CAR_Public/081218.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 251
  
                            Headlines

ALLSTATE LIFE: Appeal on Consolidated EEOC & Romero Suit Pending
ALLSTATE LIFE: Appeal to Agents Pension Plan Suit Ruling Pending
ALLSTATE LIFE: Faces Ex-Agents' Suit for Constructive Discharge
AT&T BROADBAND: Faces Fla. Litigation Over "Redlining" Practice
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Tel-Aviv-Jaffa Court Dismisses Subscribers' Suit

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated ERISA Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Talks to Settle Suits Over Software Ongoing
CREDIT-BASED ASSET: Faces Suit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities
DUPONT CO: Fourth Circuit Denies Appeal Request in "Rhodes" Case
GRILL CONCEPTS: Expects Payout of Calif. Suit Settlement in 2009

GT SOLAR: N.H. Court Consolidates Multiple Securities Lawsuits
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: In Talks to Settle Securities Fraud Suit
LAX HILTON: Workers File Wage, Hour Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Appeal "Williams" Litigation Still Pending
NATIONAL CITY: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.D. Ohio

NATIONAL CITY: Faces Suits Over ERISA Violation Claims in Ohio
NATIONAL CITY: Settlement of Wage & Hour Claims v. Unit Pending
NATIONAL CITY: Still Faces Merchants' Remaining Antitrust Cases
RECKSON OPERATING: Partners to Present Settlement to N.Y. Court
WSB FINANCIAL: March 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $4.85M Settlement


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Strauss & Troy Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
GSI GROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Securities Fraud Suit Filing
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Glancy Binkow Files Md. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********


ALLSTATE LIFE: Appeal on Consolidated EEOC & Romero Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Life Insurance Co.'s parent, Allstate Insurance Co.,
continues to face an appeal by the plaintiffs from the summary
judgment ruling in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I
litigation, according to the company's Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In 2001, two lawsuits were filed relating to AIC's agency
program reorganization announced in 1999:

   -- the "EEOC I" suit, which was filed by the U.S. Equal
      Employment Opportunity Commission alleging retaliation  
      under federal civil rights laws; and

   -- the "Romero I" suit, which was a class action filed by
      former employee agents alleging retaliation and age
      discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment
      Act (ADEA), breach of contract and the Employee Retirement
      Income Security Act (ERISA) violations.  

In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the
trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other
things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class
of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting
the court's declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at
the option of the release signer.  

The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must
return to AIC "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in
exchange for signing the release."  The court also stated that,
"on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims
of age discrimination."  

The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or
reconsider its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the
judge denied their request.  

In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motions for summary
judgment.  

Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the Third
Circuit issued an order in December 2007, stating that the
notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within the
meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at this time.  

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Court
along with the merits of the appeal.

Allstate Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a  
life insurance company.  The Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment
products for individual and institutional customers.  Allstate
Life conducts substantially all of its operations directly or
through wholly owned United States subsidiaries.  The Company
and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to as the
Allstate Life Group.  The Allstate Life Group's principal
individual products are fixed annuities, including deferred,
immediate and indexed, and interest-sensitive, traditional and
variable life insurance.  It also distributes variable annuities
through its bank distribution partners.  Allstate Life is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co., a stock
property-liability insurance company.  Allstate Insurance Co. is
owned by The Allstate Corp.


ALLSTATE LIFE: Appeal to Agents Pension Plan Suit Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the summary judgment ruling in the a putative
nationwide class-action lawsuit challenging certain amendments
to the Agents Pension Plan of Allstate Life Insurance Co., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co. remains
pending.

A putative nationwide class-action lawsuit has also been filed
by former employee agents alleging various violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), including a
worker classification issue.  

These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the
Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent
independent contractors treated as employees for benefit
purposes.  

This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was
the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed
and remanded to the trial court in 2005.  

In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motion to dismiss the
case.  

Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in
December 2007, stating that the notice of appeal was not taken
from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and
thus not appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Court
along with the merits of the appeal, according to the company's
Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Allstate Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a  
life insurance company.  The Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment
products for individual and institutional customers.  Allstate
Life conducts substantially all of its operations directly or
through wholly owned United States subsidiaries.  The Company
and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to as the
Allstate Life Group.  The Allstate Life Group's principal
individual products are fixed annuities, including deferred,
immediate and indexed, and interest-sensitive, traditional and
variable life insurance.  It also distributes variable annuities
through its bank distribution partners.  Allstate Life is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co., a stock
property-liability insurance company.  Allstate Insurance Co. is
owned by The Allstate Corp.


ALLSTATE LIFE: Faces Ex-Agents' Suit for Constructive Discharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Life Insurance Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Allstate Insurance Co. continues to face a certified class-
action lawsuit filed by former employee agents who terminated
their employment prior to the agency program reorganization.  

The plaintiffs allege that they were constructively discharged
so that AIC could avoid paying the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and other benefits offered under the
reorganization.  

They claim that the constructive discharge resulted from the
implementation of agency standards, including mandatory office
hours and a requirement to have licensed staff available during
business hours.  

The court approved the form of class notice which was sent to
approximately 1,800 potential class members in November 2007.
Fifteen individuals opted out.  

AIC's motions for judgment on the pleadings were partially
granted.  In May 2008, the court granted summary judgment in
AIC's favor on all class claims.  

The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and in the alternative
to decertify the class.  AIC opposed this motion and filed a
motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining non-
class claim.  

In August 2008, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider and to decertify the class, according to the
company's Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Allstate Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a  
life insurance company.  The Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment
products for individual and institutional customers.  Allstate
Life conducts substantially all of its operations directly or
through wholly owned United States subsidiaries.  The Company
and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to as the
Allstate Life Group.  The Allstate Life Group's principal
individual products are fixed annuities, including deferred,
immediate and indexed, and interest-sensitive, traditional and
variable life insurance.  It also distributes variable annuities
through its bank distribution partners.  Allstate Life is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co., a stock
property-liability insurance company.  Allstate Insurance Co. is
owned by The Allstate Corp.


AT&T BROADBAND: Faces Fla. Litigation Over "Redlining" Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Broadband faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that
alleges the company intentionally denied high-speed Internet
access to minority and poor neighborhoods and overcharged other
customers for services, The Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed by two
Broward County residents, Gwen Hudson and Cynthia Martin.  It
claims AT&T Broadband bypassed poor neighborhoods while offering
high-speed access to more affluent areas, a practice known as
"redlining."

In a statement, AT&T Broadband rejected any claim of redlining
and said it would oppose the lawsuit.  The company also said it
was confident the lawsuit wouldn't affect the expected October
close of its merger with Comcast Corp., according to The
Associated Press.

Christopher Larmoyeux, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told
The Associated press that  the lawsuit aims to stop the sale
until AT&T Broadband provides service to poor and minority
neighborhoods as federal law requires.  It also seeks monetary
damages.

According to Mr. Larmoyeux, in Broward County, where AT&T
Broadband holds several franchises, one percent of eligible
black households have access to high-speed broadband Internet
service as opposed to virtually 100 percent of eligible white
households, The Associated Press reported.

One plaintiff had high-speed cable Internet access but moved to
another area and couldn't get service.  The other plaintiff has
had repeated problems with her service.

The suit is also claiming that AT&T Broadband falsified customer
satisfaction claims and billed for services that were not
provided, reports The Associated Press.

For more details, contact:

          Christopher Larmoyeux, Esq.
          West Palm Beach, Florida
          Phone: (561) 832-9400 and (800) 378-0931
          Fax: (561) 832-9445
          Web site: http://www.lb-law.com/


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Tel-Aviv-Jaffa Court Dismisses Subscribers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NETANYA, Israel, December 16, 2008 -- Cellcom Israel Ltd.
(NYSE: CEL) (the "Company") announced today that a purported
class action filed against the Company (and another Israeli
cellular operator) in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa on
December 2002, in connection with the defendants' incoming call
tariff to subscribers of other operators when calling
subscribers of the defendants during the period before the
regulation of interconnect fees, was dismissed with prejudice.

     Had the lawsuit been certified as a class action, the
amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 1.6
billion.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California over
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act statute related to claims of alleged backdating of stock
options, according to Computer Sciences Corp.'s Nov. 12, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3, 2008.

Initially, on Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class-action suit
involving allegations of backdating at CSC was filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Eastern District of New York. The suit is
entitled "Quan, et al.  v. CSC, et al., Case No. 06-3927."

On Sept. 21, 2006, a related ERISA class-action lawsuit --
entitled "Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al., Case No. 06-5100" - was
filed in the same court.  The complaints named as defendants
CSC, the CSC Retirement and Employee Benefits Plans Committee,
and various directors and officers, and alleged various
violations of the ERISA statute.

The two ERISA actions have been consolidated and, on Feb. 28,
2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class-action
complaint.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the district court granted a motion to transfer
the case to California.  Upon arrival in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, the two cases were
consolidated before U.S. District Judge James Otero in Case No.
CV 08-2398-SJO.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
case and the plaintiffs opposed this motion.  The motion is
currently under submission.  The plaintiffs have also filed a
motion for class certification (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 7,
2008).

The defendants filed  their memorandum in opposition to the
motion on Aug. 11, 2008.  On Sept. 2, 2008, Judge Otero issued
orders denying defendants' motion to dismiss, and also denying
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The defendants have
since answered the complaint.

The suit is "Federico Quan et al v. Computer Sciences
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-02398-SJO-JWJ," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge S. James Otero, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull Stull and Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Paul Blankenstein, Esq. (pblankenstein@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-955-8500


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Talks to Settle Suits Over Software Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discussions to settle two purported class-action lawsuits in the
Miller County Circuit Court, Arkansas, claiming that the
defendants conspired to wrongfully use the Colossus software
products licensed by Computer Sciences Corp. and the other
software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees'
insureds for bodily injury claims are ongoing.

On Feb. 7, 2005, the company was named, along with other vendors
to the insurance industry and dozens of insurance companies in
the matter, "Hensley, et al. vs. Computer Sciences Corporation,
et al."  The lawsuit was filed as a putative nationwide class-
action suit in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas,
shortly before the Class Action Fairness Act was signed into
law.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to wrongfully use
software products licensed by the company and the other software
vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insured for
bodily injury claims.  They also allege wrongful concealment of
the manner in which these software programs evaluate claims and
wrongful concealment of information about alleged inherent
errors and flaws in the software.

The suit seeks injunctive and monetary relief of less than
$75,000 for each class member, as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

On June 11, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
sever certain defendants, including the company, from the
Hensley litigation.

As a result, the company continues as a defendant in the Hensley
litigation and is also now a defendant in a separate putative
class-action lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Miller
County,  Arkansas, styled "Basham, et al. vs. Computer Sciences
Corporation,  et  al.," along with certain insurance companies
previously named as defendants in the Hensley litigation.

In July 2008, the court issued a scheduling order in the Hensley
litigation setting a class certification hearing date of Dec. 2,
2008.  No class certification date has been set in the Basham
lawsuit at this time (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 7, 2008).

During the second quarter of fiscal 2009, the company, along
with certain other defendants in the Hensley and Basham
litigation, engaged in settlement discussions with legal counsel
representing the putative class members through mediation
proceedings facilitated by an independent mediator.  These
discussions are continuing into the third quarter of fiscal
2009.  There can be no assurance that the company will reach an
agreement with plaintiffs' legal counsel on settlement terms
acceptable to the company, according to the company's Nov. 12,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3, 2008.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in  
the information technology and professional services industry.  
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings
include IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and
professional services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.  
Systems integration encompasses designing, developing,
implementing and integrating complete information systems.  
Consulting and professional services includes advising clients
on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business
strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering,
operations, change management and business process
reengineering.


CREDIT-BASED ASSET: Faces Suit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Credit-Based Asset Servicing & Securitization LLC (C-Bass) and a
group of underwriters are facing a purported class-action suit
over alleged false statements regarding the issuance of $476.4
million in mortgage-backed securities, Dow Jones reports.

The lawsuit -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Dec. 12, 2008 -- alleges a registration
statement filed by C-Bass for a 2007 securities offering was
materially false and misleading, including statements about
underwriting standards for mortgage loans backing the securities
and the credit quality of the loans.  It is seeking class-action
status.

"In fact, the underwriting, quality control, and due diligence
practices and policies utilized in connection with the approval
and funding of the mortgage loans were so weak that borrowers
were being extended loans based on stated income in the mortgage
loan applications with purported income amounts that could not
possibly be reconciled with the jobs claimed on the loan
application," according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Iron Workers Local No. 25
Pension Fund by law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP, reports Dow Jones.

C-Bass is a joint venture, owned in part by units of mortgage
insurers MGIC Investment Corp. (MTG) and Radian Group Inc.
(RDN).  Aside from C-Bass, other defendants in the case are
units of Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)
and ABN Amro Holding NV (ABNYY), according to Dow Jones.


DUPONT CO: Fourth Circuit Denies Appeal Request in "Rhodes" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a
request for appeal in connection to the purported class-action
suit, "Rhodes et al v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company,
Case No. 6:2006-cv-00530," which charges DuPont Co. of harming
residents with contaminated drinking water by releasing
pollution into the Parkersburg Water District in Wood County,
Gretchen Mae Stone of The State Journal reports.

The purported class-action lawsuit was originally filed in Wood
County Circuit Court on May 2006 against E.I. DuPont De Nemours
& Co. by William R. Rhodes, Russell H. Miller and Valori A.
Mace.  It arises from the company's alleged release of
perfluoroctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8, from its
Washington Works plant in Wood County, West Virginia (Class
Action Reporter, June 17, 2008).  

The plaintiffs allege that C8 from the company's plant has
contaminated the drinking water of the communities near the
plant, including the city of Parkersburg.

C8 is a synthetic chemical that does not occur naturally in
the environment.  Companies use C8 to make fluoropolymers,
substances with special properties that have thousands of
important manufacturing and industrial applications.

Judge Joseph H. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia recently denied class-action
status to the case.  In his opinion, Judge Goodwin said a public
health risk does not show the common individual injuries needed
for a class-action lawsuit, The State Journal reported.

According to Judge Goodwin's opinion, the effect of C-8 exposure
on human health remains uncertain, but studies have indicated
that C-8 may cause liver disease, elevated cholesterol levels
and several types of cancer.

The plaintiffs later appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which filed its decision on Dec.
12, 2008, denying the request for appeal, according to The State
Journal.

The suit is "Rhodes et al v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and
Company, Case No. 6:2006-cv-00530," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Joseph R.
Goodwin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert A. Bilott, Esq. (bilott@taftlaw.com)
          Taft Stettinius & Hollister
          Suite 1800
          425 Walnut Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957
          Phone: 513/381-2838
          Fax: 513/381-0205
          
Representing the defendant is:

          Nathan B. Atkinson, Esq. (natkinson@spilmanlaw.com)
          Spilman Thomas & Battle
          Suite 500
          110 Oakwood Drive
          Winston-Salem, NC 27103
          Phone: 336/725-4710
          Fax: 336/725-4476


GRILL CONCEPTS: Expects Payout of Calif. Suit Settlement in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grill Concepts, Inc., expects the settlement of the class-action
lawsuit relating to employee meal and rest breaks, filed in June
2004, to be paid out during the first half of fiscal 2009,
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. 28, 2008.

One of the company's former hourly restaurant employees filed a
class action complaint in June 2004, before the Superior Court
of California of Orange County against the company.  The company
requested to move the suit from Orange County to Los Angeles
County, and this motion was granted.

The lawsuit was then refiled before the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles in December 2004.  The
plaintiff alleged violations of California labor laws with
respect to providing meal and rest breaks.  The lawsuit sought
unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments on
behalf of the plaintiffs and other purported class members.

In April 2007, the California Supreme Court unanimously held
that payments for missed meal or rest breaks are considered
wages or premium pay, not penalties.  As a result, claims for
missed meal and rest breaks under the California Labor Code will
be governed by a three or four-year statute of limitations for
the payments required under the Labor Code, rather than a one-
year statute.

The case has been placed in a stay status pending mediation in
the summer of 2008.

A second class-action complaint of the same nature was filed on
April 4, 2008, in the Supreme Court for the County of Los
Angeles.  The company has requested that the case be combined
with the first class-action lawsuit.

On July 16, 2008, through non-binding mediation, the company
reached an agreement in principle to settle the first ongoing
class action lawsuit relating to employee meal and rest breaks.

The settlement, whose terms must still be finalized and is
subject to preliminary and final approval by the court, contains
a not-to-exceed amount, based on claims made by eligible class
members.  The tentative settlement also requires a minimum
payment of 50% of the total settlement amount after attorney's
fees, administrative costs and plaintive incentive awards.

Based on the proposed terms of the settlement and the
historically low rate of claims made in these types of cases,
the company says that the most likely estimate of total costs to
Grill Concepts will be $1.2 million, of which $0.1 million was
accrued in previous years. The balance, or $0.8 million, was
recorded in the second quarter 2008 condensed consolidated
financial statements.

A memorandum of understanding has been executed and the company
is waiting for the settlement to become binding, through judge
approval.

During the third quarter of 2009, additional legal and economist
costs were incurred totaling $0.3 million.

Grill Concepts, Inc. -- http://www.dailygrill.com/-- develops,  
owns, operates, manages and licenses full-service upscale casual
dining restaurants under the name Daily Grill and fine dining
restaurants under the name The Grill on the Alley.


GT SOLAR: N.H. Court Consolidates Multiple Securities Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has
consolidated into one class-action case several suits charging
GT Solar International, Inc. with securities fraud, Andrew Wolfe
of the Nashua Telegraph reports.

According to court records, a total of 12 plaintiffs, including
several individual investors and the Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement Fund, had sued GT Solar, claiming that company
officials failed to disclose the company was about to lose its
largest customer before the company went public earlier this
year.

The customer, a Chinese firm, has since resumed buying from GT
Solar, which makes parts and furnaces for solar panels, reports
the Nashua Telegraph.

In a hearing last week, Judge Joseph LaPlante of U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire ruled that the eight
different cases should be heard as one.  The court lumped them
all into a single case, entitled, "Braun et al v. GT Solar
International, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-312," and closed the rest.

That single case now has 12 different plaintiffs, represented by
16 lawyers from 12 different firms and remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, according
to the Nashua Telegraph.

The suit is "Braun et al v. GT Solar International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00312-JL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, Judge Joseph N.
Laplante, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher Cole, Esq. (ccole@sheehan.com)
          Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
          1000 Elm St.
          P.O. Box 3701
          Manchester, NH 03105-3701
          Phone: 603-668-0300

               - and -           

          Michelle H. Blauner, Esq. (mblauner@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St, 13th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-439-3939

Representing the defendants are:

          W. Daniel Deane, Esq. (ddeane@nixonpeabody.com)
          Nixon Peabody LLP
          900 Elm St, 14th Flr
          Manchester, NH 03101-2031
          Phone: 603-628-4047

               - and -

          William H. Paine, Esq. (william.paine@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
          60 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-526-6000


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: In Talks to Settle Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interlink Electronics, Inc. is negotiating definitive settlement
agreement with the parties in a purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit pending before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, 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 lawsuit, filed on Nov. 15, 2005, under the caption "Roger
Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," was brought against the company and two of
its current and former officers.  It alleges that between April
24, 2003, and Nov. 1, 2005, the company and the individual
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material information regarding the company's results of
operations and financial condition.

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

On Nov. 3, 2006, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs, who
later filed an amended complaint.  The amended complaint
includes claims under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.

In September 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
a motion by the defendants to dismiss the operative complaint.

On April 24, 2008, the parties participated in a mediation with
Retired Justice Howard B. Wiener in Los Angeles.  The parties
were unable to reach a resolution of their dispute and will
continue to litigate.

The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in May 2008,
which the Company subsequently moved to dismiss in part.  On
Oct. 6, 2008, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss,
and on Oct. 22, 2008, the Company filed an answer.

The suit is "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Percy Anderson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         e-mail: service@ssbla.com

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150

              - and -

         Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
         Roy L. Jacobs and Associates
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Phone: 212-867-1156

Representing the defendants is:

         Daniel S. Floyd, Esq. (dfloyd@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000


LAX HILTON: Workers File Wage, Hour Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workers at the LAX Hilton filed a purported class-action lawsuit
against the hotel -- owned by Fortuna Enterprises LP -- alleging
a pattern of violations of California wage and hour laws since
at least 2004, Deborah Crowe of the Los Angeles Business Journal
reports.

The lawsuit, filed in L.A. Country Superior Court, charges
management with denying employees the meal and rest breaks
required under the state Labor Code.  Workers alleged they were
required to note breaks on their time sheets, whether or not
they actually took them, or face a reprimand.

The workers are represented by attorney Randy Renick, Esq., a
partner at Hadsell, Stormer, Keeny, Richardson and Renick LLP,
according to the Los Angeles Business Journal.

For more details, contact:

         Hadsell, Stormer, Keeny, Richardson & Renick LLP
         128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
         Pasadena, CA  91103
         Phone: 626.585.9600
         Fax: 626.577.7079
         e-mail: questions@hskrr.com
         Web site: http://www.renicklaw.com/


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Appeal "Williams" Litigation Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by the plaintiffs in the matter "Williams, et al. v.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," from a
ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia that denied their motion for class certification remains
pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Four plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in January 2004.  The case
purports that the plaintiffs are former and current employees of
the company and that the actions and conduct of the company,
including the employment of persons who are not permitted to
work in the U.S., have damaged them and the other members of the
purported class by suppressing the wages of the company's hourly
employees in Georgia.

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including:

      -- treble damages;
      -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and
      -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

According to the original complaint, the company sent its
employees "to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville,
Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the
U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North
Georgia.

The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters
provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them
jobs with the company.  It even charges that although some of
the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped
others evade detection.

Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired
several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work
force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under
different names.  It claims that the company destroyed documents
in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal
workers.

One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to
inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers,
thereby depressing wages.  Another was to reduce the number and
expense of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal
employees are unlikely to file," the suit states.

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was denied by the District Court in April 2004.
Following appellate review, the case was returned to the
District Court and discovery began.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the company opposed.

On March 3, 2008, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
class certification motion.  The plaintiffs then appealed the
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on
March 17, 2008.  Discovery has been stayed at the District Court
while the appeal is pending.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

The suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Case No.
4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Georgia, Judge Harold L. Murphy, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bobby Lee Cook, Esq. (LisaDodd@alltel.net)
         Cook & Connelly
         P.O. Box 370
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370
         Phone: 706-857-3421

              - and -

         Ronan P. Doherty, Esq. (doherty@bmelaw.com)
         John Earl Floyd, Esq. (floyd@bmelaw.com)
         Nicole G. Iannarone, Esq. (iannarone@bmelaw.com)
         Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq. (thorpe@bmelaw.com)
         Bondurant Mixson & Elmore
         1201 West Peachtree St., N.W.
         3900 One Atlantic Ctr.
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
         Phone: 404-881-4100

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Thomas Cottreau, Esq. (scottreau@sidley.com)
         Juan P. Morillo, Esq. (jmorillo@sidley.com)
         Virginia A. Seitz, Esq. (vseitz@sidley.com)
         Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
         1501 K. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-736-8000

              - and -

         R. Carl Cannon, Esq. (ccannon@constangy.com)
         Rosemary C. Lumpkins, Esq. (rlumpkins@constangy.com)
         Constangy Brooks & Smith
         230 Peachtree St., N.W.
         2400 Peachtree Center Tower
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1557
         Phone: 404-525-8622


NATIONAL CITY: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action suit filed against National City Corp.
and certain current and former officers and directors of the
Corporation is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

The complaint, filed on Jan. 24, 2008, alleges violations of
federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages and
equitable relief on behalf of purchasers of the Corporation's
stock during the period from April 30, 2007 to Jan. 2, 2008.

No further details regarding the lawsuit were disclosed in the
Corporation's Current Report in Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 12, 2008.

National City Corp. -- https://www.nationalcity.com -- is a
financial holding company.  The company operates through a
banking network primarily in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It has
organized its operations into five businesses: Retail Banking,
Commercial Banking-Regional, Commercial Banking-National,
Mortgage Banking and Asset Management.  Operations are primarily
conducted through more than 1,400 branch banking offices located
within National City's nine-state footprint.  In addition,
National City operates over 410 retail mortgage offices
throughout the United States.


NATIONAL CITY: Faces Suits Over ERISA Violation Claims in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
National City Corp. faces two putative class-action suits filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
over alleged Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
violations.

On Jan. 10 and Jan. 17, 2008, two putative class-action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio against the Corporation, the Administrative Committee
for the National City Savings and Investment Plan and certain
current and former officers and directors of the Corporation.

The complaints allege violations of the ERISA relating to the
Corporation's stock being offered as an investment alternative
for participants in the Plan.

The complaints seek unspecified money damages and equitable
relief, according to the Corporation's Current Report in Form  
8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 12, 2008.

National City Corp. -- https://www.nationalcity.com -- is a
financial holding company.  The company operates through a
banking network primarily in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It has
organized its operations into five businesses: Retail Banking,
Commercial Banking-Regional, Commercial Banking-National,
Mortgage Banking and Asset Management.  Operations are primarily
conducted through more than 1,400 branch banking offices located
within National City's nine-state footprint.  In addition,
National City operates over 410 retail mortgage offices
throughout the United States.


NATIONAL CITY: Settlement of Wage & Hour Claims v. Unit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement to resolve all wage and hour claims of the opt-in
class of loan originators against National City Mortgage Co., a
unit of National City Corp., remains subject to court approval.  

On Dec. 19, 2005, a class-action suit was filed against National
City Mortgage in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

The lawsuit alleges that National City Mortgage loan originators
were improperly designated as exempt employees and seeks
monetary damages.

On June 21, 2007, the court conditionally certified an opt-in
class of loan originators.

On Nov. 6, 2007, a settlement in principle was reached to
resolve all wage and hour claims of the loan originators
employed during the class period that opt-in to the settlement
class.  

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Corporation has a $25 million reserve
accrued for this matter, according to its Current Report in Form
8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 12, 2008.

National City Corp. -- https://www.nationalcity.com -- is a
financial holding company.  The company operates through a
banking network primarily in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It has
organized its operations into five businesses: Retail Banking,
Commercial Banking-Regional, Commercial Banking-National,
Mortgage Banking and Asset Management.  Operations are primarily
conducted through more than 1,400 branch banking offices located
within National City's nine-state footprint.  In addition,
National City operates over 410 retail mortgage offices
throughout the United States.


NATIONAL CITY: Still Faces Merchants' Remaining Antitrust Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining antitrust class-action lawsuits filed by merchants
operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade
associations are still in the preliminary stages, according to
National City Corporation's Current Report in Form 8-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 12,
2008.  

Beginning on June 22, 2005, a series of antitrust class-action
lawsuits were filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R), and several
major financial institutions, including eight cases naming the
Corporation and its subsidiary, National City Bank of Kentucky,
since merged into National City Bank.

The plaintiffs claim that the interchange fees charged by card-
issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and
unspecified damages.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On July 1, 2007, the Corporation and National City Bank entered
into a Judgment Sharing Agreement (JSA) with respect to this
litigation.

This litigation is subject to the Visa USA bylaws and the Loss
Sharing Agreement (LSA).  Under the Visa USA bylaws, the
Corporation is obligated to indemnify Visa, Inc. for certain
losses.  The LSA reaffirmed the Corporation's obligation to
indemnify Visa for potential future settlement of certain
litigation.  The Corporation's indemnification obligation is
limited to its 8% proportionate equity interest in Visa USA.

On Sept. 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge recommended to the
District Court that all claims that predate Jan. 1, 2004 should
be dismissed.

National City Corp. -- https://www.nationalcity.com -- is a
financial holding company.  The company operates through a
banking network primarily in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It has
organized its operations into five businesses: Retail Banking,
Commercial Banking-Regional, Commercial Banking-National,
Mortgage Banking and Asset Management.  Operations are primarily
conducted through more than 1,400 branch banking offices located
within National City's nine-state footprint.  In addition,
National City operates over 410 retail mortgage offices
throughout the United States.


RECKSON OPERATING: Partners to Present Settlement to N.Y. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
SL Green Realty Corp. and Reckson Associates Realty Corp.'s
settlement of class-action lawsuits related to a merger will be
presented to the New York court for approval, according to
Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P.'s Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Dec. 6, 2006, SL Green announced that it and RARC had reached
an agreement in principal with the plaintiffs to settle the
class action lawsuits relating to SL Green's acquisition of all
of the outstanding shares of common stock of RARC (Merger).

The settlement, which has been executed by all parties,
provides:

   (1) for certain contingent profit sharing participations for
       former RARC stockholders relating to specified assets,
       none of which are owned by ROP,

   (2) for potential payments to former RARC stockholders of
       amounts relating to Reckson's interest in contingent
       profit sharing participations in connection with the sale  
       of certain Long Island industrial properties in a prior
       transaction, none of which are owned by ROP, and

   (3) for the dismissal by the plaintiffs of all actions with
       prejudice and customary releases of all defendants and   
       related parties.

Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P., is engaged in the
ownership, management, operation and development of commercial
real estate properties, principally office properties and also
owns land for future development located in New York City,
Westchester and Connecticut.  The company commenced operations
on June 2, 1995.  Reckson Associates Realty Corp. served as the
sole general partner until Nov. 15, 2007, at which time RARC
withdrew, and Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, succeeded it, as the
sole general partner of ROP.  WAGP is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of SL Green Realty Corp.  The sole limited partner of ROP is SL
Green Operating Partnership, L.P.


WSB FINANCIAL: March 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $4.85M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
will hold a fairness hearing on March 27, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. For
the proposed $4.85 million settlement in the matter, "In Re: WSB
Financial Group Securities Litigation, Master File No. CO7-1747
RAJ," which was filed against WSB Financial Group, Inc.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Richard A. Jones
at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101.

In October 2007, a purported securities fraud class-action suit
was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington against the Company and certain of its
directors and current and former officers alleging violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeking an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief in
connection with the Company's initial public offering (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 2, 2008).

Since then four additional, similar actions have been filed in
the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington.

As is typical in these cases, all the actions have been
consolidated into a single action, "In RE: WSB Financial Group
Securities Litigation, Master File No. CO7-1747 RAJ."

As previously reported, WSB Financial Group, the parent company
of Westsound Bank, said that it has entered into a settlement
agreement with the lead plaintiff in a pending securities class
action (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008).

The class action settlement is subject to the approval of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The settlement agreement provides for the certification of a
class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock pursuant or traceable to its initial public
offering completed on December 21, 2006. The total amount of the
settlement is $4.85 million. The Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance policy will contribute
approximately $4.45 million towards the settlement amount and
has previously contributed approximately $350,000 towards the
Company's legal fees. The settlement agreement contains no
admission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company or the other
defendants.

"This settlement is a significant accomplishment and allows our
management team to focus on our future," said Terry A. Peterson,
President and CEO. "It further demonstrates our focus on
identifying and executing strategies to eliminate risk. While we
still believe we have strong defenses, we felt it was important
to get it behind us and eliminate the burden and expense of
protracted litigation. We continue to maintain adequate levels
of capital and liquidity, which are important measures of the
Bank's safety and soundness for both shareholders and
depositors."

For more details, contact:

          David R. Stickney, Esq.
          Timothy A. DeLange, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (888) 924-1888
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com

               - and -

          In re WSB Financial Group Securities Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 91179
          Seattle, WA 98111-9279
          Phone: 1 (800) 961-2567
          Web site:
          http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/fullcase/1434


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Strauss & Troy Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     CINCINNATI, Dec. 16, 2008 -- Strauss & Troy announces that
a class action lawsuit was filed on Friday, December 12, 2008 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of
AtriCure, Inc. ("AtriCure") between May 10, 2007 and October 31,
2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges that AtriCure and certain of its
officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that
AtriCure misrepresented its profitability by, among other
things, illegally promoting its products contrary to FDA
regulations and filing false claims for Medicare reimbursement.

     The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements and SEC filings
concerning the Company's operations, finances and performance
and that the price of AtriCure common stock to investors was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq. (rswayne@strausstroy.com)
          Strauss & Troy
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 800-669-9341
                 513-621-2120


GSI GROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Securities Fraud Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, Dec 16, 2008 -- Finkelstein Thompson LLP
announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against GSI
Group, Inc. ("GSI" or the "Company") in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and
Finkelstein Thompson is investigating similar claims at this
time.

     The filed complaint alleges that on December 4, 2008, GSI's
share price plummeted 29.17% on unusually heavy trading volume,
closing at $0.68 per share.

     This drop occurred after GSI announced that it would have
to restate financial statements for the first and second fiscal
quarters of 2008 because approximately $16.2 million in stated
revenues should have been deferred until the delivery of
additional equipment in accordance with EITF 00-21 Revenue
Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables.

     Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Company issued
false and misleading statements concerning this improperly
recognized revenue and the resulting effect on GSI's financial
results.

     Further, the complaint alleges that as a result of these
false and misleading statements, the price of GSI stock was
artificially inflated between between April 30, 2008 and
December 3, 2008, inclusive.


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Glancy Binkow Files Md. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Dec. 16, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
behalf of a Class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Integral
Systems, Inc. ("Integral Systems" or the "Company"), between
April 28, 2008 and December 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     The Complaint charges Integral Systems 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 Integral Systems' stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

     Integral Systems builds satellite ground systems and
equipment for command and control, integration and test, data
processing, and simulation.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate 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 the Company 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 11, 2008, Integral Systems shocked investors
when it revealed that the unaudited financial statements of the
Company for the interim periods ended December 31, 2007, March
30, 2008 and June 30, 2008 should no longer be relied upon due
to an error in the accounting treatment for certain transactions
with respect to the timing of the recognition of revenue between
periods.

     The Company further disclosed that, as a result, the
Company would restate its previously filed financial statements
for those interim quarterly periods in fiscal year 2008.  

     The Company estimated that the net impact of the
adjustments for the first three quarters of 2008 would result in
a decrease of approximately $10 million in revenues, a decrease
of approximately $3 million in gross profit, a decrease of
approximately $4 million in operating income, and a decrease of
approximately $0.13 in earnings per share.

     On this news, shares of Integral Systems declined $6.38 per
share, or 28.61%, to close on December 11, 2008 at $15.92 per
share, on unusually heavy 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


                            *********

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  * * *