CAR_Public/080207.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 27

                            Headlines

BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal of 2003 Oil Spill Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Forces Arbitration in Accreditation Lawsuit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Feb. 11 Hearing Set for Calif. Suit Appeal
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Suit by Bryman College Student
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in California

DOWNEAST CONCEPTS: Recalls Rakes for Lead Paint Standard Breach
DRUG COS: Suit Filed in W. Va. Court vs. Vytorin, Zetia Makers
DUKE ENERGY: Ohio Judges Recuse Themselves from Antitrust Case
FIRESIDE BANK: Faces Calif. Suits Over Post-Repossession Notices
HAWAII & ALASKA: Judge Dismisses Federal Workers' Pension Suit

KYPHON INC: Faces Gender Discrimination Litigation in California
MARYLAND: Judge Orders Board to Review In-State Tuition Denial
OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ainsworth Reaches $1.3M Settlement
PARKER ITR: Faces Fla. Antitrust Suits Over Marine Oil, Gas Hose
REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Faces La. Litigation Over Speed Camera Program

RIDLEY INC: Reaches CDN$6-Million Settlement for BSE Lawsuit
SILVER STATE: Goes Bankrupt; Students Plan to Sue for Refund
TITLE INSURERS: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Alleged Price Fixing
UBS SECURITIES: Faces N.Y. Suit Over $1.6 BB Genesco Acquisition
UNION COUNTY: Settles Turner Lawsuit by Promising Jail Changes

UNITRIN INC: Faces Hurricane-Related Litigation in La. & Tex.
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Reaches Tentative Agreement in Del. Litigation
VIRGINIA: Four Local Restaurants Sued to Become "Smoke-Free"
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Residents Receive Windfall from $3M Settlement
WEIS MARKETS: Recalls Fruit Miniatures Due to Undeclared Walnuts

WESTFIELD AMERICA: Faces CA Consumer Fraud Suit Over Gift Cards
* Market Volatility Increases Class Lawsuits, Study Says


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CELLCYTE GENETICS: Finkelstein Thompson Files WA Securities Suit
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal of 2003 Oil Spill Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bouchard Transportation Co. filed a motion to dismiss the class-
action lawsuit that would require it to pay for restoration work
at Leisure Shores Beach in Mattapoisett, Mass., Becky W. Evans
of the Standard-Times reports.

In 2004, Mattapoisett, Massachusetts land owners whose
waterfront properties were damaged by an oil spill in Buzzards
Bay filed the suit with the Plymouth Superior Court (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 4, 2004).  The 55,000 gallon oil spill
polluted 100 miles of shoreline, killed 450 birds and caused
90,000 acres of shellfishing grounds to shut down for months.

Subsequently, according to Standard-Times, Bouchard sought to
dismiss the class's request for payment of $86,500 -— the
estimated cost of restoring the beach to its pre-spill condition
by replenishing it with sand and repairing a protective rock
wall, also known as a groin -- as well millions of dollars in
total damages to property from the oil pollution caused.

The report says that the defendant's lawyer, Robert G. Goulet,
Esq., of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae LLP, said that
Bouchard should not have to pay for additional cleanup efforts
because the plaintiffs have "failed to pursue the available
administrative remedies," such as seeking permits for the
restoration work from the state Department of Environmental
Protection and the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission.

The report relates that Martin E. Levin, Esq., of the Boston law
firm Stern, Shapiro, Weissberg and Garin, LLP -- attorney for
the Mattapoisett homeowners -– countered that his clients had
approached the Conservation Commission about requiring the
defendants to restore the beach.  The commission was "ready and
willing" to address the issue until it received a "threatening
letter" from Bouchard, and "it ended right there," he said.

Judge David McLaughlin, who is expected to issue a decision on
the motion, had set dates for future status conferences that
will move the case toward trial, the report adds.

Representing the defendant is:
          Robert G. Goulet, Jr., Esq.
          LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae LLP,
          260 Franklin Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 748-6830
          Fax: (617) 439-034

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Martin E. Levin, Esq.
          Stern Shapiro Weissberg & Garin LLP
          90 Canal Street
          Boston, MA 02114-2022
          Phone: (617) 742-5800
          Fax: (617) 742-5858


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Forces Arbitration in Accreditation Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., successfully forced arbitration in
one  of several lawsuits regarding the status of its
accreditation with other colleges, according to company's
Feb. 1, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31,
2007.

On March 8, 2004, the company was served with two virtually
identical putative class-action complaints:

     -- "Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges,
         Inc.," and

     -- "Florida Metropolitan University, and Satz v. Rhodes
         Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida
         Metropolitan University."

On April 15, 2005, the company received another complaint
captioned "Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,         
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan         
University, Inc."

The Alvarez first amended and supplemental complaint named 99
plaintiffs.  Additionally, the court in the Alvarez case granted
the plaintiffs' motion to add additional seven plaintiffs to the
first amended and supplemental complaint.

The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former
students in the Company's Florida Metropolitan University
campuses in Florida and online.

The plaintiffs allege that FMU concealed the fact that it is not
accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools and that FMU credits are not
transferable to other institutions.

The Satz and Travis plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees under common law and Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for themselves and all
similarly situated people.

The Alvarez plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves
under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The arbitrator in the Satz case found for the Company on all
counts in an award on the Company's motion to dismiss.  

The arbitrator also found that Satz breached his agreement with
FMU by filing in court rather than seeking arbitration and is
therefore responsible to pay FMU's damages associated with
compelling the action to arbitration.

The arbitrator also declared FMU the prevailing party for
purposes of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Company is continuing to pursue its remedies against Mr.
Satz related to these findings.  

Additionally, the Company affirmatively filed an arbitration
action against Ms. Travis seeking damages for breach of her
obligations to file in arbitration rather than in court and
declaratory relief regarding her allegations.

The arbitrator ruled against the Company in its affirmative
claims against Ms. Travis and the Company has appealed that
ruling.  

The Company has filed motions to compel arbitration in Alvarez,
and the Travis court compelled that case to arbitration.

Ms. Travis has lost her appeal regarding the order compelling
the matter to arbitration, the arbitration process has begun,
and another named plaintiff has also been added to the claim.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for-
profit, post-secondary education companies in the U.S. and
Canada, with more than 64,500 students enrolled as of June 30,
2006.  It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions
in the U.S. and Canada.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Feb. 11 Hearing Set for Calif. Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set a Feb. 11,
2008 hearing on an appeal with regards to the dismissal of the
class action, "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW," according to
company's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31,
2007.

From July 8, 2004, through Aug. 31, 2004, various putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California by certain alleged purchasers of
the Company's common stock against the Company and certain of
its current and former executive officers, David Moore, Dennis
Beal, Paul St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni.

On Nov. 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases
were consolidated into one action.  

A first consolidated amended complaint was filed in February
2005.  

The consolidated case is purportedly brought on behalf of all
persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock during
a specified class period from Aug. 27, 2003, through July 30,
2004.

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in violation of Section
10(b) of the U.S.. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the plaintiffs to
purchase the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices.

The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Moore, Beal, St.
Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
and costs, as well as other relief.  

On April 24, 2006, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's third consolidated amended complaint
with prejudice.  

The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Oral argument is currently
scheduled to be heard on that appeal on Feb. 11, 2008.  

The suit is "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Manuel L.
Real presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Vahn Alexander, Esq.
          Faruqi and Faruqui LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-461-1426
          e-mail: valexander@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Barrack Rodos and Bacine
          3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          e-mail: dbacine@barrack.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert L Dell Angelo, Esq.
          Munger Tolles & Olson
          355 S Grand Ave, 35th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100
          e-mail: dellangelorl@mto.com

               - and -

          Daniel Benjamin Levin, Esq.
          AUSA - Office of US Attorney
          Criminal Division
          312 North Spring Street, 13th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Phone: 213-894-5796
          e-mail: USACAC.criminal@usdoj.gov


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Suit by Bryman College Student
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues to face a putative class
action filed by a former diagnostic medical sonography student
from the company's Bryman College campus in West Los Angeles.

The plaintiff, Michelle Sanchez, alleges the school violated
California's education code and of California's Business and
Professions Code Section 17200.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 1,
2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for-
profit, post-secondary education companies in the U.S. and
Canada, with more than 64,500 students enrolled as of June 30,
2006.  It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions
in the U.S. and Canada.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. faces a purported class action in
California that generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

On Nov. 14, 2007, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned, "Hardwick, et al. v.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc."

The plaintiff is a former instructor at the Company's
Merrionette Park, Illinois campus.  Her complaint seeks
certification of a class composed of all campus instructors
nationwide, alleging wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as a class of Illinois instructors
alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act and Illinois' Eight-Hour Work Day Act.

The complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees, according to company's Feb. 1, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Paula Hardwick v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Case
No. 2:07-cv-07222-DDP-E," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Dean D. Pregerson
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          Touhy Touhy Buehler Williams
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-372-2209
          e-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com

               - and -
        
          Peter M. Callahan, Esq.
          Callahan McCune & Willis
          111 Fashion Ln
          Tustin, CA 92780-3397
          Phone: 714-730-5700

Representing the defendants are:

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Payne & Fears
          4 Park Plz, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: 949-851-1100
          e-mail: jkb@paynefears.com

               - and -

          Mark Easton Earnest, Esq.
          Payne & Fears LLP
          4 Park Plaza Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92675
          Phone: 949-851-1100
          e-mail: mee@paynefears.com


DOWNEAST CONCEPTS: Recalls Rakes for Lead Paint Standard Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Downeast Concepts Inc., of Yarmouth, Maine, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about  
400 toy gardening hand rakes.

The company said the paint on the gardening tool hand rake
contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal
standard on lead in paint on toys.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled toy gardening tool hand rake has a wooden handle
and a metal yellow bottom.  "Backyard and beyond Garden Tools"
is printed on the toy's tag which hangs from the toy's handle.

These recalled toy rakes were made in China and were being sold
at various home improvement and toy stores nationwide from June
2007 through November 2007 for about $2.50.

Picture of the recalled toy gardening rakes are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08183.jpg

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy gardening
rake away from children and return it to the store where
purchased for a replacement toy hand rake.

For additional information, contact:

   Downeast Concepts
   Toll-free at (800) 343-2424 (8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. ET, Monday
   through Friday)
   Web site: http://www.backyard-beyond.com
   e-mail: productsafety@downeastconcepts.com


DRUG COS: Suit Filed in W. Va. Court vs. Vytorin, Zetia Makers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Dietzler, Esq., filed a class action lawsuit in Mason
County, West Virginia on behalf of anyone in the state who has
used the cholesterol drug Vytorin, WSAZ NewsChannel 3 reports.

According to the report, Mr. Dietzler says the drug that claimed
to help lower cholesterol was actually a sham.  He says his
clients were misled into believing the drug was their only
option, when in fact, he says, the drug did the same thing as
other similar drugs that were significantly cheaper.

"This is one of those situations where the patient, whether me
or the other people on the medications trust the physicians.  
The physicians trust the FDA, the FDA trusts the drug
manufacturers and if somewhere along the chain of events someone
lies, then that impacts everyone down the line innocently, and
can do a lot of damage," WSAZ NewsChannel 3 cites Mr. Deitzler
as saying.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the
country, including in California, Florida, New York and Ohio.

Schering-Plough Corporation manufactures, markets, and sells
the prescription drug Zetia.  Zetia is a cholesterol-lowering
drug, which acts by diminishing the absorption of cholesterol
through the intestines.

Merck Corporation, Inc., manufactures, markets and sells the
prescription drug Vytorin which is Merck's brand-name composite
drug consisting of a proprietary combination of Zetia and Zocor.
The drug Zocor is a statin, which reduces low-density
lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol in the
blood.


DUKE ENERGY: Ohio Judges Recuse Themselves from Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several judges of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio have recused themselves from an antitrust class
action against Duke Energy International, Inc., Dan Horn of The
Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

Chief Judge Sandra Beckwith says a problem arises when judges
from her jurisdiction are involved.  According to her, every
federal judge in town is a Duke customer, which makes them all
potential parties to the class action.

The suit, which was filed on Jan. 16, 2008, under the caption,
"Williams et al v. Duke Energy International, Inc."  Listed as
plaintiffs in the matter are:

       -- Anthony Williams;
       -- BGR, Inc.;
       -- Munafo, Inc., and
       -- Aikido of Cincinnati.

The plaintiffs are accusing the company, which has 680,000
electric customers in southern Ohio, of paying kickbacks to its
biggest corporate customers in exchange for their support of a
rate increase, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer report.  

In general, the lawsuit claims Duke signed "side deals" with big
commercial and industrial customers in 2004 to secure their
support for a proposed rate increase, which was later approved
by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

The suit is seeking damages on behalf of residential customers,
a group that also would include the judges.

Judge Beckwith admits that just like her fellow judges in the
area, she herself is a Duke customer, and as such she pointed
out that a conflict of interest could arise.  She adds, "No one
around here could ethically handle the case."

Since its filing, four judges have bowed out of the case.  The
first to recuse was Judge Herman Weber, who was then followed by
Judges  Michael Barrett, and Susan Dlott, and, finally, Judge
Beckwith.

Additionally, Judge Beckwith noted that Judge Dlott is married
to Stan Chesley, one of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit
against Duke.

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that Judge Beckwith recently
sent the case to Columbus, hoping to find a judge there who
doesn’t buy gas, and electric service from Duke.  She pointed
out that the company does not serve Columbus.

However, if else fails, Judge Beckwith told The Cincinnati
Enquirer that she may have to assign the case to a visiting
judge from out of state.

The suit is "Williams et al v. Duke Energy International, Inc.,
Case No. 1:2008cv00046," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stanley Morris Chesley, Esq.
         Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley Co LPA
         1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
         One West Fourth Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-621-0267
         e-mail: stanchesley@wsbclaw.cc

         Paul M. De Marco, Esq.
         Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley Co LPA
         1513 Fourth & Vine Tower,
         One West Fourth Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-621-0267
         e-mail: pauldemarco@wsbclaw.com

              - and -

         Randolph Harry Freking, Esq.
         Freking & Betz
         525 Vine Street, Sixth Floor
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-721-1975
         Fax: 513-651-2570
         e-mail: randy@frekingandbetz.com


FIRESIDE BANK: Faces Calif. Suits Over Post-Repossession Notices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fireside Bank, an operating segment of Unitrin, Inc., faces two
class actions filed with California state courts, which allege
that its post-repossession notices to defaulting borrowers
failed to comply with certain aspects of California law.

The plaintiffs seek:

       -- compensatory damages, including a refund of deficiency
          balances collected from customers who received the
          allegedly defective notices;

       -- punitive damages; and

       -- equitable relief.

A statewide class has been certified in one of these matters.
Fireside Bank has successfully moved to have these two cases
treated on a coordinated basis going forward, according to
Unitrin's Feb. 4, 2008 form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Unitrin, Inc. -- http://www.unitrin.com/-- through its  
subsidiaries, is engaged in providing property and casualty
insurance, life and health insurance, and consumer finance
services.  The Company conducts its operations through six
operating segments: Kemper Auto and Home, Unitrin Specialty,
Unitrin Direct, Unitrin Business Insurance, Life and Health
Insurance and Consumer Finance.  Unitrin's property and casualty
insurance business operations are conducted through Kemper Auto
and Home, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin Direct and Unitrin Business
Insurance.


HAWAII & ALASKA: Judge Dismisses Federal Workers' Pension Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit commenced by federal workers in Hawaii and Alaska
seeking to increase their pension benefits has been dismissed by
visiting federal judge, Judge Philip Pro of Nevada, who ruled
that the issue should be resolved by Congress, Jime Dooley
writes for the Honolulu Advertiser.

According to the Woodley & McGillivary Web site, the lawsuit,
filed with the U.S. District Court in Hawaii on June 22, 2005,
by federal employees in Hawaii and Alaska against the Federal
Government, challenges "locality pay" policies that unfairly and
irrationally discriminate against federal employees who work and
reside in the two states.  The lawsuit seeks locality pay for
federal employees who work in those jurisdictions.  

The Advertiser explains that the 40,000 federal employees in
Hawaii and Alaska receive cost-of-living allowances that
represent up to 25% of their base pay.  About 16,630 federal
workers and 2,900 U.S. Postal Service employees get the  
allowances in Hawaii.  However, the report notes, the so-called
COLA payments, while free from federal income taxes, are not
taken into account when calculating the workers' pensions, and
that according to a class-action lawsuit filed in Hawaii in
2005, this results in substantially lower pension benefits for
retirees in the two states than what is collected by their
Mainland counterparts.

The Advertiser says that the lawsuit challenged this system,
which was created by Congress in the 1990s, and which excluded
federal employees in Hawaii and Alaska from participating in
"locality pay" salary hikes that are tied to prevailing wages in
the private sectors where they work.

Unlike COLA, the report points out, locality pay increases are
subject to income taxes but are also used to compute higher
pension benefits given to federal retirees.

The W&M Web site wrote that the lawsuit is based, in part, on
the fact that locality pay and COLA serve different purposes.  
It said that if the plaintiffs are successful with the lawsuit,
federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii will be entitled to
locality pay regardless of the fact that they receive COLA.

Judge Pro ruled that he did not understand why Congress decided
in 1990 to exclude Hawaii and Alaska from the locality pay
system, The Advertiser relates.

In his decision, Judge Pro wrote that "The court is puzzled by
the legislative anomaly that here operates to the life-long
disadvantage of federal employees in the excluded states."

"That Congress may have discharged its legislative
responsibilities imperfectly does not give this court fiat to
rewrite the legislation to rectify the current disparity," Judge
Pro ruled.

The judge said that the case suggests that Congress instead
correct the incongruity made, the report notes.

The Advertiser explains that Judge Pro was brought in to hear
the case after Hawaii federal judges disqualified themselves
because they receive a COLA.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management has proposed an overhaul
of the system to eliminate COLA payments for Hawaii and Alaska
federal workers and instead have them receive locality pay, the
report states.  The proposal would gradually phase out COLA
benefits and phase in locality pay over a seven-year period.  
This proposal, according to The Advertiser, is now being studied
by a congressional workforce subcommittee chaired by Hawaii
Senator Daniel K. Akaka.

Woodley & McGillivary, The Advertiser notes, said it was
"disappointed" by Judge Pro's ruling and that it might appeal
the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Greg McGillivary, Esq.
          Woodley & McGillivary
          1125 15th St. NW
          Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 833-8855
          e-mail: info@wmlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Margery Bronster, Esq.
          Bronster Hoshibata
          Suite 2300, Pauahi Tower
          1003 Bishop Street
          Honolulu, Hawaii  96813
          Phone: (808) 524-5644
          Fax: (808) 599-1881
          Web sites: http://www.hawaiitrialattorneys.com
                     http://www.bhhawaii.net


KYPHON INC: Faces Gender Discrimination Litigation in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyphon, Inc., faces a purported gender discrimination class
action that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

In June 27, 2006, six of the company's current and former female
U.S.-based sales employees filed a gender discrimination lawsuit
against Kyphon.   

The suit, entitled, "Dodd-Owens et al v. Kyphon, Inc., Case No.
5:2006cv03988," is asking for injunctive relief and damages in
excess of $100 million.  

It also seeks conversion into a class action, 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
Dec. 31, 2006.

Kyphon Inc. -- http://www.kyphon.com-- is a global medical  
device company specializing in the design, manufacture and
marketing of medical devices to treat and restore spinal anatomy
using minimally invasive technology.  


MARYLAND: Judge Orders Board to Review In-State Tuition Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ordered the
Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland to review
its denial of in-state tuition to certain students, the
Associated Press reports.

According to AP, Judge Murdock's ruling follows six years of
litigation wherein the plaintiffs had been seeking an across-
the-board refund of tuition paid in excess of the in-state rate.  

Caryn Tamber of the MD Daily Record writes that the ruling may
mean some of the state university's students and alumni who were
denied in-state tuition could be reimbursed for the difference
between the in-state rate and the price they paid.

AP says that attorneys for the state had argued for reviewing
the questionable tuition payments individually.

                        Case Background

The Daily Record recounts that the lawsuit was initiated by
Karyn Bergmann, a University of Maryland School of Law student,
who argued that she was unfairly charged the out-of-state rate.
Ms. Bergmann enrolled in the law school while she lived in
Virginia, but ultimately, she moved to Maryland and petitioned
the university to reclassify her as an in-state student -- a
designation that comes with a significant tuition break.

The Daily Record explains that, at the time, among the factors
that went into the university's decision on a student's in-state
status was whether the student was financially independent.  To
be considered financially independent, a student should
demonstrate that he earned enough money annually to cover half
of his school expenses.  The Daily Record adds that
Ms. Bergmann, a full-time student, could not meet the
requirement and was denied in-state tuition, even though other
factors indicated that she was a Maryland resident and was not
in the state only for the purpose of getting an education.

In 2002, the Daily Record relates, Ms. Bergmann sued the
university and other plaintiffs joined her the following year.  
The plaintiffs then filed for class-action status.

In a 2006 decision, according to the Daily Record, the Court of
Special Appeals held that the university's policy was
unconstitutional.  The appellate court sent the case back to
Judge Murdock with instructions to consider certifying the
plaintiffs as a class and ordered that the Board of Regents
establish criteria for rebutting a presumption of financial
dependence.  The board revised its policy.

Subsequently, the Daily Record says, Judge Murdock in 2007
certified a class consisting of students at any state school who
appealed their denials of in-state residency status because of
the financial dependence presumption.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Anthony M. Conti, said that the class
could consist of 250 to 1,000 students and alumni, and get in-
state tuition.

Mr. Conti also argued that all class members should get an
automatic tuition refund, the Daily Record says.

However, Judge Murdock disagreed and, on Jan. 31, 2008, ordered
that each class member should have his or her petition for in-
state status reviewed, the report says.  If the student is
reclassified, he or she will get a refund for the difference
between in-state and out-of-state tuition for the semester they
petitioned for in-state status and all subsequent semesters,
Judge Murdock said.

The Daily Record says Judge Murdock also found or ruled that:

   1. although the Court of Special Appeals ordered the Board of
      Regents to consider school-related activities as community
      activities for the purpose of rebutting the financial
      dependent presumption, the board's policy continues to
      state that such activities do not count.  

   2. the board should adopt an explicit policy counting
      students' tuition toward expenses only in the amount the
      tuition exceeds the students financial aid.

Until those two changes are implemented, Judge Murdock wrote, no
state university may deny anyone in-state tuition.

The Daily Record notes JoAnn Goedert, chief counsel for the
educational affairs division of the Office of the Attorney
General, as saying that the changes Judge Murdock directed are
minor and will be presented to the board for its approval at its
next meeting Feb. 15.  She assured that the policy changes
should be complete before the schools have to make their next
round of in-state decisions.

Ms. Goedert, the Daily Record relates, suggested that the sit
down with the plaintiffs and begin to work on the logistics of
reviewing class members' petitions.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony M. Conti, Esq.
          Conti Fenn & Lawrence LLC
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 2501
          Baltimore, Maryland 21201
       Phone: (410) 837-6999
          Fax: (410) 510-1647
          e-mail: tony@lawcfl.com

The defendant is represented by:

          JoAnn G. Goedert, Esq.
          Chief Counsel
          Office of the Attorney General
          Educational Affairs Division Higher Education
          200 St Paul Place
          Baltimore, MD 21202-2021
          Phone: (410) 576-6454
          e-mail: jgoedert@oag.state.md.us


OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ainsworth Reaches $1.3M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Ainsworth Lumber Co. has entered into an agreement with the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the OSB Antitrust Litigation,
settling on a class-wide basis all claims asserted against it.

Under the agreement, Ainsworth will pay US$1.3 Million to be
distributed across the settlement class.  The agreement is
subject to court approval.

Ainsworth continues to deny each and every one of the
plaintiffs' claims and strongly asserts that it has not violated
U.S. antitrust or any other laws.

The decision to enter into the settlement agreement was based
solely on the need to avoid prolonged, expensive litigation.

Headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Ainsworth Lumber
Co. Ltd. (TSE:ANS) -- http://www.ainsworth.ca/-- manufactures    
structural-engineered wood products, including oriented strand
board, and specialty overlaid plywood.  The company owns and
operates six OSB manufacturing facilities, three in Canada and
three in northern Minnesota.  It has a 50% ownership interest in
an OSB facility, located in High Level, Alberta.  Ainsworth is
also a manufacturer of specialty overlaid concrete-form plywood
products in North America.  Ainsworth's business is focused on
the structural wood panels sector.  It offers value-added
products, such as OSB webstock, rimboard, radiant barrier OSB
panels, jumbo OSB panels, export-standard OSB and specialty
overlaid plywood.


PARKER ITR: Faces Fla. Antitrust Suits Over Marine Oil, Gas Hose
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker ITR, a subsidiary of Parker-Hannifin Corp., is seeking to
dismiss several purported antitrust class actions in Florida
with regards to its marine oil and gas hose business, according
to Parker-Hannifin's Feb. 4, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

There are currently four class actions pending with the Southern
District of Florida and one with the Southern District of New
York alleging that Parker ITR and a number of other defendants
engaged in violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The class action complaints allege that Parker ITR and the other
defendants, for a period of at least eight years, conspired with
competitors in unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially
raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate
markets and customers for marine oil and gas hose in the U.S.

The Company, which is only named in one case in the Southern
District of Florida, was served on July 13, 2007 and had filed
its answer denying the allegations.

Parker ITR has filed a motion to dismiss in each of the four
cases in which it is a defendant.  No decisions on such motions
have been issued.

The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order
transferring the case filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of Florida.

As such, all pending lawsuits are now with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Parker-Hannifin Corp. -- http://www.parker.com-- is a worldwide   
full-line diversified manufacturer of motion control products,
including fluid power systems, electromechanical controls and
related components.


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Faces La. Litigation Over Speed Camera Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
REDFLEX Traffic Systems, Inc., The Parish of Jefferson, The
Jefferson Parish Council, are facing a purported class action
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana over the Parish's speed camera program that used
hidden speed limit signs to trap motorists, TheNewspaper.com
reports.

The suit was filed by Barry Sevin, Jr., and Edwin T. Bernard on
Jan. 31, 2008.  It is alleges that the program violates both
procedural due process protected under the Fourteenth Amendment
and a Louisiana state law that bans the mailing of traffic
citations.

Additionally, the suit argues that the 60,000 motorists who have
been ticketed thus far deserve a full refund, TheNewspaper.com
reports.

The suit is "Sevin et al v. Parish of Jefferson et al., Case No.
2:08-cv-00802-SSV-SS," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Sarah S. Vance,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph R. McMahon, III, Esq.
          Joseph R. McMahon, III, Attorney at Law
          110 Ridgelake Dr.
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Phone: 504-828-6225
          e-mail: jrm@webdsi.com


RIDLEY INC: Reaches CDN$6-Million Settlement for BSE Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ridley Inc. has reached a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in the BSE class action lawsuits filed against Ridley
and the Government of Canada in four provinces of Canada.

Under the settlement agreement, Ridley will pay CDN$6 million
into a plaintiffs' settlement trust fund and will effectively
cap its exposure to the claims made by the plaintiffs to the
CDN$6 million.  However, Ridley will remain a participant in the
ongoing litigation as plaintiffs continue their claim against
the Government of Canada.

In April 2005, Ridley, along with its majority shareholder,
Ridley Corporation Limited of Sydney Australia, and the
Government of Canada were named defendants in proposed class
actions filed in four Canadian provinces.  These lawsuits sought
damages, including punitive damages, for losses allegedly
incurred by Canadian cattle producers as a result of
international bans on the importation of Canadian beef and
cattle.

These bans followed the May 20, 2004 announcement of a bovine
spongiform encephalopathy diagnosis in an Alberta cow.  None of
the plaintiffs in any of the cases alleged any direct connection
between them and Ridley.

Representative plaintiffs seek to certify class actions in
Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec to include all
Canadian cattle farmers who allegedly suffered damage as a
result of international bans.

In October 2005, Ridley disclosed that it had filed and argued
preliminary motions seeking early dismissal of the BSE lawsuit
filed in the Ontario Superior Court for failure to state
actionable claims under Canadian law.  Ridley had asserted
strong legal arguments supporting its request that the
Court strike the claims in advance of class certification
hearings or commencement of discovery.

In 2006, Ridley reported that the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice denied its motion for early dismissal of the proposed
class action (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).  In its
June 21, 2007 decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld
the January 2006 decision of the Ontario Superior Court.

In 2007, Ridley filed an application with the Supreme Court of
Canada to appeal a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal
denying Ridley's motion to strike claims of economic losses by
cattle producers affected by an international meat ban in 2004
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 7, 2007).

Ridley requested leave to appeal from the Ontario Court of
Appeal's decision because it believes the decision conflicts
with Supreme Court of Canada case law and other court decisions,
and because the proposed appeal raises issues of national
importance.

"In entering into this agreement, Ridley makes no admission of
liability or wrongdoing in the matter and we will continue to
contest any allegation we were responsible for the plaintiffs'
damages," said Steve VanRoekel, President and CEO of Ridley Inc.

"Resolving these lawsuits now minimizes the costs associated
with defending an already lengthy litigation, eliminates the
uncertainty, and allows us to move our business forward," added
Mr. VanRoekel.

Counsel for the plaintiffs will apply to the Canadian courts for
approval of the settlement agreement and Ridley will consent to
certification of the class actions.  The settlement class will
then be notified of their right to opt out of the settlement.
The settlement agreement will be finalized and Ridley will pay
the settlement funds provided the number of class member opt-
outs is below an agreed threshold.

Ridley will continue to incur legal expenses as a result of the
settlement approval process and its continuing involvement in
the actions.  Ridley will continue to fund these expenses out of
earnings.

"At all times Ridley fully complied with applicable laws and
regulations and good sense in the manufacturing and labelling of
our products," VanRoekel continued.  "Nonetheless, we are
pleased to resolve this so that we can focus on continuing to
manufacture high-quality animal nutrition products and grow our
business."

Ridley Inc. -- http://www.ridleyinc.com/-- headquartered in  
Mankato, Minnesota and Winnipeg, Manitoba, is one of North
America's leading commercial animal nutrition companies.  Ridley
manufactures and/or distributes a full range of animal nutrition
products under a number of highly regarded trade names.


SILVER STATE: Goes Bankrupt; Students Plan to Sue for Refund
------------------------------------------------------------
Silver State Helicopters, a private helicopter school chain
based in Las Vegas, Nevada, filed a petition with the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for relief under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy
code.

According to a company press release, Silver State closed all
operations on Feb. 3, 2008, at 5:33 p.m. PST.  This action
followed a rapid, unprecedented downturn in the U.S. credit
markets, which severely curtailed the availability of student
loans for the company's flight academy students and resulted in
a sharp and sudden downturn in new student enrollment.

"The decision to shut down operations was made only after the
company explored its other available alternatives," said
Elizabeth Trosper, company spokesperson.  "Information for
former employees and students will be disseminated as it becomes
available."

ABC 4 News writes that thousands of Silver State students
nationwide worry that they will never get their money back.

Silver State students, King5 News explains, were required to pay
their $70,000 tuition up front for helicopter training that
would certify them as flight instructors and commercial pilots.  
Most of these students took out loans to pay for the school.

Several students and employees told ABC 4 that Silver State
management had informed them the company was negotiating with
new financial backers and that classes would be canceled for a
week or two.  However, ABC 4 relates, the school shut down its
propellers for good, leaving the certification and financial
fate of thousands of students and employees up in the air.

Student Garett Oberg and his lawyer, Dan Reed, Esq., are filing
a class action lawsuit, ABC 4 says.

According to ABC 4, Mr. Oberg, who took out $70,000 in school
loans and paid it to Silver State for an 18-month training, said
that the company "closed all the doors and took all the
students' money and just basically left them out in the cold.
They've got all our money and no training."  

Silver State also fired all of its employees on Sunday, ABC 4
notes.

A Silver State spokesman told ABC 4 that information regarding
how and when students can file a claim against the company is
now listed on its Web site at http://www.ssheli.com/

ABC 4 also wrote that Silver State Helicopters students who
would like to speak to Mr. Reed regarding the class lawsuit may
call at: 801-495-9711.


TITLE INSURERS: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Alleged Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
The nation's four largest title companies are facing a class-
action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York that alleges them of fixing prices
for title insurance, costing homebuyers millions of dollars a
year, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The case challenges the illegal price-fixing agreement by
defendants of the rates that consumers pay for title insurance
in New York.

Under the New York State Insurance Law, title insurance rates
may be collectively set through a rate setting organization
comprised of the state's title insurers.  Pursuant to this law,
defendants formed Title Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc.
(TIRSA) in 1991.  TIRSA collects from defendants and TIRSA's
other members revenue and cost information and annually submiuts
it in aggregate form along with collectively set title insurance
rates to the New York Insurance Department.

Under this rate setting regime, defendants have charged
identical and collectively fixed rates to consumers since
TIRSA's inception.

The defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Fidelity National Title Insurance Company,
     -- First American Title Insurance Company of New York,
     -- LandAmerica Financial Group, and
     -- Stewart Title Insurance Company

These title companies and their affiliates are accused of fixing
rates in New York through the TIRSA, which they formed with
other, smaller conspirators in 1991, the complaint states.

According to CourtHouse News, the complaint asserts that:

     -- The "Fidelity family" of title insurers controls 31% of
        the New York market ($361 million) and 27% of the
        national market ($4.6 billion).

        It include defendants Fidelity Title, Chicago Title,
        Ticor Title Insurance and their affiliates.

     -- The "First American family" controls 25% of the New York
        Market ($290 million) and 29% of the national market
        ($4.8 billion).

        It includes defendants First American Title and United
        General Title.

     -- The "LandAmerica family" controls 22% of the New York
        market ($258 million) and 19% of the national market
        ($3.15 billion).

        It includes defendants Commonwealth Land Title Insurance
        Co. and Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. and affiliates.

     -- The "Stewart family" controls 14% of the New York market
        ($168 million) and 12% of the national market ($2
        billion). It includes defendants Stewart Title and
        Monroe Title and their affiliates.

The plaintiffs bring the suit as a class action under Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violations
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 1 on behalf of
all consumers who purchased title insurance in New York from
defendants or TIRSA's other members during the fullest period
permitted by the applicable statute of limitations.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants have engaged in the alleged illegal
         price-fixing activity;

     (b) the duration and scope of defendants' alleged illegal
         price-fixing activity;

     (c) whether defendants' alleged illegal price-fixing has
         caused higher prices to plaintiffs and other purchasers
         of title insurance in New York; and

     (d) whether the Insurance Department has actively
         supervised defendants' collective rate-setting
         activity.

The plaintiffs also request the following relief:

     -- that the court declare, adjudge, and decree that
        defendants have committed the violations of federal law
        alleged;

     -- that defendants, their directors, officers, employees,  
        agents, successors, and assigns be permanently enjoined
        and restrained from, in any manner, directly or
        indirectly, unlawfully fixing or maintaining their title
        insurance rates at supracompetitive levels, and
        committing any other violations of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act or of other statutes having a similar
        purpose and effect;

     -- that there be an award for damages sustained by class
        members from defendants' violations of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act in an amount to be proven at trial, to be
        trebled according to law, plus interest (including
        prejudgment interest), to compensate them for the
        overcharges they incurred; and

     -- that the court award the class attorney's fees and costs
        of suit, and such other and further relief as the court
        may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Brendan Dolan et al. v. Fidelity National Title
Insurance Company et al., Case No. CV 08 466," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gordon Schnell, Esq.
          Jean Kim, Esq.
          Gerard J. Britton, Esq.
          450 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, New York 10017
          Phone: (212) 350-2700
          Fax: (212) 350-2701


UBS SECURITIES: Faces N.Y. Suit Over $1.6 BB Genesco Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Securities LLc and UBS Loan Finance LLC are facing a class-
action complaint filed with the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, Kings County accusing it of interfering with Finish
Line's $1.6 billion acquisition of Genesco, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The complaint states that on June 17, 2007, Finish Line -- an
athletic apparel and footwear retailer -- entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger to acquire retail competitor
Genesco for consideration of $54.50 per share in cash for all of
the outstanding common stock of Genesco held by plaintiffs.

According to CourtHouse News, UBS Securities tortiously
interfered with Finish Line's $1.6 billion acquisition of
Genesco, costing Genesco shareholders their promised $54.50 per
share, because the mortgage-inspired credit crisis would have
caused UBS to lose money on the deal.

UBS also is accused of securities fraud: making false claims
about Genesco and undermining the merger, the report said.

Named plaintiff Howard Lasker brings this action as a class
action pursuant to CPLR 901, on behalf of all Genesco common
shareholders who were damaged by defendants' improper conduct.

Mr. Lasker wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether UBS was aware of Finish Line's obligation to
         pay Genesco shareholders $54.50 per share subsequent to
         Genesco's completion of closing conditions under the
         Merger Agreement;

     (b) whether UBS intended to cause a breach of Finish Line's
         obligation to timely pay Genesco shareholders $54.50
         per share upon completion of the Merger;

     (c) whether increased costs to UBS due to tightening in the
         credit markets motivated UBS to interfere with Genesco
         shareholders' right to timely receive $54.50 in cash in
         exchange for their Genesco common shares;

     (d) whether UBS caused members of the class damages by
         wrongfully or improperly refusing to provide financing
         and prohibiting or delaying Genesco common shares;

     (e) whether UBS caused members of the class damages by its
         unsupported public accusations of fraud and other
         tortious conduct; and

     (f) the proper measure of damages suffered by members of
         the class caused by UBS' alleged tortious interference.

Mr. Lasker requests:

     -- that this action be certified as a class action;

     -- that named plaintiff be certified as class
        representative and his counsel as class counsel;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants, jointly and
        severally, and in favor of the plaintiff and the other
        members of the class, for defendants' violations of law;

     -- that plaintiff and the other members of the class be
        awarded compensatory damages, togehter with interest,
        cause to them by the defendants' violations of law;

     -- that plaintiff be awrded attorneys fees, expert fees and
        reasonable expenses; and

     -- for such other relief on behalf of the plaintiff and the
        class the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Howard Lasker et al. v. UBS Securities LLC et al.,"
filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings
County.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark Levin, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Bordy
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, New York 10017
          Phone: (212) 687-7230

               - and -

          David C. Katz, Esq.
          Weiss & Lurie
          The Fred French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NEw York 10176
          Phone: (212) 682-3025


UNION COUNTY: Settles Turner Lawsuit by Promising Jail Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action lawsuit filed against Union County by
John Eldridge, Esq., Thomas Eickenberry, Esq., and Steve Sams,
Esq., on behalf of inmate Kevin Turner prompted a settlement
deal that promises an expansion of the Union County Jail,
Knoxville News Sentinel reports.

Jamie Satterfield of KnoxNews writes that under the settlement
-- reached by Mr. Turney's attorneys and John Duffy, Esq., who
represents Union County -– taxpayers will fork out legal fess of
just more than $11,000 and a token $500 payment to Mr. Turner to
put an end to the lawsuit.

The settlement means, KnowNews relates, that the county will no
longer be subject to further supervision by U.S. District Court
Judge Tom Varlan or to the possibility of paying substantial
damages and fines for future violations.

The report, citing Union County Mayor Larry Lay, notes that the
county will use a bond issue of roughly $1.1 million to fund the
jail renovations promised by the settlement, as well as an
unrelated school construction project.

The renovations call for double bed space, an additional cell
block dedicated solely to women, a cleaner environment for
inmates, and a safer place for jailers to work, the report says.
"The entire inmate-housing area of the facility will be pressure
washed, sanitized and re-painted," the settlement stated,
according to KnoxNews.  "The kitchen counter tops and any
rotting cabinetry around and underneath the kitchen sink will be
replaced."  Union County officials, according to the report,
will transfer all current inmates to the newly constructed jail
addition to allow the old facility to be cleaned.

KnoxNews points out that the Union County Jail not only lacked
space to house inmates, but it "was so nasty and unsafe that a
state agency that inspects local detention facilities had
refused to certify it as up to snuff."  The existing jail was a
fire hazard, with no sprinkler system, no mandatory exit lights,
and a corridor wall that lacked "fire rating approved by the
Tennessee Fire Marshall," the report adds.  

Moreover, the settlement agreement provides that inmates will
receive "a uniform, mattress, blanket, sheet and daily access to
a towel," and if an inmate is poor, he or she also will get
soap, shampoo, toothbrush and toothpaste on the county dime, the
report notes.  "Sanitary supplies for women will be provided, as
needed, without cost to the inmate," the settlement agreement
promised.

According to the report, the settlement further states that for
one hour each day, inmates in each cell block will be allowed
"use of cleaning supplies" to clean up their living quarters.  
The inmates, however, must not "misuse such cleaning supplies,"
the document says.

Jailers, KnoxNews relates, are also getting a bit of relief
under the settlement agreement, because until now, inmates were
not classified based on dangerousness, nor were there enough
jailers to keep the facility safe.  Union County now promises to
hire enough jailers to make sure that there are at least two
manning the jail at all times and three on duty during the
jail's busiest times.


UNITRIN INC: Faces Hurricane-Related Litigation in La. & Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unitrin, Inc. faces putative class actions in Louisiana and  
Texas, arising out of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

During the course of 2007, Unitrin and certain of its
subsidiaries, like many property and casualty insurers, were
forced to defend a growing number of individual lawsuits, mass
actions, and statewide putative class actions in Louisiana and
Texas arising out of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

In these matters, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages, and equitable relief, according to Unitrin's Feb. 4,
2008 form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Unitrin, Inc. -- http://www.unitrin.com/-- through its  
subsidiaries, is engaged in providing property and casualty
insurance, life and health insurance, and consumer finance
services.  The Company conducts its operations through six
operating segments: Kemper Auto and Home, Unitrin Specialty,
Unitrin Direct, Unitrin Business Insurance, Life and Health
Insurance and Consumer Finance.  Unitrin's property and casualty
insurance business operations are conducted through Kemper Auto
and Home, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin Direct and Unitrin Business
Insurance.


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Reaches Tentative Agreement in Del. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
VERITAS Software Corp., which was acquired by Symantec Corp.,
reached a tentative settlement in the consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against it with a Delaware federal
court.

On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint, "Paul Kuck,
et al. v. Veritas Software Corp., et al.," was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with company's announcement on July 6, 2004, that it
expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2004, to fall below earlier estimates.  It generally
seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have
been filed in Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the
court entered an order consolidating these actions and
appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005,
expanding the class period from April 23, 2004, through July 6,
2004.

The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as
a defendant and added allegations that the company and the named
officers made false or misleading statements in the company's
press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings regarding the company's financial results, which
allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were
unsigned or lacked essential terms.

The defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in July 2005; the motion was
denied in May 2006.

In November 2007, a tentative agreement was proposed to resolve
the matter, subject to several conditions, according to Symantec
Corp.'s Feb. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 28,
2007.

The suit is “Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
00831-SLR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, Judge Sue L. Robinson presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
         Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess
         Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070
         Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
         Phone: (302) 656-4433
         e-mail: CKeener@rmgglaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Erica Niezgoda Finnegan, Esq.
         Cross & Simon, LLC
         913 North Market Street, 11th Floor, Suite 1001
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302) 777-4200 and (302) 777-4224
         e-mail: efinnegan@crosslaw.com

              - and -

         Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
         Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
         1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, P.O. Box 951
         Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
         Phone: (302) 984-6037
         Fax: (302) 658-1192
         e-mail: pwalsh@potteranderson.com


VIRGINIA: Four Local Restaurants Sued to Become "Smoke-Free"
------------------------------------------------------------
Four local restaurants in Virginia are facing a purported
federal class action that seeks to force them to become smoke-
free, Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs.Com reports.

The suit was filed on Nov. 20, 2007, with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by James Bogden, a
public health educator and anti-smoking activist, who filed his
claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The restaurants named in the lawsuit, which is seeking class-
action status, are:

       -- Clyde's at Mark Center, Inc.;
       -- C & S Restaurant Group, Inc.;
       -- Harry's Clarendon, L.L.C.; and
       -- Mike's American Grill, L.L.C.

Mr. Bogden seeks to require the restaurants to become smoke-
free, arguing that they must accommodate Bogden's disability,
coronary artery disease, and eliminate secondhand smoke so he
can eat at them.  Each of the restaurants allows smoking in
designated areas, ConsumerAffairs.Com reports.

In his suit, Mr. Bogden pointed out that he does not seek
monetary damages beyond his court costs.  His claim was filed
under ADA, because according to him, a restaurant should not
discriminate against a person with a disability.

The suit is "Bogden v. Clyde's at Mark Center, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-01178-LO-TRJ," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Liam O'Grady
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John Paul Szymkowicz, Esq.
          Szymkowicz & Szymkowicz LLP
          1220 19th St NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 862-8500
          e-mail: jp@szymkowicz.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Attison Leonard Barnes, III, Esq.
          Wiley Rein LLP
          1776 K St, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 719-7000
          Fax: 202-719-7049
          e-mail: abarnes@wileyrein.com

          Edward Lee Isler, Esq.
          Isler Dare Ray & Radcliffe PC
          1919 Gallows Rd., Suite 320, Tysons Corner
          Vienna, VA 22182
          Phone: (703) 748-2690
          Fax: (703) 748-2695
          e-mail: eisler@islerdare.com

               - and -

          Bryan Kendall Short, Esq.
          Law Offices of Andrew J. Kline
          1225 19th St, NW Suite 320
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-686-7600
          Fax: 202-293-3130
          e-mail: bshort@klinelawdc.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Residents Receive Windfall from $3M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 700 residents in the Old Forge, Taylor, and Ransom
Townships have received at least $1,300 as part of a $3 million
settlement of a class action over noise, dust and odor pollution
at the Alliance Sanitary Landfill, which is owned by Waste
Management, Inc., Erin L. Nissley of The Scranton Times-Tribune
reports.

The suit was filed by William and Cynthia Toman, of Old Forge,
and Joseph and Maureen Labrosky, of Taylor, in 2003, accusing
the owner of the landfill of causing willful public and private
nuisances.  It also claims the operation of the landfill has
decreased surrounding property values (Class Action Reporter,
July 12, 2007).  

The plaintiffs are asking the judge to award them up to $25,000
each, while plaintiffs' lawyers are asking the judge for up to
$100,000 for costs, and fees.

In the middle of 2007, parties involved in the litigation
reached a proposed $3 million settlement. The settlement will
compensate anyone who lived in or owned a home within three-
quarters of a mile of the landfill between Jan. 1, 2001 and Dec.
31, 2003.

The Scranton Times-Tribune reports that on December 2007,
Lackawanna County Common Pleas Judge Robert Mazzoni approved
that settlement, after several hearings where residents who
lived within three-quarters of a mile of the landfill between
Jan. 1, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2003, were allowed to voice
objections to the proposal.

All together, 1,225 people were eligible for the settlement, and
about 766 people opted in, according to court records obtained
by The Scranton Times-Tribune.

Since, the Tomans and the Labroskys filed the suit, they
received $15,000 each, while their attorneys, including George
A. Reihner, Esq., received $1 million plus $96,552.63 for
expenses.

Everyone else who opted in received payments between $1,300 and
$2,730.  The payments were recently mailed to recipients,
according to Mr. Reihner.

For more details, contact:

          George A. Reihner, Esq.
          Wright & Reihner, P.C.
          148 Adams Avenue
          Scranton, Pennsylvania 18503
          Phone: 570-961-1166
          Fax: 570-961-1199  
          Web site: http://www.wrightreihner.com


WEIS MARKETS: Recalls Fruit Miniatures Due to Undeclared Walnuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weis Markets has initiated the voluntary recall of its Weis
Baker's 18-count Fruit Miniatures and two pound platters of
Mini-Fruit Diamonds in four varieties – Nut Diamond, Cheese
Raspberry, Apricot and Mixed assortment.

These products are being recalled because they may contain
walnuts which are not identified on the label.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to walnuts run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

These products, which were sold in Weis Markets' Bakeries, have
been removed from store shelves and destroyed. The 18-count
Fruit miniatures come in clear plastic containers and the two
pound Mini Fruit Diamonds are packaged in a platter with a clear
top. The UPC and code dates are listed below.

This problem came to the company's attention after a customer
complaint. Concerned customers may return this product to Weis
Markets for a full refund. Customers with concerns or questions
about this recall may contact Weis Markets' customer hotline at
866-999-9347, Extension 3, which is open Monday through Friday,
at 8:00 a.m. To 5:00 p.m.

Weis Baker's 18-count and two pound platters of Fruit Miniatures
– Nut Diamond, Cheese Raspberry and Apricot are sold at Weis
Markets including its Mr. Z's, King's and Scot's Lo-Cost units.
Weis Markets operates 156 stores in five states: Pennsylvania,
Maryland, New York, New Jersey and West Virginia.

The UPC Codes for the recalled product with a sell by date up to
1/5/08 are:

     -- UPC 210100-00000 18 Ct Fruit Miniatures
     -- UPC 210112-00000 2 lb Fruit Miniature Platters


WESTFIELD AMERICA: Faces CA Consumer Fraud Suit Over Gift Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP has launched a class action lawsuit
against Westfield America, Inc., in the Superior Court for San
Diego County, California saying that the Los Angeles-based
company wrongfully imposes a monthly charge against the
outstanding account balance of its Westfield Gift Cards sold
both online and at its Westfield shopping centers starting one
year after the date of issuance.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all California
residents who purchased or received a Westfield America Gift
Card on or after January 11, 2004.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk
          Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
          The Koll Center
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA   92101
          Phone: 619.238.1333
          Fax: 619.238-5425
          e-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com


* Market Volatility Increases Class Lawsuits, Study Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Stock market volatility increases the likelihood of class action
suits against U.S. businesses and their senior executives, the
Financial Times relates, citing a new study by Carpenter Moore,
an insurance brokerage owned by the Nasdaq stock market.

FT's Anuj Gangahar writes that in a finding that underscores the
potentially litigious nature of doing business in the U.S., the
study found a direct correlation between financial market
volatility as measured by the CBOE's Vix index and the number of
class actions filed in the U.S. over a period of 11 years from
1996 to the end of last year.

The study found that financial services, technology, and life
sciences faced a greater threat of legal action than other
businesses, FT notes.  

FT cites Lauri Floresca, senior managing director and author for
the report, as saying that regardless of the market cap segment,
these three industry sectors pay the most for D&O insurance.

"This is in line with data on securities class action filing
rates, which consistently ranks those three industries as the
most likely to face litigation.  In 2007, the bulk of the 166
cases filed were brought against companies in those three
industry sectors," the report quotes Ms. Floresca.

According to the report, energy and manufacturing were at less
risk.

FT says that stock market volatility has been a feature of
recent times, and in some cases has become an asset class in its
own right, with traders taking implicit bets on volatility of
the equity market as a whole, or parts of it.

The trend of volatility levels being matched by the number of
class actions can be seen in individual sectors, the study said,
according to FT.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


CELLCYTE GENETICS: Finkelstein Thompson Files WA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit with
the United State District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
CellCyte Genetics Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: CCYG.OB)
between April 6, 2007, and January 9, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that CellCyte misled the investing public
throughout the Class Period by publishing false information
about the history and experience of the company's chief
executive officer Gary A. Reys.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that CellCyte misrepresented
Reys' credentials on the Company's website and in SEC filings,
particularly regarding Reys' educational background, his status
as a certified public accountant in the state of Washington, and
his prior role in the initial public offerings of var2ious
pharmaceutical companies.

According to the Complaint, CellCyte made false and misleading
statements about Reys to the SEC and potential investors.  The
truth regarding Reys' credentials began to surface in early
January after news media inquiries into Reys' background.
Shortly after these inquiries, CellCyte removed numerous claims
regarding Reys' credentials from the Company's website.

As a result of Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions,
CellCyte's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period. Once the truth behind Reys was revealed, CellCyte shares
plunged 55% in unusually heavy trading on Jan. 8 and 9.  The
stock fell as low as $2.15 on Jan. 9, 2008, down from a high of
$7.02 just days before.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

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

For more information, contact:

          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          The Duvall Foundry
          1050 30th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 337-8000 or (877) 337-1050 (toll free)
          Fax: (202) 337-8090
          Web site: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Centerline Holding Company during the period between March 12,
2007 through December 28, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Centerline,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements about Centerline's business model and financial
condition, which had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's common stock.

The Complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented and failed
to disclose that:

     (i) it was in the process of disposing of its tax-exempt
         revenue bond portfolio, which had provided the Company
         with substantial revenues and enabled it to pay a
         sizable dividend;

    (ii) it was contemplating a large, related-party transaction
         that would require the Company to pay 11% interest per
         year to insiders; and

   (iii) defendants' positive statements about the Company's
         performance and prospects were lacking in any
         reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Centerline is a publicly owned investing holding firm, and
through its subsidiaries, operates as a real estate finance and
investing company. On December 28, 2007, the Company issued a
press release announcing that:

     (i) it had sold its $2.8 billion tax-exempt affordable
         housing bond portfolio to Freddie Mac, which will
         result in one-time charges of $45 million to $55
         million in the fourth quarter of 2007;

    (ii) the Company issued 12.2 million shares of newly-issued
         convertible stock with an 11% dividend annual
         distribution rate, in exchange for a $131 million
         investment from an affiliate of The Related Companies
         L.P. (the "Related Companies"), which is owned and
         controlled by Stephen M. Ross, Chairman of the Board of
         Centerline and the founder and Chairman of the Related
         Companies, and Jeff T. Blau, a managing trustee of both
         Centerline and the Related Companies;

   (iii) the Company was repositioning itself as an alternative
         asset manager;
  
    (iv) the Company would be reducing its dividend to $0.60 per
         share; and

     (v) the Company would be reducing its 2008 earnings
         guidance to between $1.00 per share and $1.10 per
         share.

Following this announcement, shares of Centerline's stock fell
$2.57 per share, representing a 25% decline, to close at $7.70
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Centerline common stock during the Class Period.

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

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Arthur J. Chen, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050




                           *********


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, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and
Peter Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *