CAR_Public/090108.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 8, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 5

                           Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Ala. Suit Over Holiday Unpreparedness
CANO PETROLEUM: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
CARROLS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Bid in EEOC Suit
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Faces Consolidated Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y.

MASTEC INC: Settlement of FLSA Action Approved and Paid in 2008
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Still Faces Consolidated Minn. Securities Suit
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Minnesota
NEUROMETRIX INC: Faces Mass. Securities Fraud, Derivative Suits
NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Face Lawsuits on Lead-Based Paints

SHENANDOAH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Calif. Court Orders ETF Refund
SHOCKLEY FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suits Over Municipal Derivatives
SOUTHERN STAR: Court Yet to Allow Intervenor in "Price II" Case
SOUTHERN STAR: Kansas Court Mulls Intervention Bid in "Price I"
SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Faces Shareholders Suits Over Santander Deal

SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Still Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuits in Pa.
VONAGE HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in IPO Suit
VONAGE HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Yet to Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits
WYETH: Continues to Face Hormone Therapy Personal Injury Cases
WYETH: Dismissal of Suit by Engineers' Union Vacated in 3Q 2008

XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in Mass. Securities Suit

* Recent Study Reveals Securities Lawsuits Spiked in 2008


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CBS CORP: Charles H. Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing
HORIZON LINES: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
HORIZON LINES: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Suit Filing
PFF BANCORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
PFF BANCORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Ala. Suit Over Holiday Unpreparedness
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Alabama over the air travel delays of late December,
alleging that it was unprepared for bad weather.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on Dec. 29, 2008 by James Harper.  It is
seeking class-action status on behalf of as many as 2,400
passengers who were stranded after snowstorms hit.

According to Mr. Harper it took 28 hours for his family to get
from Cancun, Mexico, to Huntsville on Dec. 29.  Inconveniences
included spending seven hours aboard an idled jet at the New
Orleans airport.

The suit states, "During the period plaintiff and his family
members were sequestered on the aircraft, the toilets backed up
and began to smell strongly.  The flight attendants also
explained that the aircraft had not been provisioned for an
extended period and therefore had no food or beverage for the
passengers."

It seeks $5 million in compensatory damages to be split by the
class.

The suit is "Harper v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 5:08-
cv-02410-CLS," filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Judge C. Lynwood Smith, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          John Gregory Evans, Esq. (jgregoryevans@bellsouth.net)
          920 Dauphin Street
          Mobile, AL 36604
          Phone: 251-431-0049
          Fax: 251-438-4693


CANO PETROLEUM: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The outside directors and underwriters of Cano Petroleum, Inc.
are facing a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in
New York.

On Oct. 2, 2008, the following lawsuit (08 CV 8462) was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against David W. Wehlmann; Gerald W. Haddock; Randall Boyd;
Donald W. Niemiec; Robert L. Gaudin; William O. Powell, III, and
the underwriters alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.

The plaintiff seeks to certify the suit as a class-action.  The
lawsuit alleges that the prospectus for the June 26, 2008 public
offering of Cano common stock contained statements regarding
Cano's proved reserve amounts and standards that were materially
false and overstated Cano's proved reserves.

Messrs. Wehlmann, Haddock, Boyd, Niemiec, Gaudin and Powell were
Cano outside directors on June 26, 2008.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages for the class
if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, according to the
company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Cano Petroleum, Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company that is primarily
utilizing waterflooding and enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
techniques to increase production and reserves at its existing
properties.  The Company's assets are located onshore United
States in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.  Cano's proved oil and
natural gas reserves as of June 30, 2008, were prepared by
Miller and Lents, Ltd., international oil and gas consultants.
As of September 10, 2008, it had 17 wells containing multiple
completions.  On September 10, 2008, the Company had total
acreage of 74,200 gross acres and 70,805 net acres, all of which
was considered developed acres.  Cano sells its crude oil and
natural gas production to several independent purchasers.


CARROLS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Bid in EEOC Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrols Corp. is awaiting the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York's decision on the company's
summary judgment motion to dismiss claims in the  Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's lawsuit, according to its
Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 28,
2008.

On Nov.16, 1998, the EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York, under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, against Carrols.

The complaint alleged that Carrols engaged in a pattern and
practice of unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation
against former and current female employees.

The EEOC identified approximately 450 individuals (which were
subsequently increased to 511 individuals) that it believed
represented the class of claimants and was seeking monetary and
injunctive relief from Carrols.

On April 20, 2005, the Court issued a decision and order
granting Carrols' Motion for Summary Judgment that Carrols filed
in January 2004.

Subject to possible appeal by the EEOC, the case is dismissed;
however the Court noted that it was not ruling on the claims, if
any, that individual employees might have against Carrols.

On Feb. 27, 2006, Carrols filed a motion for summary judgment to
dismiss all but between four and 17 of the individual claims.

On July 10, 2006, in its response to that motion, the EEOC
asserted that, notwithstanding the Court's dismissal of the case
as a class action, the EEOC may still maintain some kind of
collective action on behalf of these claimants.

Oral argument before the Court was held on Oct. 4, 2006.

Carrols Corporation -- http://www.carrols.com/-- is a
restaurant company in the United States, operating three
restaurant brands in the quick-casual and quick-service
restaurant segments with 553 restaurants located in 16 states as
of Dec. 31, 2007.  The Company owns, operates two Hispanic
restaurant brands, Pollo Tropical and Taco Cabana (Hispanic
Brands).


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Faces Consolidated Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The First Marblehead Corp. is facing consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's Nov.
10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In April 2008, six purported class-action complaints were filed
against the company, certain of its current and former officers,
and certain of its directors.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in various U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filings, press releases and other public statements.

The complaints allege various claims under the U.S. Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  They seek, among other
relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

In August 2008, the court consolidated these cases and appointed
lead plaintiffs and a lead counsel.  A consolidated amended
complaint is due to be filed on Nov. 28, 2008.  A class had not
been certified in the actions as of Nov. 10, 2008.

The First Marblehead Corp. -- http://www.firstmarblehead.com/--
provides outsourcing services for private education lending in
the U.S.  It meets the demand for private education loans by
providing national and regional financial institutions and
educational institutions, as well as businesses, education loan
marketers and other enterprises, with an integrated suite of
design, implementation and securitization services for student
loan programs.  The Company is engaged on loan programs for
undergraduate, graduate and professional education, and on the
primary and secondary school market.  The Company is engaged in
program design and marketing coordination, borrower inquiry and
application, loan origination and disbursement, loan
securitization and loan servicing.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc., is facing a consolidated antitrust
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York over guaranteed investment contracts (GIC).

Between March and July 2008, the company was named along with
several other GIC industry participants as defendant in several
class-action suits, alleging federal antitrust violations
involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking treble
damages.

In June 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation consolidated the federal cases for pre-trial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under the case name, "In re Municipal Derivative
Antitrust Litigation."

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

Genworth Financial, Inc. -- http://www.genworth.com/-- is a
financial security company dedicated to providing insurance,
investment and financial solutions that help meet the
homeownership, life security, wealth management and retirement
security needs of more than 15 million customers, with a
presence in more than 25 countries.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the
Company operated through three segments: Retirement and
Protection, International and U.S. Mortgage Insurance.
Retirement and Protection segment offers a variety of
protection, wealth accumulation, retirement income and
institutional products.  Through the International segment the
Company is a provider of mortgage insurance products in Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Japan and multiple European
countries.  In the U.S., the company offers mortgage insurance
products predominantly insuring prime-based, individually
underwritten residential mortgage loans, also known as flow
mortgage insurance.


MASTEC INC: Settlement of FLSA Action Approved and Paid in 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a collective action against MasTec, Inc.,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has
been approved, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In 2005, former employees filed a FLSA collective action against
the company in the Federal District Court in Tampa, Florida,
alleging failure to pay overtime wages as required under the
FLSA.

While the company denied the allegations underlying the lawsuit,
in October 2007, MasTec agreed to a settlement to avoid
significant legal fees, the uncertainty of a jury trial, other
expenses and management time that would have to be devoted to
protracted litigation.

The settlement covers the company's current and former install-
to-the home employees who were employed by MasTec from October
2001 through September 2007 in California, Florida, Georgia,
Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

Based on the members of the purported class that have opted in,
the maximum amount to be paid in connection with this settlement
is approximately $8.4 million.

In April 2008, the settlement was approved by the court, and the
company paid $8.0 million in connection with this settlement in
July 2008.

MasTec, Inc. -- http://www.mastec.com-- is a specialty
contractor engaged in the building, installation, maintenance
and upgrade of communications and utility infrastructure with
primary operations in the U.S.  MasTec provides similar services
to customers to build and maintain infrastructure and networks
that are critical to the transportation and delivery of voice,
video and data communications, electricity and other energy
resources.  The Company offers services under the MasTec service
mark and operates through a network of approximately 200
locations.  Its main customers include the government and
communications utilities sectors.  These include DIRECTV,
Verizon, AT&T, EMBARQ, Progress Energy, Florida Power & Light,
TXU, Qwest, XTO Energy, and Dominion Virginia Power.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Still Faces Consolidated Minn. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors are still facing a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota, according to its Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On March 28, 2008, the City of Ann Arbor Employees Retirement
System filed a complaint in the District of Minnesota against
the company and three of its officers.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and
alleges against company officers violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The suit alleges failure to adequately disclose, in a timely
manner, the nature and risks of the company's investments, as
well as unrealized losses and other-than-temporary impairments
related to certain of the company's investments.  The suit also
seeks recovery of losses incurred by stockholder class members
in connection with their purchases of the company's securities.

In April 2008, three others, Willie R. Pittman, Edward J.
Goodman Life Income Trust, and Manzoor Hussain, separately filed
complaints in the same court, making substantially the same
claims.  The Goodman matter names the company and four of its
officers and certain members of its board of directors.

In July 2008, the four cases were consolidated into one case
captioned, "In re MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

The Consolidated Complaint was filed on Oct. 3, 2008, and
alleges against each defendant violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5
under the Exchange Act and alleges against Company officers
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges failure to adequately
disclose, in a timely manner, the nature and risks of the
Company's investments, as well as unrealized losses and other-
than-temporary impairments related to certain of the Company's
investments. The complainant seeks recovery of losses incurred
by stockholder class members in connection with their purchases
of the Company's securities.

The suit is "In re MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:08-cv-00883-DSD-JJG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge David S.
Doty, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com)
          Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
          651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
          Phone: 612-341-0400
          Fax: 612-341-0844

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          (jangelovich@npraustin.com)
          Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP
          205 Linda Dr
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Phone: 903-645-7333

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael J. Bleck, Esq. (mbleck@oppenheimer.com)
          Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP
          45 S 7th St, Ste 3300
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-607-7264
          Fax: 612-607-7100

    
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc., is still facing a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to its Nov.
10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On April 22, 2008, Delilah Morrison, on behalf of herself and
all other MoneyGram 401(k) Plan participants, brought the action
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The complaint alleges claims under ERISA, including claims that
the defendants breached fiduciary duties by failing to manage
the plan's investment in company stock, and by continuing to
offer company stock as an investment option when the stock was
no longer a prudent investment.

It also alleges that the defendants failed to provide complete
and accurate information regarding company stock sufficient to
advise plan participants of the risks involved with investing in
company stock and breached fiduciary duties by failing to avoid
conflicts of interests and to properly monitor the performance
of plan fiduciaries and fiduciary appointees.

Finally, the complaint alleges that to the extent that the
company is not a fiduciary, it is liable for knowingly
participating in the fiduciary breaches as alleged.

On Aug. 7, 2008, the plaintiff amended the complaint to add an
additional plaintiff, name additional defendants and additional
allegations.

For relief, the complaint seeks damages based on what the most
profitable alternatives to Company stock would have yielded,
unspecified equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Morrison v. MoneyGram International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 0:08-cv-01121-PJS-JJG," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
          Gainey & McKenna
          295 Madison Ave 4th Fl
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-1300

               - and -

          Shawn M. Perry, Esq. (shawn.perry@pppllp.com)
          Perry & Perry, PLLP
          5401 Gamble Dr. Ste. 270
          Mpls, MN 55416
          Phone: 952-546-3555

Representing the defendants is:

          Stephen P. Lucke, Esq. (lucke.steve@dorsey.com)
          Dorsey & Whitney LLP
          50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
          Mpls, MN 55402-1498
          Phone: 612-343-7947
          Fax: 612-340-8800


NEUROMETRIX INC: Faces Mass. Securities Fraud, Derivative Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
NeuroMetrix, Inc., is facing purported securities fraud class-
action and derivative lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, according to its Nov. 10,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In March and April 2008, a series of putative securities class-
action and shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers and directors alleging, among other things, that the
Company violated the federal securities laws and other laws by
allegedly making material false and misleading statements for
various periods from August 2004 through the dates the lawsuits
were filed and by allegedly failing to disclose material
information to the investing public.

NeuroMetrix, Inc. -- http://www.neurometrix.com/-- designs,
develops and markets medical devices used to help physicians
diagnose and treat diseases of the nervous system, such as
neuropathies, which are disorders of the peripheral nerves and
parts of the spine, and neurovascular disorders such as diabetic
retinopathy.  The Company is also developing medical devices
designed to be used to provide regional anesthesia and pain
control.  The Company's focus has been on products that help
physicians with the diagnosis or detection of neuropathies and
neurovascular disorders.  It has two product lines cleared by
the United States Food and Drug Administration that are being
marketed primarily to physicians and clinics: the NC-stat System
for the assessment of neuropathies and the DigiScope for the
detection of eye disorders such as diabetic retinopathy.


NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Face Lawsuits on Lead-Based Paints
--------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., as well as
other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and
lead-based paint, and the Lead Industries Association, which
discontinued business operations in 2002, continue to defend
various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury,
property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused
by the use of lead-based paints.

Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of
states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and
school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class
actions.

These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories,
including public and private nuisance, negligent product design,
negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty,
conspiracy or concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, market share or risk contribution liability,
intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of
state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and
similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.

A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs.

Valhi did not discuss more details regarding the cases in its
Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Valhi, Inc. -- http://www.valhi.net/-- is a holding company and
operates through its wholly owned and majority-owned
subsidiaries, including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide,
Inc., CompX International, Inc., and Waste Control Specialists,
LLC.  The company operates in three segments: chemicals,
component products and waste management.  Its chemicals segment
is operated through its majority ownership of Kronos.  It
operates in the component products industry through its majority
ownership of CompX.  It operates its waste management segment
through WCS, the company's wholly owned subsidiary, which owns
and operates a West Texas facility for the processing,
treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous, toxic and certain
types of low-level radioactive waste.


SHENANDOAH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Calif. Court Orders ETF Refund
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. is required to refund some of the early
termination fees it had collected from the plaintiffs in certain
consumer class-action suits, according to Shenandoah
Telecommunications Co.'s Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Shenandoah is the exclusive personal communications services
(PCS) affiliate of Sprint Nextel.

A number of consumer class-action suits have been brought
against wireless carriers including Sprint Nextel challenging
the enforceability of early termination fees and seeking refunds
of fees paid.

On July 28, 2008, a California court, despite a jury's finding
that the company's early termination fees appropriately
reflected the company's damages from customers' breach of their
term contracts, promulgated a tentative draft ruling which would
require Sprint Nextel to refund some of the early termination
fees it had collected.

According to Shenandoah's Form 10-Q filing, it is unclear
whether or not the California court's ultimate decision will
leave the tentative ruling unchanged, and if so, whether such a
decision would be affirmed on appeal; or what decisions might be
reached in similar lawsuits brought in other states where the
company operates.

Shenandoah Telecommunications Co. -- http://www.shentel.com--
is a diversified telecommunications holding company that,
through its operating subsidiaries, provides both regulated and
unregulated telecommunications services to end-user customers
and other communications providers in the southeastern U.S.  The
Company offers a suite of voice, video and data communications
services based on the products and services provided by the
Company's operating subsidiaries.  The Company offers many of
its services over its own fiber optic network of approximately
647 miles at Dec. 31, 2007.


SHOCKLEY FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suits Over Municipal Derivatives
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shockley Financial Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Nelnet, Inc., continues to face several substantially identical
purported antitrust class-action lawsuits over municipal
derivatives, according to Nelnet's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In each of the lawsuits, certain financial institutions are
named as defendants.  The complaints allege that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy not to compete and to fix prices and rig
bids for municipal derivatives (including guaranteed investment
contracts) sold to issuers of municipal bonds.

All the complaints assert claims for violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and fraudulent concealment and one complaint
also asserts claims for unfair competition and violation of the
California Cartwright Act.

On June 16, 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring the cases then before it
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
which consolidated several cases under the caption, "Hinds
County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. et al."

Nelnet, Inc. -- http://www.nelnet.net/-- is an education
planning and financing company focused on providing products and
services to students, families and schools nationwide.  The
Company offers a range of pre-college, in-college and post-
college products and services to students, families, schools and
financial institutions.  These products and services help
students and families plan and pay for their education, and
students plan their careers.  Nelnet has five operating
segments: Asset Generation and Management, Student Loan and
Guaranty Servicing, Tuition Payment Processing and Campus
Commerce, Enrollment Services and List Management, and Software
and Technical Services.


SOUTHERN STAR: Court Yet to Allow Intervenor in "Price II" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on
a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming
entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by the
plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Will Price, et al. v.
El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 03 C 23, or Price
Litigation II."

The putative class-action suit was filed on May 12, 2003.  The
named plaintiffs from Price Litigation I have sued the same
defendants.

The plaintiffs in Price Litigation I sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting substantially identical legal and equitable theories,
as in Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the
defendants have undermeasured the British thermal units, or BTU,
content of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas
they have obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead
for punitive damages.

On Nov. 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with
the plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price
Litigation I, was fully briefed and the court heard oral
argument on this motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs.  It is
unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

The company reported no further developments regarding the case
in its Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding
company for its regulated pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its
only operating subsidiary.  Southern Star also owns the
development rights for Western Frontier, which could be
developed in the future.  The company owns and operate an
approximately 6,000 mile interstate natural gas pipeline and
associated storage facilities in the Midwest, serving customers
in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, Nebraska,
Wyoming, and Texas.


SOUTHERN STAR: Kansas Court Mulls Intervention Bid in "Price I"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on
a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming
entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by the
plaintiffs in the purported class-action lawsuit "Will Price, et
al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 99 C 30, or
Price Litigation I."

The putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 28, 1999,
wherein the named plaintiffs have sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
accounting and unjust enrichment, a fourth amended class action
complaint in the case alleges that the defendants have under-
measured the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for, the
natural gas they have obtained from or measured for the
plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead
for punitive damages.

On Aug. 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Southern Star.  Despite a denial by the court on April 10,
2003, of their original motion for class certification, the
plaintiffs continue to seek the certification of a class.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for a second
time was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on this
motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs.  It is
unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

The company reported no further developments regarding the case
in its Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding
company for its regulated pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its
only operating subsidiary.  Southern Star also owns the
development rights for Western Frontier, which could be
developed in the future.  The company owns and operate an
approximately 6,000 mile interstate natural gas pipeline and
associated storage facilities in the Midwest, serving customers
in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, Nebraska,
Wyoming, and Texas.


SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Faces Shareholders Suits Over Santander Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. is facing purported class-action suits
from purported shareholders opposing the consummation of the
transaction with Banco Santander, S.A.

On Oct. 13, 2008, Sovereign and Santander entered into the
Transaction Agreement whereby Santander agreed to acquire all
the outstanding shares of Sovereign not currently owned by it.

Sovereign has received various purported class action complaints
from purported shareholders alleging that Sovereign's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Transaction
Agreement.

Certain of these lawsuits also allege that Santander and certain
directors of the Company serving by designation by Santander
pursuant to the Investment Agreement (the "Santander Directors")
breached their fiduciary duties and that the remainder of
Sovereign's directors aided and abetted the Santander Directors'
breaches of fiduciary duties.

All of the complaints seek an injunction preventing the
consummation of the transaction contemplated by the Transaction
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.

Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.sovereignbank.com/--
serves as the parent company of Sovereign Bank, a federally
chartered savings bank. Sovereign had approximately 750
community banking offices, over 2,300 automated teller machines,
with principal markets in the Northeastern U.S.  Sovereign's
primary business consists of attracting deposits from its
network of community banking offices, and originating small
business and middle market commercial loans, multi-family loans,
residential mortgage loans, home equity loans and lines of
credit, and auto and other consumer loans in the communities
served by those offices.  Sovereign had three direct
consolidated wholly owned subsidiaries as of Dec. 31, 2007 with
Sovereign Bank being the only material subsidiary.


SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Still Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuits in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sovereign Bancorp, Inc., continues to face purported class-
action suits in Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 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 the first quarter of 2008, a former employee filed a putative
class-action suit in Pennsylvania federal court alleging that
the company violated ERISA in connection with the management of
certain plans.

The plaintiff alleges that the company knew or should have known
that the company's stock was not a prudent investment for the
company's retirement plan beginning on or about Jan. 1, 2007.

The complaint also alleges that the company provided the
putative class and the investing community with inadequate
disclosure concerning the company's financial condition,
resulting in the stock having an inflated value until the
company's disclosures in January 2008.

In April 2008, a similar putative class-action suit was filed in
the same court by another former employee.  The complaint in the
second action asserts that the company caused retirement plan
assets to be invested in the company's stock when it was
imprudent to do so, caused the plan to purchase the stock while
not disclosing alleged financial problems and to pay above
market interest rates for a company loan, and failed to provide
complete and accurate information to participants in the plan.

In July 2008, the counsel for the respective plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint that expanded upon the
allegations set forth in the prior two actions.

The class period in the consolidated amended complaint was also
expanded to include the period from Jan. 1, 2002, to the
present.

Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.sovereignbank.com/--
serves as the parent company of Sovereign Bank, a federally
chartered savings bank. Sovereign had approximately 750
community banking offices, over 2,300 automated teller machines,
with principal markets in the Northeastern U.S.  Sovereign's
primary business consists of attracting deposits from its
network of community banking offices, and originating small
business and middle market commercial loans, multi-family loans,
residential mortgage loans, home equity loans and lines of
credit, and auto and other consumer loans in the communities
served by those offices.  Sovereign had three direct
consolidated wholly owned subsidiaries as of Dec. 31, 2007 with
Sovereign Bank being the only material subsidiary.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in IPO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a motion that sought the dismissal of an amended
complaint in a consolidated class-action suit over Vonage
Holdings Corp.'s initial public offering, according to the
company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

In June and July 2006, Vonage, several of the company's officers
and directors, and the firms who served as underwriters in the
company's IPO, were named as defendants in several similar
purported class action lawsuits.

The cases were filed in these courts:

   -- U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,

   -- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,

   -- Supreme Court of the State of New York (subsequently
      removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
      District of New York), and

   -- Superior Court of New Jersey (subsequently removed to the
      U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey).

The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws
on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common
stock in connection with the company's IPO.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
omitted and misstated certain facts concerning the IPO's
Customer Directed Share Program.  Some complaints also allege
that the IPO prospectus contained misrepresentations or
omissions concerning certain of the company's products and the
prior experience of some of its management.

On Jan. 9, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all complaints to the District of New Jersey.

Following briefing, on Sept. 7, 2007, the Court appointed
Zyssman Group as the lead plaintiff, and the law firm of
Zwerling, Schachter and Zwerling, LLP, as lead counsel.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which generally alleges that:

     -- the defendants made misstatements regarding subscriber
        line growth and average monthly churn rate;

     -- the defendants failed to disclose problems with
        facsimile transmissions and a pending fax litigation
        case;

     -- the defendants failed to disclose all patent
        infringement claims and issues; and

     -- the Directed Share Program suffered from various
        infirmities.

On Jan. 18, 2008, defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, and briefing on the matter was completed by
April 2, 2008, and the Court heard oral argument on Oct. 10,
2008.  The Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider
of broadband telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber
lines as of Dec. 31, 2006.  Utilizing its voice-over-Internet
protocol (VoIP) technology platform, the Company offers low-cost
communications services.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: N.J. Court Yet to Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a motion seeking the consolidation of several
purported consumer fraud class action lawsuits against Vonage
Holdings Corp.

Initially, the company was named in several purported class
action complaints filed in California, New Jersey, Ohio and
Washington.  The suits allege a wide variety of deficiencies
with respect to the company's business practices, marketing
disclosures, e-mail marketing and quality issues for both phone
and fax service.

These cases seek relief under various state consumer protection
statutes, federal anti-spam laws, and common law theories.  Some
of the actions allege that the company failed to adequately
disclose terms of service, including how the money-back
guarantee and the free month of service operate.  Various
plaintiffs allege that the disconnect fees are improper and that
the company failed to honor promised rebates.

In addition, some plaintiffs allege the company falsely
represented cost savings for its customers and deceptively
describe the nature and quality of our service.  Other
plaintiffs claim its facsimile service is defective.

These various class action suits, on behalf of both nationwide
and state classes, pending in New Jersey, Washington and
California, are generally alleging that the company:

       -- delayed and refused to allow consumers to cancel
          their company service;

       -- failed to disclose procedural impediments to
          cancellation;

       -- failed to adequately disclose that their 30-day money
          back guarantee does not give consumers 30 days to try
          out the company's services;

       -- suppressed and concealed the true nature of its
          services and disseminated false advertising about the
          quality, nature and terms of the company's services;

       -- imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and

       -- invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of
          Service to the detriment of customers.

On May 11, 2007, the plaintiffs in one action petitioned the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for transfer and
consolidation of the pending actions to a single court for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The motion was heard on July 26, 2007, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, and the MDL Panel, in an order dated Aug. 15, 2007,
transferred the pending actions to the U.S. Court for the
District of New Jersey, where they were consolidated under the
caption "In re Vonage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation,
MDL No. 1862, Master Docket No. 07-CV-3906 (USDC, D.N.J.)."

On Oct. 1, 2007, the counsel for one group of plaintiffs asked
the court for appointment of co-lead counsel of the actions, and
requested time to file an amended consolidated complaint.  The
court has not yet ruled on the motion.

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

Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider
of broadband telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber
lines as of Dec. 31, 2006.  Utilizing its voice-over-Internet
protocol (VoIP) technology platform, the Company offers low-cost
communications services.


WYETH: Continues to Face Hormone Therapy Personal Injury Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth continues to face litigation, including class-action
lawsuits, alleging injury as a result of the plaintiffs' use of
one or more of the company's hormone or estrogen therapy
products, including PREMARIN and PREMPRO.

As of Oct. 29, 2008, the company was defending approximately
8,700 actions brought on behalf of approximately 11,000 women in
various federal and state courts throughout the United States
(including, in particular, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas and the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas) for personal injuries, including claims for breast
cancer, stroke, ovarian cancer and heart disease, allegedly
resulting from their use of PREMARIN or PREMPRO.

The plaintiffs have dismissed the putative province-wide
personal injury class action pending in Alberta, Canada,
"Alcantara v. Wyeth, et al., No. 0601-00926," Court of Queens
Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, Canada.  A
putative Canadian nationwide personal injury class action
remains pending in a British Columbia court.

Of the 30 hormone therapy cases alleging breast cancer that have
been resolved after being set for trial, 24 now have been
resolved in the company's favor (by voluntary dismissal by the
plaintiffs (14), summary judgment (6), defense verdict (3) or
judgment for the Company notwithstanding the verdict (1)),
several of which are being appealed by the plaintiffs.  Of the
remaining six cases, three such cases have been settled; one
(Daniel) resulted in a plaintiffs' verdict that was vacated by
the court and a new trial ordered (which plaintiffs have
appealed); and two (Rowatt and Scroggin) resulted in plaintiffs'
verdicts that the company is appealing.  Additional cases have
been voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs before a trial setting.

There are no trials of additional hormone therapy cases
scheduled for the remainder of 2008; additional trials are
scheduled for 2009.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the company has recorded approximately
$170.0 million in insurance receivables relating to defense and
settlement costs of its hormone therapy litigation.  The
insurance carriers that provide coverage that the company
contends is applicable have generally reserved their rights with
respect to such coverage.  The company continues to provide
information to those carriers and to discuss coverage issues.

However, two such carriers have denied coverage for the hormone
therapy litigation.  The company believes that those denials are
improper and intends to enforce its rights under the terms of
those policies, according to its Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery,
development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of
products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
(Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer
Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health).
Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products.
Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience
therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products,
gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology
therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments,
immunological products and women's healthcare products.
Consumer Healthcare products include analgesics,
cough/cold/allergy remedies, nutritional supplements, and
hemorrhoidal, asthma and personal care items sold over-the-
counter.  Principal Animal Health products include vaccines,
pharmaceuticals, parasite control and growth implants.


WYETH: Dismissal of Suit by Engineers' Union Vacated in 3Q 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Superior Court, during Wyeth's quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008, vacated its dismissal of "International Union of
Operating Engineers, et al. v. AstraZeneca PLC, et al., No. MON-
L-3136-06, Super. Ct., Monmouth Cty., NJ."

The lawsuit is one of the two private class-action suits filed
on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries who make co-payments and
private health plans and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) plans that purchase drugs based on Average Wholesale
Price (AWP).

The dismissal was vacated after plaintiffs' counsel identified
two new putative class representatives to replace the original
plaintiff, a union that withdrew from the case.

Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery,
development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of
products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
(Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer
Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health).
Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products.
Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience
therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products,
gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology
therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments,
immunological products and women's healthcare products.
Consumer Healthcare products include analgesics,
cough/cold/allergy remedies, nutritional supplements, and
hemorrhoidal, asthma and personal care items sold over-the-
counter.  Principal Animal Health products include vaccines,
pharmaceuticals, parasite control and growth implants.


XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in Mass. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in a purported securities
fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against Xerium Technologies, Inc.,
according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Parkside Capital Ltd. filed the purported class-action complaint
on June 7, 2006, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated against Xerium and Xerium's chief executive officer and
chief financial officer.  The company was served with the
complaint on June 8, 2006.

The complaint concerns the company's initial public offering of
common stock and alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
and liability under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.

The plaintiff seeks rescission rights, attorneys' fees and other
costs and unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock "pursuant and/or
traceable to the company's IPO on or about May 16, 2005 through
Nov, 15, 2005."

On Nov. 3, 2008, the Company agreed to a settlement with the
plaintiffs, without admitting liability of any kind.  The
settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the
Court.

The suit is "Parkside Capital Ltd. v. Xerium Technologies Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-10991-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya W. Zobel,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134

Representing the defendants is:

         Seth C. Harrington, Esq.
         (seth.harrington@ropesgray.com)
         Ropes & Gray, LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7226
         Fax: 617-951-7050


* Recent Study Reveals Securities Lawsuits Spiked in 2008
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.webcpa.com/article.cfm?articleid=30329
With 210 federal securities class-action lawsuits filed in 2008,
the level of litigation last year was at its highest level since
2004, according to a new study by Cornerstone Consulting and the
Stanford University Law School Securities Class-Action
Clearinghouse.

According to a web posting at WebCPA, the report found that
almost of the securities class-action complaints involved firms
in the financial services sector.  The maximum dollar losses
attributable to 2008 claims jumped to $856 billion, a 27 percent
increase over comparable claims in 2007.

However, the percentage of complaints alleging specific
accounting irregularities decreased to 44 percent in 2008 from
48 percent in 2006.  There was a shift in emphasis in Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) allegations from those
related to traditional income statement line items to
allegations related to balance sheet components.

The share of filings alleging GAAP violations that specified
revenue recognition decreased from over 35 percent in 2002
through 2006 to 17 percent in 2007 and 26 percent in 2008.

Filings alleging understatement of expenses decreased from 46
percent in 2006 to 19 percent in 2007 and 14 percent in 2008.

Meanwhile, the percentage of GAAP-related filings alleging the
overstatement of assets other than accounts receivable and
problems with estimates both increased to new highs in 2007 and
2008.

In contrast, the percentage of GAAP-related filings alleging
understatement of liabilities increased from 2006 to 2007 and
then decreased in 2008.

A copy of the report is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?3785


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CBS CORP: Charles H. Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     MINNEAPOLIS, Jan. 6, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of CBS
Corporation ("CBS" or the "Company") publicly traded securities
during the period February 26, 2008 through October 10, 2008
(the "Class Period").

     The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about the Company's financial
condition and operating results. Specifically, Defendants failed
to disclose:

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

       -- that the Company's reported goodwill and intangible
          assets, which ranged between 69% - 73% of CBS's total
          assets and 131% - 137% of CBS's total equity during
          the Class Period, were materially overstated;

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

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

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

       -- that the Company's balance sheet was not "pristine,"
          "extremely strong" or "extremely healthy;"

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

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

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

For more details, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN 55112
          Phone: (651) 633-5685


HORIZON LINES: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Jan 6, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Horizon Lines, Inc. ("Horizon Lines") between March 2, 2007 and
April 25, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Horizon Lines' business, operations and
prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Horizon
Lines securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215)638-4847 or (888)638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


HORIZON LINES: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC ("KGS") announces that a
securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Horizon Lines, Inc. ("Horizon"
or the "Company") (NYSE: HRZ) between March 2, 2007 and April
25, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").  No class has yet been
certified in this action.

     Horizon and certain of its executive officers are charged
with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other
things, the complaint asserts that investors were misled about
the Company's profitability, emanating from Horizon's use of
improper price-fixing agreements with its competition, in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

     On April 17, 2008, investors first learned the Company was
the subject of a United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ")
investigation for violations of antitrust laws. On this news,
Horizon shares fell $3.53 per share, almost 20 percent.

     On April 25, 2008, Horizon shares fell another $3.83 per
share, over 20 percent, as the Company reported 1st Quarter 2008
results and revised downward the Company's earnings guidance for
the 2008 fiscal year.

     Recently, on October 1, 2008, the DOJ announced that three
Horizon employees pled guilty for their roles in a conspiracy to
eliminate competition and raise prices for the movement of goods
between the U.S. and Puerto Rico, by agreeing not to compete for
customers, to rig bids submitted to buyers, and to fix the
prices of rates, surcharges and other fees charged to customers.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          e-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com


PFF BANCORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY -- (Marketwire) -- 01/06/09 -- Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of PFF
Bancorp,Inc. ("PFF" or the "Company") (OTCBB: PFFBQ) during the
period between October 23, 2006 through November 21, 2008 (the
"Class Period").

     PFF operates as a holding company for PFF Bank & Trust (the
"Bank"), which provides community banking services to
individuals and companies in Southern California.

     The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial condition and
improper business practices.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants concealed the
Company's improper lending to borrowers with little ability to
repay the amount loaned and failed to inform investors of the
impact of changes in the real estate market in San Bernardino
and Riverside counties (the "Inland Empire").

     As a result of defendants' concealment, PFF's stock traded
at artificially inflated levels throughout the Class Period,
reaching a high of $35.45 pershare in December 2006.

     On November 21, 2008, after the market closed, theBank was
closed by regulators and taken over by U.S. Bancorp.  Following
this announcement, PFF's stock declined to $0.01 per share, a
total lossfor investors.

     According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period,were as follows:

       -- PFF's assets contained hundreds of millions of dollars
          worth of impaired and risky securities, many of which
          were backed by real estate that was rapidly dropping
          in value;

       -- prior to and during the Class Period, PFF had been
          extremely aggressive in generating loans,including
          being heavily involved in offering Home Equity Lines
          of Credit("HELOCs"), which would be enormously
          problematic if the value of residential real estate
          did not continue to increase;

       -- defendants failed to properly account for PFF's real
          estate loans, failing to reflect impairment in the
          loans;

       -- PFF's business prospects were much worse than
          represented due to problems in the Inland Empire
          market, which was a key focus of PFF's business; and

       -- PFF had not adequately reserved for loan losses on
          HELOCs and on other real estate-related assets.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of PFF'scommon stock during the Class Period (the
"Class").

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Lawrence D. Levit, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, N.Y. 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


PFF BANCORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN DIEGO - (Business Wire) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia") today announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers
of PFF Bancorp, Inc. ("PFF") (OTC:PFFBQ) common stock during the
period between October 23, 2006 and November 21, 2008 (the
"Class Period").

     The complaint charges certain of PFF's officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     PFF operates as a holding company for PFF Bank & Trust (the
"Bank"), which provides community banking services to
individuals and companies in Southern California.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial results and
engaged in improper behavior, which harmed PFF's customers and
investors in its common stock, including lending to borrowers
with little ability to repay the amount loaned and failing to
inform investors of the impact of changes in the real estate
market in San Bernardino and Riverside counties (the "Inland
Empire").

     As a result of defendants' false statements, PFF's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $35.45 per share in December 2006.

     On November 21, 2008, after the market closed, the Bank was
closed by regulators and taken over by U.S. Bancorp.  Following
this announcement, PFF's stock declined to $0.01 per share a
total loss for investors.

     According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period,were as follows:

       -- PFF's assets contained hundreds of millions of dollars
          worth of impaired and risky securities, many of which
          were backed by real estate that was rapidly dropping
          in value;

       -- prior to and during the Class Period, PFF had been
          extremely aggressive in generating loans,including
          being heavily involved in offering Home Equity Lines
          of Credit("HELOCs"), which would be enormously
          problematic if the value of residential real estate
          did not continue to increase;

       -- defendants failed to properly account for PFF's real
          estate loans, failing to reflect impairment in the
          loans;

       -- PFF's business prospects were much worse than
          represented due to problems in the Inland Empire
          market, which was a key focus of PFF's business; and

       -- PFF had not adequately reserved for loan losses on
          HELOCs and on other real estate-related assets.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of PFF common stock during the Class Period ("the
Class").

For more details, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/pffbancorp/


                            *********

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 2009.  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  * * *