CAR_Public/080212.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, February 12, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 30

                            Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in Florida
ACXIOM CORP: Faces Suits in Fla., Tex. Over Use of Driver's Data
ARIBA INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Dismissal Bid v. N.Y. Suit Still Pending
BAE SYSTEMS: Court Blocks Saudi Prince From Transferring Funds

BED BATH: Objections to Settlement Deal Due on April 11
CHICAGO: Lawsuit Prompts Shorter Holding Time for Arrestees
CNH GLOBAL: Attorney Reassures Retirees of Lifetime Benefits
DANKA BUSINESS: Court Dismisses Vital Claims in "Edwards" Suit
DEVRY: Plaintiffs in "Daghlian" Case Appeal Dismissal of Claims

HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL: Faces MN Suit Over Improper, Abusive Fees
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Nev. Court Denies Class Certification Bid
MARYLAND: MHEC, Officials Face Litigation Over Academic Programs
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Court Mulls Appeal in Dismissed Ariz. Suit
MEMORY GARDENS: Fin'l Firms Blamed for Helping Couple Raid Funds

MICROSOFT CORP: Wash. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Vista" Case
MORGAN STANLEY: $16MM Settlement of Calif. Gender Bias Suit OK'd
NATIONAL MUTUAL: Faces OH Suit Over Vehicle Liability Claims
ONTARIO: Court to Decide on Suit on Behalf of Autistic Children
PINNACLE LAS VEGAS: Faces Lawsuit Over Construction Delays

PLEXUS CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Wis.
REALTYSOUTH: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Suit Over ABC Fee
RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Seeks Dismissal of Mo. Suit Over Odors
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Defective Blu-Ray Players, Prompts NJ Suit
SANTEE COOPER: Faces Utility Rate Increase Lawsuit

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Pa. Couples Files Suit Over Paid Mortgages
TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Working to Settle Va. Securities Suit


* UK Should Not Follow U.S. Class Action Procedures, CJC Says
* William Lerach Gets Two-Year Imprisonment for Kickback Scheme


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBAC FINANCIAL: Finkelstein Thompson Files N.Y. Securities Suit
MORGAN KEEGAN: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in TN
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Coughlin Stoia Files Ca. Securities Fraud Suit
SUNOPTA INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., and its subsidiary, 1-800-Flowers
Retail, Inc., face a class action in Florida, alleging
violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction
Act, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 30, 2007.

In October 2007, the defendants were served with a purported
nationwide class action, entitled, "Grabein v. 1-800-
Flowers.Com.,  Inc., et al; Case No. 07-22235," which was filed
with the U.S. District  Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  

The complaint alleges violation of FACTA based upon the
allegation that the Company printed or provided receipts to
consumers at the point of sale or transaction on which receipts
appeared more than the last five digits of customers' credit or
debit card numbers and the expiration dates of such cards.

The complaint  does not specify any actual damages for any
member of the purported class.  However, the complaint does seek
statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each  proven  alleged  
willful  violation  of the statute, if any, as well as,
attorneys' fees, costs, unspecified punitive damages and a
permanent injunction.

The suit is "Grabein v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-22235-PCH," filed with the U.S. District  Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Paul C. Huck presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John Elliott Leighton, Esq.
          Leesfield Leighton & Partners
          2350 S. Dixie Highway
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: 305-854-4900
          Fax: 305-854-8266
          e-mail: Leighton@Leesfield.com

               - and -

          Jay Mitchell Levy, Esq.
          Jay M. Levy, P.A.
          9130 S. Dadeland Boulevard
          Suite 1510 Two Datran Center
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: 305-670-8100
          Fax: 305-670-4827
          e-mail: jay@jaylevylaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          David E. Block, Esq.
          Jackson Lewis LLP
          2 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 3500 One Biscayne Tower
          Miami, FL 33131-1802
          Phone: 305-577-7600
          Fax: 305-373-4466
          e-mail: blockd@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Plastaras, Esq.
          Gallagher Walker Bianco & Plastaras
          98 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501-2611
          Phone: 516-248-2002
          Fax: 516-248-2394
          e-mail: tplastaras@1800flowers.com


ACXIOM CORP: Faces Suits in Fla., Tex. Over Use of Driver's Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corp. and several other information providers continue to
face purported class actions with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida and with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging violations of
the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, according to its Feb. 7,
2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit, "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct,  
Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," was originally filed with the
state court, but was later removed to federal court in May 2003.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and used
driver's license data in violation of the federal Drivers
Privacy Protection Act.  

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, and  
attorneys' fees.  To date, a class has not been certified.

In addition, in January 2007, two companion cases were filed.  
The cases are:

       -- "Sharon Taylor, et al., v. Acxiom, et al.," (U.S.
          District Court, E.D. Texas, 207CV001); and

       -- "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company, et
          al.," (U.S. District Court, E.D. Texas, 2:07-CV-
          00018).

The suit is "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data
Direct, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," filed with the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Jose
E. Martinez presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
         Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
         150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower
         Miami, FL 33130
         Phone: 305-372-2772
         Fax: 305-375-0243
         e-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com

         Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
         James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich
         3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200
         Tallahassee, FL 32308
         Phone: 850-325-2680
         Fax: 850-325-2681

         Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq.
         Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells
         777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-374-8200
         Fax: 305-374-8208
         e-mail: lgoodman@devinegoodman.com

              - and -

         James Kellogg Green, Esq.
         222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650 Esperante
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401
         Phone: 561-659-2029
         Fax: 561-655-1357
         E-mail: jameskgreen@bellsouth.net


ARIBA INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed the second amended complaint in the securities fraud
class action filed against Ariba, Inc.

On Oct. 31, 2005, a purported class action, alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, was filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia against Ariba's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer and a former president and director of
the Company.  The action is brought on behalf of stockholders
who purchased the Company's stock from June 10, 2003, to Feb. 7,
2005.

That case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and an Amended Complaint was
filed on November 30, 2006, adding the Company as a defendant.  

A second amended complaint was filed on May 18, 2007, alleging
that the defendants artificially inflated the Company's stock
price between those dates by failing to disclose, in public
statements that the Company made about its products, market
position and performance, that some of those products allegedly
infringed patents belonging to a third party.

The defendants requested to have the second amended complaint
dismissed.  As a result, on Nov. 15, 2007, the court sided with
the defendants and the case was dismissed, according to the
company's Feb. 6, 2008 form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Ariba, Inc. -- http://www.ariba.com-- provides spend management  
solutions that allow enterprises to manage the purchasing of
non-payroll goods and services required to run their business.

    
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Dismissal Bid v. N.Y. Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action pending against
Authentidate Holding Corp. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company and certain of current
and former officers and directors.  

The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  

The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the
company failed to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service could
cancel its August 2002 contract with it if the company did not
meet certain performance metrics, and when it disclosed in 2005
that the USPS could cancel its contract because the company had
not met those performance metrics, the market price of its stock
declined.  The class action complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages.

Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders filed motions
seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed a
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

On Oct. 5, 2005 the court consolidated the class actions as, "In
re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05
Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board of
Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in
January 2006, asserting the same claims as the prior complaints
and also alleged that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting that it possessed certain
patentable technology.

In July 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety; certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and the
plaintiffs were given leave to replead those claims, which were
not dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which does not assert any claims relating to the company's
patents, but which otherwise is substantially similar to the
prior complaint.  The second amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages.

The Company requested to have the second amended complaint
dismissed, which request is pending before the court.

The company reported no development in the matter at its Feb. 7,
2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-05323-LTS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Laura Taylor Swain.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard William Gonnello, Esq.
         Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
         Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
         Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 894-7200
         Fax: (212) 894-7272
         e-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
                 jwhitman@entwistle-law.com

              - and -

         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         e-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Irwin Howard Warren, Esq.
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: (212) 310-8000
         Fax: (212) 833-3148
         e-mail: irwin.warren@weil.com



BAE SYSTEMS: Court Blocks Saudi Prince From Transferring Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily
blocked Prince Bandar bin Sultan from removing real estate sales
proceeds from the country pending resolution of the class
action, "City of Harper Woods Employees' Retirement System v.
Olver et al., Case No. 1:2007cv01646," The Associated Press
reports.

The suit was filed on Sept. 19, 2007, accusing BAE Systems PLC,
and its current and former directors of breaches of fiduciary
duties in connection with $2 billion or more in alleged illegal
bribes paid to Prince Bandar, the former Saudi ambassador to the
U.S., in connection with an $86 billion BAE arms sale to Saudi
Arabia in 1985.

AP reports that Prince Bandar is also named as defendant in the
suit, along with the former Riggs Bank of Washington and its
successor, PNC Financial Group.  Both he and BAE have vehemently
denied that illegal payments were made.

In a temporary restraining order signed on Feb. 5, 2008, Judge
Rosemary M. Collyer said that the suit by the City of Harper
Woods Employees' Retirement System raises serious questions of
law that warrant a temporary order keeping Prince Bandar from
taking the proceeds of real estate sales out of U.S.-based
accounts, according to the AP report.

The order directs that such sales proceeds "be deposited and/or
invested pursuant to a prudent man standard" in U.S. accounts.  

However, the order specifically notes that it "does not prevent
him from selling real property" and "only interferes with his
ability to invest and/or deposit any sales proceeds in a minimal
way."

The order further notes that "it may, of course, be terminated
or modified upon application to the Court by Prince Bandar."  

AP reports that a hearing was set for Feb. 14, 2008 on whether
to issue a preliminary injunction extending the temporary order.

The retirement system suit maintains that Prince Bandar used
funds illicitly obtained from BAE Systems to acquire U.S. real
estate, including a Colorado ranch and mansion once placed on
the market at $135 million, and the former William Randolph
Hearst mansion in California, offered for sale last summer at
$165 million, AP reports.

The suit is "City of Harper Woods Employees' Retirement System
v. Olver et al., Case No. 1:2007cv01646," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Rosemary M.
Collyer presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Roger M. Adelman, Esq.
         1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 730
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: (202) 822-0600
         Fax: (202) 822-6722
         e-mail: radelman@erols.com

              - and -

         Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619 231-1058
         Fax: 619 231-7423
         e-mail: patc@csgrr.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Lawrence Byrne, Esq.
         LINKLATERS LLP
         1345 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10105
         Phone: (212) 903-9000
         e-mail: larry.byrne@linklaters.com

              - and -

         Christopher Talbott Lutz, Esq.
         Steptoe & Johnson LLP
         1330 Connecticut Avenue NW
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: (202) 429-6440
         e-mail: clutz@steptoe.com


BED BATH: Objections to Settlement Deal Due on April 11
-------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 22, 2008, U.S.
retailer Bed, Bath & Beyond settled a consumer-fraud
lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey alleging that it inflated the thread counts of its
bedding and linens.

The lawsuit, filed on February 23, 2007, alleges that Bed Bath &
Beyond, as well as Synergy Inc., misrepresented the thread count
in its two-ply bedding products sold in stores and on its Web
site by stating the number of threads in the warp and filling
directions in one square inch of fabric, rather than the number
of yarns.

According to the CAR report, 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.

Bed Bath & Beyond and Synergy deny any wrongdoing and believe
the signage, labeling and product samples available to their
customers at the time of purchase provided their customers with
complete and accurate information.  The parties have reached a
proposed settlement of the lawsuit, which has been preliminarily
approved by the Court.

Any person who purchased multi-ply sheet sets, pillowcases, down
comforters, bedskirts, shams, duvets or down pillows that were
labeled as "plied," "two-ply" or "2-ply" from Bed Bath & Beyond
between Aug. 1, 2000, and Nov. 9, 2007, may have a claim for
benefits in the proposed class action settlement.  A complete
listing of the multi-ply products that are covered by the
proposed settlement are contained in the "List of Covered
Products" page of http://www.bbbthreadcountsettlement.com/

Under the proposed settlement, claimants who timely submit a
valid Claim Form indicating that they purchased Covered Products
between Aug. 1, 2000, and Nov. 9, 2007, are entitled to receive
either a refund, a $10 Bed Bath & Beyond gift card, or a 20%
discount certificate, depending on the proof of purchase
documentation they have retained.

In order to receive any of these options, claimants must submit
a valid Claim Form on or before May 13, 2008.

Those who have purchased Covered Products but do not want to
remain part of the class must submit a request to opt-out of the
settlement postmarked no later than March 21, 2008.  

Individuals who wish to object to the settlement must file an
objection by April 11, 2008.

The suit is "White v. Bed Bath & Beyond et al., Case No:
2:2007cv00891," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, under Magistrate Judge Ronald J. Hedges
with referral to Magistrate Judge Esther Salas.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq.
          Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
          Two Gateway Center
          12th floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 623-3000
          e-mail: bgreenberg@ldgrlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert Alan White, Esq.
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (609) 919-6600
          e-mail: rwhite@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Resnik, Esq.
          Katten, Muchin & Rosenman, LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          14th floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 940-8543
          e-mail: scott.resnik@kattenlaw.com


CHICAGO: Lawsuit Prompts Shorter Holding Time for Arrestees
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Police Department is shortening the amount of time
it can hold prisoners who have not been charged or appeared
before a judge, Chicago Tribune reports.

According to the report, the change was made on the eve of a
settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by people who
claimed that they were held by police more than 48 hours without
charges.  Michael Kanovitz, Esq., who represents the plaintiffs
in the lawsuit, argued that holding suspects for more than two
days is unconstitutional.

The suit is being settled for as much as $38 million, the report
says, citing unnamed sources.  Neither city officials nor
Mr. Kanovitz, however, would confirm the figure or discuss
whether the case was being settled on Friday.  But the city is
conceding that police should not hold people more than 48 hours
without charges, saying the new order "as clearly as possible
explains the current state of the law."

The Tribune relates that detectives were informed on Thursday
last week that suspects have to appear before a judge within 48
hours of arrest or be released.  The previous practice required
only that charges be approved by prosecutors within that time
frame.

Because of court schedules and the availability of judges, the
report cites law enforcement sources as saying, the change will
result in police being able to hold suspects for only one day in
some cases before securing charges or letting them go.

The policy affects suspects arrested by police without a
warrant, and now states: "Under no circumstances, will such a
person appear in court any later than 48 hours from the time of
arrest."

Holding suspects longer "jeopardizes the criminal case and
exposes both the department member and the city to liability,"
police spokeswoman Monique Bond told the Tribune in an e-mail.
"This does not mean that we have 48 hours to have the subject
charged.  It means they must appear in court within 48 hours of
their arrest."

Detectives said that the change will put them under much greater
pressure to assemble cases hastily, the report notes.

The Tribune points out that the length of time the Chicago
police hold suspects before charging them has been controversial
for years, and the department has faced allegations of coercing
confessions from suspects by wearing them down over days, and in
some cases, torturing them.

In 2003, more than a dozen people added their names to a federal
lawsuit filed by Joseph Lopez against Chicago police in an
effort to turn his case into a class-action suit.  The people
alleged that police mistreated them in interrogation sessions
lasting two or more days, keeping them from sleeping and eating,
and in some cases, denied them access to attorneys.  Mr. Lopez,
the report recalls, was sued in 2001.  He said that police held
him for four days and was charged with murder, but was released
when someone else confessed.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Loevy & Loevy
          312 North May Street
          Suite 100
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Phone: (312) 243-5900
          Fax: (312) 243-5902
          Web site: http://www.loevy.com  


CNH GLOBAL: Attorney Reassures Retirees of Lifetime Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
Roger McClow, Esq., of Southfield, Mich., the attorney
representing former CaseIH-CNH Global retirees and their spouses
in a health-care lawsuit, offered reassurances to them in a
meeting in Davenport last week, Quad-Cities Online reports.

The report recounts that in August 2007, a federal judge in
Michigan granted a summary judgment that hourly employees
retiring after July 1, 1994, are entitled to lifetime health-
care benefits from CNH America LLC, formerly Case Corp.  The
ruling covers more than 3,000 retirees and their surviving
spouses, or about 4,500 people.

CNH is expected to appeal the decision to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals, Quad-Cities relates.  The retirees' benefits
will remain in place during the appeal, Mr. Roger McClow said.  
A final judgment is expected to be filed with the court next
week.

According to Quad-Cities, Mr. McClow met with about 60 people on
Thursday to answer questions and provide an update.  He was in
town on other business unrelated to the Case-CNH lawsuit.

The report recalls that CNH filed a lawsuit in 2004, saying the
company was not obligated to cover health care benefits for
those who retired after July 1, 1994, through May 2004, when the
Case-UAW contract expired.

"These people had a plant closing agreement from 2002 that
extended the agreement until the plant closed," Mr. McClow
argued.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger J. McClow, Esq.
          Klimist, McKnight, Sales & McClow & Canzano PC
          400 Galleria Officentre, Suite 117,
          Southfield, MI 48034-2161
          Phone: (248) 354-9650
          e-mail: rmcclow@kmsmc.com


DANKA BUSINESS: Court Dismisses Vital Claims in "Edwards" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
dismissed certain claims in the purported class action captioned
"Edwards v. Danka Industries Inc., et al.," which effectively
defeats the plaintiff's ability to represent a class or serve as
a potential class member.

In June 2003, Danka Industries, a unit of Danka Business Systems
plc, along with American Business Credit Corp., was served with
a putative class action complaint, entitled, "Stephen L.
Edwards, et al., v. Danka Industries, Inc., et al."  The suit --
which was filed with the state court in Tennessee and later
removed to the U.S. District Court for Middle District of
Tennessee -- alleges claims of breach of contract,  fraud/
intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, violation of
the Florida Deception and Unfair Trade Protection Act, and
injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which
the company has opposed.  The company had also filed a motion
for summary judgment, which the plaintiffs had opposed.  

On Oct. 13, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee granted Danka's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims regarding shipping
and handling charges, which served as the basis of the putative
class claim.  

The U.S. District Court ruling effectively defeats Stephen
Edwards' ability to represent a class or serve as a potential
class member, according to Danka Business' Feb. 6, 2008 form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Edwards v. Danka Industries Inc., et al., Case No.
3:03-cv-00575," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Judge John T. Nixon presiding.    

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
         144 Second Avenue North, Suite 200
         Nashville, TN 37201
         Phone: (615) 250-2000
         Fax: (615) 250-2020
         e-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

Representing the company are:  

         Thomas B. Hatch, Esq.
         Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
         2800 LaSalle Plaza
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
         Phone: (612) 349-8500
         e-mail: tbhatch@rkmc.com

              - and -

         Andrew J. Pulliam, Esq.
         Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs
         2525 West  End Avenue, Suite 1500
         Nashville, TN 37203-1423
         Phone: (615) 244-0020
         e-mail: apulliam@wyattfirm.com

    
DEVRY: Plaintiffs in "Daghlian" Case Appeal Dismissal of Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter, "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," are appealing a
ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California that granted motions for summary judgment filed by
DeVry, Inc. and DeVry Universtiy, Inc., in the lawsuit, which
accuses them of violating state education laws.

Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University
campus, filed a lawsuit over the defendants' alleged violations
of state education laws.  Originally, Ms. Daghlian brought the
putative class action in the California state district court for
the County of Los Angeles.  The case was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  

Mr. Daghlian alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to
students did not comply with California state statutes including
a California Education Code requirement to provide a specified
statement to prospective students concerning the transferability
of credits.   

On June 11, 2007, the District Court issued an Order certifying
a class under the California Unfair Competition Law, California
Business & Professions Code, section 17200 (UCL), comprised of
students who enrolled and paid tuition at a California DeVry
school in the four years prior to the date when the suit was
filed.  

In October 2007, at DeVry's request, the Court entered a Summary
Judgment and dismissed all of Mr. Daghlian's class claims under
the UCL, on the grounds that the statutory provisions of the
California Education Code underlying Mr. Daghlian's claims
unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state regionally
accredited universities, in violation of the Dormant Commerce
Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

The Court also entered judgment in DeVry's favor on
Mr. Daghlian's individual claim under the California Education
Code.  Mr. DeVry had contended that the California Education
Code compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.    

In additionally, the Court vacated the existing trial schedule
and granted DeVry leave to file a second motion for summary
judgment directed to Mr. Daghlian's remaining individual claims
under the UCL and False Advertising Law.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to
the company's Feb 7, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2007.

The suit is "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Margaret M.
Morrow presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael D. Braun, Esq.
         Braun Law Group
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone:  310-442-7755
         e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

              - and -

         Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
         Janet L. Spielberg Law Offices
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone: 310-392-8801
         e-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Van T. Lam, Esq.
         Reed Smith
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
         Phone: 213-457-8000



HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL: Faces MN Suit Over Improper, Abusive Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Homecomings Financial Network, LLC f/k/a Homecomings Financial
Network, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging it
charges improper, abusive fees to drive homebuyers into default,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to CourtHouse, among the abuses, plaintiffs say, are
illegal, excessive fees for electronic processing of mortgage
payments, and "multiple, unnecessary 'property inspection' fees,
sometimes on a monthly basis, and sometimes multiple times in
one month. When customers call to ask why the fee was assessed,
Homecomings responds that it needs to confirm that someone is
still living in the house."

The complaint alleges Homecomings has engaged in a nationwide
scheme of illegal, unfair, unlawful, and deceptive business
practices that violate both federal and state law in the
servicing of home-secured loan transactions and in the provision
of certain related services.

Homecomings has carried out this scheme by means of a centrally
controlled set of policies and practices, and implements the
scheme with form documents, form notices and uniform deceptive
accounting mechanisms.

Homecomings rountinely seeks to collect and does collect various
improper fees, costs and charges, including inspection fees,
late fees, unneccessary "force-place insurance" premiums, and
fees for using its "Speedpay" automated system, which fees and
charges are either not legally due or are in excess of amounts
legally due.

The complaint asserts that Homecomings assesses these improper
fees, costs and charges to borrowers' accounts in order to
maximize its profits, and with the goal of putting borrowers
into default status. It then demands, payoff statements, court
pleadings, collection letters and collection calls. Homecomings
then collects the improper charges from borrowers' monthly
payments, and through recovery from the proceeds of foreclosure
sales and loan payoffs.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose
loans were serviced by Homecomings, and were assessed improper
late fees, default-related fees not authorized by the loan
terms, and were subject to any of the additional practices that
are the subject of this complaint.

Additional practices that are the subject of the complaint
means:

     (a) assessment of improper and excessive force-placed
         hazard insurance premiums;

     (b) assessment of charges for unnecessary and unauthorized
         property inspections;

     (c) improper and excessive assessment of late fees; and

     (d) unauthorized and excessive "speedpay" and other
         electronic payment processing fees.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (1) whether Homecomings has sought and collected fees and
         charges not authorized by the loan contract or not
         legally due and owing;

     (2) whether Homecomings charged borrowers for unnecessary
         force-placed insurance, and collected excessive amounts
         for force-placed insurance, premiums for which it
         received an improper payment from the insurer;

     (3) whether Homecomings charged borrowers unauthorized and
         excessive "speedpay" and other electronic payment
         processing fees;

     (4) whether Homecomings issued monthly statements that
         failed to include accurate and required account
         information;

     (5) whether Homecomings assessed charges for unnecessary
         and unauthorized property inspections;

     (6) whether Homecomings assessed improper and excessive
         late fees;

     (7) whether Homecomings has engaged in systematic improper
         collection practices in violation of the FDCPA;

     (8) whether Homecomings' unauthorized  and inflated charges
         routinely led to inaccurate loan balances, in violation
         of TILA; and

     (9) whether Homecomings' conduct violated the various laws,
         contracts and applicable standards of conduct as set
         forth in the complaint.

Plaintiffs request that the court certify a class pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)91),(2) and (3) and award:

     -- actual, special and general damages according to proof;

     -- statutory damages and penalties;

     -- restitution and disgorgement according to proof;

     -- injunctive relief against defendant to ensure uniform
        standards of servicing conduct towards all class members
        and to prevent future wrongful conduct;

     -- predjugment interest at the maximum legal rate;

     -- punitive, exemplary and enhanced damages according to
        proof;

     -- an accounting;

     -- declaratory judgment as necessary to correct the wrongs
        inflicted on them;

     -- litigation expenses and costs of the proceedings;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- all such other and further relief as the court deems
        just.

The suit is "Louis Motley et al. v. Homecomings Financial, LLC,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Douglas L. Micko, Esq.
          Sprenger & Lang PLLC
          310 Fourth Avenue, south, Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Phone: (612) 871-8910
          Fax: (612) 871-9270
          e-mail: dmciko@sprengerlang.com


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Nev. Court Denies Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Nevada court denied a motion for class certification in the
matter, "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming Inc., et al.," which names
International Game Technology, Inc., as defendant.
  
The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their
fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the
approval of the merger transaction between Acres Gaming and
International Game and sought to enjoin and void the merger
agreement among other forms of relief.   

The other defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Floyd W. Glisson,
     -- Todd L. Bice,
     -- Roger B. Hammock,
     -- Richard Furash,
     -- David R. Willensky,
     -- Robert W. Brown, and
     -- Ronald G. Bennett.

To recall, on Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied the plaintiff's
motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Acres
stockholders from voting on the merger.  The plaintiff then
requested the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the
TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the
merger.  The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition.

In November 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to
recover damages.  The defendants then pointed to the amended
complaint's failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.  Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint on Sept. 9, 2004.

On April 7, 2006, the defendants filed a Notice of Removal to
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  The plaintiff
filed a motion to remand the action to state court, which was
granted by order dated Aug. 15, 2006.  Thus, on Nov. 30, 2006,
the case was transferred to business court and discovery
continues.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Oct. 5,
2007, which was denied by decision dated Dec. 4, 2007, according
to the company's Feb. 6, 2008 form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al., Case No.  
P03-A-470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District Court,
Judge Michelle Leavitt presiding.   

Representing the defendants are:

         Paul R. Hejmanowski, Esq.
         Lionel Sawyer & Collins
         1700 Bank America Plaza
         300 S. Fourth Street
         Las Vegas, NV 89101
         Phone: (702) 383-8880
         Fax: (702) 383-8845
         e-mail: phejmanowski@lionelsawyer.com


MARYLAND: MHEC, Officials Face Litigation Over Academic Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Maryland Higher Education Commission, several of its
commissioners, and Maryland's Higher Education Secretary James
E. Lyons, faces a purported class action that was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, The Baltimore
Business Journal reports.

The federal lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, aims
to shut down a handful of academic programs offered at five
Maryland universities and redirect the money spent on them to
the state's historically black colleges and universities.

The Baltimore Business Journal report indicated the suit was
filed by the Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Maryland
Higher Education, a group that lobbies on behalf of historically
black colleges and universities.

According to the suit, the state has violated federal laws by
allowing predominantly white public schools to develop programs
already offered by nearby historically black colleges and
universities.  No specific amount to be redirected to the
schools was stated in the litigation.

The lawsuit started out as a dispute over the legality of a
joint MBA program at the University of Baltimore and Towson
University, but later ballooned into a case pitting the minority
schools against the state's top higher education officials,
according to The Baltimore Business Journal report.

Since 2002, the state has made a concerted effort to shore up
underfunded historically black colleges and universities with
nearly $450 million in funds.  

However, minority leaders contend that despite such spending,
the schools are still lagging behind the state's predominantly
white public universities in funding, enrollment, retention and
graduation rates.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Court Mulls Appeal in Dismissed Ariz. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet
to rule on an appeal against the dismissal by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona of the consolidated securities
fraud class action, "Siracusano, et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives,
Inc. et al."

In April and May 2004, two class actions were filed against the
company, its president and chief executive officer, Carl J.
Johnson, and its executive vice president and chief financial
officer, William J. Hemelt, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  

On Jan. 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court
appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff.  The
consolidated case is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
Inc., et al., Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," and was filed with
the U.S. District Court for District of Arizona.

An amended complaint, filed March 4, 2005, included the
company's vice president of research and development, Timothy L.
Clarot, as a defendant.   

The lawsuit alleges that between October 2003 and February 2004,
the company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy product, including failing to
adequately disclose to the public the details of allegations
that the company's products caused damage to the sense of smell
and of certain of the product liability lawsuits in faces.  

By order dated Dec. 15, 2005, the court dismissed the case
without prejudice.   

On April 3, 2006, the plaintiff appealed the Order to the U.S.   
District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 6,
2008 form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
al., Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," filed with the U.S. District
Court for District of Arizona, Judge Mary H. Murguia presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         401 B St., Ste 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         e-mail: LukeO@Lerachlaw.com

              - and -
       
         Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC
         2901 N Central Ave, Ste. 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         Fax: 602-274-1199
         e-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
        
Representing the company are:  

         Maureen Beyers, Esq.
         Osborn Maledon, P.A.
         2929 North Central Avenue
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794
         Phone: 602-640-9305
         Fax: 602-664-2053
         e-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com

              - and -

         Amy J. Longo
         O'Melveny & Myers
         610 Newport Center Dr., 17th Floor
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Phone: 949-823-7175
         Fax: 949-823-6994
         e-mail: alongo@omm.com


MEMORY GARDENS: Fin'l Firms Blamed for Helping Couple Raid Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen & Malad LLP filed a class-action suit with the U.S.
District Court in Indianapolis against New York-based Smith
Barney and a Noblesville bank formerly known as Community Trust
& Investment Co., seeking more than $20 million from a pair of
financial-services firms it says facilitated the transactions
that allowed a New Jersey couple to plunder cemetery trust
funds, Louis Jones of the Indiana Business Journal reports.

The suit is filed on behalf of thousands of customers of
Indianapolis-based Memory Gardens Management Corp., which owns
Forest LawnMemory Gardens in Greenwood, Lincoln Memory Gardens
in Boone County and other cemeteries.

According to the report, the case is the latest fallout from a
massive fraud investigators say was perpetrated by the New
Jersey couple, Robert Nelms and Debora Johnson, who in 2004
agreed to acquire Memory Gardens by making a $13 million down
payment and promising to pay the remainder of the $27 million
purchase price over time.

The suit says the couple came up with the down payment by taking
out a short-term loan from a Smith Barney customer who was in on
the scheme.

Marion County prosecutors last month charged Mr. Nelms, 39, and
Ms. Johnson, 48, with nine felony counts each. Investigators say
the pair raided $24 million in trust funds that were supposed to
maintain cemetery grounds and cover prepaid burials and
funerals, the report said.

According to the 17-page suit, the misconduct would not have
been possible had a Smith Barney broker not conspired with the
couple and encouraged them to find a new bank to serve as
trustee that would permit the improper transactions.

According to the suit, Smith Barney advised the couple that
Forethought would not go along "with the unlawful diversion of
trust funds" that led to Community Trust's selection as trustee.

The Smith Barney broker Mr. Nelms and Ms. Johnson worked with
was Mark Singer, a Philadelphia-area man who was charged last
spring with theft, conspiracy and money-laundering in a similar
cemetery trust fund scheme in Tennessee, Mr. Jones reports.

Cohen & Malad attorney Richard Shevitz said the suit seeks $22
million diverted from the funds, plus other damages.

To contact Mr. Shevitz:

          Richard Shevitz, Esq.
          Cohen & Malad, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
          Phone: 317-636-6481  
          Fax: 317-636-2593
          e-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com  
          Web site: http://www.cohenandmalad.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Wash. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Vista" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington recently heard arguments from both sides
of lawsuit over Microsoft Corp.'s "Windows Vista Capable"
stickers should be granted class-action status, The Joseph
Tartakoff of The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports.

The hearing, which was held last week, will determine whether
the lawsuit merited class-action status and whether Washington
law applied.

                        Case Background

The suit, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," was filed by Dianne L. Kelley on March 29, 2007.  Her
legal representative in the case is the law firm of Gordon
Murray Tilden LLP (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2007).

Prior to the availability of Vista, Microsoft launched a
marketing campaign that allowed PC makers to place a sticker on
computers alerting potential buyers that they could upgrade to
Vista when it became available (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3,
2007).

Generally, Microsoft defines a PC as "Windows Vista Capable"
when it uses "at least" an 800MHz processor, 512 megabytes of
RAM, and DirectX 9 compatible graphics card.

However, according to the suit, "a large number" of those PCs
were only capable of running the Home Basic version of Vista,
which lacks many of the features, such as media center, and
enhanced graphics, which Microsoft advertises as included in
Vista.

It was reported that when Microsoft later offered buyers of
"Windows Vista Capable" computers free or reduced-price upgrades
to Vista, the company offered Home Basic to many customers.

Additionally, the suit claims that Bill Gates contributed to the
deception by saying on NBC's Today Show, PC users could upgrade
to Windows Vista for just $100.   

A jury trial on the matter is scheduled to begin on Oct. 27,
2008 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007).

                         Recent Hearing

The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports that during his opening
presentation, plaintiffs' lawyer Jeffrey Tilden, Esq. of Gordon
Tilden Thomas & Cordell quoted from numerous internal e-mails
that appeared to show that employees within Microsoft had
misgivings about the "Windows Vista Capable" campaign.  The
documents are under seal pending a ruling by Judge Pechman.

Quoting extensively from internal company e-mails, Mr. Tilden
argued that the company knowingly misled consumers by allowing
PC makers to emblazon "Windows Vista Capable" stickers on PCs
that could run only the most bare-bones version of the operating
system.

In the hearing both sides were given 40 minutes to make their
cases, according to The Seattle Post Intelligencer.  

For his part, Stephen Rummage, Esq., of Davis Wright Tremaine,
which is representing Microsoft, argued that the case did not
merit class-action status, since each customer who bought a
"Windows Vista Capable" computer had different information at
the time of the purchase, The Seattle Post Intelligencer
reports.

For instance, a Microsoft Web site provided information about
the various editions of Vista, while magazines, blogs, and even
some retailers also explained the distinctions.

Mr. Rummage pointed out, "We know that there was a wealth of
information available to the public."  He adds, "They have not
presented the court with a single document showing what people
were told."

However, plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey Thomas countered that it
made sense for the case, which was filed by two plaintiffs, to
proceed as a class action, since all the individuals who bought
"Windows Vista Capable" PCs were united in that "each person in
our class did not get what they paid for."

Judge Pechman said she would issue a ruling on the matter on
class certification in about 10 days, The Seattle Post
Intelligencer reports.

The suit is “Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          e-mail: office@gmtlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com


MORGAN STANLEY: $16MM Settlement of Calif. Gender Bias Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted preliminary approval to a proposed
$16 million settlement of a class action filed against Morgan
Stanley alleging gender discrimination under state and federal
law, Bloomberg News reports.

On June 22, 2006, Morgan Stanley was named in two purported
class actions alleging gender discrimination under various state
and federal statutes.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia granted final approval to the settlement
reached in "Joanne Augst-Johnson v. Morgan Stanley, Case No. 06-
01142."

The approved settlement resolved all of the class-wide and
individual plaintiffs claims and included, among other things, a
payment to the settlement fund and certain programmatic relief.

All similar class wide claims raised in the second purported
gender class action captioned, "Jaffe, et al. v. Morgan Stanley
DW, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-03903-TEH," which was filed with the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, were subsumed by the Augst-Johnson settlement (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 4, 2008).

On Feb. 7, the court, in issuing preliminary approval, was
"swayed" by an almost identical settlement in October in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, which provided a
similar per-plaintiff award, wrote Judge Thelton Henderson.

At that time, the second-biggest U.S. securities firm by market
value agreed to pay $46 million in a suit claiming it
discriminated against women.

According to Bloomberg's Nancy Kercheval the settlement resolves
a class-action lawsuit filed in California by three women on
behalf of 1,300 black and Latino workers claiming they received
less pay and fewer promotions than whites. Morgan Stanley denied
any wrongdoing.

A hearing was scheduled for June 16 to determine final approval
for the settlement proposal, the report said.

The suit is "Jaffe, et al v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., Case
Number: 3:2006cv03903," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Californi, the Hon. Thelton E.
Henderson, presiding.


NATIONAL MUTUAL: Faces OH Suit Over Vehicle Liability Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
National Mutual Insurance Co. and its affiliates are facing a
class-action complaint filed Feb. 7 in the Court of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio over alleged refusal in bad faith
to compensate policyholders for expenses and wages lost to
attend mandatory legal hearings for their vehicle liability
claims, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Emma Negron brings this suit on behalf of all
policyholders and other "insured" persons who, form and after
Feb. 7, 1993, did not receive contractual reimbursements due to
them under the Auto Liability Coverage Agreement section of
defendants' motor vehicle insurance policies.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
continue to issue or have issued thousands of motor vehicle
insurance policies, including Auto Liability Coverage Agreement
provisions, to policyholders in the State of Ohio, which
defendants drafted, issued and retained copies of, containing
policy terms which are the same or substantially similar to the
relevant portions of the policy language cited in the complaint.

Ms. Negron wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants' failure to reimburse insureds, in
         addition to the policy Limits of Liability, for
         mileage, parking and other private or public
         transportation expenses incurred by the insureds for
         required attendance at conferences, depositions,
         arbitrations, hearings or trial is a breach of the
         insurance contracts issued by defendants;

     (b) whether defendants' failure to reimburse insureds for
         postage and delivery expenses, in addition to the
         policy Limits of Liability, is a breach of the
         insurance contracts issued by defendants;

     (c) whether the named plaintiff and the classes were
         adequately and fully informed of the first-party policy
         expense reimbursement and provided Proof of Claim forms
         or alternative means of notification and expense
         determination whenever defendants requested their
         insureds to attend conferences, depositions,
         arbitrations, hearings or trials;

     (d) whether defendant companies' bad faith conduct is
         uniformly and systematically carried out in a concerted
         manner by and for each defendant;

     (e) whether defendants have engaged in a course of conduct
         in establishing claims handling practices designed to
         avoid and conceal their contractual obligations and
         avoid and conceal their obligation to reimburse the
         travel related expenses and postage owed under the Auto
         Liability overage Agreement provision of their
         policies;

     (f) whether defendants' established practices constitute a
         violation of their fiduciary obligation to act in good
         faith and to engage in fair dealing with insureds;

     (g) whether the named plaintiff and the classes have
         sustained damages and the proper measure of those
         damages;

     (h) whether the named plaintiff and the classes are
         entitled to an award of punitive damages against
         defendants; and

     (i) whether the named plaintiff and the classes are
         entitled to recover their costs, attorneys' fees and
         prejugdment interest.

Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment as follows:

     -- determining that the action is properly maintained as a
        class action, certifying the class; certifying the named
        plaintiff as class representative; and appointing the4
        named plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- awarding compensatory damages, appropriate punitive
        damages, attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- awarding pre-judgment interest from the date each class
        member's lawsuit was dismissed and closed;

     -- awarding suitable equitable and declaratory relief; and

     -- providing such other and further relief as is just and
        appropriate.

The suit is "Emma Negron et al. v. Nationwide Property &
Casualty Insurance Co., Case No. CV 08 650310," filed with the
Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          W. Craig Bashein, Esq.
          Bashein & Bashein Co., LPA
          Terminal Tower, 35th Floor
          50 Public Square
          Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2216
          Phone: (216) 771-3239
          Fax: ((216) 771-5876
          e-mail: cbashein@basheinlaw.com


ONTARIO: Court to Decide on Suit on Behalf of Autistic Children
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Court of Appeal will decide if a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of autistic children seeking treatment within
the public school system in the province can continue, Shannon
Kari writes for Canwest News.

The Canwest report says that this week, a three-judge panel will
hear an appeal of a Superior Court decision in March 2007 that
allowed part of the lawsuit to continue, based on allegations
that the current policy violates the equality provisions of the
Charter of Rights.

According to the Canadian Press, five families are trying to sue
the Ontario government and seven school boards for negligence
and damages, accusing them of failing to provide or properly
fund expensive therapies in schools.

The Ontario government had sought to dismiss the legal action
entirely, arguing that the issue has already been decided by a
Court of Appeal ruling in 2006 involving age cut-offs for
publicly funded autism treatment.  According to Canwest, the
Ontario government eliminated the age restriction for intensive
behavioral intervention treatment for autistic children,
although the programs are outside of the school setting.

The parents represented in the class action lawsuit, however,
are asking for the same treatment for their children as for
students with other disabilities, Canwest says.

Canadian Press recalls that the families filed the
CDN$1.25-billion lawsuit, which has yet to be certified as a
class action, arguing their children were victims of
discrimination because other kids with special needs receive
both therapy and their education within the publicly-funded
school system.  

In March 2007, however, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maurice
Cullity sided with the provincial government in striking down
several of the key claims, including negligence and damages.  
Judge Cullity, though, let stand the discrimination claim and by
later dismissing the province's demand for CDN$85,000 in legal
costs, he recognized the public importance of the issue and gave
hope to the families that they might still have a case.

"We feel our children are entitled to an education, the same as
every other child," Lynn Shane, whose son is autistic, told
Canwest.  She said that the province is funding over 20 hours of
IBI treatment weekly for her son, but the treatment is not
within a school setting.

David Baker, a lawyer representing the parents, said parents are
put in a difficult spot as they have to choose whether to
receive the therapy or education for their children, when they
could have both.

Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America that does not
deliver IBI treatment through the education system, Mr. Baker
told Canwest.  He pointed out that there are only two children
in the province who are receiving IBI therapy while attending a
public school full-time, and noted that they have been highly
successful.

Canwest recalls that before the provincial election last year,
the provincial Liberals promised CDN$10 million to fund IBI
therapy in schools, in addition to the CDN$130 million the
government is currently spending annually on autism treatment.

Patricia MacNeil, a spokeswoman for the provincial Ministry of
Education, explained that the pledge was a "platform commitment"
of the Liberal party and the ministry is now "working on
delivering on the commitment."  She said, however, that it will
take a while as there are challenges with it, such as
appropriate space to provide IBI therapy in a school.

The Court of Appeal is expected to hand down its decision on
whether the class action lawsuit can go ahead after hearing
arguments.


PINNACLE LAS VEGAS: Faces Lawsuit Over Construction Delays
----------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Las Vegas LLC was recently slapped with a class action
lawsuit by frustrated buyers, Tony Illia of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal reports.

According to the report, the proposed $740-million condominium-
hotel development at Tropicana Avenue and Cameron Street was
first announced in 2005.  Three years later, however,
construction has not been completed.

The project, Review-Journal relates, has changed contractors
three times in three years.  Dick Pacific Construction, a unit
of Pittsburgh-based Dick Corp., replaced Marnell Corrao
Associates as builder in mid-2007.  Both builders were preceded
by Turner Construction Co.  Dick Pacific, who came aboard last
summer, is also a project partner, the report explains.

Green Cable LLC last month sued the project's development team
for breach of contract, Review-Journal says.  It is seeking at
least $5 million in returned deposits, damages and attorney's
fees.  The lawsuit alleges that buyers bought units with the
understanding that Pinnacle would open by August.

Pinnacle's design calls for two 36-story, faceted gold glass
towers connected by three sky bridges.  The twin skyscrapers,
designed by YWS Architects, contain 1,100 condo-hotel units that
allow buyers to rent out residences as guest rooms when not in
use.  The concept allows home buyers to generate revenue from
their units to help offset the purchase price.  Project plans
additionally entail resort-like amenities, including a three-
acre wet-deck, restaurants, boutiques, a fitness center and a
spa.

&Opportunities, the real-estate brokerage firm of Sam Schwartz,
a principal in Green Cable LLC, represents 16 buyers who each
paid 10% deposits for units priced from the $300,000s to more
than $1 million.  Their agreements contained an addendum with
developer benchmarks.  For instance, Pinnacle must deliver 306
purchase pacts or it can be found in default.  It must also
break ground within a certain time frame.

Review-Journal says that the lawsuit also claims that the
project site is contaminated with high benzene levels as a
result of dropping ground water levels.  The environmental issue
has yet to be resolved, it adds.

"Our initial review is that this action is without merit," said
Cynthia LaVasseur, Esq., an attorney representing the
defendants, which include 4645 Tropicana Partners LLC, Dick
Pacific, Falconi Group, Elysium Enterprises, and Praxis
Resources LLC.  The defendants intend to file a request to
dismiss the lawsuit.

Pinnacle's current construction status is unknown, the report
notes.  The project originally was scheduled to break ground in
the fall of 2006 -- a date that has since changed repeatedly.
The most recent announcement, released in October 2007, says
groundbreaking will occur by mid 2008.  Officials have yet to
publicly announce a construction loan.

The defendants are represented by:

          Cynthia LeVasseur, Esq.
          Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P.
          3883 Howard Hughes Parkway
          Suite 1000
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Phone: (702) 784-5234
          Fax: (702) 784-5252
          e-mail: clevasseur@swlaw.com


PLEXUS CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plexus Corp. faces a consolidated securities fraud class action
that remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's
Feb. 6, 2008 form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Initially, two securities class actions were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 25
and June 29, 2007, against the Company and certain Company
officers and directors.

On Nov. 7, 2007, the two actions were consolidated, and a
consolidated class-action complaint was filed on Feb. 1, 2008.

Aside from the Company, the consolidated complaint names these
individuals as defendants:

       -- Dean A. Foate, President, Chief Executive Officer and    
          a Director of the Company;

       -- F. Gordon Bitter, the Company's former Senior Vice
          President and Chief Financial Officer; and

       -- Paul Ehlers, the Company's former Executive Vice
          President and Chief Operating Officer.

The consolidated complaint alleges securities law violations and
seeks unspecified damages relating generally to the Company's
statements regarding its defense sector business in early
calendar 2006.

The suit is "Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension
Trust, et al. v. Plexus Corp., et al.," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Ave.
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 866-264-3995
          Fax: 414-482-8001
          e-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com

               - and -

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631.367.7100
          Fax: 631.367.1173
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/


REALTYSOUTH: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Suit Over ABC Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a
lower court decision that denied class-action status to a
lawsuit filed against RealtySouth over its $149 mandatory add-on
fee, Kenneth R. Harney of The Washington Post Writers Group.

The suit was originally filed with a federal court by Vicki B.
Busby of Jefferson, Alabama.  It was intended to cover all
consumers forced to pay what the brokerage firm termed its ABC
fee -– an administrative brokerage commission.

Ms. Busby alleges in the suit that in addition to paying a
substantial commission to the Birmingham-based broker, and its
sales agent, she was also required to pay the ABC fee.

She contends that there was no evidence that the firm had
actually performed any extra services -- above and beyond the
brokerage services compensated by the commissions -- and
therefore the ABC fee violated federal law.

The federal court refused to grant class-action status to the
case, which thus forced Ms. Busby to appeal the matter to the
Eleventh Circuit.

In siding with Ms. Busby, the appeals court ruled that the lower
court had erred in not considering the factual issue -- was any
specific work done to justify the extra charge? -- in making its
decision to deny the request for class-action status.  The
recent ruling brings the case back to the district court,
according to Kenneth R. Harney of The Washington Post Writers
Group.

The case is the latest in a long-running battle pitting realty,
mortgage and title companies against consumers protesting so-
called junk fees and settlement sheet add-ons.

In the past, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has
ruled that any fee imposed in connection with a residential real
estate transaction must be for services actually rendered.  Some
federal courts have disagreed with HUD's interpretation of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, while others have agreed.

According to Washington attorney Phillip L. Schulman of K&L
Gates, an authority on real estate settlement issues, in Busby
ruling, the appeals court seems to have "bolstered HUD's
interpretation that if a real estate broker cannot produce
evidence of the services it performed for the administrative (or
other add-on) fees it charges, a violation may exist."

In an interview with Kenneth R. Harney of The Washington Post
Writers Group, Mr. Schulman pointed out that the court's ruling
is not the final word on the matter, but it "underscores the
importance of performing actual services in exchange for" fees
charged in connection with real estate and mortgage
transactions.


RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Seeks Dismissal of Mo. Suit Over Odors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Environmental Solutions is seeking for the dismissal
of a purported class action filed against the company, which is
alleging that odors from its Carthage, Missouri plant are a
nuisance and that the company has been negligent, John Hacker of
The Carthage Press reports.

The RES plant takes waste turkey parts and other agricultural
waste and turns it into a fuel oil using what it calls a thermal
conversion process.

The plant has been cited by the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources several times since it opened in April 2003, and was
forced to shut down for a time by the state in 2005, according
to The Carthage Press.

The suit was filed with the Jasper County Circuit Court by
Cynthia Sundy on June 5, 2007.  Ms. Sundy -- represented by Ron
Jones, Esq. of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles
-- seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney
fees (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2007).

Ms. Sundy the odor from RES "has injured area residents and
property owners by diminishing their right to enjoy their
property and diminished their property values."

She asked that that the case be declared as a class action, and
that the class include about half the city of Carthage.  The
filing noted that there are potentially 6,375 people in 2,406
households in the area affected by the odor from RES.

According to The Carthage Press, in July 2007, the Jasper County
Circuit Court granted an RES motion to send the case to federal
court, but in October 2007, the federal court sent the case back
to Jasper County at the request of Ms. Sundy's attorneys.

The Carthage Press reports that RES filed a motion to dismiss
the case in November 2007, but no decision on that motion was
listed in the court records on the Internet.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rhon Jones, Esq.
          Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Phone: (334) 269-2343 or (800) 898-2034
          Fax: (334) 954-7555
          e-mail: rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Defective Blu-Ray Players, Prompts NJ Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey accusing it of selling defective Blu-Ray Disc
Players, CourtHouse News Service reports.

CourtHouse notes that, according to the complaint, Samsung
Electronics sells defective Blu-Ray Disc Players that "will not
play numerous Blu-ray disc titles."

Lead attorneys Chimicles & Tikellis, of Haverford, Pa., claim
Samsung has sold the defective goods since June 2006, knowing
they are defective, and that Samsung's defective players account
for "32% of set-top player sales."

According to the complaint, defendant's actions in selling the
Defective Blu-ray Disc Players without disclosing this material
defect, and failing to issue firmware updates or otherwise
promptly take corrective action to repair and replace the
Defective Bluray Disc Players with this known defect were
negligent, reckless and in breach its statutory and common law
duties, and express and implied warranties to its customers.

Named plaintiff Robert T. McGovern brings this suit as a class
action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and
23(b)(3), on behalf of all persons in the United States who
purchased any of the Defendant's Defective Blu-ray Disc Players.

Mr. McGovern wants the court to rule on:

     (a) Whether Defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer
         Fraud Act by selling Defective Blu-ray Disc Players;

     (b) Whether Defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer
         Fraud Act in failing to warn its customers in a timely
         and effective manner of the compatibility issued
         regarding its Defective Bluray Disc Players;

     (c) Whether Defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer
         Fraud Act in failing to take appropriate remedial
         measures to fix the Defective Blu-ray Disc Players;

     (d) Whether Defendant breached express and/or implied
         warranties relating to the sale of its Defective Blu-
         ray Disc Players;

     (e) Whether Defendant breached any express or implied
         warranties when they manufactured and sold the
         Defective Blu-ray Disc Players;

     (f) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief;
         and

     (g) the appropriate measurement of restitution and/or
         measure of damages to award to Plaintiff and members of
         the Class.

Plaintiff requests, on behalf of himself and members of the
Class, that the Court:

     -- determine that the claims alleged herein may be
        maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2),
        and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
        and issue order certifying the Class as defined;

     -- award all actual, general, special, incidental,
        statutory, and consequential damages to which Plaintiff
        and Class members are entitled;

     -- award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such
        monetary relief;

     -- grant appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief,
        including, without limitation, an order that requires
        Defendant to repair and replace its Defective Blu-ray
        Disc Players;

     -- award reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and

     -- grant such further and other relief that this Court
        deems appropriate.

The suit is "Robert T. McGovern et al. v. Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., Case No. 2:08-cv-00663-JAG-MCA," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Tel: 610-642-8500
          Fax: 610-649-3633
          e-mail: JosephSauder@chimicles.com
                  BenJohns@chimicles.com

          Arthur L. Shingler III
          Scott + Scott, LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel.: 619-233-4565
          Fax: 619-233-0508
          e-mail: ashingler@scott-scott.com

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          108 Norwich Avenue
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Tel.: 860-537-5537
          Fax.: 860-537-4432

          - and -

          Beth Kaswan, Esq.
          29 West 57th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Tel: 212-223-6444
          Fax: 212-223-6334


SANTEE COOPER: Faces Utility Rate Increase Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
A rate increase lawsuit was filed against state-owned Santee
Cooper utility, The Post and Courier reports.

According to the report, the utility is being sued over an
electric rate increase that plaintiffs allege was approved as a
temporary increase to pay for a building program but continued
after the project was paid for.  The class-action lawsuit would
affect some 6,000 residential and individual business customers
in Berkeley County, among 150,000 customers who would get a
payback on electric bills dating to 1994 or 1995.

Other customers potentially involved in the class-action lawsuit
are in Georgetown and Horry counties.  The Post and Courier
clarifies that the suit affects only the utility's own
customers, not electric cooperative customers using Santee
Cooper power.  The suit was filed in Horry County.

In its motion to dismiss the suit, Santee Cooper attorneys
maintained that "there is a careful and deliberate process in
place to review and make adjustments on a rate adjustment" and
that concerns with the rate increase should have been raised
during the comment period 12 years ago.

"Our position is, we represent a class of retail customers who
have been wronged by Santee Cooper.  Their position is, wrong or
not, they can't be sued," Gedney Howe III, of Charleston, the
plaintiff's lead attorney, avers.  "They don't think there is a
legal remedy. We think there is."

The report says that Civil Chief Administrative Judge J. Michael
Baxley did not rule from the bench after hearing attorneys from
both sides.  The ruling is expected within a few weeks.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gedney M. Howe, III, Esq.
          Gedney M. Howe, III, P.A.
          8 Chalmers Street P.O. Box 1034
          Charleston, South Carolina 29402
          Phone: (843) 722-8048
          Fax: (843) 722-2140
          e-mail: cmwwest@aol.com


SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Pa. Couples Files Suit Over Paid Mortgages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two couples from the County of Berks, in Pennsylvania, filed
purported class actions against SunTrust Mortgage Inc., and
mortgage broker, Wesley Snyder, The Associated Press reports.

Mr. Snyder is awaiting sentencing on fraud charges.  He stands
accused of running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded homeowners, and
investors out of more than $29 million over two decades.  

AP reports that the 71-year-old pleaded guilty to a federal
charge of mail fraud and will be sentenced in March 2007.  He
faces up to 30 years in prison.

In the lawsuit, AP says, the two couples claim that they were
cheated by Mr. Snyder, and SunTrust Mortgage.  They are seeking
credit for tens of thousands of dollars they say they paid on
their mortgages.

However, SunTrust is claiming it never got the money from the
two couples and is now demanding it, according to the AP report.

The suits also seek class-action status for all Pennsylvania
mortgage customers whom SunTrust got through Mr. Snyder's
company, which collapsed in September 2007, AP reports.

  
TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Working to Settle Va. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter, "Shiring v. Tier Technologies, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01276-TSE-BRP," are in the process of
resolving that lawsuit, which remains pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

On Nov. 10, 2006, a law firm issued a press release stating that
a class action had been filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Tier
Technologies, Inc.'s common stock from Nov. 29, 2001, to
Oct. 25, 2006.

According to the press release, the suit alleges that Tier and
certain of its former and current officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, but did not
identify the level of damages being sought.  

Lead counsel The Rosen Law Firm as Lead Counsel filed in
February 2007 an amended complaint and a motion to certify the
lawsuit as a class action.  On July 24, 2007, however, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied
certification for the purported class action.

On Dec. 3, 2007, at the defendant's request, the court dismissed
the amended complaint, but permitted the plaintiff an
opportunity to file another amended complaint.  

Currently, the parties are in the process of resolving that
lawsuit, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Feb. 6, 2008.

The suit is "Shiring v. Tier Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01276-TSE-BRP," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge T. S. Ellis, III
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Phone: (212) 686-1060, (917) 797-4425 or 1866-767-3653            
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

Representing the defendants is:
  
          Nicholas Ian Porritt, Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC
          1700 K. St. NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20006-3817
          Phone: (703) 734-3100
          Fax: 703-973-8899


* UK Should Not Follow U.S. Class Action Procedures, CJC Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Procedures governing group actions by United Kingdom consumers
need to be reformed, but should not resemble U.S. class actions,
TheLawyer.com reports, citing results of a research commissioned
by the Civil Justice Council.

Master of the rolls Sir Anthony Clarke said the research made an
important contribution to the debate on what have been loosely
termed class actions in the U.K., The Lawyer notes.

"As the report makes plain, it is clearly not desirable to
import a US-style class action system, nor would it be practical
to do so," said Mr. Clarke.  "However, it is right to consider
whether civil procedure can or should be improved while ensuring
proper protection against unmeritorious claims."

Nina Goswami of The Lawyer writes that the CJC will now consider
the matters that arose from the research and will provide advice
to the Government.  The 170-page report analyzed consumer claims
in common law jurisdictions and in Europe and recommended 19
"building blocks" for improvement.

One major issue discussed in the paper is the opt-in nature of
group litigation orders, the report says.  According to the
research report, around 30% of those who suffered loss decide to
opt in for GLOs.  That said, there have been a total of 62
actions brought since 2000, the year GLOs were introduced.

Law firms that used GLOs said that opt-in did not always suit
the action as it can be difficult to identify all group members
from the outset, The Lawyer relates.  Under U.S.-style class
actions, people have to opt-out if they do not what to be part
of proceedings.  The study suggests that following the US model
to this extent may not be required.


* William Lerach Gets Two-Year Imprisonment for Kickback Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
William S. Lerach, a former partner of the law firm of Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, was sentenced to two years in
prison and ordered to forfeit $7.75 million for concealing
illegal payments to a plaintiff in the class-action lawsuits for
which the firm became famous, Michael Parrish The New York Times
reports.

For the past seven years, Mr. Lerach's name has been associated
with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office into
allegations of improper payments to clients by Milberg Weiss
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 30, 2007).  

Milberg Weiss is accused of reaping $250 million in a scheme in
which it paid clients to act as plaintiffs in securities
lawsuits.  

In October 2007, Mr. Lerach entered his plea of one count of
conspiracy to obstruct justice and make false statements.  Under
the plea deal, Mr. Lerach, who left Milberg Weiss in 2004 and
formed his own firm in California, agreed to forfeit $7.75
million, pay a $250,000 fine and accept a sentence of one or two
years in prison.  His plea deal protects that firm, Coughlin
Stoia, from being charged in the Milberg Weiss case.

Sentencing for Mr. Lerach, who resigned from Coughlin Stoia in  
August, was originally scheduled for Jan. 14, 2008 (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 31, 2007).  It was moved to Feb. 11, 2008 (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2008).

On Feb. 11, 2008, The New York Times reports that Mr. Lerach,
appeared before Judge John F. Walter of U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Monday, and called his
conduct "felony stupid" in brief comments before he was
sentenced.

Mr. Lerach, 61, added that even at the time, "I knew what I did
was wrong" but that he lacked the "strength of character" to not
join with other lawyers in the scheme, according to The New York
Times report.

Judge Walter said that he would have liked to sentence Mr.
Lerach to a "substantially" longer prison term, but deferred to
a plea agreement that was reached  with, which called for a
maximum of two years.  Had the case gone to trial, Mr. Lerach
could have faced up to 50 years, The New York Times reports.

The New York Times reports that the judge was particularly
concerned that Mr. Lerach and his paid plaintiffs had lied to
judges.  

Judge Walter pointed out that "What Lerach and others did goes
to the core" of the legal system.  The judge added that Mr.
Lerach, who accepted disbarment, would never again be able to do
"what he was obviously so good at."

Mr. Lerach, of La Jolla, Calif., admitted to an arrangement in
which his law firm made payments to people to be on call as
plaintiffs in class actions that were filed against publicly
traded companies when their stock dropped in price, according to
The New York Times report.

Prosecutors for the U.S. attorney's office of the Central
District of California, who worked on the case for seven years,
say that Mr. Lerach and others lined up the plaintiffs ahead of
time to gain an illegal advantage over other law firms engaged
in the same suits.  By being designated the lead plaintiff, the
law firm stood to reap a larger share of any eventual lawyers'
fees, The New York Times reports

In his guilty plea, Mr. Lerach admitted to concealing from
federal judges his secret payments to one such plaintiff, Dr.
Steven G. Cooperman.

Prosecutors say that in more than 150 of the firm's class
actions from the 1970s to 2005, the law firm earned more than
$216 million in lawyers' fees, paying $11 million to these on-
call plaintiffs.   The bases for the lawsuits were never in
question, according to reports.

The New York Times reports that Mr. Lerach was also sentenced to
two years of probation and 1,000 hours of community service.  He
was also ordered to pay a $250,000 fine in addition to
forfeiting the $7.75 million.  

He agreed not to appeal his sentencing, but declined to
cooperate with the government on forthcoming prosecutions in the
case.

Mr. Lerach is to report for prison on April 21, 2008.  Judge
Walter agreed to a request that Mr. Lerach serve his sentence at
a minimum-security federal prison at Lompoc, California,
according to The New York Times report.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBAC FINANCIAL: Finkelstein Thompson Files N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
common stock during the period between Oct. 19, 2005, and
Nov. 26, 2007.

The complaint charges Ambac and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Ambac is a holding company whose subsidiaries provide financial
guarantee products and other financial services to clients in
both the public and private sectors around the world.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results related to its
financial exposure on collateralized debt obligations ("CDO")
contracts.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented and concealed the material facts that:

     (i) the Company lacked requisite internal controls to
         ensure that the Company's underwriting standards and
         its internal rating system for its CDO contracts were
         adequate, and, as a result, the Company's projections
         and reported results issued during the Class Period
         were based upon defective assumptions and/or
         manipulated facts;

    (ii) the Company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its mark-to-market losses;

   (iii) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in
         the mortgage market, the Company would be forced to
         tighten its underwriting standards related to its
         asset-backed securities, which would have a direct
         material negative impact on its premium production
         going forward;

    (iv) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
         losses and defaults related to its CDO contracts
         containing subprime loans, including even highly rated
         CDOs, than it had previously disclosed;

     (v) the Company had far greater exposure to a potential
         ratings downgrade from one of the credit ratings
         agencies than it had previously disclosed; and

    (vi) defendants' Class Period statements about the Company's
         selective underwriting practices during the 2005
         through 2007 timeframe related to its CDOs backed by
         subprime assets were patently false; as the Company's
         underwriting standards were at best aggressive and at a
         minimum were completely inadequate.

As the truth began to be disclosed, shares of Ambac common stock
plummeted, causing substantial losses to investors.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Ambac common stock during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 17,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Donald J. Enright
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          Phone: (877) 337-1050
          e-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com
          Web site: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com


MORGAN KEEGAN: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in TN
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Falls & Veach -- with offices in Nashville,
Tennessee and Asheville, North Carolina -- and Schatz Nobel
Izard, P.C., Hartford, Connecticut, announced that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Memphis Division,
against:

     -- Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc.,
     -- Morgan Keegan Asset Management, Inc.,
     -- Regions Financial Corporation and
     -- related companies and officers and directors

The plaintiffs are investors who lost money in the following
Regions Morgan Keegan bond funds:

     -- RMK Advantage Income Fund
     -- RMK Strategic Income Fund
     -- RMK High Income Fund

The lawsuit seeks to represent all persons and entities who
purchased shares of RMA, RSF and RMH during the period December
6, 2004 through December 6, 2007.

The complaint charges the Funds' registrants, the Funds'
administrator, Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., the Funds' adviser,
Morgan Asset Management, Inc., Regions Financial Corp. and
certain of Morgan Keegan's officers and/or directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Complaint alleges that the Funds and the other defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to:

     (i) the nature of the risk being assumed by an investment
         in the Funds,

    (ii) the illiquidity of certain securities in which the
         Funds invested,

   (iii) the extent to which the Funds' portfolios contained
         securities that were illiquid or exhibited the
         characteristics of illiquid securities so that they
         were highly vulnerable to suddenly becoming unsalable
         at the prices at which they were being carried on the
         Funds' records,

    (iv) the extent to which the Funds' portfolios were subject
         to fair value procedures,

     (v) the extent to which the values of such securities, and,
         consequently, the net asset values of the Funds, were
         based on estimates of value and the uncertainty
         inherent in such estimated values, and

    (vi) the concentration of investments in a single industry        
         in excess of investment restrictions to which the Funds
         were subject.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all investors in
the Funds during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than sixty days
from February 7, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

           H. Naill Falls Jr.
           Falls & Veach
           1143 Sewanee Road
           Nashville, Tennessee 37220
           Phone: (615) 242-1826
           Facsimile: (615) 242-1823
           e-mail: nf@fallsveach.com


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Coughlin Stoia Files Ca. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. publicly traded
securities during the period between October 30, 2007 and
February 4, 2008.

The complaint charges SiRF and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

SiRF, through its subsidiaries, engages in the development and
marketing of semiconductor and software products that are
designed to enable location-awareness utilizing global
positioning system and other location technologies worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects. As a result of defendants'
false statements, SiRF stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, permitting one of the defendants
to sell $9.6 million worth of his SiRF stock at $24.18-$24.29
per share.

On February 4, 2008, after the market closed, the Company
announced disappointing financial results for its fourth quarter
and fiscal 2007. On February 5, 2008, SiRF's stock collapsed
$8.91 per share to close at $7.36 per share, a one-day decline
of 54%.

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

     (a) SiRF's acquisition of Centrality Communications, Inc.
         was having an adverse impact on SiRF's results due to
         the similar products sold by Centrality which were
         cannibalizing SiRF's sales;

     (b) SiRF's major customers were not placing orders at
         sufficient quantities for SiRF to meet the aggressive
         targets set by and for the Company;

     (c) Centrality's System-on-Chip ("SoC") product line had
         lower gross margins than SiRF's products and defendants
         knew that although the Centrality acquisition would
         increase revenues in the fourth quarter (as it did), it
         would also significantly lower SiRF's gross margins (as
         it also did);

     (d) competitive pressures were having much more of an
         adverse impact on the Company than acknowledged by
         defendants, as SiRF's customers were moving to
         cellular-enabled products which SiRF could not
         adequately compete with;

     (e) as of October 30, 2007, one month into the fourth
         quarter, fourth quarter gross margins would be down
         significantly because of the lower SoC product line
         margins; and

     (f) downward pricing pressures were accelerating and would
         lead to lower margins and earnings in future quarters.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of SiRF publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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


SUNOPTA INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
SunOpta Inc. between Aug. 8, 2007, and Jan. 25, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges SunOpta and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, Plaintiff claims that Defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business and financial
performance caused SunOpta's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

SunOpta primarily operates as a producer and processor of
natural and organic foods in the United States and Canada. The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company was
experiencing problems with its internal controls and inventory.

On January 24, 2008, following the close of trading, defendants
shocked investors when they published a press release that
revealed, for the first time, that the Company was performing
well below expectations and that defendants expected to cause
the Company to take a material restatement charge in the near
term -- rendering its prior reported financial statements and
reports unreliable, false and materially misleading. The Company
said it expected to post a profit of 12 cents to 14 cents per
share for the year, citing issues within its fruit and
BioProcess groups that led to pretax write-downs and provisions
of $12 million to $14 million. Among problems the Company cited
were inventories within the Company's Fruit Group's berry
operations requiring a write-down to net realizable value,
whereby "preliminary estimates indicated that an adjustment in
the range of $9 to $11 million for this issue and related items
is necessary." The Company disclosed a charge of "approximately
$3 million pre-tax, related to difficulties in collecting for
services and equipment provided to a customer under the terms of
an existing equipment supply contract within the SunOpta
BioProcess Group."

After SunOpta drastically lowered its fiscal 2007 profit
forecast and announced that financial restatements are likely,
shares of SunOpta plunged to a low of $6.05 on January 25, 2008.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm
with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 28,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for District of
Arizona on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of Syntax-Brillian Corp. (NASD: BRLC) pursuant to a
public offering of approximately 25.6 million shares at $5.75
per share on May 24, 2007. The deadline to file a motion seeking
to be represent the class is April 7, 2008.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
filed with the SEC in connection with the May 24, 2007 public
offering contained materially false and misleading statements,
or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements
made not misleading, concerning Syntax-Brillian's revenue
growth, profitability, and its business in China.

On September 12, 2007, Syntax-Brillian announced that the
results for its first quarter 2008, ending on September 30,
2007, would be significantly below expectations. The Company
projected first quarter 2008 revenues of between $170-180
million, when analysts were expecting the Company to report
revenues of $254 million, a shortfall of more than 25%.

On November 11, 2007, the Company announced that revenues for
the quarter ended September 30, 2007, was $150.6 million, a
decline of 26.6% from the previous quarter, and that revenue
from China in the quarter was $14.6 million, compared with $96.8
million in the prior quarter, a decline of approximately 85%.

The Complaint alleges that Syntax-Brillian failed to disclose in
the registration statement and prospectus that while the Company
shipped hundreds of thousands of LCD televisions to its sole
distributor in China during the Class Period, and recorded
hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue in connection with
these shipments, the end-user demand for the Company's LCD
televisions in China was much weaker than what investors were
led to believe.

For more information, contact:

          Kevin McGee, Esq.
          Willy Gonzalez
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Tel.: 800-721-3900
          Tel.: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969
          e-mail: kmcgee@zsz.com
                  wgonzalez@zsz.com
          Web site: http://www.zsz.com




                           *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, 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  * * *