CAR_Public/081210.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 10, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 245

                            Headlines

BECTON DICKINSON: Contesting Healthcare Workers' Certification
BECTON DICKINSON: Still Faces Consolidated N.J. Antitrust Suit
CAMPANALE HOMES: Connolly Obagi LLP Files Suit Over New Houses
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Still Faces Claims in "Graden" ERISA Lawsuit
DICK'S SPORTING: Pursuing Settlement of FLSA Lawsuits in N.Y.

EQUITY MEDIA: Ruling on Arkansas Shareholder Lawsuit Pending
GENENTECH INC: Faces Calif. Suits Over Actimmune Purchase Price
GENENTECH INC: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Roche Proposal
HEALTH BENEFITS: Faces Complaint by Former Employee in Florida
MATTEL INC: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Lead Tainted Toys Suit

OPNEXT INC: Still Faces Consolidated N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
PPL MONTANA: Court Rejects Proposed Deal in Asset Sale Lawsuit
SENDTEC INC: Ruling on Appeal to Junked SAC in Fla. Suit Pending
STRATEX NETWORKS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Delaware
TD AMERITRADE: No Ruling Yet on Settlement of "Elvey" Spam Suit

TD AMERITRADE: Panel Junked Bid to Consolidate ARS Suits in Oct.
TELLABS INC: April 13, 2009 Trial Scheduled for "Brieger" Suit
TELLABS INC: Circuit Remands Securities Suit to District Court
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: "Stumpf" Securities Suit in Pre-trial Stages


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CRYSTALLEX INT'L: Sarraf Gentile Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
SADIA S.A.: Klafter Olsen Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
SADIA S.A.: Labaton Sucharow Filed Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                           *********


BECTON DICKINSON: Contesting Healthcare Workers' Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co., continues to oppose class
certification in the pending product liability class-action
lawsuits commenced by healthcare workers, including pursuing all
appropriate rights of appeal, according to the company's Nov.
26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The company, along with another manufacturer and several medical
product distributors, are named defendants in product liability
class action lawsuits commenced by healthcare workers who
allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not become
infected with any disease.

Generally, these actions allege that healthcare workers have
sustained needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices
manufactured by Becton Dickinson and, as a result, require
medical testing, counseling and treatment.

In some cases, these actions additionally allege that the
healthcare workers have sustained mental anguish.  The
plaintiffs seek money damages in all of these actions.

Becton Dickinson had previously been named as a defendant in
eight similar suits, each of which has either been dismissed
with prejudice or voluntarily withdrawn.  Currently, there are
two pending suits in Ohio and South Carolina.

The Ohio case, "Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al., Case No.
98CVB075616," was filed in Franklin County Court on Sept. 21,
2006.  The Ohio Court of Appeals has reversed the trial court's
class certification order.  The matter has been remanded to the
trial court for a determination of whether the class can be
redefined.

The South Carolina case -- "Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et. al."
(Case No. 98-CP-40-4343, Richland County Court of Common Pleas,
South Carolina) -- was filed on Nov. 25, 1998, on behalf of an
unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class action
certification under the laws of this state in state court.

Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a medical
technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and
sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
industry and the general public.


BECTON DICKINSON: Still Faces Consolidated N.J. Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated antitrust class-action lawsuit filed against
Becton, Dickinson and Co. remains pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's
Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

                  Direct Purchaser's Litigation

Becton Dickinson is named as a defendant in five purported class
action complaints brought on behalf of direct purchasers of the
company's products, such as distributors, alleging that the
company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the
charging of higher prices for the company's products to the
plaintiff and other purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     1. "Louisiana Wholesale Drug company, Inc., et. al. vs.
        Becton Dickinson and company" (Civil Action No. 05-
        1602, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed
        on March 25, 2005;

     2. "SAJ Distributors, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson &
        Co." (Case 2:05-CV-04763-JD, United States District
        Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
        Sept. 6, 2005;

     3. "Dik Drug company, et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
        company" (Case No. 2:05-CV-04465, U.S. District Court,
        Newark, New Jersey), filed on Sept. 12, 2005;

     4. "American Sales company, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton,
        Dickinson & Co." (Case No. 2:05-CV-05212-CRM, U.S.
        District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania),
        filed on Oct. 3, 2005; and

     5. "Park Surgical Co. Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson
        and company" (Case 2:05-CV-05678-CMR, U.S. District
        Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
        Oct. 26, 2005.

The actions brought by Louisiana Wholesale Drug company and Dik
Drug company in New Jersey have been consolidated under the
caption "In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

                Indirect Purchaser's Litigation

Becton Dickinson is also named as a defendant in four purported
class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
Becton Dickinson's products, alleging that the company violated
federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher
prices for the company's products to the plaintiff and other
purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     1. "Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson &
        company" (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, U.S. District Court,
        Greenville, Tennessee), filed on June 7, 2005;

     2. "Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson
        and company" (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District
        Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on Jan. 17, 2006;

     3. "Medstar v. Becton Dickinson" (Case No. 06-CV-03258-
        JLL (RJH), U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey),
        filed on May 18, 2006; and

     4. "The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton
        Dickinson and company" (Case No. 07-CV-2544, U.S.
        District Court, Southern District of New York), filed
        on March 28, 2007.

A fifth purported class-action complaint on behalf of indirect
purchasers, captioned "International Multiple Sclerosis
Management Practice v. Becton Dickinson & company, Case No.
2:07-v-10602," filed on April 5, 2007, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, was voluntarily withdrawn
by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action suits seek
monetary damages.

All of the antitrust class-action suits have been consolidated
for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation in U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a medical
technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and
sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
industry and the general public.


CAMPANALE HOMES: Connolly Obagi LLP Files Suit Over New Houses
--------------------------------------------------------------
     OTTAWA, Dec. 8, 2008 /CNW Telbec/ -- Connolly Obagi LLP has
filed a class action law suit on behalf of Andree Morel of
Arnprior, Ontario claiming $6 million in damages for all
individuals who purchased a new house from Campanale Homes in
the past 17 years.

     The law suit alleges that Campanale Homes, an Ottawa-area
homebuilder, knowingly and wrongfully charged buyers of newly-
constructed houses more than it was entitled to under a "GST
Rebate Adjustment" found in agreements of purchase and sale
signed by those buyers.  According to the Statement of Claim in
the lawsuit, Campanale Homes falsely inflated the amount owing
to it and refused to close sales without full payment of this
inflated amount.

     The allegations date back to January 1st, 1991, the date of
the introduction of the GST.  The Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and as the representative for the proposed class
members, seeks $5 million in damages for breach of contract and
$1 million in punitive damages.  Campanale Homes, Tony
Campanale, Vincent Campanale, Rocco Campanale, and a variety of
companies operating under the name "Campanale Homes" are named
as defendants in the lawsuit.

For more details, contact:

          Joseph Obagi, Esq.
          Connolly Obagi LLP
          Phone: (613) 567-4412
          e-mail: joseph.obagi@connollyobagi.com


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Still Faces Claims in "Graden" ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conexant Systems, Inc., is still facing several remaining claims
in a purported class-action suit against the company, certain of
its current and former officers, and its Employee Benefits Plan
Committee

The suit was filed in February 2005, on behalf of all persons
who were participants in the company's 401(k) Plan during a
specified class period, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.  It specifically alleges that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, as
amended, to the Plan and the participants in the Plan.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005.  On
Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case.

On March 31, 2006, the judge dismissed the case and ordered it
closed.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 17,
2006.

The appellate argument was held on April 19, 2007.  On July 31,
2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated
the District Court's order dismissing the Graden complaint and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

On Nov. 17, 2007, the defendants filed a Renewed Motion to
Dismiss with the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.  The
plaintiffs filed an opposition on Feb. 8, 2008.

On Dec. 4, 2007, the defendants also filed a petition for
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's ruling, which petition
was denied on March 3, 2008.

On Aug. 27, 2008, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and
denied in part. The judge left in claims against all of the
individual defendants as well as against the Company, according
to its Nov. 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 3, 2008.

The suit is "Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Judge Stanley R. Chesler, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. (lisa@trrlaw.com)
         Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP
         8 Kings Highway
         West Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Phone: 856-795-9002

Representing the defendants is:

         Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. (greilly@lowenstein.com)
         Lowenstein Sandler, PC
         65 Livingston Ave.
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: 973-597-2500


DICK'S SPORTING: Pursuing Settlement of FLSA Lawsuits in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. continues to pursue settlement of
two purported class actions that accuse it of failing to pay
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 1, 2008.

The cases were filed in May and November 2005 with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.  They are
captioned:

       -- "Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. and
          Galyan's Trading Company, Inc.," and

       -- "Daniel Parks v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc."

Because until September 2006, none of these cases were certified
as class actions, the company deemed them to be claims that were
incidental to its business.

In September and October 2006, respectively, a magistrate judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
conditionally certified classes for notice purposes under the
FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases, which the court upheld.

In the Barrus case, the parties and the Court agreed to stay the
litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims through
mediation.

Mediation sessions were held in April and August 2007.  The
parties to the Barrus case have continued to work through the
mediator's office in an effort to determine whether the matter
can be resolved through settlement.

In the Parks case, the parties and the court have also agreed to
stay the litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims
through mediation.  A mediation session was held in March 2008
and the parties have agreed to continue discussions to determine
whether this matter can be resolved through settlement.

Mediation sessions were also held in November 2008.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting
goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store
environment.


EQUITY MEDIA: Ruling on Arkansas Shareholder Lawsuit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The judge has not issued a ruling in the purported shareholder
class-action lawsuit filed against Equity Media Holdings Corp.
-- formerly known as Equity Broadcasting Corp. -- in the circuit
court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, in relation to a certain
merger agreement.

Equity Media was incorporated in Delaware on April 29, 2005, as
Coconut Palm Acquisition Corp. to serve as a vehicle for the
acquisition of an operating business through a merger, capital
stock exchange, asset acquisition and other similar transaction.

On March 30, 2007, Coconut Palm merged with Equity Broadcasting
Corp., with Coconut Palm remaining as the legal surviving
corporation.  Immediately following the merger, Coconut Palm
changed its name to Equity Media Holdings Corp.

In connection with the merger between EBC and Coconut Palm, EBC
and each member of EBC's board of directors were named
defendants in a lawsuit filed by an EBC shareholder on June 14,
2006.

The lawsuit contains both a class-action component and
derivative claims.  The suit claims allege various deficiencies
in EBC's proxy used to inform its shareholders of the special
meeting to consider the merger.

These allegations include:

      -- failure to provide sufficient information regarding
         the fair value of EBC's assets and the resulting fair
         value of EBC's Class A common stock;

      -- that the interests of holders of EBC's Class A common
         stock are improperly diluted as a result of the merger
         to the benefit of the holders of EBC's Class B common
         stock;

      -- failure to sufficiently describe the further dilution
         that would occur post-merger upon exercise of Coconut
         Palm's outstanding warrants;

      -- failure to provide pro-forma financial information;

      -- failure to disclose alleged related party transactions;

      -- failure to provide access to audited consolidated
         financial statements during previous years;

      -- failure to provide shareholders with adequate time to
         review a fairness option obtained by EBC's board of
         directors in connection with the merger; and

      -- alleged sale of EBC below appraised market value of its
         assets.

The derivative components of the lawsuit allege instances of
improper self-dealing, including through a management agreement
between EBC and Arkansas Media, LLC.

In addition to requesting unspecified compensatory damages, the
plaintiff also requested injunctive relief to enjoin EBC's
annual shareholder meeting and the vote on the merger.

An injunction hearing was not held before EBC's annual meeting
regarding the merger so the meeting and shareholder vote
proceeded as planned and EBC's shareholders approved the merger.

On Aug. 9, 2006, EBC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied.

On Feb. 21, 2007, the plaintiff filed a "Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement" with the court, saying the parties reached
an oral agreement to settle the lawsuit.

However, the plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to withdraw
the motion to settle and filed a "Third Amended Complaint" on
April 10, 2007.  This motion added two additional plaintiffs and
expanded on the issues recited in the previous complaints.

On July 31, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Class
Certification."

A hearing on this issue was held on Aug. 18, 2008, 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.

Equity Media Holdings Corp., -- http://www.emdaholdings.com/--
formerly known as Equity Broadcasting Corp., it owns and
operates television stations across the U.S. and the Retro
Television Network.


GENENTECH INC: Faces Calif. Suits Over Actimmune Purchase Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genentech, Inc. is facing several purported class-action suits
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California over the purchase price of Actimmune, according to
the company's Nov. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

On May 8, June 11, August 8, and September 29 of 2008, Genentech
was named as a defendant, along with InterMune, Inc. and its
former chief executive officer, W. Scott Harkonen, in four
separate class-action complaints filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
plaintiffs who allegedly paid part or all of the purchase price
for Actimmune for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary
fibrosis.

Actimmune is an interferon-gamma product that was licensed by
Genentech to Connectics Corp. and was subsequently assigned to
InterMune.

InterMune currently sells Actimmune in the U.S.  The complaints
are related in part to royalties that the company received in
connection with the Actimmune product.

The May 8, June 11, and August 8 complaints have been
consolidated into a single amended complaint that claims and
seeks damages for violations of federal racketeering laws,
unfair competition laws, and consumer protection laws, and for
unjust enrichment.

The September 29 complaint includes six claims, but only names
Genentech as a defendant in one claim for damages for unjust
enrichment.

Genentech, Inc. -- http://www.gene.com/-- is a biotechnology
company that discovers, develops, manufactures and
commercializes pharmaceutical products to treat patients with
unmet medical needs.  It commercializes multiple biotechnology
products and also receives royalties from companies that are
licensed to market products based on the Company's technology.
Genentech commercializes various products in the United States,
including Avastin, Rituxan, Herceptin, Lucentis, Xolair,
Tarceva, Nutropin, Activase, TNKase, Cathflo Activase, Pulmozyme
and Raptiva. The Company's licensed products include
Trastuzumab, Rituximab, Bevacizumab, Dornase alfa, recombinant,
Alteplase and Tenecteplase, Somatropin, Daclizumab, Ranibizumab,
Etanercept, Adalimumab and Infliximab.


GENENTECH INC: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Roche Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------
Genentech, Inc. is facing several purported class-action suits
over an unsolicited proposal from Roche Holdings, Inc. (RHI) to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of the company, according
to the company's Nov. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

On July 21, 2008, the company announced that it received an
unsolicited proposal from RHI to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the company's Common Stock not owned by Roche at a
price of $89 in cash per share (the Roche Proposal).

Subsequent to the Roche Proposal, more than thirty shareholder
lawsuits have been filed against Genentech and/or the members of
its Board of Directors, and various Roche entities, including
RHI, Roche Holding AG, and Roche Holding Ltd.

The lawsuits are currently pending in various state courts,
including the Delaware Court of Chancery, San Francisco County
Superior Court, and San Mateo County Superior Court, as well as
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The lawsuits generally assert class-action claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty based in part on allegations that, in connection with
Roche's offer to purchase the remaining shares, some or all of
the defendants failed to properly value Genentech, failed to
solicit other potential acquirers, and are engaged in improper
self-dealing.

Several of the suits also seek the invalidation, in whole or in
part, of the July 1999 Affiliation Agreement between Genentech
and RHI (Affiliation Agreement), and an order deeming Articles 8
and 9 of the company's Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation invalid or inapplicable to a potential transaction
with Roche.

Genentech, Inc. -- http://www.gene.com/-- is a biotechnology
company that discovers, develops, manufactures and
commercializes pharmaceutical products to treat patients with
unmet medical needs.  It commercializes multiple biotechnology
products and also receives royalties from companies that are
licensed to market products based on the Company's technology.
Genentech commercializes various products in the United States,
including Avastin, Rituxan, Herceptin, Lucentis, Xolair,
Tarceva, Nutropin, Activase, TNKase, Cathflo Activase, Pulmozyme
and Raptiva. The Company's licensed products include
Trastuzumab, Rituximab, Bevacizumab, Dornase alfa, recombinant,
Alteplase and Tenecteplase, Somatropin, Daclizumab, Ranibizumab,
Etanercept, Adalimumab and Infliximab.


HEALTH BENEFITS: Faces Complaint by Former Employee in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Health Benefits Direct Corp. is facing a national class-action
complaint filed by a former employee of the company in the 17th
Judicial Circuit of Florida, Broward County, Case No. 062008 CA
042798 XXX CE.

On Aug. 28, 2008, the plaintiff filed the complaint alleging
that the company breached a contract with employees by failing
to provide certain commissions and/or bonuses.

The complaint also contains claims for an accounting and for
declaratory relief relating to the alleged compensation
agreement.

The plaintiff purports to bring these claims on behalf of a
class of current and former insurance sales agents.

The plaintiff seeks payment from the company of all commissions
allegedly owed to him and the putative class, triple damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
set for hearing on Nov. 13, 2008.

Radnor, Pennsylvania-based Health Benefits Direct Corp. --
http://www.healthbenefitsdirect.com/-- engages in the direct
marketing and distribution of health and life insurance
products. The Company operates though two segments, Telesales
and Atiam.


MATTEL INC: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Lead Tainted Toys Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN DIEGO, Dec. 08, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP announces a federal district court has held that toy
manufacturers and retailers, namely Mattel, Inc., Fisher-Price,
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Target Corp., Toys "R" Us, Inc., Kmart
Corp., and KB Toys, may not escape liability to consumers who
bought children's toys containing lead, lead paint, or dangerous
magnets merely because the companies later offered or provided
the consumers with replacement toys as part of a recall program.

     On the eve of the holiday shopping season, Judge Dale S.
Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California denied the companies' request to dismiss a class
action complaint against them, based on their argument that
Mattel's recall program provided consumers an adequate remedy.

     "Defendants' argument that some Plaintiffs have not been
injured because they received replacement toys in the voluntary
recalls is unpersuasive," declared Judge Fischer in her order
rejecting the corporations' request to dismiss the case.

     "The Court's decision allows injured consumers' claims to
proceed against Mattel and retailers of these hazardous toys.
The concerned parents who filed this lawsuit are seeking a fair
remedy for the significant harm, worry, and expense caused by
these toxic toys," said John J. Stoia, Jr., of Coughlin Stoia,
the law firm that serves as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs
and the Class along with the firm of Whatley Drake and Kallas
LLC.

     "The brazen attempt by Mattel, Fisher-Price, Wal-Mart and
others to evade responsibility is an insult to suffering
families, and we are pleased that the Court rejected these
companies' attempts to play Scrooge during the holiday toy-
shopping season," added Mr. Stoia.

     Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on behalf of millions of
children and families who purchased children's toys that were
marketed as safe but later recalled due to excessive levels of
lead in the surface paint or hazardous magnets.

     In fact, Mattel recalled over 10 million children's toys in
the U.S. (20 million worldwide), including popular lines such as
Dora the Explorer and Barbie, after it was revealed that some of
the toys exceeded legal lead limits by 180 times or contained a
faulty design involving small, loose magnets.

     Earlier this year, a coalition of parents whose children
were injured by Mattel's toys sent a letter to Mattel's CEO,
Robert Eckert (http://www.centerjd.org/archives/issues-
facts/LettertoMattel.pdf), asking Mattel to "do the right thing
by voluntarily lowering the amount of lead" in the company's
toys.

     Plaintiffs allege that, rather than responding to the
families' urgent plea by making their toys safer, the defendant
companies attempted to evade responsibility by simply mailing
vouchers for replacement toys to some injured children and their
parents.

     Judge Fischer also rejected the toy companies' request to
deny medical testing and monitoring for children who were
exposed to the toxic toys.  "Plaintiffs were injured through
(potential) exposure to lead that required them to seek out the
medical monitoring," wrote Judge Fischer.

     As we enter the holiday toy-shopping season, consumer
advocates are reminding shoppers to remain vigilant about the
toys they buy and the retailers they support.  In fact, a report
released on December 3, 2008, by Michigan-based Ecology Center
revealed that one in three toys on the market tested positive
for "medium" or "high" levels of toxic chemicals, such as lead,
flame retardants and arsenic, and that 20% of the 1,500 popular
children's toys contain toxic lead.  Consumers are encouraged to
consult the Ecology Center's guide to toxic chemicals in toys
before doing their holiday shopping; this guide is available at
http://www.healthytoys.org/.

     The Court's Order rejecting defendants' motions to dismiss
and plaintiffs' complaint detailing their consumer claims
against Mattel, Fisher-Price, Wal-Mart, Target, Toys "R" Us, KB
Toys and Kmart for manufacturing, designing, marketing, and
selling the toxic toys at issue can be viewed at
http://www.csgrr.com/ToxicToys.

For more details, contact:

          Dan Newman, Esq. (DNewman@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900

               - and -

          Edith Kallas (kallas@wdklaw.com)
          Whatley Drake and Kallas LLC
          Phone: 212-447-7070


OPNEXT INC: Still Faces Consolidated N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Opnext, Inc., is still facing a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

On Feb. 20, 2008, a putative class action captioned, "Bixler v.
Opnext, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:08-cv-00920," was filed against
the company and certain of its directors and officers, alleging,
inter alia, that the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the company's initial public offering
contained material misrepresentations in violation of federal
securities laws.

On March 7 and 20, 2008, two additional putative class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the the
District of New Jersey, similarly alleging, inter alia, that
federal securities laws had been violated by virtue of alleged
material misrepresentations in the company's registration
statement and prospectus.

These two additional complaints, captioned, "Coleman v. Opnext,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01222," and "Johnson v. Opnext,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01451," respectively, named as
defendants the company, certain individual defendants, the
company's auditor, and the underwriters of the IPO.

Motions were filed by several of the company's present and
former shareholders seeking:

     -- to consolidate the "Bixler," "Coleman," and "Johnson"
        cases;

     -- to be appointed lead plaintiff; and

     -- to have their counsel appointed by the Court as lead
        counsel for the putative class.

On May 22, 2008, the court issued an order consolidating the
three cases under Civil Action No. 08-920 (JAP).

On July 30, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.  The underwriter defendants filed an answer to
the consolidated complaint on Oct. 21, 2008, according to Cowen
Group, Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The consolidated suit is "Bixler v. Opnext, Inc., et al. Case
No. 3:08-cv-00920," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Joel A. Pisano, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
          The Rosen Law Firm, PA
          236 Tillou Road
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Phone: 973-313-1887

               - and -

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. (jsarnelli@ldgrlaw.com)
          Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: 973-632-3000
          Fax: 973-923-0858

Representing the defendants are:

          John M. Falzone, III, Esq. (john.falzone@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP
          One Newark Center, 16th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: 973-639-7099

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, Esqs.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Phone: 201-391-7000


PPL MONTANA: Court Rejects Proposed Deal in Asset Sale Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana rejected a
proposed settlement in a purported class-action suit that names
as a defendant PPL Montana, LLC.

In August 2001, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by a
group of shareholders of Montana Power against Montana Power,
the directors of Montana Power, certain advisors and consultants
of Montana Power and PPL Montana.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Montana Power
was required to, and did not, obtain shareholder approval of the
sale of Montana Power's generation assets to PPL Montana in
1999, and thus that sale "was null and void ab initio."

Among the remedies that the plaintiffs are seeking is the
establishment of a "resulting and/or constructive trust" on both
the generation assets and all profits earned by PPL Montana from
the generation assets, plus interest on the amounts subject to
the trust.

This lawsuit has been pending in the U.S. District Court of
Montana and the judge has placed this proceeding on hold pending
the outcome of certain motions currently before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the resolution of
which may impact this proceeding.

The judge in this case has not established a schedule to resume
the proceeding.

In September 2007, certain plaintiffs proposed a settlement of
certain claims not involving PPL and proposed a status
conference to discuss their proposal.  The judge held the status
conference in January 2008 and rejected the proposed settlement.

PPL Electric Utilities Corp. 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.

PPL Corp. -- http://www.pplweb.com/-- is an energy and utility
holding company, which through its subsidiaries, generates
electricity from power plants in the northeastern and western
U.S.; markets wholesale or retail energy primarily in the
northeastern and western portions of the U.S., and delivers
electricity to approximately four million customers in
Pennsylvania and the U.K.


SENDTEC INC: Ruling on Appeal to Junked SAC in Fla. Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on the appeal to the dismissal
of the Second Amended Complaint in the putative class-action
suit filed against SendTec, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors remains pending, according to the company's Nov. 19,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On July 27, 2006, RelationServe Media announced that it had
completed the change of its name and symbol to SendTec, Inc.

On or about Aug. 31, 2006, an action was commenced in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No.
06-61327) by Richard F. Thompson, as the putative class
representative, against the company and certain of its former
officers and directors alleging securities laws violations in
connection with the purchase of its stock during the period from
May 24, 2005, to August 2006.

The named plaintiff in the case previously filed suit against
the company, as an individual, in State Court in Indiana, which
action was dismissed in July 2006.

The Florida District Court permitted the plaintiff to file an
amended complaint and on Nov. 13, 2006, the plaintiff filed a
First Amended Class Action Complaint adding an additional
plaintiff, L. Alan Jacoby, who purportedly purchased 10,000
shares of the company's Common Stock in the open market, and
naming additional former and present officers and directors of
SendTec and others as defendants.

The First Amended Complaint, styled as a class action, alleges
violations of Section 11 and Section 12(2) of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs claim, among other things, violations of the
various acts:

       -- by selling securities through persons who were not
          registered as agents and broker dealers with the
          Securities Exchange Commission or the States of
          Florida or Indiana and were not affiliated as an agent
          or representative of any broker/dealer;

       -- by failing to disclose to purchasers of RelationServe
          Media, Inc. stock that they were selling securities of
          RelationServe stock through unregistered agents and
          broker/dealers was in violation of state and federal
          securities laws which caused a substantial contingent
          liability for claims of rescission by investors and
          exposing RelationServe to substantial legal fees,
          criminal and civil liability which would have a
          material adverse impact to the RelationServe's
          financial condition;

       -- by failing to disclose that in July 2005
          RelationServe's Chief Executive Officer and Chief
          Operating Officer received evidence of accusations of
          employee theft of data and employee kickbacks had been
          made and the matter was so material that CEO hired an
          outside attorney to investigate the matter;

       -- failing to disclose that a former director has
          previously been sued by stockholders of two other
          corporations; and

       -- by failing to disclose that financial statements
          beginning the third quarter of 2005 were false and
          misleading as a senior officer Richard Hill, had
          directed that finance recognize income in the third
          quarter in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
          2002.

The invoices directed to be recorded either did not exist or
were otherwise untraceable, canceled, or were never shipped,
with the exception of just a few (adjustments to income that
would be required as a result of the allegations, if any, relate
to certain discontinued operations).

In addition to the claims of securities law violations,
plaintiffs claim violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
as to controlling persons of SendTec, violations of the Florida
Securities Act, violations of the Indiana Securities Act, sales
of unregistered, non-exempt securities, violation of anti-fraud
provisions under Indiana law, deception under Indiana law, and
fraud.  The plaintiffs seek rescission, damages, treble damages,
punitive damages, compensatory damages, interest, costs, and
attorney's fees.

The First Amended Complaint repeats and re-alleges various
claims made by Ohad Jehassi, the company's former Chief
Operating Officer in a matter pending before the Circuit Court
of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida.

That case was captioned, "Ohad Jehassi v. RelationServe Media,
Inc., a Florida corporation, and Relationserve Media, Inc.,
d/b/a Sendtec Acquisition Corp., a Florida corporation, Case No.
06-004597."

The initial complaint filed by Mr. Jehassi on or about April 5,
2006, alleged, among other things, that the company breached its
employment agreement with Mr. Jehassi and owe him salary and
other benefits in connection with such alleged breach.

On June 21, 2006, Mr. Jehassi filed an amended complaint adding
a claim for an alleged violation of Florida's "Whistleblower's
Act," and on Aug. 14, 2006, filed a third amended complaint
adding a claim for unpaid wages under Florida statutes.

Mr. Jehassi seeks damages of approximately $500,000 plus
attorney's fees, costs, and expenses and shares of the company's
stock he alleges he is entitled to.

The company has asserted that Mr. Jehassi was removed from his
position with the company for cause and is therefore not
entitled to any of the relief he seeks and has asserted a
counterclaim against Mr. Jehassi related to the shares of the
company's common stock Mr. Jehassi claims he is entitled to.

The substance of Mr. Jehassi's whistleblower claims have been
adapted in the First Amended Complaint filed by Mr. Thompson as
the basis for asserting that the company filed false and
misleading financial statements and that the company violated
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint on March 6,
2007.  By the terms of the court's order, the plaintiffs were
given leave to refile a new complaint on or before March 19,
2007, and on March 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint.

By decision dated June 12, 2007, the District Court dismissed
the Second Amended Complaint, with prejudice, and state law
claims without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs have noted their appeal of the June 12, 2007
dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint.

On Sept. 19, 2007, the parties attended court ordered mediation
but were unable to reach a compromise.

Briefing on the appeal has been completed and the parties are
awaiting a ruling from the Court of Appeals.

The suit is "Thompson v. Relationserve Media, et al., Case No.
0:06-cv-61327-PCH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Paul C. Huck presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Keith Andrew Goldbaum, Esq. (kgoldbaum@frglaw.com)
          Friedman Rosenwasser & Goldbaum
          5355 Town Center Road
          Suite 801
          Boca Raton, FL 33486-1092
          Phone: 561-395-5511
          fax: 561-368-9274

               - and -

          Vess A. Miller, Esq. (vmiller@cohenandmalad.com)
          Cohen & Malad LLP
          1 Indiana Square
          Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 317-636-6481

Representing the defendants are:

          Charles Christian Kline, Esq. (ckline@whitecase.com)
          White & Case
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 4900
          Miami, FL 33131-2352
          Phone: 305-371-2700
          Fax: 305-358-5744

               - and -

          Gregg William McClosky, Esq. (GWM@MDD-LAW.COM)
          McClosky D'Anna & Dieterle LLP
          2300 Glades Road
          Suite 400 East Tower
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-368-9200
          Fax: 561-395-7050


STRATEX NETWORKS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stratex Networks, Inc., and certain of its current and former
executive officers and directors faces several purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware, according to Harris Stratex
Networks, Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
26, 2008.

Initially, the company was named in a federal securities class-
action complaint filed on Sept. 15, 2008 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County
Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of
our securities from January 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including
shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of
Stratex Networks, Inc. for our shares as part of the merger
between Stratex Networks and the Microwave Communications
Division of Harris Corp..

Similar complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court of
Delaware on Oct. 6 and 30, 2008.  Each complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and seeks, among other relief, determinations that the
action is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. -- http://www.harrisstratex.com/
-- together with its subsidiaries, is a global supplier of
turnkey wireless network solutions and network management
software, backed by a suite of professional services and
support.  The Company offers a portfolio of wireless network
solutions, based on its microwave radio systems and network
management software.  The Company serves market segments,
including mobile network operators, public safety agencies,
private network operators, utility and transportation companies,
government agencies and broadcasters.  Products include point-
to-point digital microwave radio systems for mobile system
access, backhaul, trunking and license-exempt applications,
supporting network deployments, network expansion, and capacity
upgrades.  Harris Stratex offers a range of products and
services, delivering them through three segments: North America
Microwave, International Microwave and Network Operations.


TD AMERITRADE: No Ruling Yet on Settlement of "Elvey" Spam Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has not yet issued a ruling on the proposed settlement of a
lawsuit against TD Ameritrade Inc. that accuses the company of
illegally selling e-mail addresses to spammers.

Initially, one purported class-action lawsuit, captioned "Elvey
v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ," was filed on
May 31, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleges that TDA Inc.
disclosed, inadvertently or intentionally, the e-mail addresses
of account holders to spammers, who then sent the account
holders e-mail solicitations promoting certain stocks.

The suit includes claims of alleged violations of California and
federal statutes and alleged breach of fiduciary duty and
requests injunctive and other equitable relief and damages.

As disclosed in a press release dated Sept. 14, 2007, the
company discovered and eliminated unauthorized code from its
systems that allowed access to an internal database.  The
discovery was made as the result of an internal investigation of
stock-related spam.  The company hired an independent consultant
to investigate whether identity theft occurred as a result of
the breach.

The consultant conducted four investigations over the last 12
months and found no evidence of identity theft.

A second lawsuit, captioned "Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.," was
filed on Sept. 26, 2007, in the same jurisdiction on behalf of a
purported nationwide class of account holders.  The factual
allegations of this complaint and the relief sought are
substantially the same as those in the first lawsuit.

The cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re TD
Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation."

The parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a
class basis subject to court approval.

A hearing on a motion requesting preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement was held on June 12, 2008.  At the hearing,
one of the three plaintiffs objected to the proposed settlement.
Thus, the court entered an order denying the motion for
preliminary approval without prejudice and directed the parties
to provide supplemental information to assist the court in
evaluating the proposed settlement.

On July 10, 2008, TDA Inc. and two of the plaintiffs provided
supplemental information in response to the court's direction
and in further support of the proposed settlement.

After additional submissions were made by the parties, the Court
held a further hearing on Oct. 7, 2008, according to the
company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
02852-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq. (skamber@kolaw.com)
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-920-3072
          Fax: 212-202-6364

               - and -

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
          2757 Leonis Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90058
          Phone: 323-585-8696
          Fax: 323-585-8198
          e-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net


TD AMERITRADE: Panel Junked Bid to Consolidate ARS Suits in Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, in October 2008,
denied the plaintiff's motion to consolidate several purported
class-action lawsuits over TD Ameritrade Holding Corp.'s sale of
auction rate securities.

Beginning in March 2008, lawsuits were filed against various
financial services firms by customers related to their
investments in auction rate securities.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions in statements to
customers about investments in ARS and the manner in which the
ARS market functioned in violation of provisions of the federal
securities laws.

Two purported class-action complaints have been filed alleging
such conduct with respect to TDA Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding
Corp.

The first case, filed on March 19, 2008, is captioned, "Humphrys
v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al."  The second case, filed
on April 17, 2008, is captioned, "Silverstein v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp. et al."

Both complaints were filed on behalf of customers who purchased
ARS between March 19, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008.  The complaints
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

A motion has been filed by some plaintiffs requesting that the
proceedings in the lawsuits against the various financial
services firms in effect be consolidated before one judge.  The
company and the other defendants and several plaintiffs in other
cases have filed oppositions to the proposed consolidation.

The company and parties in other cases filed oppositions to the
motion, according to the company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors.  The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers.  As of
Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business
of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc..  The client offerings include TD
AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone,
Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate
Services.  The products available to the clients include common
and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades,
mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management
services.


TELLABS INC: April 13, 2009 Trial Scheduled for "Brieger" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An April 13, 2009 trial is scheduled for a consolidated lawsuit,
entitled "Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01882," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs, 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.
26, 2008.

On April 5, 2006, a class-action complaint was filed against:

     -- Tellabs;

     -- Michael Birck and Richard Notebaert, the company's
        former chief executive officer and president; and

     -- current or former Tellabs employees who, during the
        alleged class period of Dec. 11, 2000, to July 1,
        2003, participated on the Tellabs Investment and
        Administrative Committees of the Tellabs, Inc., Profit
        Sharing and Savings Plan.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  Thereafter, two similar complaints were
filed in the same court.

The complaints allege that during the alleged class period, the
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The defendants, according to the lawsuits, violated ERISA by
among other things, continuing to offer Tellabs common stock as
a Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so and
allegedly misrepresenting and failing to disclose material
information necessary for Plan participants to make informed
decisions concerning the Plan.

Further, certain of the defendants allegedly failed to monitor
the fiduciary activities of the fiduciaries they appointed and
certain of the defendants allegedly breached their duty of
loyalty by trading Tellabs stock, while taking no protective
action on behalf of Plan participants.

The complaints seek restitution, damages and other relief.

On June 28, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions, and
on Aug. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action complaint.

On Sept. 15, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative, for summary judgment seeking the dismissal
with prejudice of all claims in the consolidated amended class
action complaint.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion.

Based on the court's decision, the defendants have requested
that the court certify an issue for interlocutory appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit.  The court denied
the defendants' request.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class, discovery was conducted
to determine the propriety of class certification, and Tellabs
opposed class certification.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify a class.

Merits discovery is now proceeding, and a trial is currently
scheduled for April 13, 2009.

The suit is "Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01882," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Norman Rifkind, Esq. (rifkind@laskyrifkind.com)
         Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
         350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
         Chicago, IL 60610
         Phone: 312-634-0057
         Fax: 312-634-0059

Representing the defendant is:

         Charles Clark Jackson, Esq.
         (charles.jackson@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         77 West Wacker Drive, 5th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-324- 1000


TELLABS INC: Circuit Remands Securities Suit to District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit remanded the
securities fraud case entitled "Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc.,
et al., f/k/a/ Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc.,
Case No. 1:02-cv-04356," back to a federal court for further
proceedings.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Directors
Tellabs) and Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and
Director of Tellabs).

Eight similar complaints were subsequently filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on
Dec. 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain
other of the company's current or former officers and directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (Dec. 11, 2000-June 19, 2001), the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly
providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading,
misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting
overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in its financial
statements.

Furthermore, certain of the individual defendants were alleged
to have violated the federal securities laws by trading the
company's securities while allegedly in possession of material,
non-public information about the company pertaining to these
matters.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
restitution, damages and other relief.

On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.

On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the company's motion and
dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended complaint,
while affording the plaintiffs an opportunity to replead.

On July 11, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck
and Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other
previously named individual defendants, realleging claims
similar to those contained in the previously dismissed
consolidated amended class action complaint.

The company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case on Aug.
22, 2003.  On Feb. 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting
that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, appealing the
dismissal.  The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was
heard on Jan. 21, 2005.

On Jan. 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion
affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the
district court, and remanding the case for further proceedings.

On Feb. 8, 2006, the defendants filed in the Seventh Circuit a
petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc.
On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion, and remanded
the case to the district court.

On Sept. 22, 2006, the defendants filed a motion with the
district court to dismiss some, but not all, of the remaining
claims.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed before the U.S. Supreme
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the
Seventh Circuit's decision.  On Jan. 5, 2007, the defendants'
petition was granted.  The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral
arguments on March 28, 2007.

On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Seventh
Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  On Nov. 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral
arguments for the remanded case.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion adhering
to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of the
district court, and remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings.

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. 26, 2008.

The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc, et al., f/k/a/
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., Case No. 1:02-cv-
04356," filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
District of Illinois, Judge Amy J. St. Eve, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Richard H. Weiss, Esq. (rweiss@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-946-9304
          Fax: 212-273-4401

Representing the defendants is:

          David F. Graham, Esq. (dgraham@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-853-7000


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: "Stumpf" Securities Suit in Pre-trial Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit styled, "Stumpf v. Tyco International
Ltd." is in the pre-trial stages of litigation and the company
intends to defend this matter, according to its Nov. 19, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2008.

The litigation asserts complaints against Tyco, among others,
based on alleged violations of the disclosure provisions of the
federal securities laws.

The matter arises from Tyco's July 2000 initial public offering
of common stock of TyCom Inc, and alleges that the TyCom
registration statement and prospectus relating to the sale of
common stock were inaccurate, misleading and failed to disclose
facts necessary to make the registration statement and
prospectus not misleading.

The complaint further alleges the defendants violated securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning, among other things, executive
compensation, TyCom's business prospects and Tyco's and TyCom's
finances.

Tyco International Ltd. -- http://www.tyco.com/-- is a global,
diversified company that provides vital products and services to
customers in five business segments: Fire & Security,
Electronics, Healthcare, Engineered Products & Services, and
Plastics & Adhesives.  With 2004 revenue of $40 billion, Tyco
employs approximately 250,000 people worldwide.






















                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CRYSTALLEX INT'L: Sarraf Gentile Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY -- On Dec. 8, 2008, the law firm of Sarraf
Gentile LLP commenced a securities fraud class action lawsuit on
behalf of those investors who acquired the securities of
Crystallex International Corporation ("Crystallex" or the
"Company") (AMEX: KRY) during the period July 28, 2005 to April
30, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York and names as defendants
Crystallex and certain of its former officers.

     According to the complaint, the defendants made several
statements during the Class Period about the Company's Las
Cristinas Gold Project located in Sifontes, Venezuela, and that
the issuance of the required Venezuelan government permit in
connection with that project was imminent.

     The complaint alleges, however, that during the Class
Period defendants did not have a reasonable expectation that the
Company would receive the required permit and that on April 30,
2008, the permit was, in fact, denied.

     On news that the permit was denied, the complaint alleges,
the Company's stock fell roughly from a closing price of $1.68
on April 29, 2008, to a closing price of $0.91on April 30, 2008,
on heavy volume.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile LLP
          11 Hanover Square
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-868-3610
          Fax: 212-918-7967
          web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com/


SADIA S.A.: Klafter Olsen Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 8, 2008 -- Klafter Olsen & Lesser
LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of American Depository Receipts
("ADRs" or "shares") of Sadia S.A. (NYSE: SDA) ("Sadia" or
the"Company") between April 30, 2008 and September 26, 2008,
inclusive (the"Class Period").

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

Sadia is a refrigeratedand frozen protein products company that
offers processed products,poultry, and pork in Brazil.

The Complaint alleges that Sadia and/or certain of its officers
knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts:

       -- that the Company had entered into currency derivative
          contracts that were unnecessary, toolarge, and in
          clear violation of the Company's hedging policy;

       -- that the Company's exposure to currency contracts was
          not "nominal," but rather extremely large and
          speculative;

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

       -- that as a result the Company's financial statements
          were materially false and misleading at all relevant
          times.

     On September 25, 2008, the Company shocked investors when
it announced that it had suffered losses of approximately $410
million due to investments in currency contracts hedging against
the U.S. dollar.

     Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell
$5.77 per share, or 37.79 percent, to close on September 26,
2008 at $9.50 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     The Company also announced that its Chief Financial Officer
had been dismissed. On October 6, 2008, the Company announced
that its Chairman and Vice Chairman had resigned.

For more details, contact:

          Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP
          1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
          Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone:202 261 3553
          Fax: 202 261 3533
          Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.com


SADIA S.A.: Labaton Sucharow Filed Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec. 8, 2008 -- Labaton Sucharow filed a class
action lawsuit on December 1, 2008 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
purchasers of the American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of Sadia
S.A. ("Sadia" or the "Company") (Sao Paolo:SDIA4) between April
30, 2008 through September 26, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     During the Class Period, Sadia is alleged to have
wrongfully represented that its exposure to currency futures
contracts was much lower than it actually was and that its
exposure to currency derivative contracts was "nominal."

     However, these contracts violated Company policy because
they exceeded internal hedging limits.  On September 26, 2008,
the Company announced that it would take a loss of approximately
$410 million related to the Company's investments in currency
contracts hedging against the U.S. dollar.  Sadia acknowledged
that the currency contracts had violated its own internal
policies.  As a result of Defendants' admissions, Sadia's ADRs
fell 38%.

For more information, contact:

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq. (arado@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY  10005
          Phone: 800-321-0476
                 212-907-0700
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Sadia.cfm


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
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 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  * * *