CAR_Public/081223.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 254

                            Headlines

CAREER EDUCATION: "Benoit" Arbitration Proceeds Individually
CAREER EDUCATION: CCA Students' Suit in California Still Pending
CAREER EDUCATION: Court Gives Final OK for "Sanders" Settlement
CAREER EDUCATION: Dec. 19 Trial Set for Demurrer in Calif. Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Amended Medical Assistant Program Suit

CAREER EDUCATION: Faces "Anglade" Suit on Rest & Meal Periods
CAREER EDUCATION: Finalizing FLSA Violations Lawsuit Settlement
CAREER EDUCATION: "Gozzi" Suit Over WCI Information in Discovery
CAREER EDUCATION: Pursues Dismissal of "Blake" Suit in Missouri
CAREER EDUCATION: Securities Suit Settlement Approved in Sept.

CAREER EDUCATION: Still Faces Amended Complaint in "Diallo" Suit
CONSTRUCTION PROTECTIVE: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Hoke"
DOLLAR TREE: Dec. 17 Final Fairness Hearing Set for Oregon Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Consolidated Ex-Store Manager's Suit in Ala.
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Former Employees' Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages

DOLLAR TREE: Faces Managers' Labor Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
DOLLAR TREE: Former Employee's Labor Lawsuit in Calif. Resolved
DOLLAR TREE: Wage & Hour Violations Lawsuit in Calif. Resolved
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due on Dec. 31
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Decertification Bid in "Greenberg" Pending

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
SEMTECH CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Court Awards Company in Merger Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Brauldi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing


                           *********

CAREER EDUCATION: "Benoit" Arbitration Proceeds Individually
------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitration of the complaint in the matter styled "Benoit, et
al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al.," cannot proceed as
a class action, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On June 24, 2005, a purported class-action complaint was filed
in Hillsborough County, Florida against the company and
Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. on behalf of all persons
enrolled in the Medical Billing and Coding Program at the
company's SBI-Tampa campus in the prior four years.

The complaint alleges defendants breached enrollment contracts
with the plaintiffs and other class members and violated the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by, among other
things, failing to properly train students, offer and require
sufficient hours of course work, provide properly trained
instructors, provide appropriate curriculum consistent with the
represented degree, award the represented degree, provide
adequate career placement services, and misrepresenting that
they would provide such services.

The complaint also alleges that defendants "padded" the MBC
Program curriculum to charge greater tuition, purportedly in
violation of FDUTPA.

The plaintiffs sought actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
and other relief.

The Court granted the company's Motion to Stay Proceedings
pending Arbitration on Oct. 11, 2005 pursuant to the arbitration
provision contained in each plaintiffs' enrollment agreement.

On Oct. 30, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Defendants to Initiate Arbitration, and ordered the company to
initiate arbitration proceedings as to only the first named
plaintiff, Aimee Benoit, and ordering defendants to pay all fees
associated with initiating the arbitration proceedings.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the company filed with the American
Arbitration Association a Demand for Arbitration as to Benoit.

On Jan. 24, 2008, the arbitrator conducted a preliminary hearing
and established a briefing schedule on the issue of whether the
arbitration can proceed as a class-action.

On Jan. 30, 2008, the arbitrator issued an interim ruling
stating that the action could not go forward as a class-action
suit, and that briefing on the issue was thus not needed.

On Feb. 14, 2008, the arbitrator conducted a scheduling
conference, reiterated his ruling that the arbitration would not
proceed as a class action, and scheduled the final hearing in
Benoit's individual arbitration action for the first week of
April 2008.  Benoit's final hearing has been continued and a new
date has not been set.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an
educational services company.  The company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and
three online academic programs.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students.  The
schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree,
bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate
and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and
Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and
Information Technology.  The segments of the company include
Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education,
International and University.


CAREER EDUCATION: CCA Students' Suit in California Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. continues to face two purported class-
action suits in California that were filed by certain students
of CEC's California Culinary Academy, according to the company's
Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

                       Amador Litigation

On Sept. 27, 2007, a complaint, entitled "Amador et al. v.
California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corp.," was
filed in the California Superior Court in San Francisco on
behalf of 37 current and former students of the California
Culinary Academy.

The plaintiffs brought their complaint as a putative class suit
and alleged four putative causes of action:

   1. fraud;
   2. constructive fraud;
   3. violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and
   4. violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

They contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations to
them, primarily oral, during the admissions process.

The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of
the admissions process, the students' employment prospects upon
graduation from CCA and CCA's ability to arrange beneficial
student loans.

CCA filed a motion to compel arbitration of certain of the
claims by certain of the purported class representatives, but
the Court denied that request on Feb. 28, 2008.

The plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on or about May
5, 2008, that alleges the same claims.  The defendants filed
demurrers to and a motion to strike the claims and various
allegations.  The hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike
was conducted on Oct. 16, 2008.  The court has not yet ruled on
these matters.

                       Adams Litigation

On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing the plaintiffs
in the Amador action filed another suit on behalf of Jennifer
Adams and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative
class.

The Adams action also is styled as a class action, is based on
the same allegations underlying the Amador action, and attempts
to plead the same four causes of action as in the Amador action.

Although the Adams complaint is virtually identical to the
Amador complaint, it makes adjustments to the manner in which
the plaintiffs' counsel pleads plaintiffs' claim under the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act in an effort to avoid
certain defects that may lead to dismissal of the claim in the
Amador action.  The date by which CCA and CEC must respond to
the complaint has not yet been set.

The defendants intend to move to coordinate this case with the
Amador action and also to file demurrers to the plaintiffs'
claims on various grounds when the response date is established
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008).

The court will not require a response to the Adams action
pending a ruling on the demurrers and motion to strike in the
Amador action.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an
educational services company.  The company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and
three online academic programs.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students.  The
schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree,
bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate
and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and
Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and
Information Technology.  The segments of the company include
Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education,
International and University.


CAREER EDUCATION: Court Gives Final OK for "Sanders" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, on Sept.
26, 2008, granted final approval to the proposed settlement in
the matter captioned "Sanders et al. v. Career Education
Corporation et al., Case No. 8:2006-cv-01031," according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On March 15, 2006, 26 current and former students of the
Landover, Maryland campus of Sanford-Brown Institute, one of
Career Education's schools, filed a class-action complaint on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against
Career Education and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc., one of
the company's subsidiaries.

The suit, entitled "Laronda Sanders, et al. v. Ultrasound
Technical Services, Inc. et al.," was filed in the Circuit Court
for Prince George's County, Maryland.  It alleges that the
defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations and violated the
Maryland consumer fraud act by misrepresenting or failing to
disclose, among other things, details regarding instructors'
experience or preparedness, availability of clinical externship
assignments, and estimates for the dates upon which the
plaintiffs would receive their certificates and be able to enter
the work force.

The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants failed to
maintain accurate attendance records, and that the defendants
negligently or deliberately dropped students without
justification.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants breached the
enrollment contract with the plaintiffs by failing to provide
the promised instruction, training, externships, and placement
services.  The plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive damages,
and costs.

The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland and filed a motion to dismiss
significant portions of the complaint.  The plaintiffs requested
to remand the action to state court.

On Sept. 18, 2006, the court denied the plaintiffs' remand
motion.  The court, however, granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the common law and statutory fraud counts of the
complaint, with leave to amend.

On Oct. 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The case was later consolidated with a separate action brought
in the same court by another former student.

On March 12, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.

On March 7, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file
a third amended complaint adding four additional former students
as plaintiffs based on similar allegations.

The parties subsequently agreed to resolve their dispute and
entered into a deal.  The parties are in the process of
finalizing terms of a proposed settlement in the matter, which
deal would only be effective upon approval of the court.  The
settlement remains subject to final approval by the court after
notice to potential class members (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
26, 2008).

The suit is "Sanders, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et
al., Case No. 8:2006-cv-01031," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland, Judge Peter J. Messitte,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          George Wadie Hermina, Esq.
          Hermina Law Group
          8327 Cherry Ln
          Laurel, MD 20707
          Phone: 1-301-206-3166
          Fax: 1-301-490-7913
          e-mail: law@herminalaw.com

               - and -

          Allan W. Steinhorn, Esq. (allansteinhorn@gmail.com)
          Clark and Steinhorn PC
          11720 Beltsville Dr Ste 1001
          Calverton, MD 20705
          Phone: 1-301-572-5000
          Fax: 1-301-572-9500

Representing the defendants are:

          Karl Richard Barnickol, IV, Esq.
          (karl.barnickol@kattenlaw.com)
          Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
          525 W Monroe St.
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Phone: 1-312-902-5271
          Fax: 1-312-577-4421

               - and -

          Brian Andrew Briz, Esq. (bbriz@homerbonner.com)
          Homer Bonner PA
          1441 Brickell Ave., Ste. 1200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 1-305-350-5117
          Fax: 1-305-982-0062


CAREER EDUCATION: Dec. 19 Trial Set for Demurrer in Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A demurrer and motion to strike the purported class-action
complaint against Career Education Corp. and California School
of Culinary Arts, Inc., has been set for hearing on Dec. 19,
2008.

The putative class-action suit was filed on June 23, 2008, in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled, "Daniel Vasquez
and Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc.
and Career Education Corporation."

The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive
fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  They
also allege improper conduct in connection with the admissions
process during the alleged class period.

The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who
purchased educational services from CSCA, or graduated from
CSCA, within the limitations periods applicable to the herein
alleged causes of action (including, without limitation, the
period following the filing of the action)," (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008).

Defendants filed a demurrer and motion to strike the complaint,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an
educational services company.  The company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and
three online academic programs.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students.  The
schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree,
bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate
and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and
Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and
Information Technology.  The segments of the company include
Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education,
International and University.


CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Amended Medical Assistant Program Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. and Sanford-Brown College, Inc. face an
amended purported class-action complaint in the Madison County
Circuit Court, alleging that they fraudulently induced the
plaintiffs and the class to join a medical assistant program
through a number of deceptive acts.

The suit, filed on Feb. 11, 2008, alleges that the defendants
defrauded the students by misrepresenting transferability of
credits in their RN program and financial aid opportunities at
Sanford's Collinsville campus (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21,
2008).

The named plaintiffs are:

     * Jenna Lilley,
     * Jessica Lilley,
     * Candace Lindsay, and
     * Ashley Cunningham.

The plaintiffs claim that they were aware they needed to take
prerequisite courses in order to attend an accredited
institution and inquired with Sanford Brown to see if the
medical assistant program would fulfill the prerequisite
requirements for a nursing program.

"None of the four putative class representatives had any
interest in taking the medical assistant program to become a
medical assistant," the complaint states.  "They saw the medical
assistant program as a stepping-stone to becoming a registered
nurse."

The admissions representatives at Sanford Brown allegedly claim
that:

     -- the tuition to attend Sanford Brown and obtain a medical
        assistant certificate was fixed, however students were
        forced to pay twice for classes they failed;

     -- the instructors had real-world experience and were
        otherwise well-qualified, however the majority of the
        instructors were themselves graduates of Sanford Brown,
        with little or no real-world experience.

     -- the students would be provided with the most up-to-date
        training aids and equipment but much of the perishable
        equipment provided was past its expiration date;

     -- the students would be placed in an actual doctor's
        office, however Sanford Brown was unable to place
        students in externships, and the students that were
        placed were assigned as a secretary or receptionist, not
        a medical assistant; and

     -- that there was a high demand for medical assistants,
        however the field is well staffed and doctors do not
        hire students from Sanford Brown because they are not
        properly trained.

According to the complaint, Sanford Brown violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by engaging
in conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion or
misunderstanding.

The plaintiffs, who are area nursing students, assert that they
suffered actual damages by Sanford Brown's deceptive practices
by the payment of fraudulently obtained tuition, by the payment
for textbooks which were of no use, being overcharged for
equipment and medical aides, being forced to purchase items from
the school and exhausting federal aide available to them making
it impossible to pursue a legitimate degree.

"Plaintiffs and class members would not have sustained the
damages but for the defendants deceptive practices in
fraudulently inducing them to enroll in the medical assistant
program," the complaint further states.

According to the complaint, all persons who attended Sanford
Brown in Collinsville and enrolled in the medical assistant
program are eligible to join the class.

The plaintiffs and the class want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants represented that tuition would be
         set at a fixed amount;

     (b) whether defendants gave plaintiffs and the class
         inaccurate and inflated data concerning wages graduates
         could reasonably expect to earn including signing
         bonuses they could reasonably expect to receive;

     (c) whether defendants claimed Sanford Brown credits were
         transferable to other colleges and universities within
         Illinois;

     (d) whether Sanford Brown instructors were well experienced
         and well-qualified in teaching at the college level;

     (e) whether defendants misrepresented that there were a
         limited number of seats available for Sanford Brown
         programs that were filling up quickly;

     (f) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members would be provided with the most up to
         date training aids and equipment upon which to learn;

     (g) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members would be placed in a safe, educational
         environment for clinical study that was in close
         proximity to their homes;

     (h) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members would receive large financial grants and
         loans and the program would cost nothing out of pocket;

     (i) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members needed to purchase scrubs and other
         equipment from the school;

     (j) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members needed to purchase certain new textbooks
         to master the information needed to pass the classes;

     (k) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members needed to purchase all new textbooks and
         other equipment from the Sanford Brown bookstore;

     (l) whether defendants misrepresented that there was a high
         demand for workers in the fields for which plaintiffs
         and class members would be educated;

     (m) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members would receive large federal loans with
         low payments and interest;

     (n) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members would obtain their degrees much quicker
         and earn more money post degree completion than they
         would at a community college;

     (o) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members could only finance their education at
         Sanford Brown through Sanford Brown's Financial Aid
         Office;

     (p) whether defendants misrepresented to plaintiffs and
         class members that class sizes would be small and not
         exceed 20 people;

     (q) whether defendants intended the public to be misled by
         its various misrepresentations;

     (r) whether defendants' conduct constituted breach of
         contract;

     (s) whether defendants' conduct constituted a breach of the
         implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

     (t) whether the defendants' conduct is in violation of the
         Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; and

     (u) whether the conduct of alleged results in damages to
         plaintiffs and class members and, if so, the proper
         measure of those damages.

The plaintiffs and class are seeking judgment for:

     -- compensatory, consequential, and incidental damages;

     -- general damages, including emotional distress in amount
        to be proved at trial;

     -- disgorgement and restitution of all monies converted,
        taken or appropriated by Sanford Brown; and

     -- prejudgment interest, attorney fees and costs of the
        suit.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the case (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008).

In response to Defendants' motion, on Sept. 5, 2008, the
Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.  The first amended
complaint added one new plaintiff and dropped the negligence and
breach of contract and implied covenant claims.  A hearing was
set on the new motion for Nov. 7, 2008, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Jenna Lilley, et al. v. Career Education Corp., et
al., Case No. 08 L 113," filed in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Illinois.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Carey, Esq. (jcarey@careydanis.com)
          David Bauman, Esq. (dbauman@careydanis.com)
          Corey Sullivan, Esq. (csullivan@careydanis.com)
          Carey & Danis, L.L.C.
          8235 Forsyth Blvd. Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Toll Free: 800-721-2519
          Phone: 314-725-7700 (voice)
          Fax: 314-721-0905


CAREER EDUCATION: Faces "Anglade" Suit on Rest & Meal Periods
-------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. continues to face a purported class-
action suit in California, alleging violations of the California
Labor Code for failure to authorize and permit rest and meal
periods and failure to pay compensation for work performed
during rest and meal periods.

On Oct. 31, 2007, Tino Anglade, a former Admissions
Representative at the California School of Culinary Arts, filed
a lawsuit in Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, on
behalf of himself and a putative class consisting of all
admissions representatives employed by most of CEC's California
schools.

The plaintiff also alleges a violation of California's unfair
competition law asserting that the alleged rest and meal period
violations constitute an act of unfair competition.  They seek
unspecified lost wages, attorneys' fees, civil and statutory
penalties, and injunctive relief.  They also seek class
certification under California law.

Each named California school (California School of Culinary
Arts, California Culinary Academy, American InterContinental
UniversityŚLos Angeles, Brooks College, Brooks Institute, and
Kitchen Academy) has been served with the suit (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008).

No developments in the matter were disclosed by the company in
its Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an
educational services company.  The company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and
three online academic programs.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students.  The
schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree,
bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate
and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and
Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and
Information Technology.  The segments of the company include
Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education,
International and University.


CAREER EDUCATION: Finalizing FLSA Violations Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit styled "Vander Vennet, et al. v.
American InterContinental University, Inc., et al.," are
finalizing the terms of a proposed settlement with respect to
the remaining plaintiffs, according to Career Education Corp.'s
Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The purported class-action suit filed on Aug. 24, 2005, by
former admissions advisors of American InterContinental
University, Inc. (AIU Online), against the company, AIU Online,
and the president of the company's Online Education Group in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.  It also alleged that
defendants failed to pay the plaintiffs for all of the overtime
hours they allegedly worked.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class under the
FLSA and, on Aug. 24, 2005, filed a motion for FLSA Notice.  On
Dec. 22, 2005, and April 7, 2006, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motions to send FLSA Notice, and the plaintiffs' counsel has
distributed such notice to certain current and former admissions
advisors.

On April 7, 2006, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
expand the class to include temporary admissions advisors.  The
deadline for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to this lawsuit was
June 23, 2006.

Less than 10% of the persons to whom notice of the suit was
sent, including current and former admissions advisors, have
joined the litigation.

The defendants deny all of the material allegations in the
complaint.  Several of these opt-in plaintiffs have subsequently
dropped out of the lawsuit.

The suit is "Vennet, et al. v. American Intercontinental
University Online, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04889," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under,
Judge William T. Hart, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robin B. Potter, Esq. (robinpotter@igc.org)
          Robin Potter & Associates P.C.
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-861-1800

Representing the defendants is:

          James M. Gecker, Esq. (james.gecker@kattenlaw.com)
          Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP
          525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Phone: 312-902-5200


CAREER EDUCATION: "Gozzi" Suit Over WCI Information in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class-action suit in Oregon entitled
"Gozzi, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career
Education Corporation," are engaged in discovery.

On March 5, 2008, Shannon Gozzi and Megan Koehnen filed the
complaint in Portland, Oregon, in the Circuit Court of the State
of Oregon in and for Multnomah County.

The plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable
relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act and
unjust enrichment.  They filed an amended complaint on April 10,
2008, adding two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of
contract.

The suit alleges that Western Culinary Institute made a variety
of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's
placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon
graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at
WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as
compared to salaries they may earn after graduation.

On May 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in
which they simply changed the statement "Claims Subject to
Mandatory Arbitration" on the caption to "Claims Not Subject to
Mandatory Arbitration" (emphasis added).

WCI and CEC filed an answer to plaintiff's second amended
complaint on June 13, 2008.

The defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit at
the appropriate time, the company added (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 26, 2008).

WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of Plaintiffs' claims
under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act; that motion was
granted on Sept. 12, 2008.  The parties are presently engaged in
discovery on class issues.  No briefing schedule has been set
for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an
educational services company.  The company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and
three online academic programs.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students.  The
schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree,
bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate
and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and
Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and
Information Technology.  The segments of the company include
Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education,
International and University.


CAREER EDUCATION: Pursues Dismissal of "Blake" Suit in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. and Sanford Brown College continue to
seek the dismissal of a class-action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri,
over allegations that the company "sells" college degrees in
criminal justice by misrepresenting tuition, the quality of the
staff, job placement services, and transferability of credits.

The plaintiffs bring the class action suit pursuant to Rule
52.08 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure and Section
407.025 RSMo on behalf of all Missouri citizens who were paying
students of the associate and bachelor degree programs in
criminal justice st Sanford Brown College during the period from
Jan. 1, 2003, through Jan. 1, 2008 (Class Action Reporter,
March 5, 2008).

The suit, entitled "Blake v. Career Education Corporation,"
alleges that the defendants violated the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act (Section 407.010 RSMo, et seq.) by purposefully
employing a pattern and practice of deception, fraud, and
misrepresentation in the sale of the Criminal Justice Degree
Programs to potential students.

The suit also alleges that the employees and agents of the
defendants made misrepresentations to them which deceived them
to believe that associate and bachelor criminal justice degrees
from SBC were valuable when in reality the degrees had little to
no practical value in the real world.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act,
         Section 407.010 RSMo, et seq., was violated by the
         defendants' acts and omissions, as alleged; and

     (b) whether plaintiffs and members of the class have
         sustained injury by reason of defendants' actions and
         omissions.

They request for injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from
utilizing the deceptive and unfair business practices, and
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and members of the class and
against the defendants, and award the plaintiffs actual damages
in an amount to be proven at trial, for a sum greater than
$25,000, punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
the plaintiffs' reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
incurred,but in no event any total sum greater than $4,999,99,
and for such other and further relief as the court deems proper
under the premises.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the case, which
request is currently pending with the court, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Janet Blake et al. v. Career Education Corporation,
et al., Case No. 0822-CC000777," filed in the Circuit Court of
the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Matthew C. Casey, Esq.
          Matthew J. Devoti, Esq.
          Casey & Devoti, P.C.
          100 North Broadway, Suite 1000
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: 314-421-0763
          Fax: 314-421-5059
          e-mail: info@caseydevoti.com
          Web site: http://www.caseydevoti.com


CAREER EDUCATION: Securities Suit Settlement Approved in Sept.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted final approval to the settlement of the matter "In re
Career Education Corporation Securities Litigation" on Sept. 26,
2008.

The litigation consolidated into one suit six purported class-
action lawsuits filed between Dec. 9, 2003, and Feb. 5, 2004, in
the District Court by and on behalf of certain purchasers of
CEC's common stock, against the company, John M. Larson, and
Patrick K. Pesch, its former officers.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of their
third amended consolidated complaint to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on April 24, 2007.

The parties have reached an agreement to settle the plaintiffs'
claims on appeal, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an
educational services company.  The company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and
three online academic programs.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students.  The
schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree,
bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate
and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and
Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and
Information Technology.  The segments of the company include
Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education,
International and University.


CAREER EDUCATION: Still Faces Amended Complaint in "Diallo" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. and American InterContinental University,
Inc., continues to face an amended complaint in a purported
class-action suit over AIU's admissions process.

On March 19, 2008, a complaint, entitled "Diallo v. American
Intercontinental University, Inc., and Career Education
Corporation," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Georgia of Fulton County, on behalf of Tajuansar Diallo.

The plaintiff filed the complaint individually and as a putative
class action and purports to allege causes of action for fraud,
constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations
of the Georgia Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The suit contends that AIU made a variety of oral and written
misrepresentations to her during the admissions process.  It
alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of
the admissions process, the students' employment prospects upon
graduation from AIU and AIU's ability to arrange beneficial
student loans.

On May 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
in which they added several named plaintiffs and expanded some
of the factual allegations underlying their claims.

On May 31, 2008, AIU and CEC filed an answer to the First
Amended Complaint (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008).

The parties subsequently conducted extensive discovery on class
issues.  Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification
on Oct. 10, 2008.  Defendants' opposition to the motion for
class certification was due on Nov. 10, and the motion was set
for hearing on Dec. 9, 2008, according to the company's Nov. 5,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an
educational services company.  The company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and
three online academic programs.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students.  The
schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree,
bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate
and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and
Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and
Information Technology.  The segments of the company include
Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education,
International and University.


CONSTRUCTION PROTECTIVE: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Hoke"
---------------------------------------------------------------
     COSTA MESA, Calif., Dec. 19, 2008 -- The Petersen Law Firm
announced today that the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange granted the Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit "Hoke v. Construction Protective
Services Case # 05CC-00061 (Hoke 1)," which alleges violations
of the California Labor Code by Construction Protective Services
(CPS).

     The Court also certified a second lawsuit, "Hoke v.
Construction Protective Services Case # 05CC-00062 (Hoke 2)" as
a collective action, based on the plaintiffs' claims arising
from alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) by
CPS.  Mr. Hoke, a former CPS security guard, and other current
and former CPS employees seek to recover unpaid overtime wages.

     Mr. Hoke and the other Plaintiffs in the Hoke lawsuit
contend that Construction Protective Services required them to
work overtime without compensation in violation of the
California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

     The lawsuit asserts that CPS failed to properly compensate
the security guards for the time spent performing required and
integral pre-shift and post-shift work; provide rest periods to
its guards; pay wages for the time associated with travel
required by CPS; failed to reimburse its employees for the cost
of purchasing and maintaining their uniforms; and for failing to
pay its employees immediately upon being discharged or within 72
hours of quitting their employment.

     As a result of the Court's order granting Class
Certification in the Hoke 1 Case, a Class Notice will be sent to
approximately 4,000 current and former employees of Construction
Protective Services, which employees were employed in
California.  Individuals receiving the Class Notice will
automatically be included in the Hoke 1 lawsuit, unless they
elect to Opt-out of the Hoke 1 case.

     The Court certified the Hoke 2 case as a FLSA collective
action.  Accordingly, a Notice of Collective Action will be sent
to approximately 8,000 current or former employees of CPS
working throughout the United States, including those working in
the State of California.  Individuals receiving the Notice of
Collective Action will have the opportunity to Opt-in to the
Hoke 2 case.

     Individuals currently or previously employed by CPS in the
State of California can participate in both Hoke lawsuits.  The
parties are finalizing the text of the Notices, which are
expected to be sent out within the next month. More information
about the Hoke lawsuits, including information about joining
these lawsuits is available from the Petersen Law Firm's
website: http://www.PetersenLawFirm.com.

     The Hoke 1 and Hoke 2 lawsuits were brought to the court by
Gregory G. Petersen of the Petersen Law Firm in March of 2005.
Mr. Petersen was joined as co-counsel by Mr. Kirby Farris, of
Birmingham, Alabama-based Farris, Riley & Pitt, L.L.P.

For more details, contact:

          Jeff Leonard
          The Petersen Law Firm
          Phone: 949-335-1300


DOLLAR TREE: Dec. 17 Final Fairness Hearing Set for Oregon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final fairness hearing was scheduled for Dec. 17, 2008, in the
labor lawsuit filed by former Dollar Tree, Inc. employees in
Oregon.

In 2005, the company was served with a lawsuit by former
employees in Oregon who allege that they did not properly
receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods, and that
terminated employees were not paid in a timely manner.

The trial court certified three classes, two for alleged
violations of that state's labor laws concerning rest breaks and
one related to untimely payments upon termination.

Following a ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court in a similar rest
break class action case, the trial court dismissed one of the
classes.

The parties agreed to mediate, which resulted in a settlement of
all remaining issues.

The agreement received the Court's preliminary approval and a
final fairness hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 17, 2008,
according to the company's Dec. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 1, 2008.

The entire settlement amount is accrued in the condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of Nov. 1, 2008.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety
store chain selling everything for $1 or less.  At Nov. 1, 2008,
the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1
million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2
million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Consolidated Ex-Store Manager's Suit in Ala.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. faces a consolidated lawsuit filed in federal
court in the state of Alabama by a former store manager, who
claims that she should have been classified as a non-exempt
employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In 2006, the company was served with a lawsuit filed by a former
store manager, who claims that she should have been classified
as a non-exempt employee under the FLSA and, therefore, should
have received overtime compensation and other benefits.

The plaintiff filed the case as a collective action on behalf of
herself and all other employees (store managers) similarly
situated.

The plaintiff sought and received from the Court an Order
allowing nationwide (except for the state of California) notice
to be sent to all store managers employed by the company now or
within the past three years.

Such notice was mailed and less than 15% percent of those
eligible to opt-in as a plaintiff did so.

According to its Dec. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1,
2008, the company will challenge the anticipated effort by the
opt-in plaintiffs to be certified as a class following discovery
which is ongoing.

A second suit was recently filed in the same court by the same
plaintiffs' attorneys by named plaintiffs who sue on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated.  The named plaintiffs
in the second suit failed to opt-in to the original suit in a
timely manner.  The allegations in the second suit are
essentially the same as the first.  The Court has consolidated
the two cases.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety
store chain selling everything for $1 or less.  At Nov. 1, 2008,
the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1
million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2
million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Former Employees' Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. is facing two former employees' anticipated
effort to seek class certification for their case against the
company, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 1, 2008.

In 2007, the company was served with a lawsuit filed in federal
court in California by two former employees who allege that:

   -- they were not paid all wages due and owing for time
      worked;

   -- they were not paid in a timely manner upon termination of
      their employment; and

   -- they did not receive accurate itemized wage statements.

They filed the suit as a class action and seek to include in the
class all of the company's former employees in the state of
California.

The company responded with a motion to dismiss which the Court
denied.  The company then answered and opposed plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Court denied certification on the grounds their counsel
failed to demonstrate he would adequately represent the class as
required by the applicable federal rule.  Plaintiffs have now
engaged other counsel.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety
store chain selling everything for $1 or less.  At Nov. 1, 2008,
the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1
million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2
million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Managers' Labor Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. is facing an anticipated effort by one present
and one former store manager to seek class certification for
their case against the company, according to the company's Dec.
5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2008.

In 2007, the company was served with a lawsuit filed in federal
court in the state of California by one present and one former
store manager.

They claim they should have been classified as non-exempt
employees under both the California Labor Code and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

They filed the case as a class action on behalf of California-
based store managers.

The company responded with a motion to dismiss which the Court
granted with respect to allegations of fraud.

The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint which has been
answered by the company.

The company was then served with a second suit in a California
state court, which alleges essentially the same claims as those
contained in the federal action and which likewise seeks class
certification of all California store managers.

The company has removed the case to the same federal court as
the first suit, answered it and the two cases have been
consolidated.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety
store chain selling everything for $1 or less.  At Nov. 1, 2008,
the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1
million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2
million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007.


DOLLAR TREE: Former Employee's Labor Lawsuit in Calif. Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by a former employee in a California state
court, which was served on Dollar Tree, Inc. in 2006, has been
resolved, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 1, 2008.

In 2006, the company was served with a lawsuit by a former
employee in a California state court alleging that:

   -- she was paid for wages with a check drawn on a bank which
      did not have any branches in the state, an alleged
      violation of the state's labor code;

   -- she was paid less for her work than other similar
      employees with the same job title based on her gender; and

   -- she was not paid her final wages in a timely manner, also
      an alleged violation of the labor code.

The plaintiff requested the court to certify the case and those
claims as a class action.

The parties reached a settlement and executed an Agreement by
which the named plaintiff individually settled her Equal Pay Act
and late payment claims.  The Court accepted the proposed
settlement and certified a class for the check claim.

Notices were mailed to class members and a hearing for final
approval of the settlement occurred on April 22, 2008.

The settlement amount was accrued in the condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of Feb. 2, 2008, and was paid to class members
during the second quarter of 2008.  While the Court has
continuing jurisdiction to enforce settlement, the case is
resolved.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety
store chain selling everything for $1 or less.  At Nov. 1, 2008,
the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1
million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2
million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007.


DOLLAR TREE: Wage & Hour Violations Lawsuit in Calif. Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit in a California state court by a former Dollar Tree,
Inc. employee who claimed insufficient meal breaks and unpaid
rest periods is resolved, according to the company's Dec. 5,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2008.

In 2003, the company was served with a lawsuit in a California
state court by a former employee who alleged that employees did
not properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest
periods, along with other alleged wage and hour violations.

The lawsuit requested that the Court certify the case as a class
action.

The parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement which
upon presentation to the Court received preliminary approval and
the certification of a settlement class.

Notices were mailed to the class members and the final fairness
hearing occurred on May 22, 2008.

The settlement amount was accrued in the condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of Feb. 2, 2008, and was paid to class members
during the second quarter of 2008.  While the Court has
continuing jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, the case is
resolved.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety
store chain selling everything for $1 or less.  At Nov. 1, 2008,
the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1
million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2
million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due on Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has ordered the "Kristen-Straxton Group" and Ira Newman, co-lead
plaintiffs, to file a consolidated amended complaint by Dec. 31,
2008, according to E*Trade Financial Corporation's Nov. 5, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Initially, on Oct. 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company and its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2008).

The suit was entitled "Larry Freudenberg, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, versus
E*TRADE Financial Corporation, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J.
Simmons, Defendants."

The plaintiff contends, among other things, that between Dec.
14, 2006, and Sept. 25, 2007, the defendants:

       -- issued materially false and misleading statements and
          failed to disclose that the company was experiencing a
          rise in delinquency rates in its mortgage and home
          equity portfolios;

       -- failed to timely record an impairment on its mortgage
          and home equity portfolios and materially overvalued
          its securities portfolio, which includes assets backed
          by mortgages; and

       -- based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis for
          the positive statements it made about the company's
          earnings and prospects.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages in an amount to be proven
at trial, including interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Four additional class action complaints alleging similar
violations of the federal securities laws and alleging either
the same or somewhat longer class periods were filed in the same
court between Oct. 12, 2007, and Nov. 21, 2007, by named
plaintiffs William Boston, Robert D. Thulman, Wendy M. Davidson,
and Joshua Ferenc.  Mr. Ferenc subsequently dismissed his
complaint on May 2, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, May 27, 2008).

The remaining suits were later consolidated.  The consolidated
class action suit is brought on behalf of people who bought
shares in E*Trade between April 20, 2006, and Nov. 9, 2007.

By order dated July 17, 2008, the trial court appointed the
"Kristen-Straxton Group" and Ira Newman co-lead plaintiffs and
Brower Piven and Levi & Kersinski, respectively, as lead and co-
lead plaintiffs' counsel (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008).

Subsequently, the trial court ordered Plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint by Dec. 31, 2008; Defendants to
file their respective motion to dismiss by March 15, 2009; and
all parties to complete briefing on Defendants' motion to
dismiss by July 31, 2009.

The suit is "Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08538-RWS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Robert W.
Sweet, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

          Davis Polk & Wardwell
          Dennis E. Glazer, Esq. (dennis.glazer@dpw.com)
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-450-4900
          Fax: 212-450-3900

  
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Decertification Bid in "Greenberg" Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corp.'s motions in a purported class-action
suit over the company's practice of recording telephone calls of
customers or consumers without their knowledge or consent remain
pending before the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On Oct. 11, 2006, a state class-action suit, entitled "Nikki
Greenberg, and all those similarly situated, plaintiffs, versus
E*Trade Financial Corporation, defendant," was filed on behalf
of all customers or consumers who allegedly made or received
telephone calls from E*Trade that were recorded without their
knowledge or consent following a telephone call from the
plaintiff to the company's Beverly Hills branch on Aug. 8, 2006,
that was recorded during a brief period when the company's
automated notice system was out of order.

On Feb. 7, 2008, class certification was granted and the class
defined to consist of:

       -- all persons in California who received telephone calls
          from E*Trade and whose calls were recorded without
          their consent within three years of Oct. 11, 2006, and

       -- all persons who made calls from California to the
          company's Beverly Hills branch office on Aug. 8, 2006.

In the interim, the company has filed motions seeking to de-
certify or further limit the defined class, and the plaintiffs
have filed competing motions seeking to expand it (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008).

At the request of the trial court, these motions, formerly set
for Sept. 19, 2008, are to be reset for hearing at a date to be
determined, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

E*Trade Financial Corp. -- https://www.etrade.com/ -- is a
global financial services company, offering a range of financial
solutions to customers under the brand E*TRADE FINANCIAL.  Its
financial solutions include a suite of trading, investing,
banking and lending products.  Its primary retail products and
services consist of trading and investing, banking and lending
products.  Trading and investing includes automated order
placement and execution of United States and international
equities, currencies, futures, options, exchange-traded funds,
mutual funds and bonds.  Banking includes checking, savings,
sweep, money market and certificates of deposit products that
offer online bill pay, quick transfer, unlimited automated
teller machines transactions on eligible accounts and wireless
account access.  Lending includes mortgage, home equity, margin
and credit card products that offer online loan status and quick
transfer.  The company's primary institutional product is market
making.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit, filed on April 2, 2008, is entitled "John W. Oughtred,
Individually, and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities, LLC, Defendants."

The plaintiff contends, among other things, that the company
committed various sales practice violations in the sale of
certain auction rate securities to investors between April 2,
2003, and Feb. 13, 2008, by allegedly misrepresenting that these
securities were highly liquid and safe investments for short
term investing.

On April 17, 2008, the trial court entered an order relieving
the company of its obligation to move, answer or otherwise
respond to the complaint until such time as the court may deem
appropriate (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008).

The plaintiff Oughtred then joined plaintiffs in 12 other
actions involving auction rate securities, in which the Company
is not named as defendant, in filing a motion seeking to
centralize all 13 actions in the Southern District of New York
or in the alternative, the Northern District of California.

By order filed Oct. 9, 2008, a U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation denied plaintiffs' motion to transfer.

The suit is "Oughtred v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al.,
Case No. 1:08-cv-03295-SHS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Sidney H. Stein,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David R. Buchanan, Esq. (dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com)
          Seeger Weiss LLP
          One William Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-584-0700
          Fax: 212-584-0799

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP
          601 California St, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Fax: 415-981-4846

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq. (siegel@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7112
          Fax: 816-714-7101

Representing the defendants are:

          Joshua Samuel Sohn, Esq. (joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: 212-335-4500
          Fax: 212-335-4501


SEMTECH CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Semtech Corp. continues to face a consolidated purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Initially, the company was named as a defendant in two purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuits that were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In August 2007, a purported class-action suit was filed against
the company and certain current and former officers on behalf of
persons who purchased or acquired Semtech securities from Sept.
11, 2002, until July 19, 2006.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges violations of federal securities
laws in connection with the company's past stock option
practices.

The plaintiffs demand a jury trial but make no specific monetary
demand.

A very similar lawsuit was filed in October 2007, by another
plaintiff, which suit has not been served to the company.

In February 2008, MPERS filed a motion with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California for consolidation
of the cases, appointment of MPERS as lead plaintiff, and
approval of selection of counsel.  The MPERS motion was granted
in late March 2008.

Recently, motions to dismiss and for other remedial actions were
filed by the company and all named individual defendants.
Hearing on the motions was set for Dec. 8, 2008, according to
the company's Dec. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Oct. 26, 2008.

The suit is "Middlesex County Retirement System, et al. v.
Semtech Corp. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-07114-CAS-FMO," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge Christina A. Snyder, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Alan I. Ellman, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          e-mail: info@labaton.com

               - and -

          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. (mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com)
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160

Representing the defendants are:

          Colleen Elizabeth Huschke, Esq.
          (colleenhuschke@paulhastings.com)
          Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
          3579 Valley Centre Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: 858-720-2500

               - and -

          Robert W. Brownlie, Esq.
          (robert.brownlie@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-699-3665
          Fax: 619-699-2701


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Court Awards Company in Merger Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New
Castle County, on Aug. 8, 2008, awarded SS&C Technologies, Inc.
$250,000 in legal fees and expenses in a purported class-action
lawsuit over the definitive merger agreement that the company
signed on July 28, 2005, wherein it agreed to to be acquired by
a corporation affiliated with The Carlyle Group.

Initially, two purported class-action complaints were filed
against the company, each of its directors, and, with respect to
the first matter, Sunshine Acquisition Corp., before the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle
County.

The first suit, "Paulena Partners, LLC v. SS&C Technologies,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1525-N," was filed on July 28, 2005.

The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against all of the company's directors at the time of
filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

      -- the merger will benefit company's management at the
         expense of company's public stockholders,

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         inadequate and does not represent the best price
         available in the marketplace for the company and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
         company's stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and rescissory damages to
the class and attorneys' fees and expenses, along with such
other relief as the court might find just and proper.

The second lawsuit is "Stephen Landen v. SS&C Technologies,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1541-N," which was filed on Aug. 3, 2005.
The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against all of the company's directors at the time of
filing of the lawsuit.

It asserts similar allegations as the first lawsuit.  It also
seeks class certification, an injunction preventing the
consummation of the merger, compensatory and rescissory damages
to the class and costs and disbursements of the lawsuit,
including attorneys' and experts' fees, along with such other
relief as the court might find just and proper.

The two lawsuits were consolidated by order dated Aug. 31, 2005.

On Oct. 18, 2005, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit
entered into a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which
the company agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its
stockholders in connection with their approval of the merger.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the
parties would enter into a settlement agreement, which the
parties executed on July 6, 2006.

Under the settlement agreement, the company agreed to pay up to
$350,000 of plaintiffs' legal fees and expenses.

The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to its stockholders.

The court did not find that the settlement agreement was fair,
reasonable and adequate and rejected it on Nov. 29, 2006.

The court criticized the plaintiffs' counsel's handling of the
litigation, noting that the plaintiffs' counsel displayed a lack
of understanding of basic terms of the merger, did not appear to
have adequately investigated the plaintiffs' potential claims
and was unable to identify the basic legal issues in the case.

The court also raised questions about the process leading up to
the transaction, but the court did not make any findings of fact
on the litigation other than that there were not adequate facts
in evidence to support the settlement.

The plaintiffs decided to continue the litigation following
rejection of the settlement, and the parties proceeded with
discovery.

On Nov. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to withdraw from the
lawsuit with notice to SS&C's former shareholders.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the defendants opposed the plaintiffs' motion
for notice to shareholders in connection with their withdrawal
and moved for sanctions against the plaintiffs and removal of
confidentiality restrictions on plaintiffs' discovery materials.

At a hearing on Feb. 8, 2008, the court orally granted the
plaintiffs' motion to withdraw, declined to order notice and
took the defendants' motion for sanctions under advisement.

In its memorandum opinion and order dated March 6, 2008, the
court granted in part the defendants' motion for sanctions,
awarding attorneys' fees and other expenses that the defendants
reasonably incurred in defending the plaintiffs' motion to
withdraw and in bringing a motion to unseal the record and for
sanctions.

The court noted that further proceedings were required to
determine the proper amount of the award, and it directed the
parties to submit a schedule to bring this matter to a
conclusion.

On March 28, 2008, the defendants submitted their fee petition
to the court.  The parties subsequently submitted to the court a
proposed schedule, which was approved by the court on April 21,
2008.

On May 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to
defendants' fee petition (Class Action Reporter, June 25, 2008).

The court heard oral argument on the fee petition on July 9,
2008, and on July 17, 2008, defendants submitted a supplemental
fee petition covering their fees and expenses incurred in
connection with preparing, filing, and arguing for their
original fee petition, those fees and costs having been granted
by the court in its March 6, 2008 memorandum opinion and order.

On July 25, 2008, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants'
supplemental fee petition.

On Aug. 8, 2008, the court awarded the Company $250,000 in legal
fees and expenses, effectively bringing this matter to a
conclusion, according to the company's Nov. 4 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

SS&C Technologies Holdings -- http://www.ssctech.com/-- helps
its clients buy low and sell high.  The company (which operates
through its SS&C Technologies subsidiary) designs software for
managing financial portfolios, loans, real estate equity, back-
office processing, and securities trading, and it provides
consulting and outsourcing services.  SS&C's software handles
investment portfolio management, asset and liability management
for actuaries, property and casualty insurance company risk
management, and trade ordering and modeling.  Customers include
asset managers, insurance companies, banks, corporate
treasuries, hedge funds, home offices, and government agencies.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Brauldi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec 19, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of
purchasers of Integral Systems, Inc. ("Integral Systems" or the
"Company") securities during the period between April 28, 2008
and December 10, 2008 (the "Class Period") for violations of the
federal securities laws.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that its financial
results were materially overstated and that financial statements
were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.

     According to the complaint, on December 11, 2008, after the
Company revealed accounting errors for the first three quarters
of 2008, the value of Integral Systems' stock declined
significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.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  * * *