not "relate back" to the original complaint and
were thus time-barred under the statute of limitations period.

As a result, the Court of Appeals decided that it was prudent to
remand all claims back to the District Court so that plaintiffs
could file a new amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint on January 5, 2007.

On or about March 6, 2007, the Company filed a motion to strike
the amended complaint, which the District Court denied on July
24, 2007.

The Company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion was granted in September 2008, according
to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The suit is styled "Slayton, et al. v. American Express Company,
et al., Case No. 02-CV-5533 (RMB)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Judge Richard M. Berman, presiding.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs Dismiss N.Y. Retirement Plan Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Kritzman v. American Express
Retirement Plan et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00233-LAK-HBP," which
was filed against American Express Co. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York have voluntarily
dismissed their complaint.

The plaintiff alleges that when the calculation of benefits
under the company's Retirement Plan was converted effective July
1, 1995, from a final average pay formula to a "cash balance"
formula, the terms of the amended American Express Retirement
Plan (AXP) violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
as amended, in these ways:

       -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on reducing
          rates of benefit accrual due to the increasing age of
          a plan participant;

       -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on
          forfeiture of accrued benefits; and

       -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's present value
          calculation rules.

The plaintiff seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief
entitling the plaintiff and the purported class to benefits that
are the greater of:

       -- the benefits to which the members of the class would
          have been entitled without regard to the conversion of
          the benefit payout formula of the AXP Plan to a cash
          balance formula; and

       -- the benefits under the AXP Plan with regard to the
          cash balance formula.

The plaintiff also seeks pre- and post-judgment interest and
attorneys fees and expenses.

American Express has filed a motion seeking to dismiss the
complaint.

In July 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
issued a decision in a case not involving American Express,
captioned, "Hirt v. Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees,
Managers and Agents," finding that cash balance plans do not
discriminate based on age.

In light of the Second Circuit's decision in the Hirt case, the
Kritzman plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their complaint,
according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Kritzman v. American Express Retirement Plan et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00233-LAK-HBP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. (eciolko@sbclasslaw.com)
           Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz, & Kessler, LLP
           280 King of Prussia Road
           Radnor, PA 19087
           Phone: 610-667-7706
           Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendant is:

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


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Second Circuit Denies Appeal inn "Ross" Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied American
Express Co.'s motion in the case, "Ross, et al. v. American
Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and
American Express Centurion Bank," according to the company's
Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The purported class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York back in July 2004.

The complaint alleges that AMEX conspired with Visa, MasterCard
and Diners Club in the setting of foreign conversion rates and
in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their
cardmember agreements.  The suit seeks injunctive relief and
unspecified damages.

The class is defined as "all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club
general purpose cardholders who used cards issued by any of the
MDL Defendant Banks...." American Express cardholders are not
part of the class.

In September 2005, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the action and preliminarily certified an injunction
class of Visa and MasterCard cardholders to determine the
validity of Visa's and MasterCard's cardmember arbitration
clauses.

American Express filed a motion for reconsideration with the
District Court, which motion was denied in September 2006.  The
Company filed an appeal from the District Court's order denying
its motion to compel arbitration.

In October 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit denied the Company's appeal and remanded the case to the
District Court for further proceedings.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The Company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the Company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.

    
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Summary Judgment Sought in "Marcus" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the antitrust suit "The Marcus Corp. v. American
Express Co., et al." have moved for summary judgment in their
favor, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Initially, several cases were filed against the company:

      -- "Cohen Rese Gallery et al. v. American Express Co.,
         et al.," U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed July 2003);

      -- "Italian Colors Restaurant v. American Express Co.,
         et al.," U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed August 2003);

      -- "DRF Jeweler Corp. v. American Express Co., et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed December 2003);

      -- "Hayama Inc. v. American Express Co., et al.,"
         Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed
         December 2003);

      -- "Chez Noelle Restaurant v. American Express Co., et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed January 2004);

      -- "Mascari Enterprises d/b/a Sound Stations v. American
         Express Co., et al.," U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York (filed January 2004);

      -- "Mims Restaurant v. American Express Co., et al.,"
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York (filed February 2004); and

      -- "The Marcus Corp. v. American Express Co., et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed July 2004).

The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

Upon motion to the Court by the Company, the venue of the Cohen
Rese and Italian Colors actions was moved to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York in December 2003.

Each of the above-listed actions (except for Hayama) is now
pending in the Southern District of New York, consolidated as
"In re American Express Merchants' Litigation."

                     Dismissal and Arbitration

On April 30, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all the
actions filed prior to such date that were pending in the
Southern District of New York, and on March 15, 2006, such
motion was granted, with the Court finding the claims of the
plaintiffs to be subject to arbitration.

Plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider its dismissal.  That
request was denied.  The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's
arbitration ruling.

                       Hayama Litigation

In addition, during the pendency of the motion in the Southern
District of New York, the Company had asked the California
Superior Court hearing the Hayama action referenced above to
stay that action pending resolution of such motion.

                    Marcus Corp. Litigation

The Company also filed a motion to dismiss the action filed by
the Marcus Corp., which was denied in July 2005.

On Oct. 1, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification
of a class.

The Company has opposed plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  In addition, each of the Company and the
plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment in their favor.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The Company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the Company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Third Cicuit Mulls Appeal in "Homa" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to rule
on a motion regarding a decision by the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey to compel individual arbitration and
dismiss the complaint in the matter, "Homa v. American Express
Company et al.."

The putative class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey back in 2006.  It alleges,
generally, misleading and fraudulent advertising of the "tiered"
"up to 5 percent" cash rebates with the Blue Cash card.

The complaint initially sought certification of a nationwide
class consisting of "all persons who applied for and received an
American Express Blue Cash card during the period from September
30, 2003 to the present and who did not get the rebate or
rebates provided for in the offer."

On Dec. 1, 2006, however, plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint dropping the nationwide class claims and asserting
claims only on behalf of New Jersey residents who "while so
residing in New Jersey, applied for and received an American
Express Blue Cash card during the period from Sept. 30, 2003 to
the present."

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other unspecified
relief that the Court deems appropriate.

In May 2007, the Court granted the Company's motion to compel
individual arbitration and dismissed the complaint.

The plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal of that decision with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The appeal has
been fully briefed and argument is expected to occur in December
2008, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The Company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the Company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMEX BANK: Continues to Face "Marcotte" Litigation in Montreal
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMEX Bank of Canada, a unit of American Express Canada and
owned by American Express Co., continues to face a purported
class-action lawsuit captioned, "Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal et
al."

In May 2006, in a matter captioned, "Marcotte v. Bank of
Montreal et al.," filed in the Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal (originally filed in April 2003) the Court
authorized a class action against AMEX Bank of Canada, Bank of
Montreal, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce, Scotiabank, National Bank of Canada,
Laurentian Bank of Canada and Citibank Canada.

The action alleges that conversion commissions made on foreign
currency transactions are credit charges under the Quebec
Consumer Protection Act (the QCPA) and cannot be charged prior
to the 21-day grace period under the QCPA.

The class includes all persons holding a credit card issued by
one of the defendants to whom fees were charged since April 17,
2000, for transactions made in foreign currency before
expiration of the period of 21 days following the statement of
account.

The class claims reimbursement of all foreign currency
conversions, CDN$400 per class member for trouble, inconvenience
and punitive damages, interest and fees and costs.

The trial in the Marcotte action commenced in September 2008 and
is expected to run through November 2008, according to the
company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The Company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the Company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMEX BANK: December Trial Set for "Adams" Case in Quebec Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative December 2008 trial is slated for a purported class-
action suit captioned "Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada,"
which was filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal against AMEX Bank of Canada, a unit of American Express
Canada and owned by American Express Co.

The motion to authorize a class action alleges that prior to
December 2003, Amex Bank of Canada charged a foreign currency
conversion commission on transactions to purchase goods and
services in currencies other than Canadian dollars and failed to
disclose the commissions in monthly billing statements or
solicitations directed to prospective cardmembers.

The class, consisting of all Cardmembers in Quebec that
purchased goods or services in a foreign currency prior to
December 2003, claims reimbursement of all foreign currency
conversion commissions, CDN1,000 in punitive damages per class
member, interest and fees and costs.

The trial in the Adams action is scheduled to commence in
December 2008 after the conclusion of the trial in the Marcotte
action, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The Company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the Company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defending "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. continues to defend the extended viewing fee
putative class-action case styled, "Cohen v. Blockbuster,"
according to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Oct. 5, 2008.

The case, filed on Feb. 18, 1999 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, was not completely resolved
by a court-approved national class settlement (the "Scott
settlement").

Marc Cohen, Uwe Stueckrad, Marc Perper and Denita Sanders assert
common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive
practices, unjust enrichment and unlawful penalties regarding
Blockbuster's extended viewing fee policies.  Such claims were
brought against Blockbuster, individually and on behalf of all
entities doing business as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video.

The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and other
plaintiff class members including actual damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

By order dated April 27, 2004, the Cohen trial court certified
plaintiff classes for U.S. residents who incurred extended
viewing fees and/or purchased unreturned videos between Feb. 18,
1994 and Dec. 31, 2004, and who were not part of the Scott
settlement or who do not have a Blockbuster membership with an
arbitration clause.  In the same order, the trial court
certified a defendant class comprised of all entities that have
done business in the United States as Blockbuster or Blockbuster
Video since Feb. 18, 1994.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the trial court denied Blockbuster's motion to
reconsider the trial court's certification of plaintiff classes.

On Sept. 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court remanded the
trial court's decision to certify plaintiff classes back to the
trial court for reconsideration of our motion to decertify
plaintiff classes. Plaintiffs did not petition the Illinois
Supreme Court for leave to appeal.

On March 14, 2008, upon reconsideration the trial court granted
Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff classes and
decertified both plaintiff and defendant classes.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in "Vogel" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Newcastle County Chancery Court, Delaware, on Aug. 15, 2008,
dismissed Howard Vogel's claims with prejudice for failure to
prosecute, according to Blockbuster, Inc.'s Nov. 13, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Oct. 5, 2008.

On Feb. 10, 2004, Howard Vogel filed the lawsuit against the
company, John Muething, Linda Griego, John Antioco, Jackie
Clegg, Viacom Inc., and the company' directors who were also
directors and officers of Viacom.

The plaintiff alleges that a stock swap mechanism anticipated to
be announced by Viacom would be a breach of fiduciary duty to
minority stockholders and that the defendants engaged in unfair
dealing and coercive conduct.

The stockholder class action complaint asks the court to certify
a class and to enjoin the then-anticipated transaction.

The plaintiff has confirmed that Blockbuster and the other
defendants are not required to respond to the pending complaint.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: "End of Late Fees" Program Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., continues to face two purported class-action
suits over its "end of late fees" program, according to the
company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 5,
2008.

                       Galeno Litigation

On Feb. 25, 2005, Michael L. Galeno filed a putative class
action suit before the Supreme Court of New York County, New
York, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and that
Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates New York's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive
relief.

Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York.

                      Creighton Litigation

On March 4, 2005, Beth Creighton filed a putative class action
suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, alleging
that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates Oregon's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.

The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable
and injunctive relief.  Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for District of Oregon.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
One additional extended viewing fee putative class-action suit
in the U.S. is inactive and subject to dismissal under the Scott
settlement, according to Blockbuster, Inc.'s Nov. 13, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Oct. 5, 2008.

Blockbuster was a defendant in 12 lawsuits filed by customers in
nine states and the District of Columbia between November 1999
and April 2001.

These putative class-action lawsuits alleged common law and
statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices and/or
unlawful business practices regarding the company's extended
viewing fee policies for customers who chose to keep rental
product beyond the initial rental term.

Some of the cases also alleged that these policies imposed
unlawful penalties and resulted in unjust enrichment.

In January 2002, the 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas entered a final judgment approving a national
class settlement (the "Scott settlement").

Under the approved settlement, the company paid $9.25 million in
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees during the first quarter of 2005 and
made certificates available to class members for rentals and
discounts through November 2005.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Facebook Members' Privacy Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. faces a putative class action complaint filed
under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act (CFAA), California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
California's Computer Crime Law in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

On Aug. 12, 2008, Sean Lane, Mohannaed Sheikha, Sean Martin, Ali
Sammour, Mohammaed Zidan, Sara Karrow, Colby Henson, Denton
Hunker, Firas Sheikha, Hassen Sheikha, Linda Stewart, Tina Tran,
Matthew Smith, Erica Parnell, John Conway, Austin Muhs, Phillip
Huerta, Alicia Hunker, and Mega Lynn Hancock (a minor, through
her parent Rebecca Holey) filed the class action complaint.

The plaintiffs assert claims against Facebook, Inc., Blockbuster
Inc., Fandango, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., STA Travel, Inc.,
Overstock.com, Inc., Zappos.com, Inc., Gamefly, Inc., and John
Does 1-40, corporations.

They are purporting to act on behalf of every Facebook member
who visited one or more of Facebook's affiliates' websites and
engaged in activities that triggered the Facebook affiliates'
websites to communicate with Facebook regarding the activity
from Nov. 6, 2007 to Dec. 5, 2007.

The plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA, ECPA, and
CFAA by allegedly violating the plaintiffs' privacy through
their activities on the Blockbuster and Facebook websites.

They seek class certification, injunctive and equitable relief,
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The plaintiffs have stipulated that Blockbuster is not required
to respond to the pending complaint at this time, according to
the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 5,
2008.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit Pending in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint against Blockbuster, Inc., remains
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas, over allegations it invaded customers' privacy by
sending information about their movie rentals to the Facebook
Web site.

This is a class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act,
18 USC Section 2710.  The plaintiffs also bring this action
pursuant to Rules 23 (b)(3) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of each and every individual in the
United States of America who has ever been a member of Facebook
and Blockbuster on-line during the same period beginning from
Nov. 6, 2007, through the date of judgment herein whose name,
and address, or a title, description, or subject matter of any
video tapes or other audio visual materials that were rented,
sold or delivered to each individual were distributed to third
parties by defendant without the informed written consent of
such individuals or a clear and conspicuous manner to prohibit
the disclosure of such individuals name and address.

CourtHouse News Service reported that the plaintiffs claim
Blockbuster's cooperation with Facebook's "Beacon" system
violates the Videotape Privacy Protection Act, which Congress
passed after a newspaper obtained a list of 146 movies Robert
Bork or his family had rented, and publicized it during Bork's
failed nomination to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs say that Facebook launched Beacon in November
2007, in cooperation with 44 other Web sites, that automatically
fed information to Facebook.  This was not just for social
purposes, but was "a core element in the Facebook Ads system for
connecting businesses with users," the plaintiffs say.

According to the complaint, Blockbuster sent information about
movie rentals to Facebook, which added it to members' Facebook
profile, something like this: "Preston added Lord of the Rings
to his queue on Blockbuster.com," the complaint states.

This was an opt-out system, in which users had to check a box to
prevent the information from being distributed, the plaintiffs
say.

According to CourtHouse, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, faced
with furious criticism about privacy invasion, was forced to
issue an apology, in December, which is quoted, apparently in
full, in this filing.  "To this day, however, Facebook still
receives personal identifiable information from participating
Web site with the Beacon javascript, whether the Facebook member
has chosen to distribute their information or not," Facebook
says.

The plaintiffs say that if users did not check the opt-out box
quickly enough, their information would be sent to Facebook, and
that along with "a picture of the individual who purchased the
movie and a Blockbuster ad."

They say that Blockbuster did not notify online customers that
this information was being sent to Facebook until "sometime in
December 2007.  However, the summary is immediately sent to a
user's Facebook profile even before the user has a chance to
decline the distribution of his personal identifiable
information -- as long as you have not marked the privacy
feature telling Blockbuster never to send summaries.  To this
day, Blockbuster online victims remain unsuspecting victims,"
the complaint states.

Blockbuster, which has 64 million "active users," is the 7th
most popular site on the Web, the complaint points out.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants improperly distributed and used
         "personal identifiable information" obtained from their
         websites of members of the class, within the meaning of
         the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710;

     (b) whether defendants' obtaining and distributing
         "personal identifiable information" from the
         defendants' Web sites of members of the class was done
         knowingly, within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC
         Section 2710;

     (c) whether defendants' when disclosing the names and
         addresses of members of the class provided members of
         the class "a clear and conspicuous manner, to prohibit
         such disclosure," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18
         USC Section 2710;

     (d) whether defendants' disclosure of the names and
         addresses of members of the class disclosed the "title,
         description, or subject matter of any video tapes or
         other audio visual materials," within the meaning of
         the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710;

     (e) whether defendants' disclosure of the names and
         addresses of members of the class was for the
         "exclusive use of marketing goods and services directly
         to the consumer," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18
         USC Section 2710; and

     (f) whether defendants' obtaining and distribution of
         "personal identifiable information" from the
         defendants' Web sites of members of the class was
         destroyed "as soon as practicable, but not later that
         one year from the date the information is no longer
         necessary for the purpose for which it was collected,"
         within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:

     -- declaring that this action may be maintained as a class
        action;

     -- granting judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the other
        members of the class against the defendant in the amount
        of $2,500 for each instance in which the defendant
        disclosed, or used persona identifiable information
        concerning the plaintiff and members of the class;

     -- awarding punitive damages should the court find that the
        defendants acted in willful or reckless disregard of the
        VPPA;

     -- awarding attorney's fees and other litigation costs
        reasonably incurred; and

     -- requiring the defendants to destroy any personal
        information illegally distributed.

The plaintiffs have stipulated that Blockbuster is not required
to respond to the pending complaint at this time, according to
the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 5,
2008.

The suit is "Cathryn Elaine Harris, et al. v. Blockbuster,
Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas, Judge T. John Ward, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq. (jwilson@corealaw.com)
          The Corea Firm PLLC
          The Republic Center
          325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 4150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-953-3900
          Fax: 214-953-3901

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael Lawrence Raiff, Esq. (mraiff@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins
          2001 Ross Ave.
          3700 Trammell Crow Center
          Dallas, TX 75201-2975
          Phone: 214-220-7744
          Fax: 1-214-999-7705


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Suits on Contract Law Breach Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to
face two putative class-action lawsuits that are pending in
Canadian courts.

                        Hazell Litigation

William Robert Hazell filed a complaint before the Supreme Court
of British Columbia on Aug. 24, 2001, against Viacom
Entertainment Canada Inc., Viacom Inc., Blockbuster Canada, and
Blockbuster.

The case asserts claims of unconscionability, violations of the
trade practices act, breach of contract and high handed conduct.
The relief sought includes actual damages, disgorgement, and
exemplary and punitive damages.

                        Hedley Litigation

Douglas R. Hedley filed a complaint before the Court of Queen's
Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, in Saskatchewan on July 19,
2002.

The case asserts claims of unconscionability, unjust enrichment,
misrepresentation and deception, and seeks recovery of actual
damages of $3 million, disgorgement, declaratory relief,
punitive and exemplary damages of $1 million and attorneys'
fees.

The company reported no further development in the matters in
its Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 5, 2008.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Tex. Court Dismisses Claims in "Halaris" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Halaris' claims against Blockbuster, Inc. were dismissed
with prejudice last Aug. 19, 2008, according to the company's
Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 5, 2008.

On Sept. 8, 2006, John Halaris filed a putative collective
class-action complaint under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, purporting to act on behalf of all persons who
were participants in or beneficiaries of the Blockbuster
Investment Plan whose accounts included investments in
Blockbuster, Inc. stock, at any time, since Nov. 15, 2003.

The plaintiff asserts claims against:

      -- Vicaom, Inc.,
      -- the Viacom Investment Committee,
      -- the Viacom Retirement Committee,
      -- William A. Roskin,
      -- John R. Jacobs,
      -- Mary Bell,
      -- Bruce Lewis,
      -- Robert G. Freedline,
      -- Larry J. Zine,
      -- Keith M. Holtz,
      -- Barbara Mickowski,
      -- Dan Satterthwaite,
      -- Phillipe P. Dauman,
      -- Sumner M. Redstone,
      -- Richard Bressler,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- John L. Muething,
      -- Linda Griego,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Peter A. Bassi,
      -- Robert A. Bowman,
      -- Gary J. Fernandes,
      -- Mel Karmazin,
      -- Blockbuster, Inc.
      -- the Blockbuster Retirement Committee, and
      -- the Blockbuster Investment Committee.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA.

The suit seeks declaratory relief, recovery of actual damages,
court costs, attorney's fees, a constructive trust, restoration
of lost profits to the Blockbuster Investment Plan and an
injunction.

On Sept. 21, 2007, the trial court partially granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint and dismissed the
plaintiff's claims for restitution damages and alleged omissions
by the defendants.

The trial court denied other portions of the defendants' motions
to dismiss and reserved judgment on other portions of their
motions to dismiss.

The trial court allowed the plaintiff the opportunity to re-
plead his claims in light of the trial court's partial
dismissal.

On Nov. 5, 2007, Mr. Halaris filed an amended class action
complaint adding Dennis Conniff as an additional named
plaintiff.

The suit is "Halaris v. Viacom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
01646," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Judge David C. Godbey, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404

Representing the defendants is:

         Kenneth P. Held, Esq. (kheld@velaw.com)
         Vinson & Elkins
         1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300
         Houston, TX 77002-6760
         Phone: 713-758-4353
         Fax: 713-615-5219


CAREMARK RX: Plaintiffs Dismisses "Irwin" Litigation in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit filed before
the Superior Court of the State of California against Caremark
Rx Inc. -- which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark
Corp. -- agreed to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice as to
the Caremark defendants.

Caremark and its subsidiaries Caremark Inc. (now known as
Caremark, L.L.C.) and AdvancePCS (acquired by Caremark in March
2004 and now known as CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.) have been named in
the putative class action lawsuit filed by an individual named
Robert Irwin.

The suit was brought on behalf of all California members of non-
ERISA health plans and all California taxpayers.  The lawsuit,
which also names other Pharmacy Benefit Managers as defendants,
alleges violations of California's unfair competition laws and
challenges alleged business practices of PBMs, including
practices relating to pricing, rebates, formulary management,
data utilization and accounting and administrative processes.

In September 2008, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the lawsuit
without prejudice as to the Caremark defendants, according to
the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
27, 2008.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com/-- is a provider of
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.


CAREMARK RX: Stay on "Lauriello" Lawsuit in Ala. to be Lifted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The stay on a case by John Lauriello against Caremark Rx Inc.,
and other entities, over a 1999 settlement of various securities
class action and derivative lawsuits is expected to be lifted.

Caremark, which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark
Corp., was named in a putative class action suit filed in 2003
in Alabama state court by Mr. Lauriello, purportedly on behalf
of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities
class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and
others.

Other defendants in the lawsuit include insurance companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits.

The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in
compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was filed on Nov. 5, 2003, by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants Caremark,
several insurance companies, attorneys and law firms involved in
the 1999 settlement.

This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but Mr.
McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello
case.

In February 2008, the court stayed the Lauriello proceedings
pending an appeal by Mr. McArthur of certain rulings related to
his complaint in intervention.

In September 2008, the Alabama Supreme Court entered judgment on
Mr. McArthur's appeal, and the proceedings in the Lauriello case
are expected to resume after the court lifts the stay and
returns the case to its active docket, according to the
company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
27, 2008.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com/-- is a provider of
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.


CASH AMERICA: Ga. Court Declines to Review Payday Loans Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the
State Court of Cobb County, Georgia in a purported class-action
lawsuit against Cash America International, Inc. over payday
loans, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed the purported class
action suit against Georgia Cash America, Inc.; Cash America
International, Inc.; Daniel R. Feehan; and several unnamed
officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America.

The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the
most significant of which is that Cash America has been making
illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury
law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia
residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations.

The suit claims that Community State Bank is not the true lender
with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that its
involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge."  Based on
this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "de facto"
lender and is illegally operating in Georgia.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's
affirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on
Cash America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration)
was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24,
2007, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

The case has been returned to the State Court of Cobb County,
Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the
trial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel
arbitration and stay the State Court proceedings.

The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion to
compel arbitration was rendered moot after the discovery
sanction was handed down by the Court.

The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review these orders and
remanded the case to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia
where discovery relating to the propriety of continuing this
suit as a class action is likely to proceed.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/
-- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Litigation in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc., faces a consolidated securities fraud
litigation that is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On Sept. 24, 2008, four actions alleging securities fraud claims
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the caption "In Re Citigroup Inc.
Securities Litigation."

The lead plaintiffs are expected to file a consolidated class
action complaint by Nov. 10, 2008.

Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified
global financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding company.  As of March
31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into four major segments:
Consumer Banking, Global Cards, Institutional Clients Group and
Global Wealth Management.  In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized
its consumer group into two global businesses: Consumer Banking
and Global Cards.  In May 2008, the Company has reorganized its
equity and debt business in Japan.  Nikko Citigroup Ltd., the
Company's Japan investment banking unit, merged its equity and
debt underwriting teams into one.  In July 2008, Discover
Financial Services acquired Diners Club International from
Citigroup.  In August 2008, GE Capital Company announced the
completion of its acquisition of CitiCapital.  In October 2008,
Tata Consultancy Services Limited bought Citigroup's Indian
business processing outsourcing unit.


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc., several current and former officers and
directors, and numerous other financial institutions face a
purported class-action lawsuit 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.

The action, "Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund v.
Citigroup Inc., et al.," was filed on Sept. 30, 2008, and is
currently pending in New York state court, according to the
company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified
global financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding company.  As of March
31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into four major segments:
Consumer Banking, Global Cards, Institutional Clients Group and
Global Wealth Management.  In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized
its consumer group into two global businesses: Consumer Banking
and Global Cards.  In May 2008, the Company has reorganized its
equity and debt business in Japan.  Nikko Citigroup Ltd., the
Company's Japan investment banking unit, merged its equity and
debt underwriting teams into one.  In July 2008, Discover
Financial Services acquired Diners Club International from
Citigroup.  In August 2008, GE Capital Company announced the
completion of its acquisition of CitiCapital.  In October 2008,
Tata Consultancy Services Limited bought Citigroup's Indian
business processing outsourcing unit.


INTEL CORP: Still Faces Suits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corp. continues to face several lawsuits, including some
class-action lawsuits with regards to the higher prices of its
microprocessors.

In June 2005, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging
that Intel and Intel's Japanese subsidiary engaged in various
actions in violation of the Sherman Act and the California
Business and Professions Code, including providing secret and
discriminatory discounts and rebates and intentionally
interfering with prospective business advantages of AMD.

AMD's complaint seeks unspecified treble damages, punitive
damages, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Subsequently, AMD's Japanese subsidiary also filed suits before
the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court against
Intel's Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations of Japan's
Anti-monopoly Law and alleging damages of approximately $55
million, plus various other costs and fees.

At least 82 separate class-action suits, generally repeating
AMD's allegations and asserting various consumer injuries,
including that consumers in various states have been injured by
paying higher prices for Intel microprocessors, have been filed
with the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
California, Southern District of California, and the District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and
Tennessee state courts.

All the federal class action complaints have been consolidated
by the Multi-district Litigation Panel to the District of
Delaware.

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.

The plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class
certification, which the company is in the process of opposing.

At the company's request, the Court in the California actions
has agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the
Delaware Federal Court rules on the similar motion in the
coordinated actions, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

Intel Corp. -- http://www.intel.com/-- is a semiconductor
chipmaker, developing advanced integrated digital technology
platforms and components, primarily integrated circuits, for the
computing and communications industries.  Intel's products
include chips, boards and other semiconductor products that are
the building blocks integral to computers, servers, handheld
devices, and networking and communications products.  Its
component-level products consist of integrated circuits used to
process information, including microprocessors, chipsets, and
flash memory.


KIT DIGITAL: To Defend Suit Over ROO HDD's Acquisition of Wurld
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIT Digital, Inc. intends to defend a purported class-action
suit entitled, "Julie Vittengl et al.  vs. ROO HD, Inc.," which
is pending in New York Supreme Court, Saratoga County.

In November 2007, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, ROO HD,
Inc., currently KIT HD, Inc., was named as the defendant in the
class-action lawsuit.

The suit, brought by four former employees of Wurld Media, Inc.
purportedly on behalf of themselves and "others similarly
situated," claims that ROO HD's acquisition of certain assets of
Wurld was a fraudulent conveyance and that ROO HD is the alter-
ego of Wurld.

The plaintiffs seek the appointment of a receiver to take charge
of the Company's property in constructive trust for plaintiffs
and payment of plaintiffs' unpaid wages and costs of suit, both
in an unspecified dollar amount.

ROO HD filed its answer to the complaint in January 2008, and
there have been no developments in this action since then,
according to the company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

KIT digital, Inc., -- http://www.kit-digital.com/-- formerly
ROO Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
business of providing Internet software products and solutions
that enable its customers to distribute video content through
Internet Websites and mobile devices.  Its core activities
include video player deployment, ingestion and transcoding,
localization, content syndication, digital rights management,
hosting, storage and content delivery.  The Company provides
video solutions for over 600 Websites internationally.  The
Company is a provider of Internet Protocol television enablement
technology and video-centric interactive marketing solutions.
It has a range of mobile television content, including a daily,
global sports program, SportCall.


WILSHIRE ENTERPRISES: Faces N.J. Suit Over NWJ Apartment Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wilshire Enterprises, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit
in the Chancery Court of New Jersey, General Equity, in Essex
County, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Sept. 30, 2008.

A complaint was filed on Aug. 8, 2008 in the Chancery Court of
New Jersey, General Equity, in Essex County, by Pennsylvania
Avenue Funds as plaintiff individually and on behalf of the
public stockholders of Company in connection with the proposed
merger of the Company with a wholly-owned subsidiary of NWJ
Apartment Holdings Corp., an affiliate of NWJ Companies, Inc., a
privately owned real estate development company.

The Company, its directors, NWJ Apartment Holdings Corp. and NWJ
Acquisition Corp. are named as defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, three causes of
action:

       -- breach of fiduciary duty by the directors as a result
          of their alleged failure to maximize shareholder
          value,

       -- breach of fiduciary duty by the directors as a result
          of their alleged failure to disclose to the Company's
          stockholders all information material to the
          stockholder's decision about the merger, and

       -- aiding and abetting by the NWJ entities of the
          directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the
litigation as a class action, for plaintiff to be appointed
class representative, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief against the proposed transaction, an accounting, costs,
disbursements and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the
Court determines appropriate.

Newark, New Jersey-based Wilshire Enterprises, Inc. --
http://www.wilshireenterprisesinc.com/-- is principally engaged
in acquiring, owning and operating real estate properties. T he
Company owns multi-family properties, office space, retail
space, and land located in the states of Arizona, Texas, Florida
and New Jersey.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ARACRUZ CELULOSE: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     BOCA RATON, FL, Nov 26, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that
Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on behalf of shareholders of
Aracruz Celulose S.A. ("Aracruz" or the "Company") (SAO PAULO:
ARCZ6) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

     The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Aracruz
Celulose S.A. American Depository Receipts (ADR's) and/or common
stock between April 7, 2008 through October 2, 2008, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

     Aracruz is a major Brazilian manufacturer of forest
products, which they market to manufacturers of consumer paper
products around the world.

     During the Class Period, Aracruz entered into undisclosed
currency derivative contracts to purportedly hedge against the
Company's U.S. dollar exposure.

     The Company characterized the use of these contracts as
protection against foreign interest rate volatility and assured
investors that this type of trading did not represent "a risk
from an economic and financial standpoint."

     However, these contracts violated Company policy in that
they were far larger than necessary to hedge normal business
operations.

     As a result of Aracruz's clandestine and speculative
currency wagers, credit rating agencies downgraded Aracruz, the
Company's CFO resigned, and Aracruz's stock suffered a severe
decline, plummeting to the lowest levels in 14 years.

     On October 3, 2008, the price of the ADR's traded on the
New York Stock Exchange closed at $23.40, down $7.84 per share,
a decline of 25%. The Company's common stock suffered similar
drastic declines on the Sao Paulo Bovespa.

For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

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  * * *