CAR_Public/080218.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, February 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 34
  
                            Headlines

ALLIANZ LIFE: Settles Deferred Annuity Products Suit for $10MM
AZKO NOBEL: April 29 Hearing Set for $23.38M Antitrust Agreement
BASSETTBABY: Recalls Cribs Due to Entrapment, Strangulation Risk
BELL EXPRESSVU: Judge Certifies Suit Over Administrative Fees
BISSELL APARTMENTS: Plaintiff Asks Court to Reconsider Suit

CARLETON FARMS: Mich. Court Holds Hearing for Landfill Lawsuit
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Proposes to Settle Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Faces Canadian Payday Loans Litigation
FLORIDA: Court Certifies Class in Lawsuit Over Medicaid Program
HARMAN INT'L: D.C. Court Dismisses Suit Over KHI Parent Merger

HARMAN INT'L: Faces Putative Securities Fraud Litigation in D.C.
HARMAN INT'L: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in D.C.
HARMAN INT'L: Faces D.C. Litigation Alleging ERISA Violations
HARTE-HANKS: Sup. Ct. Takes On Employee Expense Reimbursements
IDAHO: Lawyers Want More Time to Gather Proof in Antitrust Suits

INSURANCE COS: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Over Abusive Tax Shelters
LA FITNESS: Faces Penna. Suit Over Unauthorized Bank Transfers
LABRANCHE & CO: Settles N.Y. Securities Lawsuit for $13 Million
LEGG MASON: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Litigation
LEVI STRAUSS: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Calif. Suit

LOUISIANA: LCG Faces Lawsuit Over SafeSpeed, SafeLight Programs
MEDIANET: Faces Copyright Infringement Suit by Music Publishers
MINNESOTA: Judge Denies TRO Against Registry Foreclosures
MISSION CITY: Recalls Bracelet Sets for Lead Paint Hazards
MITSUBISHI RAYON: May 1 Hearing Set for $5M Antitrust Settlement

OKLAHOMA: Abuses & Neglects 10,000 Foster Kids, Lawsuit Claims
OPNEXT INC: Rosen Law Firm Plans Securities Fraud Suit Filing
RESPIRONICS INC: Denies Motion in Del. Lawsuit Over $5.1B Sale
SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in North Carolina
SUNOPTA INC: Federman Expands Securities Fraud Suit Class Period

SUTTER HEALTH: Nurses File Calif. Suit Over Unpaid Meal Breaks
TOP SHIPS: Seeks Court Approval for Securities Suit Settlement
TRAVELERS COS: April 25 Hearing Set for $77M Lawsuit Settlement
TYSON FOODS: Tenn. Judge Throws-Out "Trollinger" RICO Lawsuit
WEISS RESEARCH: Deadline for Filing Claims Set to June 10


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit



                           *********


ALLIANZ LIFE: Settles Deferred Annuity Products Suit for $10MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America, a subsidiary of
Allianz SE, has settled a putative class action in California
in connection with the marketing and sale of deferred annuity
products, for $10 million, Thomas Lee of the Star Tribune
reports.

The settlement calls for Allianz to pay a $3-million fine and to
contribute $3.75 million over five years to a fund that helps
regulators and district attorneys prosecute financial abuse by
life insurance agents.  In addition, the company will give $3
million to the California Organized Investment Network, which
aids underserved communities.

In December 2006, the California Department of Insurance named
more than 100 people, all senior citizens, who made "financially
disadvantageous" deals in swapping existing annuities for
Allianz products.

"Allianz has failed to adequately train its agents as to what
constitutes a proper and improper replacement annuity," the
California regulators said in a court proceeding.

In 2007, Allianz Life was named defendant in various putative
class actions in Minnesota and California in connection with the
marketing and sale of deferred annuity products, which have been
certified as class actions (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 18,
2007).

The complaints allege that the defendant engaged in, among other
practices, deceptive trade practices and misleading advertising
in connection with the sale of such products, including, with
the respect to the Minnesota lawsuit, the violation of the
Minnesota Consumer Fraud and Deceptive and Unlawful Trade
Practices Act.

According to Mr. Lee, the Golden Valley-based insurer also
agreed to strengthen the way it reviews annuity applications and
to better explain its products to customers, under the
settlement reached with the California Department of Insurance.

"We made a business decision with this settlement that will
allow us to focus on our priorities of providing first-class
products and service to our consumers instead of concentrating
our efforts on litigation," Allianz Chief Executive Gary
Bhojwani said.

Allianz admitted no wrongdoing.  It maintains that it never
intentionally misled investors and that the terms of its
annuities were clearly spelled out in sales documents.

Minnesota-based Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
-- http://www.allianzlife.com/-- through its subsidiaries and  
affiliates offer a range of insurance, investment, and savings
products throughout the U.S.  It boasts more than 200,000
independent agents and financial planners selling such products
as mutual funds and other broker-dealer services; variable and
fixed life insurance and annuity products; and long-term care
insurance.  Allianz Life also offers life, health, and annuity
reinsurance and other products geared to health care providers
and to employers with self-funded benefits plans. Allianz Life
became a subsidiary of Allianz SE in 1979 and has been operating
as such ever since.


AZKO NOBEL: April 29 Hearing Set for $23.38M Antitrust Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on April 29, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. for
a proposed $23,380,000 settlement by Akzo Nobel Inc., Akzo Nobel
Chemicals International B.V., and EKA Chemicals, Inc. in the
matter, "In Re: Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
05-666, MDL Docket No. 1682."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Stewart Dalzell in
Courtroom 1-B, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, at 601 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs, individually and as
representatives of all persons, who purchased Hydrogen Peroxide
(including sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate) in the U.S.
or from a facility located in the U.S., directly from any of the
defendants listed below:

       -- Akzo Nobel Chemicals International B.V.;

       -- Akzo Nobel Inc.;

       -- Arkema Inc. (f/k/a Atofina Chemicals, Inc. and Elf
          Atochem North America, Inc.);

       -- Arkema France (f/k/a Atofina S.A. and Elf Atochem
          S.A.);

       -- Degussa Gmbh (f/k/a Degussa A.G.);

       -- Degussa Corporation;

       -- EKA Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- FMC Corporation;

       -- Kemira Chemicals, Canada, Inc.;
    
       -- Kemira Oyj;
    
       -- Solvay America;

       -- Solvay Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- Solvay S.A.; and

       -- Total S.A. (f/k/a Totalfinalelf S.A. and Total, S.A.).

In general, the suit asserts that, as a result of the alleged
conduct of the defendants, the prices paid to the defendant
manufacturers for hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate and sodium
percarbonate were higher than they otherwise would have been
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 24, 2007) .

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs from defendants.  However, no
application for attorneys' fees or reimbursement of expenses is
being made as the moment.

For more details, contact:

          Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation
          Settlement Administrator
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          P.O. Box 58309
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-8309
          Phone: 215-665-8870
          http://www.hydrogenperoxideantitrustlitigation.com/

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          e-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com
          Web site: http://www.cmht.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          805 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or 212-687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          e-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
          Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com


BASSETTBABY: Recalls Cribs Due to Entrapment, Strangulation Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bassettbaby, of Bassett, Va., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 18 Wendy
Bellissimo Hidden Hills Collection Drop-Side Cribs.

The company said  the spindles on the drop-side of the crib
could loosen creating a gap that poses an entrapment and
strangulation hazard.

Bassettbaby has received three reports of spindles coming loose.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves a full-size, drop-side crib from the Wendy
Bellissimo Hidden Hills collection, model number 5446-0504.  The
model number is located on the bottom rail of the headboard.  
The crib was sold in a Navajo Pine finish.  No other models are
included in this recall.

These recalled drop-side cribs were manufactured in China and
were being sold at Babies "R" Us stores nationwide from November
2007 through January 2008 for about $400.

Picture of the recalled drop-side cribs is found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08544.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the crib immediately and
contact Bassettbaby for a free replacement or a full refund.  
The firm has contacted consumers directly.

For additional information, contact Bassettbaby toll-free at
(800) 308-7485 between 9:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at:
http://www.bassettbaby.com


BELL EXPRESSVU: Judge Certifies Suit Over Administrative Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Bell ExpressVu was certified as a class action
by Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell, The Globe and
Mail reports.

According to the Winnipeg Sun, the lawsuit was filed by Ontario
resident Peter De Wolf on behalf of Bell ExpressVu's 1.7 million
customers nationwide.

Mr. De Wolf, CBC News says, was charged a $19 administrative fee
after he failed to pay his satellite TV bill on time and alleges
that the fee, coupled with interest charges, is illegal.
He alleges that the administrative fee and the interest together
meant that Bell ExpressVu was charging more than 60% in annual
interest, which violated the Criminal Code.

According to court filings, about 33,000 ExpressVu customers are
charged the administrative fee, which has since been raised to
$25, each month.

Globe and Mail recounts that Mr. De Wolf first took the company
to a small claims court near his home in Braeside, Ont., near
Ottawa in 2004, seeking CDN$7,700 in damages.  He then withdrew
the suit and launched the proposed class-action lawsuit in
Toronto in September 2005.  After nearly three years of legal
wrangling, Mr. De Wolf has scored a victory when Judge Perell
certified the lawsuit as a class action.

Bell ExpressVu had argued that the fee was not an interest
charge but was based on the cost the company incurred collecting
overdue bills.  The company also argued the class action should
not proceed because each customer has a different account and
incurs different fees.  In general, allegations in class actions
must apply to all potential defendants in order to proceed to
trial.

Judge Perell, however, rejected the company's arguments.  The
judge said he regarded Bell ExpressVu's argument "as
demonstrating the informal logical fallacy that students of
logic know as 'ignoratio elenchi,' which is the error of
misstating an opponent's argument and then refuting the
misstated argument and not the argument genuinely in dispute.
This is sometimes known as a 'straw man' argument."

Judge Perell said Mr. De Wolf had demonstrated that there were
enough common issues for all ExpressVu customers.

Bell Canada spokesman Mark Langton told Globe and Mail that the
company views the case "as completely without merit."  
Mr. Langton further told the media that Bell ExpressVu will be
pushing for the case to be dismissed at an upcoming hearing.

Globe and Mail notes that a hearing on legal motions is
scheduled for April.


BISSELL APARTMENTS: Plaintiff Asks Court to Reconsider Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter wrote on June 16, 2006, that Illinois
property owner Kesha Manning filed a proposed class action in
April 2005 over mold damaging her property at the Bissell
Apartments in Venice.  Ms. Manning sued BA-2003 Limited
Partnership and Independent Management Services, the owners of
The Bissel Apartments, on behalf of her two minor children,
Claude Taylor, and others who are "similarly situated."

The suit specifically alleged that the apartments had mold and
fungal growth penicillium and cladosporiumo on surfaces and
structures of the building that make up the complex located at
1400 Klein Ave.  According to the complaint, the defendants
breached a duty under Illinois law to exercise ordinary care in
the maintenance of the Bissel complex (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 9, 2006).

According to CAR, on April 7, 2006, Madison County Circuit Judge
Andy Matoesian ordered Ms. Manning to make a list of personal
property that mold had damaged since she has not identified a
single item.  However, until June 7, 2006, she sent the court no
list, and instead amended her complaint against the apartments'
owners.  Ms. Manning amended her complaint to add Bissell
Apartments Limited as defendant.

Judge Matoesian threw out the case in November last year.

However, in an update, St. Claire Record says that Ms. Manning's
attorney, Lanny Darr, Esq., of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr,
is still pursuing the moldy apartments class action.  St. Claire
Record relates that Mr. Darr wants Judge Matoesian to vacate the
summary judgment order he entered.

Judge Matoesian, the report says, will hold another hearing on
Mr. Darr's motion to vacate on Feb. 22.

Mr. Darr's motion states, "The Court ignored evidence in the
record which created a triable fact as to whether plaintiff's
property was damaged by mold."  Judge Matoesian ignored evidence
that mold damaged walls and stud boards surrounding Ms.
Manning's personal property, ignored evidence that Ms. Manning's
apartment required mold abatement, and ignored an affidavit of
hygienist Patrick Harter stating that mold contaminated Ms.
Manning's personal property, Mr. Darr argued.

In response, BA-2003 Limited and Independent Management accuse
Mr. Darr of filing a motion for reconsideration under another
name.

Ms. Manning has lived at Bissell Apartments since 2000.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lanny H. Darr, Esq.
          Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr, L.T.D.
          Suite 415, 307 Henry Street
          Alton, IL 62002-6326,  
          Phone: (618) 465-2311
          Fax: (618) 465-2318
          Web site: http://sbkdlaw.com/
          
The defendants are represented by:

          Matthew Jacober, Esq.
          Jenkins & Kling, P.C.
          10 South Brentwood, Suite 200
          St. Louis, Missouri 63105 (Independent City)
          Phone: (314) 721-2525
          Telecopier: (314) 721-5525
          e-mail: mjacober@jenkinskling.com



CARLETON FARMS: Mich. Court Holds Hearing for Landfill Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wayne County Circuit Court recently held a hearing regarding
"geographic parameters" for how far away residents can sign on
to a lawsuit against Carleton Farms, Inc. that seeks to stop
odors from a company-operated landfill, Monroenews.com reports.

In 2006, the law firm of Macuga & Liddle, P.C. filed a lawsuit
against Carleton Farms, which is owned by Republic Services.  It
was brought on behalf of Sumpter Township, Michigan residents
(Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2006).

The plaintiffs are claiming that Carleton Farms landfill
receives a significant amount of waste from Canada whose noxious
odor interferes with residents' ability to use and enjoy their
property.  They are seeking  damages "in excess of $25,000."

The landfill has an area of 640 acre, and is one of the largest
in North America.  It receives more than 1 million tons of
garbage from Toronto annually, the law firm said.  About 10 to
20 percent of the waste received by the landfill is reportedly
sewage sludge.

According to the report by Monroenews.com, more than 400 people
have signed on to a class action.  People affected by the odors
still can add their names to the lawsuit by calling (800) 536-
0045.  

For more information, contact:

          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          Macuga & Liddle, P.C.
          975 East Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207-3101
          Phone: (313) 392-0015 or (800) 536-0045
          Fax: (313) 392-0025
          Web site: http://www.mlclassaction.com
          e-mail: info@mlclassaction.com


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Proposes to Settle Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spector Roseman, Milberg Weiss, and Cohen Milstein announced the
Proposed Settlement of a Securities Class Action Lawsuit against
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. and Certain of Its Officers and
Directors for $10.5 million in cash and the Implementation of
Certain Corporate Governance Provisions.

A shareholder class action was filed on Feb. 17, 2006, against
the company and individuals Gerald M. Glenn, Robert B. Jordan,
and Richard E. Goodrich in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York entitled, "Welmon v. Chicago
Bridge & Iron Co. NV, et al. (No. 06 CV 1283)."

The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our
securities from March 9, 2005, through Feb. 3, 2006, and were
damaged thereby.

The action asserts claims under the U.S. securities laws in
connection with various public statements made by the defendants
during the class period and alleges, among other things, that
the company misapplied percentage-of-completion accounting and
did not follow its publicly stated revenue recognition policies.

On July 5, 2006, a single Consolidated Amended Complaint was
filed in the Welmon action in the Southern District of New York
consolidating all previously filed actions.

The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint, which was denied by the Court.  

On March 2, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the company and the individual defendants
filed an opposition to class certification on April 2, 2007
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2007).

Recently, a summary notice has been issued in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, in "Welmon
v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V., et al., Case No. 06-CV-01283
(JES)," as follows: Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on May 8, 2008.
Deadline to file claims is on June 26, 2008.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a hearing at 3:00 p.m., on June 3, 2008, in the
courtroom of the Honorable John E. Sprizzo.

The suit is "Wayne Welmon, et al. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.   
NV, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01283-JES," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge    
John E. Sprizzo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

         Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
         Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 496-0300
         e-mail: rroseman@srk-law.com

         Barry A. Weprin, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Telephone: (212) 594-5300
         e-mail: bweprin@milbergweiss.com

              - and -

         Mark S. Willis, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
         Suite 500, West Tower
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         e-mail: mwillis@cmht.com

To contact the Claims Administrator:

         Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. Securities Litigation
         Settlement
         c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
         Claims Administrator
         Post Office Box 24789
         West Palm Beach, FL 33416
         Phone: (877) 567-4298
         Web site:
         http://www.chicagobridgesecuritiessettlement.com


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Faces Canadian Payday Loans Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. and its Canadian subsidiary continue to
face several purported class actions filed by customers who were
allegedly subjected to usurious charges in payday loan
transactions, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

                        Smith Litigation

On Aug. 19, 2003, a former customer in Ontario, Canada, Margaret
Smith, commenced an action against the company's Canadian
subsidiary on behalf of a purported class of Ontario borrowers
who, Smith claims, were subjected to usurious charges in payday-
loan transactions.

The action, which is pending with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law
proscribing usury, seeks restitution and damages, including
punitive damages, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting
further alleged usurious charges.

The Company's Canadian subsidiary's motion to stay the action on
grounds of arbitrability was denied, as well as the Company's
motion to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.  

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted on
Jan. 5, 2007, and leave to appeal from the decision was refused.

In July 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada released two decisions
regarding arbitrability in the class action context.

As a result, the Company's Canadian subsidiary has brought a new
application to stay the action and to decertify it.  The
plaintiff has responded by bringing a cross-motion for summary
judgment on selected issues.  

These motions will likely be heard in the first half of calendar
year 2008.

The action is presently in the discovery phase and a trial,
while not yet scheduled, is not expected before late calendar
year 2008.

                     Mortillaro Litigation

On Oct. 21, 2003, another former customer, Kenneth D.
Mortillaro, commenced a similar action against the company's
Canadian subsidiary, but this action has since been stayed on
consent because it is a duplicate action.

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the
Mortillaro action are substantially the same as those in the
Smith action.

                        Young Litigation

On Nov. 6, 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a
purported class action in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta,
Canada on behalf of a class of consumers who obtained short-term
loans from the company's Canadian subsidiary in Alberta,
alleging, among other things, that the charge to borrowers in
connection with such loans is usurious.

The action seeks restitution and damages, including punitive
damages.

On Dec. 9, 2005, the company's Canadian subsidiary settled this
action, subject to court approval.  On March 3, 2006 just prior
to the date scheduled for final court approval of the settlement
the plaintiff's lawyers advised that they would not proceed with
the settlement and indicated their intention to join a purported
national class action.  No steps have been taken in the action
since March 2006.

Subsequently, the company's Canadian subsidiary commenced an
action against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer for
breach of contract.  That action has not proceeded past the
pleadings stage.

                         Day Litigation

On or about March 5, 2007, a former customer, H. Craig Day,
commenced an action against the company's Canadian subsidiary
and several of the company's franchisees in the Court of Queen's
Bench of Alberta, Canada on behalf of a putative class of
consumers who obtained short-term loans from the company's
Canadian subsidiary in Alberta.

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the Day
action are substantially the same as those in the Young action
but relate to a claim period that commences before and ends
after the claim period in the Young action and excludes the
claim period described in that action.

                      MacKinnon Litigation

On Jan. 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced
an action against the company's Canadian subsidiary and 26 other
Canadian lenders on behalf of a purported class of British
Columbia residents who, MacKinnon claims, were overcharged in
payday-loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, alleges violations of laws proscribing usury and
unconscionable trade practices and seeks restitution and
damages, including punitive damages, in an unknown amount.

Following initial denial, MacKinnon obtained an order permitting
him to re-apply for class certification which was appealed.  The
Court of Appeal granted MacKinnon the right to apply to the
original judge to have her amend her order denying
certification.

On June 14, 2006, the original judge granted the requested order
and the company's Canadian subsidiary's request for leave to
appeal the order was dismissed.

The certification motion in this action proceeded in conjunction
with the certification motion in the Parsons action described
below.

                      Parsons Litigation

On April 15, 2005, the solicitor acting for MacKinnon commenced
a proposed class action against the company's Canadian
subsidiary on behalf of another former customer, Louise Parsons.

Class certification was granted on March 14, 2007.  An appeal
from this certification decision is pending.  The action is
presently in the discovery phase and a trial, while not yet
scheduled, is expected in 2008.

In December 2007 the plaintiffs delivered a motion in which they
are seeking to add DFG's Dollar Financial Group, Inc.
subsidiary, as a defendant to this action.  

The motion will be argued sometime after May 2008.   OPCO
intends to oppose the motion vigorously.

                       Other Lawsuits

Similar purported class actions have been commenced against the
company's Canadian subsidiary in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland.  

The claims in these additional actions are substantially similar
to those of the Ontario actions referred to above.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com-- Dollar Financial  
Corp. (Dollar Financial) is an international financial services
company serving under-banked consumers.


FLORIDA: Court Certifies Class in Lawsuit Over Medicaid Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted class-action status to the litigation, "Reid et al v.
Agwunobi, Case No. 0:08-cv-60040-WJZ," which accuses the State
of Florida of unfairly trapping people into participating in a
pilot program for Medicaid, Larry Hannan of The Florida Times-
Union reports.

The suit was filed on Jan. 10, 2008, against Florida's Agency
for Health Care Administration, and its secretary, Dr. Andrew
Agwunobi.  

Originally, the suit was brought on behalf of David Reid, David
Mitchell and Joann Brown, who are all residents of Broward
County (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 21, 2008).

It seeks to include all 197,000 Medicaid reform-eligible
residents of Broward, Duval, Baker, Clay and Nassau counties in
a class action.

According to The Times-Union report, the pilot program shifts
Medicaid recipients into privately managed care networks.  It
was designed to manage rising Medicaid costs, which take up a
larger portion of the state budget each year.

The suit seeks to force the AHCA to inform recipients in the
program that they can change Medicaid plans every year.  It also
asks for undisclosed damages for all of the 200,000
participants.

The plaintiffs claim that federal law lets recipients change
plans at any time if they have "good cause," however, notices
sent to program participants didn't explain that adequately, The
Times-Union reports.

They also claim that the state failed to provide the required
notice letting people know they can change their Medicaid plan,
or drop it.

The suit is "Reid et al v. Agwunobi, Case No. 0:08-cv-60040-
WJZ," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Judge William J. Zloch presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles Shawn Boehringer, Esq.
          Legal Services of Greater Miami
          3000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 500
          Miami, FL 33137
          Phone: 305-576-0080
          e-mail: sboehringer@legalaid.org

          Miriam E. Harmatz, Esq.
          Florida Legal Services Inc
          Miami Advocacy Office
          3000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 450
          Miami, FL 33137
          Phone: 305-573-0092
          Fax: 305-576-9664
          e-mail: miriam@floridalegal.org

               - and -

          Jane Perkins, Esq.
          National Health Law Program
          211 N Columbia Street
          Chapel Hill, NC 27516
          Phone: 919-968-6771
          Fax: 919-968-8855
          e-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org

Representing the defendants are:

          Justin M. Senior, Esq.
          3312 W University Avenue.
          Gainesville, FL 32607
          Phone: 352-379-1121
          Fax: 352-376-6554
          e-mail: seniorj@ahca.myflorida.com


HARMAN INT'L: D.C. Court Dismisses Suit Over KHI Parent Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia dismissed in its
entirety a purported class action filed against Harman
International Industries, Inc., over a merger agreement with KHI
Parent, Inc., according to the company's Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On April 26, 2007, the company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with KHI Parent, a company formed by investment
funds affiliated with Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. and GS
Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P. and its related funds, which are
sponsored by Goldman, Sachs & Co.

On May 8, 2007, Helen Rodgers Living Trust filed a putative
class action against Harman and all of its directors in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.  The lawsuit
purports to be brought on behalf of all common stockholders of
Harman and alleges that Harman's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Harman stockholders by entering into the
merger agreement.  

The original complaint alleged that the consideration to be
offered to Harman stockholders under the merger agreement is
"inadequate" and that the merger agreement "inequitably favors .
. . insiders" of Harman.  

The complaint also alleged that the termination fee in the
merger agreement was excessive, that Harman's directors
purportedly would not "fairly and adequately" evaluate any
alternative bids, and that the provision in the merger agreement
that allowed Harman to solicit proposals for alternative bidders
during a 50-day period ending in June 2007 was "illusory."

On June 29, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction.  The motion sought to enjoin the conversion of the
"underwater" options into Parent shares, and also sought to
"unwind or otherwise cancel" the challenged options.  In the
motion, the Plaintiff did not seek to enjoin the shareholder
vote or the merger.  

After the Defendants filed their opposition to the motion for
preliminary injunction on July 23, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed to
voluntarily withdraw its motion.

Thereafter, on Sept. 4, 2007, the Plaintiff was granted leave to
file a second amended complaint.  

The second amended complaint narrowed the Plaintiff's claims by
eliminating, among other things, most of its disclosure claims
and allegations relating to "underwater" options.  

The Defendants answered the Plaintiff's second amended complaint
on Sept. 21, 2007, denying the Plaintiff's claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and disclosure deficiencies.

On Jan. 3, 2008, the Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss its
claims.  The Court granted the dismissal motion on Jan. 9, 2008
and dismissed Plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

Harman International Industries, Inc. -- http://www.harman.com
-- is engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of
high-fidelity audio products and electronic systems.  The
Company has developed, both internally and through a series of
acquisitions, a range of product offerings.


HARMAN INT'L: Faces Putative Securities Fraud Litigation in D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc. faces a purported
securities fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, according to the company's
Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Oct. 1, 2007, a purported class action was filed by Cheolan
Kim against the Company and certain of its officers, seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between April 26, 2007, and
Sept. 24, 2007.  

The original complaint purported to allege claims for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's financial condition
and business prospects.  

It contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time
the merger agreement with Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P.,
and Goldman, Sachs & Co. was entered, there would not have been
a merger agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price,
and the price of the Company's common stock therefore would not
have been artificially inflated during the Class Period.  

The Plaintiff alleged that, following the reports that the
proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of the
Company's common stock declined causing the plaintiff class
significant losses.

On Jan. 16, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which extends the Class Period through Jan. 11, 2008.  It
contends that, in addition to the violations alleged in the
original complaint, the Company also violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by purportedly knowingly failing to
disclose "significant problems" relating to its personal
navigation device "sales forecasts, production, pricing, and
inventory" prior to Jan. 14, 2008.  

The amended complaint claims that when "Defendants revealed for
the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales
would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per
share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in the
Company's share value and additional losses to the plaintiff
class.

The suit is "Kim v. Harman International Industries Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-01757-RWR," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, Judge Richard W. Roberts
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          e-mail: dsommers@cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas F. Cullen, Esq.
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2105
          Phone: (202) 879-3939
          e-mail: tfcullen@jonesday.com


HARMAN INT'L: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc. faces a purported
securities fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, according to the company's
Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan
filed a purported class action against the Company and certain
of its officers.

Aside from the company, other defendants in the matter, include:

       -- Sidney Harman,
       -- Kevin Brown, and
       -- Sandra B. Robinson.

The complaint, entitled, "Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al.,
Case No. 1:2007cv02175," alleges claims for violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

It is seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April
26, 2007 and Sept. 24, 2007.  

The suit is "Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan v.
Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al., Case No.
1:2007cv02175," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, Judge Richard W. Roberts presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Timothy D. Battin, Esq.
          Straus & Boeies, LLP
          4041 University Avenue
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 764-8700
          Fax: (703) 764-8704
          e-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com

               - and -

          Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
          Mager & Goldstein, LLP
          1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
          Weston, FL 33326
          Phone: (954) 515-0123
          Fax: (954) 515-0124
          e-mail: jgoldstein@magergoldstein.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas F. Cullen, Esq.
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2105
          Phone: (202) 879-3939
          e-mail: tfcullen@jonesday.com


HARMAN INT'L: Faces D.C. Litigation Alleging ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc. faces a class action filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which
is alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), according to the company's Feb. 11, 2008
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Dec. 7, 2007, Patrick Russell filed a purported class action
lawsuit, alleging violations of ERISA.  The plaintiff is
seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of
the Harman International Industries, Inc. Retirement Savings
Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well as
injunctive relief, constructive trust, restitution, and other
monetary relief.  

The complaint alleges that from April 26, 2007 to the present,
defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of
ERISA, by causing the Plan to invest in Company stock
notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no longer a
prudent investment for the Participants' retirement savings."  

The complaint further claims that, during the Class Period,
defendants failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries, and failed to
provide the Plan fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan
participants, adverse facts regarding the Company and its
businesses and prospects.  

The Plaintiff also contends that the defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided
loyalty.  

As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the complaint
asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial losses,
resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the
retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the
Plan's Participants."

The suit is "Russell v. Harman International Industries,
Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02212-RWR," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Richard
W. Roberts presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John Bucher Isbister
          Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP
          100 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1062
          Phone: (410) 752-9714
          Fax: (410) 727-5460
          e-mail: jisbister@tydingslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas F. Cullen, Esq.
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2105
          Phone: (202) 879-3939
          e-mail: tfcullen@jonesday.com


HARTE-HANKS: Sup. Ct. Takes On Employee Expense Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court in "Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks
Shoppers, Inc." recently addressed whether an employer may
satisfy its obligation to reimburse employees for employment-
related expenses by paying increased wages and commissions
instead of separately reimbursing them for actual expenses,
according to Mondaq News.

The Court held that employers may reimburse employee expenses in
the form of "additional wages" payable in a "lump sum" instead
of reimbursing each separate expense for the exact amount
incurred, but only if there is a means to apportion the enhanced
compensation to determine what amount is being paid for labor
performed and what amount constitutes reimbursement for business
expenses.

At issue was Labor Code section 2802(a), which requires that
employers indemnify employees for expenses necessarily incurred
in the performance of their job duties.  The employer, Harte-
Hanks, required its sales representatives to drive their own
automobiles on sales calls and compensated them by either
commissions on sales or a combination of salary plus
commissions.  One of Harte-Hanks' sales representatives filed
the class action lawsuit, arguing that this method of expense
reimbursement was not allowable and that the payments must be
made separately from wages.

Harte-Hanks responded that it satisfied its obligation to
reimburse representatives for expenses related to the use of
their own automobiles by paying them higher base salaries and
higher commission rates rather than directly reimbursing them
for their expenses.

According to Mondaq's Laura P. Worsinger, the Court recognized
the burden that would be imposed on both parties by requiring
the use of the "actual expense" method, whereby employees must
keep track of expenses to include fuel, maintenance, repair,
insurance, registration and depreciation, and found that the
"lump sum" payment method was lawful.  However, the employee
must be permitted to challenge the payment made under the "lump
sum" method by comparing that amount to the amount due under the
"actual expense" method or the mileage reimbursement method.  
The Court specified that employers using the "lump sum" method
should, in providing wage documentation as required by Labor
Code section 226, identify the amounts that represent payment
for labor performed and those that constitute reimbursement for
business expenses.

The court's decision means that full reimbursement of expenses
is still required, Mondaq notes.  Employers must reimburse their
employees for all out-of-pocket expenses the employees incur in
carrying out their duties.  Since an employer and employee
cannot agree to waive this reimbursement requirement, the
employer still must make clear what portion of the salary or
commission payments is meant to reimburse the employee for
expenses versus compensation for the work performed.

If the amount meant to cover expenses is less than the actual
amount of expenses incurred during a pay period, the employer
must pay the employee additional money to make up the
difference.  

        The "Lump Sum" Method is not a an Easy Option

The employer therefore must make certain that employees are paid
any additional money owed above and beyond the "lump sum"
payment.  If the employees are no longer required to submit
expense reports, it will be difficult for the employer to
determine if it has fully reimbursed the employee, and the only
alternative will be to pay a lump sum generous enough to cover
any expenses.  Employees would most likely have a windfall in
the form of extra wages if they incur expenses totaling less
than their "lump sum."

                  Income Tax Implications

If an employer chooses the lump sum method of reimbursement, it
should make sure that the expense reimbursement portion is not
taxed as "wages."  To do so, the employer must follow very
specific rules.  The employer must verify that the expenses are
work-related, and that the employees are able to substantiate
the expenses.  This means that the employer and employee must
still keep sufficient records to evidence the nature of the
expense even though the employee is reimbursed in a lump sum.
The employer should consult with its tax accountant or attorney
for details.

Although Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks clarified that the "lump sum"
payment method for expense reimbursement is legal, use of this
payment method mandates an extremely fact intensive analysis,
and raises potential problems for any employer who errs in its
calculations, Mondaq writes.  One might conclude, instead of
creating a safe harbor, which was probably the Court's goal, the
decision may have inadvertently scuttled the ship.

Mondaq, launched in August 1994, is one of the most
comprehensive electronic resources of professionals' knowledge
and expertise. We provide legal, regulatory and financial
commentary and information supplied directly by hundreds of the
world's leading professional advisors, covering over 70
countries.

Mondaq is a comprehensive electronic resource of professionals'
knowledge and expertise.  Mondaq provides legal, regulatory and
financial commentary and information supplied directly by
hundreds of professional advisors, covering over 70 countries.


IDAHO: Lawyers Want More Time to Gather Proof in Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2008, U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill
dismissed the antitrust charges filed by buyers of vacant lots
in four separate class-action lawsuits against Idaho real estate
brokerage companies, Inman News recounts.  The lawyers for the
buyers are contesting the Court's decision.

According to the report, the four lawsuits allege that buyers
were charged excessive real estate commissions when they
purchased home lots from the brokerage companies, and that the
commissions charged for the lot sales were also tied to
commissions that were based on the cost of homes to be built on
those lots.  Because conspiracy among the companies was not
alleged in the cases, they were filed as separate lawsuits.

The four class-action lawsuits are:

    1. Robert and Renae Bafus v. Aspen Realty Inc.;

    2. Curtis and Gwendolyn Blough v. Holland Realty Inc.;

    3. Gary and Shawna Yasuda v. Sel-Equity Co.; and

    4. Dave and Emily Merrithew v. Park Pointe Realty Inc.

Judge Winmill found that evidence was lacking to support the
claims that the companies' real estate commission practices in
tying the sale of the land lots to the sale of homes on the lots
represented an illegal arrangement.  The court's order supports
the defendants' motions to dismiss the antitrust allegations.

While lawyers for the buyers suggest "that some (buyers) may
have wanted to purchase the tied product from another Realtor,"
the court found no evidence "for believing that such individuals
actually exist."  Lawyers representing the buyers have argued,
though, that they need to gather more evidence about the class
of buyers in the lawsuits and that the court has not allowed
them to acquire all of the information about buyers that they
sought in earlier court filings.

"Without those documents and without even knowing who those
class members were, we didn't have an opportunity to show that
others would have shown that tied service," Craig Spiegel, Esq.,
a lawyer representing buyers in the lawsuits, said.  Mr. Spiegel
said that lawyers representing the buyers are asking the judge
to withdraw judgment on the antitrust claims and allow them the
opportunity to present more evidence.

In a Jan. 22 order, the court allowed the plaintiffs' lawyers to
proceed with a new motion in the lawsuits.  The lawyers, in a
Feb. 8 filing, are urging the court to allow them to gather more
evidence from the real estate brokerage companies named as
defendants in the lawsuits.  Lawyers for the brokers have until
Feb. 25 to respond to that motion.

Eugene A. Ritti, Esq., who is representing Holland Realty in one
of the lawsuits, said in a statement that the latest request by
the plaintiffs "is moot in light of the dismissal of the
antitrust claims," and that he expects the court to reaffirm
this in a future ruling.  "Should the plaintiffs then ask the
appellate court to review the dismissal of the antitrust claims,
we are convinced that it, too, will find the plaintiffs failed
to establish any antitrust claims."

In his order, Judge Winmill found that the buyer-plaintiffs'
lawyers "seem to want the court to infer that because (they)
have not discovered the existence of all class members, it is
likely there are class members who wanted to purchase the tied
product from another source."

"That, however, is an unreasonable inference.  The more
reasonable inference is that the unknown class members, like all
of the class representatives in all of the cases, wanted to
purchase the tying product without having to purchase the tied
product at all."

And the act of tying the real estate commissions for the lot
sales to the home cost on those lots was not in itself a
violation of antitrust law, the order states.  The tying
arrangement would be considered illegal, though, if this tying
arrangement prevented other real estate brokerage companies from
selling services related to the construction of homes on those
vacant lots, according to the judge's decision.

The first lawsuit is "Bafus, et al. v. Aspen Realty, Inc, et
al., Case No. 1:2004cv00121," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho on March 12, 2004, Judge B. Lynn
Winmill, presiding.

The defendants are represented by:

          Thomas J. Angstman, Esq.
          Angstman Law
          500 W Bannock
          Boise, ID 83702
          Phone: (208) 384-8588
          Fax: 1-208-342-6553
          e-mail: mindy@angstman.com

               - and -

          Amanda J. Beane, Esq.
          Perkins Coie LLP
          1201 Third Ave #4800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 359-8000
          e-mail: abeane@perkinscoie.com

The second lawsuit is "Blough et al. v. Holland Realty, Inc.,
Case No. 1:2006cv00059," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho on Feb. 8, 2006, under Judge B. Lynn
Winmill.

The defendants are represented by:

          Brad P. Miller, Esq.
          Eugene A. Ritti, Esq.
          Jason D. Scott, Esq.
          Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley
          PO Box 1617
          Boise, ID 83701
          Phone: (208) 344-6000
          Fax: 1-208-342-3829
               1-208-344-6505
          e-mail: bpm@hteh.com
                  ear@hteh.com
                  jds@hteh.com

The third lawsuit is "Yasuda et al. v. Sel-Equity Company, Case
No. 1:2006cv00060," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho on Feb. 8, 2006, Judge B. Lynn Winmill.
presiding.

The defendants are represented by:

          Phillip J. Collaer, Esq.
          Anderson Julian & Hull
          PO Box 7426
          Boise, ID 83707-7426
          Phone: (208) 344-5800
          fax: 1-208-344-5510
          e-mail: pcollaer@ajhlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Haglund, Esq.
          Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones
          Suite 1800, One Main Place
          101 SW Main Street
          Portland, OR 97204-3226
          Phone: (503) 225-0777
          Fax: (503) 225-0777
          e-mail: haglund@hk-law.com

The fourth lawsuit is "Merrithew/Howell et al. v. Park Pointe
Realty, Inc, Case No. 1:2006cv00061," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho on Feb. 8, 2006, under
Judge B. Lynn Winmill.

The defendants are represented by:

          Richard C. Boardman, Esq.
          Perkins Coie
          251 E Front St #400
          Boise, ID 83702
          Phone: (208) 343-3434
          Fax: 1-208-343-3232
          e-mail: rboardman@perkinscoie.com
   
               - and -

          Thomas L. Boeder, Esq.
          Perkins Coie LLP
          1201 Third Ave #4800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 359-8416
          Fax: 206-359-9416
          e-mail: tboeder@perkinscoie.com

The plaintiffs in all four lawsuits are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Hagens Berman
          1301 5th Ave #2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Fax: 1-206-623-0594
          e-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
          Gordon Law Offices
          623 W Hays
          Boise, ID 83702-5512
          Phone: (208) 345-7100
          Fax: 1-208-345-0050
          e-mail: bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com


INSURANCE COS: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Over Abusive Tax Shelters
-----------------------------------------------------------
Four life insurance firms are facing a class-action complaint
filed on Feb. 12, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas accusing them and their consultants
of selling policies that the plaintiffs used to fund defined-
benefit pension plans but which the IRS investigated as abusive
tax shelters, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Indianapolis Life Insurance Co.,
     -- Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance Co.,
     -- Pacific Life Insurance Co.,
     -- American General Life Insurance Co.
     -- Economic Concepts Inc.,
     -- ECI Pension Services LLC, and
     -- Kenneth Hartstein.

The suit is a putative nationwide class action in which the
plaintiffs assert various state-law claims against the insurance
companies and their consultants related to the design, marketing
and sale of specific life insurance policies used by plaintiffs
to fund defined benefit pension plans that purportedly complied
with Section 412(i) of the Internal Revenue Code, but were later
examined by the Internal Revenue Service to determine whether
such plans constitute "listed transactions" and abusive tax
shelters.

The defendants allegedly claimed their products complied with
Section 412Ii) of the Internal Revenue Code, but "were later
examined by the IRS to determine whether such plans constitute
'listed transactions' and/or abusive tax shelters."

The plans at issue include:

     -- Indianapolis Life's "PenPro" and "Executive VIP"
        policies;

     -- Hartford's "Stag Whole Life" policy;

     -- Pacific Life's "Flex XII" policy; and

     -- American General's "policies that were used to fund a
        defined benefit plan under Section 412(i)of the Code."

The plaintiffs bring the action pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A), and (b)(3), on behalf of:

     (a) all persons who, between Jan. 1, 1999, and the present,
         paid insurance premiums to Indianapolis Life on a
         PenPro policy, Executive VIP Policy, or a substantially
         similar policy that was used to fund a defined benefit
         plan under Section 412(i) of the Code;

     (b) all persons who, between Jan. 1, 1999, and the present,
         paid insurance premiums to Hartford on a Stag Whole
         Life policy or a substantially similar policy that was
         used to fund a defined benefit plan under Section
         412(i) of the Code;

     (c) all persons who, between Jan. 1, 1999, and the present,
         paid insurance premiums to Pacific Life on a Flex XII
         policy or a substantially similar policy that was used
         to fund a defined benefit plan under Section 412(i) of
         the Code; and

     (d) all persons who, between Jan. 1, 1999, and the present,
         paid insurance premiums to American General on policies
         that were used to fund a defined benefit plan under
         Section 412(i) of the Code.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (1) whether the defendants designed the insurance policies
         to be used to fund 412(1) plans;

     (2) whether the defendants knew or should have known that
         the insurance policies would be used by the class
         members to fund 412(i) plans;

     (3) whether the defendants knew or should have known that
         the insurance policies contained provisions that, when
         used to fund 412(i) plans, could subject the plans to
         being deemed abusive 412(i) plans and non-qualified
         plans by the IRS;

     (4) whether the insurance policies issued to the class
         members by an insurance defendant were substantially
         similar to each other;

     (5) whether the insurance defendants were negligent,
         reckless, and engaged in intentional misconduct in
         selling the insurance policies to the class members;

     (6) whether the consultant defendants provided actuarial,
         consulting, and marketing services to each of the
         insurance defendants in connection with the insurance
         policies;

     (7) whether the consultant defendants were negligent,
         reckless, and engaged in intentional misconduct in
         assisting with the design and marketing of the
         insurance policies;

     (8) whether the defendants failed to disclose material
         information in marketing and selling the insurance
         policies to the class members;

     (9) whether the insurance policies were sold or marketed to
         the class members pursuant to standard scripts,
         marketing materials, or sales pitches provided by the
         insurance defendants and consultant defendants;

    (10) whether the misrepresentations made to the class
         members were materially uniform such that reliance
         could be established by generalized proof;

    (11) whether the Brayn Cave parties provided legal opinions
         to the consultant defendants and the insurance
         defendants in which the Bryan Cave parties rendered
         opinions regarding whether the insurance policies would
         comply with all requirements necessary to satisfy
         Section 412(i);

    (12) whether the legal opinions provided by the Brayn Cave
         parties to the consultant defendants and the
         insurance defendants were substantially similar to each
         other;

    (13) whether the Bryan Cave parties were negligent,
         reckless, and engaged in intentional misconduct in
         rendering the legal opinions;

    (14) whether the fees or commissions charged or earned by
         the insurance defendants, the consultant defendants,
         and the Bryan Cave parties were excessive and
         unreasonable; and

    (15) whether the defendants conspired and aided and abetted
         each other in furtherance of the unlawful acts alleged.

The plaintiffs request that the court grants the following
relief:

     -- compensatory damages in an amount to be ascertained at
        trial;

     -- punitive or exemplary damages in an amount to be
        ascertained at trial;

     -- additional or treble damages pursuant to applicable
        state or federal law;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum
        rate permitted by contract, law or equity;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- all other relief, in law or in equity, to which
        plaintiffs may be entitled.

The suit is "Stephen Berry et al. v. Indianapolis Life Insurance
Co., Case No. 3-08CV0248-B," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Gary Cruciani, Esq.
           Eric D. Madden, Esq.
           Michael P. Fritz, Esq.
           Diamond McCarthy LLP
           1201 Elm Street, Suite 2400
           Dallas, Texas 75270
           Phone: (214) 689-5300
           Fax: (214) 389-5399
           e-mail: gcruciani@diamondmccarthy.com  
                   emadden@diamondmccarthy.com
                   mfritz@diamondmccarthy.com


LA FITNESS: Faces Penna. Suit Over Unauthorized Bank Transfers
--------------------------------------------------------------
L.A. Fitness International is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging that it takes money from consumers' bank
accounts through electronic transfers without authorization,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a consumer class action brought for defendant's
violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 USC Section
1693, et seq.  As it is common and uniform practice, the suit
states, the defendant makes unauthorized electronic withdrawals
of varying amounts of moneys from consumer bank accounts,
without providing the advance notice required by EFTA for such
electronic withdrawals and by attempting to secure unlawful
waivers from consumers of their right to such advance notice.

Named plaintiff Grace Lawrence bring the action pursuant to Rule
23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on
behalf of:

     (a) all persons in the United States who, during the one
         year prior to the filing of this action, entered into a
         Membership Agreement with defendant; and

     (b) all such person who had an EFT withdrawal made by
         defendant in an amount varying from the amount set
         forth in such person's Membership Agreement and who
         were not sent any prior notice of the varying EFT
         withdrawal.

The plaintiff requests that the court grant the following
relief:

     -- that an order be entered certifying the proposed class
        under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
        and appointing plaintiff as class representative and her
        counsel as class counsel;

     -- that an order be entered declaring that defendant's
        actions are in violation of EFTA and that the waiver and
        limitation of liability clauses contained in the
        Membership Agreements shall be treated as void and may          
        not be enforced by any court or any other person,
        pursuant to 15 USC Section 16931;

     -- that an order be entered enjoining defendant from
        continuing to use any Membership Agreement or other form
        of agreement containing the waiver and limitation of
        liability clauses and further enjoining defendant from
        making any varying EFT withdrawal without prior notice         
        as provided at 15 USC Section 16931 or any other
        unauthorized EFT withdrawal in violation of EFTA;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendant for actual
        and statutory damages pursuant to 15 USC Section
        169m(a)(2)(B);

     -- that the court award costs and reasonable attorney's
        fees pursuant to 15 USC Section 1693m(a)(3); and

     -- that the court grant such other and further relief as
        may be just and proper.

The suit is "Grace Lawrence et al. v. L.A. Fitness
International, LLC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           James A. Francis, Esq.
           John Soumilas, Esq.
           Geoffrey H. Baskerville, Esq.
           The Consumer Law Firm of Francis & Mailman, PC
           Land Title Building, 19th Floor
           100 South Broad Street
           Philadelphia, PA 19110
           Phone: (215) 735-8600
           Fax: (215) 940-8000


LABRANCHE & CO: Settles N.Y. Securities Lawsuit for $13 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
LaBranche & Co. LLC (NYSE: LAB) entered into an agreement in
principle to settle a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
filed against it with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the StreetInsider.com reports.

On Oct. 16, 2003, through Dec. 16, 2003, purchasers of the
company's common stock filed nine purported class actions.

The court consolidated these lawsuits on March 22, 2004, then
named these lead plaintiffs:

      -- Anthony Johnson,
      -- Clyde Farmer,
      -- Edwin Walthall,
      -- Donald Stahl, and
      -- City of Harper Woods Retirement System.

On June 7, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.    

The plaintiffs alleged that they represent a class consisting of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock during the period beginning on Aug. 19,
1999, and concluding on Oct. 15, 2003.  The plaintiffs alleged
that the company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, and certain of its past
and present officers and directors, including George M.L.
LaBranche, IV, William J. Burke, III, James G. Gallagher, Alfred
O. Hayward, Jr., Robert M. Murphy and Harvey S. Traison,
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
failing to disclose improper specialist trading.  

The plaintiffs also allege that two other past or present
officers and directors, S. Lawrence Prendergast and George E.
Robb, Jr., also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.    
The plaintiffs seek unspecified money damages, attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses.

On Dec. 12, 2005, motions to dismiss were granted in part and
denied in part.  Specifically, the court dismissed the Section
10(b) claims in their entirety against Messrs. Burke, Gallagher
and Traison, dismissed the Section 10(b) claims for the period
Aug. 19, 1999, through Dec. 30, 2001, against Messrs. LaBranche,
Murphy and Hayward, and dismissed the Section 20A claim against
Mr. Gallagher.

On April 4, 2007, the Court certified the proposed class in the
matter, according to the company's May 10, 2007 form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (Class Action Reporter,  
June 19, 2007).

On February 8, 2008, LaBranche entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the action for $13.0 million, to be paid
entirely by the Company's insurers.

Since this settlement will be paid entirely by the Company's
insurers, the settlement is not expected to have an effect on
the Company's income statement as reported in its earnings
release issued on January 18, 2008.

The settlement is subject to completion of a usual and customary
settlement agreement, notice to the class, and approval by the
court.

The suit is "In re LaBranche Securities Litigation, No. 03 CV
8201," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert Craig Finkel, Esq.
         James Abram Harrod, III, Esq.
         Wolf Popper, LLP
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 759-4600
         Fax: (212) 486-2093
         e-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
                 jharrod@wolfpopper.com

              - and -

         Mark Casser Gardy, Esq.
         Abbey, Gardy, L.L.P.
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 889-3700
         e-mail: mgardy@abbeygardy.com

Representing the defendants are:

         E. Michael Bradley, Esq.
         John E. Lavelle, Esq.
         38 Willis Avenue
         Mineola, NY 11501
         Phone: (212) 326-3863
         Fax: (212) 755-7306
         e-mail: embradley@jonesday.com

              - and -

         Irwin Howard Warren, Esq.
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: (212) 310-8000
         Fax: (212) 310-8007
         e-mail: mark.ribaudo@weil.com


LEGG MASON: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legg Mason, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported
consolidated securities fraud class action filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The company, and two of its officers are named as defendants in
a consolidated legal action that was initially filed on Oct. 16,
2006.

The action alleges that the defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933
by making misleading statements to the public and omitting
certain material facts with respect to the acquisition of the
CAM business in public statements and in a prospectus used in a
secondary stock offering in order to artificially inflate the
price of Legg Mason common stock.

The action seeks certification of a class of shareholders who
purchased Legg Mason common stock either between Feb. 1, 2006,
and Oct. 10, 2006, or in a secondary public offering on or about
March 9, 2006, and seeks unspecified damages.  

Legg Mason and the other two defendants in the action have filed
a motion to dismiss the case.  This motion is pending, according
to the company's Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Garber v. Legg Mason Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2006-
cv-09436," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Denny Chin presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173
          e-mail: malba@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C.
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: (516) 741-4977
          e-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

Representing the defendants are:

         James N. Benedict, Esq.
         Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
         1 Chase Manhattan Plaza
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: (212) 530-5000
         Fax: (212) 822-5696
         e-mail: jbenedict@milbank.com

              - and -

         Mark Holland, Esq.
         Clifford Chance US, LLP
         31 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212)-878-8432
         Web site: (212)-878-8375
         e-mail: mark.holland@cliffordchance.com


LEVI STRAUSS: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Calif. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action
against Levi Strauss & Co. have filed an amended complaint in
the matter, which is pending with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
Feb. 12, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 25, 2007.

The suit, "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case
No. C-03-05605 RMW," is in connection with the company's April
6, 2001 and June 16, 2003 registered bond offerings.  It also
names as defendants:

      -- the company's chief executive officer,

      -- its former chief financial officer,

      -- its corporate controller,

      -- its directors, and

      -- its underwriters.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection
of lead counsel.  The action purports to be brought on behalf of
purchasers of the company's bonds who made purchases pursuant or
traceable to the company's s prospectuses dated March 8, 2001,
or April 28, 2003, or who purchased the company's bonds in the
open market from Jan. 10, 2001 to Oct. 9, 2003.

The action makes claims under the federal securities laws,
including Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, relating to the company's Securities and Exchange
Commission filings and other public statements.  

Specifically, the action alleges that certain of the company's
financial statements and other public statements during this
period materially overstated its net income and other financial
results and were otherwise false and misleading, and that the
company's public disclosures omitted to state that it made
reserve adjustments that plaintiffs allege were improper.  

Plaintiffs contend that these statements and omissions caused
the trading price of the company's bonds to be artificially
inflated.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as other
relief.

On July 15, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
action.  The matter came before the court on Oct. 15, 2004, and,
after oral arguments had concluded, the court took the matter
under submission.

On Sept. 11, 2007, in the matter, "In re Levi Strauss & Co.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-05605 RMW," pending before
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims and
dismissed the tax fraud aspects of the Section 11 and 15 claims.

The Court also limited the plaintiff class on the Section 11 and
15 claims by eliminating from the class those bondholders who
purchased the bonds in private offerings and then exchanged them
for registered bonds in the subsequent exchange offer.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to the tax-
fraud claims Jan. 14, 2008, and the company stipulated with the
plaintiffs that its response will be due on or before March 21,
2008, subject to court approval.

The suit is "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:03-cv-05605-RMW," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq.
         Green Welling, LLP
         235 Pine Street, 15th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710
         e-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com

         Robert Gans, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP
         12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Phone: 858-793-0070
         e-mail: robert@blbglaw.com

              - and -

         Jill Manning, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         7665 Redwood Blvd., Suite 200
         Novato, CA 94945
         Phone: (415) 898-8160
         e-mail: jmanning@kmslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Erin E. Schneider, Esq.
         Austin Van, Esq.
         Schwing of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         One Montgomery St., 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-393-8276 and 415-393-8210
         Fax: 415-374-8458
         e-mail: eschneider@gibsondunn.com
                 aschwing@gibsondunn.com


LOUISIANA: LCG Faces Lawsuit Over SafeSpeed, SafeLight Programs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lafayette Consolidated Government faces a federal class
action that was filed by two local residents over what they
allege are numerous illegalities surrounding the SafeSpeed and
SafeLight Lafayette programs, Amanda McElfresh of The Daily
Advertiser reports.

The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana on Feb. 13, 2008.  It was brought on
behalf of private investigator Stephanie Ware, and resident Phil
Abshire, both of whom have received violation notices through
the SafeSpeed program.

Aside from the Lafayette Consolidated Government, other
defendants named in the matter are:

       -- The Lafayette City-Parish Council,

       -- City-Parish President Joey Durel, and

       -- Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., the company that
          oversees the programs.

In a news release, obtained by The Advertiser, plaintiffs'
attorneys, Joseph McMahon, III, Esq., and Anthony Maska, Esq.,
said, "The thrust of the class action lawsuit alleges the
enforcement of the SafeSpeed and SafeLight ordinances violate
the procedural due process rights of vehicle owners, as the
ordinances assume the registered owner of the photographed
vehicle actually was speeding or ran the red light, and
impermissibly places the burden of proving innocence upon the
vehicle owner."

In particular, the suit alleges that the programs and the way
they are operated violate:

       -- The Fifth Amendment, which provides for rights against
          self-incrimination;

       -- The Sixth Amendment, which provides for rights to
          confront a prosecution's witnesses; and

       -- The 14th Amendment, which provides for due process.

In addition, The Advertiser reports the suit is also alleging
that the programs conflict with the Louisiana Highway Regulatory
Act and Louisiana due process rules.

The plaintiffs also argue that the ordinances governing the
programs alienate the police power of consolidated government
through its contract with Redflex, The Advertiser reports.

The suit is "Ware et al v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated
Government et al., Case No. 6:08-cv-00218-TLM-CMH," filed  the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Judge
Tucker L. Melancon presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Anthony S. Maska, Esq.
          110 Ridgelake Dr.
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Phone: 504-828-6225
          Fax: 504-828-6201
          e-mail: asm@webdsi.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. McMahon, III
          110 Ridgelake Dr.
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Phone: 504-828-6225
          Fax: 504-828-6201
          e-mail: jrm@webdsi.com


MEDIANET: Faces Copyright Infringement Suit by Music Publishers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several members of the National Music Publishers' Association  
on Wednesday filed a class action copyright infringement lawsuit
against MediaNet Digital claiming that the company failed to
obtain proper licenses for use of songwriters' and publishers'
works, DMW Daily reports.

According to the report, the plaintiffs in the suit -- including
Sony/ATV Songs, Peer International, Frank Music Corporation and
MPL Publishing said that MediaNet's new owners have refused to
enter into a similar licensing agreement that its previous
owners did.

The lawsuit comes as the Copyright Royalty Board is hearing
arguments from labels, songwriters, music publishers, and
digital music services, to determine mechanical royalty rates
for use of music on services such as MediaNet, DMW Daily
relates.

In 2001, NMPA and its licensing subsidiary The Harry Fox Agency,
Inc., entered into an agreement with the Recording Industry
Association of America to license digital uses of its
copyrighted musical works -- including limited downloads and
interactive streams -- at rates only now being determined by the
Copyright Royalty Board.  A similar "rateless" deal was then
offered to, and agreed to, by a number of digital media
companies who have gone on to develop businesses based on this
agreement.

While MediaNet was originally covered under the 2001 agreement
when owned by record labels, it refused to enter into a new
agreement with HFA on similar terms when it was sold by the
labels to a private equity firm, Baker Capital, in May 2005.
Despite repeated warnings from music publishers that it is not
properly licensed, MediaNet continues to operate its
unauthorized music service directly and as a white-label
provider to third parties who offer it to their own customers.  

MediaNet and other digital companies are represented in the
proceeding through their trade organization, the Digital Media
Association.

"DiMA members reaped the benefits of rateless deals for seven
years, but now they have taken the position in the current CRB
proceeding that music publishers and songwriters are not
entitled to royalties for interactive streams," Mr. Israelite
said in a press release.

"This is a flagrant and egregious violation of the agreements
music publishers were willing to make in order to allow new
business models to flourish to the benefit of music fans.  These
companies are now jeopardizing these services and acting not
only in a manner harmful to songwriters and music publishers,
but to consumers as well," Israelite said.

                         About MediaNet

MediaNet -- formerly known as MusicNet -- is a company that
powers digital music services for Microsoft, Yahoo, MTV and
others.  MediaNet was originally formed in 2001 by several major
record labels in partnership with AOL and RealNetworks, and
later sold to private equity firm Baker Capital in 2005.

                         About the NMPA

Founded in 1917, the National Music Publishers' Association is a
trade association representing more than 700 American music
publishers.  The NMPA's mandate is to protect and advance the
interests of music publishers and their songwriter partners in
matters relating to the domestic and global protection of music
copyrights.


MINNESOTA: Judge Denies TRO Against Registry Foreclosures
---------------------------------------------------------
Hennepin County Judge Joan Erickson denied a request for a
temporary restraining order against foreclosures initiated by a
national electronic mortgage registry, Minneapolis Star Tribune
reports.

The report relates that Judge Erickson's ruling signals that the
borrowers could have a hard time proving their case.

The case, Star Tribune, is being closely watched by the real
estate financing industry because the registry -- Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems -- initiates an estimated 40% of
metro-area foreclosures.  In Hennepin County, the registry is
listed as the mortgage holder on at least half of new mortgage
filings, says county Recorder Mike Cunniff.

According to Star Tribune, Judge Erickson ruled that the five
borrowers who are seeking class-action status did not meet the
threshold for the temporary order, in part because their chances
of prevailing in their lawsuit are slim.

Attorneys for the borrowers argue that the national registry
violated Minnesota law because its foreclosure notices do not
list assignments -- a document recorded when a mortgage is sold
to another party -- as required by law.

A Star Tribune report on Jan. 26, 2008, stated that the lawsuit
pits statutory requirements that date back to the 19th century
against a 21st century database that keeps track of who owns a
mortgage or rights to its income.  The lawsuit contends that the
registry hides who really owns a mortgage, creating difficulties
for borrowers or their advocates trying to negotiate with
lenders.

Attorneys for the registry, however, contend that it remains the
mortgage holder of record even when ownership of a loan is sold,
so there is no assignment, the report notes.  

Judge Erickson said borrowers had not proven that the registry
assigns its interests.

Amber Hawkins, Esq., who represents the borrowers, said that
they will proceed with their lawsuit.  She said they will argue
for Judge Erickson to certify the issue to the Minnesota Supreme
Court for review.

Robert Pratte, Esq., counsel for the registry, said that he was
still studying the ruling but agreed with its conclusion.

If successful, the lawsuit would set a legal precedent across
Minnesota, Star Tribune says.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amber Hawkins, Esq.
          The Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis
          430 First Avenue North, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612)746-3607

The defendant is represented by:

          Robert Pratte, Esq.
          90 South Seventh Street, Suite 5100
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4168
          Phone: (612) 524-3030
          Fax: (612) 524-3070
          e-mail: robert.pratte@dlapiper.com


MISSION CITY: Recalls Bracelet Sets for Lead Paint Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------
Mission City Press, of Franklin, Tenn., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
11,000 A Life of Faith charm bracelet sets.

The company said the surface paint on the pearl white beads of
the bracelet, contains excessive levels of lead, violating the
federal lead paint standard.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled bracelets have a silver-colored chain and silver-
colored charms, including a Bible, angel, cross, heart, and
praying hands.  The bracelets were sold with clear, crystal and
pearl white beads.  The recalled sets include a bracelet for a
girl to wear, along with a smaller, matching bracelet for her
doll.

These recalled bracelet sets were manufactured in China and were
being sold by specialty toy, book, and gift stores nationwide
from October 2006 through November 2007 for about $15.

Picture of the recalled bracelet sets is found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08194.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the bracelet sets
(including the girl's bracelet and the doll's bracelet) away
from children and return to the Mission City Press to receive a
refund.

If bracelets were received for free, consumers are advised to
dispose of them or remove the pearl white beads.

For additional information, contact Mission City Press at
(800) 840-2641 between 9:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. CT, Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.alifeoffaith.com/bracelet_recall.htmlor e-mail:  
customerservice@missioncitypress.com


MITSUBISHI RAYON: May 1 Hearing Set for $5M Antitrust Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on May 1, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. for
a proposed $5,000,000 settlement by Mitsubishi Rayon America,
Inc. in the matter, "In Re Plastic Additives Antitrust
Litigation, Master Docket No. 03-CV-2038 and MDL Docket No.
1684."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 6A,
601 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Any objection and exclusion to and from the settlement must be
made on or before April 11, 2008.

                        Case Background

The case is a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of
plastics additives (including, but not limited to, impact
modifiers, heat stabilizers, and processing aids) between
Jan. 1, 1990, and Jan. 31, 2003 (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 21, 2007).

Plastics additives are added to plastic resins in order to
enhance the quality of those resins.  Among the principal
plastics additives are heat stabilizers, impact modifiers, and
processing aids.

Heat stabilizers are used to protect resins from thermal
degradation and to enhance the flexibility and stability of the
end product.

Impact modifiers are used to improve the resistance of the
finished plastics products to stress and improve the strength of
plastics.  

Impact modifiers also reduce the weathering, chemical
resistance, tensile strength, and stress rupture of plastic
compounds.

Processing aids are chemicals that enable plastics to be
processed at lower temperatures thereby eliminating heat
degradation and ensuring quality, as well as providing greater
control over the flow of melted plastic.

Plaintiff alleges a nationwide and worldwide conspiracy among 16
companies to fix prices of plastics additives in order to raise,
maintain, or stabilize prices for plastics additives above the
level where they otherwise would have been in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Plaintiff alleges that the conspiracy began in or around Jan. 1,
1990, and ended around Jan. 31, 2003 when it was announced that
these companies were being investigated by U.S., European, and
Japanese law enforcement and antitrust investigators for
participating in an international cartel to fix the prices of
plastics additives.

Plaintiffs sought to recover, among other things, treble damages
on behalf of itself and others who purchased plastics additives
from the defendants and others during the class period.

For more details, contact:

         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
         805 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 1-800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980
         Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/

         Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.
         One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-238-1700
         Fax: 215-238-1968
         e-Mail: info@kohnswift.com
         Web site: http://www.kohnswift.com/

         Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2300
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
         Phone: 800-778-1822
         e-mail: info@gbcslaw.com
         Web site: http://gbcslaw.com

              - and -

         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         150 East 52nd Street, Thirtieth Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 838-7797
         Fax: (212) 838-7745
         e-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com
         Web site: http://www.cmht.com


OKLAHOMA: Abuses & Neglects 10,000 Foster Kids, Lawsuit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma's Department of Human Services is facing a class-action
complaint filed on Feb. 13, 2008, with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma accusing it of
unconstitutionally abusing the kids it takes from parents and
places in foster homes, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit, brought by Seymour & Graham and Doerner Saunders in
Tulsa and Kaye Scholer in New York, says Oklahoma's foster homes
are overcrowded, dangerous and staffed by an unstable and
inadequately trained workforce, while kids are abused, neglected
and shunted from one inappropriate home to another.

The case is brought by nine children in foster care, on behalf
of themselves and the more than 10,000 children of Oklahoma who
have been removed from their homes by the State.  These foster
children, who are or will be in the legal custody of the DHS,
bring this action because DHS, under the supervision of
defendants, who directly and indirectly control and are
responsible for the administration of Oklahoma's foster care
system, have failed in their basic and fundamental duty to
provide for the safety and care of these Oklahoma citizens.

Lead attorney Frederic Dorwart claims, "Dangerous failures in
Oklahoma's foster care system have been documented for over ten
years, yet DHS (the Oklahoma Department of Human Services) has
failed to ameliorate them or implement necessary reform."

"Plaintiff children are victimized while in DHS custody, DHS
houses plaintiff children in dangerous and inappropriate
placements that fail to provide adequate protection or meet
their needs . . . DHS unnecessarily institutionalizes plaintiff
children in dangerous and inappropriate emergency shelters for
extended periods of time, DHE place plaintiff children in
dangerous and inappropriate homes and facilities while in DHS
custody, DHS frequently moves children from one inappropriate
placement to another, causing them severe emotional and
psychological harm, DHS prevents plaintiff children from
maintaining critical family ties while in state custody," the
complaint continues.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether DHS has a policy or practice of failing to
         develop and maintain a sufficient number and array of     
         safe and appropriate placements for plaintiff children,  
         causing significant harm and risk or harm to plaintiff
         children's safety, health and well-being;

     (b) whether DHS has a policy or practice of failing to
         adequately monitor the safety of plaintiff children,
         causing significant harm and risk of harm to plaintiff
         children's safety, health and well-being;

     (c) whether DHS has a policy or practice of placing
         plaintiff children in unsafe and inappropriate homes
         and facilities, causing significant harm and risk of
         harm to plaintiff children's safety, health and well-
         being;

     (d) whether DHS has a policy or practice that has the
         effect of subjecting plaintiff children to abuse,
         neglect and other maltreatment while in DHS custody,
         causing significant harm and risk of harm to plaintiff
         children's safety, health and well-being;

     (e) whether DHS has a policy or practice of subjecting
         plaintiff children to unreasonably frequent moves from
         placement to placement, causing significant harm and
         risk of harm to plaintiff children's health and well-
         being;

     (f) whether DHS has a policy or practice of failing to
         arrange for and facilitate plaintiff children's family
         relationships, causing significant harm and risk of
         harm to plaintiff children's health and well-being;

     (g) whether DHS has a policy or practice of failing to
         place plaintiff children in the least restrictive and
         most family-like settings appropriate to their needs,
         causing significant harm and risk of harm to plaintiff
         children's health and well-being;

     (h) whether DHS has a policy or practice of failing to
         provide adequate foster care maintenance payments and
         an adequate methodology for calculating those payments
         for the care of plaintiff children; and

     (i) whether the conduct described is contrary to law,
         reasonable professional standards and outside the
         exercise of any professional judgment.

The plaintiffs request that the court:

      -- assert jurisdiction over this action;

      -- order that plaintiff children may maintain this action
         as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the
         Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

      -- declare unconstitutional and unlawful pursuant to Rule
         57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

           (i) defendants' violation of plaintiff children's
               rights under the substantive due process clause
               of the fourteenth amendment to the United States
               constitution;

          (ii) defendants' violation of plaintiff children's
               rights under the first, ninth, and fourteenth
               amendments to the United States constitution;

         (iii) defendants' violation of plaintiff children's
               rights under the Adoption Assistance and Child
               Welfare Act of 1980, 42 USC Section 621 et seq.,
               670 et seq.;

          (iv) defendants' violation of plaintiff children's  
               right to procedural due process under the fifth
               and fourteenth amendments to the United States
               Constitution; and

           (v) defendants' breach of their contractual
               obligations to plaintiff children under the State
               of Oklahoma's Title IV-E and Title IV-B state
               plans;

      -- permanently enjoin defendants from subjecting plaintiff
         children to practices that violate their rights;

      -- order appropriate remedial relief tailored to the
         evidence proven to the court in order to ensure
         defendants' future compliance with their legal
         obligations to plaintiff children;

      -- award to plaintiff children the reasonable costs and
         expenses incurred in the prosecution of this action,
         including reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42
         USC Section 1988 and 28 USC Section 1920, and Federal
         Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e) and (h); and

      -- grant such other and further equitable relief as the
         court deems just, necessary and proper to protect the
         plaintiff children from further harm by defendants.

The suit is "D.G. by Next Friend G. Gail Stricklin et al. v. C.
Brad Henry et al., Case No. 08 CV-07 4 GKF FHM," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          R. Thomas Seymour, Esq.
          Scott A. Graham, Esq.
          Seymour & Graham, LLP
          100 W. Fifth Street, Suite 50
          Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4288
          Phone: 918-583-5791
          Fax: 918-583-9251
          e-mail: Rtseymour@aol.com
                  sgraham@seymourgraham.com                    


OPNEXT INC: Rosen Law Firm Plans Securities Fraud Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm is investigating civil securities claims
against Opnext, Inc. concerning allegations that Opnext issued a
materially inaccurate Registration Statement and Prospectus in
connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering on Feb.
14, 2007.

On Feb. 13, 2008, the Company announced that its previously
issued financial statements for the fiscal years ended March 31,
2007 and 2006 and certain interim quarterly periods can no
longer be relied upon and have to be restated.  This adverse
announcement caused the Company's stock to fall $0.89 per share,
or 16.6%, that day.

As a result of these allegations, the Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who
purchased the common stock of Opnext from the date of Opnext's
IPO, February 14, 2007, through February 13, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          4101 Lake Boone Trail, Suite 500
          Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekend Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com                 
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


RESPIRONICS INC: Denies Motion in Del. Lawsuit Over $5.1B Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court denied a motion seeking expedited
proceedings for a purported shareholder lawsuit against
Respironics, Inc. over the company's $5.1 billion acquisition by
Royal Philips Electronics, according to the company's Feb. 11,
2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Jan. 8, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the
Company, the members of its Board of Directors, Koninklijke
Philips Electronics N.V., Philips Holding USA Inc. and
Moonlight Merger Sub, Inc.

The plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duties by the
Company's Directors in connection with the merger agreement
entered into on Dec. 20, 2007 by Respironics, Philips USA and
Moonlight Merger Sub, Inc., and the subsequent tender offer for
the Company's shares, commenced on Jan. 3, 2008, by Moonlight
Merger Sub, Inc.  

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks an injunction against the
tender offer and the merger agreement as well as unspecified
damages, including attorneys' fees and costs.  

On Jan. 10, 2008, the plaintiff filed motions seeking expedited
proceedings, including the scheduling of a preliminary
injunction hearing before the close of the tender offer and
expedited discovery.  

The defendants opposed the plaintiff's motions.  The Vice
Chancellor of the Court of Chancery heard arguments on the
motions on Jan. 14, 2008, and denied the plaintiff's motions.

For more details, contact:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, P.A.
          919 Market Street, Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Phone: (302) 656-4433
          Fax: (302) 658-7567


SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed on
Feb. 13, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina alleging it misled consumers by
improperly charging roaming fees in connection with two "fair
and flexible" plans, Jeffrey Silva of Carrier News reports.

The complaint asserts "All roaming fees assessed to Myra Johnson
were wrongful because defendant Sprint did not know and/or
failed to ascertain her physical location at the time the calls
were place or received to determine whether roaming charges
could be properly assessed against her, which is a breach of the
terms of the contract."

"As a direct and proximate result of defendant Sprint's
misconduct," the lawsuit adds, "defendant Sprint's misconduct,
plaintiff and class members have suffered damages including, but
not limited to, paying wrongly assessed charges, past and future
economic loss, and loss of benefits, plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs," the 20-page complaint reads.

In response to the latest class action lawsuit, Sprint Nextel
stated, "We're still reviewing the complaint, so we can't
comment on the specific claims.  We take great care to ensure
that our customers understand the scope of service offered
through their plans with Sprint."

The suit is "Johnson v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Case
Number: 3:2008cv00054," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, Senior Judge Graham
Mullen, presiding.


SUNOPTA INC: Federman Expands Securities Fraud Suit Class Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announced an expanded class period in the
securities class action against SunOpta, Inc. (NASDAQ: STKL)  
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit was filed on Jan. 28 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 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12, 2008).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The class period has now been expanded to include those
investors who bought or sold between May 8, 2007, to January 25,
2008.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          e-mail: wfederman@aol.com
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


SUTTER HEALTH: Nurses File Calif. Suit Over Unpaid Meal Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sutter Health is facing a class-action complaint filed with the
Sacramento County Superior Court, aiming to collect back pay for
missing meals and rest breaks and working overtime, Gilbert Chan
of the Sacramento Bee reports.

The Sutter lawsuit was filed by nurses:

     -- Diane Aymer,
     -- Deborah Klacik
     -- Sheryl Wozniewicz of Sacramento County,
     -- Montie Frederick of Solano County and
     -- Jackie Brown of Placer County.

The nurses accuse Sacramento-based Sutter of having "a
consistent policy" of requiring nurses to work through their
breaks without compensation and failing to pay appropriate
overtime and minimum wages since February 2004.

According to the report, by law, workers must have a 10-minute
rest period every four hours and a 30-minute meal break for
every five hours of work.  Employers must compensate workers for
an hour's pay every day the law is violated.

A violation occurs if the rest break isn't taken within the
fourth hour and the meal within the fifth -- even if the worker
takes the break later in the shift.

The suit comes as Sutter and state labor regulators conduct a
massive audit of payroll and time card records of about 4,500
workers at five hospitals in the Sacramento region.  The review
could result in a multimillion-dollar payout.

"Sutter has been aware of the problem for some time.  They
really haven't take any measures to stem the problem," said H.
Wade Sammis, the Sacramento attorney representing the nurses.

Sutter spokesman Bill Gleeson said Sutter strives for consistent
compliance with California's complex labor rules in a setting
where patient care must be given top priority.

To contact Mr. Sammis:

          H. Wade Sammis, Attorney At Law
          520 Capitol Mall
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: 916-447-0105


TOP SHIPS: Seeks Court Approval for Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
TOP Ships, formerly known as TOP Tankers Inc., is filing for the
Court's approval of a settlement agreement with lead plaintiffs
in the securities class action lawsuit pending against the
Company and certain of its directors and officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Initially, the company and certain of its executive officers and
directors were named as defendants in a putative securities
fraud class action.  The suit is alleging violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The shareholders accused Top Tankers and its top executives of
omitting key financial data in order to boost the company's
stock price.  Questions about the shipping company's accounting
practices emerged when the company announced in June 2006 that
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating
the company's acquisitions dating back to 2004 and events before
the company announced the $550 million sale and leaseback of 13
vessels on March 13, 2006.  The company announced on Nov. 29,
2006, that its auditors, Ernst & Young, had resigned over the
accounting for the sale and leaseback of the vessels.

As of the company's April 20, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006, none of the defendants has been served in
this action, which has been consolidated with nine additional
putative class actions (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007).

Top Tankers said that after its motion to dismiss the first
consolidated complaint in the case, plaintiffs were "forced to
take the unusual step of abandoning a large portion of their
case, including their major theory of fraud," related to Top
Tankers mis-characterizing a distribution as a "special
dividend" and thereby overstating its financial condition.  
"What remains, after plaintiffs were compelled to concede these
allegations, is a bare skeleton of a complaint," Top Tankers
said.

In the new complaint, there was not one specifically pleaded
allegation suggesting that Top Tankers had meant to commit
fraud.  Nor did the complaint identify a single stock sale, or
anything else, that could explain why Top Tankers would have
done anything fraudulent.

Top Tankers asked for the complaint to be dismissed with
prejudice and without leave to replead since there is "no basis
whatsoever for the claim of fraud. . ." (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 25, 2007).

If the court gives preliminary approval to the settlement,
notice will be provided to shareholders, who have the
opportunity to object to the settlement, and to opt out of the
settlement, which will then be subject to final approval by the
Court and possible appeals.

The terms of the agreement call for a payment of $1.2 million
dollars to the plaintiffs.  Attorney's fees for plaintiff's
counsel, which have not been determined, will be paid out of
this amount.  The settlement will be funded entirely by the
Company's Directors and Officers insurance carriers.  The
Company and its officers and directors will receive a complete
release of all the remaining direct claims against them in the
shareholder class action litigation.  Many of the claims had
already been dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiffs when they
amended their complaint last fall after TOPS initially moved to
dismiss.

"We're extremely pleased to have resolved this matter," said
Evangelos Pistiolis CEO, of TOP Ships.  "We believe that we have
settled this dispute for a modest amount, and have eliminated
the distraction to management which protracted litigation would
have caused.  We have always believed that the class action was
meritless, and were pleased that many of the allegations were
voluntarily dropped by the plaintiffs some months ago.  We
intend to continue to rebuild shareholder confidence in TOP
Ships."

Mr. Pistiolis added, "We remain confident that TOP Ships' move
into the drybulk sector is the correct strategy given the global
demand for goods.  We believe that the drybulk fleet will
contribute significantly to the growth of the company moving
forward. This settlement enables us to fully concentrate on what
we do best -- running a modern and efficient shipping business."

The first identified complaint is "Bhojwani v. Pistiolis et al.
Case No. 1:06-cv-13761-RCC," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard C.
Casey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 983-9330
         Fax: (212) 983-9331
         e-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

         Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
         Gardy & Notis, LLP
         440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
         Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
         Phone: (201) 567-7377
         e-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com  

              - and -

         Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq.
         Kahn, Gauthier Swick, LLC
         650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Phone: (504) 455-1400
         email: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Justina Louise Geraci, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P.
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 295-6380
         Fax: (212) 230-8888
         e-mail: justina.geraci@wilmerhale.com

    
TRAVELERS COS: April 25 Hearing Set for $77M Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hold
a fairness hearing on April 25, 2008, at 4:30 a.m. for the
proposed $77,000,000 settlement in the consolidated securities
class action, "In Re: St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation
II, Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN," which was filed against The
Travelers Companies, Inc., formerly The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc.

The hearing will be held before Judge John R. Tunheim, at the
U.S. Courthouse for the District of Minnesota, 300 South Forth
St., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55145.

Any objection and exclusion to and from the settlement must be
made on or before April 3, 2008.  Deadline for the submission of
a proof of claim for is on June 27, 2008.

                        Case Background

In November 2004, two purported class actions were brought by
certain shareholders of the Company against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  These
two actions were consolidated as "In re St. Paul Travelers
Securities Litigation II," (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 3,
2008).

On July 11, 2005, an amended consolidated complaint was filed.
The amended and consolidated complaint alleged violations of
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's alleged
failure to make disclosure relating to the practice of paying
brokers commissions on a contingent basis, the Company's alleged
involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids and the Company's
allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance products.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the Company and the other defendants in "In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II" moved to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim.

Oral argument on the Company's motion to dismiss was presented
on June 15, 2006.  By order dated Sept. 25, 2006, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the Company and the other defendants in "In re
St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II" moved for partial
judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the allegations
relating to the allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance
products.

On June 1, 2007, the Court granted that motion and permitted the
lead plaintiff to replead.

On June 8, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended and
consolidated complaint alleging the same claims as in the first
amended and consolidated complaint but extending the putative
class period.

On July 11, 2007, the Company and other defendants in "In re St.
Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II" moved to dismiss the
second amended and consolidated complaint (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 7, 2007).

Travelers Companies would later reach an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs to settle the previously disclosed purported
class action.

The suit is "In Re: St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II,
Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim
with referral to Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
         Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
         Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         270 Madison Ave.
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4690, 212-545-4605 and 212-545-4762
         Fax: 212-545-4653
         e-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                 bruckner@whafh.com
                 rifkin@whafh.com

              - and -

         Jack L. Chestnut, Esq.
         Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
         Chestnut & Cambronne
         222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: (612) 339-7300
         Fax: 612-336-2940
         e-mail: jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com
                 kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com

Representing the defendants are:

         David H. LaRocca, Esq.
         Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
         Michael J. Garvey, Esq.
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
         425 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10017-3954
         Phone: 212-455-2377, 212-455-2598 and 212-455-7358
         e-mail: dlarocca@stblaw.com
                 mchepiga@stblaw.com
                 mgarvey@stblaw.com

              - and -

         Peter W. Carter, Esq.
         Richard B. Solum, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2868
         e-mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com
                 solum.rick@dorsey.com


TYSON FOODS: Tenn. Judge Throws-Out "Trollinger" RICO Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Curtis Collier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee dismissed the purported class action,
"Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:02-cv-23," The
Sedalia Democrat reports.

On April 2, 2002, four former employees of the company's
Shelbyville, Tennessee chicken-processing plant filed the case.
It was filed as a putative class action against the company,
raising allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Practices Act.  It specifically alleged that the
company, in conjunction with employment agencies and recruiters,
engaged in a scheme to hire illegal immigrant workers in 15 of
its processing plants to depress wages paid to hourly wage
employees at those plants.

On July 16, 2002, the court dismissed the case.  Following
appeal, on June 3, 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit reversed the court's decision and remanded the case for
further proceedings.  Discovery has been ongoing since September
2004.

In June 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  
The second amended complaint included different plaintiffs,
narrowed the list of plants at issue to eight and added the
allegation the company conspired with certain Hispanic civil
rights groups to hire illegal immigrant workers.

In addition, the second amended complaint added the following,
all of whom are current or former officers or managers of the
company, as defendants in the case:

      -- John Tyson,  
      -- Richard Bond,  
      -- Greg Lee,  
      -- Archibald Schaffer III,  
      -- Kenneth Kimbro,  
      -- Karen Percival, and
      -- Tim McCoy, and Ahrazue Wilt.
  
On Aug. 5, 2005, the plaintiffs sought certification of a
putative class of all hourly wage employees at the eight company
plants since 1998 who were legally authorized to be employed in
the U.S., which the defendants opposed.

On Oct. 10, 2006, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  On Oct. 24, 2006, the
defendants filed with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals a
petition for interlocutory review of the District Court's class
certification decision.  That petition is pending.

The Court has set a trial date of March 3, 2008, according to
the company's May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2007).

Recently, Judge Collier dismissed the case with prejudice,
meaning plaintiffs can't refile the suit.

According to the judge's memorandum, supporting his judgment,
the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence proving the
presence of at least 10 undocumented workers at any given Tyson
plant or show proof of violations.

"This case has been a long, unnecessary ordeal, covering almost
six years, and today's ruling confirms what we have said all
along, that these claims were without merit.  Our company makes
a concerted effort to hire properly and abide by the law,"
according to a written statement provided by Tyson Foods
spokesman Gary Mickelson.  "We're extremely pleased by the court
ruling and are especially gratified that the claims were
dismissed with prejudice, which means this case is over."

The suit is "Trollinger, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No.
4:02-cv-00023," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier with
referral to Judge William B. Carter.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Howard W. Foster, Esq.
         Johnson & Bell, Ltd.
         33 East Monroe Street, Suite 2700
         Chicago, IL 60603-5404
         Phone: 312-372-0770
         Fax: 312-372-9818
         e-mail: fosterh@jbltd.com

              - and -

         William G. Colvin, Esq.
         Shumacker, Witt, Gaither & Whitaker, P.C.
         736 Market Street, Suite 1100  
         Chattanooga, TN 37402
         Phone: 423-425-7000
         e-mail: bcolvin@swgwlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Roger W. Dickson, Esq.
         Miller & Martin
         832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000, Volunteer Building
         Chattanooga, TN 37402-2289
         Phone: 423-756-6600
         e-mail: rdickson@millermartin.com

              - and -

         Thomas C. Green, Esq.
         Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP
         1501 K. Street NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-736-8000


WEISS RESEARCH: Deadline for Filing Claims Set to June 10
---------------------------------------------------------
Raul Garcia, the Plan Administrator in Weiss Research Inc.'s
distribution proceeding, advises that creditors having claims
against the company have until June 10, 2008, to file their
proofs of claim.

The Administrator clarified that eligible claimants are
individuals, entities, or their lawful successors, who:

  1) paid for a subscription to one or more of the Eligible
     Weiss Research Premium Service Publications at any point
     between Sept. 1, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2004; and

  2) had during that same period an auto-trading arrangement
     with a broker-dealer to automatically execute all trading
     recommendations contained in the publication.

A copy of the company's plan of distribution can be found at
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?2813

Additional information about the company's proceeeding can be
obtained at:

     Weiss Research Inc. Proceeding
     c/o Kaufman Rossin & Co.
     2699 South Bayshore Drive, Suite #300
     Coconut Grove, Florida, 33133
     Tel: (866) 357-9634 (toll free)
     http://www.kaufmanrossin.com/weissresearch/

                      About Weiss Research

Based in Houston, Texas, Weiss Research Inc. --
http://www.weissresearch.com/-- manufactures electrochemical
sensors.  It was founded by a group of professional chemists
trained in the analytical electrochemical sensor area with more
than 60 years of combined experience.  The company's main
products include pH Electrodes, Ion-Selective Electrodes (ISE),
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP), Reference Electrodes,
Conductivity Probes, pH buffers, ISE calibration standards &
buffers, and accessories.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued cease-and-
desist proceedings on June 2006 against the company and two of
its officers, Martin Weiss and Lawrence Edelson, for willfully
violating the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

As a remedial sanction, the SEC ordered the company to pay
disgorgement and prejudgment interest for $1,641,141.  In
addition, the SEC compelled the company to pay civil money
penalties of $350,000, Martin Weiss, $100,000, and Lawrence
Edelson, $75,000.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
behalf of purchasers of Municipal Mortgage & Equity LLC
(NYSE:MMA) common stock during the period between May 3, 2004,
and January 29, 2008.

MuniMae provides debt and equity financing to developers of
multifamily and commercial properties in the United States.

The complaint alleges that the Company, and certain of its
officers and directors, concealed and misrepresented material
adverse facts pertaining to MuniMae's business prospects,
financial condition and financial performance.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company
and the other defendants misled investors concerning the
adequacy of the Company's internal controls and the value and
performance of its tax-exempt bond portfolio.

On January 29, 2008, following the close of trading, MuniMae
disclosed for the first time that the Company was performing
well below expectations and further expected to restate its
financial results spanning back to 2004, thereby admitting that
its prior reported financial results had been materially
misleading.  Following this announcement, the Company's share
price plunged over 47% in after-hours trading.  The following
day, January 30, MuniMae's share price fell an additional 30%.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          The Duvall Foundry
          1050 30th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 877-337-1050
          e-mail: denright@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  etripodi@finkelsteinthompson.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  * * *