CAR_Public/081217.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 17, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 250
  
                            Headlines

ATRICURE INC: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Alleging Securities Violations
BROCADE COMMS: Jan. 23, 2009 Hearing Set for $160M Settlement
CELERA CORP: Consolidated Suit by Stock Purchasers Still Pending
CHINA ORGANIC: Responds to Allegations in December 12 Complaint
CITIGROUP INC: Feb. 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $35M Settlement

CSX CORP: Ky. Judge Approves $3M Settlement in Derailment Suit
GENERAL NUTRITION: Appeals to Junked Andro Product Suits Pending
GENERAL NUTRITION: Class Certification in "Casarez" Case Denied
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Complaint Over Creatine Claims in N.Y.
GENERAL NUTRITION: March 2009 Trial Slated for "Ahussain" Case

MF GLOBAL: Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending in N.Y.
MF GLOBAL LTD: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Feb. 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $20M Settlement
PACIFIC STEEL: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Airborne Pollution
VEOLIA WATER: Seeks Dismissal of Overbilling Lawsuit in Indiana

VIRGIN MOBILE: Faces N.J. Consolidated Amended IPO-Related Suit
VIRGIN MOBILE: Seeks Dismissal of "Nevels" Suit in Mississippi
VOYAGER LEARNING: March 12, 2009 Hearing Set for $20M Settlement
YTB INT'L: Illinois Judge Wants Consolidation of Two Lawsuits


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN CAPITAL: Barroway Topaz Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
CBS CORP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing
CBS CORP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing
CHINA ORGANIC: Sarraf Gentile Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
GSI GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing

GSI GROUP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
GSI GROUP: Sarraf Gentile Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
UBS FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals


                           *********
  

ATRICURE INC: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Alleging Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
AtriCure, Inc. and its officers are facing a federal class-
action lawsuit seeking millions of dollars in damages for
allegedly lying on financial statements, Dave Greber of The
Western Star reports.

The 43-page class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio says AtriCure, of 6033
Schumacher Park Drive, West Chester, falsified financial filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from May 10,
2007 through Oct. 31, 2008.  The lawsuit, which names Chief
Executive Officer David Drachman and Chief Financial Officer
Julie Piton, also requests a jury, according to The Western
Star.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed the purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. 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. between May 10, 2007 and Oct. 31, 2008, inclusive (Class
Period) (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 16, 2008).

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 Oct. 31, 2008 AtriCure shocked investors when the company
revealed that it had received a letter from the U.S. Department
of Justice -- Civil Division (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 Nov. 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


BROCADE COMMS: Jan. 23, 2009 Hearing Set for $160M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 23, 2009 for the proposed
$160,098,500 settlement in the matter, "In re: Brocade
Securities Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 3:05-CV-02042-CRB,"
which was filed against Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.

The hearing will be held in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, 19th Floor, Courtroom 8, San Francisco, CA
94102.

                         Case Background

Brocade manufactures, among other things, products designed to
help information technology organizations manage and profit from
their data assets. Brocade is incorporated under the laws of
Delaware with its principal place of business in San Jose,
California.  KPMG was Brocade's external auditor during a
portion of the Class Period.

Beginning on May 19, 2005, six putative class-action lawsuits
alleging securities laws violations were filed against Brocade
and its officers and directors.  These actions were consolidated
before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division. In January, 2006, the Court
appointed the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System as
Lead Plaintiff and approved APERS' selection of Nix, Patterson &
Roach, LLP and Patton Roberts, PLLC as "Lead Counsel" in the
action.

On April 14, 2006, APERS filed a 105-page Consolidated Class
Action Complaint against Brocade, certain officers and directors
of Brocade, and KPMG.  

APERS alleged that Brocade and certain of its officers and
directors made false and misleading public statements and
omitted material information about Brocade's finances relating
to stock option grants and stock option based compensation in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 during the Class Period.

APERS alleged that KPMG misled investors by falsely stating that
Brocade's financial statements were prepared according to
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and that KPMG had
conducted its audits according to Generally Accepted Auditing
Standards.

This suit is "Brocade Securities Litigation, Consolidated Case
No. 3:05-CV-02042-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

For more information, contact:

          Eric Wetzel, Esq.
          Nix, Patterson & Roach
          205 Linda Drive
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Phone: 903-645-7333 or 512-474-7514
          Fax: 903-645-4415
          Web site: http://www.nixlawfirm.com/

               - and -
  
          In Re Brocade Securities Litigation Settlement
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 3266
          Portland, OR 97208
          Phone: 1-877-507-4370
          e-mail: questions@brocadeclasssettlement.com
          Web site: https://www.brocadeclasssettlement.com/


CELERA CORP: Consolidated Suit by Stock Purchasers Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class-action complaint against Applied
Biosystems, Inc. and some of its officers relating to the public
offering of Celera Group common stock remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Applied Biosystems and some of its officers are defendants in
the lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of Celera Group
common stock in its follow-on public offering of Celera Group
common stock completed on March 6, 2000.

In the offering, Applied Biosystems sold an aggregate of
approximately 4.4 million shares of Celera Group common stock at
a public offering price of $225 per share.

The lawsuit, which was commenced with the filing of several
complaints in April and May 2000, is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, and an amended
consolidated complaint was filed on Aug. 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus
used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or
misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged
opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its
supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to
providing patent protection to Celera's genomic-based products.

Although neither Celera nor Applied Biosystems ever sought, or
intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence
data, the complaint also alleges that Applied Biosystems did not
adequately disclose the risk that it would not be able to patent
this data.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
rescission, costs and expenses, and other relief as the court
deems proper.

On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as a class-
action lawsuit.

According to Celera Corporation's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 27, 2008, under the terms of the separation
agreement between Celera and Applied Biosystems, the company
agreed to indemnify Applied Biosystems for liabilities resulting
from the class action suit, as well as other actions pending on
the split-off date or that may arise in the future, to the
extent such actions are ultimately determined to relate to or
arise out of the Celera business, assets or liabilities, in each
case, to the extent not covered by Applied Biosystems'
insurance.

Celera Corp. -- http://www.celera.com-- is a healthcare  
business delivering personalized disease management through a
combination of products and services.  The Company operates in
three segments: a clinical laboratory testing service business
(Lab Services), a products business (Products), and a segment
which includes other activities under corporate management
(Corporate).  Its Lab Services business, conducted through
Berkeley HeartLab, Inc., (BHL), offers a portfolio of clinical
laboratory tests and disease management services to help
healthcare providers improve cardiovascular disease treatment
regimens for patients.  Its Products business develops,
manufactures, and oversees the commercialization of molecular
diagnostic products, which are commercialized through its
relationship with Abbott Molecular, a subsidiary of Abbott
Laboratories.  On July 1, 2008, Celera announced that it has
completed its split-off from Applera Corp.


CHINA ORGANIC: Responds to Allegations in December 12 Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES & LIAONING, China, December 16, 2008 -- China
Organic Agriculture, Inc. (OTCBB: CNOA) Chief Executive Officer
Jinsong Li responds to allegations contained in a press release
dated December 12th 2008.

     "The allegations contained in a Press Release dated
December 12th concerning a class action lawsuit filed against
China Organic Agriculture are completely without merit," said
Mr. Li.

     "We will vigorously defend China Organic against these
assertions and will continue to act in the interests of our
shareholders," he said.

China Organic Agriculture, Inc., formerly Industrial Electric
Services, Inc. -- http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is  
engaged in the business of rice production, processing and
distribution.  China Organic Agriculture, Ltd. is the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary.  It operates in three segments: Ankang,
the segment for the trading of agricultural products; ErMaPao,
the one for rice production and processing, and Bellisimo
Vineyard, the segment for wine production.


CITIGROUP INC: Feb. 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $35M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 27, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. for
the proposed $35,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re
Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation, Docket No. 02-cv-7966,"
which names Citigroup, Inc. as one of the defendants.

The settlement hearing will before the Honorable Gerard E.
Lynch, U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, Courtroom 6B, New York, New York 10007.

                         Case Background

In general, the plaintiffs allege that defendants Citicorp USA,
Inc., Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., their ultimate parent,
Citigroup, Inc., and SSB research analyst Jack Grubman engaged
in a scheme to defraud investors in Metromedia Fiber Network,
Inc., in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78a et seq., and the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R
Section 240.10b-5, by issuing and disseminating research analyst
reports on Metromedia that contained materially false and
misleading statements and omissions of material facts (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 26, 2008).

On Oct. 1, 2008, the parties reached a settlement under which
Citigroup will pay US$35 million to members of the settlement
class that purchased or otherwise acquired MFN securities during
the class period.  The settlement is subject of judicial
approval.

For more details, contact:

          IN RE Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation
          c/o Analytics, Inc., Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 2005
          Chanhassen, MN 55317-2005
          Phone: 1-866-233-5637
          Web site: http://www.metromediasettlement.com/


CSX CORP: Ky. Judge Approves $3M Settlement in Derailment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas B. Russell of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky gave final approval to the
$3,000,000 settlement in the matter, "Green et al v. CSX
Corporation et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00024-TBR-DW," Connie
Leonard of WAVE reports.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the judge signed off on the settlement.  In
recent months, attorneys sent out nearly 13,000 claim forms,
WAVE reported.

According to plaintiffs' attorneys more than 3,600 people filed
a claim.  The amounts will vary but, no one is allowed to
receive more than $10,000.  The attorneys will get one third of
the settlement, just over one million dollars, according to
WAVE.  

Previously, the Courthouse News Service reported that residents
of Shepherdsville and Brooks, Kentucky filed a class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky against CSX Transportation over a train derailment in
Bullitt County (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2007).

This class-action lawsuit arises out of a rail car derailment,
explosion, chemical fire, and chemical release beginning on Jan.
16, 2007, in or about the towns of Brooks and Shepherdsville in
Bullitt County, Kentucky.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants, on their own accord and
through their agents, servants and employees, caused a massive
rail car derailment, explosion, fire, and chemical release into
nearby communities.

Thousands of people facing evacuation filed claims for personal
injuries, nuisance and trespass.  They claim the derailment
released noxious gases, including cyclohexane, butadiene and
methyl ethyl ketone, and that CSX was negligent in informing
them about the derailment and the dangers it posed.

There are common questions of law and fact with respect to the
class regarding the Defendants' liability for the catastrophe,
including, but not limited to whether the Defendants' conduct
and/or actions have been intentional, negligent, wanton, a
nuisance, or otherwise wrongful:

      -- the cause and origin of the catastrophe,

      -- violations of the applicable rules, codes, and
         regulations,

      -- violations of standards of care,

      -- negligence precipitating the catastrophe and any
         failure to supervise, train and otherwise manage
         employees responsible for the train cars involved,

      -- failure to implement and follow safe operations
         procedures,

      -- failure to mitigate, evacuate, and otherwise prevent
         the catastrophe

      -- failure to timely warn persons at risk from the
         dangerousness of the catastrophe; and

      -- liability for punitive damages.

The plaintiffs and members of Plaintiffs' class pray that they
be awarded compensatory and punitive damages and recover
judgment against Defendants for the following:

     -- Reasonable and just compensation for injuries to
        interests in property, evacuation, shelter in place,
        and loss of use and enjoyment of property belonging to
        Plaintiffs and members of the class within the areas
        affected by the catastrophe;

     -- All expenses and economic losses, including but not
        limited to lost income and out-of-pocket expenses
        attendant to evacuation and/or shelter in place;

     -- Reasonable and just compensation and punitive damages
        for personal injuries, present and future medical
        expenses, nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict
        liability, in amounts to be determined by a jury, to the
        utmost amounts allowed by law;

     -- Appropriate attorney fees and costs and expenses
        incurred in connection with the litigation of this
        matter;

     -- For an injunction requiring the Defendants to make safe
        Plaintiffs' property and places of employment;

     -- That Summons and process issue as to the Defendants and
        that the Defendants be served Summons and a copy of this
        Class action complaint as required by law, and that
        Defendants be required to appear and answer;

     -- That this case be certified as a class action pursuant
        to applicable Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury; and

     -- For such other and further relief as this Court may deem
        just, proper, and equitable.

A copy of the suit is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18c1

The suit is "Green et al v. CSX Corporation et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00024-CRS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, Judge Charles R. Simpson
presiding.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         William L. Bross, Esq.
         Timothy C. Davis, Esq.
         Heninger Garrison Davis LLC
         2224 First Avenue North,
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-326-3336 or 205-326-3326
         Fax: 205-326-3332

         Ryan C. Reed, Esq.
         Lee L. Coleman, Esq.
         Hughes & Coleman
         P.O. Box 10120
         Bowling Green, KY 42102,
         Phone: 270-782-6003
         Fax: 270-843-0446 or 270-782-8820,
         e-mail: rreed@hughesandcoleman.com
                 lcoleman@hughesandcoleman.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: Appeals to Junked Andro Product Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York's order dismissing with prejudice several purported
class-action lawsuits against General Nutrition Centers, Inc.,
in connection with Andro Products are pending, according to
GNC'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 is defending against five lawsuits relating to the
sale by GNC of certain nutritional products alleged to contain
the ingredients commonly known as Androstenedione,
Androstenediol, Norandrostenedione, and Norandrostenediol
(AndroProducts).  These five lawsuits were filed in California,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

In each of the five cases, the plaintiffs have sought, or are
seeking, to certify a class and obtain damages on behalf of the
class representatives and all those similarly situated who
purchased certain nutritional supplements from the company
alleged to contain one or more Andro Products.

On April 17-18, 2006, the company filed pleadings seeking to
remove each of the Andro Actions to the respective federal
district courts in which the respective Andro Actions are
pending.  At the same time, the company filed motions seeking to
transfer each of the Andro Actions to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York based on "related to"
bankruptcy jurisdiction, as one of the manufacturers supplying
them with Andro Products, and to whom they sought indemnity --
MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc. -- filed for
bankruptcy.

The company was successful in removing the New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Florida Andro Actions to federal court.  These
actions were then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York based on bankruptcy jurisdiction.  
The California case was not removed and remains pending in state
court.

Following the conclusion of the MuscleTech Bankruptcy case, the
plaintiffs, in September 2007, filed a stipulation dismissing
all claims related to the sale of MuscleTech products in the
four cases currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Florida cases).

Additionally, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand these
actions to the respective state courts where they were
originally filed, asserting that the federal court is divested
of jurisdiction because the MuscleTech bankruptcy action is no
longer pending.  The motions to remand remain pending before the
District Court.

A more detailed description of the cases, listed by original
stated court proceeding and current style, follows:

(1) "Harry Rodriguez v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc."

    The case was previously pending with the Supreme Court of
    the State of New York, New York County, New York, Index No.
    02/126277.

    Upon its transfer to the U.S. District Court for the
    Southern District of New York, it was styled, "Harry
    Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
    similarly situated, v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.
    Case No. 1:06-cv-02987-JSR."

    The plaintiffs filed this putative class action suit on or
    about July 25, 2002.  The complaint, as amended, alleged
    claims for unjust enrichment, violation of General Business
    Law Section 349 (misleading and deceptive trade practices),
    and violation of General Business Law Section 350 (false
    advertising).

    On July 2, 2003, the court granted part of GNC's motion to
    dismiss the case, and dismissed the unjust enrichment cause
    of action.

    On Jan. 4, 2006, the court conducted a hearing on GNC's
    motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs' motion for
    class certification, both of which remain pending.

(2) "Everett Abrams v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc."

    The case was previously pending with the Superior Court of
    New Jersey, Mercer County, New Jersey, Docket No. L-3789-02.
    Upon transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
    District of New York, it was styled "Everett Abrams,
    individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
    v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-
    07881-JSR."

    The plaintiffs filed this putative class action on July 25,
    2002.  The complaint, as amended, alleged claims for false
    and deceptive marketing and omissions and violations of the
    New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

    On Nov. 18, 2003, the court signed an order dismissing the
    plaintiff's claims for affirmative misrepresentation and
    sponsorship with prejudice.  The claim for knowing omissions
    remains pending.

(3) "Shawn Brown, Ozan Cirak, Thomas Hannon, and Luke Smith v.
    General Nutrition Companies, Inc."

    The case was previously pending with the 15th Judicial
    Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, Index. No. CA-02-
    14221AB.   Upon its transfer to the U.S. District Court for
    the Southern District of New York, it was styled "Shawn
    Brown, Ozan Cirak, Thomas Hannon and Like Smith, each
    individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
    v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
    06356-UA."

    The plaintiffs filed this putative class action on July 25,
    2002.  The complaint, as amended, alleged claims for
    violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
    Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida
    Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act.  These claims
    remain pending.

(4) "Andrew Toth v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., et al."

    The case was previously pending with the Common Pleas Court
    of Philadelphia County, Philadelphia, Class Action No. 02-
    703886.   Upon transfer to the U.S. District Court for the
    Southern District of New York, it was styled "Andrew Toth
    and Richard Zatta, each individually and on behalf of all
    others similarly situated v. Bodyonics, LTD, d/b/a Pinnacle
    and General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-
    02721-JSR."

    The plaintiffs filed this putative class action suit on
    July 25, 2002.  The complaint, as amended, alleged claims
    for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
    Protection Law, and unjust enrichment.  The court denied the
    plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and that order
    has been affirmed on appeal.

    The plaintiffs thereafter filed a petition in the
    Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking that the court consider an
    appeal of the order denying class certification.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the petition after the
    case against GNC was removed.

    The Claims for the violations of the Unfair Trade Practices
    and Consumer Protection Law and unjust enrichment remain
    pending.

(5) Guzman Litigation

    The suit "Santiago Guzman, individually, on behalf of all
    others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
    public v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.," was previously
    pending with the California Judicial Counsel, Coordination
    Proceeding No. 4363, Los Angeles County Superior Court.

    The plaintiffs filed this putative class action on Feb. 17,
    2004.  The complaint, as amended, alleged claims for
    violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of
    the Unfair Competition Act, and unjust enrichment.

    The plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on
    Feb. 13, 2008.  GNC filed its Motion opposing certification
    on March 12, 2008, and oral argument was heard on June 10,
    2008.  The Court has not yet decided on the Certification
    Motion.

                           Mediation

On Jan. 25, 2008, a mediation was held for the Andro Actions and
no resolution was reached.  On June 4, 2008, the U.S. District
Court (on its own motion) set a hearing for July 14, 2008, for
the purpose of hearing argument as to why the Rodriguez, Abrams,
Brown and Toth cases should not be dismissed for failure to
prosecute in conformity to the Courts Case Management Orders.

Following the hearing, the court advised that all four cases
would be dismissed with prejudice and issued an Order to that
effect on July 29, 2008.  On Aug. 25, 2008 plaintiffs appealed
the dismissal of the four cases.

In the Guzman case in California, plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification was denied on Sept. 8, 2008. Plaintiffs appealed
on Oct. 31, 2008.

On Oct. 3, 2008, the plaintiffs in the five other Andro Actions
filed another suit related to the sale of Andro products in
state court in Illinois, "Stephens and Pio v. General Nutrition
Companies, Inc." (Case No. 08 CH 37097, Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division).  

The allegations are substantially similar to all of the other
Andro Actions, as well as another case, "Pio and McDonald v.
General Nutrition Companies, Inc." (Case No. 02 CH 14122,
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division), which was dismissed on Oct. 4, 2007, for
want of prosecution.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a  
holding company that, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
global specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements (VMHS)
products, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.  Its product mix is sold under its GNC
brands, including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance and
Preventive Nutrition, and under third-party brands.  The company
operates through three business segments: Retail, Franchise and
Manufacturing/Wholesale. The Retail segment generates revenues
primarily from sales of products to customers at Company-owned
stores in the U.S. and Canada, and through GNC's Web site at
http://www.gnc.com/ The Franchise segment consists of the  
Company's domestic and international franchise operations.  The
Manufacturing/Wholesale segment consists of GNC's manufacturing
operations in South Carolina and its wholesale sales business.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Class Certification in "Casarez" Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Motion for Class Certification in a lawsuit, captioned
"Casarez, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers Inc., et al., Case
No. 8:2007cv00875," was denied on Sept. 9, 2008, according to
GNC's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On April 24, 2007, Kristin Casarez and Tyler Goodell filed the
lawsuit against the company in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Orange.  The company later
removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The plaintiffs purport to bring the action on their own behalf,
on behalf of a class of all current and former non-exempt
employees of GNC throughout the State of California employed on
or after Aug. 24, 2004, and as private attorney general on
behalf of the general public.

The plaintiffs allege that they and the members of the putative
class were not provided all of the rest periods and meal periods
to which they were entitled under California law.  They further
allege that GNC failed to pay them split shift and overtime
compensation to which they were entitled to under California
law.

The plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on May
2, 2008.  GNC afterward filed a reply motion opposing the
certification request.  Oral argument on the Certification
Motion was held on Aug. 11, 2008.

On Sept. 9, 2008, plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was
denied from which plaintiffs did not file an interlocutory
appeal.

On Nov. 4, 2008, individual members of the purported class
refiled their individual claims against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange.

The suit is "Casarez, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers Inc et
al., Case No. 8:2007cv00875," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge James V. Selna
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq. (jps@spencerlaw.net)
         Jeffrey P Spencer Law Offices
         635 Camino De Los Mares, Ste. 312
         San Clemente, CA 92673
         Phone: 949-240-8595

              - and -

         Jeffrey N. Wilens, Esq. (jeff@lakeshorelaw.org)
         Lakeshore Law Center
         17476 Yorba Linda Blvd, Ste 221
         Yorba Linda, CA 92886
         Phone: 714-854-7205

Representing the defendants is:

         Maria R. Harrington, Esq. (mharrington@littler.com)
         Littler Mendelson
         2050 Main Street, Suite 900
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Phone: 949-705-3000
         Fax: 949-724-1201


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Complaint Over Creatine Claims in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and one of the Company's wholly
owned subsidiaries, General Nutrition Corporation, faces a
complaint filed by plaintiff S.K., on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated.

The plaintiff filed the complaint on Oct. 29, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff makes certain allegations regarding consumption of
GNC products containing creatine and GNC's alleged failure to
warn consumers of those risks.

The plaintiff asserts, among other things, claims for deceptive
sales practices, fraud, breach of implied contract, strict
liability and related tort claims.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, according to
GNC's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a  
holding company that, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
global specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements (VMHS)
products, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.  Its product mix is sold under its GNC
brands, including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance and
Preventive Nutrition, and under third-party brands.  The company
operates through three business segments: Retail, Franchise and
Manufacturing/Wholesale. The Retail segment generates revenues
primarily from sales of products to customers at Company-owned
stores in the U.S. and Canada, and through GNC's Web site at
http://www.gnc.com/ The Franchise segment consists of the  
Company's domestic and international franchise operations.  The
Manufacturing/Wholesale segment consists of GNC's manufacturing
operations in South Carolina and its wholesale sales business.


GENERAL NUTRITION: March 2009 Trial Slated for "Ahussain" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
A March 2009 trial is slated for the purported class-action
suit, "Ahussain v. GNC Franchising LLC, Case No. 8:2006cv01090,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against units of General Nutrition
Centers, Inc.

On Nov. 7, 2006, Abdul Ahussain, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, sued GNC Franchising, LLC, and
General Nutrition Corp.

The plaintiffs, who are all current franchisees, filed a
putative class action lawsuit seeking to certify a class of
current and former California GNCF franchisees.

The suit alleges that GNC engages in unfair business practices
designed to earn a profit at its franchisees' expense.  

These alleged practices include:

       -- requiring its franchises to carry slow moving
          products, which cannot be returned to GNC after
          expiration, with the franchise bearing the loss;
      
       -- requiring franchised stores to purchase new or
          experimental products, effectively forcing the
          franchisees to provide free market research;

       -- using the Gold Card program to collect information on
          franchised store customers and then soliciting
          business from such customers;

       -- underselling its franchised stores by selling products
          through the GNC website at prices below or close to
          the wholesale price, thereby forcing franchises to
          sell the same products at a loss; and

       -- manipulating prices at which franchised stores can
          purchase products from third-party suppliers, so as to
          maintain GNC's favored position as a product
          wholesaler.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an unspecified amount and
equitable and injunctive relief.

On March 19, 2008, the court certified a class as to only
plaintiffs' claim for violation of California Business &
Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq.

The class consists of all persons or entities who are or were
GNC franchisees in the State of California from Nov. 13, 2002,
to the date of adjudication.

The plaintiffs' other claims remain as individual claims in this
lawsuit.

A trial is scheduled for March 2009, according to GNC'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 "Ahussain v. GNC Franchising LLC, Case No. 8:2006-
cv-01090," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Judge David O. Carter, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Abel E. Aguilera, Esq. (eaguilera@bmkalaw.com)
          Bohm Matsen Kegel and Aguilera
          695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-384-6500

               - and -

          Omar Ahmed Siddiqui, Esq. (osiddiqui@usllp.com)
          Ulwelling Siddiqui
          Park Tower
          695 Town Center Drive
          Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-384-6650

Representing the defendants are:

          Christopher C. Eck, Esq. (chris-eck@gnc-hq.com)
          General Nutrition Corporation
          300 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-288-4600

               - and -

          Brad A. Funari, Esq. (bfunari@mcguirewoods.com)
          McGuire Woods
          Dominion Tower
          625 Liberty Avenue, 23rd - 27th Floors
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-667-6000


MF GLOBAL: Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed
against MF Global, Ltd., Man Group plc, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters for
the Initial Public Offering remains pending in New York.

Initially, five purported class-action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

These actions, which purport to be brought as class-actions on
behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the
IPO and Feb. 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under
Section 11, 12, and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 for
alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the
company's risk management and monitoring practices and
procedures.

The five purported shareholder class-actions have been
consolidated for all purposes into a single action.

No further updates regarding the consolidated matter were
disclosed in 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 consolidated suit is "Rubin v. MF Global, Ltd. et al, Case
No. 1:08-cv-02233-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr., Esq.
          (racocelli@weisslurie.com)
          Weiss & Lurie
          The Fred French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10176
          Phone: 212-682-3025
          Fax: 212-682-3010

               - and -

          William J. Ban, Esq. (wban@barrack.com)
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          Fax: 215-963-0838

Representing the defendants are:

          David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com)
          Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-403-1000
          Fax: 212-403-2000

               - and -

          David A. Barrett, Esq. (dbarrett@bsfllp.com)
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
          333 Main St.
          New York, NY 10504
          Phone: 212-446-2310
          Fax: 212-446-2350


MF GLOBAL LTD: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MF Global Ltd. seeks dismissal of a purported class-action suit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The company and certain of its executive officers and directors
have been named as defendants in the purported class-action
lawsuit.

This action, which purports to be brought as a class-action suit
on behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between March 17,
2008 and June 20, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under
Sections 10 and 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the
company's financial results and projections and capital
structure.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss, according to its  
Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

MF Global Ltd. -- http://www.mfglobal.com/-- is a broker of  
exchange-listed futures and options.  It provides execution and
clearing services for exchange-traded and over-the-counter
(OTC), derivative products, as well as for non-derivative
foreign exchange products and securities in the cash market.  It
provides its clients with access to many of the financial
markets worldwide.  MF Global provides its clients with three
primary types of products: exchange-traded derivatives, OTC
derivatives and cash products.  It provides these services
through dedicated broker teams focused on particular markets.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Feb. 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $20M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 27, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. For
the proposed $20,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re:
Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309
(DLC))," which was filed against the Openwave Systems, Inc.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Denise Cote, at
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 11B, New York, NY 10007.

                         Case Background

Initially, between Feb. 21 and March 27, 2007, four
substantially similar securities class-action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Openwave and four current and former officers
of the company.

The complaints purport to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Openwave stock from Sept. 30, 2002,
through Oct. 26, 2006, and allege that during the class period,
the defendants engaged in improper stock options backdating and
issued materially false and misleading statements in the
company's public filings and press releases regarding the manner
in which Openwave granted and accounted for the options.

Based on these allegations, the complaints assert two causes of
action -- one against all defendants for violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and a second against the individual defendants for violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On April 25, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
filed a joint motion to transfer the actions to the Northern
District of California where the related shareholder derivative
class actions are pending.

On May 18, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating the
four securities class action suits into a single action
captioned "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master
File 07-1309 (DLC))," and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint.  The consolidated and amended
complaint adds 17 additional defendants, including:

     * several current and former Openwave officers and
       directors,

     * KPMG LLP,

     * Merrill Lynch,

     * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     * Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     * J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and

     * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

The consolidated and amended complaint alleges claims for
violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, as well as claims for violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 arising out
of the company's 2005 public offering.  It seeks money damages,
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company is required under contracts with the individual
defendants to indemnify them under certain circumstances for
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System was appointed as lead
plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead
counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated actions and the
class.

On Aug. 10, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated and amended class action complaint.  On Oct. 31,
2007, the court granted the motions to dismiss claims asserted
under the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants against
whom those claims were asserted, and granted the motion to
dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims against
certain of the officer and director defendants.  

However, the motion to dismiss the Exchange claims asserted
against Openwave and certain of the other director and officer
defendants was denied.

As a result of the court's decision, KPMG LLP, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Lehman Brothers Inc., J.P. Morgan
Securities, and Thomas Weisel Partners have all been dismissed
as defendants from the consolidated lawsuit.

The remaining defendants are the company, certain former
officers of the company, and certain former and current
directors of the company.

On Aug. 5, 2008, the company announced their preliminary
financial results for fiscal 2008.  Subsequently, they reached
an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action
lawsuit, which resulted in a $5.0 million net expense recorded
in the fiscal 2008 results.

The suit is "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation
(Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Denise L. Cote,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laura Helen Gundersheim, Esq. (Laurag@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1463
          Fax: 212-554-1444

               - and -

          Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          Marshall Ross King, Esq. (mking@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: 212-351-3905
          Fax: 212-351-5243

               - and -

          Andrew W. Stern, Esq. (astern@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-839-5300
          Fax: 212-839-5599


PACIFIC STEEL: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Airborne Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Steel Casting Co. is still facing a class-action suit
filed on April 22, 2008 in and for the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda accusing it of polluting
the air with magnesium, nickel, particulates and other toxins
from its three plants in Berkeley.

The lawsuit was filed by Berkeley attorney Timothy P. Rumberger,
Esq.  It seeks an end to the alleged toxic air emissions the
plant puts out and offers the company an alternative to fixing
the alleged pollution -- relocation, according to Kristin Bender
of the Oakland Tribune.

The CourtHouse News Service reported that according to the
complaint, for 75 years, PSC has been releasing toxic fumes and
hazardous metals, magnesium, nickel and particulate matter on
its downwind neighbors in the homes surrounding the three
industrial plants off Second Street in Berkeley, California
(Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2008).

As a proximate result of defendants' acts of omission and
commission arising from the negligent operation of PSC,
plaintiffs have endured inconvenience, nuisance, trespass upon
their owned or leased property, battery unto their persons,
violation of their right to quiet enjoyment of their homes, and
such ordinary emotional distress as is reasonably foreseeable
from suffering defendants' acts and omissions.

Named plaintiff Rosie Lee Evans brings this action on behalf of
all persons proximately damaged by defendants' conduct of
polluting the downwind neighborhood with airborne contamination
including particulate matter, manganese, nickel, noxious fumes
and odors generating from PSC.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants committed and participated in the
         acts alleged;

     (b) whether defendants breached duties of care;

     (c) whether defendants acted recklessly and willfully;

     (d) whether defendants committed violations of law;

     (e) whether defendants' conduct constitutes negligence;

     (f) whether defendants' conduct constitutes battery;

     (g) whether defendants' conduct constitutes trespass;

     (h) whether defendants' conduct constitutes a public
         nuisance;

     (i) whether defendants' conduct constitutes private
         nuisance;

     (j) whether defendants' conduct constitutes intentional
         misrepresentation;

     (k) whether defendants' conduct constitutes a violation of
         Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (l) whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages for
         nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience, and loss of
         enjoyment of legal rights, emotional distress, among
         other damages and, if so, what is the appropriate means
         of calculating such monetary damages; and

     (m) what is the liability of defendants, and each of them,
         for causing these damages suffered by all plaintiffs as
         a proximate result of plaintiffs' exposure to the
         harmful or offensive emissions from PSC.

The plaintiff ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the proposed class;

     -- compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
        trial or other expedited alternative procedures adopted
        by the court;

     -- punitive and exemplary damages in an amount
        appropriate and sufficient to punish defendants, and
        deter others from engaging in similar misconduct in the
        future;

     -- an order requiring defendants to implement
        appropriate mitigation procedures, staffing and
        equipment upgrades to restore and preserve the quality
        of the air in the residential neighborhood downwind of
        PSC;

     -- penalties, disgorged profits and attorneys' fees
        pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.;

     -- costs of removal of any harmful substances from
        plaintiffs' real and personal property and all
        other related remedial action;

     -- interest on the amount of any economic losses,
        at the prevailing legal rate;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to California
        Civil Code 1021.5; and

     -- for costs of suit and any and all such other relief as
        the court deems just and proper.

The lawsuit is "Rosie Lee Evans et al. v. Pacific Steel Casting
Company, Case No. RG08-383068," filed with the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Alameda.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq. (tim@rumbergerlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Timothy P. Rumberger
          2161 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 200
          Berkeley, California 94704-1313
          Phone: (510) 841-5500
          Fax: (510) 841-5501


VEOLIA WATER: Seeks Dismissal of Overbilling Lawsuit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
Veolia Water, the private manager of the Indianapolis waterworks
is asking a judge to dismiss a purported class-action lawsuit  
that accuses it of overbilling customers, Jon Murray of the
Indianapolis Star reports.

Veolia Water Indianapolis, a subsidiary of a French company,
treats and distributes water and handles billing for the
utility's more than 250,000 customers, reports the Indianapolis
Star.

The suit -- filed on April 23, 2008 in Marion Superior Court --
accused Veolia of failing to take required bimonthly meter
readings, relying too often on inflated usage estimates during
typically low-consumption periods (Class Action Reporter April
25, 2008).

Stewart & Irwin, P.C., filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf
of two plaintiffs and over 250,000 residential water consumers
served by Veola Water in Central Indiana (Class Action Reporter
April 28, 2008).

The complaint specifically alleges Veolia Water failed to read
the meters of its customers at least every two months as
required by law and overestimated water usage for thousands of
its customers.  It also alleges that Veolia Water overcharged
their customers for late fees as well as breached their
agreement with Indianapolis Water, and committed deceptive acts
including fraud.

The complaint has been filed individually on behalf of David
Lear, an Indianapolis resident, Jason Bond, a Zionsville
resident, and seeks class action status on behalf of all 250,000
residential customers served by Veolia Water in Central Indiana.

For more information, contact:

          Stewart & Irwin, P.C.
          251 East Ohio Street, Suite 1100
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 639-5454
          Fax: (317) 632-1319


VIRGIN MOBILE: Faces N.J. Consolidated Amended IPO-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Virgin Mobile USA, Inc., certain of the its officers and
directors, and other defendants, face a consolidated amended
complaint in the purported class-action lawsuit before the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  

Initially, two federal class-action lawsuits were filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Each suit alleges that the prospectus and registration statement
filed pursuant to the company's IPO contained materially false
and misleading statements in violation of the Securities Act of
1933, and additionally alleges that at the time of the IPO the
Company was aware, but did not disclose, that results for the
third quarter of 2007 indicated widening losses and slowing
subscriber growth trends.

On Jan 7, 2008, the company filed a motion to consolidate all
cases with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York for pre-trial purposes.

On April 7, 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted the motion and consolidated the cases with
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On March 17, 2008, the district court judge in the New Jersey
matter appointed the New Jersey plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs
for the litigation.  

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 16,
2008.

On July 15, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on Oct. 6, 2008, and
the Company filed a reply brief on Nov. 5, 2008.  An oral
argument date has not yet been set, 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: Seeks Dismissal of "Nevels" Suit in Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virgin Mobile USA, Inc.'s Proposed Order to the Court dismissing
the complaint, "Nevels v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al." remains
pending.

The Company is one of seven defendants named in a class-action
lawsuit filed on May 14, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution,
attorneys' fees, and other costs under the Communications Act of
1934 based on their allegations that the defendants improperly:

   (1) prohibit customers from disabling text messaging
       services; and

   (2) charge customers for receipt of unsolicited text
       messages.

On Aug. 29, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

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, plaintiffs failed to respond to the motion
and on Sept. 25, 2008, the Company submitted a Proposed Order to
the Court dismissing the complaint.

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.


VOYAGER LEARNING: March 12, 2009 Hearing Set for $20M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
will hold a fairness hearing on March 12, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. For
the proposed $20,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re:
ProQuest Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-10619-
AC-MKM," which was filed against Voyager Learning Co., formerly
known as ProQuest Co.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Avern Cohn in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit,
MI  48226.

                        Case Background

Between February and April 2006, four putative securities class-
action complaints, now consolidated and designated as "In re
ProQuest Company Securities Litigation," were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the
company and certain of its former and then-current officers and
directors (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 15, 2008).

Each of these substantially similar lawsuits alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the
associated Rule 10b-5, in connection with the company's proposed
restatement.

On May 2, 2006, the court consolidated the four cases and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel.  By
stipulation of the parties, the consolidated lawsuit was stayed
pending restatement of the company's financial statements.

The lead plaintiffs subsequently asked the Court to lift the
stay of proceedings to enable them to file a consolidated
complaint, which they did on July 17, 2006.  

The defendants then filed motions for sanctions under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint.

Rather than respond to these motions, the lead plaintiffs moved
to reinstate the stay of proceedings, which was granted.

On Dec. 4, 2006, the Court again lifted the stay of proceedings
and ordered the lead plaintiffs to either respond to the
previously filed motions to dismiss and for sanctions, or to
file an Amended Consolidated Complaint.

On Jan. 24, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed their Amended
Consolidated Complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss on
March 15, 2007.

On July 22, 2008, Voyager Learning Co. reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated shareholder securities
class-action lawsuit.

The settlement will be funded largely by insurance.  Under the
terms of the agreement, the company would pay approximately $5
million in fees and settlement amounts to settle the class
action with remaining amounts to be paid by the insurers.  

The settlement is subject to completion of a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement to be signed by the parties, preliminary
and final court approval and the participation of a sufficient
percentage of the putative class.  

There is no assurance that a final Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement will be completed, court approval will be obtained or
putative class member participation will be sufficient.

The court has indicated that all fact and expert discovery must
be completed by October 2008, but no dates have yet been set for
dispositive motions or trial.  

The suit is "In Re: ProQuest Company Securities Litigation, Case
No. 2:06-cv-10619-AC-MKM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Avern Cohn, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq. (ffox@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          NY, NY 10022  
          Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714
          Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 667.7706
          Fax: (610) 667.7056
          Web site: http://www.sbtklaw.com/

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael J. Faris, Esq. (michael.faris@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5800
          Chicago, IL 60606-6401
          Phone: 312-876-7700
          Fax: 312-993-9767

               - and -

          George B. Donnini, Esq. (donnini@butzel.com)
          Butzel Long
          150 W. Jefferson, Suite 100
          Detroit, MI 48226-4430
          Phone: 313-225-7000
          Fax: 313-225-7080


YTB INT'L: Illinois Judge Wants Consolidation of Two Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois told attorneys for two competing
class-action lawsuits against YTB International, Inc. to get
together and find a way to consolidate the two cases, Sanford J.
Schmidt of The Telegraph reports.

At a recent hearing, Judge Murphy told the two sides he was
unwilling to hear two parallel cases at the same time.  The
judge said, "We're not going to be hearing two cases at one
time."  He added, "It makes a lot of sense to file one
complaint," according to The Telegraph.

However, Judge Murphy pointed out that even if the suits were
consolidated, the earliest trial date would be in 2010.  To that
end, the judge gave the lawyers two weeks to come up with an
agreement to consolidate the cases, or he would issue an order
of his own choosing, reports The Telegraph.

Previously, Steve Gonzalez of the Madison County Record reported
that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois set a Dec. 8, 2008 status conference for two purported
class-action lawsuits against YTB International, Inc., which
alleges that the company is an illegal pyramid scheme (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2008).

One of the suits was filed by Faye Morrison and Kwame Thompson
on Aug. 8, 2008.  They seek to represent a putative class who
allege YTB operates an illegal pyramid sales scheme and employs
an illegal chain referral sales technique in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Ms. Morrison, of St. Louis and Mr. Thompson, of Atlanta, acted
as both independent marketing representatives (IMRs) and
referring travel agents (RTAs) for YTB.  Their suit seeks at
least $100 million in damages on behalf of the putative class,
the Madison County Record reports.

The two have retained Rex Carr, Christian Montroy and Michael
Marker of East St. Louis to represent them.  In addition, Jay
Kanzler, Jr., and Brian Massimino of St. Louis will assist in
representing the class.

The Madison County Record reported that the second purported
class-action suit against YTB and its subsidiaries was filed by
Jeffrey and Polly Hartman.  Their suit is almost identical to
the first case, however they are represented by different
lawyers.  They filed their lawsuit, captioned, "Hartman et al.
v. YTB International, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-00579-MJR-
CJP," seven days after the first one.

John Carey, Tiffany Marko and Francis "Casey" Flynn of Carey &
Danis in St. Louis represent the Hartmans, according to the
Madison County Record.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN CAPITAL: Barroway Topaz Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     RADNOR, Pa., Dec. 15, 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 District
of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of securities of American
Capital Ltd. (Nasdaq: ACAS) ("American Capital" or the"Company")
between October 30, 2007 and November 7, 2008, inclusive
(the"Class Period").

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

     American Capital is an "alternative asset management
company" that claims to be the largest U.S. publicly traded
private equity fund and one of the largest publicly traded
alternative asset managers.

     More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

       -- that the Company had far greater exposure
          todisruptions in the credit markets than disclosed;

       -- that the Company planned to retain capital gains from
          its investments rather than distributing them to
          shareholders;

       -- that as a result, the Company would have to
          drastically alter its dividend policy;

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

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          statements about its financial well-being, future
          business prospects and dividend payments were lacking
          in any reasonable basis when made.

     Throughout the Class Period and most of the Company's
history, investors were lured to invest in American Capital's
stock due to its large and dependable dividend payments. During
the Class Period, investors were repeatedly assured that such
dividend payments would continue, and that the Company was in
sound financial condition.

     However, on November 10, 2008, the Company shocked
investors when it reported a quarterly loss, suspended
dividends, and stated that it would retain capital gains from
investments as opposed to distributing them to shareholders as
previously stated.

     Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell
$5.90 per share,or 42.85 percent, to close on November 10, 2008
at $7.87 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  

     As the market continued to absorb the Company's
announcement, American Capital's shares continued to fall, and
finally closed on November 12, 2008 at $6.03 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


CBS CORP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, CT, Dec. 15, 2008 -- 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 Southern District of New York on behalf
of those who purchased the common stock of CBS Corporation
(NYSE: CBS) ("CBS" or the "Company") between February 26,
2008and October 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that CBS and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false
and misleading statements about the Company's financial
condition.

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose:

       -- that adverse market conditions had materially impaired
          CBS's operations, expected cash flows and the value of
          its intangible assets,including goodwill;
   
       -- that the Company's reported goodwill and intangible          
          assets were materially overstated;

       -- that the Company's reported equity capital was
          materially overstated;

       -- that, as a result of its failure to timely write down
          impaired intangible and good will assets, the
          Company's financial results were materially
          overstated;

       -- that the Company's financial statements were not
          prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
          Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

       -- that the Company's balance sheet was not "pristine,"
          "extremely strong" or"extremely healthy;" and
         
       -- that the Company's cash flow from operations was
          declining at a significant rate.

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


CBS CORP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Dec. 15, 2008 -- Stull, Stull & Brody
announces that a class action has been commenced in the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of CBS Corporation
("CBS" or the "Company") (NYSE: CBS) common stock during the
period between February 26, 2008 and October10, 2008 (the "Class
Period").

     The complaint charges CBS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. CBS operates as a massmedia company in the United States
and internationally. It operates in four segments: Television,
Radio, Outdoor, and Publishing.

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

     Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose:

       -- that adverse market conditions had materially impaired
          CBS' soperations, expected cash flows and the value of
          its intangible assets,including goodwill;

       -- that the Company's reported goodwill and intangible
          assets, which ranged between 69% - 73% of CBS's total
          assets and131% - 137% of CBS's total equity during the
          Class Period, were materially overstated;

       -- that the Company reported equity capital during the
          Class Period that was materially overstated;

       -- that, as a result of its failure to timely write-down
          impaired intangible and goodwill assets, the Company's
          financial results during the Class Period were
          materially overstated;

       -- that the Company's financial statements were not
          prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
          Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and, therefore, were
          materially false and misleading;

       -- that the Company'sbalance sheet was not "pristine,"
          "extremely strong" or "extremelyhealthy;"

       -- that the Company's cash flow from operations was
          declining at a significant rate; and

       -- that Defendants' positive statements concerning the
          Company's free cash flow, including Defendant
          Moonves' representation that CBS "clearly has the
          right broad range of assets to produce outstanding
          free cash flow quarter after quarter, year after
          year," were materially false and misleading and
          without reasonable basis.

     According to the complaint, on October 10, 2008, CBS issued
a press release announcing that it "expects to incur a non-cash
impairment charge of approximately $14 Billion, in the third
quarter of 2008."  In response to this announcement, the price
of CBS common stock declined from $10.14 to$8.10, on very heavy
trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased or otherwise acquired CBS common stock during the
Class Period, which is between February 26, 2008 and October 10,
2008.

For more details, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 212/490-2022
          e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


CHINA ORGANIC: Sarraf Gentile Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Dec. 12, 2008 -- On December 12, 2008, the
law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP commenced a securities fraud
class action lawsuit on behalf of those investors who acquired
the securities of China Organic Agriculture, Inc. ("China
Organic" or the "Company") during the period July 12, 2007 to
August 14, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleges violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and names as defendants China Organic and certain of its
officers and directors.

     According to the complaint, the defendants took the Company
public in early 2007 and made numerous statements during the
Class Period regarding the Company's prospects and sales.

     Defendants, for example, claimed to be developing organic
rice for sale in China, but according to the complaint, never
developed any kind of product that could be sold at a
competitive price.

     According to the complaint these and other Class Period
statements were false and misleading, designed to inflate the
price of the Company's stock.  

     Indeed, according to the complaint, insiders sold tens of
millions of dollars worth of Company stock during the Class
Period, acquired for themselves a luxury retreat in California,
sold off the Company's only significant operation and within
eighteen months of taking the Company public left only an empty
shell and huge shareholder losses.

For more information, contact:

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


GSI GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BALA CYNWYD, PA, Dec. 15, 2008 -- Law office of Brodsky &
Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of GSI
Group Inc. ("GSI Group" or the "Company") between April 30, 2008
and December 3, 2008 (the "Class Period").  

     The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of GSI Group.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


GSI GROUP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, CT., Dec. 15, 2008 -- 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 Massachusetts on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of GSI
Group, Inc. ("GSI Group" or the "Company") between April 30,
2008 and December 3, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that GSI Group and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing false and misleading statements about the Company's
business operations and prospects.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following:

       -- that the Company improperly recognized revenue;
      
       -- that as a result, the Company misstated its financial
          results during the Class Period;

       -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared
          in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles;

       -- that GSI Group lacked adequate internal and financial
          controls; and

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

     On December 4, 2008 the Company announced that it would
restate its financial statements for the first and second fiscal
quarters of 2008.  On this news, shares of GSI Group fell
approximately 29% to close at $0.68 per share.

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


GSI GROUP: Sarraf Gentile Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Dec. 15, 2008 -- Sarraf Gentile LLP announces
that on December 12, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against GSI Group Inc. ("GSI Group") and certain
of its officers on behalf of a Class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of GSI Group
between April 30, 2008 and December 3, 2008, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated
the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

     According to the complaint, GSI Group supplies precision
technology to medical, electronics and industrial markets.
Throughout the Class Period, the complaint alleges, defendants'
public statements were false and misleading or failed to
disclose or indicate the following:

       -- that GSI Group improperly recognized revenue;

       -- that GSI Group misstated its financial results during
          the Class Period;

       -- that GSI Group's financial results were not prepared
          in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles;

       -- that GSI Group lacked adequate internal and financial
          controls; and

       -- as a result, GSI Group's financial statements were
          materially false and misleading.

     According to the complaint, when GSI Group announced on
December 4, 2008, that it would restate its financial
statements, its stock declined $0.28 per share, or 29%, to close
at $0.68 per share.

For more information, contact:

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


UBS FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Dec. 15, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s ("LBHI")
(Pink Sheets:LEHMQ) 100% Principal Protection Notes
(collectively, "Lehman Principal Protection Notes") from UBS
Financial Services, Inc. ("UBS" or the "Company") (NYSE:UBS)
between May 30, 2006 and September 15, 2008, inclusive (the
"Class Period") and which were underwritten and sold by UBS.

     The Complaint charges UBS with violations of federal
securities laws.  Among other things, plaintiff claims that
defendant issued materially false and misleading statements or
failed to disclose material adverse facts relating to the
marketing and sale of Lehman Principal Protection Notes.

     Lehman Principal Protection Notes were marketed and
represented to investors to offer "100% Principal Protection"
and guaranteed preservation of investors' capital if the Notes
were held to maturity.

     The Complaint alleges that the Company's public statements
were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the
following:

       -- the risk that, upon maturity, LBHI would be unable to
          repay the "guaranteed" return of principal on Lehman
          Principal Protection Notes; and

       -- the risk that LBHI's "guarantee" of 100% principal
          protection was subject to LBHI's undisclosed exposure
          to losses from its real estate and mortgage portfolio
          and other material undisclosed risks associated with
          LBHI 's business and accounting practices.

     On September 15, 2008, LBHI filed a voluntary petition for
bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

     The bankruptcy proceeding exposed that LBHI had excessive,
undisclosed exposure to losses from its real estate and mortgage
investments, and that LBHI lacked sufficient capital to cover
those losses.

     Following the bankruptcy petition, UBS notified holders of
Lehman Principal Protection Notes that "The immediate effect of
LBHI's bankruptcy filing is that you will not receive any
payments on your LBHI structured product as scheduled under the
terms of the structured product.

     Instead, as a holder of a senior unsecured debt instrument
of LBHI, you have a claim as a senior unsecured creditor against
LBHI's bankruptcy estate." UBS further stated that holders of
Lehman Principal Protection Notes "may not receive anything" in
the bankruptcy.

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


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
December 9-11, 2008
  DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Millennium Broadway Hotel, New York
        Phone: 888-224-2480

December 17-18, 2008
  TOP 10 INSURANCE ISSUES CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Loews Hotel
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

January 21-22, 2009
  14TH ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
    American Conference Institute
      TBD, New York, New York
        Phone: 888-224-2480

May 18-19, 2009
  5TH ANNUAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FORUM ON PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST
    American Conference Institute
      TBD, Washington, District of Columbia
        Phone: 888-224-2480

July 9-10, 2009
  CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND
    DEFENSE STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

July 9-10, 2009
  INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Langham Hotel
        Boston, Massachusetts
          Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS


                            *********

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  * * *