CAR_Public/081203.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 3, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 240

                            Headlines

AVX CORP: Air Force Asks S.C. Court to Deny Request in TCE Suit
CARE INVESTMENT: Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Lawsuit Remains Pending
CHINA SHENGHUO: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
CIMAREX ENERGY: Might Appeal $69M Verdict in Okla. Litigation
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Loan Modifications

ECOST.COM INC: Expects Final OK of Calif. Settlement in December
HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Defends Merged Suit Over False Statements
HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Faces Plan Participants' ERISA Lawsuits
HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Faces Suit by Sky Financial Stockholders
HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Three Derivative Lawsuits Pending in Ohio

KMART CORP: Faces Ill. Litigation Over "Germ Defense" Products
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement Over Defunct Hedge Fund
NATIONAL CITY: Faces Lawsuits in Del., Ohio Over Sale to PNC
PETROLEUM DEV'T: Settlement Reached in Colo. Royalties Lawsuit
ROGERS INT'L: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss Ill. Suit to End Dec. 4

ROGERS INT'L: Watkins' Lawsuit Remains Stayed Pending Lane Case
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Reveals More Details in $895M Settlement


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BRITANNIA BULK: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CADENCE DESIGN: Hagens Berman Announces Securities Suit Filing
TALEO CORP: Hagens Berman Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                           *********


AVX CORP: Air Force Asks S.C. Court to Deny Request in TCE Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Air Force is asking the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina to deny a request that the military
be added as a defendant in a class-action lawsuit filed against
Myrtle Beach-based AVX Corp., entitled, "Chestnut et al v. AVX
Corporation, Case No. 4:07-cv-04152-TLW-TER," the Myrtle Beach
Sun News reports.

According to the Air Force, there is no evidence that they
contributed to toxic groundwater contamination at and near the
manufacturer's headquarters.

In recently filed court documents, the Air Force stated that
AVX's attempt to bring them into the lawsuit is an unmerited
delay tactic meant to extend the case by at least a year,
reports the Myrtle Beach Sun News.

The court documents also include a declaration by Carol Minsk, a
hydrogeologist with the S.C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control, who said there is no reason to believe
the Air Force played any role in groundwater contaminated with
trichloroethylene, also known as TCE.

"To date, AVX is the only party that [DHEC] has determined is
responsible for the TCE contamination at the AVX site," Ms.
Minsk said in the declaration, which was signed Nov. 20, 2008.

TCE is an industrial degreaser that has been linked with cancer
and other health problems.  It can takes decades to remove the
chemical from groundwater.

In 1995, AVX admitted that it contaminated the groundwater at
its 17th Avenue South headquarters with TCE.  That contamination
has since spread to a roughly 10-block neighborhood adjacent to
AVX, and the manufacturer now wants the Air Force to help pay
for cleanup costs, the Myrtle Beach Sun News reported.

In October 2008, the Myrtle Beach Sun News reported that AVX
asked a judge to add the military to the lawsuit because, the
manufacturer said, at least some of the TCE could have come from
the adjacent Air Force base, which closed in 1993.

                       Case Background

The suit was originally filed by Surfside Beach attorney Gene
Connell, Esq. on behalf of all home and business owners in a
neighborhood near AVX facility in Myrtle Beach where toxic
contamination has been found (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18,
2007).

The suit follows that of Horry Lanch, which claims TCE
contamination has migrated onto its property from AVX, and it
wants the manufacturer to pay $5.4 million in damages.

In his suit, Mr. Connell wants AVX to pay those property owners
the fair-market value for their contaminated land, an amount
that could top tens of millions of dollars.  That is because
S.C. Law requires property sellers to disclose all defects and
dangerous conditions to prospective buyers.

"No one is going to want to buy those homes for fear that the
contamination might cause damage to their children, much less
their property," according to Mr. Connell.

A federal judge is scheduled to decide on Jan. 16, 2009 whether
the military will be added to the lawsuit, according to the
Myrtle Beach Sun News.

The suit is "Chestnut et al v. AVX Corporation, Case No. 4:07-
cv-04152-TLW-TER," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Judge Terry L. Wooten, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Gene McCain Connell, Jr., Esq.
          (gconnell@classactlaw.net)
          Kelaher Connell and Connor
          P.O. Drawer 14547
          Surfside Beach, SC 29587
          Phone: 843-238-5648

Representing the defendants are:

          Kevin A. Dunlap, Esq. (kevindunlap@parkerpoe.com)
          Parker Poe Adams and Bernstein
          100 Dunbar Street
          Suite 206
          Spartanburg, SC 29306
          Phone: 864-591-2030
          Fax: 864-591-2050

               - and -

          Steven D. Weber, Esq. (steveweber@parkerpoe.com)
          Parker Poe Adams and Bernstein
          Three Wachovia Center
          401 S. Tryon Street
          Suite 3000
          Charlotte, NC 28244
          Phone: 704-335-9065
          Fax: 704-334-4706


Representing the U.S. Air Force is:

          Raymond E. Clark, Esq. (emery.clark@usdoj.gov)
          U.S. Attorneys Office
          1441 Main Street
          Suite 500
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Phone: 803-929-3000
          Fax: 803-252-2759


CARE INVESTMENT: Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Lawsuit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Care Investment Trust Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class-action
complaint for violations of federal securities laws filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
remains pending.

On Sept. 18, 2007, the complaint was filed in the New York
District Court alleging that the registration statement relating
to the initial public offering of shares of the company's common
stock, filed on June 21, 2007, failed to disclose that certain
of the assets in the contributed portfolio were materially
impaired and overvalued and that Care was experiencing
increasing difficulty in securing its warehouse financing lines.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the court entered an order appointing co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint citing additional evidentiary support for the
allegations in the complaint.

According to the company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, Care believes the complaint and
allegations are without merit and intends to defend against the
complaint and allegations vigorously.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 22,
2008. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's motion
to dismiss on July 9, 2008.

As of Nov. 14, 2008, the date of the company's latest Quarterly
Report, Care has incurred approximately $0.6 million to defend
against this complaint.

No provision for loss related to this matter has been accrued at
Sept. 30, 2008.

Care Investment Trust Inc. -- http://www.carereit.com/-- is a
real estate investment trust (REIT) formed principally to invest
in healthcare-related commercial mortgage debt and real estate.
The company invests in healthcare real estate assets, such as
medical office buildings and senior housing facilities.  It also
provides financing to companies operating a range of healthcare-
related facilities, including medical office buildings, skilled
nursing facilities, hospitals, outpatient centers, surgery
centers, senior housing, laboratories and other healthcare
facilities. The company provides mortgage financing secured by
these healthcare facilities, including first lien mortgage
loans, mezzanine loans, subordinate interest in whole loans (B
Notes) and construction loans.  Care is externally managed and
advised by CIT Healthcare LLC (Manager), a wholly owned
subsidiary of CIT Group Inc.


CHINA SHENGHUO: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. is facing purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuits in New York.

Putative class-action lawsuits have been asserted against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Only one
complaint, "Beni Varghese v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical
Holdings, Inc., Gui Hua Lan, Qiong Hua Gao, Gene Michael
Bennett, And Yunhong Guan, Index No. 08 CIV. 7422," has been
served on the company thus far.

The complaints allege, among other things, that certain of the
company's SEC filings and other public statements contained
false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the company's securities.

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each of the
actions seek an unspecified amount of damages under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

According to the company's Nov. 19 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, on Oct. 20, 2008, the company and counsel
to the plaintiff in the Varghese Action filed a stipulation with
the Court in which the parties agreed that the plaintiff may
file a consolidated, amended complaint within 60 days after the
entry of an order appointing and approving lead counsel, and
that the company's time to answer that complaint is extended
until 60 days after the filing of the consolidated complaint.

China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. is primarily
engaged in the research, development, production and marketing
of pharmaceutical, nutritional supplement and cosmetic products.
The company's core offering, Xuesaitong Soft Capsules, is a
pharmaceutical product developed to treat the symptoms of
cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.  This drug is
designed to invigorate the circulation of blood and improve
microcirculation.  Nearly all of Shenghuo's products are derived
from the medicinal herb Panax notoginseng, also known as Sanqi,
Sanchi or Tienchi.  Shenghuo's research and development efforts
focus on pharmaceutical products and over-the-counter (OTC)
products that are based on traditional Chinese medicines.


CIMAREX ENERGY: Might Appeal $69M Verdict in Okla. Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cimarex Energy Co. said that if the final judgment on a $69
million jury verdict results in a substantial award to royalty-
owner plaintiffs, the company will appeal, Marie Price of The
Journal Record reports.

Recently, a Tulsa County jury found that the royalty owners
should recover about $7 million on a gas-drainage claim and more
than $61.6 million from a settlement with ANR Pipeline Corp.

The verdict resulted from a class-action suit against Helmerich
& Payne, reports The Journal Record.

However, under a 2002 spinoff under which Cimarex became a
publicly traded company, it assumed the assets and liabilities
of Helmerich's exploration and production business.

In a statement, Cimarex said the $61.6 million, which is not a
final ruling, is the jury's take on disgorgement of Helmerich &
Payne's estimated potential compounded profit since 1989
resulting from the award.  Cimarex said the $61.6 million is
subject to modification by the court, according to The Journal
Record.

The Journal Record  reported that the lawsuit was filed in 1998,
and became a class action in 2003.  The plaintiffs claimed that
they were not properly compensated for natural gas produced from
properties they leased to Helmerich & Payne for oil and gas
exploration and production.

Arguing that Helmerich & Payne shut in wells during a dispute
with ANR Pipeline Corp., the plaintiffs said that the gas was
drained after the dispute was settled, and the company did not
properly share the settlement proceeds with them.

Helmerich & Payne issued a statement recently saying it does not
believe it will have to pay, because it is indemnified for such
damages by Cimarex, which has assumed and conducted the defense
of the litigation, The Journal Record reported.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Loan Modifications
--------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Financial Corp. faces a purported class-action suit
in New York demanding that it compensate holders of some
securities backed by mortgages if the lender changes the terms
of the loans, Vokas Bajaj of The New York Times reports.

The litigation was filed in the New York State Supreme Court
(Manhattan) under the caption, "Greenwich Financial Services
Distressed Mortgage Fund 3 v. Countrywide Financial Corp."  It
was filed on behalf of Greenwich Financial Services Distressed
Mortgage Fund 3 LLC and QED LLC.

Greenwich Financial said it and other investors stood to lose
money if Countrywide, now part of Bank of America, modified
loans under a settlement that it reached with 11 state attorneys
general in October 2008, according to The New York Times.

The New York Times reported that under the settlement with the
states, Countrywide agreed to modify up to 400,000 loans and to
provide $8.4 billion in relief to borrowers to settle predatory
lending accusations, reports The New York Times.

In recent months, some investors who own mortgage securities
have begun voicing concern about how loans are modified, but few
have filed suit.

The case highlights the complexity associated with modifying
loans that have been bundled into securities.  It also signals
that more aggressive government and private efforts to help
borrowers could face stiff resistance from investors.

The lawsuit claims that under contracts governing 374
Countrywide mortgage trusts, the company must purchase at face
value any mortgage that it modifies.

William Frey, president of Greenwich Financial, told The New
York Times that an estimated $150 billion in mortgages could be
covered by the requirement.  According to him, "Their intention
is to modify them, and they don't have the right to do that."

Though his firm is the only named plaintiff in the case, Mr.
Frey told The New York Times that many other investors were
supporting his effort and would benefit if the court granted the
case class-action status.


ECOST.COM INC: Expects Final OK of Calif. Settlement in December
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval of a settlement of the purported class-action
lawsuit entitled, "Darral Frank and Joseph F. Keeley, Jr. v. PC
Mall, Inc. dba eCOST.com and eCOST.com, Inc.," which was filed
against eCOST.com, Inc., a subsidiary of PFSweb, Inc. is
expected in December 2008, according to PFSweb's Nov. 14, 2008
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2008.

eCOST.com, Inc., a subsidiary of PFSweb, Inc., continues to face
a purported class action lawsuit.  The suit is captioned "Darral
Frank and Joseph F. Keeley, Jr. v. PC Mall, Inc. d/b/a eCOST.com
and eCOST.com, Inc."

The purported class consists of all of current and former sales
representatives who worked for the defendants in California from
July 24, 2003, through July 24, 2007.

The lawsuit filed on July 25, 2007 in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.  Italleges that the defendants
failed to pay overtime compensation and interest, failed to
timely pay compensation to terminated employees and failed to
provide meal and rest periods, all in violation of the
California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code.

The complaint seeks unpaid overtime, statutory penalties,
interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, restitution and
injunctive relief.

PFSweb, Inc. -- http://www.pfsweb.com/-- is an international
provider of integrated business process outsourcing solutions to
companies seeking to maximize their supply chain efficiencies
and to extend their traditional business and e-commerce
initiatives, as well as a multi-category online discount
retailer of new, close-out and recertified brand-name
merchandise.  The Company derives its revenues from three
business segments: business process outsourcing, a master
distributor and an online discount retailer.  PFSweb operates
call centers from its U.S. facilities located in Plano, Texas,
and Memphis, Tennessee, and from international facilities
located in Markham, Canada, Liege, Belgium and Manila,
Philippines.


HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Defends Merged Suit Over False Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. defends a consolidated
putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, according to the
company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Between Dec. 19, 2007 and Feb. 1, 2008, three putative class-
action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, against Huntington
and certain of its current or former officers and directors
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Huntington securities
during the periods July 20, 2007 to Nov. 16, 2007 or July 20,
2007 to Jan. 10, 2008.

These complaints seek to allege that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of allegedly false
and/or misleading statements concerning Huntington's financial
results, prospects, and condition, relating, in particular, to
its transactions with Franklin Credit Management.

On June 5, 2008, two cases were consolidated into a single
action.

On Aug. 22, 2008, a consolidated complaint was filed asserting a
class period of July 19, 2007 through Nov. 16, 2007.

A third putative class action lawsuit was filed in the same
court on Jan. 18, 2008, with substantially the same allegations,
but was dismissed on March 4, 2008.

Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. -- http://www.huntington.com/
-- is a real estate investment trust (REIT).  HPCI acquires,
holds and manages mortgage assets and other authorized
investments.  HPCI is owned by four related parties: Huntington
Capital Financing LLC (HCF), Huntington Preferred Capital II,
Inc. (HPCII), Huntington Preferred Capital Holdings, Inc.
(Holdings) and Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (Huntington).


HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Faces Plan Participants' ERISA Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. faces complaints purportedly
brought on behalf of participants in or beneficiaries of the
Huntington Investment and Tax Savings Plan (the Plan), according
to the company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Between Feb. 20 and Feb. 29, 2008, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, against Huntington, the
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated Pension Review Committee, the
Plan Administrative Committee, and certain of the Company's
officers and directors purportedly on behalf of participants in
or beneficiaries of the Plan between either July 1, 2007 or July
20, 2007 and the present.

The complaints seek to allege breaches of fiduciary duties in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
relating to Huntington stock being offered as an investment
alternative for participants in the Plan.

The complaints sought money damages and equitable relief.

On May 13, 2008, the three cases were consolidated into a single
action.

On Aug. 4, 2008, a consolidated complaint was filed asserting a
class period of July 1, 2007 through the present.

Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. -- http://www.huntington.com/
-- is a real estate investment trust (REIT).  HPCI acquires,
holds and manages mortgage assets and other authorized
investments.  HPCI is owned by four related parties: Huntington
Capital Financing LLC (HCF), Huntington Preferred Capital II,
Inc. (HPCII), Huntington Preferred Capital Holdings, Inc.
(Holdings) and Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (Huntington).


HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Faces Suit by Sky Financial Stockholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. a putative class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
Sky Financial common stock in connection with and as a result of
Sky Financial's October 2006 acquisition of Waterfield Mortgage
Company, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On May 7, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, against Huntington as successor in interest to Sky
Financial, and certain of Sky Financial's former officers on
behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Sky Financial
common stock in connection with and as a result of the
Waterfield acquisition.

The complaint seeks to allege that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with the issuance of allegedly false and misleading
registration and proxy statements leading up to the Waterfield
acquisition and their disclosures about the nature and extent of
Sky Financial's lending relationship with Franklin Credit
Management.

Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. -- http://www.huntington.com/
-- is a real estate investment trust (REIT).  HPCI acquires,
holds and manages mortgage assets and other authorized
investments.  HPCI is owned by four related parties: Huntington
Capital Financing LLC (HCF), Huntington Preferred Capital II,
Inc. (HPCII), Huntington Preferred Capital Holdings, Inc.
(Holdings) and Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (Huntington).


HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Three Derivative Lawsuits Pending in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three putative derivative class-action lawsuits filed against
certain of Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc.'s current or
former officers and directors are pending in Ohio, according to
the company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

These lawsuits were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Delaware County, Ohio, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and the Court of Common
Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio, between Jan. 16, 2008, and April
17, 2008, against certain of Huntington's current or former
officers and directors.

The lawsuits various seek to allege breaches of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, and unjust enrichment, all in connection with
Huntington's acquisition of Sky Financial, certain transactions
between the company and Franklin Credit Management, and the
financial disclosures relating to such transactions.

Huntington is named as a nominal defendant in each of these
actions.

Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. -- http://www.huntington.com/
-- is a real estate investment trust (REIT).  HPCI acquires,
holds and manages mortgage assets and other authorized
investments.  HPCI is owned by four related parties: Huntington
Capital Financing LLC (HCF), Huntington Preferred Capital II,
Inc. (HPCII), Huntington Preferred Capital Holdings, Inc.
(Holdings) and Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (Huntington).


KMART CORP: Faces Ill. Litigation Over "Germ Defense" Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kmart Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in St. Clair
County which alleges that it engaged in unfair and deceptive
practices designed to mislead the public when marketing its Germ
Defense products, Kelly Holleran of The Madison County Record
reports.

The suit was filed on Nov. 21, 2008 St., under case number "08-
L-599" by class plaintiff Larry T. Adams of Madison County.  It
alleges Kmart misled the public into believing its Germ Defense
products would boost their immune system and prevent or cure an
illness caused by germs.

According to the lawsuit, "Germ Defense's packaging is similar
to Airborne's because it fails to disclose that, contrary to its
uniform health representations, it does not provide any
clinically-proven protection or relief from illness, nor does it
'boost' the immune system," reports the Madison County Record.

Mr. Adams claims that Kmart's "unfair and deceptive" acts caused
him and the class to incur damages.  He also claims that Kmart
was unjustly enriched because of the profits it received from
Germ Defense sales.

In the two-count suit, Adams is asking that the case be
certified as class action and is seeking a final judgment not in
excess of $75,000 for any one plaintiff, a final judgment
reimbursing all allowable costs, plus attorneys' fees and other
relief the court deems appropriate, according to the Madison
County Record.

The Madison County Record reported that Paul M. Weiss, Michael
J. Lotus and George K. Lang of Freed and Weiss in Chicago,
Richard J. Burke of St. Louis and Kevin T. Hoerner and Brian T.
Kreisler of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson in Belleville
will be representing Mr. Adams and the putative class.


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement Over Defunct Hedge Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
     TORONTO, Dec. 1, 2008 -- A unit of Canada's Manulife
Financial Corp. settled a proposed class-action lawsuit with
France-based bank Societe Generale over investments linked to a
bankrupt hedge fund, Portus Alternative Asset Management Inc.

     Manulife Securities Investment Services Inc. sued the
bank's Canadian operations in an Ontario court on behalf of all
buyers of some investments of Portus and related entities. Under
the settlement, Societe Generale (Canada) agreed to rebuy,
before they mature, deposit instruments underlying the Portus
investments that are held by accounting firm KPMG Inc., the
bankruptcy trustee, Manulife Financial said.

     The roughly $611 million face value of the bank's deposit
instruments will have been paid when the settlement is
completed, Manulife said.  The deal requires approval from
Ontario Superior Court, with a hearing on approval scheduled for
Dec. 18.

     The settlement is in the best interest of all Portus
investors, Manulife said.  A spokesperson for Manulife said the
company couldn't comment further because the proposed settlement
remains before the court.

     The now-defunct Portus was the subject of several
regulatory probes in Canada.  The Ontario Securities Commission
sued the hedge fund over questionable transactions and seized
its assets in March 2005 (BestWire, June 24, 2005).

     Independent agents of Manulife Securities referred about
$235 million worth of customer investments to Portus before the
hedge fund shut down operations in April 2005.  Concerns
remained as to whether all of the investors' money in Portus was
safe, which prompted Dominic D'Alessandro, Manulife's president
and chief executive officer, to guarantee Manulife Securities'
customers they would recoup all of the principal they placed
into the hedge fund's products (BestWire, May 6, 2005).

In June 2005, a class-action suit against Manulife Financial and
Manulife Securities International Ltd. over Portus was
discontinued, after class counsel concluded that Manulife
Securities' offer to acquire the interest of its clients who
were referred to Portus was "fair and reasonable," Manulife
Financial said at that time (BestWire, June 24, 2005).


NATIONAL CITY: Faces Lawsuits in Del., Ohio Over Sale to PNC
------------------------------------------------------------
National City Corp. is facing at least 10 lawsuits in Delaware
and Ohio alleging that the company's board members who elected
to sell the Cleveland bank to PNC Financial Services Group Inc.
for $2.23 a share when the stock had closed at $2.75 a share
on Oct. 23, the day before the deal was struck breached their
fiduciary duties in arranging the sale, Arielle Kass of Crain's
Cleveland Business reports.

One lawsuit, in Delaware, claims that board members benefit from
the deal more than shareholders.  Another, filed in Ohio, says
the board "mishandled" the merger discussions, which were
"haphazardly executed."

The seven suits filed in Delaware Chancery Court have been
consolidated into one and are seeking class-action status.  So
are two filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court and one in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, reports
Crain's Cleveland Business.

Bill Federman, Esq., an Oklahoma City attorney who filed one of
the lawsuits in Cuyahoga County on behalf of Oklahoma resident
Rita Ward, told Crain's Cleveland Business that he is seeking an
explanation for why National City did not receive access to
government money under the $700 billion financial bailout
program.  There has been little transparency surrounding the
deal, according to Mr. Federman, and more information needs to
come out.

Crain's Cleveland Business reported that the lawsuit filed by
Mr. Federman alleges that instead of trying to negotiate the
highest sale price possible, board members "spent considerable
effort tailoring the Proposed Transaction for their benefit."

One stipulation in the merger agreement is that National City
board members will be indemnified and held harmless for
"liabilities arising out of or pertaining to matters existing or
occurring at or before the completion of the merger," according
to a Nov. 24, 2008 PNC filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Mr. Federman speculated that provision might have been enough to
push board members into selling the company.  He told Crain's
Cleveland Business, "If the board members are dumping the
company to avoid the liability, then the board members need to
be accountable.  I don't see a reason why they are dumping this
bank."


PETROLEUM DEV'T: Settlement Reached in Colo. Royalties Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class-action suit, captioned
"Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development Corporation, Case No.
1:2007-cv-01362," have reached a tentative settlement for the
case, which was filed against Petroleum Development Corp.,
Rockies Region 2006 Limited Partnership's Managing General
Partner.

The case is a consolidated class-action lawsuit pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  It is
alleging that the company underpaid royalties on natural gas
produced from wells it operated in the State of Colorado.

Initially, a class-action lawsuit was filed with the U.S.
District Court in Weld County, Colorado, on May 29, 2007, by
Glen Droegemueller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against Petroleum Development, alleging that
the company underpaid royalties on natural gas produced from
wells it operated in the State of Colorado.

The plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and to recover an
unspecified amount of compensation for underpayment of royalties
paid by Petroleum Development pursuant to leases.

Petroleum Development had the case removed to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado on June 28, 2007, and later
filed its responses and affirmative defenses.

A second similar Colorado class-action lawsuit was filed against
Petroleum Development in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on December 2007 by Ted Amsbaugh.  In 2008,
the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to consolidate the
action with the Droegemueller Action.

Based on the mediation held in May 2008, and subsequent
negotiations, $24,108 had previously been accrued by the
Partnership for this litigation at June 30, 2008, which
represented the expected settlement related to all periods
through June 30, 2008.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the court issued preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement.  Although the Partnership was not named as
a party in the suit, the lawsuit states that it relates to all
wells operated by the Managing General Partner, which includes
the Partnership's 63 wells in the Wattenberg field subject to
the settlement.  The portion of the proposed settlement related
to the Partnership's wells through all periods prior to Sept.
30, 2008 is $129,640.

During the third quarter of 2008, an additional amount of
$105,532 plus legal costs of $4,711 was recorded to fully accrue
for the settlement which the Managing General Partner expects to
pay into an escrow account for the Partnership in the fourth
quarter of 2008.

Final approval and distribution is expected around March 1,
2009.  These amounts will be deducted from future Partnership
distributions, according to Rockies Region 2006 Limited
Partnership's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008

The suit is "Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development Corporation,
Case No. 1:2007cv01362," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado, Judge John L. Kane, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          George A. Barton, Esq. (bartonlaw3@birch.net)
          George A. Barton, The Law Offices of
          800 West 47th Street #700
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-300-6250
          Fax: 816-300-6259

          Patrick M. Groom, Esq. (pgroom@wobjlaw.com)
          Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry & Johnson, LLP
          822 7th Street #760
          Greeley, CO 80631
          Phone: 970-352-3161

               - and -

          Larry D. Moffett, Esq. (lmoffett@danielcoker.com)
          Daniel Coker Horton & Bell, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1396
          265 North Lamar Boulevard #R
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Phone: 662-232-8979
          Fax: 662-232-8940

Representing the defendants is:

          Gale Timothy Miller, Esq. (gale.miller@dgslaw.com)
          Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP
          1550 17th Street #500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-892-9400
          Fax: 303-893-1379


ROGERS INT'L: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss Ill. Suit to End Dec. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
derivative and class-action complaint is set to be completed by
Dec. 4, 2008, according to Rogers International Raw Materials
Fund, L.P.'s Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Beeland Management Company L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III,
Allen D. Goodman, and James Beeland Rogers Jr. have been named
as defendants, and Rogers International as a nominal defendant,
in a class action and derivative action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Steven
L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust
dated April 10, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Rogers International in terms of management
and were negligent in connection with the transfer of Rogers
International assets to Refco Capital Markets.  The suit seeks
judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees and class certification of Rogers
International's limited partners.

Following the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, the Lanes
voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and
filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Walter Thomas Price was not
named as a defendant in the state court complaint.

The defendants successfully moved to have the case reassigned to
the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  The defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes'
suit in light of a related case pending in the Southern District
of New York.

On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs certain
discovery related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James
Rogers in the matter.  This personal jurisdiction dispute
between the plaintiffs and defendant Rogers is still ongoing.

On June 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
derivative and class action complaint.  The amended complaint
adds Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins as plaintiffs.

All defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  The
court has entered a briefing schedule on these motions which
shall be completed by Dec. 4, 2008.

Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois
limited partnership that was established in May 2000.  It trades
a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts,
principally on recognized exchanges.  The Company's General
Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management
Company, L.L.C.


ROGERS INT'L: Watkins' Lawsuit Remains Stayed Pending Lane Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class and derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Rogers
International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (Partnership) remains
stayed, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III,
James Beeland Rogers, Jr., Robert Mercorella and Allen Goodman
have been named as defendants, and the Partnership as a nominal
defendant in a lawsuit filed by Connie M. Watkins and John V.
Watkins.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary obligations to the Partnership in causing or allowing
the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets.

The Watkinses seek judgment and other relief declaring the
defendants responsible for the loss of any Partnership assets,
or, alternatively, compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, the plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees and other
relief.

Following several status hearings, the Court set April 2, 2007,
for the Watkinses to file any further amendments to their
complaint, and May 15, 2007 for the defendants to respond.

On April 9, 2007, the case was stayed at the Watkinses' request
pending the resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in a
similar case filed by Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as
Trustees of the Lane Family Trust, in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

                         The Lane Case

The Lanes filed a class action and derivative action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Partnership in the management of the
Partnership and were negligent in connection with the transfer
of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets and seeks
judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees and class certification of the Partnership's
limited partners.

Following the defendants' motion to dismiss, the Lanes
voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and
filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.

The Defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes' suit in
light of the Watkinses' case pending in the Southern District of
New York.

On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes certain discovery
related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers.

On May 4, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes leave to file an
amended complaint.  A status hearing is scheduled for Aug. 8,
2007.

The Partnership reported no development in the Watkins dispute
in its Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois
limited partnership that was established in May 2000.  It trades
a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts,
principally on recognized exchanges.  The Company's General
Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management
Company, L.L.C.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Reveals More Details in $895M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. revealed in a recent U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filing some details of its previously-
announced resolution to the class-action settlement shareholders
filed over stock-option backdating by executives, Anne Zieger of
Fierce Health Finance reports.

The SEC filing shows that the shareholder group, led by the
California Public Employees' Retirement System, has pushed
UnitedHealth to make changes to its corporate governance
policies, in addition to those it had made previously.  However,
the SEC filings did not say what those changes are, reports
Fierce Health Finance.

UHG had already paid $895 million into a fund for CalPERS and
the other plaintiffs, while admitting no wrongdoing, according
to Fierce Health Finance.

As reported in the Sept. 05, 2008 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, a tentative settlement has been reached in a
consolidated securities fraud class action suit pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.

On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class action
complaints alleging a violation of the federal securities laws
was brought by an individual shareholder against certain of the
company's current and former officers and directors with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Dec. 8, 2006,
consolidating the seven actions into a single case.  The action
is captioned, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN."  The appointed lead plaintiff is
California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants,
in connection with the same alleged course of conduct identified
in the shareholder derivative actions, made misrepresentations
and omissions during the period between Jan. 20, 2005, and May
17, 2006, in press releases and public filings that artificially
inflated the price of the company's common stock.

The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain
defendants sold shares of the company's common stock while in
possession of material, non-public information concerning the
matters set forth in the complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims under Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act.  It seeks
unspecified money damages and equitable relief.

On March 18, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On July 2, 2008, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle with CalPERS and the plaintiff class
representative Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension
Trust, on behalf of themselves and members of the class, to
settle the lawsuit.

The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against
the company, all current officers and directors of the company
named in the lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors
of the Company named in the lawsuit.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company has
accrued $895 million to be paid into a settlement fund for the
benefit of class members in two installments.

An installment of $450 million will be deposited into the
settlement fund on the earlier of 10 days following preliminary
court approval of the settlement or Sept. 15, 2008.

The remaining $445 million settlement amount will be deposited
into the settlement fund on the earlier of:

        -- 10 days following final non-appealable court approval
           of the settlement of the claims,

        -- 10 days following execution by the plaintiffs and the
           non-settling defendants of an agreement in principle
           for the settlement of the claims against the non-
           settling defendants, or

        -- Jan. 1, 2009.

In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company
will also supplement the substantial changes it has already
implemented in its corporate governance policies with additional
changes and enhancements.

The proposed settlement, which has been approved by the boards
of directors of CalPERS and the company, is subject to
completion of final documentation, and preliminary and final
court approval.

The suit is "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              -and -

         Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com)
         Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
         651 Nicollet Mall Ste 501
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
         Phone: 612-341-0400
         Fax: 612-341-0844

Representing the defendants is:

         Gretchen A. Agee, Esq. (agee.gretchen@dorsey.com)
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-492-6741
         Fax: 612-340-8856

             - and -

         Charles E. Bachman, Esq. (cbachman@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         7 Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-408-2421


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BRITANNIA BULK: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, Dec 01, 2008 -- Spector Roseman Kodroff &
Willis, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of the purchasers of common stock of Britannia Bulk Holdings
Inc. ("Britannia") (Other OTC:BBLKF.PK) pursuant or traceable to
the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the June 17, 2008 initial public offering ("IPO"
or the "Offering").

     The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
contained materially false and misleading statements in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

     Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to properly
disclose the problems the Company was experiencing in the
forward freight agreements ("FFAs") market.

     In this regard, the Registration Statement concealed that
the Company failed to institute and enforce controls that would
prevent Company personnel from buying FFAs not purchased to
hedge identifiable ship or cargo positions.  FFAs were
represented to only be used as a hedge.  However, the FFAs were
used outside of these guidelines, exposing the Company to
significant risks.

For more information, contact:

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


CADENCE DESIGN: Hagens Berman Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Dec. 01, 2008 -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
announced a class action lawsuit was filed against Cadence
Design Systems (NASDAQ:CDNS) for alleged securities fraud.  The
suit claims Cadence's executive leadership failed to provide
accurate financial reports to investors and the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).

     The lawsuit represents those who purchased Cadence stock
from April 23, 2008 until Oct. 22, 2008.

     Trouble began for Cadence and stockholders in October 2008
as company shares significantly dropped after Cadence announced
the resignation of key executive officers and a delay in third-
quarter financial results.

     In a statement, Cadence acknowledged it improperly reported
$24 million in revenue, an issue the company needed to revisit
and reason for the delayed statements.

     Cadence recently announced that it received a letter from
the NASDAQ Stock Market requiring Cadence to submit a plan to
regain compliance with NASDAQ reporting requirements by Jan. 19,
2009.

     After these announcements, Cadence shares dropped by more
than 25 percent to $1.10 per share.

For more information, contact:

          Reed Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          e-mail: Reed@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/cdns


TALEO CORP: Hagens Berman Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Dec. 1, 2008 -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
announced a class action lawsuit was filed against Taleo
Corporation (Nasdaq: TLEO)claiming company executives engaged in
insider trading. Since going public in2005, insiders have
unloaded more than $120 million in stock sales.

     The lawsuit represents those who purchased Taleo securities
between Oct.4, 2005 and Nov. 10, 2008. If you are a significant
investor with purchases inexcess of $100,000, please contact
Reed Kathrein at tleo@hbsslaw.com or(510) 725-3000. If you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff, you must file a motionwith the court
by Jan. 16, 2009.

     Taleo shares hit a 52-week low on Nov. 11, 2008, after the
Companyannounced it would delay third-quarter earning reports to
review accountingpractices. After the announcement, Taleo's
stock fell 28 percent to $7.99 pershare from its annual high of
$34.20.


For more information, contact:

          Reed Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          e-mail: Reed@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/cdns


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec. 1, 2008 -- Roy Jacobs & Associates announces
that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, against McDermott
International Inc. ("McDermott" or the "Company") and certain of
its current or former executives on behalf of purchasers of
McDermott securities during the period from February 27, 2008
through November 5, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     According to the complaint, McDermott concealed from
investors the true reasons why its three large, ongoing
construction contracts for the installation of marine oil and
gas pipelines off the coast of Qatar were substantially delayed
and that the delays caused the Company to incur major losses on
those contracts.

     As a result, the Company's oil and gas division posted a
$19.7 million loss during the third quarter of 2008, which
included a $90 million charge at the gross-margin level.

     Investors finally learned of the severity of the production
setback, its causes and the resulting negative impact to the
Company's earnings on November 5, 2008 when the Company
disclosed its third quarter financials after the market close,
and held a public conference call on November 6, 2008 in which
pertinent remarks were made by the Company's new CEO.

     As a result of these totally unexpected disclosures which
were contrary to what the Company had been previously
maintaining, McDermott's stock price plunged from $15.56 per
share at the close on November 5, 2008 to $10.39 per share at
the close on November 6, 2008 -- a loss of $5.17 per share, or
33%.

     The Company's former Chief Executive Officer, who recently
retired, sold millions of dollars of his own shares during 2007
and 2008 at prices far in excess of the Company's current share
price, and failed to timely disclose any of this material
adverse information, although it is alleged that the facts were
known within the Company.  McDermott shares have continued to
decline.

For more details, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490
          e-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.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  * * *