CAR_Public/080122.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, January 22, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 15

                            Headlines




3COM CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over $2.2 Billion Bain Capital Buyout
ANIMAL WELFARE: Veterinarian Sues Over $10 Pet Licensing Fee
ALTRIA GROUP: Supreme Court to Review Maine Lights Lawsuit
APOLLO GROUP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Arizona
BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Faces Labor Law Violations Suit in Tenn.

BED BATH: Gives Out $10 Coupons to Settle NJ Consumer Fraud Suit
BELL CANADA: Late Fees Lawsuit in Quebec Granted Certification
CARMAX INC: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Vehicle's Rental History
CENTENNIAL COMMS: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Billing Suits
CENTRO PROPERTIES: Faces Possible Suit Over Incorrect Disclosure

CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Mulls Class Certification in "Veliz"
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Units Settle Server Banking Policy Lawsuits
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Seeks Dismissal of Former Server's Lawsuit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Price Manipulation
FLORIDA: Sarasota County Settles Suit Over Legacy Trail Property

FOUNDRY RESINS: March 28 Hearing Set for $14.2M Suit Settlement
GREAT ATLANTIC: Employees' Overtime Suit Get Class Certification
GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Faces Suit Over Alleged Abuse of Students
INSURANCE COS: NJ Court Rules Insurers Did Not Violate ERISA
MERCK & CO: Faces $1 Billion Lawsuit Over Vytorin Drug

MERIX CORP: Expects 2008 Appeal Hearing of Nixed Investors Suit
NISSAN CANADA: Defective Odometers Prompt Consultant's Lawsuit
NU HORIZONS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
RICHEMONT NORTH: May 7 Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Settlement
RMG TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Penn. Lawsuit Alleging RICO Violations

SALLIE MAE: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Connecticut
STATION CASINOS: Feb. 11 Hearing Set for Shareholder Settlement
U-HAUL: Settles Suit Alleging Reservation Policy as Deceptive
WINN-DIXIE: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Alabama

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CELLCYTE GENETICS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Berger & Montague Files N.Y. Securities Suit
ULTA SALON: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ill.



                            *********  

3COM CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over $2.2 Billion Bain Capital Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
3Com Corp. faces several purported class actions in Delaware and
Massachusetts that are aiming to prevent a $2.2 billion buyout
of the company by private equity firm Bain Capital Partners, and
China's Huawei Technologies, according to the company's Jan. 9,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30 2007.

Between Sept. 28, 2007 and Oct. 10, 2007, five putative class
action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in connection with the announcement of the
proposed acquisition of the Company by affiliates of Bain
Capital Partners.

The suits are:

       -- "Fisk v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3256-VCL;"

       -- "Bendit v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3258-VCL;"

       -- "Litvintchouk v. Robert Y.L. Mao, et al., Civil Action
          No. 3264-VCL;"

       -- "Kadlec v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3268-VCL;" and

       -- "Kahn v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3286-VCL."

On Oct. 12, 2007, the above-referenced actions were consolidated
for all purposes and captioned, "IN RE: 3COM SHAREHOLDERS
LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 3256-VCL."

An additional two putative class action complaints were filed in
the Superior Court of Middlesex County, Massachusetts.  

The suits are:

       -- "Tansey v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          07-3768," and

       -- "Davenport v. Benhamou, et al., Civil Action No. 07-
          3973F."

On Nov. 2 and 13, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
or, in the alternative, stay the two Massachusetts proceedings.

On Dec. 20, 2007, the Davenport case was stayed pending the
resolution of class certification in the consolidated Delaware
action captioned, "IN RE: 3COM SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION."

The motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay filed in the
Tansey case is still pending.

All of the complaints name 3Com and the current members of our
board of directors as defendants.

All of the complaints except the "Tansey' and "Kahn" petitions
also name Paul G. Yovovich, a former member of the company's
board of directors, as a defendant.  

Excepting the Tansey and Davenport petitions, all of the
complaints also name Bain Capital Partners as a defendant.  

The Tansey complaint names Bain Capital, LLC as a defendant.

The Davenport complaint also names Diamond II Acquisition Corp.
and Diamond II Holdings, Inc. as defendants.  

Diamond II Acquisition Corp. was also named as a defendant in
the Kahn complaint.

The Bendit complaint also names Huawei Technologies Company as a
defendant, and the Tansey complaint also names Huawei Technology
Co. Ltd. as a defendant.

Plaintiffs purport to represent stockholders of 3Com who are
similarly situated to them.

Among other things, the seven complaints allege that the
proposed purchase price of $5.30 per share is inadequate and
that our directors, in approving the proposed Merger, breached
fiduciary duties owed to 3Com's shareholders because they
allegedly failed to take steps to maximize the value to our
public stockholders.

The complaints further allege that Bain Capital Partners and, in
some cases, 3Com, and Huawei, aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaints seek class certification, damages and certain
forms of equitable relief, including enjoining the consummation
of the Merger and a direction to our board of directors to
obtain a transaction in the best interests of 3Com's
shareholders.

3Com Corp. -- http://www.3com.com/-- provides secure, converged  
networking solutions on a global scale to businesses of all
sizes.  Its products and solutions enable customers to manage
business-critical voice and data in a secure and efficient
network environment.


ANIMAL WELFARE: Veterinarian Sues Over $10 Pet Licensing Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Michelle Anchors filed a class action in Okaloosa
County Circuit Court in Florida, on behalf of veterinarian Dr.
Forrest Townsen, claiming the requirement to turn over rabies
vaccination data perverts state law, the Northwest Florida Daily
News reports.

Earlier this month, according to the report, Okaloosa County
commissioners voted to allow the Panhandle Animal Welfare
Society (PAWS) to collect rabies vaccination information from
vets and use the data to collect a $10 annual licensing fee from
pet owners, the report said.

Commissioners based their decision to have PAWS use the
vaccination data on a state statute that requires veterinarians
to turn over their data to the organization that investigates
animal bites, the Okaloosa County Health Department.

According to Dr. Townsend, PAWS' only interest is collecting the
licensing fee, which perverts the law's intent.

The suit is filed against PAWS, its animal services director,
Dee Thompson-Poirrier, and Okaloosa County.

Dr. Townsend has always believed PAWS shouldn't ask local
veterinarians for rabies vaccination data so it can collect a
$10 licensing fee from pet owners.

"I want to protect my clients' personal information," Townsend
said. "That's important to me."

The lawsuit seeks to have the commission's vote declared
unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable.  It does not ask
any monetary damages.

Ms. Anchors will also file an appeal for Dr. Townsend with the
Department of Business and Professional Regulation to delay its
decision on the matter until the lawsuit is resolved.


ALTRIA GROUP: Supreme Court to Review Maine Lights Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a ruling that reinstated
the lights lawsuit "Good, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al.,
Case 07-562."

The lawsuit was filed in 2005 on behalf of Maine residents who
smoked Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights manufactured by
Philip Morris USA, Inc.  Plaintiffs are led by Stephanie Good.  
The lawsuit contends that Philip Morris, USA Inc., and its
parent company, Altria Group, Inc., violated the Maine Unfair
Trade Practices Law by engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or
practices.  

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the company made
affirmative representations that some of its brands are "Light"
and that they deliver "Lowered Tar and Nicotine" when in fact
they do not do so and the company knew that they do not do so.

The lawsuit was dismissed on May 25, 2006 by U.S. District Court
Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., who ruled that the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) pre-empts the
plaintiffs' claims.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit on August 31, 2007, issued a ruling that reinstated the
suit. The court vacated the district court's grant of PM USA's
motion for summary judgment on federal preemption grounds and
remanded the case to district court.

Defendants then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
against a decision reinstating the lights class action (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007).  Philip Morris contends that
federal law bars the suit, which invokes a state consumer
protection law, from going forward.

The lawsuit seeks to recover the money smokers spent on Philip
Morris's Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights through November
2002, plus punitive damages.


APOLLO GROUP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. continues to face a securities fraud class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,
captioned, "Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v.
Apollo Group, Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB," according
to the company's Jan. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2007.

On Nov. 2, 2006, a plaintiff filed a class action complaint
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
the Company's stock between Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 28, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly failing to
disclose alleged deficiencies in the Company's stock option
granting policies and practices.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages and other relief.  

On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate
attorneys, filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff
and approval of their designated counsel as lead counsel to
pursue this action.  

On Sept. 11, 2007, the court appointed The Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and approved lead
plaintiff's selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.

On Nov. 23, 2007, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that the defendants made misrepresentations concerning
the Company's stock option granting policies and practices,
traded while in possession of material non-public information,
violated duties of care, candor and loyalty, and engaged in
self-dealing.

Lead plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and
20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil
conspiracy to commit fraud, and seeks unstated compensatory and
punitive damages and other relief on behalf of the purported
class.

The defendants are the Company, John G. Sperling, Todd S.
Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales, Daniel E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Hedy
F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Dino J. DeConcini, Peter V.
Sperling, and Laura Palmer Noone.

The suit is "Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v.
Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB," which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
under Judge Robert C. Broomfield.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq,
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         1 N La Salle St., Ste. 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-377-1181
         Fax: 312-377-1184
         E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Farrell, Esq.
         Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC
         Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington, Ste. 1100
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2385
         Phone: 602-262-5900
         Fax: 602-495-2618
         E-mail: mfarrell@jsslaw.com

              - and -

         Joseph E. Floren, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         101 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10178-0060
         Phone: (212) 309-6000


BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Faces Labor Law Violations Suit in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------
Baptist Memorial Hospital is facing a suit alleging violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Rosalind Guy of The Daily News in
Memphis reports.

Two former employees of Baptist Memorial, Clarence Moore and
James Allen Frye, filed a suit in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.  They are suing for unpaid
overtime and "related penalties and damages and for failure to
pay ... employees for all hours worked," according to the
report.  The suit falls in the category of a representative
action complaint, according to the report.

Ms. Moore worked at the hospital as a security guard from August
2003 until his termination on or about Dec. 22, 2006.  Mr. Frye
worked as a nurse from 2004 until his termination on or about
April 19, 2007.

Alan Crone of Crone & Mason PLC, one of the attorneys who filed
the suit on behalf of Moore and Frye, declined however to reveal
the reason for the terminations, saying they have nothing to do
with the lawsuit.

The former employees are seeking unspecified compensation for
the times they were not paid.  Baptist's response to the suit
denies the claims that the former employees were unfairly
compensated.

A scheduling conference has been set for Jan. 30 at 9:15 a.m. in
federal court.

The lawsuit on the Net: http://www.baptistovertime.com.

The suit is "Frye et al. v. Baptist Memorial Hospital - Memphis,
Case No. 2:2007cv02708," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District Court of Tennessee under Judge Samuel H.
Mays Jr. with referral to Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham.

Representing the plaintiffs are

          Alan Crone, Esq.
          James J. Webb Jr., Esq.
          D. Wes Sullenger, Esq.
          Crone of Crone & Mason PLC
          Web site: http://www.cronemason.com/

Representing the company is:

          Paul E. Prather, Esq.
          Kiesewetter Wise Kaplan Prather PLC
          3725 Champion Hills Drive
          Suite 3000
          Memphis, Tennessee 38125
          (Shelby Co.)
          Phone: 901-795-6695  
          Fax: 901-795-1646
          Web site http://www.kiesewetterwise.com


BED BATH: Gives Out $10 Coupons to Settle NJ Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. retailer Bed, Bath & Beyond settled a consumer-fraud
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey alleging it inflated the thread counts of its bedding and
linens, the United Press International reports.

According to the New York Post, the company advertised thread
counts of 600, 800 and 1,000 on sheet sets, pillowcases, bed
skirts, down comforters, duvets and shams.  But the advertised
thread counts were double the actual counts.  Thread counts, or
the number of threads per square inch of fabric, should be based
on the number of vertical and horizontal threads.

Filed on February 23, 2007, the suit charges the company and one
of its suppliers, Synergy Inc. of increasing the counts on two-
ply fabrics, in which yarns are twisted together, a calculation
that violates industry standards.

Under the recent settlement, Bed, Bath & Beyond denied any
wrongdoing, but agreed to give customers who bought bedding
between August 2000 and Nov. 9, 2007 either a refund, a $10
store gift card or -- for those who can't produce proof of
purchase -- a 20% discount coupon.

It also agreed to pay the plaintiff law firms a total of
$475,000 and promised to follow the industry standard for thread
counts.

The suit is "White v. Bed Bath & Beyond et al., Case Number:
2:2007cv00891," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, under Magistrate Judge Ronald J. Hedges
with referral to Magistrate Judge Esther Salas.


BELL CANADA: Late Fees Lawsuit in Quebec Granted Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Quebec Superior Court judge has granted class certification to
a lawsuit filed against Bell Canada Inc., BCE Inc., and Bell
Mobility, claiming the telephone companies charged a late fee to
clients even though their bills were paid on time, Roberto Rocha
of The Gazette reports.

Plaintiffs, Annie Boulerice and Julien Gr‚goire, claim they paid
Bell Canada and Bell Mobility, respectively, on the due date but
were charged late fees nonetheless. Their next bill claimed
payment was made one day later.

Plaintiffs claim they should not be punished for a delay in
processing payments.

"Banks are agents of these companies," according to lawyer
BenoŒt Gamache. "When you pay through a bank, it's like doing
the payment to the company directly."

The suit is asking Bell and its wireless unit to reimburse the
late fees to customers who were improperly fined, and pay $100
in exemplary and punitive damages. It is expected to be worth at
least $2 million.

According to Mr. Rocha, a spokesman for Bell Canada said the
company will not comment on the lawsuit while it's before the
courts.

Headquartered in Montreal, Bell Canada -- http://www.bell.ca/--   
is a communications company, providing consumers with solutions
to all their communications needs, including telephone services,
wireless communications, high-speed Internet, digital television
and voice over IP.  Bell also offers integrated information and
communications technology services to businesses and
governments, and is the Virtual Chief Information Officer to
small and medium businesses.  Bell is proud to be a Premier
National Partner and the exclusive Communications Partner to the
Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Bell is
wholly owned by BCE Inc. (TSX/NYSE: BCE).


CARMAX INC: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Vehicle's Rental History
--------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in
Baltimore County Circuit Court, Maryland alleging that it has
not properly disclosed its vehicles' prior rental history.

Regina Hankins filed the suit on June 12, 2007.  The plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Jan. 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2007.

CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a holding company  
and its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries.  The
Company is a retailer of used cars.


CENTENNIAL COMMS: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Billing Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centennial Communications Corp. reached a tentative settlement
that if approved could resolve several pending billing practices
suits filed against the company, according to the company's Jan.
8, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30 2007.

Initially, the company was a party to several lawsuits in which
plaintiffs have alleged, depending on the case, breach of
contract, misrepresentation or unfair practice claims relating
to its billing practices, including rounding up of partial
minutes of use to full-minute increments, billing send to end,
and billing for unanswered and dropped calls.

The plaintiffs in these cases have not alleged any specific
monetary damages and are seeking certification as a class
action.

                    Litigation Developments

One of these actions was recently dismissed after a long period
of non-prosecution by the plaintiff.  

A hearing on class certification in another one of these cases
was held on Sept. 2, 2003 in a state court in Louisiana.

Subsequent to such hearing, a new judge was assigned to the case
and the plaintiffs renewed their motion seeking class action
status.

The decision of the court with respect to class certification is
still pending.

All activity in such case has been effectively stayed as a
result of the parties recently entering into a proposed
settlement.

                           Settlement

On Oct. 19, 2007, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement and scheduled a hearing to consider final
approval of the settlement for April 2008.

The settlement provides for the certification of a class
consisting of all of the company's current and former customers.

In general, under the terms of the settlement, class members may
elect to receive a settlement benefit consisting of one of the
following:

       -- additional minutes of the company's airtime,
   
       -- a service credit on their wireless telephone bill in
          exchange for extending their wireless contract,

       -- a discount on certain accessories or

       -- a pre-paid long distance calling card.

In connection with the settlement, the company have recorded a
charge of $2.95 million, included in general and administrative
expense on the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the
three and six months ended Nov. 30, 2007, to cover all expected
costs of the settlement.

Centennial Communications Corp. -- http://www.centennialcom.com  
-- is a regional wireless and broadband telecommunications
service provider serving over 1.1 million wireless customers and
approximately 419,500 access line equivalents in markets
covering approximately 12.6 million Net Pops in the U.S. and
Puerto Rico.  


CENTRO PROPERTIES: Faces Possible Suit Over Incorrect Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law firms Slater & Gordon and Maurice Blackburn said they are
planning to file class actions against troubled shopping center
operator Centro Properties Group, according to reports.

Centro has admitted it had "incorrectly" classified
$1.097 billion of current debt as "non-current" in its unaudited
June 30 full-year accounts.  The error hid a $450 million
funding gap.

Centro Properties has already received advice from its U.S.
Private Placement Noteholders who are collectively owed
$450 million, which suggested that one or more events of default
under the relevant Note Purchase Agreements may have arisen
under some or all of the Notes (Troubled Company Reporter on
Jan. 16, 2008).

Centro has not conceded that there are any such defaults.  
However, Centro has entered into an agreement with the
Noteholders through Feb. 15, 2008 (or such later date as may be
agreed) for the Noteholders not to act on the events, consistent
with its arrangements with the lenders who are parties to the
extension agreements.

Both the Australian and U.S. lenders have concurred with the
arrangements.

Maurice Blackburn lawyer, Martin Hyde, would not disclose which
institutional investors the firm was dealing with.  However,
according to News.com.au, Barclay's Group, Macquarie Bank and
UBS Nominees all are expected to participate in the action.

                     About Centro Properties

Centro Properties Group is a retail investment organisation
specialising in the ownership, management and development of
retail shopping centres.  Centro manages both listed and
unlisted retail property and has an extensive portfolio of
shopping centres across Australia, New Zealand and the United
States.  Centro has funds under management in excess of
$26.6 billion.


CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Mulls Class Certification in "Veliz"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
or an arbitrator has yet to issue a decision on the class
certification issue in the matter, "Paul Veliz, et al. v. Cintas
Corp."

The suit, filed on March 19, 2003, alleges that the company
violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable
to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers
exempt employees.  

It also asserts related Employee Retirement Income Security Act
claims.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief or both.

On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging
additional state law wage and hour claims under the following
state laws: Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.  

On Feb. 14, 2006, the court permitted plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint alleging state law claims in the 15
states listed above only with respect to the putative class
members that may litigate their claims in court.

No determination has been made by the court or an arbitrator
regarding class certification, according to the company's Jan.
4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Veliz et al. v. Cintas Corp.et al., (4:03-cv-1180
SBA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong with
referral to Judge Maria-Elena James.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
         Altshuler, Berzon et al.
         177 Post Street, Suite 300
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Phone: 415-421-7151
         Fax: 415-362-8064
         E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com

              - and -

         Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the company is:

         Cheryl A. Hipp, Esq.
         Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
         4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 516-479-8365


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Units Settle Server Banking Policy Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two restaurant concepts of Darden Restaurants, Inc. have reached
a tentative settlement in two purported class actions over its
server banking policy, according to the company's Jan. 4, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 25, 2007.

                         2004 Litigation

In January 2004, a former food server filed a purported class
action in California state court alleging that Red Lobster's
"server banking" policies and practices improperly required her
and other food servers and bartenders to make up cash shortages
and walkouts in violation of California law.  The "server
banking" is a system under which servers settle guest checks
directly with customers throughout their shifts, and turn in
collected monies at the shift's end.

The case was ordered to arbitration.  As a procedural matter,
the arbitrator ruled that class-wide arbitration is permissible
under our dispute resolution program.

                         2007 Litigation

In January 2007, plaintiffs' counsel filed in California state
court a second purported class action on behalf of servers and
bartenders alleging that Olive Garden's server banking policy
and its alleged failure to pay split shift premiums violated
California law.

Although the company believes that its policies and practices
were lawful and that it has strong defenses to both cases,
following mediation with the plaintiffs, it has reached a
tentative resolution of the matters.  

As a result, the company accrued approximately $4 million of
legal settlement costs for the quarter and six months ended Nov.
25, 2007.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The Company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Seeks Dismissal of Former Server's Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
purported class action filed against its Olive Garden restaurant
concept that was recently transferred to a California federal
court.

In August 2007, an action was filed in California state court by
a former Olive Garden server alleging that Olive Garden's
scheduling practices resulted in failure to properly pay
reporting time (minimum shift) pay as well as to pay minimum
wage, to provide itemized wage statements, and to timely pay
employees upon the termination of their employment.

The complaint seeks to have the suit certified as a class
action; however, no class has been certified to date.

The company have removed the case to federal court, and filed
motions to dismiss the case, according to the company's Jan. 4,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 25, 2007.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The Company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Price Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. faces a consolidated class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas over the alleged manipulation of the price of natural
gas futures and options contracts, according to its Jan. 9, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2007.

This action alleges that the company engaged in intentional and
unlawful manipulation of the price of natural gas futures and
options contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX,
in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).

It is further alleged that during the class period Dec. 29, 2003
to Dec. 31, 2005, the company had the market power to manipulate
index prices, and that it used this market power to artificially
depress the index prices at major natural gas trading hubs,
including the Houston Ship Channel, in order to benefit the
company's natural gas physical and financial trading positions
and intentionally submitted price and volume trade information
to trade publications.

This complaint also alleges that the company also violated the
CEA because it knowingly aided and abetted violations of the
CEA.  

This action alleges that this unlawful depression of index
prices by the company's manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural
gas futures and options contracts to artificial levels during
the class period, causing unspecified damages to plaintiff and
all other members of the putative class who purchased and/or
sold natural gas futures and options contracts on NYMEX during
the class period.

The class action complaint consolidated two class actions which
were pending against the company.

The suit is "Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al.,
Case No. 4:07-cv-03349," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas under Judge Keith P. Ellison.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory Asciolla, Esq.
          Labaton & Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-883-7527
          E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com

          Craig Briskin, Esq.
          Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-822-5100
          Fax: 202-822-4997
          E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com

               - and -

          Anthony G. Buzbee, Esq.
          Attorney at Law
          1910 Ice Cold Storage Building, 104 21st St Moody Ave.
          Galveston, TX 77550
          Phone: 409-762-5393
          Fax: 409-762-0538

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles W. Schwartz
          Skadden Arps
          1000 Louisiana, Ste. 6800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-655-5160
          Fax: 888-329-2286
          E-mail: schwartz@skadden.com


FLORIDA: Sarasota County Settles Suit Over Legacy Trail Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
A St. Louis law firm has scheduled a meeting tomorrow, Jan. 23,
2008, to inform property owners in Venice, Nokomis, Laurel and
Osprey, Florida about a potential $40 million settlement of a
class action over property rights at the Legacy Trail, the
former Seminole Gulf Railroad line, Charlotte Sun-Herald
reports.

On the January 23 meeting at the Venice Community Center,
property owners will be informed of how they can apply for
compensation if they owned land along the railroad corridor on
April 2, 2004.  The property owners have until February 11 to
make a claim.

The property in question is a formerly unused railroad line that
Sarasota County bought and converted into a public recreational
site called the Legacy Trail.  The claim arose in that under the
federal Rails-to-Trails Act, once a railroad goes out of
business, an operator can no longer use the land under its rails
because it was supposedly merely granted an easement for
operating a railroad and not property ownership.
  
Lawyers Mark Hearne and Lindsay Brinton have filed a partial
summary judgment before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in
Washington.  In the filing, the two said 12 property owners and
the Mission Estates Homeowners' Association, their clients,
succeeded the original property owners, who granted rights of
way to Seaboard Air Line Railway.  


FOUNDRY RESINS: March 28 Hearing Set for $14.2M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio will
hold a fairness hearing on March 28, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $14,200,000 settlement by several defendants in the
matter, "IN RE: Foundry Resins Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
Civil Action No. 04-415, MDL Docket No. 1638."

The hearing will be held at the Joseph P. Kinneary U.S.
Courthouse, Courtroom 5, 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, OH
43215.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before March 5, 2008.  Deadline for the submission of
claim forms is on April 1, 2008.

                        Case Background

In 2004, several class action lawsuits were filed against the
defendants by direct purchasers of Foundry Resins.  On Oct. 26,
2004, those lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District
for the Southern District of Ohio.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully conspired to
"raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of, and to allocate
markets and customers for Foundry Resins sold in the U.S. during
the Class Period (Jan. 1, 2001 through Dec. 31, 2003), in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1."

Plaintiffs claim that, as a result of these alleged violations
of the antitrust laws, they paid more for Foundry Resins than
they would have paid absent such conduct, and seek recovery of
treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an
award of attorneys? fees.

By Order dated May 2, 2007, as amended by Order dated Oct. 9,
2007, the Court certified the Class and appointed Plaintiffs and
Class Counsel to represent the interests of the Class.

                          Settlement

On Nov. 14, 2007, the District Court granted preliminary
approval to the proposed settlement between the Class and the
several defendants (HA International, LLC; Borden Chemical, Inc.
[n/k/a Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc.]; Httenes-Albertus
Chemische Werke GmbH, and Delta-HA, Inc.) in the matter.

On Dec. 13, 2007, the District Court granted preliminary
approval to the proposed settlement between the Class, and
Ashland, Inc.

Collectively, the settling defendants are:

       -- HA International, LLC,

       -- Borden Chemical, Inc. (n/k/a Hexion Specialty
          Chemicals, Inc.),

       -- Httenes-Albertus Chemische Werke GmbH,

       -- Delta-HA, Inc., and

       -- Ashland, Inc.

Ashland will settle the matter for $7.9 million, while the other  
defendants will pay $6.9 million, thus bringing the total
settlement amount to $14.2 million.

Covered by the settlement are all persons located in the U.S.
who purchased Foundry Resins directly from Defendants or any of
their predecessors, or controlled subsidiaries or affiliates, at
any time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001 through Dec. 31,
2003.

For more details contact:

          Heffler, Radetich, & Saitta L.L.P.
          Settlement Administrator
          Foundry Resins Antitrust Litigation
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-665-8870
          Fax: 215-665-0613
          Web site:
          http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/fon/

          Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
          Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Fax: (215) 592-4663

          Bernard Persky, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0868
          Fax: 212-883-7068
          E-mail: bpersky@labaton.com

          Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          150 East 52nd Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-838-7797
          Fax: 212-838-7745
          E-mail: reisler@cmht.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios LLP
          One City Center
          Portland, ME 04101
          Phone: (207) 791-3000
          Fax: (207) 791-3111


GREAT ATLANTIC: Employees' Overtime Suit Get Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York certified a class of
plaintiffs in a suit filed against the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co., Inc. on behalf of former employees of the supermarkets
it operates.

On June 24, 2004, a class-action complaint was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York against The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., d/b/a A&P, The Food Emporium and
Waldbaum's, alleging violations of the overtime provisions of
the New York Labor Law.

Three named plaintiffs, Benedetto Lamarca, Dolores Guiddy, and
Stephen Tedesco, alleged on behalf of a class that the Company
failed to pay overtime wages to full-time hourly employees who
were either required or permitted to work more than 40 hours per
week.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification of the matter, which is now captioned, "LaMarca et
al v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc."

In July 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and
certified the class as follows:

     * All full-time hourly employees of Defendants who were
       employed in Defendants' supermarket stores located in the
       State of New York, for any of the period from June 24,
       1998 through the date of the commencement of the action,
       whom Defendants required or permitted to perform work in
       excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime
       wages.

The Court also ruled that the issue of whether to include an
"opt-in" or "opt-out" provision is premature and can be decided
after discovery has been had.

As class certification was granted only recently, and as
discovery on the prospective plaintiffs comprising the class has
yet to be conducted, neither the number of class participants
nor the sufficiency of their respective claims can be determined
at this time.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Jan. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 1, 2007.

For more details, contact:

         Rachel Geman, Esq.
         Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 355-9500
         E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com

              - and -

         Adam T. Klein, Esq.
         Outten & Golden LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 245-1000
         E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com


GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Faces Suit Over Alleged Abuse of Students
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Multi-Million Dollar Abuse Claim was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Toronto against Grenville Christian
College and its administrators and the Anglican Diocese of
Ontario.  The abuse allegations were extensively reported in the
Globe and Mail and other media sources last year.

Former students of the Grenville Christian College are claiming
damages for psychological, physical and sexual abuse that took
place at the school during the period 1973 - 1997.  In their
Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs allege that although the
school was promoted as an Anglican boarding school, its
principals were closely allied with the Community of Jesus, an
organization that has been labeled a cult in the U.S. media.

The Plaintiffs allege that children who resided at the school
were subjected to various forms of abuse with a view to
indoctrinating students into the teachings and practices of the
Community of Jesus and in doing so, the school and its leaders
were negligent and/or in breach of their fiduciary obligations
owed to these children who were in their care.  In addition, the
claim asserts that the Anglican Diocese of Ontario was
responsible for the clergy at the school, both ordained Anglican
ministers, were aware of the relationship with the Community of
Jesus and knew or should have known of the cult practices and
behavior at the school.

Loretta Merritt of Torkin Manes, Barristers and Solicitors said:
"We are advancing this case to bring to light the unusual,
perhaps even bizarre, conduct that these children experienced.
We hope that in doing so, the members of the class will finally
be able to be heard and that this in some way helps with their
healing."

Representative Plaintiff, Andrew Hale-Byrne said: "As an
Anglican, I was sent to what I was told was an Anglican boarding
school.  The reality behind the walls was so rarefied and absurd
that it was truly stranger than fiction.  I am pleased that this
process offers the opportunity for the victims of abuse to be
heard and that those responsible are being called to account."

For further information, contact:

         Loretta Merritt, Esq.
         Torkin Manes LLP, Barristers & Solicitors
         151 Yonge Street, Suite 1500, Toronto, ON M5C 2W7
         Phone: (416) 863-1188
         E-mail: lmerritt@torkinmanes.com

         Russell Raikes, Cohen Highley LLP Lawyers
         One London Place, 255 Queens Ave.
         11th Flr., London, ON N6A 5R8
         Phone: (519) 672-9330
         E-mail: rraikes@cohenhighley.com


INSURANCE COS: NJ Court Rules Insurers Did Not Violate ERISA
------------------------------------------------------------
Several large group life and disability insurers did not violate
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when they allegedly
conspired with brokers to steer business their way in exchange
for undisclosed fees, commissions and other kickbacks, a federal
judge in New Jersey has ruled.

Granting the insurers' motion for summary judgment in the
nationwide class-action lawsuit, Judge Garrett E. Brown Jr. of
the U.S. District Court of New Jersey in Newark ruled the
insurers were not fiduciaries under ERISA based on the conduct
alleged.  The decision in this case, which dates back to August
2005, affects American International Group Inc., Cigna,
Hartford, Metropolitan Life, Prudential, and Unum Group,
formerly known as UnumProvident Corp.

A spokesperson for Unum Group wrote in an e-mail the company "is
gratified by the decision and we're studying it further at this
time."

The plaintiffs, which are plan sponsors with public entities and
private companies, alleged, among other things, that the
insurers paid "kickbacks and undisclosed compensation" to
defendant brokers with funds taken directly from plan assets.  
If the broker's fee was more than the initial cost built into
the rate, this excess cost was added to the premium charged to
the insured, the plaintiffs alleged.  They charged that the
insurers intentionally withheld disclosing these payments on
Schedule A of Form 5500, which is provided to ERISA plan
participants, to avoid revealing to ERISA plan administrators
the conflict of interest that created.

But the judge ruled the insurers are not ERISA fiduciaries when
it comes to administering the plaintiffs' employee-benefit
plans.

"While defendants concede they possessed discretion in the
administration of claims...it does not follow that defendants
are ERISA fiduciaries with regard to administering plaintiffs'
employee benefit plans overall," Brown wrote.  "In their role as
claims administrators, defendants certainly exercise discretion
as plaintiffs' allege in determining whether someone is eligible
for benefits, whether the policy allows for the payment of
benefits, and whether to make such payments."

However, that discretionary authority doesn't matter because the
plaintiffs don't allege that the insurers breached their
fiduciary duty with regard to making a claims determination, the
judge held.  "In absence of any such authority, plaintiffs are
unable to support their claims that defendants are fiduciaries
with regard to administering employee benefits plans beyond
claims administration," Brown wrote.

Last October, Judge Brown dismissed nearly all charges against
brokerage giant Marsh & McLennan Cos. stemming from a lawsuit
alleging that the firm helped engineer a wide-ranging conspiracy
to fix insurance prices among a group of some two dozen
insurance brokers and companies.  He dismissed the charges with
prejudice, meaning that Marsh and the other defendants would not
have to fight them at trial (BestWire, Oct. 1, 2007).

The suits, consolidated in the New Jersey federal court, are
based on charges stemming from an investigation into alleged bid
rigging and undisclosed commissions by Eliot Spitzer, the former
New York attorney general.  Marsh settled the regulatory
investigations in January 2005, establishing an $850 million
fund to compensate clients.  That investigation sparked others
in other states, leading to multimillion-dollar settlements by
other brokers and insurers to resolve the allegations.


MERCK & CO: Faces $1 Billion Lawsuit Over Vytorin Drug
------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, Becnel Law Firm,
LLC, Douglas & London P.C., Levin Simes Kaiser and Gornick LLP,
Bailey Perrin Bailey LLP and Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., have filed
over a billion dollar class action lawsuit claiming refunds for
purchasers of Vytorin, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against Merck & Co., Inc. and
Schering-Plough Corporation.

The class action seeks, in part, refunds to individuals who were
prescribed and purchased the popular cholesterol statin drug,
Vytorin(R).  Vytorin(R) is a single pill combination of two
drugs, Zocor and Zetia, (ezetimibe plus simvastatin).

The lawsuit alleges that Merck & Co., Inc. and Schering-Plough
Corporation, the manufacturers of the prescription drug,
Vytorin(R), made misrepresentations and withheld significant
information in its approval submissions and filings with the
Federal Drug Administration.  It is also alleged that
misrepresentations were made to the general public through
marketing efforts as to the effectiveness of the drug. In
reality, studies have shown that it is no better than other
available drugs on the market in lowering cholesterol.

The suit is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Docket #08-258, before The Honorable Carol
Bagley Amon.


MERIX CORP: Expects 2008 Appeal Hearing of Nixed Investors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merix Corp. expects that oral argument on the plaintiff's appeal
of the dismissal of an amended complaint in the consolidated
securities fraud class action against the company to occur in
2008.

On June 17, 2004, the company and certain of its executive
officers and directors were named as defendants in the first of
four purported class actions alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  

These four cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, have now been consolidated in a
single action entitled "In re Merix Securities Litigation, Lead
Case No. CV 04-826-MO."

A lead plaintiff was appointed, who filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint on Nov. 15, 2004.  On March 3,
2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended and
consolidated complaint for failure to identify with sufficient
specificity the statements that plaintiffs allege to have been
false and why the statements were either false when made or
material.

On Sept. 15, 2005, the court dismissed the complaint, without
prejudice, and gave plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.
On Nov. 18, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making certain alleged inaccurate
and misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection
with the January 2004 public offering of approximately $103.4
million of the Company's common stock.

In September 2006, the Court dismissed that complaint with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The parties have submitted briefs to the Court of Appeals.  The
Company expects that oral argument in the appeal will occur in
2008.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Jan. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 1, 2007.

The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp. et al,
Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon under Judge Michael W. Mosman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
         Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         Sean M. Handler, Esq.
         Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: (610) 667-7706
         Fax: (610) 667-7056
         E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com
                 dcheck@sbclasslaw.com
                 shandler@sbclasslaw.com
                 azivitz@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 2550
         Seattle, WA 98154
         Phone: (206) 839-0730
         Fax: (206) 839-0728
         E-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendants are:  

         Richard L. Baum, Esq.
         Perkins Coie, LLP
         1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor
         Portland, OR 97209-4128
         Phone: (503) 727-2021
         Fax: (503) 727-2222
         E-mail: baumr@perkinscoie.com

              - and -

         Joseph E. Bringman, Esq.
         Ronald L. Berenstain, Esq.
         Douglas W. Greene, III, Esq.
         Perkins Coie, LLP
         1201 Third Ave., Suite 4800
         Seattle, WA 98101-3099
         Phone: (206) 359-8501, 206-359-8477 and (206) 359-8613
         Fax: (206) 359-9000, (206) 359-9477 and (206) 359-9613
         E-mail: jbringman@perkinscoie.com
                 RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com
                 DGreene@perkinscoie.com


NISSAN CANADA: Defective Odometers Prompt Consultant's Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Thorne, a North Vancouver financial consultant, filed a
class-action lawsuit against Nissan Canada Inc., claiming the
automobile company makes defective odometers, Keith Fraser of
The Province reports.

Mr. Thorne claims the company intentionally or negligently
designed odometers in its 2004 to 2007 Nissan and Infinity
models to inflate the represented distance traveled by between
2.5% and 4%.

According to Mr. Thorne's lawyer, Kenneth Baxter, "[Thorne] knew
what other distances he had traveled in many other vehicles.  He
realized that [according to his odometer] he was going further
to the same places than he was prior to that."

The inflated mileage means Thorne and other owners will not
receive the full benefit of the standard warranties that come
with the cars or the extended warranties that are purchased, Mr.
Baxter said.

They'll also see a reduction in the resale value of their
vehicles resulting from the inflated kilometers, he added.

According to Mr. Baxter the percentage figures came from many
tests with co-counsel in an anticipated class action to be filed
in Eastern Canada and an ongoing case in Texas.

According to the report, Donna Trawinski, an official with
Nissan, said "minor variation" is inherent in odometers. She
said a number of factors affect odometer reading, including tire
wear, manufacturing tolerances, temperature, inflation pressure
and vehicle speed.


NU HORIZONS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nu Horizons Electronic Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of a
purported securities fraud class action filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On or about Oct. 4, 2007, a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint for Securities Fraud was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of California in the matter filed by
Louis Grasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated against:

     -- Vitesse Semiconductor Corp.,
     -- Louis Tomasetta,
     -- Yatin Mody,
     -- Eugene F. Hovanec,
     -- Silicon Valley Bank,
     -- Nu Horizons Electronics Corp.,
     -- Titan Supply Chain Services, Corp. (formerly Known as
        Titan Logistics Corp.), and
     -- KPMG LLP

Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Nu Horizons, Titan, Silicon
Valley Bank, and KPMG LLP were added as defendants to the
putative class action which had been commenced by certain
purchasers of Vitesse common stock.

In the Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that Nu Horizons and
Titan violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks
rescission or unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class
which purchased Vitesse common stock during the period from Jan.
27, 2003 to and including April 27, 2006.  

As of Jan. 4, 2008, a class has not been certified in the
matter.

Nu Horizons and Titan have moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failing to state a claim under the federal
securities laws, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2008 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Nov. 30 2007.

Nu Horizons Electronic Corp. -- http://www.nuhorizons.com/-- is   
engaged in the distribution of, and supply chain services for,
high technology active and passive electronic components.


RICHEMONT NORTH: May 7 Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on May 7, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. for
the proposed settlement in the class action, "Andre Fleury et
al. v. Richemont North America, Case No. C-05-4525 EMC," which
concerned alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws.

The hearing will be held before Judge Edward M. Chen, Magistrate
Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Courtroom C, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue in
San Francisco, California.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before March 17, 2008.

                        Case Background

On Nov. 7, 2005, plaintiffs Andre Fleury and Liz Hart filed a
class action complaint against Richemont North America, Inc.'s
predecessor, Cartier Inc., and another entity named Cartier
International, alleging, among other things, violations of the
federal antitrust laws.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the court granted the Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed Cartier International from the case.  

The Parties took part in extensive fact discovery, and prior to
reaching a settlement, had begun expert discovery regarding
whether the case should proceed as a class action.

On May 17, 2007, the Parties voluntarily engaged in mediation
before Judge Edward A. Infante (Retired), a former Chief
Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, who assisted the Parties in reaching the
Proposed Settlement set forth below.

The plaintiffs attended the mediation with Judge Infante, and
both executed a Settlement Term Sheet at the end of the
mediation.

On August 27, 2007, the Court granted leave for Mike Mertaban,
Dennis Warner, and Charles Cleves to join the case as
plaintiffs, and thereafter plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.  

On Sept. 12, 2007, Messrs. Mertaban, Warner, Cleves, along with
the original two plaintiffs, and the Defendant entered into a
Amended Stipulation of Settlement.

                        Settlement Class

The Court has conditionally certified the Action as a class
action, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of the members of two
Settlement Sub-Classes and all of their successors in interest
and transferees, immediate and remote, but not Defendant and
persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendants.

The two Sub-Classes are:

       -- Consumer Settlement Sub-Class: All persons who
          currently own or previously owned a Cartier watch and
          who had their Cartier watch repaired or serviced in
          the U.S. at a Defendant-owned Cartier boutique or
          directly by Defendant at any time between Jan. 1, 2003
          and the date of Preliminary Approval of the
          Settlement.

       -- Watchmaker Settlement Sub-Class: All watchmakers or
          watch repairers in the U.S. operating as of the date
          of Preliminary Approval which are not authorized
          Cartier dealers or authorized Cartier repair shops as
          of the date of Preliminary Approval.

For more details, contact:

          Watch Repair Settlement
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9196
          Dublin, OH 43017-4196
          Phone: 1-800-918-1029
          Web site: http://www.watchrepairsettlement.com/

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          Pearson, Simon, Soter, Warshaw & Penny, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Phone: (415) 433-9000

               - and -

          Geoffrey Spellberg          
          Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson
          575 Market Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, California 94105
          Phone: (415) 421-3711



RMG TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Penn. Lawsuit Alleging RICO Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
RMG Technologies, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania accusing it of selling a device that lets retailers
elude Ticketmaster's online security system to buy large blocks
of tickets, which they resell for elevated prices, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This class action is brought on behalf of a class of consumers
who purchased the tickets from Ticketmaster by means of an
illegal conspiracy that violated the Computer Fraud and abuse
ACt (the CFAA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
(the DMCA), and the common law, as a result of which plaintiff
and class members paid artificially inflated prices for said
tickets.

Named plaintiff Boaz Lissauer brings this action pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P 23 (b)(1) and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons who
purchased tickets from any broker defendant that artificially
inflated prices for events from Jan. 1, 2004 through Oct. 15,
2007 for events in which Tickemaster was the exclusive primary
seller for the event.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants are properly within the jurisdiction
         of the court;

     (b) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged
         were associated-in-fact as an enterprise as defined in
         18 USC Section 1961(4);

     (c) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a pattern of racketeering activity as defined in 18 USC
         Section 1961(5);

     (d) whether the conduct of the defendants and their co-
         conspirators violates 15 USC Section 1962(c);

     (e) whether defendants conduct violated the CFAA or the
         DMCA;

     (f) whether defendants and their co-conspirators committed
         RICO predicate acts or conspired to violate the RICO
         statute;

     (g) whether defendants acted with the requisite mental
         state;

     (h) whether plaintiff and the class are intended third-
         party beneficiaries of Ticketmaster's contracts with
         defendants;

     (i) whether defendants fraudulently concealed their
         conduct;

     (j) whether defendants were unjustly enriched;

     (k) whether plaintiff and the class suffered an injury to
         their property caused by the conduct of the defendants
         and their co-conspirators;

     (l) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         damages; and

     (m) the appropriate measure of damages and other relief.

Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

     -- certifying that the action may be maintained as a class
        action;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class restitutionary and/or
        compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class treble damages in an
        amount to be determined at trial;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class the costs of this
        litigation, including attorneys' fees and expenses; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper
        under the circumstances.

The suit is" Boaz Lissauer et al. v. RMG Technologies et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr.
          Gerald L. Rutledge
          Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC
          519 Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
          Tel.: (412) 391-5164
          Fax: (412) 391-5164

          Robert I. Harwood
          Peter W. Overs, Jr.
          Harwood Feffer LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel.:(212) 935-7400
          Fax:(212) 753-3630
          E-mail: rharwood@whesq.com  or povers@hfesq.com

          - and -

          Joshua D. Glatter
          Osen LLC  
          700 Kinderkamack Road
          Oradell, NJ  07649
          Tel.: (201) 265 6400
          Fax: (201) 265 0303
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com or jdg@osen.us


SALLIE MAE: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sallie Mae (SLM) Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
Dec. 18, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut accusing the lender of charging higher interest
rates and fees to minority students, the Chronicle of Higher
Education reports.

Named plaintiffs Sasha Rodriguez and Cathelyn Gregoire assert
that Sallie Mae discriminates against minority borrowers by
taking colleges' default rates into account when setting
interest rates.

It also accuses Sallie Mae of violating the Truth in Lending Act
by failing to conspicuously disclose its underwriting criteria
and waiting to disclose the terms and conditions of its loans
until after students receive their funds or start classes.

According to the report, Sallie Mae acknowledged in a
Congressional hearing last summer that it considers an
institution's overall default rate when setting interest rates.
That admission prompted New York's attorney general, Andrew M.
Cuomo, and Rep. George Miller of California, chairman of the
U.S. House of Representatives education committee, to ask other
lenders for their underwriting criteria, the report said.

Sallie Mae has until February 15 to respond to the lawsuit, the
report said.

The suit is "Rodriguez et al v. Sallie Mae (SLM) Corp., Case
Number: 3:2007cv01866," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, under Judge Warren W. Eginton.


STATION CASINOS: Feb. 11 Hearing Set for Shareholder Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Eight Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada will
hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 11, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. for the
proposed settlement of the matter, "In re Station Casinos
Shareholder Litigation, Master Case No. A-532367," which is in
relation to Station Casinos, Inc.'s definitive merger agreement
with Fertitta Colony Partners, LLC.

The hearing will be held beore Judge Mark R. Denton, in the
Eight Judicial District Court, Regional Justice Center,
Courtroom 12A, 200 Lewis Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada 89101.

Exclusion deadline is on Jan. 31, 2008 and the objection
deadline is on Jan. 28, 2008

                         Merger Agreement

On Dec. 4, 2006, the company announced that it had received a
proposal from Fertitta Colony to acquire all of Station Casinos'
outstanding common stock for $82 per share in cash.  

On Feb. 23, 2007, the company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Fertitta Colony, pursuant to which Fertitta
Colony agreed to purchase all of the company's outstanding
common stock for $90 per share in cash.  

Fertitta Colony is a company formed by Frank J. Fertitta III,
chairman and chief executive officer of station; Lorenzo J.
Fertitta, vice chairman and president of station; and Colony
Capital Acquisitions, LLC, an affiliate of Colony Capital, LLC.

                        Initial Lawsuits

On Dec. 4, 2006, Helen Roessler filed a purported class action
complaint in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case
No. A532367, against the company, its Board of Directors, and  
Fertitta Colony.   

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and challenges the proposed transaction as
inadequate and unfair to the company's public stockholders.   

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit and an injunction against the proposed transaction.   

Three similar putative class actions were subsequently filed in
the District Court:   

      -- "Goldman v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532395, filed on Dec. 4, 2006;"  

      -- "Traynor v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532407, filed on Dec 4, 2006;" and  

      -- "Filhaber v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532499, filed on Dec. 5, 2006."

                       Griffiths Litigation

On Jan. 2, 2007 David Griffiths filed a purported class action
complaint in the District Court against the company, its Board
of Directors, Delise F. Sartini, Blake L. Sartini, Colony
Capital, LLC, Colony Capital Acquisitions, LLC, and FCP.   

The complaint alleges that the company's Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties and the remaining defendants
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed transaction.   

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed transaction,
declaratory relief, the imposition of a constructive trust upon
the defendants, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs.

                     Consolidation of Cases

On Jan. 4, 2007, the District Court consolidated the Initial
Lawsuits under the heading, "In Re Station Casino's Shareholder  
Litigation," and appointed lead counsel and liason counsel in
connection therewith.   

On Jan. 29, 2007 Mr. Griffiths filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's order appointing lead counsel and to establish
a briefing schedule on motions to appoint lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.  At the March 5, 2007 hearing on this motion, the
plaintiff's motion was denied.


                    Class and Derivative Suit

On Feb. 14, 2007, the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund
filed a purported class and derivative action complaint in
District Court against the company's Board of Directors, Thomas
J. Barrack, Jr., Delise Sartini, Blake Sartini, Colony Capital,
Colony Acquisitions, FCP, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas,
and German American Capital Corp.   

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
breached its fiduciary duties and the remaining defendants aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in connection
with the proposed transaction.   

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed transaction
unless and until the company adopts and implements a fair sale
process, the disclosure of all material information to the
company's stockholders, the imposition of a constructive trust
upon the defendants, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to plaintiffs.

                     Consolidation of Cases

All of the above-referenced actions have been consolidated into
a single action under the heading, "In re Station Casinos
Shareholder Litigation, Master Case No. A-532367," Dept. No. 13,
District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

On June 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint in the District Court against Station,
Station's directors, Frank J. Fertitta III, Lorenzo J. Fertitta,
Blake L. Sartini and Delise F. Sartini, Colony, Colony
Acquisitions and FCP.

The Amended Complaint alleges that Station's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Station and its stockholders as
follows:

     (1)  The defendants failed to engage in a fair process that
          would maximize value to Station's stockholders because
          the defendants put into place covenants in Station's
          bond indentures that could, under certain
          circumstances:

          -- require a purchaser of Station not affiliated with
             Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J. Fertitta to
             redeem those bonds;

          -- put into place a stockholder rights plan and a
             staggered board;

       -- adopted a supermajority voting requirement in
         connection with any merger transaction and imposed a
         $160 million termination fee on Station.

     (2) The process being used to sell Station is wrongful,
         unfair and harmful and is an attempt by the defendants
         to aggrandize their personal and financial positions.

         It does not reflect the true inherent value of Station
         that was known only to the defendants.  This value,
         which far exceeds the $90.00 per share merger  
         consideration, includes the returns from Red Rock, the
         Company's Native American casino-management contracts
         and the expected returns from Aliante Station and other
         expansion projects.

     (3) The directors have not and are not exercising  
         independent business judgment and have acted and are
         acting to the detriment of the plaintiff class.  In
         particular, the members of the Special Committee are
         not independent of Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J.
         Fertitta, were handpicked for Station's Board of
         Directors by Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J.
         Fertitta, are loyal and beholden to them and will do
         what Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J. Fertitta tell
         them to do.  

         The Special Committee failed to properly shop Station,
         artificially depressing the value of Station's stock,
         thereby depriving plaintiffs of the right to receive
         the maximum value for their shares. They are taking
         steps to avoid competitive bidding, to cap the price of
         Station stock and to give FCP and other members of the
         buying group an unfair advantage by, among other
         things, failing to solicit other potential acquirers or
         alternative transactions.

     (4) The Company's preliminary proxy statement filed with
         the SEC on May 7, 2007 misrepresented material facts
         and omits material information necessary for
         stockholders to make an informed decision concerning
         the transaction because, in part, it did not discuss
         whether the defendants considered alternative
         transaction forms, nor did it properly detail the sale
         process.

     (5) The Preliminary Proxy Statement did not detail whether
         Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., financial advisor to the
         Special Committee, performed any sensitivity studies or
         whether it valued Station assuming Station would be
         split into separate operating and holding companies.

         The Preliminary Proxy Statement also failed to detail
         the proper valuation for Station, or the basis for the
         valuation. In addition, Bear Stearns is in a conflict
         position because it owns 36,639 shares of Station
         common stock.

The Amended Complaint also alleges that Frank J. Fertitta III,
Lorenzo J. Fertitta, Blake L. Sartini, Delise F. Sartini, FCP,
Colony and Colony Acquisitions knowingly aided and abetted the
Company's directors in breaching their fiduciary duties to the
Company's public stockholders.

The Amended Complaint seeks an injunction preliminarily and
permanently enjoining the defendants from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the proposed merger transaction, and
demands that the plaintiffs be awarded their costs and
disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

Station believes all of the allegations of wrongdoing in the
Amended Complaint to be without merit, denies any wrongdoing,
denies that information in the definitive proxy statement is
false or misleading, and denies that any material information is
omitted from the definitive proxy statement.

In addition, Station has been advised that the other defendants
named in the Amended Complaint similarly believe the allegations
of wrongdoing in the Amended Complaint to be without merit, and
deny any breach of duty to or other wrongdoing with respect to
the plaintiff class.

For more details, contact:

          Strategic Claims Services
          600 N. Jackson St., Suite 3
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: (866) 274-4004
          Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net


U-HAUL: Settles Suit Alleging Reservation Policy as Deceptive
-------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment rental giant U-Haul International Inc. settled a class
action alleging it engaged in "unlawful and fraudulent business
practices," Myron Levin of the Los Angeles Times reports.

Under the settlement, U-Haul will still contact customers the
day before their move to schedule the pickup time and location.
Once there is agreement, the reservation will be considered
"guaranteed," and U-Haul will incur a $50 penalty if it fails to
fill it.  As a practical matter, however, it may be too late for
customers who don't agree with the terms to find other moving
equipment.

The complaint alleged that the company kept on taking
reservations without even verifying if the equipment is
available by the time the customer needs it. Customers often
used to wait a long time before their equipment arrives or
worse, they had to pick it up somewhere.

In 2006, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Samuel S.
Stevens condemned U-Haul's system of booking reservations for
trucks and trailers.  The judge's ruling vindicated all U-Haul
customers who got aggravated over their spoiled reservations
with the company.

Judge Stevens refused to award monetary damages to the
complainants.

However, he told U-Haul to refrain from advertising "confirmed
reservations" for one-way moves in the state.  He said the
company used "the words 'confirmed reservation' in order to lock
up customers as soon as possible and minimize the chances that
customers are going to shop around."

In 2007, the equipment rental giant appealed the California
judge's decision saying it engaged in "unlawful and fraudulent
business practices," (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2007).

In his recent ruling, Judge Stevens said U-Haul had used "the
words 'confirmed reservation' in order to lock up customers as
soon as possible and minimize the chances that customers are
going to shop around."

The settlement removes that injunction but in its place requires
U-Haul to pay customers $50 if it fails to honor a guaranteed
reservation.  The original $3.1-million fee award to the class-
action lawyers was also cut, to an undisclosed amount, under the
deal.

According to Mr. Levin, Phoenix-based U-Haul, which dominates
the do-it-yourself moving industry with more than 200,000 trucks
and trailers, had denied that its reservations policy was
deceptive.

Dropping its appeal and settling "was a business decision,"
company spokeswoman Jennifer Flachman said.

San Francisco lawyer Thomas A. Cohen, an attorney for the class,
called the settlement "a terrific resolution" and said
plaintiffs had a right to return to court to bring a contempt
motion if U-Haul was "somehow using words in a way . . .
confusing to a customer."

To contact class counsel:

          Thomas A. Cohen
          639 Front St., 4th floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 777-1997


WINN-DIXIE: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Birmingham in Alabama
accusing it of discriminating against blacks in its check
acceptance policies at its supermarkets, the Associated Press
reports.

Named plaintiff, Gerald Davis, claims customers can write checks
larger than the amount of the purchase at stores in
predominantly white neighborhoods but they can't get cash back
from stores in mostly black communities.

According to the report, the Jacksonville, Florida-based
supermarket, which operates 10 stores in the Birmingham area,
said the lawsuit is without merit and will be contested.

Winn-Dixie -- http://www.winn-dixie.com-- operates supermarkets  
throughout the Southeastern U.S. with stores in Florida,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.  The company also
operates distribution centers in Jacksonville, Miami and
Orlando, FL; Montgomery, AL; and Hammond, LA. In addition, Winn-
Dixie's manufacturing plants produce or process a variety of
products including coffee, tea, spices, carbonated and non-
carbonated drinks, frozen pizza, ice cream, sherbet and milk.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CELLCYTE GENETICS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit on behalf of CellCyte Genetics Corporation (OTC Bulletin
Board: CCYG) shareholders alleging company executives knowingly
misrepresented the company and chief executive officer Gary A.
Reys' background, causing company stocks to be traded at
artificially inflated prices.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle claims
defendants violated sections of The Exchange Act of 1934 during
the class period of April 6, 2007 until and including January 9,
2008.

The complaint alleges that 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 not only made these
statements to potential investors but also to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). These published statements had the
cause and effect of creating an unrealistically positive
assessment of CellCyte's prospects for investors.

According to the complaint, when CellCyte began looking for
investors it sent unsolicited faxes to investors in Germany.  
The fax contained a story about CellCyte and a handwritten note
announcing that "This is the stock that's about to take off!"

Additional claims made to both U.S. and German investors
included "CellCyte shares could be the chance of your lifetime
to turn $10,000 into $4 million, maybe even $15 million!"  In
addition to money making promises Reys' background was also
touted in promotional materials, the complaint states.

Suspicion of the company came to light in early December 2007
when The Seattle Times published an article about the company's
skyrocketing stock value.  According to The Seattle Times, "a
wave of glossy brochures and spam faxes, touting CellCyte with
lofty claims, has helped propel the company's total market value
to more than $440 million."

The complaint claims soon after Reys' credibility came into
question, CellCyte took some of his 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, contact:

          Reed Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: +1-510-725-3000
          E-mail: Reed@hbsslaw.com;

          - and -

          Mark Firmani
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: +1-206-443-9357
          E-mail: Mark@firmani.com


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Berger & Montague Files N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Centerline Holding Company between March 12, 2007 and December
28, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements about Centerline's
business model and financial condition, including statements
concerning its portfolio of tax-exempt first mortgage bonds,
which generated the majority of the Company's revenues and
supported the Company's $1.68 per share annual dividend.

Defendants' statements concealed from the investing public that
Defendants were in the midst of structuring a sale of the
Company's mortgage revenue bond portfolio to a third party.

On Dec. 28, 2007, Centerline shocked the financial markets with
a press release announcing that the Company had sold its
"$2.8 billion tax-exempt affordable housing bond portfolio" to a
third party and, in the process, transformed the Company's
business model to a pure asset management firm.  As a result of
this transaction, the Company disclosed that it would be
slashing its annual dividend from $1.68 per share to only $0.60
per share.  Even more shocking was the revelation that
Defendants had entered into a related party transaction with a
company owned by certain of the Defendants called The Related
Companies, L.P. ("TRCLP"), whereby TRCLP agreed to provide
Centerline $131 million in financing, in exchange for 12.2
million shares of newly-issued convertible preferred stock that
will pay Company insiders an 11% dividend.  In reaction to this
news, the price of Centerline stock plummeted from $10.27 per
share on December 27, 2007, to close at $7.70 per share on
December 28, 2007, representing a 25% single-day decline, on
unusually heavy trading volume of 4,152,688 shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 18,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 1-888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000
          Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


ULTA SALON: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and a proposed class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ulta Salon,
Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. common stock on the open market
and/or pursuant or traceable to the Company's October 25, 2007
Initial Public Offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering") through
December 10, 2007, inclusive , in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The complaint charges

     -- ULTA;
     -- Lynelle P. Kirby, the Company's President and Chief
        Executive Officer;
     -- Gregg R. Bodnar, the Company's Chief Financial Officer;    
        and
     -- Bruce E. Barkus the Company's Chief Operating Officer,

with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  According to the complaint, the
defendants allegedly knowingly or recklessly issued false and
misleading statements that materially misrepresented ULTA's
trends in expenses and inventory levels, allowing the company to
conduct its IPO and causing the Company's stock price to be
artificially inflated in the aftermarket.

According to the Complaint, on December 11, 2007, ULTA disclosed
its third quarter 2007 results for the quarter that ended less
than two weeks after its IPO.  On that date, ULTA revealed that
its selling, general, and administrative expenses ("SG&A") had
increased 36% to $55.6 million, due largely to increased
expenditure for advertising.  The Company also announced that
its operating income and net income for the first nine months of
2007 had declined compared to the same period of the prior year,
and that its inventory levels had increased.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 19,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Dana Frusco
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or 888-240-0775 or
                 202-408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or dfrusco@cmht.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  * * *