CAR_Public/090105.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 5, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 2

                           Headlines

ADVANCED MEDICAL: Suits Over MoisturePlus Recall Remain Pending
BURGER KING: To Defend Claims in "Castaneda" Suit in California
CLARK HOLDINGS: To Contest Claims in N.J. Suit Over Fuel Charges
DAIRY FARMERS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Cheese, Milk Products
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Still Faces Suit Over Incorrect Billings

ENERGY CONVERSION: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Workers' Suit
GLOBAL CASH: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Pending in Nev.
HOSPIRA INC: Still Faces "Nauman" Lawsuit Over ERISA Breaches
MCKESSON CORP: Consolidation of Mass. Drug Pricing Suits Sought
MEDCO HEALTH: Expects Deal in Suit v. Accredo Finalized in 4Q08

MICHELIN NORTH: Settles Md. Litigation Over "Rub-Flat" Tires
QC FINANCIAL: Mo. Appeals Court Rules Against Arbitration Clause
RAM ENERGY: March 5 Fairness Hearing Set in Royalty Owners' Suit
RBS GLOBAL: Units Faces 11 Lawsuits Over Crimp Fittings Failure
REALOGY CORP: Faces "Larpenteur" Suit in Hennepin County, Minn.

REALOGY CORP: Jan. 26 Fairness Hearing Set in "Berger" Lawsuit
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
TIME WARNER CABLE: Revised Settlement of "Parker" Suit Awaits OK
TIME WARNER CABLE: To Defend Amended Complaint in Brantley Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

EMCORE CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
EMCORE CORP: Vianale & Vianale Announces Securities Suit Filing
HORIZON LINES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Del.
JA SOLAR: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
SOUTHWEST WATER: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Calif.


                           *********

ADVANCED MEDICAL: Suits Over MoisturePlus Recall Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Medical Optics, Inc., continues to face several
lawsuits, including some purported class-action lawsuits, in
relation to the May 25, 2007 recall of its Complete MoisturePlus
Multi-Purpose Solution.

As of Sept. 26, 2008, the company has been served or are aware
that it has been named as a defendant in approximately 146
product liability lawsuits pending in various state and federal
courts within the U.S. as well as certain jurisdictions outside
the U.S. in relation to the May 25, 2007 recall of Complete
MoisturePlus Multi-Purpose Solution.

These lawsuits involve allegations of personal injury to 174
consumers. Of these 146 cases, 127 have been filed in various
U.S. courts, 13 in Canada and two in jurisdictions outside North
America.

None of the U.S. personal injury actions have been filed as
purported class actions; however, ten of the Canadian personal
injury matters seek class action status.

In addition to personal injury suits, three U.S. and four
Canadian matters have been filed as purported class actions by
uninjured consumers seeking reimbursement for discarded product
pursuant to various consumer protection statutes.

These cases involve complex medical and scientific issues
relating to both liability and damages and are currently at an
early stage.  Moreover, most of the plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, 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. 26, 2008.

Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. -- http://www.amo-inc.com/site/--
is engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of
medical devices for the eye.


BURGER KING: To Defend Claims in "Castaneda" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings, Inc. intends to defend against all claims
in the class-action lawsuit styled, "Castaneda v. Burger King
Corp. and Burger King Holdings, Inc."

On Sept. 10, 2008, the company and Burger King Corporation were
named as the defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that all Burger King(R) restaurants in
California leased by BKC and operated by franchisees violate
accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act as well as the California Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiff, on behalf of the class, seeks injunctive relief
under the ADA, minimum statutory damages per offense of $4,000
under the Unruh Act and $1,000 per incident under the CDPA, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs, 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.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com-- is a fast
food hamburger restaurant.  As of June 30, 2008, the company
owned or franchised a total of 11,565 restaurants in 71
countries and United States territories, of which 1,360
restaurants were company restaurants and 10,205 were owned by
its franchisees.  The company's restaurants feature flame-
broiled hamburgers, chicken and other specialty sandwiches,
french fries, soft drinks and other food items.  The company
generated revenues from three sources: retail sales at company
restaurants, franchise revenues, and property income from
restaurants that it lease or sublease to franchisees.  It
operates in three business segments: U.S. and Canada; Europe,
Middle East and Africa and Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin
America.  In July 2008, the company announced the acquisition of
72 BURGER KING restaurants in Iowa and Nebraska, from
franchisee, Simmonds Restaurant Management.


CLARK HOLDINGS: To Contest Claims in N.J. Suit Over Fuel Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Holdings Inc. intends to contest the allegations and
defend itself and each of its subsidiaries named in a complaint
-- seeking class-action status that was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On Oct. 28, 2008, the complaint was filed against The Clark
Group, Inc., Clark Distribution Systems, Inc., Highway
Distribution Systems, Inc., Clark Worldwide Transportation,
Inc., and Evergreen Express Lines, Inc. by Multi-Media
International, alleging, among other things:

   (i) common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent
       misrepresentation, conversion and unjust enrichment,

  (ii) violation of N.J. Stat. Sections 56:8-2, and

(iii) breach of good faith and fair dealing, relating to
       alleged excessive fuel surcharges by the Subsidiaries
       between Oct. 1, 2002 and Oct. 1, 2008.

A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed, according to
the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
27, 2008.

On behalf of itself and the putative class, plaintiff seeks to
recover the alleged excessive fuel charges, enjoin the alleged
improper calculation of fuel charges by defendants and payment
of punitive (or treble) damages and attorney's fees.

Clark Holdings Inc. -- http://www.glacteam.com-- formerly
Global Logistics Acquisition Corporation, is a transportation
management and logistics services company whose core business is
the shipment of mass market consumer magazines throughout the
U.S. and between the United States and other countries.  The
company was a blank check company formed primarily to effect a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other
similar business combination with an operating business in the
transportation and logistics sector and related industries.  It
did not engage in any substantive commercial business until it
consummated its business combination with The Clark Group, Inc.
(Clark) on Feb. 12, 2008.  Clark owns Clark Distribution Systems
Inc. (CDS) and Highway Distribution Systems Inc., through which
the company conducts its domestic operations; and Clark
Worldwide Transportation Inc. (CWT), which carries out
operations overseas. Holdings is considered to be in the
development stage.


DAIRY FARMERS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Cheese, Milk Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. is facing a purported class-
action suit in Illinois that accuses it of conspiring to fix the
price of cheese, raw milk and milk products, Andrew Harris of
Bloomberg reports.

The suit was filed on Dec. 29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by Stew Leonard's Inc. a
Norwalk, Connecticut-based grocer.  It claims that the farmers
organization bought "inordinate amounts of cheese" to corner
that market.

Besides Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., other defendants named
in the suit are: Gerald Bos, Gary Hanman, Glenn Millar and Frank
Otis.

According to the complaint obtained by Bloomberg, the farmers'
purchases were made on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, often at
a loss, "because they knew that through their price manipulation
scheme they would cover their losses and extract
supracompetitive profits," on the related sale of raw milk.

The suit generally accused the farmers' group of violating U.S.
antitrust laws, and is thus seeking class action, or group,
status for all direct purchasers of raw milk from April 2004 to
the present, plus unspecified money damages.

The suit is "Stew Leonard's Inc. v. Dairy Farmers of America
Inc., Case No. 08-cv-7394," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Sedef Melisa Twomey, Esq. (smt@wexlerwallace.com)
          Wexler Wallace LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street
          Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-346-2222
          Fax: 312-346-0022


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Still Faces Suit Over Incorrect Billings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary, American Medical
Response, Inc. (AMR), still faces a lawsuit purporting to be a
class-action suit in Spokane, Washington.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the class-action lawsuit was commenced against
AMR in Washington State Court, Spokane County.

The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third party
payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at
higher rates than contractually permitted.

The court has certified a class in this case, but the size and
membership of the class has not been determined, 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.

Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a
provider of emergency medical services in the U.S.  The company
operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and
EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc.
and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively.  AMR is a provider of
ambulance services in the U.S.  EmCare is a provider of
outsourced emergency department staffing and related management
services in the U.S.  The company offers a range of emergency
medical services through its two business segments: AMR and
EmCare.


ENERGY CONVERSION: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Workers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ripley E. Rand of Wake County Superior Court denied a
motion by Energy Conversion Systems that sought for the
dismissal of a purported class-action suit that accuses the
Dunn, North Carolina-based company of failing to reimburse
former employees for their contributions to a mandatory Wage
Investment Plan, Brian Haney of The Daily Record reports.

Dunn attorney Brent Adams, Esq., filed the complaint on behalf
of two dozen former employees who did not receive reimbursement
when the company paid some amount to workers in 2007.  Mr. Adams
is requesting jury trial in Wake County Superior Court (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2008).

The plaintiffs are:

     * Connie Pope               * Delma Ricky Wood
     * Annie McNair              * Johnny Bryant
     * Jeff Thomas               * Gwendolyn A. Poe-Pittman
     * Jeremy McLamb             * Michael Floyd
     * Mabeline Harris           * Deborah Register
     * Martin Denton             * Sandra Frazier
     * Linda Herring             * Sharon Coley
     * Francine Reese            * Gloria Devone
     * Vivian C. Bordley         * Martha Turlington
     * Linda Pittman             * Alice Smith
     * Saundra Jorge             * Rosa Crowell
     * Agnes Holden              * June Gilliam

The Daily Record reported that WIP was enacted in November 2004
and, according to an ECS representative, resulted in an across-
the-board reduction in wages and salaries.  Most employees
received a 5 percent reduction, however top executives took a 10
percent reduction while the CEO took a 25 percent reduction in
pay.

The company reportedly restored wages to previous levels in 2005
and repaid the lost wages, with interest, in early 2007.

A number of employees who were no longer employed with the ECS
when the money was reimbursed to current employees filed a suit
against the company in January 2008, saying they were entitled
to the money, which they never received.

ECS sought summary judgment, claiming breach of contract on the
part of the employees who it said were not entitled to repayment
because they either left the company voluntarily or were
discharged for cause, reports The Daily Record.

That motion was denied.  The court did, however, allow a motion
for summary judgment on the part of ECS in respect to claims of
unfair and deceptive trade practices and for punitive damages.

The court also allowed a motion on the part of ECS for sanctions
against four of the plaintiffs for failures to attend
depositions.

There has been no ruling yet as to whether or not the action
will be certified as a class-action suit.  If certified as such,
all former ECS employees who were not repaid for the reduction
in wages, even if they have not been named in the lawsuit as
plaintiffs, will be included in the claim, according to The
Daily Record.

For more information, contact:

         Brent Adams, Esq.
         Brent Adams & Associates
         119 Lucknow Square
         Dunn, N.C. 28334
         Phone: 1-800-849-5931
                (910) 892-8177
         Fax: (910) 892-0652
         Web site: http://www.brentadams.com/


GLOBAL CASH: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Pending in Nev.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. defends a consolidated amended
class-action complaint alleging violation of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1934 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada.

Initially, a lawsuit entitled "Lowinger et al. v. Global Cash
Access Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 08-cv-03516," was filed
on April 11, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, by a stockholder against the company,
certain of its current and former directors, M&C International,
Summit Partners L.P., Goldman Sachs & Co. Inc., and J.P. Morgan
Securities, Inc.  The suit includes claims for, among other
things, damages and rescission.

On June 6, 2008, the company and certain other defendants moved
to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, where a related derivative litigation is
pending.  The motion has been fully briefed.

On June 10, 2008, an additional class action, entitled "City of
Richmond Retirement System v. Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc.
et al., Case No. 08-cv-05317," was filed by a separate
stockholder before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company, its wholly owned
subsidiary, certain of its former directors, its former chief
executive officer, its former chief financial officer, and
certain other parties.

That suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Exchange Act, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act.  The action includes claims for, among other
things, damages.

On June 26, 2008, the foregoing actions were consolidated, and
the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

In August 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  The consolidated amended complaint names as
additional defendants our former chief financial officer,
certain current and former directors, certain other parties and
purports to allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, damages and rescission.

In September 2008, the motion to transfer the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, where a relative
derivative action is pending, was granted.  Defendants have
moved to have the class action claims and the derivative action
consolidated for pretrial purposes.  The motion is pending.

The defendants are in the process of responding to the
consolidated amended 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.

The suit is "In Re: Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-03516-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

               - and -

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. (jeisenhofer@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 646-722-8512
          Fax: 646-722-8501

Representing the defendants are:

          Joel Charles Haims, Esq. (jhaims@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Phone: 212-468-8000
          Fax: 212-468-7900

               - and -

          James L. Hallowell, Esq. (jhallowell@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: 212-351-3804
          Fax: 212-351-5266


HOSPIRA INC: Still Faces "Nauman" Lawsuit Over ERISA Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. continues to face a class-action lawsuit over
allegations that the spin-off of the company from Abbott
Laboratories adversely affected employee benefits in violation
of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned,
"Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott
Laboratories and Hospira, Inc."

On Nov. 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an
additional claim against Abbott and the company for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA.  The company has moved to dismiss
the new claim.

By order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class-action
status to the lawsuit.  The new claim in the amended complaint
is not subject to the class certification ruling.

As to the sole claim against the company in the original
complaint, the court certified a class defined as:

     "all employees of Abbott who were participants in the
     Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with Abbott
     was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30,
     2004, as a result of the spin-off of the HPD/creation of
     Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003, and who
     were eligible for retirement under the Abbott Benefit
     Plans on the date of their terminations."

In July 2008, the court denied a motion by the defendants
seeking summary judgment.  Hospira denies all material
allegations asserted against it in the complaint.

In the third quarter of 2008, Hospira received notice from
Abbott requesting that Hospira indemnify Abbott for all
liabilities that Abbott may incur in connection with this
litigation.  Hospira denies any obligation to indemnify Abbott
for the claims asserted against Abbott in this litigation,
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 "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Paul William Mollica, Esq.
         Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica
         208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-263-0272


Representing the company is:
         James F. Hurst, Esq. (jhurst@winston.com)
         Winston & Strawn LLP
         35 West Wacker Drive
         41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-558-5230


MCKESSON CORP: Consolidation of Mass. Drug Pricing Suits Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas County Commissioners and other public entities across
the country have asked the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts to consolidate their drug pricing lawsuits
against McKesson Corp. and another company into a class-action
lawsuit, the Lawrence Journal World reports.

According to court documents obtained by the Lawrence Journal
World, the plaintiffs claim the two companies fraudulently
manipulated the average wholesale price of prescription drugs,
which influenced how much governments paid as part of benefits
plans and other programs.

Douglas County Commissioners in August 2008 agreed to file a
lawsuit alleging that McKesson and First DataBank, Inc. unfairly
marked up wholesale drug prices in 2008 and several years
before.

Lawrence Journal World reported that other entities asking to be
part of a class-action lawsuit include the state of Oklahoma and
city governments in Baltimore and Columbia, S.C.


MEDCO HEALTH: Expects Deal in Suit v. Accredo Finalized in 4Q08
---------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement to settle a securities class-action lawsuit against
Accredo Health Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., and two of its former officers is
expected to be finalized in the fourth quarter of 2008.

Accredo, a former Accredo officer and a former Accredo officer
who is a current Medco director are defendants in a securities
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The plaintiff class representatives purport to represent a class
of individuals and entities that purchased Accredo stock during
the period June 16, 2002 through April 7, 2003 and who claimed
to have suffered damages from alleged acts and/or omissions by
the defendants relating to a prior acquisition by Accredo of the
Specialty Pharmaceutical Services Division of Gentiva Health
Services, Inc.

The parties reached an agreement to settle this matter.  The
company previously recorded a reserve for the settlement, which
is partially covered by insurance, according to its Nov. 5, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a
pharmacy benefit manager.  The company provides traditional and
specialty prescription drug benefit programs and services for
its clients and members.  It provides pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) services through its national networks of
retail pharmacies and its own mail-order pharmacies, as well as
through its Specialty Pharmacy segment, Accredo Health Group.
During the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007, it introduced the
Medco Therapeutic Resource Centers.  The company's data center
links its mail-order pharmacy operations, including its call
center pharmacies and work-at-home sites, its Websites, and the
retail pharmacies in its networks.


MICHELIN NORTH: Settles Md. Litigation Over "Rub-Flat" Tires
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelin North America Inc. and American Honda Motor Co. Inc.
have settled a nationwide class-action lawsuit brought by
consumers who claimed they were misled about the benefits of
their "run-flat" tires and were then further burdened by the
slow and expensive repair process, Brendan Kearney of The Daily
Record reports.

In a two-page motion filed on Dec. 29, 2008, attorneys for the
plaintiffs and defendants announced the agreement although the
terms of the deal were not disclosed.

According to filing, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily
Record, the parties have "essentially completed the paperwork,"
but end-of-the-year corporate closures will put off disclosure
of the specifics for the purposes of preliminary approval by
Judge Roger W. Titus until Jan. 7, 2009.  A hearing on the
matter is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2009.

In their 140-page consolidated amended complaint filed in May
2008, the plaintiffs allege Michelin, which made the tires, and
Honda, which outfitted certain cars and minivans with Michelin's
PAX Tire and Wheel Assembly System, failed to disclose that the
tires last half as long as radial tires.

They also alleged the tires are "prohibitively expensive to
repair and replace" and that sufficient repair facilities and
stock of the tires and other parts of the PAX system do not
exist in the U.S.

According to the suit, the Honda Odyssey was the first minivan
sold in North America to have the PAX system, which was supposed
to allow drivers to travel farther 125 miles on a flat tire,
thus obviating the need for a spare.  The 2005-2007 models came
with the system, which was discontinued within the past year.
Certain Acura RL and Nissan Quest models also featured the run-
flat tire system, which cost more than $2,000.

Quoting Michelin statistics, the suit states more than 200,000
PAX systems have been sold in Europe and the U.S. Since 1998
when it was introduced to the market.

The suit states that the paucity of repair facilities,
exacerbated by the system's discontinuation, has led to
inconvenience and poses a safety risk for those who must drive
on bad tires.

The Daily Record reported that class-action lawsuits filed by
owners and leasers of the vehicles in Arizona, Florida, Illinois
and New York were transferred to Judge Titus, who is presiding
over the multidistrict litigation, in February 2008.  Classes
from other states are included in the suit before Judge Titus.

Michelin and Honda decided not to retrofit, despite the ability
to do so, the plaintiffs alleged.  "Instead of taking this
responsible action to remedy their unlawful actions and
misconduct, Defendants have cynically chosen to disclaim
responsibility for their misconduct and, instead, have sought to
shift the economic burden of their development, manufacturing,
marketing, distribution and/or sale of the inherently defective
PAX System to Plaintiffs and Class members," the amended
complaint states.


QC FINANCIAL: Mo. Appeals Court Rules Against Arbitration Clause
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District in St.
Louis last week upheld a lower court's ruling, saying part of QC
Financial Services Inc.'s arbitration clause that bars customers
from participating in class actions was "unconscionable," The
Kansas City Star reports.

Overland Park, Kansas-based QC Financial is a subsidiary of
publicly traded QC Holdings, Inc. and does business in Missouri
as Quik Cash.

The ruling essentially states that the payday lender can't
prevent customers from filing class-action lawsuits over its
lending practices, according to The Kansas City Star.

It was made in connection to a purported class-action lawsuit
that was filed against the company in the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, alleging it violated state laws by renewing payday
loans an excessive number of times and charging exorbitant
interest rates (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2006).

Filed on Oct. 13, 2006, the suit alleges that QC Financial
renewed a loan for the plaintiff, Dequae Woods, more than six
times at a 469 percent interest rate (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 14, 2006).

The suit also alleges that Quik Cash didn't evaluate plaintiffs'
ability to repay the loan, charged more than 75 percent of the
original loan amount in interest and fees.  It also alleges that
it violated other Missouri payday laws and the state's
Merchandising Practices Act.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and an injunction
prohibiting Quik Cash from engaging in the alleged practices.

The Kansas City Star reported that Quik Cash sought to have the
case thrown out, noting that the loan contract mandates
arbitration.  The company also waives Ms. Woods' right to
participate in class-action lawsuits or class arbitration
against Quik Cash.

In December 2007, Judge Richard C. Bresnahan of St. Louis County
Circuit ruled that the ban on class-actions created a chilling
effect on legal disputes over loan contracts.

In his ruling, Judge Bresnahan wrote, "If a clause immunizes a
defendant and paralyzes consumers, it is unconscionable.  Here
there is overwhelming evidence this has occurred."

QC appealed his decision, but the appeals court upheld it,
saying that the company's policy essentially left consumers
"with no meaningful avenue of redress through the courts,"
reports The Kansas City Star.

Matt Wiltanger, the company's attorney, told The Kansas City
Star that QC was "obviously disappointed with the result" and
would likely appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Barring an appeal from QC, Ms. Woods' case now goes to an
arbitration panel to determine if it should be certified as a
class action, according to The Kansas City Star.


RAM ENERGY: March 5 Fairness Hearing Set in Royalty Owners' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing is to be held on March 5, 2009, in the
District Court for Woods County, Oklahoma, to receive evidence
and consider any objections to the settlement by members of the
putative class of royalty owners in an action filed against RAM
Energy Resources, Inc., formerly Tremisis Energy Acquisition
Corp.

The lawsuit was filed against RAM Energy, Inc., certain of its
subsidiaries and various other individuals and unrelated
companies, in April 2002, by a lessor of certain oil and gas
leases from which production was sold to a gathering system
owned and operated by Magic Circle Energy Corp. or its wholly-
owned subsidiary, Carmen Field Limited Partnership.  The suit
covers the period from 1977 to a current date.

In 1998, both Magic Circle and CFLP became wholly owned
subsidiaries of RAM Energy, Inc.  The lawsuit was filed as a
class action on behalf of all royalty owners under leases owned
by any of the defendants during the period Magic Circle or CFLP
owned and operated the gathering system.

The petition claims that additional royalties are due because
Magic Circle and CFLP resold oil and gas purchased at the
wellhead for an amount in excess of the price upon which royalty
payments were based and paid no royalties on natural gas liquids
extracted from the gas at plants downstream of the system.

Other allegations include under-measurement of oil and gas at
the wellhead by Magic Circle and CFLP, failure to pay royalties
on take or pay settlement proceeds and failure to properly
report deductions for post-production costs in accordance with
Oklahoma's check stub law.

RAM Energy, Inc. and other defendants have filed answers in the
lawsuit denying all material allegations set out in the
petition.

The lawsuit was certified by the trial court as a class action
in January 2007.  The certification was upheld by the Oklahoma
Court of Civil Appeals in June 2008.

Petitions for certiorari seeking review by the Oklahoma Supreme
Court of the class certification decision were timely filed by
the defendants in the lawsuit.

However, at the parties' request, consideration of the petitions
has been deferred pending final approval of the settlement that
was recently reached in the matter.

On Sept. 18, 2008, certain direct and indirect subsidiaries of
RAM Energy Resources, Inc. entered into an agreement that
tentatively effects a settlement of claims asserted in the
pending class-action lawsuit styled, "Sacket v. Great Plains
Pipeline company, et al., District Court of Woods County,
Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2002-70."

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to
court approval, the company and its subsidiaries will pay $16.0
million of the aggregate $25.0 to be paid by all defendants in
full and complete settlement of all claims asserted in the
lawsuit relating to the payment of royalties on production from
class wells during the period July 1983 through July 2008.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the trial court preliminarily approved the
settlement and ordered that a fairness hearing be held on March
5, 2009.  The entire settlement amount has been deposited in
escrow by the defendants pending final disposition of the
settlement following the fairness hearing, expected to occur in
the second quarter of 2009.

At Sept. 30, 2008, the company recorded a contingent liability
of $16.0 million for its share of the settlement amount and a
receivable of $9.2 million in other current assets representing
the value of the escrowed shares based on the closing price of
$2.89 per share on Sept. 30, 2008.  The company has also
recorded a charge to other expense of $6.8 million for the
difference between the settlement liability and the value of the
escrowed shares, 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.

RAM Energy Resources, Inc. -- http://www.ramenergy.com/--
formerly Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corporation, is an oil and
gas company focused on the acquisition, exploration,
development, exploitation, production and management of oil and
gas properties, primarily in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.  On
May 8, 2006, RAM Energy Resources, Inc. merged with Tremisis
Energy Acquisition Corp.  In accordance with the merger
agreement, Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corp. has changed its
name to RAM Energy Resources, Inc.


RBS GLOBAL: Units Faces 11 Lawsuits Over Crimp Fittings Failure
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn
Industries, LLC (formerly known as Zurn Industries, Inc.), as of
Nov. 5, 2007, have been named as defendants in eleven lawsuits,
brought between July 2007 and October 2008, in various U.S.
federal courts (MN, ND, CO, NC, MT, AL, VA and LA).

The plaintiffs in these suits seek to represent a class of
plaintiffs alleging damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of the Zurn brass crimp fittings on the PEX
plumbing systems in homes and other structures.

The complaints assert various causes of action, including but
not limited to negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, and
violations of the Magnuson Moss Act and certain state consumer
protection laws, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and
damages (including punitive damages) in unspecified amounts.

The suits were transferred to a multi-district litigation docket
in the District of Minnesota for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

The company is being provided a defense by its insurance
carrier, 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. 27, 2008.

RBS Global, Inc. -- http://www.rexnord.com/-- is a diversified,
multi-platform industrial company.  Its business is comprised of
two platforms: Power Transmission (PT) and Water Management
(WM).  Its PT product portfolio includes gears, industrial
bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings,
aerospace bearings and seals, industrial chain.  The products
are either incorporated into products sold by original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) or sold to end users through industrial
distributors as aftermarket products.  The company's PT products
are used in the plants and equipment of companies in diverse
end-market industries, including aerospace, cement and
aggregates, construction, energy, food and beverages and forest
and wood products.  RBS Global's WM platform is focused on non-
residential construction market for water management products.
On Feb. 7, 2007, the company acquired the Zurn plumbing products
business of Jacuzzi Brands, Inc. from an affiliate of Apollo
Management, L.P.


REALOGY CORP: Faces "Larpenteur" Suit in Hennepin County, Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The matter "Larpenteur v. Burnet Realty, Inc., d/b/a Coldwell
Banker Burnet, and Burnet Title, Inc., No. 27 CV 0824562," is
pending in Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota, 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 putative class-action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 26, 2008,
against the company's Minnesota operations for its Owned Real
Estate Brokerage Services (known as NRT) and for Title Resources
Group alleging that the brokerage's affiliated business
relationship with Title and the practice of referring business
to Title violates the brokerage's fiduciary duty as a broker and
sales agent to its customers.

The plaintiffs allege that there are lower cost comparable
alternatives to Burnet Title and that recommending the higher
costing Burnet Title is a breach of duty.

The complaint further alleges that the brokerage was unjustly
enriched as a result of the affiliated business relationship.

As to Burnet Title, the complaint alleges that it aided and
abetted the breach of fiduciary duty and tortiously interfered
with the relationship between the brokerage and its customer.

Realogy Corp., a global provider of real estate and relocation
services, has a diversified business model that includes real
estate franchising, brokerage, relocation and title services.
Realogy's world-renowned brands and business units include
Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY 21(R) ,
Coldwell Banker(R) , Coldwell Banker Commercial(R) , The
Corcoran Group(R) , ERA(R) , Sotheby's International Realty(R) ,
NRT LLC, Cartus and Title Resource Group.  Headquartered in
Parsippany, N.J. Realogy is owned by affiliates of Apollo
Management, L.P., a leading private equity and capital markets
investor.


REALOGY CORP: Jan. 26 Fairness Hearing Set in "Berger" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing is scheduled for Jan. 26, 2009, in the matter
"Berger v. Property ID Corp., et al., Case No. 05-5373," which
names Realogy Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries.

The original complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 25, 2005, alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The suit, as amended later, was filed by Mark Berger against
Cendant, Century 21, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
company, and related entities, among other defendants, who are
parties to joint venture agreements with Property I.D. Corp.,
which markets and sells natural hazard disclosure reports in the
State of California.

The complaint names additional defendants, including certain
Realogy subsidiaries and several Prudential Real Estate
companies, which also had joint venture relationships with
Property I.D.

The complaint, as amended to date, alleges, among other things,
violations of RESPA, which restricts direct or indirect payments
from real estate settlement service providers for the referral
of business to other providers, and further alleged unlawful
business practices under the California Business and Professions
Code.  Mr. Berger alleges that the joint ventures are sham
arrangements that unlawfully receive payments or referral fees
in exchange for business.

The defendants have responded that they do not consider natural
hazard disclosure reports to be settlement services and
accordingly, the provision of such services is not within the
purview of RESPA.

In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class, which request was granted by the Court on April 28, 2008.
Classes were certified against the Realogy defendants and the
Pickford defendants, but not against the Silver Oak defendants
or the RE/MAX defendants as the plaintiffs had no class
representative for those joint ventures.

Mediation was held on Aug. 14, 2007, Oct. 23-24, 2007, April 4,
2008, and May 9, 2008.

At the mediation hearing on May 9, 2008, the company and the
plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle the matter as it
relates to claims against the company and its subsidiaries.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company
anticipates, based on its current assumptions, that the
aggregate amount it will pay in the settlement (including
attorneys' fees and costs of claims administration) will be $4
million (the amount of the company's reserve at March 31, 2008).

The settlement is subject to execution of a written settlement
agreement, court certification of a class and court approval.
By order dated May 21, 2008, the Court stayed the case and
directed that a motion to approve the settlement be filed by
July 21, 2008.

By Order dated July 24, 2008, the Court extended the deadline to
file a motion to approve the settlement to Aug. 4, 2008.  The
motion for preliminary approval was filed on Aug. 4, 2008 (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008).

On Aug. 28, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement of this action as it relates to claims against the
company and its subsidiaries.  The settlement provides for the
reimbursement of the amounts paid to purchase a Property I.D.
natural hazard disclosure report where the consumer was
represented by an agent of a Realogy broker or franchisee in the
transaction.  Under the terms of the settlement, the company
paid $4 million in September 2008 to fund attorneys' fees and
costs of claims administration.

The company anticipates, based on its current assumptions
including the expected redemption rate by class members, that it
will have no further payment obligation under the settlement as
insurance proceeds are anticipated to fund the balance of
obligations under the settlement agreement, 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.

Mailed notice has been issued to the class and publicized notice
will occur by Oct. 29, 2008.  A fairness hearing is scheduled
for Jan. 26, 2009, at which the court will decide whether to
grant final approval of the settlement.

The suit is "Mark Berger v. Property ID Corp. et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-05373-GHK-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge George H. King, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Caryn Becker, Esq. (cbecker@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
         Embarcadero Ctr W, 275 Battery St, 30th Fl
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000

              - and -

         Jenna Whitman, Esq. (jwhitman@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-956-1000

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael C. Baum, Esq. (mbaum@rpab.com)
         Resch Polster Alpert & Berger
         9200 Sunset Boulevard, 9th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90069
         Phone: 310-277-8300


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc., continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

In February 2008, multiple putative class-action lawsuits were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California against the company and certain of its officers
and directors.  These complaints allege that the defendants made
misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's
business and operating results in violation of the federal
securities laws.

These cases have been consolidated and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on July 28, 2008 (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 10, 2008).

On Sept. 26, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims asserted in the consolidated amended complaint.

The suit is "In re SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:2008cv00856," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Maxine M.
Chesney, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq. (shawnw@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 2600
          Phone: San Francisco, CA 94111
          Fax: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

Representing the defendants is:

          David Malcolm Furbush, Esq.
          (david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com)
          Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-233-4500
          Fax: 650-233-4545


TIME WARNER CABLE: Revised Settlement of "Parker" Suit Awaits OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final court approval of the revised settlement of the case
captioned "Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time
Warner Entertainment company, L.P. and Time Warner Cable,"
remains pending.

On June 16, 1998, plaintiffs in "Andrew Parker and Eric
DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time Warner Entertainment company, L.P.
and Time Warner Cable," filed a purported nationwide class-
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York claiming that TWE 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 seek damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

On Aug. 6, 1998, TWE filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied
on Sept. 7, 1999.

On Dec. 8, 1999, TWE filed a motion to deny class certification,
which was granted on Jan. 9, 2001 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 district court's decision denying class
certification as a matter of law and remanded the case for
further proceedings on class certification and other matters.

On May 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the company opposed.

On Oct. 25, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of a
class settlement arrangement, but final approval of that
settlement was denied on Jan. 26, 2007.

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 settlement, but it is still subject to final approval by
the district 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.

Time Warner Cable Inc. -- http://www.timewarnercable.com/--
operates as a cable operator in the U.S.  The company operates
in five geographic areas: New York state (including New York
City), the Carolinas, Ohio, southern California (including Los
Angeles) and Texas.


TIME WARNER CABLE: To Defend Amended Complaint in Brantley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. intends to defend a second amended
complaint in the suit styled, "Brantley, et al. v. NBC
Universal, Inc., et al.," 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 Sept. 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against the company and Time Warner.

The complaint, which also named as defendants several other
programming content providers as well as other cable and
satellite providers, alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Among other things, the complaint alleged coordination between
and among the programmer defendants to sell and/or license
programming on a "bundled" basis to the distributor defendants,
who in turn purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in
packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or " la carte")
basis.

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported nationwide
class of cable and satellite subscribers, demand, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to
compel the offering of channels to subscribers on an " la
carte" basis.

On Dec. 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this
action that, among other things, dropped the Section 2 claims
and all allegations of horizontal coordination.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the programmer defendants, including Time
Warner, 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, 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 Time
Warner, and the distributor defendants, including the company,
filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which
motions were denied by the court on June 25, 2008.

On July 14, 2008, the programmer defendants and the distributor
defendants filed motions requesting the court to certify its
June 25, 2008 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.

Time Warner Cable Inc. -- http://www.timewarnercable.com/--
operates as a cable operator in the U.S.  The company operates
in five geographic areas: New York state (including New York
City), the Carolinas, Ohio, southern California (including Los
Angeles) and Texas.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

EMCORE CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK -- (Marketwire) -- 12/30/08 -- Federman &
Sherwood announces that on December 23, 2008, a class-action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico against Emcore Corporation (NASDAQ:
EMKR).

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

The class period is from June 12, 2007 through March 17, 2008.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


EMCORE CORP: Vianale & Vianale Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BOCA RATON, FL -- (Marketwire) -- 12/31/08 -- The Law Firm
of Vianale & Vianale announces that on December 24, 2008, a
class action lawsuitwas filed in the United States District
Court for the District of NewMexico against Emcore Corporation
("Emcore" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EMKR).

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws,Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule10b-5, including allegations that Emcore issued a
series of material misrepresentations to the market that
artificially inflated the market price.

     The class period is from June 12, 2007 through March 17,
2008 (the"Class Period").  Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on
behalf of the Class.

For more information, contact:

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. (kvianale@vianalelaw.com)
          Julie Prag Vianale. Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll Free)
                 561-392-4750


HORIZON LINES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Dec. 31, 2008 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Notice is
hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of a Class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Horizon Lines, Inc. ("Horizon" or the "Company")
(NYSE:HRZ), between March 2, 2007 and April 25, 2008, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Horizon and certain of its executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.  Horizon is
a container shipping and logistics company.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants misled investors as to
Horizon's profitability and artificially inflated its stock
price, by entering into improper price-fixing agreements with
competitors, in violation of federal antitrust laws.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and prospects, including:

       -- that Horizon and its co-conspirators had engaged in a
          combination and conspiracy in the United States and
          elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by,
          among other things, fixing the prices of rates,
          surcharges and other fees charged to customers for
          Puerto Rico freight services;

       -- that the combination and conspiracy engaged in by
          Horizon and its co-conspirators had been an
          unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade
          and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
          Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

       -- that Horizon's publicly reported revenue and earnings
          had been improperly inflated due to improper price-
          fixing activities during the Class Period;

       -- that, as a result of defendants' participation in
          price-fixing activities, Horizon's earnings reports
          and revenue guidance issued during the Class Period
          were false and misleading;

       -- that the Company knew that its anti-competitive
          behavior, if discovered, could possibly subject the
          Company to future regulatory scrutiny;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
          and

       -- that the Company knew its financial results would be
          materially impacted if the Company were forced to stop
          its anti-competitive behavior.

     On April 17, 2008, Horizon shocked investors when the
Company revealed it was the subject of an antitrust
investigation being conducted by the United States Department of
Justice (the "DOJ") Antitrust Division.  On this news, the
Company's shares declined $3.53 per share, or 19.36 percent, to
close on April 17, 2008, at $14.70 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

     On April 25, 2008, Horizon further shocked investors when
the Company reported Horizon's financial results for the 2008
fiscal first quarter ended March 23, 2008, and revised downward
the Company's earnings guidance for the 2008 fiscal year.  This
news caused the Company's shares to decline $3.83 per share, or
23.10 percent, to close on April 25, 2008, at $11.25 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Subsequently, on October 1, 2008, the DOJ issued a press
release announcing that four shipping executives -- including
three Horizon employees -- had agreed to plead guilty for their
roles in a conspiracy, which continued as late as April 2008, to
eliminate competition and raise prices for the movement of goods
in the U.S. to Puerto Rico shipping lane, by agreeing not to
compete for one another's customers, agreeing to rig bids
submitted to government and commercial buyers, and agreeing to
fix the prices of rates, surcharges and other fees charged to
customers.

For more details, contact:

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


JA SOLAR: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec. 31, 2008 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- On December 31,
2008, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action against JA Solar
Holdings Co., Ltd. ("JA Solar" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:JASO)
and certain officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

     The action is on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the American Depository Shares ("ADS") of JA Solar from
August 12, 2008 to November 12, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     The complaint alleges that defendants made false and
misleading statements and material omissions regarding the
Company's financial condition and operating results and that, as
a result, the price of the Company's ADS was inflated during the
Class Period, thereby harming investors.

     According to the complaint, JA Solar failed during the
Class Period to disclose to investors that:

       -- JA Solar had made a highly speculative and material
          investment in a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers, an
          entity that was on the brink of insolvency and headed
          toward bankruptcy;

       -- the value of the Company's investment in the Lehman
          note had diminished considerably; and

       -- Defendants' positive statements concerning JA Solar's
          financial performance, outlook and earnings guidance
          for 2008 and 2009 were materially false and misleading
          and such statements were made without any reasonable
          basis.

     Further, Defendants made affirmatively false and misleading
statements about the state of their Lehman Brothers investment
even when purporting to make a full disclosure to investors in
mid-September 2008.

     On November 12, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced its 3Q 2008 results for the period ending September
30, 2008, and revealed a $100 million impairment on short-term
investments purchased from Lehman Brothers Treasury Co. B.V. and
a loss of $7.35 million in derivatives deals with the investment
bank.

     As a result, JA Solar revised its 2008 revenue outlook to
between $849.5 million and $878.9 million.  The Company had
previously told investors to expect revenue of between $1.05
billion to $1.17 billion in 2008.

     The Company also cut its 2009 revenue forecast to between
$1.5 billion and $1.7 billion, materially lower than the
previously announced forecast of $2 billion to $2.2 billion.

     On this news, JA Solar's ADS price dropped from $3.34 on
November 11, 2008 to close at $2.38 per share on November 12,
2008.  The decline represented a one-day drop of 28.7%, and JA
Solar ADS declined more than 86% from the Class Period-high
trading price.

For moee details, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          108 Norwich Avenue
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


SOUTHWEST WATER: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC ("Cohen
Milstein") has filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of its
client and on behalf of other similarly situated purchasers of
SouthWest Water Company ("SouthWest Water" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:SWWC) common stock during the period between May 10,
2005 and November 7, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges SouthWest Water and certain of its
officers and directors (collectively "Defendants") with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

     SouthWest Water provides operations, maintenance and
management services, including water production, treatment and
distribution, wastewater collection and treatment, customer
service, and utility infrastructure construction management.
The Company owns regulated public utilities and also serves
cities, utility districts and private companies under contract.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
Defendants issued numerous materially false and misleading
statements which caused SouthWest Water's securities to trade at
artificially inflated prices.

     More specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants'
public statements were false and misleading and/or failed to
disclose or indicate that:

       -- the Company had improperly accounted for the rate of
          depreciation of assets acquired by its acquisitions;

       -- the Company had improperly accounted for revenues and
          related costs associated with the installation of
          water and sewer taps;

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

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

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

     According to the complaint, on November 10, 2008, the
Company shocked investors when it announced that its audit
committee concluded that the Company's financial statements for
the years ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and for each
of the quarters therein, as well as for the quarters ended March
31, 2008 and June 30, 2008, should no longer be relied upon and
would be restated.

     The complaint alleges that the errors that led to the
restatement related to the establishment of the rate of
depreciation of assets acquired by the Company through
acquisitions, and in accounting for revenues and related costs
associated with the installation of water and sewer taps.

     Following this news, the Company's shares fell $2.97 per
share, or more than 36 percent, to close on November 10, 2008 at
$5.25 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600


                            *********

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  * * *