CAR_Public/081215.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, December 15, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 248

                            Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: No Ruling Yet on Mediation in Del. Securities Suit
BSQUARE CORP: Bid for Certification in N.Y. IPO Suit Withdrawn
DEERE & CO: Iowa Court Denies Injunction in Retirees' Lawsuit
DUANE READE: "Chowdhury" FLSA Lawsuit Remains Pending in N.Y.
DUANE READE: Continues to Face "Damassia" Labor Lawsuit in N.Y.

FARMERS INSURANCE: Calif. Appeals Court Throws Out $115.6M Award
GLOBALOPTIONS GROUP: Anchondo Suit Settlement Approved in Nov.
GLOBALOPTIONS GROUP: "Wonsch" Suit Pending in Calif. State Court
GSI TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Lawsuits by SRAM Products Purchasers
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Certification of Pioneer Valley Class Pending

HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: No Ruling Yet on FCA Class Certification Bid
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Faces Colo. Suit Over Wiimore Wrist Straps
OPTIONABLE: Final Dismissal of Shareholders Suit Entered Oct. 23
PRINCETON REVIEW: Faces Lawsuit Over Security Incident in Fla.
SMART ONLINE: Faces Amended Complaint in "Gooden" Fraud Lawsuit

TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
UNITED COMPONENTS: JPML Moves Purchasers Suit to Ill. in August
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Defends Remaining Claims in Tag-Along Suits
WILLIAM LYON: California Lawsuit Over Tender Offer Still Stayed
WILLIAM LYON: Shareholder Case Remains Pending in Delaware Court


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ELAN CORP: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
GS MORTGAGE: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

ADAMS GOLF: No Ruling Yet on Mediation in Del. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adams Golf, Inc. reports that as of Nov. 12, 2008, the date of
the company's latest Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, no
resolution has been reached in a mediation session in connection
with a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending with
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Beginning June 1999, the first of seven class-action complaints
was filed against the company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the three underwriters of its
initial public offering.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection
with the company's IPO.

In particular, the complaints alleged that its prospectus, which
became effective Jul. 9, 1998, was materially false and
misleading in at least two areas.  The plaintiffs alleged that
the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized distribution
of the company's products (gray market sales) threatened the
company's long-term profits.  They also assert that the
prospectus failed to disclose that the golf equipment industry
suffered from an oversupply of inventory at the retail level,
which had an adverse impact on sales.

An operative complaint was filed on Jan. 24, 2006, and discovery
closed on Aug. 11, 2006.  In November 2006, all summary-judgment
briefing was completed.  On Dec. 13, 2006, the company learned
that the judge from the U.S. District Court of the District of
Delaware under whom the case was assigned before was elevated to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.  All proceedings
had been postponed.

On Feb. 7, 2008, the company was notified that the case has been
reassigned to Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet.  There has been no
scheduling conference set yet, and there is no trial date set at
this time.

The parties participated in a mediation proceeding on April 8,
2008.

The suit is "Shockley, et al. v. Adams Golf Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:99-cv-00371-KAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, Judge Kent A. Jordan presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Carmella P. Keener, Esq. (CKeener@rmgglaw.com)
         Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess
         Citizens Bank Center
         Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070
         Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
         Phone: 302-656-4433

Representing the defendants are:

         Kevin G. Abrams, Esq.
         Abrams & Laster, LLP
         Brandywine Plaza West, 1521 Concord Pike, #303
         Wilmington, DE 19803
         Phone: 302-778-1000
         Fax: 302-778-1001

         Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq. (moyer@rlf.com)
         Richards, Layton & Finger
         One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551
         Wilmington, DE 19899
         Phone: 302-651-7700

              - and -

         John E. James, Esq. (jjames@potteranderson.com)
         Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
         1313 N. Market St, Hercules Plaza
         6th Flr, PO Box 951
         Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
         Phone: 302-984-6000


BSQUARE CORP: Bid for Certification in N.Y. IPO Suit Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification in a consolidated securities
class action filed against BSQUARE Corp. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York was withdrawn,
without prejudice, in October 2008.

In 2001, four purported shareholder class-action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering.

The lawsuits purport to be class actions filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from
Oct. 19, 1999 to Dec. 6, 2000.

The complaints against the company have been consolidated into a
single action and a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which was
filed on April 19, 2002 and is now the operative complaint.

The plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the company's
initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of
the securities laws because it did not disclose these
arrangements.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On July
15, 2002, the company moved to dismiss all claims against it and
the Individual Defendants.

On Oct. 9, 2002, the court dismissed the individual defendants
from the case without prejudice based upon stipulations of
dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the individual defendants.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the company.  On Oct. 13, 2004, the Court
certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly
identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to
provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class
certification in the remaining cases.

The Underwriter Defendants sought leave to appeal this decision
and the Second Circuit has accepted the appeal.  Plaintiffs have
not yet moved to certify a class in the company's case.

The company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
the company, the individual defendants, the plaintiff class and
the vast majority of the other approximately 300-issuer
defendants.

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the company and the Individual Defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful.

The company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims the company may have against its
underwriters.

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement.

However, if it is finally approved, then the maximum amount that
the issuers' insurers will be potentially liable for is $575
million.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less
than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the
difference.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Those modifications have been
made.

On March 20, 2006, the Underwriter Defendants submitted
objections to the settlement to the Court.  The court held a
hearing regarding these and other objections to the settlement
at a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006.

On Dec. 5, 2006, the Second Circuit vacated a decision by the
district court granting class certification in six of the
coordinated cases, which are intended to serve as test, or
"focus," cases.  The plaintiffs selected these six cases, which
do not include the Company.  On April 6, 2007, the Second
Circuit denied a petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs,
but noted that the plaintiffs could ask the district court to
certify more narrow classes than those that were rejected.

On Aug. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the
six focus cases. The amended complaints include a number of
changes, such as changes to the definition of the purported
class of investors, and the elimination of the individual
defendants as defendants.  On Sept. 27, 2007, the plaintiffs
moved to certify a class in the six focus cases.  On Nov. 14,
2007, the issuers and the underwriters named as defendants in
the six focus cases filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaints.

On March 26, 2008, the district court dismissed the Securities
Act claims of those members of the putative classes in the focus
cases who sold their securities for a price in excess of the
initial offering price and those who purchased outside the
previously certified class period. With respect to all other
claims, the motions to dismiss were denied.

On Oct. 10, 2008, at the request of the plaintiffs, their
motion for class certification was withdrawn, without prejudice,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


DEERE & CO: Iowa Court Denies Injunction in Retirees' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied
an injunction to restore certain Deere & Co. retirees' medical
and health benefits to the way they were before Jan. 1, 2008,
Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier reports.

In September 2008, the Flex Retirees Organization filed a
purported class-action lawsuit alleging that changes Deere made
to their health, dental and vision insurance benefits violated
promises the company made to 5,000 retired employees.  Those
changes went into effect Jan. 1, 2008.  The group asked the
court to order Deere to restore the benefits pending the outcome
of the case.

Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier reported that Judge Charles R.
Wolle denied injunctive relief after a day and a half of
proceedings in Des Moines and Davenport.  Judge Wolle though
stated that his order is not an indication of the final outcome
of the case.

Previously, Dubuque Telegraph Herald reported that the lawsuit
cites "significant hardships and damage" inflicted by the
company's reduced health, dental and vision insurance benefits
for the FRO retirees (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 12, 2008).

According to Quad-City Times, the lawsuit, which comes a year
after Deere & Co. rolled out new health benefits for the FRO
retirees, hopes to restore the original benefits.

Quad-City Times notes that at a news conference, FRO President
Bill Gabbard said that by its action, Deere & Company "violated
its promises to salaried employees who qualified for retirement
benefits or who took early retirement options that they would be
entitled to receive the same health benefits throughout
retirement that they had as active employees."

The named plaintiffs in the suit are retirees Dora Brubaker, of
Johnston, Iowa; Thomas Blosch, of Dubuque, Iowa; and Michael
Stohlmeyer, of East Moline, who also is a FRO leader.

Although the suit names three individual retirees as the
plaintiffs, the purported class-action suit represents "all
those similarly situated," Daniel Bonnett, Esq., FRO's attorney,
told Quad-City Times.

The class includes former salaried and non-union wage Deere
employees who retired on or after July 1, 1993, and were
eligible to receive medical and health benefits.  Also included
are the retirees' eligible spouses and dependents.

According to Des Moines Register, documents estimate that
roughly 5,000 people who retired on or after July 1, 1993, have
received lesser health care as a result of the 2008 changes.

Quad-City Times notes that the suit asserts "Deere implemented
radically inferior healthcare benefits and coverage in
comparison to the benefits and coverage provided to plaintiffs
while working."  Among the changes the suit alleges are:

   -- significantly higher deductibles for both in- and out-of-
      network benefits as well as a significant increase in the
      maximum out-of-pocket expenses (co-payments); and

   -- elimination of any maximum on the amount of out-of-pocket
      expenses.

"As a result, many providers including hospitals such as the
Mayo Clinic are now prohibitively expensive and completely out
of reach for Class members," the suit adds.  It also says
prescription drug benefits were dramatically reduced.

Deere first announced the new health plan in September 2007,
indicating that it would allow retirees to be more involved in
their health care decisions, Quad-City Times recounts.  Deere
also said the new plan was designed to leverage changes made in
the federal laws.

"Deere has not had the opportunity to review the lawsuit.
However, Deere does plan to vigorously defend its actions in
court," Telegraph Herald cites Deere spokesman Ken Golden as
having said in a press release.  "The innovative health care
program was reviewed carefully before Deere introduced it and we
are confident that the changes are appropriate and beneficial."

The suit is "Brubaker et al v. Deere & Company, Plan
Administrator and Named Fiduciary of the John Deere Health
Benefit Plan for Salaried Employees et al., Case No. 3:2008-cv-
00113," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa, Judge Charles R. Wolle, presiding.


Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Earl A. Payson, Esq. (eappc@aol.com)
          1313 Harrison Street
          Davenport, IA 52803
          Phone: 563-323-8054
          Fax: 563-323-9112

Representing the defendants is:

          Frank B. Harty, Esq. (fharty@nyemaster.com)
          Hyemaster Goode West Hansell & O'brien PC
          700 Walnut Street
          Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          Phone: 515-283-3170
          Fax: 515-283-8045


DUANE READE: "Chowdhury" FLSA Lawsuit Remains Pending in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned "Enamul Chowdhury v. Duane Reade Inc. and
Duane Reade Holdings, Inc.," is still pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to the company's Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
27, 2008.

The suit was filed on March 24, 2006, and alleges that beginning
March 2000, the company incorrectly classified certain employees
in an attempt to avoid paying them overtime, thereby violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law.  It seeks an
unspecified amount of damages.

In May 2008, the court certified the case as a class action.

The suit is "Chowdhury v. Duane Reade, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-02295-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Seth Richard Lesser, Esq. (slesser@lockslawny.com)
         Locks Law Firm, PLLC
         110 East 55th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-838-3333
         Fax: 212-838-3735

Representing the defendants is:

         Gerald Thomas Hathaway, Esq. (ghathaway@littler.com)
         Frances Mollie Nicastro, Esq. (fnicastro@littler.com)
         Littler Mendelson, P.C.
         885 Third Avenue 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-583-2684
                212-583-2688
         Fax: 212-832-2719


DUANE READE: Continues to Face "Damassia" Labor Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc.," remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to the company's Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

The complaint alleges that from the period beginning November
1998, the company incorrectly gave some employees the title,
"assistant manager," in an attempt to avoid paying these
employees overtime, in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Law.  It seeks an award equal to twice an
unspecified amount of unpaid wages.

In May 2008, the court certified this case as a class action.

The suit is "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-
08819-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Gerard E. Lynch, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tarik Fouad Ajami, Esq. (tfa@outtengolden.com)
         Adam T. Klein, Esq. (atk@outtengolden.com)
         Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. (jms@outtengolden.com)
         Outten & Golden, LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005

Representing the defendants are:

         Gerald Thomas Hathaway, Esq. (ghathaway@littler.com)
         Lisa A. Schreter, Esq. (lschreter@littler.com)
         Littler Mendelson, P.C.
         885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10022-4834
         Phone: 212-583-9600
         Fax: 212-832-2719


FARMERS INSURANCE: Calif. Appeals Court Throws Out $115.6M Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana, California ruled
that Farmers Insurance broke the law by failing to disclose a $5
service charge, however the company won't have to pay back more
than $115 million it collected, The Associated Press reports.

The ruling issued on Dec. 9, 2008 stated that Farmers Insurance
did violate a state code by failing to disclose the $5 it adds
to monthly premiums to cover billing costs.  The fee isn't
charged to customers who pay the premium in a lump sum.

A class-action lawsuit accused Farmers of unfair competition and
a lower court in San Diego ordered it to repay policyholders
about $115.6 million, according to The Associated Press.

However, the appellate court threw out the award, saying the
plaintiff lacked standing to sue because he didn't show he would
have rejected the policy because of the fee, reports The
Associated Press.


GLOBALOPTIONS GROUP: Anchondo Suit Settlement Approved in Nov.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
on Nov. 10, 2008, approved the $635,000 settlement of the
federal matter, "Anchondo vs. Facticon Inc. and GlobalOptions
Group, Inc.," according to the company's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Peter Anchondo filed the class-action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging that
Facticon failed to pay overtime wages.

Subsequent to the acquisition  of the assets of Facticon by the
company, GlobalOptions was added as a defendant in said case,
under the successor liability theory.

A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed for the Court to contest
the company's liability as a successor liable company.

On March 7, 2008, the Court issued a ruling denying the
company's Motion for Summary Judgment and issued a ruling
granting a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the Federal
Plaintiff  ruling that GlobalOptions was in fact a successor
party to the Plaintiffs actions. This ruling by the Court is in
opposition to its original ruling dated March 3, 2008, wherein
it granted the company's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The company filed a Motion for Reconsideration and the Judge
reversed his opinion but ruled that the issue of successor
liability must be litigated.

In July 2008, the company reached a tentative agreement with the
Federal Plaintiff to settle this matter with a cash payment of
$635,000, which the Court approved on Nov. 10, 2008.

Under the terms of an escrow agreement, as amended, entered into
by and between GlobalOptions and Facticon, the escrow agreement
provides that 85,700 shares of the company's common stock and
$100,000 in cash funds shall be held to satisfy this and other
pre-acquisition obligations of Facticon.

The company and the stockholders of Facticon have agreed that
GlobalOptions will not distribute any funds or stock as provided
under the asset purchase agreement until the Anchondo and the
Wonsch cases are resolved, and if necessary, the company shall
use such stock and cash to offset such matters.

The Company has established a reserve in the amount of $776,000
to cover it for any additional costs in connection with the
Anchondo and Wonsch cases that are not recoverable through the
escrow amounts.

GlobalOptions Group, Inc. -- http://www.globaloptions.com/-- is
an integrated provider of risk mitigation and management
services to government entities, Fortune 1,000 corporations and
high net-worth individuals.  The Company enables clients to
identify, assess and prevent natural and man-made threats to the
well-being of individuals and the operations of governments and
corporations.  In addition, it assists its clients in recovering
from the damages or losses resulting from the occurrence of acts
of terror, natural disasters, fraud and other risks.  It
delivers risk mitigation and management services through four
business units: Preparedness Services, Fraud and Special
Investigative Unit (SIU) Services, Security Consulting and
Investigations and International Strategies.  In January 2007,
the Company acquired On Line Consulting Services.  In February
2007, it acquired The Bode Technology Group, Inc.  In February
2007, GlobalOptions Group, Inc. acquired Facticon, Inc. to
expand its Fraud and SIU Services unit.


GLOBALOPTIONS GROUP: "Wonsch" Suit Pending in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned, "Wonsch, et al. vs. Facticon Inc. and
GlobalOptions Group, Inc." remains pending in the State Court
for the Central District of California.

In the Wonsch State Court case, the plaintiffs in the class
action alleged that Facticon failed to pay overtime wages under
the California Civil Code.

This action is similar to the matter entitled, "Anchondo vs.
Facticon Inc. and GlobalOptions Group, Inc.," but is limited to
the state laws of California.

Subsequent to its acquisition of Facticon, the company was added
as a defendant in said case, under the successor liability
theory; however, the company has not filed a response under the
successor liability claim, since GlobalOptions filed a motion
with the California State Court to remove such case from the
California State Court and for such case to be merged with the
Anchondo case, and the California State Court has granted such
motion.

Although the cases have been merged, the company must settle
with each of the two plaintiff groups separately.

Based on preliminary discussions with the State Plaintiffs,
GlobalOptions believes that it will be able to reasonably settle
the Wonsch matter, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Under the terms of an escrow agreement, as amended, entered into
by and between GlobalOptions and Facticon, the escrow agreement
provides that 85,700 shares of the Company's common stock and
$100,000 in cash funds shall be held to satisfy this and other
pre-acquisition obligations of Facticon.

The Company and the stockholders of Facticon have agreed that
the Company will not distribute any funds or stock as provided
under the asset purchase agreement until the Anchondo and the
Wonsch cases are resolved, and if necessary, the Company shall
use such stock and cash to offset such matters.

The Company has established a reserve in the amount of $776,000
to cover the Company for any additional costs in connection with
the Anchondo and Wonsch cases that are not recoverable through
the escrow amounts.

GlobalOptions Group, Inc. -- http://www.globaloptions.com/-- is
an integrated provider of risk mitigation and management
services to government entities, Fortune 1,000 corporations and
high net-worth individuals.  The Company enables clients to
identify, assess and prevent natural and man-made threats to the
well-being of individuals and the operations of governments and
corporations.  In addition, it assists its clients in recovering
from the damages or losses resulting from the occurrence of acts
of terror, natural disasters, fraud and other risks. It delivers
risk mitigation and management services through four business
units: Preparedness Services, Fraud and Special Investigative
Unit (SIU) Services, Security Consulting and Investigations and
International Strategies. In January 2007, the Company acquired
On Line Consulting Services. In February 2007, it acquired The
Bode Technology Group, Inc. In February 2007, GlobalOptions
Group, Inc. acquired Facticon, Inc. to expand its Fraud and SIU
Services unit.


GSI TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Lawsuits by SRAM Products Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
GSI Technology, Inc. is still facing several purported class-
action suits filed by direct and indirect purchasers of static
random access memory (SRAM) products, according to the company's
Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Oct. 23, 2006, the Company was served with a civil antitrust
complaint filed by Reclaim Center, Inc. and other plaintiffs in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against GSI and a number of other semiconductor companies.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of
indirect purchasers of SRAM products throughout the United
States.

The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to raise the
price of SRAM in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the
California Cartwright Act, and several other state antitrust,
unfair competition and consumer protection statutes.

Shortly thereafter, a number of similar complaints were filed by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions on behalf of purported
classes of both direct and indirect purchasers.

The Company was served in some but not all of these subsequent
actions.

Many of these cases have been transferred by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of
California.

The Company has also been named in similar class action lawsuits
in the Superior Court of Ontario, Canada and the Supreme Court
of British Columbia, Canada.

On July 23, 2007, the Company entered into agreements with the
lead plaintiffs for the direct and indirect classes in the U.S.
cases under which the Company was voluntarily dismissed from the
litigation in exchange for a tolling of the statute of
limitations.

The plaintiffs have the right to terminate the tolling agreement
and reassert their claims against the Company in the future.

On April 28, 2008, the Company entered into a similar tolling
agreement with the plaintiffs in the lawsuits in Canada.

GSI Technology, Inc. -- www.gsitechnology.com -- is a leading
provider of high-performance static random access memory, or
SRAM, products primarily incorporated in networking and
telecommunications equipment.  Headquartered in Santa Clara,
California, GSI Technology is ISO 9001 certified and has
worldwide factory and sales locations.


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Certification of Pioneer Valley Class Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
not yet ruled on the motion for class certification in Pioneer
Valley Casket Co.'s lawsuit against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., and
its former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary, 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.

On July 8, 2005, Pioneer Valley Casket Co., an alleged casket
store and Internet retailer, also filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Batesville, the Company, Service Corporation
International, Alderwoods Group, Inc. and Stewart Enterprises,
Inc. in California District Court on behalf of the class of
"independent casket distributors," alleging violations of state
and federal antitrust law and state unfair and deceptive
practices laws based on essentially the same factual allegations
as in the consumer cases.

Pioneer Valley claimed that it and other independent casket
distributors were injured by the defendants' alleged conspiracy
to boycott and suppress competition in the alleged market for
caskets, and by an alleged conspiracy among SCI, Alderwoods,
Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators to monopolize the
alleged market for caskets.

The Pioneer Valley complaint was also transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston,
Texas), but was not consolidated with the action filed by
Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., although the scheduling orders
for both cases are identical.

On Oct. 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed an amended complaint
adding three new plaintiffs, each of whom purports to be a
current or former "independent casket distributor."

Like Pioneer Valley's original complaint, the amended complaint
alleges violations of federal antitrust laws, but it has dropped
the causes of actions for alleged price fixing, conspiracy to
monopolize, and violations of state antitrust law and state
unfair and deceptive practices laws.

On Oct. 25, 2006, the district court denied the December 2005
motions to dismiss the amended Pioneer Valley complaint.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all independent
casket distributors in the United States who are presently in
business or were in business any time from July 8, 2001, to the
present, including the following subclasses of independent
casket distributors who:

      -- paid a surcharge in order to obtain a Batesville casket
         from an entity other than Batesville; and

      -- were engaged in business as of Dec. 4, 2006.

Excluded from the class are independent casket distributors
that:

      -- are affiliated in any way with any funeral home;

      -- manufacture caskets;

      -- are Defendants, including all directors, officers,
         agents, and employees of such; or

      -- are parents, subsidiaries and/or affiliates of
         Defendants.

Class certification hearing was held in early December 2006.
Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class certification
motion was completed in March 2007.

On Nov. 24, 2008, a Magistrate Judge in the Court recommended
that the motion for class certification be denied.  The
plaintiffs have 10 court days to file objections to the
Magistrate Judge's recommendations with the U.S. District Judge.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
the case, including the previously set February 2008 trial date.
On Aug. 25, 2008, the court canceled a previously scheduled
Sept. 8, 2008 docket call and stayed the case pending resolution
of class certification.

The plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any
such damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees
and costs, and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs filed a report
indicating that they are seeking damages of approximately $99.2
million before trebling.

Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.hill-rom.com-- formerly
Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., is the manufacturer and provider
of medical technologies and related services for the health care
industry, including patient support systems, non-invasive
therapeutic products for a variety of acute and chronic medical
conditions, medical equipment rentals and health information
technology solutions.  Hill-Rom's product and service offerings
are used by healthcare providers across the healthcare continuum
in hospitals, extended care facilities and home care settings.
As of March 31, 2008, it had three segments: North America Acute
Care, North America Post-Acute Care and International and
Surgical.  On March 31, 2008, Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. completed
the spin-off of its funeral services business operating under
the Batesville Casket name.


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: No Ruling Yet on FCA Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
not yet ruled on the motion for class certification in Funeral
Consumers Alliance, Inc.'s lawsuit against Hill-Rom Holdings,
Inc., and its former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary,
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.

On May 2, 2005, a non-profit entity called FCA and several
individual consumers filed a purported antitrust class-action
lawsuit against three national funeral home businesses, Service
Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Stewart
Enterprises, Inc. together with the Company, and Batesville,
which is now wholly-owned by Hillenbrand, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

This lawsuit alleged a conspiracy to suppress competition in an
alleged market for the sale of caskets through a group boycott
of so-called "independent casket discounters," that is, third-
party casket sellers unaffiliated with licensed funeral homes; a
campaign of disparagement against these independent casket
discounters; and concerted efforts to restrict casket price
competition and to coordinate and fix casket pricing, all in
violation of federal antitrust law and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that Batesville's
maintenance and enforcement of, and alleged modifications to,
its long-standing policy of selling caskets only to licensed
funeral homes were the product of a conspiracy among Batesville,
the other defendants and others to exclude "independent casket
discounters" and that this alleged conspiracy, combined with
other alleged matters, suppressed competition in the alleged
market for caskets and led consumers to pay higher than
competitive prices for caskets.

The FCA Action alleged that two of Batesville's competitors,
York Group, Inc. and Aurora Casket Company, are co-conspirators
but did not name them as defendants.  The FCA Action also
alleged that SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and other unnamed co-
conspirators conspired to monopolize the alleged market for the
sale of caskets in the United States.

After the FCA Action was filed, several more purported class
action lawsuits on behalf of consumers were filed based on
essentially the same factual allegations and alleging violations
of federal antitrust law and/or related state law claims.

Batesville, the Company and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the FCA Action and a motion to transfer to a more
convenient forum.  In response, the court in California
permitted the plaintiffs to replead the complaint and later
granted defendants' motion to transfer the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston,
Texas).

On Oct. 12, 2005, the FCA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
consolidating all but one of the other purported consumer class
actions.  The amended FCA complaint contains substantially the
same basic allegations as the original FCA complaint.  The only
other then remaining purported consumer class action, "Fancher
v. SCI et al.," was subsequently dismissed voluntarily by the
plaintiff after the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On Oct. 26, 2006, however, a new purported class-action suit was
filed by the estates of Dale Van Coley and Joye Katherine Coley,
Candace D. Robinson, Personal Representative, consumer
plaintiffs, against Batesville and the Company in the Western
District of Oklahoma alleging violation of the antitrust laws in
fourteen states based on allegations that Batesville engaged in
conduct designed to foreclose competition and gain a monopoly
position in the market.  This lawsuit was largely based on
similar factual allegations to the FCA Action.  Batesville and
the Company had this case transferred to the Southern District
of Texas in order to coordinate this action with the FCA Action
and filed a motion to dismiss this action.  On Sept. 17, 2007,
the Court granted Batesville's and the Company's motion to
dismiss and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice.

The FCA plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class that
includes all United States consumers who purchased Batesville
caskets from any of the funeral home co-defendants at any time
during the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of
limitations. On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court denied the defendants'
November 2005 motions to dismiss the amended FCA complaint.

Class certification hearing was held in early December 2006.
Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class certification
motion was completed in March 2007, though briefing on certain
supplemental evidence related to class certification also
occurred in September 2007 and October 2007.

On Nov. 24, 2008, a Magistrate Judge in the Court recommended
that the motion for class certification be denied.  The
plaintiffs have 10 court days to file objections to the
Magistrate Judge's recommendations with the U.S. District Judge.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
the case, including the previously set February 2008 trial date.
On Aug. 25, 2008, the court canceled a previously scheduled
Sept. 8, 2008 docket call and stayed the case pending resolution
of class certification.

The plaintiffs  generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any
such damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees
and costs, and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs filed a report
indicating that they are seeking damages ranging from
approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion
before trebling.

Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.hill-rom.com-- formerly
Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., is the manufacturer and provider
of medical technologies and related services for the health care
industry, including patient support systems, non-invasive
therapeutic products for a variety of acute and chronic medical
conditions, medical equipment rentals and health information
technology solutions.  Hill-Rom's product and service offerings
are used by healthcare providers across the healthcare continuum
in hospitals, extended care facilities and home care settings.
As of March 31, 2008, it had three segments: North America Acute
Care, North America Post-Acute Care and International and
Surgical.  On March 31, 2008, Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. completed
the spin-off of its funeral services business operating under
the Batesville Casket name.


NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Faces Colo. Suit Over Wiimore Wrist Straps
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nintendo of America, Inc. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado over
the company's Wiimote wrist straps, GameCyte reports.

The suit was filed on Dec. 2, 2008 by Molly Elvig who alleges
that despite it being replaced the wrist straps continue to
fail.

Ms. Elvig and her attorneys are currently seeking immediate
damages, corrective action to refund or replace Nintendo's
product, and a "systematic claims process" to compensate those
who incurred property damage, according to GameCyte.

The class action was brought by Ms. Elvig on behalf of a class
of all U.S. residents who lawfully acquired a Nintendo Wii video
game controller (Remote) possessing a wrist strap, and marketed
by Nintendo of America, Inc., or its licensees, subsidiaries or
affiliates.

The plaintiff brings this action for damages and equitable and
injunctive relief as a result of the defendant's violation of
the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, UCC Sales (Breach of
Warranty) and Product Liability Actions, through its conduct in
the sales, marketing, design and distribution of the Nintendo
Wii.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?361e

The suit is "Elvig v. Nintendo of America, Inc., Case No. 1:08-
cv-02616-MSK-MEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Marcia S. Krieger, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Beth Ann Morrison Klein, Esq.
          (beth@klein-law-firm.com)
          Klein Frank, P.C.
          1909 26th Street
          #1C
          Boulder, CO 80302-5701
          Phone: 303-448-8884
          Fax: 303-861-2449

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert B. Kleinman, Esq.
          (rkleinman@suttonkleinman.com)
          Sutton Kleinman, PLLC
          710 West 14th Street
          #A
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: 512-276-5040
          Fax: 512-355-4155


OPTIONABLE: Final Dismissal of Shareholders Suit Entered Oct. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final Judgement of dismissal of the shareholder class-action
lawsuit against Optionable Inc. was entered on Oct. 23, 2008.

On May 11, 2007, two lawsuits were initially filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
These suits are:

      -- "Alexander Fleiss v. Optionable Inc., Mark Nordlicht,
         Kevin Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig and
         Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," and

      -- "Robert Rastocky v. Optionable, Inc., Kevin Cassidy
         and Edward O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3755 (CLB),"

Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York:

     1. "Jagdish Patel v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, and
        Edward J. O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3845 (LAK)," filed
        on May 16, 2007;

     2. "Peters v. Optionable, Inc., Mark Nordlicht, Kevin P.
        Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc-
        Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3877 (LAK)," filed on
        May 17, 2007;

     3. "Manowitz v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Edward J.
        O'Conner, and Mark Nordlicht, Case No. 07 CV 3884
        (UA)," filed on May 17, 2007;

     4. "Glaubach v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 4085 (LAK)," filed
        on May 24, 2007; and

     5. "Bock v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 5948 (LAK)," filed
        on June 22, 2007.

Each of the lawsuits names the company as a defendant and some
of the lawsuits name as defendants all or certain of the
directors and officers of the company.

The directors and officers of the company that were named as
defendants include:

   * Mark Nordlicht, former Chairman of the Board of Directors
     of the Company;

   * Kevin Cassidy, former Chief Executive Officer and Vice-
     Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company;

   * Edward J. O'Connor, President of the Company and member of
     the Board of Directors; and

   * Marc-Andre Boisseau, the Chief Financial Officer of the
     Company.

By order dated May 24, 2007, the Rastocky matter was voluntarily
dismissed.

By Orders dated June 20 and July 3, 2007, the Fleiss, Patel,
Peters, Manowitz, and Glaubach cases were consolidated under the
caption, "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07-CV-
3753 (LAK)."

By Order Nov. 20, 2007, Judge Kaplan granted the motion of KLD
Investment Management, LLC, to serve as lead plaintiff and
approved its choice of counsel, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages arising from alleged violations of the federal
securities laws, including the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. ss. 78a et seq., and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act, 17 C.F.R. ss. 240.10b -5.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class
period of Jan. 22, 2007, to May 14, 2007, defendants failed to
disclose certain information in public filings and statements,
made materially false and misleading statements and
misrepresentations in public filings and statements, sold
artificially inflated stock and engaged in improper deals, had
an improper relationship with and "schemed" with its customer
Bank of Montreal, and understated the company's reliance on its
relationship with BMO.

The complaint alleges that while the company's stock was trading
at artificially inflated prices, certain defendants sold shares
of common stock of the company.

On Feb. 15, 19, and 20, 2008, the company and the individual
defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which motions
were opposed by the plaintiffs.

On April 3, 2008, Judge Kaplan ordered the individual defendants
to file only a single joint reply memorandum in response to the
plaintiffs' oppositions.  Thus, in April 2008, the company filed
its reply memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss
the complaint, and the individual defendants filed their joint
reply memorandum of the same.

Earlier, Optionable, Inc., sought the dismissal of the
consolidated shareholder lawsuit entitled "In re Optionable
Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV 3753 (LAK)" (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008).

On Oct. 20, 2008, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion in all
respects, and a final judgment of dismissal was entered on Oct.
23, 2008.  The plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal this decision,
according to the company's Nov. 12, 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 Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV
3753 (LAK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-1980

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P.
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 212-230-8800
          Fax: 212-230-8888

               - and -

          Paul Edouard Dans, Esq. (pdans@eapdlaw.com)
          Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, LLP
          750 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-912-2736
          Fax: 212-308-4844


PRINCETON REVIEW: Faces Lawsuit Over Security Incident in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Princeton Review, Inc. is facing a putative class-action
suit relating to a security incident that occurred in August
2008, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In August 2008, the Company learned that certain of its web
pages that appeared to contain confidential information were
available to the public on the Internet for a short period of
time ("Security Incident").

On Sept. 19, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit captioned,
"Virginia B. Townsend v. The Princeton Review, Inc. (Case No.
8:08-CIV-1879-T-33TBM)," was filed against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division relating to the Security Incident alleging negligence,
breach of contract and unfair trade practices.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief including the provision of personal data monitoring and
identify theft insurance and unspecified enhancement of the
security of the Company's computer data systems, together with
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Princeton Review, Inc. -- http://www.princetonreview.com/--
provides integrated classroom-based, print and online products
and services that address the needs of students, parents,
educators and educational institutions.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated through the three divisions:
the Test Preparation Services division, which provides
classroom-based, as well as online test preparation courses; the
Supplemental Education Services (SES) division, which provides
tutoring and No Child Left Behind supplemental educational
services, and the K-12 Services division, which provides a range
of services to K-12 schools and school districts to help primary
and secondary school students and teachers improve academic
performance, including online and print-based assessment,
professional development and materials to support school-based
intervention programs.  In July 2008, the Company completed the
acquisition of The Princeton Review of Orange County, Inc.


SMART ONLINE: Faces Amended Complaint in "Gooden" Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Online, Inc. faces an amended complaint in the purported
securities fraud class-action suit filed against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Oct. 18, 2007, Robyn L. Gooden filed the purported class
action suit naming as defendants the company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, Maxim Group LLC, and
Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased the company's securities from May 2,
2005, through Sept. 28, 2007, and were damaged.

The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws,
including violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5.  It asserts that the defendants participated in
a fraudulent scheme to manipulate trading in the company's
stock, allegedly causing plaintiffs to purchase the stock at an
inflated price.

The complaint requests certification of the plaintiff as class
representative and seeks, among other relief, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest, plus reasonable costs
and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On June 24, 2008, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff for the class action.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which
added additional defendants who had served as directors or
officers of the Company during the class period as well the
Smart Online's independent auditor.

The suit is "Gooden v. Smart Online, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00785-WO-PTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, Judge William L. Osteen, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Guy W. Crabtree, Esq. (gwc@pwkl.com)
          Pulley Watson King & Lischer, P.A.
          POD 3600
          Durham, NC 27702
          Phone: 919-682-9691
          Fax: 919-688-9107

Representing the defendant is:

          Nicholas I. Porritt (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


TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class-action lawsuit filed against
TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. -- formerly Axonyx, Inc.

Several lawsuits were filed against the company in February
2005, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
from June 26, 2003, through and including Feb. 4, 2005.

Director and former Axonyx chief executive officer, Dr. M.
Hausman, and current Axonyx CEO Dr. G. Bruinsma, were also named
as defendants in the lawsuits.  These suits were consolidated
into a single class action in January 2006.

The plaintiffs allege generally that the company's Phase III
Phenserine development program was subject to errors of design
and execution, which resulted in the failure of the first Phase
III Phenserine trial to show efficacy.

They also said that the defendants' failure to disclose the
alleged defects resulted in the artificial inflation of the
price of the company's shares during the class period.

On April 10, 2006, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  The company filed its answer to that
complaint on May 26, 2006.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 26, 2006, and was submitted to the
court for a decision in September 2006.  The motion to dismiss
is still pending.

No further developments in the matter were reported by the
company in its Nov. 12, 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: Axonyx Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-02307-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Thomas P. Griesa, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
          Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C.
          240 Mineola Blvd.
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-741-4977

Representing the defendants are:

         May Orenstein, Esq. (morenstein@brownrudnick.com)
         Sigmund Samuel Wissner-Gross, Esq.
         (swissnergross@brownrudnick.com)
         Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP
         Seven Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-209-4800
                212-209-4930
         Fax: 212-938-2804


UNITED COMPONENTS: JPML Moves Purchasers Suit to Ill. in August
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, on Aug. 18,
2008, transferred the U.S. direct and indirect purchasers'
purported class actions, which name United Components, Inc., and
its wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories Inc., as
defendants, to the Northern District of Illinois.

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, the class actions allege conspiracy
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1,
related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.

                   Direct Purchaser Litigation

As of Nov. 10, 2008, the company and Champion have been named as
two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints originally filed in
the District of Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the
Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of
Illinois, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission
filters.

Eight of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but those plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Carlyle
from each of those actions without prejudice.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as a
defendant in 13 virtually identical actions originally filed in
the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the
District of New Jersey.

All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket
filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of
their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present.

Each case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an
injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees.

                 Indirect Purchaser Litigation

United Components and Champion were also named as two of
multiple defendants in 17 similar complaints originally filed in
the District of Connecticut, the Northern District of
California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of New York by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect
purchasers of aftermarket filters.

Two of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but the plaintiffs in both of those actions
voluntarily dismissed Carlyle without prejudice.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named in three
similar actions originally filed in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of California.

These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer
protection and unfair competition law.

They are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all
persons or entities who acquired indirectly aftermarket filters
manufactured and/or distributed by one or more of the
defendants, their agents or entities under their control, at any
time between Jan. 1, 1999 and the present; with the exception of
three complaints, which each allege a class period from Jan. 1,
2002 to the present, and one complaint which alleges a class
period from the "earliest legal permissible date" to the
present.

The complaints seek damages, including statutory treble damages,
an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of
profits, costs and attorney's fees.

                            JPML Order

On Aug. 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring the U.S. direct and indirect
purchaser aftermarket filters cases to the Northern District of
Illinois for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings
before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended Dec., 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Defends Remaining Claims in Tag-Along Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Inc. continues to defend against the
remaining claims for certain statutory violations in tag-along
lawsuits, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 26, 2008.

Beginning in 1999, a series of class-action lawsuits were filed
against UnitedHealthcare, PacifiCare, and virtually all major
entities in the health benefits business.  These lawsuits were
consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the Southern
District Court of Florida.

The health care provider plaintiffs alleged statutory
violations, including violations of the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) in connection with alleged
undisclosed reimbursement policies.  Other allegations included
breach of state prompt payment laws and breach of contract
claims for failure to timely reimburse health care providers for
medical services rendered.

The consolidated lawsuits seek injunctive, compensatory and
equitable relief as well as restitution, costs, fees and
interest payments.

The trial court granted the health care providers' motion for
class certification.  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the class action status of certain of the RICO claims,
but reversed as to the breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
prompt payment claims.  Most of the co-defendents have settled.

On Jan. 31, 2006, the trial court dismissed all claims against
PacifiCare, and on June 19, 2006, the trial court dismissed all
claims against UnitedHealthcare brought by the lead plaintiffs.
On June 13, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
those decisions.

Included in the multidistrict litigation are tag-along lawsuits,
which contain claims against the Company similar to the claims
dismissed in the lead case.  The tag-along cases were stayed
pending resolution of the lead case. That stay has not been
lifted, but it is anticipated that the trial court will now lift
the stay and address the continuing viability of the tag-along
claims.

The plaintiffs in a number of the tag-along cases have sought to
remand the cases to alternate forums.  The company has opposed
these efforts and have moved the court to apply its June 2006
summary judgment ruling, and its other applicable pretrial
rulings, to those cases.

On Feb. 12, 2008, the court denied all pending motions without
prejudice and set a briefing schedule for future motions,
including motions for summary judgment.

UnitedHealth Group Inc. -- http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/--
is a diversified health and well-being company which offers
offers a broad spectrum of products and services through six
operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice,
Uniprise, Specialized Care Services and Ingenix.  Through its
family of businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70
million individuals nationwide.


WILLIAM LYON: California Lawsuit Over Tender Offer Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit that challenges a tender offer
by one of William Lyon Homes, Inc.'s stockholders remains
stayed.

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

On that same day, the complaint, "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
v. William Lyon Homes, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CC-00047," was
filed before the Superior Court of the state of California,
County of Orange.

The complaint in the California Action names the company and
certain of its directors as defendants and alleges, among other
things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
to the public stockholders.

The plaintiff in the California Action also sought to enjoin the
tender offer, and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees
and expenses related to the litigation.

On April 20, 2006, the California court denied the request of
the plaintiff in the California Action to enjoin the Tender
Offer.  The plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class in the
California Action, which was later taken off calendar, and the
company filed a motion to stay the California Action.

On July 5, 2006, the California Court granted the company's
motion to stay the California Action.

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

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family
detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada.
The company offers a range of homes designed to meet the
specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer
markets.


WILLIAM LYON: Shareholder Case Remains Pending in Delaware Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The remanded case captioned "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092" remains pending in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County.

                        Case Background

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

Two purported class-action complaints were filed on behalf of
the public stockholders of the company, challenging the tender
offer and challenging related actions of the company and the
directors of the company.  The suits are:

      1. "Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
         Action No. 2015-N" was filed on March 20, 2006, and

      2. "Michael Crady, et al. v. General William Lyon, et
         al., Civil Action No. 2017-N" was filed on March 21,
         2006.

Both suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.

The Delaware Complaints name the company and its directors as
defendants.  They allege, among other things, that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
plaintiffs in connection with the tender offer and other related
corporate activities.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the tender offer and, among
other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to
the litigation.

On March 23, 2006, the company announced that its board had
appointed a special committee of independent directors who are
not members of the company's management or employed by the
company to consider the tender offer.  The members of the
Special Committee are Harold H. Greene, Lawrence M. Higby, and
Dr. Arthur Laffer.

The company also announced that the Special Committee had
retained Morgan Stanley & Co. as its financial advisor and
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal counsel.

                  Consolidation and Settlement

On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the
Delaware Complaints into a single case entitled, "In re: William
Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N."

On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware
Action executed a Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a
proposed settlement subject to the Delaware Chancery Court's
approval.

Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer of $93 per
share to $100 per share, extended the closing date of the offer
to April 21, 2006, and, on April 11, 2006, filed an amended
Schedule Tender Offer.

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action have
determined that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interests of plaintiffs and the putative Class."

The Special Committee also determined that the price of $100 per
share was fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the
company's shareholders accept the revised tender offer and
tender their shares.

Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend the
closing date of the tender offer from April 21, 2006, to April
28, 2006.

                   Certification & Dismissal

On April 23, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court conditionally
certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The
parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a
stipulation of settlement, and on Aug. 9, 2006, the Delaware
Chancery Court certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware
Action, approved the settlement, and dismissed the Consolidated
Delaware Action with prejudice as to all defendants and the
class.

On Feb. 16, 2007, the fee award to the plaintiffs' counsel was
appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.

On July 18, 2007, a three-judge panel of the Delaware Supreme
Court heard oral argument, and later referred the matter for
consideration by the Court en Banc.

In December 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court remanded the matter
to the Chancery Court for further proceedings regarding the fee
award to the plaintiff's counsel.  Under the appealed award, the
company has no expected liability for the plaintiffs' counsel
fees, which are expected to be paid by General Lyon.

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

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family
detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada.
The company offers a range of homes designed to meet the
specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer
markets.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ELAN CORP: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     RADNOR, Pa., Dec. 11, 2008 -- The following statement was
issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, LLP: Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Elan Corporation, plc (NYSE: ELN) ("Elan" or the "Company")
between May 21, 2007 and October 21, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

     Elan is a neuroscience-based biotechnology company.

     The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the
Company made materially false and misleading statements about
bapineuzumab, a drug Elan was developing in association with
Wyeth for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

     Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose unfavorable
results from a Phase II clinical study of bapineuzumab that Elan
and Wyeth conducted. When those results were disclosed on July
29, 2008, the price of Elan's shares plunged from $33.75 to
$19.63 on extremely high volume.

     On October 22, 2008, it was reported that some European
regulators had asked that trials of bapineuzumab be delayed
following the mixed results of the mid-stage U.S. trials.  On
this news, the price of Elan's shares fell from $9.06 per share
to $7.82 per share.

For more details, contact:

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


FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia on behalf of those who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corp. (NYSE: AGM) ("Farmer Mac" or the "Company") between March
15, 2007 and September 12, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Farmer Mac and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
misrepresenting the Company's financial and operational results.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that:

       -- Farmer Mac's results had been inflated through
          manipulations relating to the characterization of
          impairment costs and/or depreciation expenses which
          inflated the Company's reported cash flows, gross
          margins and core and GAAP-earnings;

       -- the Company's financial results were inflated by
          defendants' use of overly optimistic assumptions of
          asset valuations and investments, which were also
          reflected in defendants' misuse of mark-to-market
          accounting;

       -- the Company's exposure to investment losses and credit
          problems of trading partners such as Lehman Brothers
          and Fannie Mae was much greater than represented; and

       -- the Company was not on track to meet or exceed
          guidance sponsored or endorsed by defendants.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/


GS MORTGAGE: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN DIEGO, Dec. 11, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP today announced that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of GS Mortgage Securities Corp. ("GS
Mortgage") Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or Asset-Backed
Certificates (collectively, the "Certificates") pursuant and/or
traceable to the false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus Supplements issued during 2007 and 2008
(collectively, the "Registration Statement"). The class includes
purchasers of the following Certificates:

       -- Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-FM2
       -- Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-7
       -- Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-HE1
       -- Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-4F
       -- Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-3
       -- Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-8
       -- Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-4
       -- Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-HSBC1
       -- Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-HE2
       -- Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-4
       -- Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-3F
       -- Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OA2
       -- Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-5
       -- Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-10
       -- Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OA1
       -- Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-5F
       -- Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-6

     The complaint charges GS Mortgage, certain of its officers
and directors and the issuers and underwriters of the
Certificates with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  GS
Mortgage engages in securitizing mortgage assets and related
activities.

     The complaint alleges that on January 31, 2007, defendants
caused a Registration Statement to be filed with the SEC in
connection with and for the purpose of issuing billions of
dollars of Certificates.  The Certificates were issued pursuant
to Prospectus Supplements, each of which was incorporated into
the Registration Statement.  The Certificates were supported by
pools of mortgage loans.

     According to the complaint, the Registration Statement
included false statements and/or omissions about:

       -- the underwriting standards purportedly used in
          connection with the origination of the underlying
          mortgage loans;

       -- the maximum loan-to-value ratios used to qualify
          borrowers;

       -- the appraisals of properties underlying the mortgage
          loans; and

       -- the debt-to-income ratios permitted on the loans.

     As a result, the Certificates sold to plaintiff and the
Class were secured by assets that had a much greater risk
profile than represented in the Registration Statement.

     In this way, defendants were able to obtain superior
ratings on the tranches or classes of Certificates, when in fact
these tranches or classes were not equivalent to other
investments with the same credit ratings.

     By early 2008, the truth about the performance of the
mortgage loans that secured the Certificates began to be
revealed to the public, increasing the risk of the Certificates
receiving less absolute cash flow in the future and the
likelihood that investors would not receive it on a timely
basis.

     The credit rating agencies also began to put negative watch
labels on the Certificate tranches or classes, ultimately
downgrading many. As an additional result, the Certificates are
no longer marketable at prices anywhere near the price paid by
plaintiff and the Class and the holders of the Certificates are
exposed to much more risk with respect to both the timing and
absolute cash flow to be received than the Registration
Statement/Prospectus Supplements represented.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of the Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or Asset-
Backed Certificates listed above pursuant and/or traceable to
the Registration Statement (the "Class").

For more details, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/gsmortgage/


                            *********

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  * * *