CAR_Public/081230.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 30, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 257
  
                           Headlines

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in OrthoClear Lawsuit
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Jan. 21, 2009 Final Settlement Hearing Set
COMPUCREDIT: Suit Over "Payday Lending" Business Pending in N.C.
COMPUCREDIT CORP: To Seek Dismissal of Ga. Securities Fraud Suit
CONVERGYS CORP: Still Faces Intervoice Securities Suit in Texas

DOLLAR THRIFTY: PCRTA Program Suits Consolidated With "Shames"
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Still Faces Amended Complaint in "Shames" Suit
E.I. DUPONT: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in PFOA Suit
FINRA: Faces Lawsuit for Allegedly Misleading Ex-NASD Members
EMBARQ CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Mo. Over CenturyTel Offer

GOOGLE INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in RICO Lawsuit
LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $4.2M
MOODY'S CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Pending in N.Y.
NATIONAL CITY: Settles Lawsuit Over Late Fees in West Virginia
TIME WARNER: Administration of $2.65BB Settlement Still Ongoing

TIME WARNER: "Parker" Settlement Still Subject to Final Approval
TIME WARNER: Seeks to Notify Members of ERISA Fraud Suit in N.Y.
TIME WARNER: Still Facing "Brantley" Antitrust Suit in Calif.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

RYE SELECT: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SOUTHWEST WATER: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in OrthoClear Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on motions in a purported class-action lawsuit
filed against Align Technology Inc., OrthoClear Inc., and
OrthoClear Holdings Inc., 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 complaint, filed on behalf of Debra A. Weber and all others
similarly situated on May 18, 2007, alleges that orthodontic
treatments of the dental patient plaintiff "were interrupted,
unduly prolonged or terminated as a result of defendants'
unlawful conduct" relating to the OrthoClear Settlement.

                    OrthoClear Settlement

On Oct. 13, 2006, Align Technology entered into a formal
agreement with OrthoClear Inc., OrthoClear Holdings, and
OrthoClear Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. (OrthoClear), together with
certain individuals associated with OrthoClear to end all
pending litigation between the parties.

As part of the OrthoClear Settlement, OrthoClear agreed to stop
the importation of aligners into the U.S. and discontinue all
aligner business operations worldwide.

As a result, most OrthoClear patients were unable to complete
their orthodontic treatment with OrthoClear.  In an attempt to
help minimize treatment disruptions for the OrthoClear patients
and their doctors, Align Tech committed to make treatment
available to these patients at no additional cost under the
"Patients First Program."

Align Technology launched the Patients First Program to provide
new Invisalign treatment to former OrthoClear patients at no
charge to patients or their doctors.

                       Causes of Action

The "Weber" complaint alleges two causes of action against the
OrthoClear defendants and one cause of action against Align
Technology for breach of contract.

The cause of action against Align Technology references the
company's agreement to make Invisalign treatment available to
OrthoClear patients, alleging that Align failed "to provide the
promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of the Class Members."

On July 3, 2007, the company filed its answer to the complaint
and asserted 17 affirmative defenses.  On July 20, 2007, the
company filed a motion for summary judgment on the Third Cause
of Action (the only cause of action alleged against Align).

On Aug. 24, 2007, Ms. Weber filed a motion for class
certification.  On Oct. 1, 2007, the company filed an opposition
to the motion of class certification and it is currently
awaiting rulings from the Court.

OrthoClear has filed a motion to dismiss the case.  The initial
case management conference and all discovery has been stayed
pending the Court's decision on the motion for class
certification, OrthoClear's motion to dismiss and Align's motion
for summary judgment (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 9, 2008).

The suit is "Weber v. Align Technology, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:07-cv-00535-NAM-GJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Norman A. Mordue,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

         Mark J. Schulte, Esq. (mschulte@hancocklaw.com)
         Daniel B. Berman, Esq. (dberman@hancocklaw.com)
         Maureen E. Maney, Esq. (mmaney@hancocklaw.com)
         Zachary M. Mattison, Esq. (zmattison@hancocklaw.com)
         Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm
         P.O. Box 4976
         1500 MONY Tower I
         Syracuse, NY 13221-4976
         Phone: 315-471-3151
         Fax: 315-471-3167
              315-233-4312


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Jan. 21, 2009 Final Settlement Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 21, 2009 hearing has been set to consider the final
approval of a $2-million settlement in a securities class-action
lawsuit filed in Colorado against Allos Therapeutics Inc. and
one of its former officers, 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 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado in May 2004.  The complaint was then amended in
August 2004.  It was brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's securities during the period from
May 29, 2003, to April 29, 2004.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages relating to the
issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements regarding
the cancer drug EFAPROXYN during the class period and subsequent
declines in the company's stock price.

On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  In an opinion
dated Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the
plaintiffs' complaint failed to meet the legal requirements
applicable to its alleged claims.

On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

In October 2006, the parties held talks to settle the matter,
and on Feb. 6, 2008, they signed a stipulation of settlement,
resolving the case for $2,000,000.

The Court of Appeals accordingly has remanded the case to the
District Court for consideration of the settlement.  The
settlement is subject to various conditions, including without
limitation, approval of the District Court (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008).

On Sept. 15, 2008, the District Court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing
on Jan. 21, 2009, to consider final approval of the settlement.  
Neither the company nor its former officer admits any liability
in connection with the settlement.  The amount of the settlement
in excess of the company's deductible has been covered by its
insurance carrier.  

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the company has recorded $2,000,000 in
accrued litigation settlement costs, which represents its best
estimate of the potential gross amount of the settlement costs
to be paid to the plaintiffs, and $2,000,000 in prepaid expenses
and other assets, which represents the approximately $235,000 of
remaining deductible under its insurance policy paid by the
company and $1,765,000 paid by its insurance carrier into the
settlement fund escrow in September 2008.  

A claims administrator appointed by the parties will administer
the distribution of the settlement fund to authorized claimants
in 2009.

The suit is "Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01030-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado, Judge Richard P. Matsch,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq. (jberens@dyershuman.com)
          Dyer & Shuman, LLP
          801 East 17th Avenue
          Denver, CO 80218-1417
          Phone: 303-861-3003
          Fax: 303-830-6920

Representing the defendants are:

         Tara L. Acton, Esq. (tacton@bw-legal.com)
         Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C.
         370 - 17th Street, Republic Plaza #4800
         Denver, CO 80202-5698
         Phone: 303-825-0800
         Fax: 303-629-7610

              - and -

         Paul Howard Schwartz, Esq. (schwartzph@cooley.com)
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         380 Interlocken, Crescent #900
         Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
         Phone: 720-566-4000
         Fax: 720-566-4099


COMPUCREDIT: Suit Over "Payday Lending" Business Pending in N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Corp. and five of its subsidiaries remain defendants
in a purported class-action suit entitled "Knox, et al., vs.
First Southern Cash Advance, et al., No 5 CV 0445," according to
the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Spet. 30, 2008.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County,
North Carolina, on Feb. 8, 2005.  The plaintiffs allege that in
conducting a so-called "payday lending" business, certain of the
company's Retail Micro-Loans segment subsidiaries violated
various laws governing consumer finance, lending, check cashing,
trade practices and loan brokering.

The plaintiffs further allege that the company is the alter ego
of its subsidiaries and is liable for their actions.  They are
seeking damages of up to $75,000 per class member (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008).

CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a  
provider of various credit and related financial services and
products to or associated with the financially underserved
consumer credit market.  The company serves this market
principally through its marketing and solicitation of credit
card accounts and other credit products and servicing of various
receivables underlying originated accounts and portfolio
acquisitions. It operates through five segments: Credit Cards,
Investments in Previously Charged-Off Receivables, Retail Micro-
Loans, Auto Finance and Other.


COMPUCREDIT CORP: To Seek Dismissal of Ga. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in a purported securities fraud class-action suit
in Georgia, entitled "Waterford Township General Employees
Retirement System vs. CompuCredit Corporation, et al., Civil
Action No. 08-CV-2270, intend to file a motion to dismiss,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on July 14, 2008, against CompuCredit and
four of the company's officers -- David G. Hanna, Richard R.
House, Jr., Richard W. Gilbert, and J. Paul Whitehead III.

In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements (or concealed information) regarding
the nature of the company's assets, accounting for loan losses,
marketing and collection practices, exposure to sub-prime
losses, ability to lend funds, and expected future performance
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008).

On Aug. 22, 2008, a virtually identical case was filed entitled
"Steinke vs. CompuCredit Corporation et al., Civil Action No.
08-CV-2687."

The complaints recently were consolidated, but a consolidated
complaint has not yet been filed.

The suit is "Waterford Township General Employees Retirement
System v. CompuCredit Corporation et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-
02270-TWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer, Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 770-392-0090

               - and -

          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423


CONVERGYS CORP: Still Faces Intervoice Securities Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Corp. continues to face a consolidated class-action
lawsuit against Intervoice, Inc., 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.

In September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its
acquisition of Intervoice.

Several related class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Intervoice during the period from
Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000 (the Class Period).

The plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into
one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice as well as certain
named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on
behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Intervoice and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger
with Brite and the alleged future business projections of
Intervoice.  They have asserted that these alleged statements
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint because
it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet
the pleading standards applicable to federal securities
litigation.  

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in
part and reversed in part.  The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited
number of issues for further proceedings in the District Court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice
stock during the Class Period.  

On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted Intervoice's
petition to appeal the District Court’s decision to grant
Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's
class-certification order and remanded the case to the District
Court for further consideration in light of the Fifth Circuit's
decision in "Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance
Telecom, Inc."  

The parties filed additional briefing in the District Court
regarding class certification and are awaiting the District
Court's ruling.  

The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint and Intervoice moved to dismiss
portions of that amended complaint.  On March 14, 2008, the
District Court granted that motion in part and denied it in
part.  

Intervoice has largely completed the production of documents in
response to the plaintiffs' requests for production.

Convergys Corp. -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global  
player in relationship management.  The Company provides its
clients with solutions to support their customers (Customer
Solutions) and employees (human resource (HR) Solutions).  It
has three segments: Customer Management, which provides
outsourced customer care solutions, as well as professional and
consulting services to in-house customer care operations;
Information Management, which provides convergent rating,
charging and billing solutions for the global communications
industry, and Human Resources Management, which provides human
resource business process outsourcing (HR BPO) solutions and
learning solutions.  In September 2008, Convergys announced the
closing of its acquisition of Intervoice, Inc.  In October 2008,
the Company announced the acquisition of Ceon Corporation, a
developer of product lifecycle management and multi-play
fulfillment software for communications service providers.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: PCRTA Program Suits Consolidated With "Shames"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class-action lawsuits filed against Dollar Thrifty
Automotive Group, Inc. -- pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District Court of California -- in connection to
the Passenger Car Rental Tourism Assessment Program have been
consolidated with the suit styled, "Shames et al. v. Hertz
Corporation et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM,.

On Dec. 13, 2007, and Dec. 14, 2007, purported class-action
suits were filed against the Company, by Thomas Comisky and
Isabel Cohen, respectively, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

These lawsuits claim a violation of rights guaranteed under the
Free Speech and Free Association Clauses by compelling out-of-
state visitors to subsidize the Passenger Car Rental Tourism
Assessment Program, that the Program violates the Interstate
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by limiting the
assessment to airport locations renting to out-of-state
travelers and a violation of the California Constitution by not
maintaining segregated accounts for the pass through funds.

The Comiskey case is styled, "Thomas J. Comiskey, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Avis Budget Group,
Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., Avalon Global Group,
Hertz Corporation, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Fox Rent A Car, Inc.,
Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc., Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car
Rental, inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
California Travel and Tourism Commission and Dale E. Bonner in
his capacity as Secretary of Business, Transportation and
Housing for the State of California (No. CV07-08118 FMC AJWx
(C.D. Cal.))."

The Cohen case is styled, "Isabel Cohen, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Avis Budget Group, Inc.,
Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., Avalon Global Group, Hertz
Corporation, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Fox Rent A Car, Inc.,
Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc., Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car
Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
California Travel and Tourism Commission and Dale E. Bonner, in
his capacity as Secretary of Business, Transportation and
Housing for the State of California (No. CV07-08164 JSL FFMx
(C.D. Cal.))."

These suits seek injunctive relief to stop the pass through, a
refund of all assessments, damages and fees.

On Sept. 23, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California issued its order granting defendants'
motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, and consolidated these cases
with the Shames case, 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.

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--   
through its subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the business
of daily rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers
through Company-owned stores.  The Company has two rental car
brands, Dollar and Thrifty, both of which operate through a
network of Company-owned stores and franchisees.  DTG also
leases vehicles to franchisees for use in the daily vehicle
rental business, sells vehicle rental franchises worldwide, and
provides sales and marketing, reservations, data processing
systems, insurance and other services to franchisees.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Still Faces Amended Complaint in "Shames" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. continues to face an
amended purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District Court of California alleging
antitrust violations, 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, "Shames et al. v. Hertz Corporation et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM," was filed on Nov. 14, 2007, by Michael
Shames and Gary Gramkow, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

The lawsuit claims that the pass through of the California Trade
and Tourism Commission and Airport Concession Fees authorized by
legislation effective in January 2007 constitute antitrust
violations of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair
Competition Act.

The suit seeks injunctive and equitable relief to stop the pass
through, restitution, damages and fees.

On April 8, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend the putative class action, on the
ground that the plaintiffs failed to state claims for which
relief could be granted.

The plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
and on July 25, 2008 the Court issued an order denying the
motion as to the antitrust claims but granting the motion to
dismiss state law claims.  The court also dismissed The
California Travel and Tourism Commission from the litigation
based on state action immunity.

The suit is "Shames et al. v. Hertz Corporation et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court of California, Judge Marilyn L. Huff,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Dennis James Stewart, Esq. (dstewart@hulettharper.com)
          Hulett Harper Stewart
          550 West C. Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-338-1133
          Fax: 619-338-1139

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael L. Weiner, Esq. (mweiner@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6522
          Phone: 212-735-2666
          Fax: 917-777-2632

          Jeffrey Alan LeVee, Esq. (jlevee@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-243-2572
          Fax: 213-243-2539

               - and -

          Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-984-8947
          Fax: 415-984-8701


E.I. DUPONT: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in PFOA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
denied class-action status for a group of Salem County residents
suing E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. over chemical emissions from
the company's Chambers Works plant, Andrew Eder of The News
Journal reports.

However, the judge left open the possibility of an amended
request from the plaintiffs, who seek to compel DuPont to pay
for a medical monitoring program.

The litigation was brought by citizens who are alleging that
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) released from the plant, situated
at the foot of the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Deepwater, N.J.,
has contaminated public water supplies and private residential
wells in the area, according to The News Journal.

There is no federal drinking water standard for PFOA, although
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has set a
preliminary safety guideline for the chemical, used to make the
nonstick coating Teflon and other products.

In a 58-page opinion, obtained by The News Journal, Judge Renee
Marie Bumb said the plaintiffs had not provided an adequate
analysis for any of their claims except their assertion that
DuPont should pay medical monitoring expenses for those exposed
to PFOA.

According to Judge Bumb, a monitoring program for PFOA would be
difficult to administer because of disparities among plaintiffs
in exposure, risk of disease and the need for medical
monitoring.

Judge Bumb also stated, "The presence of so many individualized
issues would make managing a class action for medical monitoring
inordinately difficult."   She adds, "The problems inherent in
managing the individual issues of thousands of class members
would certainly outweigh any advantages gained by allowing the
class action to proceed."

However, the judge said the plaintiffs could file another brief
detailing which specific medical monitoring issues would be
appropriate for a class action, or seek permission from the
court to file a motion for class certification on one of their
five other claims against DuPont, The News Journal reported.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com--  
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.


FINRA: Faces Lawsuit for Allegedly Misleading Ex-NASD Members
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, formed by the
merger of the NASD and the New York Stock Exchange's oversight
unit, was accused in a lawsuit of misleading NASD members over
$35,000 payments to each of them, David Glovin of Bloomberg.com
reports.

FINRA's creation last year marked one of the largest overhauls
of private securities regulation in decades, eliminating dual
oversight of about 170 brokerages.  The NASD paid each of its
members $35,000, or a total of about $175 million, in
anticipation of cost savings.

The complaint, filed today in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under the caption, "Benchmark
Financial v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Case No.
08-cv-1193," claims NASD and its officers deceived members when
they said the most members could receive was $35,000, because of
a cap imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, reports
Bloomberg.com.

In fact, more than $1 billion was available to members,
according to the complaint filed by Florida-based Benchmark
Financial Services Inc.  "Contrary to defendants' repeated and
adamant claims, a much higher member payment was not only
possible but feasible," Benchmark said in the complaint.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and an order certifying
the case as a class action, or group lawsuit, on behalf of
former NASD members, Bloomberg.com reported.



EMBARQ CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Mo. Over CenturyTel Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Embarq Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit from a
shareholder seeking to halt its acquisition by CenturyTel Inc.,
claiming the deal shortchanges investors, Monroe News Star
reports.

The suit was filed earlier this month in Johnson County District
Court in Kansas City, Mo. by Richard Tyner.  It accuses Embarq
corporate officials of ignoring higher and better offers from
other suitors so they would receive well-paid positions at
CenturyTel.

Monroe News Star reported that securities filings show other
companies were interested in buying Embarq and at least one
offered a stock-and-cash offer that was superior to what
CenturyTel was offering.

However, the suit contends that Embarq leaders "placed their own
personal interests ahead of those of the company's
shareholders."

Under the combined company, Embarq chief executive Tom Gerke
will serve as vice chairman and current Embarq Chairman William
Owens will serve as non-executive chairman.  In addition, seven
other Embarq board members will retain their seats.  Also,
CenturyTel chief executive Glen Post will remain in charge of
the combined company, according to Monroe News Star.

According to the lawsuit, "To secure these lucrative and
prestigious positions, on top of accepting an inadequate price
in the face of a superior offer, the defendants agreed to deal
terms that protected CenturyTel's interests in deterring rival
bidders."

The lawsuit asks the court to rule the acquisition agreement
"unlawful and unenforceable," block the deal until it "provides
the best possible terms for shareholders" and to order the
company to get a better deal.


GOOGLE INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in RICO Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denied a motion that sought class-action status to a lawsuit
against Google, Inc. over "typosquatting," which is alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, Wendy Davis of Mediapost.com reports.

In denying the case to go forward as a class-action suit, Judge
Blanche Manning of the Northern District of Illinois ruled that
class certification was not appropriate because the trademark
issues raised in the lawsuit required individualized
determinations, according to Mediapost.com.

Mediapost.com reported that with the ruling the search giant
will only have to defend itself against one company's trademark
infringement and cybersquatting allegations, significantly
limiting the search company's potential damages,

                        Case Background

Jason Lee Miller of WebProNews explains that "typosquatting" is
the practice of registering a domain that is an errant version
of a popular website in order to gain traffic and ad clicks from
people who misspell or mistype their intended domain.  For
example, one might type bankofamrica.com instead of
bankofamerica.com.  "Typosquatting" has been illegal in the U.S.
since 1999, and is considered trademark infringement in most
countries (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2008).

Jordan Golson of The Industry Standard reports that under the
scam, which has been around for years, companies will buy
domains like "ccartoonnetwork.com" or "bankkofamerica.com"
hoping that users will misspell domain names when entering them
in the browser window.  Then, when users land on those pages,
they click the Google AdSense ads that are on the pages,
generating revenue for Google and the company that bought the
domain name.  The loser, says Harvard Business School professor
Benjamin G. Edelman, who is co-counsel in the lawsuit, is the
company whose trademarks have been infringed.

The suit is captioned, "Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:2007cv03371," and was filed on June 15, 2007.  It
accuses the search giant and various "typosquatting" companies
of trademark infringement.

Others named as defendants in the suit, include: Oversee.Net,
Sedo LLC, Dotster, Inc., Internet Reit, Inc. and several John
Does I-X.

Professor Edelman estimates Google makes between $32 and $50
million in gross profit each year -- potentially much more --
from placing its AdSense text ads on so-called "typosquatting"
sites.

The suit is "Vulcan Golf, LLC et al v. Google Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-03371," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Blanche M. Manning,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert M. Foote, Esq. (rmf@foote-meyers.com)
          Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, LLC
          28 North First Street
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Phone: (630) 232-6333

               - and -

          William J. Harte, Esq. (wharte@williamharteltd.com)
          William J. Harte, Ltd.
          111 West Washington Street
          Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 726-5015

Representing the defendants are:

          Alison C. Conlon, Esq. (conlon@wildmanharrold.com)
          Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, LLP
          225 West Wacker Drive
          Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606-1229
          Phone: (312) 201-2000

               - and -

          Henry M. Baskerville, Esq.
          (hbasker@stetlerandduffy.com)
          Stelter & Duffy, Ltd.
          11 S. LaSalle
          Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 338-0200
          Fax: (312) 338-0070


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $4.2M
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Dec. 23, 2008 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Leadis
Technology, Inc. announced that a settlement has been reached in
its shareholder class-action lawsuit.

     The company announced that it has reached a settlement in
principle regarding the securities class action lawsuit filed in
April 2005 pertaining to the company's initial public offering
in June 2004.  

     The terms of the settlement, which include no admission of
liability or wrongdoing by Leadis, provide for a full and
complete release of all claims in the litigation and payment of
$4.2 million into a settlement fund.


MOODY'S CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
Moody's Corp. remains pending with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

Initially, two purported class-action complaints have been filed
by purported purchasers of the company's securities against the
company and certain of its senior officers, asserting claims
under the federal securities laws.

The first was filed by Raphael Nach in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on July 19, 2007.  The
second was filed by Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Sept. 26, 2007.

Both actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding,
entitled "In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:07-cv-08375-SWK," in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On June 27, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
securities during the period from Feb. 3, 2006, through Oct. 24,
2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business conduct,
business prospects, business conditions and financial results
relating primarily to MIS's ratings of structured finance
products including RMBS, CDO and constant-proportion debt
obligations.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
connection with the case (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008).

The company did not report any updates regarding the case in its
Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:07-cv-08375-SWK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Frederick W. Gerkens, III, Esq.
          (fgerkens@glancylaw.com)
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1430 Broadway, Suite 1603
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-382-2221
          Fax: 212-382-3944

          Ira M. Press, Esq. (ipress@kmllp.com)
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-371-6600
          Fax: 212-751-2540

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Hinerfeld, Esq. (bhinerfeld@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants is:

          Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. (nelless@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-558-4976
          Fax: 212-558-3338


NATIONAL CITY: Settles Lawsuit Over Late Fees in West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
National City Mortgage Co., a unit of National City Corp.,
settles a purported class-action suit in West Virginia, which
accuses the company of allegedly refusing to credit a partial
payment or charging more than one late fee for the same late
payment, Kate Long of The Charleston Gazette reports.

About 3,000 West Virginians will soon get a check from National
City Mortgage, as part of a settlement, which the Ohio-based
lender agreed to back in Dec. 19, 2008.   In essence, the
company agreed to pay 2,859 of its West Virginia customers for
its alleged actions.

National City does not admit guilt in the settlement, but the
company has agreed to pay a penalty of $700,000, including $151
for each refused payment or duplicate late fee.  More than 60
customers with multiple infractions will receive at least
$1,000.

"National City will not be doing those things in the future in
West Virginia," said lawyer John Barrett of Charleston law firm
Bailey and Glasser.

In general, the suit accuses National City of failing to credit
payments and charging illegal late fees, as well as "harassing
and abusive debt collection practices."

The settlement became final earlier this month in the U.S.
District Court of the Southern Distirct of West Virginia, in a
hearing before Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr., according of The
Charleston Gazette.

For more details, contact:

          Bailey & Glasser LLP
          227 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 345-6555
          Fax: (304) 342-1110
          Web site: http://www.baileyglasser.com


TIME WARNER: Administration of $2.65BB Settlement Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The administration of the $2.65-billion settlement in a lawsuit
captioned "AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities & 'ERISA'
Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 5575" remains ongoing.

During the Summer and Fall of 2002, 30 shareholder class-action
suits were filed in various U.S. District Courts naming as
defendants the company, certain current and former executives of
the company and, in several instances, America Online, Inc.

The complaints purported to be made on behalf of certain
shareholders of the company and alleged that the company made
material misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs claimed that the company failed to disclose AOL's
declining advertising revenues and that the company and AOL
inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in a series of
transactions.

Certain of the lawsuits also alleged that certain of the
individual defendants and other insiders at the company
improperly sold their personal holdings of Time Warner stock,
that the company failed to disclose that the January 2001 merger
of America Online (now AOL LLC) and Time Warner Inc., now known
as AOL-Historic TW Merger, was not generating the synergies
anticipated at the time of the announcement of the merger and,
further, that the company inappropriately delayed writing down
more than $50 billion of goodwill.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount in compensatory
damages.

All of these lawsuits were centralized in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings (along with the federal
derivative lawsuits and certain lawsuits brought under ERISA)
under the caption, "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and
'ERISA' Litigation."

The Minnesota State Board of Investment was designated lead
plaintiff for the consolidated securities actions and filed a
consolidated amended complaint on April 15, 2003, adding
additional defendants including additional officers and
directors of the company, Morgan Stanley & Co., Salomon Smith
Barney Inc., Citigroup Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC and
JP Morgan Chase & Co.

The plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that
the company made material misrepresentations in its registration
statements and joint proxy statement-prospectus related to the
AOL-Historic TW Merger and in its registration statements
pursuant to which debt securities were issued in April 2001 and
April 2002, allegedly in violation of Section 11 and Section 12
of the Securities Act of 1933.

                        The Settlement

In July 2005, the company reached an agreement in principle with
MSBI for the settlement of the consolidated securities actions.
The settlement is reflected in a written agreement between the
lead plaintiff and the company.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and certified the
settlement class.

The court issued an order dated April 6, 2006, granting final
approval of the settlement, and the time to appeal that decision
has expired.

In connection with reaching the agreement in principle on the
securities class action, the company established a reserve of
$3 billion during the second quarter of 2005 reflecting the MSBI
settlement and other pending related shareholder and ERISA
litigation.

Pursuant to the MSBI settlement, in October 2005, Time Warner
paid $2.4 billion into a settlement fund for the members of the
class represented in the action, and Ernst & Young LLP paid
$100 million.

Also in connection with the settlement, the $150 million
previously paid by Time Warner into a fund in connection with
the settlement of the investigation by the DOJ was transferred
to the MSBI Settlement Fund.

In addition, the $300 million the company previously paid in
connection with the settlement of its SEC investigation will be
distributed to investors through the MSBI settlement process
pursuant to an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia on July 11, 2006.

On Oct. 27, 2006, the court awarded to plaintiffs' counsel fees
in the amount of $147.5 million and reimbursement for expenses
in the amount of $3.4 million, plus interest accrued on such
amounts since Oct. 7, 2005, the date the company paid
$2.4 billion into the MSBI Settlement Fund; these amounts are to
be paid from the MSBI Settlement Fund.

On May 2, 2007, the court entered an order directing an initial
distribution of these funds.  Administration of the MSBI
settlement is ongoing (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008).

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o Gilardi & Co., Settlement Administrator
          P.O. Box 808061
          Petaluma, CA 949475-8061
          Phone: 877-800-7852
          e-mail: aoltimewarnersettlement@gilardi.com
          Web site: http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com/


TIME WARNER: "Parker" Settlement Still Subject to Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported nationwide class-action suit,
entitled "Parker, et al. v. Time Warner Entertai, et al., Case
No. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA," which alleged violation of
subscribers privacy rights by Time Warner Entertainment Co.,
L.P., and Time Warner Cable remains subject to final approval by
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The suit, "Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time
Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. and Time Warner Cable," alleged
that the company sold its subscribers' personally identifiable
information and failed to inform subscribers of their privacy
rights in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984 and common law.  The plaintiffs sought damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On Aug. 6, 1998, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case,
which request was denied on Sept. 7, 1999.  In December 1999,
the company filed a motion to deny class certification, and this
motion was granted by the court with respect to monetary
damages, but denied with respect to injunctive relief.

On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the court's decision denying class certification
as a matter of law and remanded the case for further proceedings
on class certification and other matters.

In May 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which motion Time Warner Cable has opposed.

On October 25, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of a
class settlement arrangement, but final approval of that
settlement was later denied.

The parties subsequently reached a revised settlement to resolve
this action on terms that are not material to the company and
submitted their agreement to the district court on April 2,
2008.

On May 8, 2008, the district court granted preliminary approval
of the revised settlement, but it is still subject to final
approval by the district court (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29,
2008).

The company did not provide further updates regarding the matter
in its 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 "Parker, et al. v. Time Warner Entertai, et al.,
Case No. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge I. Leo
Glasser, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael G. Lenett, Esq.
         Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
         507 C Street, N.E.
         Washington, District of Columbia  20002
         Phone: 202-789-3960
         Fax: 202-789-1813
         Web site: http://www.cuneolaw.com/

              - and -

         Peter Steven Linden, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         830 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-371-6600

Representing the company are:

         Landis Cox Best, Esq. (lbest@cahill.com)
         Jonathan D. Their, Esq. (jthier@cahill.com)
         Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
         80 Pine Street
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: 212-701-3694
         Fax: 212-269-5420

              - and

         George W. Sampson, Esq.
         Hagens Berman LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Fax: 206-623-0594


TIME WARNER: Seeks to Notify Members of ERISA Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter entitled "Hallissey, et al. v. America
Online, Inc.," reached an agreement to issue supplemental notice
to newly identified members of the putative class as well as
previously notified members and submitted this agreement to the
court for approval in August 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 class action alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 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 Jan. 17, 2002, Community Leader volunteers filed the class-
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company, America Online Inc. and AOL
Community, Inc.  The plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to
pension, welfare benefits and other employee benefits subject to
ERISA.

In March 2003, the plaintiffs filed and served a second amended
complaint, adding as defendants the company's Administrative
Committee and the AOL Administrative Committee.

On May 19, 2003, the company, America Online and AOL Community
filed a motion to dismiss the case and the Administrative
Committees filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Both
of these motions are pending (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29,
2008).

The suit is "Hallissey, et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al.,
Case no. 1:02-cv-00423-KTD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Judge Kevin Thomas
Duffy, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lynn Beth Bayard, Esq. (lbayard@paulweiss.com)
          Lewis Richard Clayton, Esq. (lclayton@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-373-3215
          Fax: 212-373-2070

Representing the company is:

          Leon Greenberg, Esq.
          Leon Greenberg, P.C.
          225 Broadway Suite 612
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-227-4841


TIME WARNER: Still Facing "Brantley" Antitrust Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc., continue to face
the matter "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:2007cv06101," in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, according to its Nov. 5, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The company was among the defendants named in the purported
class action, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Sept. 20, 2007.

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are:

       -- Rob Brantley,
       -- Darryn Cooke,
       -- William Costley,
       -- Beverly Costley,
       -- Christina Hills,
       -- Michael B. Kovac,
       -- Michelle Navarrette,
       -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and
       -- Joseph Vranich.

The defendants in the case are:

       -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
       -- Viacom Inc.,
       -- The Walt Disney company,
       -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Cable Inc.,
       -- Comcast Corp.,
       -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
       -- Cox Communiations, Inc.,
       -- The Directv Group, Inc.,
       -- Echostar Satellite LLC,
       -- Charter Communications, Inc., and
       -- Cablevision Systems Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video
programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who
distribute video programming via cable and satellite, which
preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers
on an a la carte (or channel-by-channel) basis in violation of
federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages for the loss of their ability
to pick and choose the specific channels to which they wish to
subscribe, and injunctive relief requiring each distributor
defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an a
la carte basis.

The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the
U.S. who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video
service provided by one of the distributor defendants.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the programmer defendants, including the
company, and the distributor defendants, including TWC, filed
motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

On March 10, 2008, the court granted these motions, dismissing
the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.  On March 20,
2008, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that
modified certain aspects of the First Amended Complaint in an
attempt to address the deficiencies noted by the court in its
prior dismissal order.

On April 22, 2008, the programmer defendants, including the
company, and the distributor defendants, including TWC, filed
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On June 25, 2008, the court denied these motions.  The
programmer defendants and the distributor defendants filed
motions requesting the court to certify its June 25 order for
interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008).

On July 14, 2008, the programmer defendants and the distributor
defendants filed motions requesting the court to certify its
June 25 order for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which motions were denied by the
district court on Aug. 4, 2008.  

The suit is "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
          Blecher & Collins
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-622-4222

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk and Wardwell
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-752-2005

          John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com)
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513
          Phone: 213-243-4000

               - and -

          Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6321


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

RYE SELECT: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     New York, New York (PRWEB) Dec. 23, 2008 -- Bernstein
Liebhard LLP filed a class action lawsuit on December 24 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Rye Select Broad Market Fund, LP ("Rye Select"),
Rye Investment Management, Tremont Partners, Inc., Tremont Group
Holdings, Inc., Robert Schulman, and Jim Mitchell. The suit, 08-
CV-11212, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased limited
partnership interests in Rye Select from May 10, 1994 through
December 22, 2008, alleges that defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding their investments with Bernard
L. Madoff Investment Securities ("BMIS") and breached their
fiduciary duties to the proposed class by failing to conduct
appropriate due diligence into the operations of BMIS before
entrusting all of Rye Select's capital to be managed by BMIS and
its founder, Bernie Madoff.

     On December 11, 2008, Madoff was arrested by federal
authorities who say Madoff admitted to operating a $50 billion
Ponzi scheme in which Madoff used the principal investments of
new clients to pay fictitious "returns" to other clients.

     Although Madoff had only a few individual clients that
invested directly with him, individuals and institutions across
the world invested indirectly and sometimes unknowingly in
Madoff's scheme through "feeder funds" - including Rye Select, a
fund managed by Tremont Partners, Inc. and its parent company,
Tremont Group - whose sole purpose was to funnel money to BMIS.
As a result of Madoff's scheme, the Rye Select fund and its
limited partners have been substantially wiped out.

     The complaint, captioned, "Brainson v. Rye Select Broad
Market Fund LP, et al.," alleges that defendants made false and
misleading statements in Rye Select's private placement
memorandum, financial statements, and other documents in
violation of federal securities laws.

     Throughout the class period, defendants represented to its
investors that Tremont, as general partner for Rye Select, was
conducting careful due diligence, thorough manager research, and
advanced risk allocation.

     These statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants in fact conducted no due diligence with
regard to its investments with Madoff, or its due diligence was
so lacking as to constitute recklessness.

     The complaint also alleges that Rye Select and its general
partner, Tremont Partners, breached their fiduciary duties to
the class by ignoring dozens of red flags warning that BMIS and
the investment strategy it employed were not capable of
generating the consistent double-digit annual returns for which
Madoff was famous.

     For example, a 2005 letter to the Securities Exchange
Commission identified 29 red flags and described in great detail
how Madoff's operation could not be legitimate.

     In addition, some hedge fund managers and investment
advisers who performed proper due diligence on Madoff identified
additional warning signs and urged their clients not to invest
with Madoff.

     The complaint alleges that if defendants had conducted
proper due diligence as investment professionals, they would
have come across at least some of these red flags and would have
warned their investors about the potential risks of investing
with Madoff.  The complaint also alleges common law fraud and
negligent misrepresentation.

For more details, contact:

          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, New York
          Phone: (877) 779-1414  or (212) 779-1414
          Web Site: http://www.bernlieb.com  


SOUTHWEST WATER: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec. 24, 2008 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (www.pomerantzlaw.com)
("Pomerantz") has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Central District of California, against
SouthWest Water Company ("Southwest Water" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:SWWC).  

     The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company between May 10, 2006 and November 7,
2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The Complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Ace and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

     SouthWest Water is a provider of water, wastewater, and
public works services.  The Company owns regulated public
utilities and also serves cities, utility district and private
companies under contract.

     The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

     Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose:

       -- that in regard to certain acquired assets, the Company
          was improperly applying a rate of depreciation for
          financial reporting purposes that did not consider the
          length of time the assets were in service prior to
          being acquired;

       -- that the Company was improperly capitalizing and
          depreciating costs associated with installing water
          and sewer taps in Texas and Mississippi but
          recognizing the related tap fee revenue when received,
          instead of expensing the costs as incurred and
          recognizing the related revenue in the period the tap
          was actually installed;

       -- that, as a result of the above, depreciation expense
          related to assets acquired by acquisition since 2000
          had been understated on the Company's consolidated
          financial statements;

       -- that as such, 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 ("GAAP");

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

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

     On November 10, 2008, the Company revealed that its audit
committee had concluded that the consolidated financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007,
as well as for the quarters ended March and June 2008, should no
longer be relied upon and would be restated.  On this news,
shares of SouthWest Water declined $2.97 per share, more than
36%, to close at $5.25 per share.

For more details, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529


                            *********

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  * * *