CAR_Public/081208.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 8, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 243

                            Headlines

AIR NEW ZEALAND: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Australia, U.S. and Europe
ARBITRON INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
BAYER INC: Siskinds LLP Files Litigation Over Trasylol Drug
BIG 5: Faces 2 Lawsuits in California Over Purchasers' Zip Code
CONSTAR INT'L: Awaits Briefing Schedule for Certification Appeal

JA SOLAR: Denies Allegations in N.Y. Securities Fraud Litigation
MEDQUIST INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Shareholder Litigation
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Mid-West Faces Ohio Breach of Contract Suit
MEDEFILE INT'L: Class in TCPA Breach Suit Not Yet Certified
NISOURCE INC: April 28, 2009 Trial Set for W.Va. Litigation

NISOURCE INC: Ky. Court Vacates Hearing for Royalties Lawsuit
NOVOPHARM: High Court Denies Appeal in Dismissed CDN3.9B Suit
OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wisconsin
POZEN INC: N.C. Court Considers Dismissing Securities Fraud Suit
PUBLIC STORAGE: Dismissal of Claims in "Brinkley" Suit Sustained

SAIA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Georgia Fuel Surcharges Litigation
SCORES HOLDING: Dec. 31 Deadline Set for Discovery in "Diaz"
SECURE COMPUTING: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Sale to McAfee
SECURE COMPUTING: Reaches $3.6M Settlement in Calif. Litigation
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Still Faces Consolidated N.Y. Securities Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
NOAH EDUCATION: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SOUTHWEST WATER: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Suit Filing


                           *********


AIR NEW ZEALAND: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Australia, U.S. and Europe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Air New Zealand Limited defends four class actions filed in
three jurisdictions over various allegations, in which it has
been named as a defendant.

One, in Australia, claims travel agents commission on fuel
surcharges and two (one in Australia and the other in the United
States) make allegations against more than 30 airlines, of anti
competitive conduct in relation to pricing in the air cargo
business.  The allegations made in relation to the air cargo
business are also the subject of investigations by regulators in
a number of jurisdictions including the United States and the
European Union.

A formal Statement of Objections has been issued by the European
Commission to 25 airlines including Air New Zealand and has been
responded to.  In the event that a court determined, or it was
agreed with a regulator, that Air New Zealand had breached
relevant laws, the Company would have potential liability for
pecuniary penalties and to third party damages under the laws of
the relevant jurisdictions.

The fourth class action alleges, in the United States, that Air
New Zealand together with 11 other airlines conspired in respect
of fares and surcharges on trans-Pacific routes.

All class actions are being defended, according to New Zealand's
Oct. 6, 2008 Form 18-K/A Annual Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30, 2008.

Air New Zealand Limited -- http://www.airnewzealand.com/-- is a
New Zealand-based company engaged in the transportation of
passengers and cargo on scheduled airline services to, from and
within New Zealand. The geographical segments of the Company are
New Zealand, Australia and Pacific Islands, the United Kingdom
and Europe, Asia, and North America. The Company's subsidiaries
include Air Nelson Limited, engaged in aviation, Air New Zealand
Aircraft Holdings Limited, engaged in aircraft leasing and
financing, Air New Zealand Holidays Limited, engaged in hotel
reservations and events marketing , Eagle Airways Limited,
engaged in aviation, Zeal 320 Limited, engaged in aviation,
Mount Cook Airline Limited, engaged in aviation, Safe Air
Limited, engaged in engineering services, Tasman Aviation
Enterprises (Queensland) Pty Limited, engaged in engineering
services and Tasman Aviation Enterprises (Richmond) Pty Limited,
engaged in engineering services.


ARBITRON INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arbitron, Inc. faces a purported securities fraud litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund filed a securities class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a purported Class of all purchasers of
Arbitron common stock between July 19, 2007 and Nov. 26, 2007.

The plaintiff asserts that Arbitron, Stephen B. Morris (our
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer), and Sean R.
Creamer (our Executive Vice President, Finance and Planning &
Chief Financial Officer) violated federal securities laws.

The plaintiff alleges misrepresentations and omissions relating,
among other things, to the delay in commercialization of the
company's Portable People Meter (PPM) radio ratings service in
November 2007, as well as stock sales during the period by
company insiders who were not named as defendants and Messrs.
Morris and Creamer.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages
plus interest and attorneys' fees, among other remedies.

Arbitron, Inc. -- http://www.arbitron.com/-- is an
international media and marketing information services firm
primarily serving radio, cable television, advertising agencies,
advertisers, out-of-home media, online media and, through its
Scarborough Research joint venture with The Nielsen Co.,
broadcast television and print media.  The Company provides four
main services: measuring radio audiences in local markets in the
U.S.; measuring national radio audiences and the audience size
and composition of network radio programs and commercials;
providing application software used for accessing and analyzing
media audience and marketing information data, and providing
consumer, shopping and media usage information services to
radio, cable television, advertising agencies, advertisers,
retailers, out-of-home media, online industries and, through its
Scarborough joint venture, broadcast television and print media.


BAYER INC: Siskinds LLP Files Litigation Over Trasylol Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
     LONDON, ON, Dec. 4 /CNW/ - The law firm Siskinds LLP has
launched a class action against Bayer Inc. ("Bayer") regarding
its drug Trasylol.

     Trasylol ("aprotinin") was approved by Health Canada in
1995 for use during heart bypass surgery to help reduce bleeding
and the need for blood transfusions. On November 5, 2007, Bayer
suspended marketing of Trasylol following results from a
clinical trial that suggested an increased risk of death. Use of
Trasylol during surgery has been linked to an increased risk of
developing cardiovascular or cerebrovascular adverse events,
renal dysfunction, or death.

     A hearing was scheduled for yesterday with a panel of
experts asked to advise Health Canada on future use of the drug.
A review of Trasylol was rushed to print on Tuesday by the
Canadian Medical Association Journal in advance of the hearing.
The lead author of the review stated that the data did not allow
them to identify a subgroup in whom the benefits of Trasylol
outweigh the harms.

     The Statement of Claim alleges that Bayer failed to
adequately warn patients and physicians of the increased risk of
serious adverse injury associated with use of Trasylol as
compared to safer alternatives.  Charles Wright, a partner with
Siskinds LLP, describes the purpose of the proceeding as "We
believe that through this lawsuit Bayer will be required to
explain to Canadian consumers what it knew about the risks
associated with Trasylol and when it first became aware of those
risks.  In this case, as with all of these types of cases, we
are concerned about whether Canadians were adequately warned of
the risks associated with using the product in question."

For more details, contact:

          Siskinds LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          P.O. Box 2520
          London, Ontario, Canada
          N6A 3V8
          Phone: (519) 672-2121
          Fax: (519) 672-6065
          Web site: http://www.classaction.ca


BIG 5: Faces 2 Lawsuits in California Over Purchasers' Zip Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. is facing purported class-action
suits in California, alleging violations of the California Civil
Code, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 29, 2008.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed
before the California Superior Court in the County of Los
Angeles, entitled "Adi Zimerman v. Big 5 Sporting Goods
Corporation, et al., Case No. BC383834."

On May 31, 2008, the company was served with another complaint,
this time filed before the California Superior Court in the
County of San Diego, entitled "Michele Gonzalez v. Big 5
Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2008-00083307-
CU-BT-CTL."  This suit alleges violations of the California
Civil Code and California Business and Professions Code and
invasion of privacy.

Each complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf
of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in
California using credit cards and were requested to provide
their zip codes.

Each plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers
making purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in
California were improperly requested to provide their zip code
at the time of such purchases.

Each plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory
penalties, injunctive relief to require the company to
discontinue the allegedly improper conduct and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The plaintiff in the Gonzalez case also seeks, on behalf of the
class members, general damages, special damages, exemplary or
punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits.

The company reported no development in the matter Nov. 4, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2008.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/
-- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 343
stores in 10 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec.
31, 2006.


CONSTAR INT'L: Awaits Briefing Schedule for Certification Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to issue
a briefing schedule for the class certification appeal in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against
Constar International, Inc., 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.

The company and certain of its present and former directors,
along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various
underwriters, were named defendants in the consolidated putative
securities class action suit, captioned "In re Constar
International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-
05020."

This action, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, is a consolidation of two complaints:

     -- "Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et
        al., Case No. 03-5020," filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and

     -- "Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 03-5166," filed on Sept. 15, 2003.

A consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004,
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on
Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants in these lawsuits
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  They
seek class-action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit.

The court has previously denied the company's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
as well as the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On May 7, 2007, the Special Master issued a Report and Order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
company filed objections to theReport and Order.

The Court later overruled the company's objections, adopting the
Special Master's Report and Order, and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On March 18, 2008, the company filed a Rule 23(f) Petition in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking leave to
take an immediate appeal from the class certification ruling.

On April 30, 2008, the Third Circuit entered an Order granting
the company's Rule 23(f) Petition.

At the company's request, the Special Master has agreed to stay
all further proceedings before the District Court pending the
outcome of the appeal, with the exception of certain limited
discovery.

The suit is "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge
Edmund V. Ludwig, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephanie M. Beige, Esq. (beige@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414

          Andrew J. Brown, Esq. (andrewb@lcsr.com)
          Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes & Lerach, LLP
          401 B. Street, STE. 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbclasslaw.com)
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706

Representing the defendants are:

          Steven B. Feirson, Esq. (steven.feirson@dechert.com)
          Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
          (michael.kichline@dechert.com)
          Scott A. Thompson, Esq. (scott.thompson@dechert.com)
          Dechert, Price & Rhoads
          1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
          Phone: 215-994-2749
          215-994-2390
          Fax: 215-994-2222


JA SOLAR: Denies Allegations in N.Y. Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     HEBEI, China, Dec. 4, 2008 -- JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd.
(Nasdaq: JASO) has learned of a class action complaint filed in
the Southern District of New York by attorneys acting on behalf
of Lee R. Ellenburg III and other class action plaintiffs,
alleging violations by JA Solar of the U.S. federal securities
laws.

     JA Solar believes such claims to be groundless and without
merit and will take necessary actions in due course to
vigorously defend against the Class Action.

     As reported in the the Dec. 5, 2008 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
announced that a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the American Depository Shares ("ADS")
of JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd. ("JA Solar" or the "Company")
during the period between August 12, 2008 and November 12, 2008
(the "Class Period").

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

     JA Solar describes itself as a leading China-based
manufacturer of high-performance solar cells.  JA Solar is
principally involved in the development, manufacture and sale of
high quality solar photovoltaic products to global markets.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements about
the Company's financial condition and operating results.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that JA Solar
purchased from a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Inc. ("Lehman
Brothers") a three month, $100 million note (the "Lehman note")
on or about July 9, 2008.

     At the time of this purchase, Lehman Brothers, which
guaranteed the Lehman note, was under severe financial distress.
According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose:

       -- that JA Solar had made a material, highly speculative
          investment in a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers, an
          entity that was then undergoing a credit crisis and
          under significant financial distress;

       -- that the value of JA Solar's investment in the Lehman
          note had diminished considerably; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
          positive statements concerning JA Solar's financial
          performance, outlook and earnings guidance were
          materially false and misleading and without reasonable
          basis.

     Ultimately, at the end of the Class Period, JA Solar wrote
off its $100 million investment in the Lehman note.  After JA
Solar fully disclosed and recorded an impairment in the value of
its investment in the Lehman note, on November 12, 2008, JA
Solar's stock closed at $2.38 per share, a price that
represented a decline of more than 87% from the high during the
three month Class Period.

     The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of JA Solar publicly traded securities the Class
Period (the "Class").


MEDQUIST INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Shareholder Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Burlington
County dismissed with prejudice a putative shareholder class-
action lawsuit filed against MedQuist, Inc.

The action, entitled "Alan R. Kahn v. Stephen H. Rusckowski, et
al., Docket No. BUR-C-000007-08," was filed on Jan. 22, 2008,
against the company and its four non-independent directors,
Clement Revetti, Jr.; Stephen H. Rusckowski; Gregory M. Sebasky;
and Scott Weisenhoff.  The plaintiff purports to bring the
action on his own behalf and on behalf of all current holders of
the company's common stock.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and due care by
purportedly agreeing to and initiating a process for the
company's sale or a change of control transaction which will
allegedly cause harm to plaintiff and the putative class.

The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus costs
and interest, a judgment declaring that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and that any proposed transactions
regarding the company's sale or change of control are void, an
injunction preventing the company's sale or any change of
control transaction that is not entirely fair to the class, an
order directing the company to appoint three independent
directors to its board of directors, and attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On June 12, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended class-action
complaint, naming as defendants the company, eight of the
company's current and former directors, and Philips Group of
Companies in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division.

In the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the
company's current and former directors breached their fiduciary
duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and due care by not
permitting our public shareholders the opportunity to decide
whether they wanted to participate in a share purchase offer
with non-party CBaySystems Holdings that would have allowed the
public shareholders to sell their shares of our common stock for
an amount above market price.

The plaintiff further alleges that CBaySystems Holdings also
made the share purchase offer to our majority shareholder,
Philips, and that Philips breached its fiduciary duties by
accepting CBaySystems Holdings' offer.  Based on these
allegations, plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and
monetary relief from all defendants.

On July 14, 2008, the company moved to dismiss the plaintiff's
amended class-action complaint, arguing:

     -- that plaintiff's amended class action complaint did
        not allege that the company engaged in any wrongdoing
        which supported a breach of fiduciary duty claim and

     -- that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is not legally
        cognizable against a corporation.

The plaintiff filed an opposition to the company's motion to
dismiss on July 21, 2008.  The court will hold oral argument on
the company's motion some time in October 2008.

The company announced on Dec. 4, 2008, the dismissal with
prejudice of the litigation, according to a press release
published by Trading Markets.

Medquist Inc. -- http://www.medquist.com/-- is a provider of
medical transcription technology and services.  The company
services health systems, hospitals and large group medical
practices throughout the U.S.  In the clinical documentation
workflow, the company provide, in addition to medical
transcription technology and services, digital dictation, speech
recognition, electronic signature and medical coding technology
and services.  The company is a member of the Philips Group of
Companies and collaborate with Philips Medical Systems in
marketing and product development.  The Company performs a
substantial majority of the medical transcription services
utilizing the DocQment Enterprise Platform (DEP), the company's
Web-based dictation and medical transcription management system.


HEALTHMARKETS INC: Mid-West Faces Ohio Breach of Contract Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee, a
principal insurance subsidiary of HealthMarkets, Inc, has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action filed on Nov. 7,
2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio.

The lawsuit is styled Cynthia Hrnyak, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Mid-West National Life
Insurance Company of Tennessee, Case No. 1:08CV2642.

Plaintiff has alleged several causes of action, including breach
of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the Ohio Revised
Code Annotated Section 3918.08, arising from the alleged failure
to refund unearned premium on credit insurance policies issued
by Mid-West in connection with automobile loans when such loans
terminated early.

Plaintiff seeks an order certifying the suit as a nationwide
class action, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive
relief.

Mid-West has not yet been served with 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.

HealthMarkets, Inc. -- http://www.healthmarkets.com/-- is a
holding company conducting its insurance businesses through the
Company's indirect, wholly owned insurance company subsidiaries,
The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company (MEGA), Mid-West
National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee (Mid-West), and The
Chesapeake Life Insurance Company (Chesapeake).


MEDEFILE INT'L: Class in TCPA Breach Suit Not Yet Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified by the District Court of Arizona
in the Consumer Protection Corp.'s suit against Medefile
International, Inc.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the Company was notified via a process server
of a proposed class action suit brought by CPC in Superior Court
in the State of Arizona.

CPC alleges that the Company sent an unsolicited facsimile
advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 (TCPA).

On Oct. 8, 2008, the matter was moved to the District Court of
Arizona.

On Oct. 28, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
action based on the plaintiff's failure to properly allege a
cause of action.

CPC filed a response to the Company's motion to dismiss on Nov.
4, 2008.

CPC is seeking damages of $500 per member of the class.

The Company denies any involvement in the alleged facsimile
transmission, 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.

Medefile International, Inc. -- http://www.medefile.com/--
through its subsidiary, Medefile, Inc., has developed a system
for gathering, digitizing, storing and distributing information
for the healthcare field.  The Company has created a system for
gathering and digitizing medical records so that individuals can
have a record of all of their medical visits.  Medefile's
primary product is the MedeFile system, a secure system for
gathering and maintaining medical records.  The MedeFile system
is designed to gather all of its members' medical records and
create a single, comprehensive medical record that is accessible
round the clock.


NISOURCE INC: April 28, 2009 Trial Set for W.Va. Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
An April 28, 2009 trial is scheduled for the purported class-
action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of West Virginia that alleges certain "select
shippers," including certain subsidiaries and affiliates of
NiSource, Inc., have engaged in an "illegal gas scheme" that
constituted a breach of contract and violated state law.

Initially, on July 14, 2004, Stand Energy Corp. filed a
complaint in the Kanawha County Court in West Virginia.  This
suit is styled, "Stand Energy Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corp., et al."

The complaint contains allegations against various NiSource
subsidiaries and affiliates, including Columbia Transmission and
Columbia Gulf, and asserts that those companies and certain
"select shippers" engaged in the illegal gas scheme,
constituting a breach of contract and violated state law.

The "illegal gas scheme" relates to the Columbia Transmission
and Columbia Gulf gas imbalance transactions that were the
subject of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission enforcement
staff investigation and subsequent settlement approved in
October 2000.

Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf filed a notice of
removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of West
Virginia on Aug. 13, 2004, and a motion to dismiss the suit on
Sept. 10, 2004.

In October 2004, however, the plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint, which clarified the identity of some of the
"select shipper" defendants and added a federal antitrust cause
of action.

On Jan. 6, 2005, the court denied the Columbia companies' motion
to strike the complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to
amend.

To address the issues raised in the Second Amended Complaint,
the Columbia companies revised their briefs in support of their
previously filed motions to dismiss.

In June 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Columbia companies' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  The Columbia companies have filed an answer to the
Second Amended Complaint.

One of the plaintiffs, Atlantigas Corp., was dismissed from the
case, and has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals.

On Dec. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
case as a class action.  The defendants filed their opposition
to this motion in March 2008.  All briefing has been completed.

Oral argument was heard on June 3, 2008, and on Aug. 19, 2008,
the Court denied the Motion for Class Certification.  The
Columbia companies continue to defend against the claims made by
the individual plaintiffs.  Trial is scheduled to begin April
28, 2009, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge
Robert C. Chambers, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joshua I. Barrett, Esq.
          Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Esq.
          Molly McGinley Han, Esq.
          Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq.
          Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero
          604 Virginia Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: 304-342-0133
          Fax: 304-342-4605
          Web site: http://www.ditrapanolaw.com/

               - and -

          Robert C. Sanders, Esq.
          The Law Office of Robert C. Sanders
          12051 Upper Marlboro Pike
          Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-2922
          Phone: 301-574-3400
          Fax: 301-574-2153

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael S. Becker, Esq. (mbecker@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis
          Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-879-5000
          Fax: 202-879-5200

               - and -

          John H. Tinney, Esq. (JackTinney@tinneylawfirm.com)
          The Tinney Law Firm
          P. O. Box 3752
          Charleston, WV 25337-3752
          Phone: 304-720-3310
          Fax: 304-720-3315.


NISOURCE INC: Ky. Court Vacates Hearing for Royalties Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
vacated the class certification hearing scheduled for Nov. 13,
2008 of the matter, "John Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake
Appalachia, L.L.C.," which names NiSource, Inc., as a defendant.

On Feb. 8, 2007, John Thacker filed the purported class-action
suit, alleging that Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., failed to pay
royalty owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of
their oil and gas leases covering real property located within
the state of Kentucky.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2007,
which, among other things, added NiSource and Columbia Natural
Resources as defendants.

On March 31, 2008, the court denied a motion by the defendants
to dismiss the case.  The defendants then filed their answers to
the complaint on April 25, 2008.

On June 3, 2008, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class
consisting of all persons entitled to payment of royalty by
Chesapeake under leases operated by Chesapeake at any point
after Feb. 5, 1992, on real property in Kentucky.  The
defendants' response to this certification motion was filed on
July 18, 2008.

The class certification hearing scheduled for Nov. 13, 2008 was
vacated, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Case No.
7:07-cv-00026-GFVT," filed in the U.S. District Court of the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Thomas E. Meng, Esq. (tmeng@stites.com)
         Stites & Harbison PLLC
         250 W. Main Street, 2300 Lexington Financial Center
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-226-2300
         Fax: 859-425-7902

Representing the defendants are:

         Anne Adams Chesnut, Esq. (aac@gdm.com)
         Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, PLLC
         300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1100
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-288-4613
         Fax: 859-255-2742

              - and -

         Nora Clevenger Price, Esq.
         (pricenc@steptoe-johnson.com)
         Steptoe & Johnson
         1000 Fifth Avenue, Suite 250
         P.O. Box 2195
         Huntington, WV 25722-2195
         Phone: 304-522-8290
         Fax: 304-526-8089


NOVOPHARM: High Court Denies Appeal in Dismissed CDN3.9B Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The Supreme Court of Canada has just released today its
judgment in the case of "Option Consommateurs v. Novopharm et
al.," dismissing, with costs, Option Consommateurs' application
for leave to appeal from the decision of the Québec Court of
Appeal (the "QCA") which had refused to authorize a proposed
CDN3.9 billion class action instituted on behalf of all
Quebecers against nine generic drug manufacturers.

     The case dates back to February 2003 when a newspaper
article appeared in La Presse reporting that certain unnamed
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers would have given "illegal"
rebates and other benefits to pharmacists in Québec and other
provinces.

     Two days later, based on this newspaper article, a proposed
class action was launched.  The action sought $3.9 billion in
damages against nine generic drug manufacturers on the grounds
that these manufacturers would have allegedly failed to deduct
the "value" of these rebates and other "benefits" from the
prices of medications that all Quebecers would have paid under
either Québec's publicly administered drug insurance plan or
under private insurance plans.

     By judgment of January 17, 2006, the Québec Superior Court
(the "QSC") refused to allow the proposed class action to
proceed.  The QSC held that although the 2003 amendments to
Québec's class action authorization regime had simplified the
criteria for authorization to a minimum, a motion seeking
authorization of a class action had to at least contain some
factual foundation for the court to appreciate the seriousness
of the proposed action.

     The QSC held that in this case, this information was simply
lacking ("faisait cruellement défaut") and that there was no
basis for the Court to find that there was any appearance of
fault, damages, or a causal link that would have triggered the
liability of the manufacturers.

     The QSC held that the proposed action, which had been
amended on numerous occasions, was a "moving target" that lacked
a factual foundation and that the Court was simply not prepared
to conclude that this was a serious case based on "pure
speculations" drawn from a newspaper article.

     By its judgment of June 11, 2008, the QCA agreed with the
QSC's holding that there was no causal link between the alleged
fault (i.e. the alleged payment of rebates to pharmacists) and
the alleged prejudice suffered by Quebecers (i.e. the alleged
higher prices for medications).

     The QCA also found that the claims that Quebecers paid
higher contributions as a result of the alleged actions of the
generic drug manufacturers was hypothetical, purely speculative
and had not been established.

     The QCA held, in obiter, that the two proposed designated
representatives of the class, who had only purchased medications
from four of the generic manufacturers in question, had failed
to establish that they were adequate representatives for the
entire class.

     Finally, the QCA reiterated that the QSC exercises
discretion in determining whether the criteria for authorization
are met and that Option Consommateurs failed to establish that
the trial judge had incorrectly exercised this discretion.


OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------
Oshkosh Corp. defends several purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, 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.

On Sept. 19, 2008, a purported shareholder of Oshkosh Corp.
filed a complaint, seeking certification of a class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
docketed as "Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Oshkosh Corporation
and Robert G. Bohn."

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company
violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially inadequate disclosures and material omissions leading
to the company's issuance of revised earnings guidance and
announcement of an impairment charge on June 26, 2008.

Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially
similar allegations were filed.

The suit is "Iron Workers Local No 25 Pension Fund v. Oshkosh
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00797-WEC," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge
William E. Callahan, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Guri Ademi, Esq. (gademi@ademilaw.com)
          Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
          3620 E Layton Ave
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 414-482-8000
          Fax: 414-482-8001

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 S. Service Rd – Ste. 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173


POZEN INC: N.C. Court Considers Dismissing Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina has yet to rule on a motion that sought for the
dismissal of a purported securities fraud class-action suit
entitled, "Brian Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case No.
07-CV-00559," which was filed against POZEN, Inc.

The suit was filed against the company, its chairman and chief
executive officer, and one of its directors on Aug. 10, 2007, by
a holder of POZEN's securities.  It alleges, among other claims,
violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act arising out of allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company concerning its migraine drug
candidate, Trexima, during a purported class period of July 31,
2006, through Aug. 1, 2007.

By order dated Feb. 15, 2008, the Court appointed joint co-lead
plaintiffs.  On April 25, 2008, the Company received the
plaintiffs' amended and consolidated complaint which added two
current officers of the Company as additional defendants.

The Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended and consolidated complaint with the Court on June
26, 2008.

On Aug. 27, 2008, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against one of the Company's directors.

Briefing on the motion to dismiss is now complete and the motion
is pending with the Court.

The company reported no development in the matter Nov. 4, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Brian Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-00559," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James Davidson, Esq. (jdavidson@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

               - and -

          Marcus Angelo Manos, Esq. (mmanos@nexsenpruet.com)
          Nexsen Pruet, LLC
          POD 2426
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Phone: 803-253-8275
          Fax: 803-253-8277

Representing the defendants are:

          Pressly Mcauley Millen, Esq. (pmillen@wcsr.com)
          Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
          POB 831
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: 919-755-2135
          Fax: 919-755-6067

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. (nporritt@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          1700 K St., N.W., Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20006-3817
          Phone: 202-973-8807
          Fax: 202-973-8899


PUBLIC STORAGE: Dismissal of Claims in "Brinkley" Suit Sustained
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, on Oct. 28, 2008, sustained the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County's dismissal of
certain claims in the purported class action, "Brinkley v.
Public Storage, Inc.," which was filed in April 2005.

The plaintiff sued the company on behalf of a purported class of
California non-exempt employees based on various California wage
and hour laws and seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief.

In May 2006, a motion for class certification was filed seeking
to certify five subclasses. Plaintiff sought certification for
alleged meal period violations, rest period violations, failure
to pay for travel time, failure to pay for mileage
reimbursement, and for wage statement violations.

In October 2006, the court declined to certify three out of the
five subclasses.  The court did, however, certify subclasses
based on alleged meal period and wage statement violations.

Subsequently, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking to dismiss the matter in its entirety.  On June 22,
2007, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment motion as
to the causes of action relating to the subclasses certified and
dismissed those claims.  The only surviving claims are those
relating to the named plaintiff only.

The plaintiff has filed an appeal to the Court's June 22, 2007
summary judgment ruling, according to the company's Nov. 13,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Public Storage -- http://www.publicstorage.com-- formerly
Public Storage, Inc., is an equity real estate investment trust
(REIT).  It is a fully integrated, self-administered and self-
managed REIT that acquires, develops, owns and operates self-
storage facilities.


SAIA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Georgia Fuel Surcharges Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saia, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated class-
action complaint that was filed in a litigation over fuel
surcharges.

Initially, a lawsuit was filed in late July 2007 before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Saia and several other major Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) freight
carriers alleging that the defendants conspired to fix fuel
surcharge rates in violation of federal antitrust laws and
seeking injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys' fees.

Since the filing of the original case, similar cases have been
filed against Saia and other LTL freight carriers, each with the
same allegation of conspiracy to fix fuel surcharge rates.

The cases were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the plaintiffs
are seeking class action certification.

The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on May
23, 2008.  They voluntarily dismissed these carriers as
defendants from the Amended Consolidated Complaint without
prejudice:

      -- R&L Carriers, Inc.;
      -- New England Motor Freight, Inc.;
      -- Southeast Freight Lines, Inc.;
      -- AAA Cooper Transportation;
      -- Jevic Transportation, Inc.; and
      -- Sun Capital Partners.

They also voluntarily dismissed Southern Motor Carriers Rate
Conference, Inc., without prejudice.

On June 25, 2008, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint on the
grounds that it failed to adequately plead collusion and
conspiracy.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 4,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Saia, Inc. -- http://www.saia.com/-- is a trucking company that
provides a variety of transportation and supply chain solutions
to a range of industries, including the retail, chemical and
manufacturing industries.  Saia serves a variety of customers by
offering regional and interregional less-than-truckload (LTL)
services and selected national LTL, and guarantee services.  The
company operates through its subsidiary, Saia Motor Freight Line
LLC (Saia Motor Freight), which is a multi-regional LTL carrier
that serves 33 states in the South, Southwest, Midwest, Pacific
Northwest and the West.


SCORES HOLDING: Dec. 31 Deadline Set for Discovery in "Diaz"
------------------------------------------------------------
All remaining discovery is set to be complete on Dec. 31, 2008,
in a purported class-action suit, captioned "Diaz v. Scores
Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08718-RMB-THK,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Scores Holding Co., Inc., formerly
Adonis Energy, Inc.

On Oct. 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed the
purported class action suit and collective action on behalf of
all tipped employees against the company and other defendants
alleging violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.

The suit is captioned, "Siri Diaz et al. v. Scores Holding
Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a Scores West
Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores East Side,
Case No. 07 Civ. 8718," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Nov. 6, 2007, the plaintiffs served an amended purported
class-action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and
servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same
violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.

On or about Feb. 21, 2008, the plaintiffs served a second
amended complaint adding two additional party defendants, but
limiting the action to persons employed in the New York Scores'
clubs.  The amended complaint alleges that the defendants are
"an integrated enterprise" and that the company jointly employ
the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants to liability
for the alleged wage/hour violations.

On April 18, 2008, co-defendant Go West filed for bankruptcy.

On behalf of Scores Holding and the other defendants, the
company filed a motion to dismiss that portion of the complaint
that asserted state law class action allegations.  The company
also moved to dismiss the claims of two of the named plaintiffs
for failure to appear for depositions.

At the same time, the plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification under the federal law for a class of the servers,
bartenders and dancers.

On May 9, 2008, the court issued its decision, denying the
motion to dismiss and granting conditional certification for a
class of servers, cocktail waitresses, bartenders and dancers
who have worked at Scores East since October 2004.

The case is stayed as against Go West pursuant to the bankruptcy
law.  The court directed that notice be sent to all potential
class members.

Discovery into both the procedural and substantive issues of the
suit is ongoing, 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.

The suit is "Diaz v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-08718-RMB-THK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M. Berman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Tammy Marzigliano, Esq. (tm@outtengolden.com)
         Outten & Golden Law Firm
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005

Representing the defendants is:

         Jerrold Foster Goldberg, Esq. (GoldbergJ@gtlaw.com)
         Greenberg Traurig, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-801-9209
         Fax: 212-805-9209


SECURE COMPUTING: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Sale to McAfee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Computing Corp. is facing a  consolidated class-action
lawsuit in California over allegations that the company is
selling itself too cheaply to McAfee, Inc., according to the
company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Following the announcement on Sept. 22, 2008 of the proposed
sale of Secure Computing to McAfee, Inc., four class-action
complaints were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California Santa Clara County, and one class-action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California Los
Angeles County.

The four Santa Clara complaints were consolidated into an
amended complaint that was filed in Santa Clara County on Oct.
17, 2008.  On Oct. 14, 2008, the defendants moved to transfer
the Los Angeles complaint to Santa Clara County.  On Oct. 20,
2008, the Los Angeles County Court granted the defendants'
motion, and the case is being transferred to Santa Clara.

The Santa Clara County consolidation order provides that all
actions filed in, removed to or transferred to Santa Clara
County must be consolidated with the other four cases already in
Santa Clara County.

The defendants' response to the consolidated amended complaint
is currently scheduled to be due on or about Nov. 17, 2008.

The consolidated amended complaint makes numerous allegations
against Secure Computing, our board of directors, and McAfee.
The complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty by the
members of our board of directors relating to the proposed sale
of Secure Computing.

In particular, the complaint alleges breaches of the individual
directors' duties of due care, loyalty and good faith by failing
to fully inform themselves of potential competing proposals,
failing to disclose material information regarding the
transaction to our stockholders, and favoring their interests
over the interests of our stockholders.

The complaint further alleges that Secure Computing and McAfee
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks an order declaring the
company's merger agreement with McAfee to be unlawful and
unenforceable, enjoining the proposed sale, requiring the
individual defendants to conduct a more extensive auction
process for Secure Computing, rescinding the merger agreement,
requiring us to provide additional disclosure to the company's
stockholders regarding the proposed transaction, imposing a
constructive trust on any benefits improperly received by the
individual defendants in the proposed transaction, and awarding
plaintiffs' costs and disbursements in pursuing their claims.

On Oct. 22, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' request for
limited expedited discovery and ordered the parties to negotiate
the scope of appropriate discovery.  The parties are negotiating
the scope of appropriate discovery and providing the agreed-upon
information.

Secure Computing Corp. -- http://www.securecomputing.com--
provides of a variety of network security products, including
firewalls (Sidewinder), user identification and authorization
software (SafeWord), and Web filtering applications
(SmartFilter, Webwasher).  Its firewall and virtual private
network (VPN) gateways enable companies to securely manage and
maintain network access for employees, customers, and partners.
The company also provides software that enables network
administrators to restrict access to specific Web sites to
streamline system resources and improve employee productivity.


SECURE COMPUTING: Reaches $3.6M Settlement in Calif. Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative $3.6 million settlement was reached in the matter,
"Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
00392-SC," which named Secure Computing Corp. and certain of its
directors and officers as defendants, according to the company's
Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Jan. 19, 200 by Rosenbaum Capital,
LLC.  The alleged plaintiff class includes persons who acquired
the company's stock between May 4, 2006, through July 11, 2006.

Rosenbaum Capital was appointed lead plaintiff in the action,
and filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007.  The amended
complaint alleges generally that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about our business condition and prospects
for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages.
After plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  The trial court denied
that motion on March 4, 2008.  The defendants filed answers to
the amended complaint on April 25, 2008.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the parties participated in a mediation of
plaintiff's claims.  At the mediation, the parties agreed,
subject to formal documentation in mutually agreeable form and
to court approval after notice to the settlement class, to a
settlement of all claims in the case in exchange for a payment
of $3.6 million.

Under the terms of the tentative agreement, the company's
primary director and officer liability insurance carrier will
pay the entire settlement amount.

The suit is "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00392-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Judge Samuel Conti,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

           Elizabeth C. Guarnieri, Esq. (ecg@classcounsel.com)
           Green Welling, LLP
           595 Market Street, Suite 2750
           San Francisco, CA 94105
           Phone: 415-477-6700
           Fax: 415-477-6710

Representing the defendants is:

           Michael L. Charlson, Esq.
           (michael.charlson@hellerehrman.com)
           Heller Ehrman LLP
           275 Middlefield Road
           Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506
           Phone: 650-324-7000
           Fax: 650 324-0638


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Still Faces Consolidated N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TeleTech Holdings, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class-action suit that was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The class action lawsuit -- "Beasley v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc.,
et. al." -- was filed on Jan. 25, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against TeleTech,
certain of its current directors and officers, and other
defendants, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15
of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges, among other things, false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus in
connection with:

       -- a March 2007 secondary offering of common stock, and

       -- various disclosures made and periodic reports filed by
          the company between Feb. 8, 2007, and Nov. 8, 2007.

On Feb. 25, 2008, a second, nearly identical class action
complaint, entitled, "Brown v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., et al.,"
was filed in the same court.

On May 19, 2008, the two cases were consolidated, and a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.

The company reported no development in the matter Nov. 4, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re Teletech Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00913-
LTS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Laura Taylor Swain, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs)
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

               - and -

          Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq.
          Kahn, Gauthier Law Group, L.L.C.
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-455-1400
          Fax: 504-455-1498

Representing the defendants are:

          Geoffrey Hunter Coll, Esq. (gcoll@dl.com)
          Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP
          1101 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005-4213
          Phone: 202-986-8146
          Fax: 202-986-8102

               - and -

          Laurence Martin Berman, Esq. (lberman@mwe.com)
          McDermott, Will & Emery L.L.P.
          2049 Century Park East, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3218
          Phone: 310-551-9308
          Fax: 310-277-4730


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, Dec. 04, 2008 -- On December 2, 2008, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against KV
Pharmaceutical Company (NYSE: KV-A) (NYSE: KV-B).

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

     The class period includes purchasers of Class A and Class B
Common Stock, as well as 7% cumulative convertible Preferred
Stock (Symbol: KVPHP) and is from February 15, 2008 through
November 12, 2008.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


NOAH EDUCATION: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec. 4, 2008 -- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman &
Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, against Noah
Education Holdings Ltd. ("Noah Education" or the "Company").

     The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of
American Depository Shares ("shares") pursuant or traceable to
the Company's October 19, 2007 Initial Public Offering ("IPO").

     The Complaint was also filed against certain underwriters
of the IPO and alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 77K, and 77(a)(2)).

     Noah Education develops and markets interactive educational
software and delivery platforms that combine traditional
education content with digital and multi-media technologies.

     The Complaint specifically alleges that on or about October
19, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO which allowed it to
raise $137 million by selling 9.85 million of the Company's
shares.

     In connection with the IPO, it is alleged that the Company
filed Registration Statements and Prospectuses that contained
false and misleading statements because they concealed the fact
that:

       -- the Company was, and had been, experiencing a
          significant increase in the cost of raw materials; and

       -- this cost increase would dramatically decrease the
          Company's gross profit margins.

     On November 19, 2007, one month after the IPO, the Company
disclosed that its profit margin had declined from 59% to 50.2%.

     In direct response to this news, the price of the Company's
shares declined $4.15 per share, and closed at $6.72 per shares
on November 20, 2007.  This closing price represented a
cumulative loss of $7.28 per share or over 50 percent of the
value of the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just one
month prior.

For more details, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529


SOUTHWEST WATER: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW ORLEANS, LA, Dec. 04, 2008 -- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
("KGS") announces that a securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, on behalf of purchasers of securities of
Southwest Water Company ("Southwest" or the "Company") between
May 10, 2005 and November 7, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  No class has yet been certified in this action.

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

     Specifically, the complaint charges that defendants misled
investors concerning the following:

       -- improperly accounting for the rate of depreciation of
          assets acquired via acquisition;

       -- improperly accounting for revenues and related costs
          of installation of water and sewer taps;

       -- failing to prepare financial statements in accordance
          with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
          ("GAAP");

       -- failing to maintain adequate internal and financial
          controls; and

       -- that Southwest's financial statements were materially
          false and misleading at all relevant times.

     Investors only learned the truth about the Company on
November 10, 2008, when it announced that its financial
statements for years ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007, for
each quarter therein, as well as for the first two quarters of
2008, would be restated and could not be relied upon.  Shares of
Southwest declined precipitously after this news -- falling
$2.97 per share, or approximately 36%, to close at $5.25 per
share, on heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact:

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


                            *********

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  * * *