CAR_Public/081216.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 16, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 249

                            Headlines

ALLTEL CORP: Ark. Court Approves Settlement in Suit Over Buyout
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Settles Ariz. Securities Lawsuit for $11.25M
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Class Certification in "Simmons"
BERNARD L. MADOFF: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Alleged $50B Fraud
BIGBAND NETWORKS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Lawsuit

BIGBAND NETWORKS: "Wiltjer" Suit on IPO Prospectus Still Stayed
CONMED CORP: N.Y. Court Hears Motions in "Thompson" Litigation
CRAFT WORLDWIDE: Owner, Restaurants Faces FLSA Violations Suit
GREAT LAKES: Fifth Circuit Considers Appeal in "Reed" Litigation
NUCOR CORP: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Production, Sale of Steel

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Hotel Occupancy Taxes Lawsuits Remain Ongoing
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: "Quick Pick" Lawsuits in California Dismissed
TENET HEALTHCARE: Hospitals Face Lawsuits Over Hurricane Katrina
TENET HEALTHCARE: Settlement Reached in Calif. Labor Lawsuits
VIRGIN MOBILE: Awaits Argument Date on Appeal to "Ballas" Ruling

VIRGIN MOBILE: "Belloni" Suit Still Stayed Pending Consolidation
VIRGIN MOBILE: Dec. 16 Deadline Set for Response to "Botts" Case
VIRGIN MOBILE: Dec. 16 Deadline Set for Responses to "Shivers"
VIRGIN MOBILE: Response to "Conrad" Complaint Due on Dec. 16
VIRGIN MOBILE: Response to "Lockyear" Complaint Due on Dec. 16


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
GSI GROUP: The Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
SPACEDEV INC: Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing


                           *********

ALLTEL CORP: Ark. Court Approves Settlement in Suit Over Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, approved a
proposed settlement reached in purported class-action lawsuits
relating to the buyout offer by Atlantis Holdings LLC.

On May 20, 2007, Alltel entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Atlantis Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and Atlantis Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Atlantis.

Under the terms of the Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with
and into Alltel, with Alltel surviving the merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Atlantis.

Later on, Alltel and its directors were named in 16 putative
class action complaints alleging claims of breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting such alleged breaches arising out
of the proposed sale.

Eight of the complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, the other eight complaints were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and all were consolidated in
Pulaski County for purposes of settlement.

Among other things, the complaints in the Arkansas and Delaware
actions allege that:

       -- Alltel conducted an inadequate process for extracting
          maximum value for its shareholders, including
          prematurely terminating an auction process by entering
          into a merger agreement with Atlantis on May 20, 2007,
          despite previously setting June 6, 2007, as the
          outside date for submitting bids;

       -- the Alltel directors are in possession of material
          non-public information about the company;

       -- the Alltel directors have material conflicts of
          interest and are acting to better their own interests
          at the expense of Alltel's shareholders, including
          through the vesting of certain options for Scott Ford,
          the retention of an equity interest in Alltel after
          the merger by certain of Alltel's directors and
          executive officers, and the employment of certain
          ALLTEL executives, including Scott Ford, by Alltel (or
          its successors) after the merger is completed;

       -- taking into account the current value of Alltel stock,
          the strength of its business, revenues, cash flow and
          earnings power, the intrinsic value of Alltel's
          equity, the consideration offered in connection with
          the proposed merger is inadequate;

       -- the merger agreement contained provisions that will
          deter higher bids, including a $625.0 million
          termination fee payable to the Sponsors and
          restrictions on Alltel's ability to solicit higher
          bids;

       -- that Alltel's financial advisors, JPMorgan Securities
          Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., and
          Stephens Inc. have conflicts resulting from their
          relationships with the Sponsors; and

       -- that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Alltel
          with the SEC on June 13, 2007, failed to disclose
          material information concerning the merger.

The complaints seek, among other things, class action status, a
court order enjoining Alltel and its directors from consummating
the merger, and the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On June 10, 2008, the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 23,
2008, was approved by the Circuit Court in Pulaski County,
Arkansas.

The settlement provides for the following:

       -- the Company provided additional information
          ("additional disclosures") to Alltel shareholders,
          which was contained in the definitive proxy statement
          that was distributed to Alltel shareholders on or
          about July 24, 2007 prior to the special meeting to
          vote on the Merger;

       -- the buyers agreed to reduce the termination fee
          payable by Alltel under certain conditions pursuant to
          the Agreement by $75 million, from $625 million to
          $550 million;

       -- the Alltel shares personally owned by Scott Ford and
          Warren Stephens were voted at the meeting to consider
          the Merger in the same proportion, in favor, against
          and abstaining, as all votes were cast other than with
          respect to such shares at such meeting; and

       -- on July 19, 2007, J.P. Morgan and Merrill Lynch
          provided updated advice to the Alltel Board of
          Directors that, taking into consideration the types of
          factors and analyses considered in rendering their May
          20, 2007 fairness opinions, they were aware of no
          matter, during the period since May 20, 2007, that
          would cause them to withdraw or modify their fairness
          opinions.

The plaintiffs believed the additional disclosures were
necessary in order to allow Alltel's shareholders to be able to
make an informed vote on the proposed acquisition of Alltel by
an affiliate of the buyers.

The additional disclosures contained in the definitive proxy
statement included, among other things, additional information
about the decision process undertaken by Alltel's Board of
Directors in evaluating the Company's business combination and
strategic alternative opportunities, details about the
indications of interest received from potential third-party
buyers, and details about the valuation analyses performed by
the Company's financial advisors on behalf of the Board of
Directors.

In connection with the settlement, Alltel agreed to pay $9.0
million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and the expenses of
administration of the settlement.

On August 28, 2008, the Stipulation of Settlement was approved
by the Circuit Court, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.


Alltel Corp. -- http://www.alltel.com/-- provides wireless
voice and data communications services to more than 13 million
customers in 34 states.  Through roaming arrangements with other
carriers, Alltel is able to offer its customers wireless
services covering more than 95% of the U.S. population. Alltel
manages its wireless business as a single operating segment,
wireless communications services.

  
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Settles Ariz. Securities Lawsuit for $11.25M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amkor Technology, Inc. agreed to pay $11.25 million to settle
the purported securities class0action suit, entitled "Nathan
Weiss, et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:2007-cv-00278," which relates to to the company's past stock
option practices and other matters, Max Jarman of The Arizona
Republic reports.

The case was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court
in Arizona in 2007, however, it subsequently was appealed to the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

According to Amkor, $9 million of the settlement would be paid
by its insurer and that it would pay the balance.  The deal
though is subject to court approval, reports The Arizona
Republic.

                        Case Background

On Jan. 23, 2006, a purported securities class action complaint
entitled, "Nathan Weiss, et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:2007-cv-00278," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Amkor and
certain of its current and former officers (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 1, 2008).

Subsequently, other law firms filed two similar cases, which
were consolidated with the initial complaint.

In August 2006 and again in November 2006, the plaintiffs
amended the complaint.  The plaintiffs added additional officer,
director and former director defendants and alleged
improprieties in certain option grants.

The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants
improperly recorded and accounted for the options in violation
of generally accepted accounting principles and made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures
in violation of the federal securities laws, during the period
from July 2001 to July 2006.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23, compensatory damages, costs,
and expenses, and such other further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

On Dec. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by the defendants, the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

On Sept. 25, 2007, the Arizona Court dismissed the case with
prejudice.

On Oct. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The parties have completed briefing of the appeal.

The suit is "Nathan Weiss, et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:2007cv00278," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul G.
Rosenblatt.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. (jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com)
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         P.O. Box 30132
         Elkins Park, PA 19027
         Phone: 215-782-8235

              - and -

         Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
         Brodsky & Smith, LLC
         Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-6200

Representing the defendants are:

         Patrick Loftus, Esq. (loftus@duanemorris.com)
         Duane Morris, LLP
         30 South 17th Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396
         Phone: 215-979-1367

              - and -

         Karen T. Stefano, Esq. (kstefano@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-849-3405


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Class Certification in "Simmons"
------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is appealing an order issued by the
District Court in Caddo County, Oklahoma, certifying a class in
the matter "Ivan J. Simmons, Madaline M. Thompson and Gaylon Lee
Mitchusson v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation."

In the suit, which was filed in February 2004, the plaintiffs
claim that Anadarko failed to correctly pay royalties on gas,
arguing that costs associated with compression, gathering,
dehydration, and processing should not have been deducted or
factored into the royalty calculation.  They are seeking an
award of monetary and punitive damages.

In January 2008, the district judge issued an order certifying
the case as a class action.  The defined class generally
includes all royalty interest owners in Oklahoma wells where
Anadarko is or was the operator, working interest owner or
lessee, and relates only to payment of hydrocarbons produced
from those wells since 1985.

The company has admitted no liability in this matter and has
filed an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order
before the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking a reversal of the
District Court's certification order.

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

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. -- http://www.anadarko.com/-- is an
oil  and gas exploration and production company with 2.43
billion barrels of oil equivalent of proved reserves as of Dec.
31, 2007.  The company's major areas of operation are located
onshore in the U.S., the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico, and
Algeria.  Anadarko also has production in China and a
development project in Brazil.  It markets natural gas, oil and
natural gas liquids and owns and operates gas gathering and
processing systems.  In addition, Anadarko has hard minerals
properties that contribute operating income through non-operated
joint ventures and royalty arrangements in several coal, trona
(natural soda ash) and industrial mineral mines located on lands
within and adjacent to its Land Grant holdings.  The Land Grant
is an eight million acre strip running through portions of
Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah where the company owns most of its
fee mineral rights.


BERNARD L. MADOFF: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Alleged $50B Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard L. Madoff, the investment adviser who was arrested for
a potential $50 billion fraud, was sued on behalf of a group of
investors, Erik Larson of Bloomberg reports.

On Dec. 12, 2008, Mark Mulholland, Esq. of Ruskin Moscou
Faltischek, filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which seeks
as much as $100 million lost by five investors.

According to Mr. Mulholland, the proposed class of investors
could swell to more than 1,000 people.  He stated, "Madoff
targeted affluent investors, but these people cannot afford to
lose the money that was taken from them.  He misrepresented that
it was a viable business, when in fact it was a Ponzi scheme,"
Bloomberg reports.

Mr. Madoff confessed to his two sons, who work for him, that the
business bearing his name was a fraud that cost clients $50
billion.  The sons told the FBI, according to their lawyer.  On
Dec. 11, 2008, federal agents arrested Mr. Madoff at his
Manhattan apartment.  He is free though on a $10 million bond,
according to Bloomberg.

In a press statement Mr. Mulholland said that Mr. Madoff's
alleged crime "may rank as the largest fraudulent scheme in the
history of Wall Street and the United States."

The lead plaintiff in the case, Irwin Kellner, of Port
Washington, New York, is owed as much as $6 million after
investing with Madoff beginning in 1998, Mr. Mulholland tells
Bloomberg.

Bloomberg reported that Mr. Madoff's firm was the 23rd-largest
market maker on Nasdaq in October 2008, handling an average of
about 50 million shares a day, exchange data shows.  The company
took orders from online brokers for some of the largest U.S.
companies, including General Electric Co. and Citigroup Inc.


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BigBand Networks, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of the
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

Since Oct. 3, 2007, several purported shareholder class action
complaints were filed against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering.  One of these suits was subsequently dismissed.

The lawsuits allege that the company officers and directors made
false or misleading statements to investors in connection with
the company's initial public offering and that its registration
statement and prospectus contained false or misleading
statements regarding its business prospects.

The plaintiffs purport to represent anyone who purchased the
company's common stock in the initial public offering, or
purchased the company's common stock between March 14, 2007, and
Sept. 27, 2007.

The lawsuits assert causes of action for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages.

In February 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed by the Court.

In May 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, the directors and officers who signed the
Company's IPO registration statement, and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's IPO
prospectus contained false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business strategy and prospects, and the prospects
of the Company's CMTS division in particular.

The lead plaintiff purports to represent anyone who purchased
the Company's common stock in the initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss 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.

The suit is "In re BigBand Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:2007cv05101," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. (reed@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          Fax: 510-725-3001

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael Carl Tu, Esq. (mtu@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          777 S. Figueroa St., Ste 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-629-2020
          Fax: 213-612-2499


BIGBAND NETWORKS: "Wiltjer" Suit on IPO Prospectus Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The suit styled "Wiltjer v. BigBand Networks, Inc., et. al.,
Case No. CGC-07-469661," remains stayed, 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 December 2007, a purported shareholder class-action complaint
alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 was filed in the Superior Court for the
City and County of San Francisco.

The complaint names as defendants the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the company's
initial public offering.

The complaint alleges that the company's IPO prospectus
contained false and misleading statements regarding BigBand's
business prospects, product operability and cable modem
termination system (CMTS) platform.

The plaintiff purports to represent anyone who purchased the
Company's common stock in the IPO.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court, but
subsequently returned to the Superior Court for the City and
County of San Francisco.

On Aug. 11, 2008, the Court stayed the case in deference to the
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
BigBand Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

BigBand Networks, Inc. -- http://www.bigbandnet.com/-- develops
markets and sells network-based platforms that enable cable
operators and telephone companies, collectively service
providers, to offer video services across coaxial, fiber and
copper networks.  The Company has implemented de facto network
architecture for digital simulcast, an application that
facilitates the insertion of advertising and the transmission of
video in a digital format across a network while still providing
service to analog subscribers.  Its product applications of
Digital Simulcast, TelcoTV and Switched Digital Video are a
combination of the Company's modular software and programmable
hardware platforms.  BigBand sells its product applications
domestically to customers through a direct sales model, and
internationally, through a combination of direct sales to
service providers and sales through independent resellers. Its
customers include Cablevision, Charter, Comcast, Cox, Time
Warner Cable and Verizon.


CONMED CORP: N.Y. Court Hears Motions in "Thompson" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District for the Northern District of New York has
heard various motions in a purported class-action suit filed by
a group of former sales representatives of CONMED Corp.'s
operating unit, CONMED Linvatec.

On April 7, 2006, CONMED received a copy of a complaint filed
before the U.S. District for the Northern District of New York
on behalf of a purported class of former CONMED Linvatec sales
representatives.

The suit seeks to certify a class of all former sales
representatives terminated in March 2003 who did not receive
severance from the company

The complaint alleges that the former sales representatives were
entitled to, but did not receive, severance in 2003 when CONMED
Linvatec restructured its distribution channels.

The company believes that the maximum exposure related to this
complaint is $2.5 million to $3.0 million, not including any
interest, fees or costs that might be awarded if the five named
plaintiffs were to prevail on their own behalf as well as on
behalf of all members of the purported class.

The company said CONMED Linvatec did not generally pay severance
during the 2003 restructuring because the former sales
representatives were offered sales positions with CONMED
Linvatec's new manufacturer's representatives.

Other than three of the five named plaintiffs in the class-
action suit, nearly all of CONMED Linvatec's former sales
representatives accepted such positions.

Four of the named plaintiffs submitted formal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act claims for severance, and said
claims were forwarded to the Plan Administrator for review and
action.

By letters dated June 9, 2006, the Plan Administrator denied the
claims.  Although the four named plaintiffs were able to appeal
the initial decision of the Plan Administrator, none of the
plaintiffs submitted appeals.

On June 5, 2006, CONMED filed a motion to dismiss certain counts
of the complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
certify a class of all former sales representatives terminated
in March 2003 who did not receive severance.

The company's motions to dismiss the case and for summary
judgment were denied by the court.

The District Court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of former CONMED Linvatec sales representatives
whose employment with CONMED Linvatec was involuntarily
terminated in 2003 and who did not receive severance benefits.

With discovery essentially completed, on July 21, 2008, the
company filed motions seeking summary judgment and to decertify
the class.  In addition, on July 21, 2008, the plaintiffs filed
a motion seeking summary judgment.  These motions are scheduled
to be heard on Aug. 26, 2008.

These motions were submitted for decision on Aug. 26, 2008.

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

The suit is "Thompson, et al. v. Linvatec Corp., et al., Case
No. 6:06-cv-00404-NPM-GJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York, Judge Neal P. McCurn,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq.
          (tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com)
          Ian O'Neil Smith Moukawsher, Esq.
          (ismith@mwlawgroup.com)
          Walsh Law Firm
          21 Oak Street, Suite 209
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Phone: 860-278-7003
                 860-278-7005
          Fax: 860-548-1740


CRAFT WORLDWIDE: Owner, Restaurants Faces FLSA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec. 12, 2008 -- A new lawsuit alleges that famed
restaurateur and "Top Chef" celebrity judge Tom Colicchio and
his nationwide chain of restaurants, Craft, Craftbar, and
Craftsteak, violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the New York Labor Law by misappropriating employee tips and
withholding proper overtime pay, according to Outten & Golden
LLP.

     Nessa Rapone, a former Craftbar employee from Brooklyn,
N.Y., filed suit Thursday in New York federal court against Mr.
Colicchio and Craft Worldwide Holdings, LLC, the company that
operates Craft restaurants in Dallas, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Las
Vegas, and Ledyard, Conn.

     The lawsuit alleges that, in addition to violating the wage
and hour laws with respect to Ms. Rapone and her co-workers, the
defendants retaliated against Ms. Rapone by terminating her
employment in May 2007 after she complained about defendants'
unlawful wage and hour policies.

     According to the Complaint, the defendants violated the
wage and hour laws by denying employees tips they earned;
redistributing portions of employees' tips to non-tip eligible
employees; failing to pay proper overtime compensation to
employees who worked more than 40 hours in a work week; and
engaging in other unlawful practices.

     Justin M. Swartz, Linda A. Neilan, and Rachel Bien, of
Outten & Golden LLP's New York office, represent Ms. Rapone, and
will seek to have the lawsuit certified as a class action in
order to recover unpaid wages, misappropriated tips, spread of
hours pay, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, liquidated
damages, and other damages for current and former hourly
employees of Craft brand restaurants nationwide.

     Attorney Justin M. Swartz stated, "The Craft restaurants,
all upscale establishments designed by well-known architects and
catered by award-winning chefs, have earned Mr. Colicchio and
his partners great success.  This success, however, has come at
the expense of the restaurants' hourly service workers to whom
the defendants have denied proper minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and tips they earned from customers."

     Attorney Rachel Bien added, "Going forward, we hope that
Mr. Colicchio will use his status as a high-profile TV celebrity
chef to set a good example for New York City restaurant owners
with respect to workers' rights. Unfortunately, this lawsuit
alleges that he has not done so in the past."

     The defendants are Craft Worldwide Holdings, LLC, d/b/a
Craft, Craftbar, and Craftsteak, and Tom Colicchio.

     The case is "Nessa Rapone, et al., v. Craft Worldwide
Holdings, LLC, et al.," (Southern District of New York, Case No.
08-10786).

For more details, contact:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Rachel Bien, Esq.
          Outten & Golden LLP
          New York, NY
          Phone: 212.245.1000
          Web site: http://www.outtengolden.com


GREAT LAKES: Fifth Circuit Considers Appeal in "Reed" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to issue
a ruling on an appeal in the purported property damage class-
action lawsuit, "Reed v. USA et al.," which names Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Co. as a defendant.

The case was filed on April 24, 2006, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana with regards to the
dredging operation at the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO).

The was brought on behalf of citizens of Louisiana who suffered
property damage from the waters that flooded New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina hit the area.

The suit names the company along with numerous other dredging
companies who have completed projects on behalf of the Army
Corps of Engineers in the MRGO, and the federal government as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that dredging of MRGO caused the
destruction of the Louisiana wetlands, which provide a natural
barrier against storms and hurricanes.

This loss of natural barriers then contributed to the failure of
the levees upon the impact of Hurricane Katrina, which allowed
the floodwaters to damage plaintiffs' property.

The company is accused of negligence in violation of the Water
Pollution Control Act, among others.  The amount of damages was
not stated.

On March 9, 2007, the District Court dismissed with prejudice
the Reed claim against Great Lakes and plaintiffs in that case
have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.

Briefing on the appeal is now complete, and the Fifth Circuit
held oral argument on Sept. 4, 2008.  The Fifth Circuit has now
taken the appeal under advisement and the parties are awaiting a
ruling, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Reed v. USA et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02152-SRD-
JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana under Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Camilo Kossy Salas, III, Esq.
         Salas & Co. L.C.
         650 Poydras St., Suite 1650
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Phone: 504-799-3080
         E-mail: csalas@salaslaw.com

         Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
         The Law Offices of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.
         106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H
         Reserve, LA 70084
         Phone: 985-536-1186
         E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com

              - and -

         John Francis Nevares, Esq.
         John F. Nevares & Associates
         P.O. Box 13667
         San Juan, PR 00908-3667
         Phone: 787-722-9333
         E-mail: jfnevares-law@microjuris.com

Representing the defendants is:

         James H. Roussel, Eqs.
         Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
         201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3600
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Phone: 504-566-5278
         E-mail: jroussel@bakerdonelson.com


NUCOR CORP: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Production, Sale of Steel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corp. has been named, along with other major steel
producers, as a co-defendant in several related antitrust class-
action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel
purchasers between September 12, 2008 and October 6, 2008, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The cases are filed as class-action lawsuits.  The plaintiffs
allege that from January 2005 to the present, eight steel
manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive
activities with respect to the production and sale of steel.

The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the purported
class, unspecified treble damages, attorneys' fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest and injunctive relief, 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. 27, 2008.

Nucor Corp. -- http://www.nucor.com/-- is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of steel and steel products.  The company
operates in two business segments: steel mills and steel
products.  Principal products from the steel mills segment
include hot-rolled steel and cold-rolled steel. Steel mills
segment's hot-rolled steel products include angles, rounds,
flats, channels, sheet, wide-flange beams, pilings, billets,
blooms, beam blanks and plate. Principal products from the steel
products segment include steel joists and joist girders, steel
deck, cold finished steel, steel fasteners, metal building
systems and light gauge steel framing.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Hotel Occupancy Taxes Lawsuits Remain Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries and affiliates of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.
remain parties to various cases brought by municipalities and
other governmental entities involving hotel occupancy taxes and
the company's merchant hotel business model, 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 company's subsidiaries and affiliates named in the suits
include Orbitz, Inc., Orbitz, LLC, Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a
CheapTickets), Travelport Americas, LLC (f/k/a Cendant Travel
Distribution Services Group, Inc.), and Internetwork Publishing
Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com).

Some of the cases are purported class-action lawsuits and most
of the cases were brought simultaneously against other Internet
travel companies, including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline.

The cases allege, among other things, that the company violated
the jurisdictions' hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to
the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under the
ordinance.

While not identical in their allegations, the cases generally
assert similar claims, including violations of local or state
occupancy tax ordinances, violations of consumer protection
ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a
constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable accounting,
injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and in some cases,
civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including:
declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition
of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs,
attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an
order certifying the action as a class action.

According to the Class Action Reporter dated Oct. 10, 2008, some
of the cases pending against the company and its affiliates were
filed by:

       -- City of Los Angeles. Filed on Dec. 30, 2004 in
          Superior Court for the State of California, County of
          Los Angeles;

       -- City of Rome, et al.  Filed on Nov. 18, 2005 in U.S.
          District Court for the Northern District of Georgia;

       -- Pitt County, North Carolina.  Filed on Dec. 1, 2005 in
          U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

       -- City of San Antonio, Texas, et al.  Filed on May 8,
          2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
          District of Texas;

       -- Lake County Convention and Visitor Bureau and Marshall
          County, Indiana.  Filed on June 12, 2006 in the U.S.
          District Court for the Northern District of Indiana;

       -- Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government.  Filed
          on Sept 21, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
          Western District of Kentucky (Lexington-Fayette Urban
          County has moved to intervene in this case.);

       -- County of Nassau, New York.  Filed on Oct 24, 2006 in
          the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit;

       -- City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.  Filed on Feb. 28,
          2007 in the Circuit Court of Washington County,
          Arkansas;

       -- City of Jefferson, Missouri.  Filed on June 27, 2007
          in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court, Cole County,
          Missouri; and

       -- City of Gallup, New Mexico. Filed on July 6, 2007 in
          the U.S. District Court for the District of New
          Mexico.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global
online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and
business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel
products.  The company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer
brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub,
RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands,
Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including
air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel
insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers
worldwide.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: "Quick Pick" Lawsuits in California Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class actions relating to the "Quick Pick" wager
that were filed against Scientific Games Corp., Scientific Games
International, Inc. and Scientific Games Racing, LLC have been
dismissed, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Angel Romero filed one suit on behalf of himself and a class of
similarly situated individuals in Superior Court of Los Angeles,
Case No. BC-391885 (including claims against additional John Doe
Defendants 1-20) on June 2, 2008.

On Aug. 5, 2008, Jerry Jamgotchian, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated in California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New
York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas or Wisconsin,
brought in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. CV 08-05121 (including claims against
additional John Doe Defendants 1-20).

On Oct. 22, 2008, the plaintiff in Romero moved to dismiss the
state suit, which motion was granted on Oct. 23, 2008.

On Oct. 22, 2008, the Court granted the company's Motion to
Dismiss the federal case, without leave to refile.

Scientific Games Corp. -- http://www.scientificgames.com/-- is
supplier of technology-based products, systems and services to
gaming markets worldwide.  The Company operates in three
business segments: Printed Products Group, Lottery Systems Group
and Diversified Gaming Group.  The Printed Products Group
consists of the Company's instant lottery ticket business and
its pre-paid phone card business.  Instant tickets and related
services includes ticket design and manufacturing, as well as
value-added services, including game design, sales and marketing
support, and warehousing and fulfillment services.  The Lottery
Systems Group is a provider of customized computer software,
equipment and data communication services.  The Diversified
Gaming Group provides services and systems to private and public
operators in the gaming markets and in the pari-mutuel wagering
industry.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Hospitals Face Lawsuits Over Hurricane Katrina
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain hospitals of Tenet Healthcare Corp. are facing purported
class-action lawsuits in connection to injuries sustained  in
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The company 's hospitals are subject to claims and lawsuits in
the ordinary course of business.  Most of these matters involve
allegations of medical malpractice or other injuries suffered at
the company's hospitals.

As previously reported, three such cases were filed as purported
class action lawsuits and involve patients of the company's
former Memorial Medical Center and Lindy Boggs Medical Center in
New Orleans.

On Sept. 17, 2008, class certification was granted in two of
these suits -- "Preston, et al. v. Memorial Medical Center," and
"Husband et al. v. Memorial Medical Center."

In her order, the judge certified a class of all persons at
Memorial during and in the days following Hurricane Katrina,
excluding employees, who sustained injuries or died, as well as
family members who themselves sustained injury as a result of
such injuries or deaths to any person at Memorial, excluding
employees, during that time. The company intends to appeal the
order.

In the remaining case, family members allege, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class of other patients and their
family members, similar damages as a result of injuries
sustained at Lindy Boggs Medical Center during the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina.  The certification hearing in that matter has
not yet been scheduled.

In addition to disputing the merits of the allegations in each
of these suits, the company contends that none of the actions
meet the proper legal requirements for class actions and that
each case must be adjudicated independently.

The company will, therefore, continue to oppose class
certification and vigorously defend the hospitals in these
matters, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is
engaged in the provision of healthcare services, primarily
through the operation of general hospitals.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Settlement Reached in Calif. Labor Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in several purported class-
action lawsuits -- coordinated in the Los Angeles Superior Court
-- against Tenet Healthcare Corp., alleging violations various
labor laws.

                  McDonough & Tien Litigation

On Sept. 28, 2004, the court granted the company's petition to
coordinate two pending wage and hour actions, captioned,
"McDonough, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," and "Tien,
et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," in Los Angeles Superior
Court.

The McDonough case was originally filed on June 24, 2003, in the
San Diego Superior Court and the Tien case was originally filed
on May 21, 2004, in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The plaintiffs in both cases allege that Tenet's hospitals
violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and
applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders
with respect to meal breaks, rest periods and the payment of one
hour's compensation for meal breaks or rest periods not taken.

The complaint in the Tien case also alleges that the company
have improperly "rounded off" time entries on timekeeping
records and that our pay stubs do not include all information
required by California law.

The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back pay, statutory
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.

Later, the plaintiffs in the McDonough and Tien cases filed
motions, which the company opposed, to certify these actions on
behalf of virtually all nonexempt employees of the company's
California subsidiaries, as separated into four classes (and one
subclass) based on the specific claims at issue.

The court issued a ruling on plaintiffs' motions on June 3,
2008.  In that ruling, the court denied plaintiffs' request for
class certification on the claim that employees missed rest
periods. H owever, the court granted plaintiffs' request for
class certification on the claims that employees' pay stubs did
not contain all information required by California law and
hourly employees did not receive appropriate wages due at the
time of their termination.

The court also certified a subclass of 12-hour shift employees
who received missed meal penalties at a reduced rate, but stated
that this subclass should be handled in connection with the
purported class-action suit, "Pagaduan v. Fountain Valley
Regional Medical Center," which was filed with the Orange County
Superior Court.

Lastly, the court conditionally certified a class of all current
or former hourly employees who were allegedly not provided meal
periods, for the purpose of determining certain limited
preliminary factual issues.

A hearing on the company's motion for reconsideration of the
court's class certification ruling was held on July 16, 2008,
and the court has indicated that it expects to rule on that
motion by mid-November 2008.

                 Pagaduan & Falck Litigation

The company also faces two proposed class-action suits involving
allegations regarding unpaid overtime.  The suits are:

       a. "Pagaduan v. Fountain Valley Regional Medical Center,"
          filed with the Orange County Superior Court, and

       b. "Falck v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," pending with
          U.S. District Court for the Central District of
          California

These lawsuits allege that the company's pay practices since
2000 for California-based 12-hour shift employees violate
California and, in the Falck case, federal overtime laws by
virtue of the alleged failure to include certain payments known
as Flexible (or California) Differential payments in the regular
rate of pay that is used to calculate overtime pay.

These payments are made to 12-hour shift employees when they do
not work a shift that is exactly 12 hours.

The company contends that these differential payments need only
be included in the regular rate of pay when they actually are
paid (as opposed to merely being potentially payable), and that
they always are included in the regular rate calculation in
these circumstances.

The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back pay, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees.

In February 2007, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that the
Pagaduan case be coordinated with the previously coordinated
McDonough and Tien cases already pending there, as described
above.

The company is now defending these wage and hour cases in a
single court.

On Feb. 14, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the Pagaduan case.

Since that time, the court has set Oct. 14, 2008, as the date a
trial on one of the defendants' principal defenses will begin.

Separately, the Falck case, which was first provisionally
certified as a collective action under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act for the purpose of giving notice to potential
class members, was certified as a class-action suit for all
purposes on Feb. 12, 2008.

On Sept. 5, 2008, a tentative settlement was reached in both the
Pagaduan and Falck cases.  The settlement, which will be
administered by the Los Angeles Superior Court, is scheduled for
a preliminary approval hearing on Nov. 6, 2008, according to the
company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2008.

Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is
engaged in the provision of healthcare services, primarily
through the operation of general hospitals.


VIRGIN MOBILE: Awaits Argument Date on Appeal to "Ballas" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
An oral argument date is yet to be set for the plaintiff's
appeal to the dismissal of the case captioned "Ballas v. Virgin
Mobile USA, LLC, Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. and Virgin Media, Inc."

The putative class-action lawsuit was commenced on May 21, 2007,
before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau
County.  It was brought on behalf of a purported class of
individuals who purchased Virgin Mobile-brand handsets within
the State of New York.

The complaint names three defendants: the company, Virgin Mobile
USA, LLC, and Virgin Media, Inc.  Virgin Media was subsequently
dismissed voluntarily from the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose, on
their Web sites and on the retail packaging of Virgin Mobile-
brand handsets, the replenishment or "Top-Up" requirements (the
periodic minimum payments required to keep an account active)
and the consequences of failing to adhere to them, and further
alleges that the retail packaging implies that no such
requirements exist.

The plaintiff asserts two causes of action, one for breach of
contract and one for deceptive acts and practices and misleading
advertising under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and
350.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the case for
failure to state a cause of action.

On July 7, 2008, the plaintiff initiated an appeal. Following
briefing, the appellate court is expected to schedule a hearing
on the appeal. Briefing is complete, and the parties are
awaiting an oral argument date, 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.

Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is
a provider of wireless communications services, offering
prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth
market.  The Company offers its products and services on a flat
per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified
quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each
case without requiring VMU's customers to enter into long-term
contracts or commitments.  The Company markets its products and
services under the Virgin Mobile brand.  VMU has rights to use
the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services
through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin
Group.


VIRGIN MOBILE: "Belloni" Suit Still Stayed Pending Consolidation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Belloni, et al. v.
Verizon Communications, et al.," which was brought on behalf of
a purported class of long distance telephone customers against
12 telecommunications carriers, including Virgin Mobile USA,
Inc., remains stayed pending consolidation.

The amended class action complaint was filed in October 2006,
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  It alleges that the defendants unlawfully collected and
remitted money to the IRS in the guise of an excise tax that the
plaintiffs assert was inapplicable to the services provided.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
conditionally transferred the action to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with related actions, under the caption,
"In Re: Long-Distance Telephone Service Federal Excise Tax
Refund Litigation, MDL-1798, Case No. 1:2007mc00014."

The plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
in an amount not specified.  They also seek attorneys' fees and
costs.

The plaintiffs generally claim that the defendants are liable
for the full amount collected from customers and remitted to the
government, and damages flowing from the alleged failure to file
with the FCC and communicate to the public the non-applicability
of the Communications Excise Tax.

Subject to consolidation, this action has been stayed, 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.

Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is
a provider of wireless communications services, offering
prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth
market.  The Company offers its products and services on a flat
per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified
quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each
case without requiring VMU's customers to enter into long-term
contracts or commitments.  The Company markets its products and
services under the Virgin Mobile brand.  VMU has rights to use
the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services
through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin
Group.


VIRGIN MOBILE: Dec. 16 Deadline Set for Response to "Botts" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 16, 2008 deadline has been set for the responses to the
complaint in the matter styled, "Botts v. Virgin Mobile USA,
Inc. and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P."

On July 22, 2008, a plaintiff initiated a purported class-action
lawsuit against the Company in Florida State Court alleging
breach of contract.

The allegations, which are nearly identical to those raised in
the Lockyear matter filed in California state court, relate to
allegedly improper billing for allegedly unwanted services
provided by third party content providers.

The plaintiff seeks actual, consequential, and compensatory
damages, as well as injunctive statutory and/or declaratory
relief.

The Company is investigating the allegations and seeking
indemnification from several sources, 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.

Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is
a provider of wireless communications services, offering
prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth
market.  The Company offers its products and services on a flat
per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified
quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each
case without requiring VMU's customers to enter into long-term
contracts or commitments.  The Company markets its products and
services under the Virgin Mobile brand.  VMU has rights to use
the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services
through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin
Group.


VIRGIN MOBILE: Dec. 16 Deadline Set for Responses to "Shivers"
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 16, 2008 deadline has been set for the responses to the
complaint in the lawsuit entitled, "Shivers v. Virgin Mobile
USA, Inc., M-Qube, Inc. and Flycell, Inc."

On Aug. 29, 2008, a plaintiff initiated a purported class-action
lawsuit again the Company and other defendants in California
state court alleging:

   (1) breach of contract,
   (2) violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
   (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
   (4) violation of California's Public Utility Code,
   (5) unjust enrichment, and
   (6) tortious interference with a contract.

The allegations, which are nearly identical to those raised in
the Lockyear matter also pending in California state court,
allege improper billing for alleged unwanted services provided
by third-party content providers.

The plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and compensatory
damages, as well as injunctive, statutory and/or declaratory
relief.

The Company is investigating the allegations and seeking
indemnification from several sources, 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.

Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is
a provider of wireless communications services, offering
prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth
market.  The Company offers its products and services on a flat
per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified
quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each
case without requiring VMU's customers to enter into long-term
contracts or commitments.  The Company markets its products and
services under the Virgin Mobile brand.  VMU has rights to use
the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services
through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin
Group.


VIRGIN MOBILE: Response to "Conrad" Complaint Due on Dec. 16
------------------------------------------------------------
A response to the complaint in the lawsuit entitled "Conrad v.
Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. and Flycell, Inc." is due on Dec. 16,
2008.

On July 29, 2008, a plaintiff initiated a purported class-action
lawsuit against the Company and another defendant in Illinois
state court, alleging breach of contract and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The allegations, which are nearly identical to those raised in
the Lockyear matter filed in California state court, allege
improper billing for unwanted services provided by third party
content providers.

The plaintiff seeks actual, consequential, and compensatory
damages, as well as injunctive, statutory and/or declaratory
relief.

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, Virgin Mobile is investigating the
allegations and seeking indemnification from several sources.

Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is
a provider of wireless communications services, offering
prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth
market.  The Company offers its products and services on a flat
per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified
quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each
case without requiring VMU's customers to enter into long-term
contracts or commitments.  The Company markets its products and
services under the Virgin Mobile brand.  VMU has rights to use
the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services
through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin
Group.


VIRGIN MOBILE: Response to "Lockyear" Complaint Due on Dec. 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
A response to the complaint in the lawsuit styled "Lockyear v.
Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P." is due on
Dec. 16, 2008.

On July 10, 2008, two plaintiffs initiated a purported class-
action lawsuit against the Company in California state court
alleging:

   (1) breach of contract,

   (2) violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,

   (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,

   (4) unauthorized telephone charges in violation of
       California's Public Utilities Code,

   (5) violation of California's Computer Crime Law,

   (6) unjust enrichment, and

   (7) trespass to chattels.

The allegations relate to allegedly improper billing by the
Company for allegedly unwanted services provided by third party
content providers.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Company is investigating the allegations and seeking
indemnification from several sources, 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.

Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is
a provider of wireless communications services, offering
prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth
market.  The Company offers its products and services on a flat
per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified
quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each
case without requiring VMU's customers to enter into long-term
contracts or commitments.  The Company markets its products and
services under the Virgin Mobile brand.  VMU has rights to use
the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services
through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin
Group.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Dec. 12, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of AtriCure,
Inc. ("AtriCure" or the "Company"), between May 10, 2007 and
October 31, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges AtriCure and certain of its executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.  Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business, operations and
prospects, caused AtriCure's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

     AtriCure is a medical device company engaged in the
development, manufacture and sale of cardiac surgical ablation
systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in cardiac
tissue.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants fraudulently inflated
AtriCure's securities prices by improperly promoting its
products to physicians and improperly causing the filing of
false claims for reimbursement.

     On October 31, 2008 AtriCure shocked investors when the
Company revealed that it had received a letter from the U.S.
Department of Justice - Civil Division (the "DOJ") informing the
Company that the DOJ was conducting an investigation for
potential False Claims Act and common law violations relating to
the Company's surgical ablation devices.

     AtriCure further disclosed that, specifically the DOJ was
investigating the Company's marketing practices utilized in
connection with AtriCure's surgical ablation system to treat
atrial fibrillation, a specific use outside the Federal Food and
Drug Administration's 510(k) clearance.

     Moreover, the Company revealed that the DOJ was
investigating whether AtriCure instructed hospitals to bill
Medicare for surgical ablation using incorrect billing codes.

     As a result of this news, the Company's shares declined
$2.53 per share, or 39.41 percent, to close on November 3, 2008,
at $3.89 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


GSI GROUP: The Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Dec. 13, 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm today
announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf
of purchasers of GSI Group, Inc. securities during the period
from April 30, 2008 through December 3, 2008.

     On December 4, 2008, the Company announced that it would
restate its quarterly financial results for the first and second
fiscal quarters of 2008.  GSI disclosed that it had overstated
its revenues by $8.9 million for the first quarter and $7.2
million for the second quarter of 2008.  As a result of these
disclosures, the Company's stock price has declined over 45%.

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


SPACEDEV INC: Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Dec. 13, 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm today
announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf
of SpaceDev, Inc. ("SpaceDev" or "Company") shareholders in
connection with Sierra Nevada Corporation's offer to purchase
all of the outstanding stock of SpaceDev (the "Offer").

     The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act based on allegations that the proxy
statement issued in connection with the Sierra Nevada's Offer to
purchase SpaceDev stock is materially misleading and fails to
disclose all of the information necessary for shareholders to
make an informed decision to approve the Offer.

     The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California; case no. 3:08-cv-02199-L-CAB
and is on behalf of all holders of SpaceDev stock as of October
20, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *