CAR_Public/080116.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 16, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 11

                            Headlines


ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE: Individual Defendants Still Face Merger Suit
BATESVILLE CASKET: Seeks to Dismiss Ark. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
CASEY'S GENERAL: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in Iowa
DOLLAR TREE: Cal. Labor Suit Settlement Yet to Get Approval
DOLLAR TREE: 2008 Trial Expected for Ore. Labor Litigation

DOLLAR TREE: April Hearing Set in Cal. Labor Suit Settlement
DOLLAR TREE: Notices of Ala. Labor Code Violations Suit Out
DOLLAR TREE: Calif. Court Consolidates Store Managers’ Lawsuit
DOLLAR TREE: Cal. Court Denies Motion to Junk Ex-Workers' Suit
FORD MOTOR: Notices of 1991-2001 Explorers Suit Settlement Out

HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Trial in $1.46B FCA Case Suspended
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Tex. Antitrust Suit Deadlines Suspended
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Tex. Court Nixes Casket Antitrust Suit
IMPAC FUNDING: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Alleging TILA Violations
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in California

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
INTERSTATE BAKERIES: N.J. Wage, Hour Lawsuits Remain Stayed
MASTERCARD INT'L: Hearing on $336M Antitrust Suit Deal Set March
REMEC INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit
STATE FARM: Policyholders File Suit Over Breach of Contracts

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Retirees' N.Y. Suit
TUTOGEN MEDICAL: Still Faces Fla. Suit by Transplant Patient
VIRTUALBANK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Adjustable-Rate Mortgages
WAL-MART STORES: Decertification of Mass. Labor Suit on Appeal

WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Appeals Certification of “Cuesta” Litigation

* Seyfarth Releases 4th Annual Workplace Class Litigation Report


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CELLCYTE GENETICS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Suit in Wash.
MBIA INC: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SECURITY CAPITAL: Zwerling Schachter Files N.Y. Securities Suit
VIRGIN MOBILE: Zwerling Schachter Files N.Y. Securities Suit


                            *********  


ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE: Individual Defendants Still Face Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An action that was originally filed against Abraxis BioScience,
Inc. (ABI), formerly American Pharmaceutical Partners Inc., in
relation to the company's merger with American BioScience, Inc.,
is now proceeding as a putative class action solely against the
individual defendants.

On or about Dec. 7, 2005, several stockholder derivative, and
class actions were filed against the company, its directors and
ABI in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to the merger.
The company is a nominal defendant in the stockholder derivative
actions.

The lawsuits allege that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by causing the company to enter
into the merger agreement and for not providing full and fair
disclosure to stockholders regarding the recently completed
merger, which it is alleged caused the value of the shares held
by the company's public stockholders to be significantly
diminished.  

They seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages
and the recession of the merger.

On April 18, 2006, Abraxis BioScience completed the merger with
American BioScience, Inc., pursuant to the terms of an Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated Nov. 27, 2005.

The company has moved to dismiss the derivative claims filed on
its behalf, and certain of the director defendants have moved to
dismiss some of the claims alleged against them.

In May 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the derivative
and unjust enrichment claims, and the action is proceeding as a
putative class action solely against the individual defendants.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
20, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Abraxis BioScience, Inc. -- http://www.abraxisbio.com/--  
formerly American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. is a
biopharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and
markets injectable pharmaceutical products.  It manufactures
products in each of the three basic forms, in which injectable
products are sold: liquid, powder and lyophilized, or freeze-
dried.  The Company has two business segments: Abraxis
BioScience, representing the combined operations of Abraxis
Oncology and Abraxis Research, and Abraxis Pharmaceutical
Products, representing the hospital-based operations.


BATESVILLE CASKET: Seeks to Dismiss Ark. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Batesville Casket Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Hillenbrand
Industries, Inc., is seeking for a dismissal of a purported
consumer fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The suit, “Vertie Staples v. Batesville Casket Company, Inc.”
was filed against the company on Aug. 17, 2007.  It is a
putative class action on behalf of the plaintiff and all others
who purchased a Monoseal Casket manufactured by Batesville from
a licensed funeral home located in Arkansas from Jan. 1, 1989 to
the present.

The plaintiff claims that Monoseal Caskets were marketed as
completely resistant to the entrance of air and water when they
were not.

The plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and for fraud, constructive fraud
and breach of express and implied warranties.

In order to establish federal jurisdiction over the claims under
the Class Action Fairness Act, the plaintiff alleges that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

Batesville has moved to dismiss all claims as barred by statutes
of limitations.  The plaintiff has asserted fraudulent
concealment to toll the applicable limitation periods.  

The motion to dismiss has been briefed and submitted to the
court for decision, according to Hillenbrand Industries, Inc.'s
Nov. 29, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Staples v. Batesville Casket Company Inc., Case No.
5:07-cv-00214-JMM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge James M. Moody.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Charles P. Boyd, Jr.
         Boyd Law Firm
         Post Office Box 3494
         Little Rock, AR 72203-3494
         Phone: (501) 372-0770
         E-mail: boyd_law_firm@yahoo.com

              - and -

         Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
         Thrash Law Firm
         1101 Garland Street
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Phone: (501) 374-1058
         E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

Representing the defendants is:

         Jess L. Askew, III
         Williams & Anderson, PLLC
         111 Center Street, Suite 2200
         Little Rock, AR 72201-2413
         Phone: (501) 372-0800
         E-mail: jaskew@williamsanderson.com


CASEY'S GENERAL: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------------
Several former Casey's General Stores, Inc. cooks and cashiers
filed a nationwide wage and overtime class action on January 10,
2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against the company.

The class action suit charges Casey's with wrongfully denying
overtime pay and wages owed to current and former Casey's hourly
employees. The lawsuit alleges that Casey's violated federal and
state law by working cooks and cashiers off-the-clock to avoid
paying overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and state law.

"I was expected to and repeatedly did show up early and stay
late for Casey's," said former employee and current plaintiff
Connie Wineland, who worked for Casey's in Iowa. "I want to be
paid for all of the time I worked at Casey's," added Ms.
Wineland.

"These are hard-working employees who deserve to be paid for
every minute of time they work," stated one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys, Scott Peters. "Employees should not be expected to
'donate' their time to Casey's."

The suit is “Wineland et al v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.,  
Case Number: 4:2008cv00020,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa, under Senior Judge Ronald E.
Longstaff with referral to Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters.

Plaintiffs' counsel are:

          Peters Law Firm, PC
          233 Pearl Street, P.O. Box 1078
          Council Bluffs, Iowa 51502-1078
          Phone: 712-328-3157  
          Fax: 712-328-9092
          Webiste: http://www.peterslawfirm.com

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

          Stephan Zouras, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2560
          Chicago, Illinois 60601
          Phone: 312 233 1550
          Fax: 312 233 1560

          - and -

          Hudson Mallaney & Shindler, PC.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
          Phone: 515-223-4567  
          Fax: 515-223-8887
          Website: http://www.hudsonlaw.net


DOLLAR TREE: Cal. Labor Suit Settlement Yet to Get Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement reached by Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. in a
purported labor class action filed against it in California
state court has yet to be presented to the court for acceptance
and certification.

In 2003, the company was were served with the lawsuit, which was
filed by a former employee who alleged that employees did not
properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods,
along with other alleged wage and hourly violations.

The suit requested that the California state court certify the
case as a class action.  

The parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement which
will be presented to the Court for acceptance and certification
of a class.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
13, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 3, 2007.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the company
operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores.


DOLLAR TREE: 2008 Trial Expected for Ore. Labor Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is expecting a 2008 trial for a
purported class action filed by its former employees in Oregon,
alleging that they did not properly receive sufficient meal
breaks and paid rest periods.

In 2005, the company was served with the lawsuit, which also
alleges other wage and hour violations.  

Plaintiffs requested the court to certify classes for their
various claims and the presiding judge did so with respect to
two classes, one alleging that the company's Oregon employees,
in violation of that state's labor laws, were not paid for rest
breaks and the other that upon termination of employment,
employees were not tendered their final pay in a timely manner.

Other claims of the plaintiffs were dismissed by an earlier
order of the court and are being appealed by the plaintiffs.

Discovery will ensue on the certified class issues; no trial is
anticipated before the second half of 2008, according to the
company's Dec. 13, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 3,
2007.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the company
operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores.


DOLLAR TREE: April Hearing Set in Cal. Labor Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative April 2008 hearing is slated for a settlement
reached in a purported class action pending in a California
state court against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., alleging
violations of the state's labor code.

In 2006, the company was served with the lawsuit filed by a
former employee specifically alleging:

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

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

      -- that the company did not pay her final wages in a
         timely manner, also an alleged violation of the labor
         code.

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

The parties have reached a settlement and executed an Agreement
which was presented to the Court.  A hearing for final approval
of the settlement has been scheduled by the Court in April 2008.   

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the company
operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Notices of Ala. Labor Code Violations Suit Out
-----------------------------------------------------------
Notices are going out to potential members of a class in a suit
filed in federal court in the state of Alabama accusing Dollar
Tree Stores, Inc. of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In 2006, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in federal
court in the state of Alabama by a former store manager.  She
claims that she should have been classified as a non-exempt
employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act and, therefore,
should have received overtime compensation and other benefits.

She filed the case as a collective action on behalf of herself
and all other employees (store managers) similarly situated.  
Plaintiff sought and received from the Court an Order allowing
nationwide (except for the state of California) notice to be
sent to all store managers employed by the Company now or within
the past three years.  

Such notice has been mailed and each involved person will
determine whether he or she wishes to opt-in to the class as a
plaintiff.  

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the company
operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Calif. Court Consolidates Store Managers’ Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California federal court consolidated two purported class
actions filed against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. by either a
present or a former store manager, according to the company's
Dec. 13, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 3, 2007.

                       Federal Action

The suit was served on the company on 2007.  In it, plaintiffs
claim that they should have been classified as non-exempt
employees under both the California Labor Code and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  

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

The Company responded with a motion to dismiss, which the court
granted with respect to allegations of fraud.

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

                      State Court Action

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

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

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the company
operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores.

   
DOLLAR TREE: Cal. Court Denies Motion to Junk Ex-Workers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California federal court denied Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss a purported class action filed by two former
employees.

In 2007, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in federal
court in California by two former employees who allege they were
not paid all wages due and owing for time worked, that they were
not paid in a timely manner upon termination of their employment
and that they did not receive accurate itemized wage statements.

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

The Company responded with a motion to dismiss which the Court
denied, according to the company's Dec. 13, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 3, 2007.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the company
operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores.


FORD MOTOR: Notices of 1991-2001 Explorers Suit Settlement Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
A program authorized by California's Sacramento County Superior
Court to issue notices to consumers in California, Illinois,
Connecticut, and Texas who bought, owned or leased 1991-2001
model year Ford Explorers about a settlement reached with Ford
Motor Company began on Jan. 14.

The settlement resolves class action lawsuits about whether
1991-2001 model year Explorers had a tendency to roll over,
whether Ford concealed it, and whether consumers were misled
into buying or leasing Explorers and paying more than what they
would have had they known about the alleged tendency. These
class actions do not concern claims for personal injuries or
property damage. The settlement doesn't mean that any law was
broken, and Ford denies all claims of wrongdoing in this case.

The settlement includes all persons who fall within any of the
following groups:

     People and entities, who bought, owned or leased new or  
     used 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorers in California
     between 1990 and August 9, 2000, and who either:

      (a) currently own or lease the vehicle(s), or

     (b) sold or whose lease for such vehicle(s) expired or
         otherwise terminated after August 9, 2000; and who
         resided in California on March 16, 2006.

All residents of Illinois on September 27, 2004, who purchased,
owned, or leased, at any time between 1990 and September 27,
2004, Ford Explorers, model years 1991 through 2001, that are or
were equipped with Firestone ATX, ATX II, or Wilderness tires.
All persons who owned or leased 1991-2001 model year Explorers
in Texas or Connecticut on August 9, 2000, and who are residents
of Texas or Connecticut as of December 5, 2007.

The settlement provides discount certificates worth $500 toward
the purchase or lease of a new Ford Explorer or $300 toward the
purchase or lease of any other new Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury.

Certificates will be valid for 12 months from the date issued.
The certificates can be used in conjunction with other Ford
offers and incentives, but only one certificate can be used at a
time. Until all certificates expire, Ford agrees to make
available on its website, http://www.Ford.com,

     (a) warnings that Ford provides in all Owner's Guides for
         its 2007 model year sport utility vehicles regarding
         the importance of restraint usage by adults and
         children, driving practices and cargo loading practices
         to reduce the risk of rollover, and tire safety;

     (b) downloadable copies of Ford's publication, "Driving
         Your SUV or Truck" (formerly referred to as "4-Wheeling
         With Ford") that Ford provides with its 2007 model year
       sport utility vehicles; and

     (c) a separate publication on tire safety.

Ford also will provide on its website instructions on how to
obtain extra copies of 2007 Owner's Guides in both English and
Spanish. Details of these benefits are described in the
settlement agreement which is available at the website.

Those included in the settlement may send in a claim to ask for
a certificate or object to the settlement. Class members in
Connecticut and Texas can also exclude themselves from the
settlement. The deadline for exclusions and objections is April
3, 2008. The deadline to submit claims is April 29, 2008.
Notices informing people about their legal rights are scheduled
to appear in newspapers and other publications in California,
Illinois, Connecticut, and Texas, leading up to a hearing on
April 15, 2008, when the Court will consider whether to approve
the settlement.

The Court has designated the law firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein LLP, of San Francisco, CA, and Wilentz, Goldman &
Spitzer P.A., of Woodbridge, NJ, as "Lead Class Counsel" in the
California actions and other law firms in the four states to
represent the people included in the settlement.

A toll-free number, 1-866-833-7918, has been established in the
case (called Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4226 & 4270), along
with a website, http://www.ExplorerClaims.com,where notices, a  
claim form, and the settlement agreement may be obtained. Those
affected may also write to Ford Explorer Settlement, PO Box
4850, Portland, OR 97208.


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Trial in $1.46B FCA Case Suspended
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
suspended a previously set February 2008 trial date for a  
purported class action filed by Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc.
(FCA) against funeral home businesses, including Hillenbrand
Industries Inc.

On May 2, 2005, FCA, a non-profit entity, and several individual
consumers filed a purported antitrust class action against three
national funeral home businesses:

     * Service Corporation International (SCI),
     * Alderwoods Group, Inc., and
     * Stewart Enterprises, Inc.

together with Hillenbrand, and its Batesville Casket Company,
Inc. subsidiary, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

This lawsuit alleged:

       -- a conspiracy to suppress competition in an alleged
          market for the sale of caskets through a group boycott
          of so-called independent casket discounters, that is,
          third-party casket sellers unaffiliated with licensed
          funeral homes;

       -- a campaign of disparagement against these independent
          casket discounters; and

       -- concerted efforts to restrict casket price competition
          and to coordinate and fix casket pricing, all in
          violation of federal antitrust law and California's
          Unfair Competition Law.

The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that Batesville's
maintenance and enforcement of, and alleged modifications to,
its long-standing policy of selling caskets only to licensed
funeral homes were the product of a conspiracy among Batesville,
the other defendants and others to exclude independent casket
discounters and that this alleged conspiracy, combined with
other alleged matters, suppressed competition in the alleged
market for caskets and led consumers to pay higher than
competitive prices for caskets.

The FCA Action alleged that two of Batesville's competitors,
York Group, Inc., and Aurora Casket Company, are co-conspirators
but did not name them as defendants.

The FCA Action also alleged that SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and
other unnamed co-conspirators conspired to monopolize the
alleged market for the sale of caskets in the United States.

After the FCA Action was filed, several more purported class
actions on behalf of consumers were filed based on essentially
the same factual allegations and alleging violations of federal
antitrust law and/or related state law claims.  

Batesville, Hillenbrand, and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the FCA Action and a motion to transfer to a more
convenient forum.

In response, the court in California permitted the plaintiffs to
replead the complaint and later granted defendants motion to
transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the FCA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
consolidating all but one of the other purported consumer class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.

The amended FCA complaint contains substantially the same basic
allegations as the original FCA complaint.  

The only other then remaining purported consumer class action,
“Fancher v. SCI et al.,” was subsequently dismissed voluntarily
by the plaintiff after the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
  
The FCA plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class that
includes all U.S. consumers who purchased Batesville caskets
from any of the funeral home co-defendants at any time during
the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of
limitations.

On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court denied the defendants November 2005
motions to dismiss the amended FCA complaint.

Class certification hearings were held on the matter in early
December 2006.

Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs class certification
motions was completed in March 2007, though briefing on certain
supplemental evidence related to class certification in the FCA
Action also occurred in September 2007 and October 2007.  

The Court has not yet ruled on the motions for class
certification.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
both cases, including the previously set February 2008 trial
date.

It is anticipated that new deadlines, including a trial date,
will not be set until the Court rules on the motions for class
certification.

The plaintiffs in the FCA Action filed a report indicating that
they are seeking damages ranging from approximately $947 million
to approximately $1.46 billion before trebling.

The suit is “Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc et al. v. Service
Corp. International, Case No. 4:05-cv-03394,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge
Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to Judge Calvin Botley.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan S. Abady, Esq.
          Emery Celli Brinckerhoff
          545 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-763-5000
          Fax: 212-763-5001
          E-mail: jabady@ecbalaw.com

               - and -

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          Ball & Scott
          550 W. Main Ave., Ste. 750
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Phone: 865-525-7028
          Fax: 865-525-4679
          E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com

Representing the defendants are:  

          John F. Cove, Jr., Esq.
          Richard Bruce Drubel, Jr., Esq.
          Boies Schiller Flexner
          Phone: 510-874-1000 and 603-643-9090
          Fax: 510-874-1460 and 603-643-9010
          E-mail: jcove@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Kenneth S. Marks, Esq.
          Susman Godfrey, LLP
          1000 Louisiana, Ste. 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Phone: 713-946-9567
          Fax: 713-654-6666


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Tex. Antitrust Suit Deadlines Suspended
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
suspended all pending deadlines in the case, “Pioneer Valley
Casket, et al. v. Service Corp. International, et al., Cause No.
4:05-CV-03399,” which names Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., as a
defendant.

On July 8, 2005 Pioneer Valley Casket Co., an alleged casket  
store and Internet retailer, filed a purported class action
against Batesville, Hillenbrand, Service Corp. International,
Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of the class of "independent casket distributors."

The complaint alleges violations of state and federal antitrust
law and state unfair and deceptive practices laws based on
essentially the same factual allegations as in the consumer
cases.  

Pioneer Valley claimed that it and other independent casket
distributors were injured by the defendants' alleged conspiracy
to boycott and suppress competition in the alleged market for
caskets, and by an alleged conspiracy among SCI, Alderwoods,
Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators to monopolize the
alleged market for caskets.

Plaintiff Pioneer Valley seeks certification of a class of all
independent casket distributors who are now in business or have
been in business since July 8, 2001.  

Pioneer Valley generally seeks actual unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class, trebling of any such
damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and
costs and injunctive relief.

The Pioneer Valley complaint was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas but was not
consolidated with the action, “Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc.
et al. v. Service Corp. International, Case No. 4:05-cv-03394,”
although the scheduling orders for both cases are identical.   

On Oct. 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed an amended complaint
adding three new plaintiffs, each of whom purports to be a
current or former "independent casket distributor."  

Like Pioneer Valley's original complaint, the amended complaint
alleges violations of federal antitrust laws, but it has dropped
the causes of actions for alleged price fixing, conspiracy to
monopolize, and violations of state antitrust law and state
unfair and deceptive practices laws.  

On Oct. 25, 2006, the district court denied the defendants
December 2005 motions to dismiss the amended Pioneer Valley
complaint.

Class certification hearings in the FCA Action and the Pioneer
Valley Action were held in early December 2006.  

Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs class certification
motions in both cases was completed in March 2007, though
briefing on certain supplemental evidence related to class
certification in the FCA Action also occurred in September 2007
and October 2007.  

The Court has not yet ruled on the motions for class
certification.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
the case.

It is anticipated that new deadlines, including a trial date,
will not be set until the Court rules on the motions for class
certification.

Plaintiffs in the Pioneer Valley Action generally seek monetary
damages, trebling of any such damages that may be awarded,
recovery of attorneys fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs filed a report indicating that
they are seeking damages of approximately $99.2 million before
trebling.

The suit is "Pioneer Valley Casket, et al. v. Service Corp.
International, et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV-03399," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under
Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to Judge Calvin Botley.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

         Robert S. Green, Esq.
         Green Welling, LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2750
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710
         E-mail: rsg@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM

              - and -
  
         Christine G. Pedigo, Esq.
         Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
         601 Montgomery Street, Suite 665
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-398-8700
         Fax: 415-398-8704

Representing the company is:

         Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
         Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP
         711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-221-1371
         Fax: 713-221-2144
         E-mail: andrew.edison@bracewellgiuliani.com


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Tex. Court Nixes Casket Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
dismissed a class action filed against Hillenbrand Industries,
Inc., and Batesville Casket Co. by the personal representative
of the estates of Dale van Coley and Joye Katherine Coley,
Candace D. Robinson on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated in 14 states.

The complaint is filed on behalf of all individuals and entities  
in Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,  
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,  
Wisconsin who purchased caskets made by Batesville during the  
fullest period permitted by the applicable statutes of  
limitations (Class Action Reporter Nov. 1, 2006).

Excluded from this class are defendants and all directors,
officers, agents, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
and/or co-conspirators of Defendants, and all governmental
entities.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, arises from the policies of Batesville,
who possesses dominant power in the casket market, of selling
its caskets only to licensed funeral directors operating
licensed funeral homes.  

The complaint alleges Batesville will not sell its caskets to
third-party sellers.  This restrictive sales policy flows
directly from a horizontal conspiracy to boycott third-party
sellers entered into by funeral home consolidators.  

Aware of the existence of the conspiracy, and realizing a unique
opportunity to expand its dominant position and achieve monopoly
power in the casket market, Batesville engaged in illegal
unilateral actions designed to increase its market power in
order to illegally gain a monopoly position.

Further, Batesville's unilateral conduct quashed and otherwise
precluded competition in the American casket market, resulting
in higher prices paid by plaintiffs and class members for
caskets and antitrust injury.  

This anti-competitive conduct violates the antitrust laws of the
states of Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,
Wisconsin.  

Specifically, Batesville recognized that other casket-makers:
The York Group, Inc., and Aurora Casket Co., a division of
Matthews International Corp. and funeral home consolidators:

     -- Service Corp. International (SCI),
     -- Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
     -- Stewart Enterprises, Inc., and  
     -- Carriage Services, Inc.  

had engaged in an arrangement, combination or conspiracy to
restrain competition in the casket market.  Those companies
allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to prevent independent casket
discounters (ICDs) from selling their brand of caskets, a
campaign of disparagement against ICDs and the caskets they
sell, and concerted efforts to restrict casket price competition
and coordinate casket-pricing.  

These efforts by other casketmakers and funeral home
consolidators also allegedly included such acts as restricting
or preventing price advertising, sharing price information, and
promoting sham discounting of funeral package purchases.

On or about Sept. 6, 1990, Mr. And Mrs. Coley had executed a
"pre-paid pre-need funeral merchandise and services" agreement
with Bill Merritt Funeral Service.  

On or about Dec. 1, 2002, Joye Katherine Coley passed away,
whereupon her daughter, Candace Robinson, contracted to purchase
a Batesville-brand casket for her mother's funeral service and
interment from Bill Merritt Funeral Service in Bethany,
Oklahoma, utilizing the "pre-paid preneeds" agreement above
described to make partial payment.  

On or about Dec. 13, 2003, Dale Van Coley passed away.  On or
about Dec. 15, 2003, Candace Robinson purchased a Batesville
brand casket for her father's funeral service and interment from
Bill Merritt Funeral Service, again utilizing the "pre-paid pre-
needs" agreement for partial payment.  

On both occasions, the prices of those caskets were allegedly
artificially inflated because of Batesville's attempt to
monopolize the casket-market.  

Plaintiffs and their respective estates claim they were injured
by Batesville's violations of Oklahoma antitrust laws.  
Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly situated consumers
located in 14 states who also purchased Batesville-brand
caskets.

Batesville has denied participating in a conspiracy with funeral
home consolidators and admits that its sales policies which have
resulted in the exclusion of third-party sellers were taken
unilaterally, i.e., Batesville states that there was no
"contract, combination, or conspiracy" between it and the
funeral home consolidators.

Virtually all of the issues of law and fact in this class action
are common to each class member including, without limitation,
the following:

     (i) whether Batesville engaged in the conduct alleged  
         herein;

    (ii) whether Batesville engaged in a concerted effort to  
         suppress or exclude competition in the casket market;

  (iii) whether the prices for Batesville's caskets during the  
        limitations period were higher than they would have been  
        absent the attempted monopolization alleged herein;

   (iv) whether, and to what extent, Batesville's attempt to  
        monopolize the casket market has harmed competition; and

    (v) whether there is any legitimate business purpose for  
        Batesville anticompetitive conduct.

Batesville and Hillenbrand had this case transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas in order to
coordinate this action with the case, “Funeral Consumers
Alliance Inc et al. v. Service Corp. International, Case No.
4:05-cv-03394,” and filed a motion to dismiss this action.

On Sept. 17, 2007, the the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas granted Batesville's and Hillenbrand's motion
to dismiss and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the Original Oklahoma complaint is available at:
            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1437

The suit is "Robinson v. Hillenbrand Industries Inc. et al.,
Case No. 5:06-cv-01190-R," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma under Judge David L. Russell.

Representing plaintiffs is:

         G. Rudy Hiersche, Jr., Esq.
         Hiersche Law Firm
         105 N Hudson Ave., Suite 300
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-3123
         Fax: 405-235-3142
         E-mail: Rudylaw@sbcglobal.net


IMPAC FUNDING: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Alleging TILA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Funding Corp., and Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. face a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California over alleged violations of the
Truth in Lending Act.

On Oct. 4, 2007, a purported class action matter was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Impac Funding Corp., and Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.,
entitled, “Vincent Marshell v. Impac Funding Corporation, et
al.”

The action alleges violations of Truth in Lending Act, Violation
of California Business and Professional Code Section 17200, et
seq, breach of contract, and an additional claim under Business
and Professional Code Section 17200.

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
pertinent information in a clear conspicuous manner as called
for in the Truth in Lending Act, and that they misled the
plaintiff.

The action seeks to recover actual damages, compensatory
damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, rescission,
reasonable attorneys fees and costs, statutory damages, a
disgorgement of all profits obtained as a result of the unfair
competition, equitable relief including restitution and such
other relief as is just and proper.

The suit is “Vincent D Marshell v. IMPAC Funding Corporation et
al., Case No. 5:07-cv-01290-AG-CT,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Andrew
J. Guilford with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
         Jeffrey K. Berns Law Offices
         19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
         Tarzana, CA 91356
         Phone: 818-961-2000
         E-mail: jberns@jeffbernslaw.com

              - and -

         Michael A. Bowse, Esq.
         Browne and Woods
         450 North Roxbury Drive, 7th Flr
         Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4231
         Phone: 310-274-7100
         Fax: 310-275-5697
         E-mail: mbowse@dskbwg.com


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. faces a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

On Dec. 17, 2007, a purported class action matter was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
against IMH and several of its senior officers entitled, ”Sharon
Page v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al.”

The action is a complaint for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act in relation to the Company's
401(k) plan.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties, breach of duty
to avoid conflicts of interest, allegations of co-fiduciary
liability and knowing participation in a breach of fiduciary
duty by IMH.

Plaintiffs contend that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in violation of ERISA by failing to prudently and loyally
manage the plans investment in IMH stock by continuing to offer
IMH stock as an investment option and to make contributions in
stock, provide complete and accurate information to
participants, and monitor appointed plan fiduciaries and provide
them with accurate information.

The complaint seeks monetary payment to the plan for the losses
in an amount to be proven, injunctive and other appropriate
equitable relief, a constructive trust on amounts by which any
defendant was unjustly enriched, an appointment of one or more
independent fiduciaries, actual damages, reasonable attorney
fees and expenses, taxable costs, interests on these amounts and
other legal or equitable relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is “Page v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc et al., Case
No. 8:07-cv-01447-AG-MLG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Andrew J.
Guilford with referral to Judge Marc L. Goldman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gainey and McKenna
         295 Madison Avenue, 4th Fl
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-983-1300
         E-mail: tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. faces two purported securities
fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, according to the company's Dec. 20, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter  ended Sept. 30, 2007.

On Aug. 17, 2007, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, against
the company, and several of its senior officers entitled,
“Sheldon Pittleman v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al.”

The action alleges against all defendants violations of Section
10(b) and 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act) and against the individual defendants violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs contend that the defendants caused the Company's
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices through false and
misleading statements, and intentional or reckless disregard of
basic accounting principles.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages for all damages
sustained as a result of the defendants actions, including
reasonable costs and expenses and other relief as the court may
deem proper.

On Oct. 3, 2007, a similar case was filed in the same Court
entitled, “Richard Abrams v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et
al.”

This action makes allegations similar to those in the Pittleman
action and also seeks similar recovery.

The suit is “Sheldon Pittleman, et al. v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00970,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
         369 Lexington. Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, New York
         Phone: 212.983.9330
         Fax: 212.983.9331,

         Gardy & Notis, LLP
         440 Sylvan Avenue
         Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 07632
         Phone: 201-567-7377
         Fax: 201-567-7337
         E-mail: info@gardylaw.com

              - and -

         Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA)
         1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067
         Phone: (310) 201-915
         Fax: (310) 201-916
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


INTERSTATE BAKERIES: N.J. Wage, Hour Lawsuits Remain Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wage and hour cases that were filed in New Jersey Court against
Interstate Bakeries Corp. remain stayed due to the company's
Chapter 11 filing.  

The company was named in two wage and hour cases in New Jersey
that have been brought under state law, one of which has been
brought on behalf of a putative class of route sales
representatives.  

The case involving the putative class is:

      -- "Ruzicka, et al. v. Interstate Brands Corp., et al.,
         No. 03-CV 2846 (FLW) (Superior Court, Ocean City, New
         Jersey).

The other case is:

      -- "McCourt, et al. v. Interstate Brands Corp., No. 1-03-
         CV-00220 (FLW) (D.N.J.)."  

These cases are in their preliminary stages.  As a result of the
Interstate Bakeries' Chapter 11 filing, these cases have been
automatically stayed.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
20, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 17, 2007.

                  Voluntary Chapter 11 Filing

On Sept. 22, 2004, or the Petition Date, the company and each of
its wholly-owned subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for
relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, or the
Bankruptcy Code, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Missouri, or the Bankruptcy Court Case Nos.
04-45814, 04-45816, 04-45817, 04-45818, 04-45819, 04-45820, 04-
45821 and 04-45822).

On Oct. 3, 2007, the Court granted IBC a 30-day extension of
exclusive periods to file and solicit acceptances of a plan of
reorganization.  IBC originally sought an extension to January
2008.  The company said in a regulatory filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that it may seek additional
extension of the exclusive periods.

Kansas City, Missouri-based Interstate Bakeries Corp. --
http://www.interstatebakeriescorp.com-- is a wholesale baker  
and distributor of fresh baked bread and sweet goods in the U.S.


MASTERCARD INT'L: Hearing on $336M Antitrust Suit Deal Set March
----------------------------------------------------------------
A March 31, 2008 hearing is set to decide on the fairness of a
$336,000,000 settlement of the lawsuit “In re Currency
Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation.”  The suit is before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.   

The notice of the settlement hearing was made by Berger &
Montague, P.C. and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
Co-Lead and Co-Class Counsel for the plaintiffs in the class
action.

The settlement involves all persons and entities who were Visa-,
Mastercard- and Diners Club- branded credit and debit/aTM
cardholders and made a foreign transaction between Feb. 1, 1996
and Nov. 8 2006.
   
If potential class members (individuals, companies, and
agencies) used a Visa or MasterCard credit or debit/ATM card, or
a Diners Club credit card (including charge cards) to make a
foreign transaction between February 1, 1996 and November 8,
2006, they could get a refund from a class action settlement.

The lawsuit, “In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust
Litigation,” claims that Visa, MasterCard, their member banks,
and Diners Club conspired to set and hide the price of foreign
transactions (including fees, typically 1 - 3 %) in violation of
federal and state law, and that Visa and MasterCard inflated
their base exchange rates before applying these fees.

The Defendants (Visa, MasterCard, Bank of America, Bank
One/First USA, Chase, Citibank, Diners Club, HSBC/Household,
MBNA and Washington Mutual/Providian) deny these claims.

The settlement provides $336,000,000 to pay claims, the costs of
administering the settlement and notice, and court-awarded
attorneys' fees (up to 27.5% of the estimated $313,000,000
expected to remain in the settlement fund after deducting costs
for administration and notice, plus interest and expenses) and
awards for the class representatives.

The Defendants also agreed to maintain certain disclosure-
related practices for a period of time. If approved, the
settlement will bind class members. If persons and entities are
eligible to make a claim and do not opt out, they will release
all claims related to any foreign transaction, or the subject
matters of the lawsuit, against the Defendants, the member
banks, and related entities and individuals. Claims in other
cases involving foreign transactions will also be extinguished,
but they can still make a claim here, if eligible for a refund.

Settlement agreements have also been signed in some of these
other cases. These agreements include payment of fees and
expenses to attorneys, some of whom have represented the
plaintiff in Schwartz v. Visa (CA). These payments will not
reduce the $336,000,000 settlement.
All class members who made a foreign transaction with a Visa,
MasterCard, or Diners Club credit or debit/ATM card between
February 1, 1996 and November 8, 2006 are eligible for a refund.

The amount of the refund will depend on which claim form is
chosen (only one claim form may be submitted), the amount of
total claims, the dollar value of the claim, the bank that
issued their card, and the amount of money available to pay
claims. Class members might only get a partial refund.

A website, http://www.ccfsettlement.com,has been created to  
provide information about the lawsuit and settlement, and to
allow class members to file their claims on-line. This website
contains Court Orders and other important documents concerning
the settled litigation. There is also a set of Frequently
Answered Questions (or "FAQs") that provide information about
the lawsuit and the settlement, how to file a claim, how to opt-
out or object to the settlement, and other common questions
about the claims and refund process. Where a class member has an
inquiry that is not addressed by the FAQs, the class member may
use the website to submit the inquiry to the Settlement
Administrator. To keep abreast of settlement developments, class
members are encouraged to visit the website, which will be
regularly updated.

Class members do not need to go to court but may if they want
to. Class members may also hire an attorney, at their own cost,
if they want to. The court hearing to decide whether to approve
the settlement is on March 31, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. at the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007-1581. If class members plan to go,
they are advised to check with the court to confirm the time and
date.

For more information, visit http://www.ccfsettlement.com.For  
recorded information, call: 1- 800-945-9890.  You may obtain a
copy of the claim form online at www.ccfsettlement.com or by
calling 1-800-945-9890. You may file a claim for a refund at the
website listed above or mailing the claim to the Settlement
Administrator at P. O. Box 290, Philadelphia, PA 19105.

Agencies and companies should visit the website to obtain
details for submitting an Agency/Company claim form
(alternatively, they may contact the Settlement Administrator at
1-877-451-2124). The deadline for claims is May 30, 2008.


REMEC INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted class action status to a consolidated securities fraud
lawsuit filed against REMEC, Inc.

On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the
company and certain former officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California alleging violations of
federal securities laws between Sept. 8, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2004.   

On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, was appointed lead counsel and its client was
appointed lead plaintiff.  

After several consolidated and amended complaints were filed,
challenged by the company and dismissed by the court with leave
to amend, the court denied REMEC's motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint on Sept. 25, 2006.

REMEC filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on Nov.
6, 2006, denying all liability and asserting certain affirmative
defenses.

Discovery has commenced and is ongoing.  The Court granted
Plaintiff’s motion for class certification on Nov. 21, 2007.

The suit is "In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-1948," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: (213) 617-1200
         Fax: (213) 617-1975

         David W. Mitchell, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, California 92101-4297
         Phone: 619-231-1058 and 800-449-4900
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com  

              - and -   

         Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
         Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP
         550 West C. Street, Suite 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 338-1133
         Fax: (619) 338-1139

Representing the defendants is:
        
         Robert W. Brownlie
         DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, US, LLP,
         401 "B" Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, California 92101
         Phone: (619) 699-2700 and 858-638-6886
         Fax: 858-677-1401
         Web site: http://www.dlapiper.com


STATE FARM: Policyholders File Suit Over Breach of Contracts
------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is facing a class-
action complaint filed Jan. 10 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California alleging the company
breached contracts in bad faith with policyholders who incur
medical bills from auto wrecks, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Gregory Buonocore brings this action on behalf
of insured from whom defendant has allegedly improperly obtained
reimbursement for medical bills that it advanced, in breach of
its form automobile insurance agreements.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the language under "Section II - Medical
         Payments - Coverage C" of California Policy Form 9805A
         should be interpreted as permitting reimbursement to
         State Farm of medical expenses it advanced only when
         proceeds were received by the insured from a third
         party that is "liable for the bodily injury;"

     (b) whether the language "recovers proceeds from any party
         liable for the bodily injury" under "Section II -
         Medical Payments - Coverage C" of California Policy
         Form 9805A, entitles State Farm to collect proceeds
         recovered by the insured pursuant to a settlement
         agreement, where the insured executes a release in
         which liability is expressly denied by the third party
         and the insured has agreed with this denial; and

     (c) whether plaintiff and members of the class have been
         damaged by the wrongs complained of, and if so, the
         measure of those damages and the nature and extent of
         other relief that should be afforded.

Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

     -- certification of the proposed class and notice thereto
        be paid by defendant;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class damages for the State
        Farm's breach of contract;

     -- a decree that "Section II - Medical Payments - Coverage
        C" of State Farm's California Policy Form 9805A permits
        reimbursement only upon a determination that the third
        party payor is liable for the bodily injury;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class injunctive relief and
        restitution for State Farm's violation of the Business &
        Professions Code section 17200;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class declaratory relief
        pursuant to Cal. Bus, & prof. Code Section 17203;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class pre- and post-judgment
        interest as allowed by law;

     -- awarding counsel for plaintiff and the class reasonable
        attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- granting such other and further relief that this court
        may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Gregory Buonocore et al. v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., et al., Case No. CV 08 0184," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Richard S. Kabateck
          Richard L. Kellner
          Niall G. Yamane
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          350 South GRand Avenue, 39th Floor
          Los Angeles, California 90071
          Phone: (213) 217-5000
          Fax: (213) 217-5010


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on motions seeking for a dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Take-
Two Interactive Software, Inc.

In February and March 2006, an aggregate of four purported class
action complaints were filed against the company, its former
Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its
former Chief Global Operating Officer, and four of its former
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  A fourth complaint brought in Michigan was
voluntarily dismissed.  

The complaints allege that the company violated Sections 10(b),
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making or causing the company to make untrue statements or
failing to disclose in certain press releases and SEC periodic
reports that, among other things, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
contained ”hidden” content which should have resulted in the
game receiving an ”AO” rating from the ESRB rather than an ”M”
rating.  The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages and
their costs.

In July 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.  In
September 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint which included claims regarding Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas as well as claims relating to the backdating of stock
options.

This complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its
former Chairman of the Board, and two officers of its Rockstar
Games subsidiary.

On April 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint which included additional allegations based on an
investigation conducted by the Special Litigation Committee of
the Board of Directors, currently comprised of Strauss Zelnick,
John Levy and Grover Brown (Special Litigation Committee), of
options backdating and the Company’s restatement of financial
statements relating to options backdating.

This complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its
former Chairman of the Board, two of its directors and one
former director, its Rockstar Games subsidiary, and one officer
and one former officer of Rockstar Games.

On June 25, 2007, the company, and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to these motions to dismiss on
Sept. 4, 2007, and reply briefs were filed on Oct. 4, 2007.  

Now that briefing on the motions to dismiss is complete, the
company is awaiting a decision by the Court, according to the
company's Dec. 20, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Oct. 31, 2007.

The suit is “IN RE Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shirley Wohl
Kram.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Molly S. Boast, Esq.
         Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
         919 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212 909-6000
         Fax: 212 909-6836
         E-mail: msboast@debevoise.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Retirees' N.Y. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the suit, “St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688-
MBM,” which names Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., as a
defendant, are seeking for either the dismissal of the matter or  
consolidation with another case.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System filed a suit against the company, as nominal
defendant, and certain of the its officers and directors and
certain former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  

The factual allegations in this action are similar to the
allegations contained in the federal securities class actions
pending in New York captioned, “In Re Take-Two Interactive
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK.”

Plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their
fiduciary duty by selling company stock while in possession of
certain material non-public information and breached their
fiduciary duty and violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the
U.S. Exchange Act by failing to disclose material facts in the
company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which the
company solicited approval to increase share availability under
its 2002 Stock Option Plan.

Plaintiff seeks the return of all profits from the alleged
insider trading conducted by the individual defendants who sold
company stock, unspecified compensatory damages with interest
and their costs in the action.

A motion to stay the action pending the determination of an
investigation by the Special Committee was filed with the court.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion
and staying the proceedings for a period of 150 days from the
date of the order.

On Jan. 17, 2007, plaintiffs moved for an order granting limited
relief from the court's Oct. 4, 2006 stay of the proceedings in
order to file an amended derivative and class action complaint.

On Feb. 22, 2007, counsel for the Special Litigation Committee
advised the Court that the Special Litigation Committee had
completed its investigation and rendered a report.

On March 23, 2007, counsel for the Special Litigation Committee
moved to dismiss the complaint based on, among other things, its
conclusion that “future pursuit of this action is not in the
best interests of Take-Two or its shareholders.”

The plaintiff subsequently conducted discovery concerning the
Special Litigation Committee’s motion to dismiss.  

On Aug. 24, 2007, plaintiff filed an Amended Derivative and
Class Action Complaint.  The Amended Derivative and Class Action
Complaint alleges among other things that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the issuance of proxy
statements in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the Special Litigation Committee moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint or to consolidate certain of its
claims with “In Re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK.”

The suit is “St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement
System v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688-MBM,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Michael B. Mukasey.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         James Joseph Sabella, Esq.
         Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
         45 Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
         New York, NY 10111
         Phone: 646-722-8520     
         Fax: 212-755-6503
         E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

        Leonard D. Steinman, Esq.
        Blank Rome, LLP
        The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Avenue
        New York, NY 10174
        Phone: 212-885-5524
        Fax: 917 332-3746
        E-mail: lsteinman@blankrome.com


TUTOGEN MEDICAL: Still Faces Fla. Suit by Transplant Patient
------------------------------------------------------------
Tutogen Medical, Inc. continues to face a purported class action
in Florida over allegedly contaminated or unscreened body
parts/tissues that were used in transplant operations.

Kay Phelps, a Florida resident is suing the company, which she
claims received suspect bones used for a transplant operation on
her face (Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2006).

Ms. Phelps is suing Tutogen Medical Inc. in Circuit Court,
alleging that the corpse from which the bone was taken had not
been screened for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.  She was
twice tested negative for AIDS, but said she suffered anguish
over a possible infection.   

Her suit seeks class-action status on behalf of all patients in
Florida who might have received the tissue that was sold to
medical supply houses that supplied surgeons.

The suit is not seeking damages, but is demanding payment for
medical testing for all patients who received tissue from this
company for the next “eight to 10 years.”  Ms. Phelps is
represented by lawyer Thomas Thompson.

Tutogen Medical is one of five companies that received tissue
and bone from Biomedical Tissue Services of Fort Lee, N.J.
Experts in the field say the body parts were illegally taken
from corpses at six funeral homes in New York, New Jersey and
Philadelphia.  Biomedical is also facing class actions in
relation to its operation.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
14, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Tutogen Medical, Inc. -- http://www.tutogen.com/-- together  
with its consolidated subsidiaries designs, develops, processes,
manufactures and markets sterile biological implant products
made from human (allograft) and animal (xenograft) tissue.


VIRTUALBANK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Adjustable-Rate Mortgages
----------------------------------------------------------------
VirtualBank, Lydian Trust Co. and Lydian Private Bank are facing
a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California alleging they defrauded
homebuyers by failing to disclose true terms of adjustable-rate
mortgages, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Guillermo Nava brings this action for violations
of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 USC SEction 1601 et seq.,
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200, et seq., and other statutory and common law.

He brings this action pursuant toFederal Rule of Civil
Procedure, Rules 23(a), and 23(b) on behalf of the following
classes:

     -- The California Class: All individuals who, within the
        four year period preceding the filing of Plaintiff’s
        Complaint through the date notice is mailed to the
        Class, received an ARM loan through Defendants on their
        primary residence located in the State of California.

     -- The National Class: All individuals in the United States
        of America who, within the four year period preceding
        the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint through the date
        notice is mailed to the Class, received an ARM loan
        through Defendants on their primary residence located in
        the United States of America.

     -- The National Three Year Sub-Class: All individuals in
        the United States of America who, within the three year
        period preceding the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint
        through the date notice is mailed to the Class, received
        an ARM loan through Defendants on their primary
        residence located in the United States of America.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Defendants’ acts and practices violate TILA;

     (b) whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices
         aimed at deceiving Plaintiff and Class Members before
         and during the loan application process;

     (c) whether Defendants failed to disclose that the interest
         rate actually charged on these loans was higher than
         the rate represented;

     (d) whether Defendants failed to properly disclose the
         process by which negative amortization occurs,
         ultimately resulting in the recasting of the payment
         structure over the remaining lifetime of the loans;

     (e) whether Defendants’ failure to apply Plaintiff’s and
         Class Members’ payments to principal as promised in the
         standardized form Notes constitutes a breach of
         contract, including a breach of the covenant of good
         faith and fair dealing;

     (f) whether Defendants’ conduct in immediately raising the
         interest rate on consumers’ loans so that no payments
         were applied to the principal balance constitutes
         breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

     (g) whether Defendants’ marketing scheme misleadingly
         portrayed or implied that these loans were fixed rate
         loans, when Defendants knew that only the periodic
         payments were fixed (for a time) but that interest
         rates were not, in fact, “fixed;”

     (h) whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
         damages, including punitive damages; and

     (i) whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
         rescission.

He prays for judgment as follows:

     -- an order certifying this case as a class action and
        appointing Plaintiff and their counsel to represent the
        Class;

     -- actual damages according to proof;

     -- compensatory damages as permitted by law;

     -- consequential damages as permitted by law;

     -- statutory damages as permitted by law;

     -- punitive damages as permitted by law;

     -- rescission;

     -- all equitable relief permitted by law, including
        restitution;

     -- disgorgement of all profits Defendants obtained as a
        result of their unfair competition;

     -- pre and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

     -- declaratory Relief;

     -- a mandatory injunction requiring Defendants to
        permanently include in every ARM loan and disclosure
        statement:

        (i) clear and conspicuous disclosure of the actual
            interest rate on the Note(s) and disclosure
            statement(s) as required under 12 C.F.R. Section
            226.17 by;

       (ii) clear and conspicuous disclosure in the Note(s) and
            the disclosure statement(s) that payments on the
            variable interest rate loan during the initial
            period at the teaser rate will result in negative
            amortization and that the principal balance will
            increase as required under 12 C.F.R. Section 226.19;
            and

      (iii) clear and conspicuous disclosure that the initial
            interest rate provided is discounted and does not
            reflect the actual interest that Plaintiff and Class
            Members would be paying on the Note(s);

     -- reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

     -- all such other relief as this Court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is "Guillermo Nava et al. v. VirtualBank et al.," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Lori E. Andrus
          Micha Star Liberty
          Jennie Lee Anderson
          Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
          1438 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 896-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 896-2249
          E-mail: lori@libertylaw.com or micha@libertylaw.com or
                  jennie@libertylaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Decertification of Mass. Labor Suit on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court will hear an appeal of a
class action accusing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of systematically
depriving its hourly Bay State employees of their earned wages
and rest and meal breaks, Donna Goodison of the Boston Herald
reports.

The suit was first filed in Middlesex Superior Court in 2001.  
It was filed on behalf of 65,000 present and former Wal-Mart
employees in Massachusetts.  It alleges that the company altered
timecards to decrease reported payroll expenses.

In November 2006, a Superior Court judge decertified the suit
and excluded the testimony of the employees’ expert witness.  An
expert witness claim to have found in Wal-Mart’s paper and
electronic payroll records that employees were deprived of wages
for 10.1 million missed rest breaks from 1995 to 2005, that the
company clocked out employees one minute after they clocked in
in 21,383 instances, and that Wal-Mart inserted 13,572 unpaid
meal periods into employees’ records from 2001 to 2005.

When the court decertified the case, the judge said the
employees could not rely on Wal-Mart’s payroll records to prove
their case without first demonstrating that they are indeed
accurate.  This month, employees’ attorney, Robert Bonsignore,
filed briefs this month arguing the case should be allowed to
proceed using Wal-Mart’s payroll system records.  Federal and
state statutes require those records to be accurate, he said,
and Wal-Mart uses them to pay taxes and report its financial
performance to shareholders, according to the report.

A separate, earlier Superior Court ruling prevented employees
from suing for missed meal breaks.

For more information, contact:

          Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
          Bonsignore & Brewer
          23 Forest Street, Medford, MA 02155
          Phone: 781-391-9400
          Fax: 781-391-9496
          E-mail: rbonsignore@aol.com  
          Web site: http://www.bandblaw.net/contact.shtml


WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Appeals Certification of “Cuesta” Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Controls, Inc. is appealing a decision by the District
Court for Bryan, Oklahoma to certify the product liability case,
“Cuesta v. Ford, et al.”

The company was named as co-defendant in matter on Oct. 1, 2004.  
The suit sought class-action status, and an unspecified amount
of damages on behalf of the class.  

During the second quarter of fiscal 2007, the Oklahoma district
court granted the plaintiffs class-action status.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
14, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Co., CJ-04-
0511," filed in the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.

For more details, contact:

         The Burrage Law Firm
         First United Center - Suite 100, 115 N. Washington
         Durant, OK 74702-1727
         Phone: 580-920-0700
         E-mail: dburrage@burragelaw.com
         Web site: http://www.burragelaw.com/


* Seyfarth Releases 4th Annual Workplace Class Litigation Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
The fourth Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report by
national law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP analyzes the leading class
action and collective action decisions of 2007 involving claims
against employers.

The class action rulings stem from high-stakes lawsuits filed in
federal courts under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and in state
courts under a host of other laws applicable to workplace
issues.

The Report also discusses important federal and state court
rulings in non-workplace cases which are significant in their
impact on the defense of workplace class action litigation. In
total, there are 508 decisions analyzed in the 468-page Report.
The Report represents the collective contributions of a
significant number of attorneys at Seyfarth Shaw, which has one
of the largest complex employment law defense practices in the
U.S.

Seyfarth Shaw's compendium is the only report analyzing
workplace class action rulings on a national basis. The report
encompasses all key 2007 rulings, including those just issued
through the last week of December 2007.

The report is designed to be user-friendly to readers
confronting this complex area, and is divided into the following
chapters: Overview of the Year in Workplace Class Action
Litigation; Significant Class Action Settlements; Significant
Federal Employment Discrimination Class Action and EEOC Pattern
or Practice Rulings; Significant Collective Action Rulings Under
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; Significant Collective
Action Rulings Under the Fair Labor Standards Act; Significant
Class Action Rulings Under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974; Significant State Law Class Action
Rulings; and Significant Rulings on the Class Action Fairness
Act.

The "top ten" class action and collective action settlements
over the past year are also analyzed, both in terms of gross
settlement dollars in private plaintiff and government-initiated
lawsuits as well as injunctive relief provisions in consent
decrees. In 2007, these aggregate settlements totaled $2.65
billion, with $282.1 million for employment discrimination class
actions, $319.3 million for wage and hour class actions, $1.818
billion for ERISA class action settlements, and $197.25 million
for government-initiated enforcement actions.

While settlements of class actions in 2007 reflected a
continuing trend from past years, in which significant monetary
payments were made in mega-class actions, settlements in wage
and hour class actions and ERISA class actions outpaced
employment discrimination class action settlements in terms of
overall settlement values for the first time in the last five
years.

"The Seyfarth Shaw Workplace Class Action Report has become the
'go to' report and research tool for business executives and
corporate counsel seeking to understand the latest trends in
complex employment litigation," stated Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.,
General Editor of the report and Co-Chair of the Complex
Discrimination Litigation Practice Group at Seyfarth Shaw.

"The report organizes this body of case law on a federal
circuit-by-circuit and state-by-state basis, and analyzes the
decisions and their meaning for employers and their personnel
practices. One certain conclusion is that employment law class
action and collective action litigation is becoming ever more
sophisticated and will continue to be a source of significant
financial exposure to employers well into the future." He added
that employers can also expect that class action and collective
action lawsuits increasingly will combine claims under multiple
statutes, thereby requiring the defense bar to have a cross-
disciplinary understanding of substantive employment law as well
as the procedural peculiarities of opt-out classes under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the opt-in
procedures in FLSA and ADEA collective actions.

The report highlights four key trends that developed in 2007:

     One: The volume of wage and hour litigation continues to
          increase exponentially. Collective actions pursued in
          federal court under the Fair Labor Standards Act
          produced more rulings in 2007 than did class actions
          for employment discrimination or under ERISA. The U.S.
          District Courts for the Southern and Middle Districts
          of Florida experienced more wage and hour filings than
          any other federal jurisdiction. The most significant
          growth in wage and hour litigation, however, centered
          at the state court level, and especially in
          California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York,
          Pennsylvania, and Texas. This trend is likely to
          continue in 2008.

     Two: The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) continued
          to have significant effects on workplace litigation,
          primarily wage and hour class actions filed in state
          court. The past twelve months saw evolving case law
          developments on jurisdictional issues under CAFA. As
          the plaintiffs' bar continues to devise techniques to
          adapt to CAFA, rulings on the scope, meaning, and
          application of the law are already numerous for a
          statute of such recent vintage. It also targets fights
          over venue - requiring an employer to defend itself in
          state court or in federal court - as the new
          battleground in workplace class actions.

   Three: The financial stakes in workplace class action
          litigation increased yet again in 2007. Plaintiffs'
          lawyers have continued to push the envelope in
          crafting damages theories to expand the size of
          classes and the scope of recoveries. These strategies
          resulted in a series of massive settlements in
          nationwide class actions. This trend is also unlikely
          to abate in 2008.

    Four: Plaintiffs' lawyers have resorted to state court
          forums on a more frequent basis to pursue employment-
          related class action litigation. The civil justice
          system in each state is obvious different, and the
          resulting impact on businesses often varies from
          county to county within certain jurisdictions. Some
          states and certain counties within those states are
          viewed by litigants as safe havens for opportunistic
          class action lawsuits, which position those
          jurisdictions as launching platforms for dubious
          claims or novel theories of recovery. Through a
          variety of factors - including forum shopping, liberal
          discovery, consolidation and joinder practices,
          evidentiary standards for experts, the absence of
          limitations on damages, and class certification
          precedents - those jurisdictions tend to spawn more
          class action litigation. As reflected by the volume of
          rulings on class action issues, those jurisdictions in
          2007 were clustered in California, Florida, Illinois,
          New Jersey, New York, and Texas.

The report notes that the other significant trend from 2007 is
that while shareholder and securities class action filings
experienced a slight up tick in in the last 12 months,
employment-related class action filings increased significantly.
Anecdotally, surveys of corporate counsel confirmed that
workplace litigation - and especially class action and multi-
plaintiff lawsuits - continues as the chief exposure driving
corporate legal budget expenditures.

In terms of key decisions, there was no class action ruling in
2007 quite like Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Title
VII gender discrimination case challenging pay and promotions
involving 1.5 million class members. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear a discretionary appeal from
the class certification decision and heard oral argument on the
Dukes appeal on August 8, 2005. Many expected a ruling in 2006,
but none came until nearly 18 months later on February 6, 2007,
when a three-judge panel affirmed the certification order by a
2-to-1 vote.

Wal-Mart subsequently filed a petition for rehearing en banc by
the entire Ninth Circuit. On December 11, 2007, the panel mooted
that petition by vacating its earlier ruling and issuing a new
ruling that refined its Rule 23 analysis, while reaching the
same result. A future ruling by the Ninth Circuit in Dukes on a
subsequent rehearing en banc - and further appellate proceedings
thereafter, including a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court - likely will be one of the top class action developments
in 2008 and beyond.

As a result, the key event and driver of risk and exposure in
class actions continues to be the court's decision on whether to
certify a class. Maatman noted: "The class action cases decided
in 2007 foreshadow the direction of complex litigation against
employers in the coming year. The lesson to draw from workplace
class action litigation in the modern American workplace is that
the private plaintiffs' bar and government enforcement attorneys
are apt to be equally if not more aggressive in 2008 in bringing
class action and collective action litigation against employers.

“Therefore, identifying, addressing, and remediating class
action vulnerabilities, therefore, deserve a place at the top of
corporate counsel's priorities list for 2008."

To request a free copy of the 468-page report on CD-ROM, please
send your contact information to seyfarthshaw@seyfarth.com.

For more information, contact:

          Terence Gordon - Director of Communications
          Mark Roy - Public Relations Manager
          Seyfarth Shaw LLP
          Phone: 212-218-5273 or 212-218-5272
          E-mail: tgordon@seyfarth.com or mroy@seyfarth.com


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

January 23-24, 2008
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

January 29-30, 2008
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS AND LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 7-8, 2008
DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT CASES
ALI-ABA
Washington, DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 11-12, 2008
MEALEY'S REINSURANCE LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey's Seminars
The Westin, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 27-28, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 28-29, 2008
FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 27-28, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 9-12, 2008
MEALEY'S 15TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE
Mealey's Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 10-11, 2008
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

May 1-2, 2008
SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES
ALI-ABA
Boston, Massachusetts
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 29-31, 2008
MASS LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Charleston, South Carolina
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 25-28, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Boulder, Colorado
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

July 10-11, 2008
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu

July 30, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION:
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, Illinois
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu

October 23-24, 2008
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

January 23, 2008
MOORE'S™ RULES OF FEDERAL PRACTICE TELECONFERENCE:
TUTORIAL OF PROCEDURAL FEDERAL PRACTICE IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT
RULE CHANGES
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 7, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PRODUCT RECALLS
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 13, 2008
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WEATHERING MASS TORT AND
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS & NEGOTIATIONS
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 27, 2008
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS GASKETS TELECONFERENCE: EXPOSURE AND STATE OF
THE ART
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BUSINESS LITIGATION
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 24TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2006)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2007)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

COMPLEX LITIGATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING MOTIONS
TO COMPEL
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2006)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444


________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


CELLCYTE GENETICS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a proposed class action in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington at Seattle on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, OTC Bulletin Board:
CCYG) during the period between April 6, 2007 through and
including January 9, 2008.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period CellCyte
executives and business partners misled investors by publishing
false information about the history and experience of the
company's chief executive officer Gary A. Reys. Reys' background
was called into question after published news reports called out
alleged discrepancies relating to Reys' finance degree from the
University of Washington, a CPA designation, ties to the
Washington Society of Certified Public Accountants and a strong
track record within the pharmaceutical industry.

According to the complaint CellCyte made misleading and false
statements about Reys to potential investors and the SEC. These
published statements had the cause and effect of creating an
unrealistically positive assessment of CellCyte's prospects for
investors. As a result stock prices for the company were
artificially inflated during the Class Period. Soon after Reys'
credibility came into question the suit claims CellCyte took
some of Reys' biography information off its Web site. Within
days of the removal company stock fell 55 percent to $2.20 a
share. CellCyte traded at a high of $7.02 per share just days
before.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under against all defendants and
that Defendants Gary A. Reys, Ronald W. Berninger, Robert H.
Harris, G. Brent Pierce and James L. Rapholz violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 14,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, cntact:

         Steve Berman
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Phone: 206-623-7292
         E-mail: info@hbsslaw.com
         Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com


MBIA INC: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of MBIA, Inc.
during the period between January 30, 2007 through and including
January 9, 2008.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, MBIA and the
individual defendants, Chief Executive Officer Gary C. Dunton
and Chief Financial Officer C. Edward Chaplin, violated the
federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading press
releases, financial statements, filings with the SEC and
statements during investor conference calls.

It alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose the true extent of MBIA's
exposure to losses stemming from MBIA's insurance of residential
mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS"), including in particular its
exposure to "CDO-squared" securities that are backed by RMBS.

This highly risky exposure was belatedly disclosed in a series
of public statements beginning on January 30, 2007 and ending on
January 9, 2008, the last day of the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 11,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Philip T. Taylor, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Tel.: (212) 279-5050


SECURITY CAPITAL: Zwerling Schachter Files N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP has filed a class action in
the United States District Court for Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of Security Capital Assurance, Ltd. pursuant to the
Company's secondary stock offering on June 6, 2007 of more than
9.6 million shares at $31.00 per share.

Additional complaints have been filed on behalf of all persons
who purchased Security Capital's common stock during the period
from April 23, 2007 to December 10, 2007. Security Capital,
through its subsidiaries, provides financial guaranty insurance,
reinsurance, and other credit enhancement products to the public
finance and structured finance markets in the United States and
internationally.

The complaints filed allege that defendants violated the federal
securities laws. Specifically, the complaints allege that during
the relevant period defendants made numerous untrue statements
of material facts and failed to disclose that:

     (1) a substantial portion of the Company's credit portfolio
         related to sub-prime residential mortgage backed
         securities ("RMBS") and collateralized debt obligations
         ("CDOs") had declined substantially in value;

     (2) the Company's net loss reserves were inadequate in
         light of the Company's deteriorating credit portfolio;

     (3) the Company's credit default swaps were not fairly
         valued; and

     (4) as a result of the Company's imprudent underwriting,
         inadequate loss reserves and overvaluation of its
         credit default swaps, the Company's AAA credit rating
         was at risk of being downgraded.

As a result of these false statements and omissions, persons who
purchased the Company's common stock during the relevant period
paid materially more than what the shares were worth.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 5,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Tel.: 800-721-3900 or 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969
          Website: http://www.zsz.com


VIRGIN MOBILE: Zwerling Schachter Files N.Y. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
acquired the common stock of Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's October 11, 2007 initial
public offering of 27.5 million shares at $15.00 per share and
who suffered damages.

The complaint alleges that the Company's Registration Statement
and Prospectus filed with the SEC on or about October 10, 2007
contained statements that were materially false and misleading,
or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements
made not misleading, because:

     (1) the Company had already suffered a larger than expected
         third quarter loss for the period ended September 30,
         2007;

     (2) the Company was experiencing weakening demand for its
         services at the time of the IPO;

     (3) the Company's cost structure at the time of the IPO was
         too high for the Company to operate profitably; and

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Registration
         Statement/Prospectus was materially false and
         misleading.

On November 15, 2007, approximately one month after the IPO,
Virgin Mobile announced earnings for the three month period
ended September 30, 2007. The Company reported that its third-
quarter loss widened to $7.3 million, compared with a loss of
$5.1 million in the year-ago quarter. The Company also reported
a pro-forma loss of $.15 cents per share, compared with a loss
of $.10 cents per share in the year-ago period. As of November
16, 2007, shares of the Company's common stock had declined to
$9.19 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 22,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Tel.: 800-721-3900 or 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969
          Website: http://www.zsz.com


                           *********


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 Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, 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  * * *