CAR_Public/080220.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, February 20, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 36
  
                            Headlines

ARAMARK: Mass. Suit Accuses Red Sox of Cheating Vendors of Tips
BIOGEN IDEC: Plaintiff Files Brief in Appeal of Mass. Litigation
BOEING CO: Court Mulls Class Certification Motion in ERISA Suit
BOEING CO: Court Allows Filing of Amended Complaint in "Spano"
CAPITAL ONE: WA Lawsuit Alleges Credit Card Numbers are Changed

CHATTEM INC: Recalls Icy Hot Heat Therapy Products for Burn Risk
CLEAR CHANNEL: Appeals Class Certification of Antitrust Lawsuits
CLEAR CHANNEL: Still Faces Lawsuits Over BT Triple Crown Merger
COCA-COLA: Reaches $2.25M Settlement in Calif. Overtime Lawsuit
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Sends Out Checks as Part of Suit Settlement

DOEREN MAYHEW: Directors Face Suits in Mich. Over Ponzi Scheme
GEMSTAR-TV: Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of "Zilson" Complaint
GEMSTAR-TV: Faces Suit in Del. Over Macrovision Corp. Deal
GEORGIA ENERGY: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Allegations At I-35 Exits
GILMAN & CIOCIA: Parties Reach Tentative Settlement in "Kosseff"

GOODYEAR TIRE: Ohio Court Grants Preliminarily OK to USW Deal
H&R BLOCK: Missouri Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiff Nixes BTP Transaction Complaint
LEAR CORP: Filing of Amended Complaint Over $2B Sale Allowed
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Apr. 7

MCGRAW-HILL: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Securities Suit Named
NICK & KATIE'S: Recalls Brand Products Over Undeclared Content
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Several Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suits
MENU FOODS: Tainted Pet-Food Lawsuits Still Undergoing Mediation
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Workers' FLSA Violations Lawsuit Consolidated

SCOTIABANK: Slapped with Suit Over Unpaid Employee Overtime
SEATTLE MORTGAGE: Sued Over Improperly Charged "Release Fee"
SEE'S CANDIES: Recalls Choco Chips Over Undeclared Milk
STATE OF VICTORIA: May Face Suit On Behalf of Aborigines
TAZEWELL COUNTY: Judge Dismisses 2 Lawsuits Commenced by Inmate

UNITED STATES: Race Profiling Challenged in 9/11 Detention Suit
WACHOVIA BANK: PA Suit Accuses Conspiracy to Defraud Old Folks

* Securities Lawyers Worley, Evangelista Joins Page Perry, LLC


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ARAMARK: Mass. Suit Accuses Red Sox of Cheating Vendors of Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boston Red Sox and Aramark are facing a class-action lawsuit
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alleging that it cheats
Fenway Park food-service workers of tips, of hours and overtime
pay, the CourtHouse News reports.

This is a class action brought under statutory and common law
challenging the failure of defendants to distribute all service
charges and gratuities to food service employees who work at
Fenway Park, as well as other wage violations by Aramark,
including failure to pay proper overtime compensation and
failure to pay all wages fully and timely.

Workers say the Red Sox add a "gratuity or service charge" for
food and drink purchased at Fenway, but do not pass it along to
the employees.

Named plaintiff Michael Hayes alleges that in failing to
distribute all service charges and gratuities as required by
law, the defendants have violated Mass. Gen. l. c. 149 Section
152A and are also liable under Massachusetts common law for:

-- quantum meruit/unjust enrichment
-- breach of implied contract and
-- interference with contractual and advantageous relations.

In addition, Mr. Hayes alleges that Aramark has violated Mass.
Gen. L. c. 149 Section 148 and Mass. Gen. L. c. 151 Sections 1A
and 1B.

In this action, Mr. Hayes seeks restitution for himself and all
other employees who did not receive all gratuities or service
charges to which they are entitled, as well as restitution for
unpaid wages and overtime.

Mr. Hayes request that the court enter the following relief:

     -- restitution for all gratuities or service charges that
        were not remitted to eligible employees;

     -- restitution for all wages and overtime owed;

     -- interest on late payments of wages, overtime,
        gratuities, and service charges;

     -- statutory trebling of all damages;

     -- attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- any other relief to which plaintiffs my be entitled.

The suit is "Michael Hayes et al. Aramark et al., Civil Action
No. 08-0749-D," filed with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Suffolk.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. (sliss@prle.com)
          Hillary Schwab, Esq. (hschwab@prle.com)
          Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, PC
          18 Tremont Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: (617) 367-7200


BIOGEN IDEC: Plaintiff Files Brief in Appeal of Mass. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported securities fraud class action
against Biogen Idec, Inc. filed its principal brief on appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in
connection with the dismissal of the case.

On March 2, 2005, the company, its former executive chairman --
William H. Rastetter -- and chief executive officer James C.
Mullen, were named as defendants in a purported class action,
captioned "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's publicly-traded securities between Feb. 18, 2004,
and Feb. 25, 2005.  

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the potentially serious side
effects of its product TYSABRI in order to gain accelerated
approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the
product's distribution and sale.  The plaintiffs assert that
these materially false and misleading statements harmed the
purported class by artificially inflating the company's stock
price during the purported class period and that company
insiders benefited personally from the inflated price by selling
the company's stock.  

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, as well as interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

Substantially similar actions were also filed:

     -- "Grill v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al." and
     -- "Lobel v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.,"

Other purported class representatives brought the suits on
March 10, 2005, and April 21, 2005, respectively, in the same
court.  Those actions have been consolidated with the Brown
case.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which, among other amendments to the allegations,
adds as defendants:

     -- Peter N. Kellogg, chief financial officer;

     -- William R. Rohn, former chief operating officer;

     -- Burt A. Adelman, executive vice president of Portfolio
        Strategy; and

     -- Thomas J. Bucknum, former general counsel.

On Sept. 14, 2007, the District Court Judge entered an order
allowing the Motions to Dismiss of all defendants.  On Sept. 28,
2007, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Clarification of the
Court's Order Allowing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, in which
they seek leave to amend their complaint.

In October 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The plaintiffs then filed its principal brief on appeal on
Feb. 6, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 14, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-10400-RCL," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. (shopkins@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 646-733-5768
         Fax: 212-273-4445

              - and -
       
         David Pastor, Esq. (dpastor@gilmanpastor.com)
         Gilman and Pastor, LLP
         60 State Street, 37th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-742-9700
         Fax: 617-742-9701

Representing the company is:

         James R. Carroll, Esq. (jcarroll@skadden.com)
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
         One Beacon Street, 31st Floor
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-573-4800
         Fax: 617-573-4822


BOEING CO: Court Mulls Class Certification Motion in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has yet to rule on a motion seeking class certification for a
consolidated class action against The Boeing Co., alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed a class
action asserting allegations that Boeing is obligated to provide
vested lifetime retiree medical benefits to plaintiffs and all
class members.

The plaintiffs alleged that the announced changes to medical
plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of
collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor-
Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA.
The lawsuit alleged that the collective bargaining agreements
and the medical plans obligate Boeing to provide vested lifetime
retiree health care benefits to the plaintiffs and to all class
members.

On Sept. 15, 2006, Boeing filed a lawsuit with the Northern
District of Illinois against the International UAW and two
retiree medical plan participants, seeking a declaratory
judgment confirming that the company has the legal right to make
changes to these medical benefits.

On June 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee directed the case to be transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The two
cases were consolidated on Sept. 24, 2007.

The UAW filed a Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint on
Oct. 26, 2007, in which it sought to drop the retirees claim for
vested lifetime benefits based on successive collective
bargaining agreements and instead allege that the current
collective bargaining agreement is the sole alleged source of
rights to retiree medical benefits.  The company opposed the
motion.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the court granted the motion to amend the
complaint on the condition that the lifetime retiree benefits
claims are to be dismissed with prejudice.  

The plaintiffs' counsel is now considering whether to accept the
condition or withdraw the amended complaint.  In addition, both
parties filed Motions for Class Certification on Nov. 16, 2007.

Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com
-- is an aerospace company that operates in six principal
segments: Commercial Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems,
Network Systems, Support Systems, Launch and Orbital Systems,
and Boeing Capital Corp.  

   
BOEING CO: Court Allows Filing of Amended Complaint in "Spano"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint in the
class action, "Spano et al v. Boeing Company, The et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00743-DRH-DGW," which is alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the company was named as a defendant in the
lawsuit, which was filed with the U. S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of similarly
situated participants and beneficiaries in the Boeing Company
Voluntary Investment Plan, alleged that fees and expenses
incurred by the Plan were and are unreasonable and excessive,
not incurred solely for the benefit of the Plan and its
participants, and were undisclosed to participants.

The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
sought injunctive, and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.  

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which
Boeing has opposed.

On Sept. 10, 2007, the court issued an order staying class
certification pending resolution by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit of "Lively v. Dynegy, Inc."

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file
an amended complaint, which complaint added the company's
Employee Benefits Investment Committee as a defendant, and
included new allegations regarding alleged breach of fiduciary
duty.

The suit is "Spano et al v. Boeing Company, The et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-00743-DRH-DGW," filed with the U. S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois, Judge David R. Herndon
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Daniel V. Conlisk, Esq.
         Schlichter, Bogard et al.
         Generally Admitted
         100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
         St. Louis, MO 63102
         Phone: 314-621-6115
         e-mail: DConlisk@uselaws.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
         Groom Law Group, Chartered
         1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1200
         Washington, DC 20006
         Phone: 202-861-6615
         Fax: 202-659-4503
         e-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com

              - and -

         Lisa Demet Martin, Esq.
         Bryan Cave
         211 North Broadway
         One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600
         St. Louis, MO 63102
         Phone: 314-259-2000
         Fax: 314-259-2020
         e-mail: lmartin@bryancave.com


CAPITAL ONE: WA Lawsuit Alleges Credit Card Numbers are Changed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Services, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington alleging it changed "hundreds of thousands if not
millions" of its customers' credit card numbers without
notifying them, causing their cards to be rejected and whacking
them with late fees and finance charges, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Paul Ehreth, a former credit card customer,
brings the complaint challenging Capital One's unilateral
alteration of its credit card customer account numbers without
notifying its credit card customers of the change.

The plaintiff brings the complaint for:

     -- breach of contract;

     -- unjust enrichment; and

     -- violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15
        USC Section 1681 et seq.

The plaintiff seeks immediate injunctive relief on a class-wide
basis to notify the class of the change in their account and
payment of damages, including refund of all late fees, finance
charges, and all other damages resulting from Capital One's
actions.

The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all credit card
customers of Capital One within three years preceding that date
of the complaint.

The plaintiff requests the following relief:

     -- an order certifying the class of Capital One's credit
        card customers;

     -- an order appointing plaintiff as the representative of
        the class;

     -- an order appointing plaintiff's counsel as lead counsel
        for the class;

     -- judgment against defendant for all damages due to the
        plaintiff and the class in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- permanently enjoining defendant from improperly refusing
        payments from consumers and charging fees to consumers
        for late and missed payments;

     -- actual damages;

     -- statutory damages;

     -- attorneys' fees;

     -- punitive damages under 15 USC Section 1681n(a)(2)

     -- prejudgment interest on all damages awarded to plaintiff
        and the class; and

     -- for such other relief in law or equity, which the court
        finds appropriate, just or equitable.

The suit is "Paul Ehreth et al. v. Capital One Services, Inc.,
Case No. C 08-0258 RSL," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephen P. Connor, Esq.
          Anne-Marie E. Sargent, Esq.
          Connor & Sargent PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1650
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 654-5050
          Fax: (206) 654-0011
          e-mail: info@consarlaw.com


CHATTEM INC: Recalls Icy Hot Heat Therapy Products for Burn Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. is initiating a voluntary Nationwide recall of its
Icy Hot Heat Therapy products, including consumer "samples" that
were included on a limited promotional basis in cartons of its 3
oz. Aspercreme product.  This recall is being conducted to the
consumer level.

Chattem is recalling these products because it has received some
consumer reports of first, second and third degree burns as well
as skin irritation resulting from consumer use or possible
misuse of these products.

All lots and all sizes of the following Icy Hot Heat Therapy
products are affected by this recall:

     -- Icy Hot Heat Therapy Air Activated Heat- Back
     -- Icy Hot Heat Therapy Air Activated Heat- Arm, Neck, and
        Leg
     -- Icy Hot Heat Therapy Air Activated Heat- Arm, Neck, and
        Leg single consumer use "samples" included on a limited
        promotional basis in cartons of 3 oz. Aspercreme Pain
        Relieving Creme.

If products have been removed from their holding cartons the
recalled products are packaged in a red colored plastic pouch
which states Icy Hot Heat Therapy and either Back or Arm/Neck
and Leg.

Single consumer use "samples" of Icy Hot Heat Therapy- Arm, Neck
and Leg were included on a limited promotional basis in yellow
and red cartons of 3 oz. Aspercreme Pain Relieving Creme.  The
samples were distinct and stand-alone products, clearly labeled
as "Icy Hot Heat Therapy Air Activated Heat," with their own
internal labeling.

These products are sold over the counter through food, drug and
mass merchandisers.

Consumers who have the Icy Hot Heat Therapy products under
recall should immediately stop using the products, discard them,
and return them to Chattem, Inc.

Product may be returned for a full refund (average retail price)
by calling Chattem's Consumer Affairs Department at 1-877-742-
6275 (M-F from 8:00 a.m. To 4:00 p.m. EST) or via the company's
Web site: http://www.Chattem.com

Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of the Icy Hot
Heat Therapy products should also be reported the FDA Adverse
Event Reporting Program, either online:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htmor by fax at 800-FDA-
0178, and to Chattem at the above toll-free number.

Chattem is notifying its customers, including distributors and
retailers, about this recall, and is arranging for immediate
return of all recalled products to Chattem.

This recall only involves the above listed Icy Hot Heat Therapy
products including single consumer use "samples" that were
included in cartons of 3 oz. Aspercreme Pain Relieving Crème and
does not involve any other Icy Hot or Aspercreme products.

Chattem is committed to the integrity and safety of its products
and is undertaking this voluntary recall with the full knowledge
of the Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers with questions or concerns about this product may
contact Chattem's Consumer Affairs Department at 1-888-442-4464
(M-F 8:00 a.m. To 4:00 p.m. EST).


CLEAR CHANNEL: Appeals Class Certification of Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., and Live Nation, Inc., filed
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a motion to
appeal the certification of several suits filed against them.

In general, the suits allege that anti-competitive practices for
concert promotion services by the company caused artificially
high-ticket prices.

Initially, Clear Channel was named a co-defendant with Live
Nation (which was spun off as an independent company in December
2005) in 22 putative class actions filed by different named
plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country.  
These actions generally assert that the defendants monopolized
or attempted to monopolize the market for live rock concerts in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.  

The plaintiffs are claiming that they paid higher ticket prices
for rock concerts as a result of conduct of the defendants.  
They are seeking damages in an undetermined amount.  

On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multi-district
Litigation centralized these class action proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On March 2, 2007, the plaintiffs filed motions for class
certification in five template cases involving five regional
markets: Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver.  The
district court subsequently issued its decision certifying the
class for each regional market.  

On Nov. 4, 2007, the defendants filed a petition for permission
to appeal the class certification ruling with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's
Feb. 14, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel Communications, Inc. --
http://www.clearchannel.com-- is a diversified media company  
with four segments: radio broadcasting; Americas outdoor
advertising; international outdoor advertising, and other, which
contributed 52%, 19%, 22% and 7%, respectively, of the Company’s
total revenue, during the year ended December 31, 2006.  The
Company owns 1,176 radio stations and a national radio network
operating in the United States, and also owns or operates
approximately 195,000 Americas outdoor advertising display faces
and approximately 717,000 international outdoor advertising
display faces.  In addition it had equity interests in various
international radio broadcasting companies.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Still Faces Lawsuits Over BT Triple Crown Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., continues to face several
purported class actions in relation to its merger agreement with
BT Triple Crown companies.

The company had entered into an agreement and plan of merger
with BT Triple Crown Merger Co., Inc., B Triple Crown Finco,
LLC, and T Triple Crown Finco, LLC.

Initially, eight putative class actions were filed with the
District Court of Bexar County, Texas, in 2006 in connection
with the merger.  Of the eight, three have been voluntarily
dismissed and five are still pending.

The suits are:

       1) "Teitelbaum v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et
          al., No. 2006CI17492," (filed Nov. 14, 2006),

       2) "City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement
          System v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,
          No. 2006CI17660," (filed Nov. 16, 2006),

       3) "Levy Investments, Ltd. v. Clear Channel
          Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI17669," (filed
          Nov. 16, 2006),

       4) "DD Equity Partners LLC v. Clear Channel
          Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI7914," (filed
          Nov. 22, 2006), and

       5) "Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH v.
          L. Lowry Mays, et al.," (filed Dec. 7, 2006).

The suits were consolidated into one proceeding and all raise
substantially similar allegations on behalf of a purported class
of the company's shareholders against the defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of
the merger.

Three other lawsuits filed in connection with the merger are
also still pending:

       -- "Rauch v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,
          Case No. 2006-CI17436," (filed Nov. 14, 2006),

       -- "Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v.
          Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.," (filed
          Jan. 30, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the
          Western District of Texas), and

       -- "Alaska Laborers Employees Retirement Fund v. Clear
          Channel Communications, Inc., et. al., Case No. SA-07-
          CA-0042" (filed Jan. 11, 2007).

These lawsuits raise substantially similar allegations to those
found in the pleadings of the consolidated class actions.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 14, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel Communications, Inc. --
http://www.clearchannel.com-- is a diversified media company  
with four segments: radio broadcasting; Americas outdoor
advertising; international outdoor advertising, and other, which
contributed 52%, 19%, 22% and 7%, respectively, of the Company’s
total revenue, during the year ended December 31, 2006.  The
Company owns 1,176 radio stations and a national radio network
operating in the United States, and also owns or operates
approximately 195,000 Americas outdoor advertising display faces
and approximately 717,000 international outdoor advertising
display faces.  In addition it had equity interests in various
international radio broadcasting companies.


COCA-COLA: Reaches $2.25M Settlement in Calif. Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., and its California subsidiary
reached a $2.25-million settlement of the purported class
action, "Costanza, et al. v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los
Angeles, et al.," which alleges violations of state wage and
hour rules.

The suit was filed with the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles-Civil Central West,
under Case No. BC 351382.  The plaintiffs sued on behalf of a
putative class of certain exempt supervisory employees who claim
to have been misclassified as exempt employees and thus seek
overtime pay and other related damages, including but not
limited to penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees.

The parties have agreed to settle this matter for a total of
$2.25 million, inclusive of all costs, according to the
company's Feb. 14, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. -- http://www.cokecce.com-- markets,  
sells, manufactures, and distributes non-alcoholic beverages.


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Sends Out Checks as Part of Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Acceptance Corp. has started sending checks to 15,000
Missouri-residents as part of a $50-million-plus settlement, The
Kansas City Star reports.

Kansas Star's Dan Margolies writes that, according to Dale
Irwin, Esq., who represents the plaintiffs, the first wave of
checks went out in the mail in January and the second wave is
expected to be mailed before the end of this month.

The settlement calls for Credit Acceptance to write off
$39 million in outstanding account balances and to distribute
$13.1 million in cash to eligible car owners who financed used-
car purchases through the company.  For car owners against whom
Credit Acceptance obtained court judgments, the company has also
agreed to show the judgments as satisfied or partially satisfied
based on the account balances that were written off.

"I've never heard of or seen any other case in which judgments
are set aside in wholesale quantities as part of the resolution
of the case," Bernard Brown, Esq., another attorney for the
plaintiffs, told Kansas Star.  He said about 5,000 judgments
will be set aside as a result of the settlement.

As noted in the Class Action Reporter on November 7, 2007, the
class action was commenced by Kansas City resident Marvin
Fielder on Oct. 15, 1996, with the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri and removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, because the suit contained a
federal Truth in Lending Act claim.  The complaint sought
unspecified money damages for alleged violations of a number of
state and federal consumer protection laws.

On Oct. 9, 1997, the District Court certified two classes on the
claims brought against the Company, one relating to alleged
overcharges of official fees, the other relating to alleged
overcharges of post-maturity interest and a subclass relating to
allegedly inadequate repossession notices.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the repossession notices Credit
Acceptance sent to customers did not comply with Missouri law.

In May 2000, U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith entered judgment
in favor of Credit Acceptance on the plaintiffs' federal Truth
in Lending Act claim and sent the fee claims back to state
court.

The two sides began settlement negotiations in October 2006,
which led to the final settlement approved by Jackson County
Circuit Judge Sandra Midkiff in December.  Credit Acceptance
continued to deny wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the
uncertainties of litigation.

The settlement, according to Kansas Star, covers three classes
of Missouri customers who signed retail installment contracts
for the purchase of vehicles between Oct. 15, 1991, and Oct. 9,
1997:

   1. Those who paid fees exceeding the $10 actually paid for
      license, titling, inspection and other official fees;

   2. Those who paid interest overcharges; and

   3. Those whose vehicles were repossessed and resold by or for
      Credit Acceptance.

Under the settlement, the two law firms that represented the
plaintiffs -- Slough Connealy Irwin & Madden and The Brown Law
Firm -- will receive $6 million in attorney fees.  The fees will
be deducted from the $13.1-million cash payment, leaving
$7.1 million for the plaintiffs.

More information on the Credit Acceptance settlement can be
found online at http://www.fieldersettlement.com

Credit Acceptance Corp. -- http://www.creditacceptance.com-- is   
a provider of auto loans to consumers, using a nationwide
network of automobile dealers who benefit from sales of vehicles
to consumers who otherwise could not obtain financing; from
repeat and referral sales generated by these same customers, and
from sales to customers responding to advertisements for the
Company's product, but who actually end up qualifying for
traditional financing.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dale Irwin, Esq.
          Slough Connealy Irwin & Madden
          1627 Main St, Suite 900
          Kansas City, Missouri
          Phone: (816) 531-2224
          Fax: (816) 531-2147
          Web site: http://www.scimlaw.com

               - and -

          Bernard Brown, Esq.
          The Brown Law Firm
          Kansas City, MO 64153


DOEREN MAYHEW: Directors Face Suits in Mich. Over Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two directors of Doeren Mayhew and Co. are facing two lawsuits
in Michigan that accuse them of engaging in a Ponzi scheme that
lasted nine years, The Detroit News reports.

The two suits, filed with Oakland Circuit Court in Michigan,
allege that James O'Rilley and Todd Fox convinced victims to
invest in a limited liability companies, saying they had
telephone service contracts with various hotels and casinos.

"But, they had paperwork, bank statements, that would clearly
show it was all a fraud," John W. Schryber, Esq., who is
representing the plaintiffs, told The Detroit News.

Mr. Schryber also told The Detroit News, "Investors approached
them at barbecues about the investments and they were always
assured everything was solid."

The Detroit News explains that ponzi schemes work by using money
from new investors to pay dividends to previous investors.  As
new investors become hard to find, however, the dividend, which
supposedly comes from legitimate companies, begin to dry up.

In the scheme that lasted from 1998 to 2007, the companies were
fabricated, Mr. Schryber alleged.

The first suit was filed on behalf of 70 people who lost
$250 million.  The second lawsuit involves a dozen plaintiffs,
and The Detroit News says that it could be expanded to a class
action involving between 500 and 1,200 plaintiffs.

For more details, contact:

          John W. Schryber, Esq. (jschryber@pattonboggs.com)
          Patton Boggs LLP
          2550 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Phone: (202) 457-6436
          Fax: (202) 457-6315
          Web site: http://www.pattonboggs.com


GEMSTAR-TV: Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of "Zilson" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action titled "Karen
Zilson, et al. v. Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc., et al.,"
requested the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to dismiss their complaint without
prejudice as to all defendants.

The purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on
Dec. 7, 2007, against the Company, News Corp., and members of
the Company's Board of Directors.  The complaint alleged that
the company is being sold to Macrovision Corp. through an unfair
process and for less than its fair value.

The complaint contains a cause of action for breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and
sought a declaration that the sale is unlawful, an injunction to
prevent the sale from going forward, rescission to the extent
that the terms of the sale have been implemented, an order that
the Directors exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction in the best interest of the Company's shareholders,
and an award of attorneys' fees, experts fees, costs, and other
disbursements.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a request for the Court to
dismiss their complaint without prejudice as to all defendants,
according to the company's Feb. 14, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Los Angeles, California-based Gemstar-TV Guide International,
Inc. -- http://www.gemstartvguide.com/-- is a media,  
entertainment and technology company that develops, licenses,
markets and distributes products and services targeted at the
video guidance and entertainment needs of consumers worldwide.


GEMSTAR-TV: Faces Suit in Del. Over Macrovision Corp. Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc., faces a purported class
action filed with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in connection with Macrovision Corp.'s proposed acquisition of
the Company, according to the company's Feb. 14, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The purported shareholder class action, styled "Martin Henkel v.
Battista, et al.," was filed on Dec. 17, 2007, against the
Company and the members of its Board of Directors.  The
complaint alleges that Macrovision's proposed acquisition of
Gemstar-TV is unfair to Gemstar-TV's shareholders and that the
defendants agreed to accept consideration for the Company's
shares that is substantially less than their value.

The complaint contains a cause of action for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Company and members of its board of directors.

On Feb. 1, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding News Corp. as a defendant and asserting a cause of action
against News Corp. for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty.  The amended complaint also contains allegations that
certain of Gemstar-TV's disclosures in connection with the
proposed transaction are inadequate.  

The amended complaint seeks an injunction to prevent the
proposed sale, rescission or rescissory damages in the event
that the sale is consummated, rescission of the voting agreement
in which News Corp. agreed to vote its shares in favor of the
proposed transaction, an accounting of damages allegedly
suffered by the Company's shareholders, and an award of
attorneys and experts fees.

Los Angeles, California-based Gemstar-TV Guide International,
Inc. -- http://www.gemstartvguide.com/-- is a media,  
entertainment and technology company that develops, licenses,
markets and distributes products and services targeted at the
video guidance and entertainment needs of consumers worldwide.  


GEORGIA ENERGY: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Allegations At I-35 Exits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Energy, USA, LLC and Georgia Petro USA, LLC are facing a
class-action complaint filed on Feb. 14, 2008, with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia alleging
that it tampered with fuel pumps at two busy gas stations on I-
35 exits to short customers of more than $5 million over six
years, CourtHouse News service reports.

Two trucking companies say the defendants rigged the pumps at
Exits 1 and 6 in Camden County to cheat customers by 5% of fuel.
They bring this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(b)
and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
fuel from the Cisco Travel Plaza on Exit 1 off of Interstate 95
in Camden County, Georgia or from the Cisco Travel Plaza on Exit
6 off of Interstate 95 in Camden County, Georgia during the six
years preceding the filing of the complaint and who received
less fuel that indicated on the fuel pumps.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

   (a) whether defendants fraudulently tampered with the fuel
       pumps at the Exit 1 and Exit 6 locations;

   (b) whether defendants fraudulently misrepresented to
       plaintiffs and the class the amount of fuel they actually
       received;

   (c) whether defendants were negligent in the maintenance and
       operation of its pumps; and

   (d) whether defendants should be required to reimburse
       plaintiffs and the members of the class for all amounts
       received after for fuel it never dispensed.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

   -- that summons and process issue be served upon defendants;

   -- for a trial by a jury comprised of six persons;

   -- certify the plaintiff class as to the plaintiffs' claims
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

   -- that the plaintiff class be awarded an appropriate sum to
      compensate them for their damages as allowed by law;

   -- that the plaintiff class recover punitive damages in an
      amount sufficient to punish and deter defendants; and

   -- that the plaintiff class recover attorney's fees and all
      costs of litigation.

The suit is "Jonathan Smith et al. v. Georgia Energy Usa, LLC et
al., Civil Action No. CV208-020," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nathan T. Williams, Esq. (nathan@clarkandwilliams.com)
          Clark & Williams, PC
          #5 St. Andrews Court
          Brunswick, Georgia 31520
          Phone: (912) 264-0848
          Fax: (912) 264-6299

             - and -

          C. Dorian Britt, Esq. (dbritt@savagelawfirm.net)
          Jeremy S. McKenzie, Esq. (jmckenzie@savagelawfirm.net)
          Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman
          304 East Bay Street
          Savannah, Georgia 31412-10600
          Phone: (912) 231-1140

    
GILMAN & CIOCIA: Parties Reach Tentative Settlement in "Kosseff"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in the purported stockholder
class action pending with the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County against Gilman & Ciocia,
Inc.

On Feb. 4, 2004, the company was served with a summons and a
shareholder's class action and derivative complaint filed by
Gary Kosseff against James Ciocia, Thomas Povinelli, Michael P.
Ryan, Kathryn Travis, Seth A. Akabas, Louis P. Karol, Edward H.
Cohen, Steven Gilbert and Doreen Biebusch, and Gilman & Ciocia,
Inc. (Civil Action No. 188-N).

The action accused the company, its board of directors and its
management of breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty in
connection with the sale of offices to Pinnacle Taxx Advisors,
LLC in 2002.

The action alleged that the sale to Pinnacle was for inadequate
consideration and without a fairness opinion by independent
financial advisors, without independent legal advice and without
a thorough evaluation and vote by an independent committee of
the board of directors.

The action sought:

     -- a declaration that the company, its board of directors
        and management breached their fiduciary duty and other
        duties to the plaintiff and to the other members of the
        purported class;

     -- a rescission of the Asset Purchase Agreement;

     -- unspecified monetary damages; and

     -- an award to the plaintiff of costs and disbursements,
        including reasonable legal, expert and accountants
        fees.

On June 19, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and
in July 2004, the counsel for the company and for all defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On July 29, 2005, the case Master delivered his draft report
denying the motion.

The parties filed exceptions to the report and on Aug. 3, 2006,
the Master delivered his final report denying the motion to
dismiss.  

The parties have proceeded with discovery.

Recently, a tentative settlement of the lawsuit has been reached
subject to approval by the Court of Chancery, according to the
company's Feb. 14, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange  Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. -- http://www.gilcio.com/-- provides  
federal, state and local tax preparation services to
individuals, predominantly in the middle and upper income tax
brackets, and financial planning services, including securities
brokerage, insurance and mortgage agency services.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Ohio Court Grants Preliminarily OK to USW Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio gave
preliminary approval to the proposed settlement in the matter,
"Redington, et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Case No.
5:07-cv-01999-JRA."

On July 3, 2007, the United Steelworkers and several retirees
filed a required class action regarding the establishment of a
Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association, which is intended
to provide healthcare benefits for current and future USW
retirees.

The parties recently agreed to settle the matter.  Under that
agreement, they agreed to create a VEBA trust fund.  As part of
the settlement, the court will certify the class of retirees
covered under the proposed VEBA.  

Essentially, Goodyear has agreed to pay as much as $1 billion to
the fund, which then will have sole responsibility for union
retirees' health care costs.  The independent health care trust
stands to benefit the union's 30,000 retirees.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the District Court preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement among the parties, according to the
company's Feb. 14, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Redington, et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, Case No. 5:07-cv-01999-JRA," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge John R.
Adams.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeremiah A. Collins, Esq.
          Bredhoff & Kaiser
          Ste. 1000, 805 Fifteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-842-2600
          Fax: 202-842-1888
          e-mail: jcollins@bredhoff.com

          Jori B. Naegele, Esq.
          Gary, Naegele & Theado
          446 Broadway
          Lorain, OH 44052-1797
          Phone: 440-244-4809
          Fax: 440-244-3462
          e-mail: envirolit@aol.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
          500 West Tower, 1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3964
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699
          e-mail: jsellers@cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Johanna Fabrizio Parker, Esq.
          Jones Day
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-586-7263
          Fax: 216-579-0212
          e-mail: jfparker@jonesday.com


H&R BLOCK: Missouri Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ortrie Smith of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri tossed out a class-action lawsuit
that claimed H&R Block Inc. (NYSE: HRB) had deceived
shareholders, the Kansas City Business Journal reports.

On March 17, 2006, the first of three putative class actions
alleging violations of certain securities laws were filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

The suits alleged, among other things, deceptive, material and
misleading financial statements, failure to prepare financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and concealment of the potential for lawsuits
stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the company's
operations.  They seek unspecified damages and equitable relief.

On Sept. 20, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri consolidated all of the cases into a single
action, "In re H&R Block Securities Litigation."  On April 6,
2007, an amended complaint was filed in the matter.

In October 2007, the court dismissed the complaint and granted
the plaintiffs leave to re-file the portion of the complaint
pertaining to the Company's financial statements.

Thus, on Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed the complaint,
alleging, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading
financial statements and failure to prepare financial statements
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 15, 2008).

After the plaintiffs' amended complaint, attorneys for H&R Block
asked to dismiss the new claim, which dismissal motion Judge
Smith granted on Feb. 19, 2008, largely on the basis that the
company had released information and explanations of its
restatements in public filings.

According to the Business Journal report, Judge Smith ruled that
the plaintiffs in the case -- several individuals and the Iron
Workers Local 16 Pension Fund -- could not prove that Kansas
City-based H&R Block set out to mislead the public with earnings
reports for 2004, 2005 and parts of 2006 it allegedly knew it
would eventually have to restate.

The suit is "In Re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-
0236-CV-W-ODS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles F. Speer, Esq. (cspeer@speerlawfirm.com)
          Speer Law Firm
          104 West 9th Street, Suite 305
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 472-3560
          Fax: (816) 421-2150
          
               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714

Representing the defendants are:

          Sameer Advani, Esq. (sadvani@willkie.com)
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 7thAvenue
          New York, NY 10019-6099
          Phone: (212) 728-8000
          Fax: (212) 728-8111

               - and -

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: (650) 320-4858
          Fax: (650) 565-5100


IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiff Nixes BTP Transaction Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action filed with the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles
against Image Entertainment, Inc., its officers and members of
its board over the company's merger agreement with BTP
Acquisition Company LLC, has dismissed without prejudice its
complaint in the matter.

Under the terms of the amended merger agreement, Image
stockholders will receive the same aggregate cash consideration
as under the original merger agreement, but also will retain
between 5% and 9% of their common shares in the post-transaction
company.

The purported class action shareholder complaint, entitled,
"Henzel v. Image Entertainment, Inc., et al." was filed on
April 10, 2007, wherein the named plaintiff proposes to
represent a class of the company's stockholders and claims,
among other things, that in connection with the proposed
business combination transaction with BTP, the company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties of due care, good
faith and loyalty by failing to maximize stockholder value and
by creating deterrents to third-party offers.

Among other things, the complaint seeks class action status, and
a court order enjoining the consummation of the merger and
directing the company to take appropriate steps to maximize
stockholder value.  

On Aug. 9, 2007, the plaintiff dismissed his complaint without
prejudice, according to the company's Feb. 14, 2008 form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Image Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.image-entertainment.com
-- is a vertically integrated independent home entertainment
content supplier engaged in the acquisition, production and
worldwide distribution of exclusive content for release on a
variety of formats and platforms.  The Company is primarily
engaged in the domestic acquisition and wholesale distribution
of content for release on digital versatile disc (DVD).  It also
acquired rights to audio content for distribution on compact
disc (CD) spread across a variety of genres and configurations.
The Company has two business segments: Domestic (U.S. and
Canada) and International.  The domestic segment primarily
consists of acquisition, production and distribution of
exclusive DVD content and, through Egami Media, exclusive
content for digital distribution via video-on-demand, streaming
video and download.  The international segment includes
international video sublicensing and worldwide broadcast rights
exploitation.

    
LEAR CORP: Filing of Amended Complaint Over $2B Sale Allowed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion for leave to
file a fourth amended complaint in the purported class action
that sought to block Lear Corp.'s acquisition by billionaire
investor Carl Icahn, according to the company's Feb. 15, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Between Feb. 9 and Feb. 21, 2007, certain stockholders filed
three purported class action lawsuits against the company,
certain members of our Board of Directors and American Real
Estate Partners, L.P., and certain of its affiliates
(collectively, AREP) in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The amended complaint in the consolidated action generally
alleges that the Agreement and Plan of Merger with AREP Car
Holdings Corp., and AREP Car Acquisition Corp. unfairly limited
the process of selling Lear and that certain members of our
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Merger Agreement and acted with conflicts of interest
in approving the Merger Agreement.

The amended complaint in the consolidated action further alleges
that Lears preliminary and definitive proxy statements for the
Merger Agreement were misleading and incomplete, and that Lears
payments to AREP as a result of the termination of the Merger
Agreement constituted unjust enrichment and waste.

On Feb. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.  On March 27,
2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  

On June 15, 2007, the Delaware court issued an order entering a
limited injunction of Lears planned shareholder vote on the
Merger Agreement until the Company made supplemental proxy
disclosure.  That supplemental proxy disclosure was approved by
the Delaware court and made on June 18, 2007.  

In June 2007, the Delaware court allowed the plaintiffs to file
a second amended complaint.  Later, a third amended complaint
was then filed by the plaintiffs.

On Jan. 30, 2008, the Delaware court granted the plaintiffs
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint leaving only
derivative claims against the Lear directors and AREP based on
the payment by Lear to AREP of a termination fee pursuant to the
Merger Agreement.  The plaintiffs were also granted leave to
file an interim petition for an award of fees, and expenses
related to the supplemental proxy disclosure.

Lear Corp. -- http://www.lear.com-- is a worldwide supplier of   
automotive interior systems based on net sales.  It supplies
automotive manufacturers with complete automotive seat systems,
electrical distribution systems and various electronic products.  
Lear also supplies automotive interior components and systems,
including instrument panels and cockpit systems, headliners and
overhead systems, door panels and flooring and acoustic systems.


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Apr. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the April 7, 2008 lead
plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock and options of Maxim Integrated
Products, Inc. (Other OTC:MXIM.PK – News).

Earlier, the law firm filed a class action lawsuit with the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and
options of Maxim, during the period from April 29, 2003, through
Jan. 17, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2008).

The complaint charges that Maxim and certain of its former
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in improper stock option
backdating that caused the issuance of materially false and
misleading financial statements during the Class Period.

The complaint asserts that on Jan. 17, 2008, the Company
announced that it would be restating its financial statements to
record between $550 million and $650 million of additional
stock-based compensation expense and that its previously issued
financial statements could no longer be relied on.  As a result
of these adverse disclosures, the Company's stock price has
declined 22%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 7,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
          Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Tel: (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


MCGRAW-HILL: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Securities Suit Named
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Colleen Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia appointed the Boca Raton Firefighters and
Police Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed on behalf of investors who purchased McGraw-Hill
Companies Inc. stock between July 25, 2006, and Aug. 15, 2007,
Bailey Somers of Securities Law360 reports.

The complaint, filed in August 2007, charges Robert J. Bahash
with violations of federal securities laws.  The plaintiffs
claim that the defendant's misleading statements or omissions
concerning McGraw-Hill's business and operations caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendant
misrepresented or failed to fully disclose that McGraw-Hill's
subsidiary Standard & Poor's assigned excessively high ratings
to bonds backed by risky subprime mortgages -- including bonds
packaged as collateralized debt obligations -- which was
materially misleading to investors concerning the quality and
relative risk of these investments.

The lead plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of McGraw-
Hill shareholders and is represented by several law firms,
including O'Rourke Katten & Moody.

In an order handed down earlier, Judge Kotelly appointed the
fund as lead plaintiff and the fund's attorneys, from Coughlin
Stoia, lead counsel.

In naming lead plaintiff and counsel, Judge Kotelly granted the
Boca Raton fund leave to amend the complaint in the case,
setting an April 16 deadline for any changes.


NICK & KATIE'S: Recalls Brand Products Over Undeclared Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick and Katie's, Inc. of New Orleans, LA, is recalling the
following Nick & Katie's brand products:

     -- Crab Stuffed Mushrooms, net wt 10 oz
     -- Crayfish Stuffed Portabella Mushroom, net wt 10 oz
     -- Stuffed Bell Pepper, net wt 10 oz
     -- Stuffed Crab, net wt 8 oz
     -- Mediterranean Stuffed Artichoke, net wt 16 oz
     -- Stuffed Italian Artichoke, net wt 16 oz
     -- Artichoke Balls, net wt Half Ounce

These products are being recalled because they contain milk,
soy, and wheat that was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of milk, soy, and wheat.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, soy, or wheat run the
risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

These products were distributed through retailers from the
Greater New Orleans Area including the Northshore to the Greater
Baton Rouge Area from January 24, 2008, until February 6, 2008.

These products are individually wrapped in clear plastic wrap
bearing the following labels:

     -- Nick & Katie Ruffino's Crab Stuffed Mushrooms, net wt,
        10 oz;

     -- Nick & Katie Ruffino's Crayfish Stuffed Portabella
        Mushroom, net wt 10 oz;

     -- Nick & Katie Ruffino's Stuffed Bell Pepper, net wt 10
        oz;

     -- Nick & Katie Ruffino's Stuffed Crab, net wt 8 oz;

     -- Nick & Katie Ruffino's Mediterranean Stuffed Artichoke,
        net wt 16 oz;

     -- Nick & Katie Ruffino's Stuffed Italian Artichoke, net wt
        16 oz; and

     -- Nick & Katie Ruffino's Artichoke Balls, net wt Half
        Ounce.

There have been no reported illnesses to date.

The omission was found during a routine FDA inspection.
Distribution of these products has been suspended while we
correct the labels to include all ingredients.

Consumers who have questions or purchased the product may
contact Richard Ruffino at (504) 283-8887 for information and
return instructions.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Several Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp., along with other major U.S. railroads,
continues to face a number of putative class actions alleging
that the individual railroads conspired in violation of U.S.
antitrust laws.

As of Feb. 14, 2008, 18 antitrust class actions have been filed
against Norfolk Southern and the other Class 1 railroads in
various Federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges.   

On Nov. 6, 2007, these actions were consolidated in the District
of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation,
according to the company's Feb. 15, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com-- controls a  
freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co.  Norfolk Southern
Railway Co. is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of
raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods
primarily in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via
interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the U.S.
and parts of Canada.  


MENU FOODS: Tainted Pet-Food Lawsuits Still Undergoing Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed in 2007 on behalf of area pet owners affected by
a massive 2007 pet food recall is at a standstill, Donna Weaver
writes for the Press of Atlantic City.

Keith Smith, Esq., who is representing 46 pet owners who claim
that their dogs died or became ill as a result of eating tainted
dog food, told PAC that the court continues to delay the
litigation pending the parties' attempts to settle.  Mr. Smith
said that there have been at least 10 mediation sessions between
the plaintiffs' and the various defendants' lead counsels with
the assistance of professional mediator Eric Green.

Mr. Smith explained that no counsel can describe the proposed
terms of the settlement or the issues not presently decided
because there is a strict confidentiality order in place.  He
assured, however, that both parties are mediating the class
claims and have participated in the mediation sessions and
worked hard towards a settlement agreement.

The report recalls that Mr. Smith filed the lawsuit in May 2007
with the state Superior Court in Atlantic County.  He is asking
the court for class action status.  Mr. Smith's lawsuit was
combined with similar suits filed in New Jersey.  Following a
review of his suit by the federal panel for multi-district
litigation, it was decided that the case be fought in New
Jersey.

The lawsuits followed Ontario-based Menu Foods' recall of its
pet foods, which were sold under 40 cat-food brands and 51 dog-
food brands, in March 2007.

Mr. Smith further told PAC that if no settlement proposal is
made and litigation continues, Judge Noel Hillman of the U.S.
District Court in Camden will hold a conference to establish
discovery protocol.  Moreover, Mr. Smith stated, if the case
does not settle, indictments that came down last week on several
companies involved in the recall could affect the outcome of the
lawsuit.  But, most class-action suits settle, he noted.

PAC relates that two Chinese businesses and a U.S. company were
indicted Feb. 6 in connection with the tainted pet food that
killed dozens of animals last year and raised worries about
products made in China.  The companies sold or imported the
tainted ingredients that were used in Menu Foods' recalled pet
foods.

Specifically, Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co.;
Suzhou Textiles, Silk, Light Industrial Products, Arts and
Crafts I/E Co.; and Las Vegas-based ChemNutra Inc., were charged
in two separate but related indictments.  The U.S. Attorney's
Office in Kansas City said the tainted ingredient led to the
death and serious illness of pets in the U.S. in 2007.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Workers' FLSA Violations Lawsuit Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits filed on behalf of workers at Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
plants in North Carolina and other states have been consolidated
and moved to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, the Associated Press reports.

According to the report, in August 2007, the Labor Department
sued the company to collect $3 million in back wages owed to
more than 500 current and former workers.

The case involves a growing number of Pilgrim's Pride
employees in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and eight other states,
alleging that employees were intentionally not paid for time
spent "donning and doffing" gear worn while performing factory
work (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2007).

The lawsuits, including one filed by the U.S. Labor Department,
claim workers arrive at their job sites early for their shifts
so they can put on protective and sanitary equipment.

The workers also use unpaid time to take off the gear, court
documents show.

The lawsuits were consolidated and moved to the federal court in
El Dorado (Arkansas) last week, AP says.

According to the AP report, lawyers are asking class-action
status for the lawsuits, which seek payment for the time workers
spent putting on and taking off protective gear.

"These actions qualify as compensable work because the donning,
cleaning and doffing of protective and sanitary equipment and
gear is required by Pilgrim's Pride, the United States
Department of Agriculture, or the nature of the job," the
consolidated complaint states.

The plaintiffs' attorneys want to expand the lawsuit to all
current and former workers at Pilgrim's Pride chicken processing
plants who have held nonexempt positions since April 20, 2003.

Along with unpaid wages, the suits seek damages, court costs and
attorney's fees.

Pilgrim's Pride, the nation's largest poultry producer, argues
that putting on and taking off gear is not work.  Moreover,
Pilgrim's Pride contends that the suit should be dismissed,
based on decisions made in similar cases, and wants the
plaintiffs to reimburse them for their attorney's fees, AP
notes.

The consolidated suit is "Pilgrim's Pride Fair Labor Standards
Act Litigation - MDL 1832 v. et al., Case Number:
1:2007cv01832," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, Judge Harry F. Barnes, presiding.


SCOTIABANK: Slapped with Suit Over Unpaid Employee Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scotiabank (TSX:BNS) has been slapped with a class action
lawsuit alleging years of unpaid overtime, The Canadian Press
says.

Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor LLP and Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
filed the lawsuit on Feb. 11, 2008, with the Ontario Superior
Court on behalf of Cindy Fulawka -- a 15-year veteran of the
bank – and of more than 5,000 "current and former non-
management, non-unionized employees of Scotiabank who are or
were personal bankers of other front-line customer service
employees."

Douglas Elliott, Esq., of Roy Elliott, told Canadian Press that
he expects similar charges to spread to the other big banks and
into the broader workforce.  "We're looking at all Canadian
employers -- we're not excluding anyone," Mr. Elliott said.

Canadian Press notes that the lawsuit against Scotiabank is the
second one that Roy Elliott and Sack Goldblatt have launched
against a big Canadian bank, following similar allegations
against Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (TSX:CM) in June
2007.  The two law firms launched the lawsuit against CIBC
seeking CDN$600 million in damages for over 10,000 current and
former employees.

None of the allegations of either case have been proven in
court, the report points out.

The statement of claim for the Scotiabank lawsuit alleges that
the bank's workers are assigned heavier workloads than can be
completed within standard working hours and are forced to work
unpaid overtime.  The suit calls it a contravention of the
Canadian Labour Code.

Scotiabank responded with a statement declaring that it is
confident its employee policies have been applied fairly and
consistently, and that its overtime policy is based on the labor
code.


SEATTLE MORTGAGE: Sued Over Improperly Charged "Release Fee"
------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle Mortgage Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington alleging it improperly charges a "release fee"
applicable for refinancings for new mortgage loans that are not
refis, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This class action challenges and seeks to redress defendant's
unlawful assessment or "release fees" in connection with
mortgage loans.

The complaint alleges that defendant charged plaintiffs a
release fee in connection with a federally related mortgage loan
defendant made to plaintiffs in 2006.  Mortgage lenders
sometimes charge borrowers release fees and similar fees
(variously also called, among other things, "reconveyance fees,"
"reconveyance tracking fees," and "recording fees") to recoup
costs lenders incur when recording releases of previously
existing mortgages that are paid off with new mortgage loans.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the plaintiffs bring
this action on behalf of all persons nationwide who, on or after
Feb. 15, 2004, paid defendant a release fee and similar fees and
whose mortgage release (or other similar mortgage-related
document) the defendant did not actually obtain or record.

The plaintiffs request judgment as follows:

     -- that the court find that the present case may be
        properly maintained as a class action under Federal Rule
        of Civil Procedure 23 and that the court appoint
        plaintiffs as the class representatives and their
        attorneys as counsel for the class;

     -- that the court order defendant to pay damages to
        plaintiffs and the other class members, plus pre-
        judgment and post-judgment interest;

     -- that the court enjoin defendants from any further
        violation of Washington' Consumer Protection Act and
        continued improper assessment of mortgage-related
        release fees and similar fees;

     -- that the court award plaintiff and the other class
        members treble damages pursuant to 12 USC Section
        2607(d)(2) and RCW 19.86.090; and

     -- that the court award attorney's fees and costs to
        counsel for plaintiff and the class in accordance with
        RCW 19.86.020, 12 USC Section 2607(d)95), and Federal
        Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) and award the class such
        other and further relief as the court may deem just and
        proper.

The suit is "Edawrd W. Easton et al. v. Seattle Mortgage
company, Case No. C08-0276 RAJ," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Timothy S. DeJong, Esq. (tdejong@ssbls.com)
          David F. Rees, Esq. (drees@ssbls.com)
          Joshua L. Ross, Esq. (jross@ssbls.com)
          Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlacheter, PC
          209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: (503) 227-1600
          Fax: (503) 227-6840
                  

SEE'S CANDIES: Recalls Choco Chips Over Undeclared Milk
-------------------------------------------------------
See's Candies, Inc. of San Francisco, Calif., is recalling 16-
ounce bags of See's Candies Semi Sweet Chocolate Chips because
the product may contain undeclared traces of milk.

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

The product was distributed through See's owned retail shops in
California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado,
Idaho, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Illinois.

Licensees of See's also sold the product in Nebraska, Iowa,
Kansas, Michigan, Texas and internationally in Japan and Hong
Kong.  See's Mail Order department sold small quantities
countrywide.

The product is sold in a black and white See's logo flexible
bag.  The recall applies to all code dates (30757, 31327, 32067,
33157, and 23397).

There is one reported allergen reaction attributed to this
product.

See's Candies confirmed in its investigation that the product
was produced on a line that also produces milk chocolates as a
follow-up to a consumer contact.

Concerned consumers who have packages of 16-ounce See's Candies
Semi Sweet Chocolate Chips should return them to the shops where
they were purchased for a full refund.  If the product was
received through mail order or direct shipment, consumers should
contact See's Consumer Affairs at 1 800-789-7337 for product
return instructions.  Any consumers with questions about this
recall should also contact See's Consumer Affairs at 1 800-789-
7337.


STATE OF VICTORIA: May Face Suit On Behalf of Aborigines
--------------------------------------------------------
Victoria resident Neville Austin is planning to commence a class
action lawsuit against the State of Victoria on behalf of up to
40 members of the State's aborigines, The Age reports.

According to The Age, a writ for Mr. Austin's proceedings was
expected to be issued in the Supreme Court next week.  Lawyers
for Mr. Austin have been working on the case for 12 months, his
barrister, Jack Rush, QC, told The Age.

Prominent human rights barrister Julian Burnside, QC, urged
governments to set up a compensation scheme for indigenous
Australians who had been taken from their families, arguing it
would cost more in legal fees -- about AU$2 million a case --
with successful plaintiffs getting AU$1-AU$2 million.  He also
argued it would cost individuals many years to establish their
claims.

However, according to The Age, spokesman for Aboriginal Affairs
Minister Richard Wynne said the Victorian Government had made
its formal apology to the "stolen generations" more than a
decade ago and no compensation had come from it.

This has also been the case for former state wards, indigenous
and non-indigenous, who have been pleading with the Government
for years for compensation for abuse suffered while in the
state's care, the report notes.

Tasmania, Queensland and, most recently, Western Australia have
already established compensation funds for such cases.

According to The Age, lawyer Angela Sdrinis, representing 400
former wards of the state, some also members of the stolen
generations, called on the Federal Government to develop a
consistent approach for the compensation of the stolen
generations, state wards and postwar child migrants.


TAZEWELL COUNTY: Judge Dismisses 2 Lawsuits Commenced by Inmate
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Dec. 14, 2007, that
Anthony L. Fletcher, a federal inmate, filed a class-action suit
against Tazewell County Sheriff Bob Huston claiming a host of
deprivation.  The suit, filed in October 2007, claimed that
Sheriff Huston denied him and other inmates dental care, access
to exercise equipment, mental health treatment, law books and
legal materials, and charged too much for haircuts and snacks at
the commissary.

In an update, the Journal Star says that the Fletcher Lawsuit
was dismissed by Circuit Judge John Barra pursuant to a request
by the Tazewell County State's attorney.

Judge Barra also dismissed a separate lawsuit filed by
Mr. Fletcher against jailer Richard Brock.  Mr. Fletcher, who
was recently convicted for child pornography and is known for
his history of filing suits against prosecutors and court
personnel, accused Mr. Brock of harassment.

According to Journal Star, the suit against Sheriff Huston was
dismissed because Mr. Fletcher did not amend his complaint
within 60 days of it being dismissed once already in December.

The suit against Mr. Brock, meanwhile, was dismissed because
Mr. Fletcher has a case with the same allegations pending
against the jailer in federal court.

Mr. Fletcher was found guilty by a federal jury on Jan. 29 of
making child porn videos and pictures in 2006.  He faces up to
30 years in prison when sentenced in May.  He was also convicted
in McLean County of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and
possessing child porn and received a 29-year sentence in July.


UNITED STATES: Race Profiling Challenged in 9/11 Detention Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Constitutional Rights challenged the post-9/11
racial profiling, illegal detention and abuse of Muslim, Arab,
and South Asian men before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
Common Dreams says.

According to the report, CCR attorneys called again for high-
ranking officials to be held accountable for the round-ups and
subsequent abuse that occurred while plaintiffs were detained,
and argued that the men were deprived of their constitutional
rights.

"Immigration law cannot be used as a short-cut around the Fourth
Amendment," CCR lead attorney Rachel Meeropol, Esq., told Common
Dreams.  "Just because the executive wants to investigate a non-
citizen, doesn't mean high-level officials can ignore the law.
This should be made even more clear by the abuse our clients
suffered while they were deprived of access to friends, family
or counsel."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 20, 2006, a
lawsuit was filed in September 2002 by Muslim immigrants Yasser
Ebrahim, Asif-ur-Rehman Saffi, Hany Ibrahim and Ashraf Ibrahim,
who alleges unlawful imprisonment and abuse in the wake of the
Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack.

The suit names as defendants then-Attorney General John
Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller III, former INS
Commissioner James Ziglar, and officials at the Metropolitan
Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, where the plaintiffs
were held.  The plaintiffs also include Muslim men from Pakistan
and Egypt who were detained at Passaic County Jail in New
Jersey.

CCR's class action -- Turkmen v. Ashcroft -- was filed to
challenge the arbitrary detention and mistreatment of
immigration detainees by prison guards and high level Bush
administration officials in the wake of 9/11.  With no evidence
of any connection to terrorism, hundreds of  Arab and South
Asian Muslim men were rounded up on the basis of racial and
religious profiling and subject to allegedly unlawful detention
and abuse at the Metropolitan Detention Center.  All of the men
were eventually cleared, and deported.

Several of the plaintiffs returned to New York under strict
conditions to participate in depositions for their case against
the government in early 2006.

According to the CAR report, Judge John Gleeson of U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York had dismissed key
arguments in the class action, but allowed the suit to continue
on other claims.  Judge Gleeson rejected the government's
argument that the events that time justified extraordinary
measures to confine non-citizens who fell under suspicion, but
ruled that the government has wide discretion under immigration
law to detain non-citizens on the basis of religion, race or
national origin, and to hold them indefinitely without
explanation.  He ruled that the government may detain people
indefinitely as long as their eventual removal is "reasonably
foreseeable."

Judge Gleeson, CAR said, allowed the suit to continue only on  
claims that the plaintiffs were subjected to confinement that
was abusive and unconstitutional.  The ruling requires top
federal officials to answer to those accusations under oath.

Common Dreams notes that CCR attorneys say that the government
deliberately avoided the requirements of the Fourth Amendment
and tried to avoid judicial oversight by placing the men in
immigration rather than criminal detention when the sole purpose
of the round-ups was to investigate so-called terrorist threats
and should have proceeded under criminal law.

"John Ashcroft and other high-level officials have been trying
to avoid accountability for the mass and indiscriminate round-up
of innocent men after 9/11 for too long.  As the architects of a
plan to deprive these individuals of their rights, the blame for
what happened to these men is squarely on their shoulders," said
co-counsel Michael Winger of the law firm of Covington & Burling
LLP.

In a cross-appeal on Feb. 14, 2008, CCR defended the victory in
the lower court that kept the high-level officials in the case
and appealed the dismissal of the profiling and illegal
detention claims, arguing that the plaintiffs' constitutional
rights under the Fourth Amendment, due process clause and equal
protection clause were violated.  The portion of the case
against low-level officers for religious discrimination, abuse
and conditions of confinement is proceeding independent of the
outcome of the appeal.

Despite the fact that the government never charged any of the
plaintiffs with a terrorism-related offense, the INS kept them
in detention for between four to nine months, long past the
resolution of their immigration cases.

The suit further charges that some of the detainees were
improperly assigned to the Administrative Maximum Special
Housing Unit; kept in solitary confinement with the lights on 24
hours a day; placed under a communications blackout so that they
could not seek the assistance of their attorneys, families, and
friends; subjected to physical and verbal abuse; forced to
endure inhumane conditions of confinement; and obstructed in
their efforts to practice their religion.  Some of the abuse
includes severe beatings, sleep deprivation, and forced nudity.
The allegations of inhumane and degrading treatment have been
substantiated by two reports of the Justice Department's Office
of the Inspector General, and several defendants in the case
have recently been convicted on federal charges of beatings and
cover-ups of other prisoners around the same time period, Common
Dreams relates.

For more information on the case and to read related documents,
visit:

http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/turkmen-v.-ashcroft

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing
and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights
movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and
educational organization committed to the creative use of law as
a positive force for social change.

The suit is "Turkmen et al. v. Ashcroft et al., Case No.  
1:02-cv-02307-JG-SMG," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral
to Judge Steven M. Gold.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jo C. Bennett, Esq. (Jcb@mbglawfirm.com)
          McDaniel, Bennett & Griffin
          118 West Mulberry St.
          Baltimore, MD 21201  
          Phone: (410) 685-3810

               - and -

          Rachel Anne Meeropol, Esq. (rachelm@ccr-ny.org)
          Center for Constitutional Rights
          666 Broadway 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Phone: (212) 614-6432
          Fax: (212) 614-6499  

Representing the defendants are:

          Dennis C. Barghaan, Esq. (dennis.barghaan@usdoj.gov)
          Larry L. Gregg, Esq. (larry.gregg2@usdoj.gov)
          Brian D. Miller, Esq. (brian.miller@usdoj.gov)
          The Office of the U.S. Attorney
          E.D. Va., Civil Division
          2100 Jamieson Ave.
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Phone: (703) 299-3700
          Fax: (703) 299-3983

          Raymond P. Cash, Esq. (crcash1@aol.com)
          116-02 Queens Blvd.
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 793-1331
          Fax: (718) 793-4089
          
          Linda Cronin, Esq. (lcronin@cblawyers.net)
          Cronin & Byczek, LLP
          1981 Marcus Ave.
          New Hyde Park, NY 11042
          Phone: (516) 358-1700
          Fax: (516) 358-1730    

          Joshua C. Klein, Esq. (jklein@dsllp.com)
          Duval & Stachenfeld, LLP
          300 East 42nd St.
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 883-1700
          Fax: (212) 883-8883

               - and -

          Craig Lawrence, Esq. (craig.lawrence@usdoj.gov)
          U.S. Attorney's Office
          D.D.C., 555 4th St.
          NW Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 514-7151   


WACHOVIA BANK: PA Suit Accuses Conspiracy to Defraud Old Folks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Bank, N.A., is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania accusing it of conspiring with telemarketers who
defrauded old people of millions of dollars, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Catherine D. Harrison brings the action pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c) to recover threefold damages
incurred by plaintiff and the class as a consequence of
defendant's violation of 8 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and 1962(d).

The complaint alleges that Wachovia set up accounts for
fraudulent "payment processors" working with the telemarketers,
even after Wachovia had been warned by other banks of the
extensive fraud being committed against the elderly.

The payment processors named in the complaint are:

     -- Payment Processing Center,
     -- Netchex,
     -- Your Money Access, and
     -- Guardian Marketing Services Corp.

The complaint asserts that the bank knew its accounts were being
used to target old people for fraud, and that "Wachovia
continued to participate in the scheme after being told by other
banks of the fraud committed by telemarketers and their
accomplices, the payment processors."

Ms. Harrison brings the action on behalf of all individuals in
the United States as to whom remotely created demand drafts on
their bank accounts were prepared and deposited by Netchex, YMA
and Guardian Marketing into one or more accounts in any of their
names at Wachovia during the four year period preceding the
filing of the complaint, and finally charged to the class
members' bank accounts pursuant to information provided to
Netchex, YMA or Guardian by a telemarketer, or who otherwise
incurred any bank charges as a consequence of the demand drafts.

Ms. Harrison demands judgment for threefold damages suffered as
a result of Wachovia's unlawful conduct alleged as well as
injunctive relief, together with the costs of the action and a
reasonable attorney's fee.

The suit is "Catherine D. Harrison et al v. Wachovia Bank,
N.A.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Howard Langer, Esq. (hlanger@langergrogan.com)
          Judah I. Labovitz, Esq. (jlabovitz@langergrogan.com)
          John Grogan, Esq. (jgrogan@langergrogan.com)
          Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. (iackelsberg@langergrogan.com)
          Edward Diver, Esq. (ediver@langergrogan.com)
          Langer Grogan Diver, PC
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-320-5660


* Securities Lawyers Worley, Evangelista Joins Page Perry, LLC
--------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Worley, Esq., and James M. Evangelista, Esq.,
nationally known securities and consumer fraud class action and
business tort litigation practitioners, have joined Page Perry,
LLC as partners.

The pair joins Page Perry as the firm pursues national subprime
mortgage and collateralized debt/mortgage obligation-related
matters.

Mr. Evangelista has more than 17 years of diverse, complex
commercial and class action litigation experience representing
both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts
throughout the United States.

Mr. Worley has nearly 20 years of experience in complex civil
trial and appellate litigation, including many years
representing trustees of union pension funds and international
and local unions, with substantial experience in securities and
other class-action litigation and portfolio monitoring.

Boyd Page, senior partner of Page Perry, stated, "Jim and David
are terrific additions to our firm. Their extraordinary
experience investigating corporate wrongdoing and litigating
complex, financial and fraud-related class and individual
actions enables us to expand our representation of institutional
and individual investors, either on a class basis or otherwise.
Their experience complements our existing expertise and our
efforts nationally to recover investor assets lost due to the
subprime mortgage and collateralized debt/mortgage obligation
crisis."

Mr. Worley stated, "I am excited to continue my securities and
business litigation practice at Page Perry. This firm has a
phenomenal track record on behalf of investors and presents a
wonderful platform from which to expand my representation of
pension funds and institutional and individual investors."

Mr. Evangelista stated, "Page Perry has an outstanding group of
extremely competent, experienced and ethical attorneys that
provide a solid platform to prosecute securities fraud and other
consumer class litigation. This firm has the breadth, depth and
expertise investors should expect in seeking recovery of losses
due to fraud. I am thrilled to advance my securities fraud,
class action, and business litigation practice here."

Messrs. Evangelista and Worley join the firm from the Atlanta
office of national plaintiffs' firm Motley Rice LLC.  Mr.
Evangelista was managing member of that firm's Atlanta office
and one of the firm's most experienced securities and complex
litigation practitioners.  Previously, he was a partner at
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, an Atlanta plaintiffs' securities
fraud litigation boutique, after practicing for more than a
decade with Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP and LeBoeuf,
Lamb Greene & MacRae LLP.  Mr. Worley, selected multiple times
as a Georgia "SuperLawyer" by Atlanta Magazine, was a partner in
the Securities and Consumer Fraud department of Motley Rice and
was also previously a partner at Chitwood Harley Harnes.

During his career as a plaintiffs' attorney, Mr. Evangelista has
helped investors and other clients recover more than
$100 million in losses from securities fraud and other
wrongdoing, has fought procedurally and financially unfair
acquisitions of public companies and has challenged breaches of
fiduciary duty by corporate management and boards of directors.  
Mr. Evangelista has represented institutional pension funds,
corporations and individual investors in securities fraud class
action, merger and acquisition, shareholder derivative, and
general business tort and commercial litigation matters against
public companies such as AT&T, Beazer Homes USA Inc., BellSouth
Corp., Cingular Wireless, Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc., Dell
Inc., Mirant Corp., New York Community Bankcorp, Spectrum Brands
Inc., Verizon, Vonage Holdings Corp., and Washington Mutual
Bank.

On the defense side, Mr. Evangelista assisted a substantial
number of Fortune 100 and other corporate clients in high
profile class action matters and internal corporate
investigations including the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
in the Insurance Sales Practices Litigation, Aventis
CropScience/Bayer CropScience in the StarLink(TM) Corn
Litigation, and Compaq Computer Company in the Floppy Disk
Controller Litigation.  Mr. Evangelista also participated in the
Independent Counsel's investigation of the U.S. Justice
Department's prosecution of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro for
illegal loans to the Government of Iraq, the Independent
Administrator's court-appointed oversight of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, and in a number of internal corporate
investigations.

Mr. Evangelista earned his B.A. in Economics and Political
Science from Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, in
1988 and his J.D. from Rutgers University School of Law, in
Camden, New Jersey, in 1991, where he was Articles Editor of the
school's Law Review and a recipient of its International Law
Honors Program Award.  He is admitted to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First, Second, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh
Circuits; the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
Georgia, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the
District of New Jersey; and the State Bars of Georgia, New York,
New Jersey, Colorado and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Worley has served as Chair of the Labor and Employment Law
Sections of both the State Bar of Georgia and the Atlanta Bar
Association and as Co-Chair of the Federal Legislative
Developments Committee of the American Bar Association's
Committee on Labor and Employment Law.  He has lectured on
arbitration, litigation and election law topics at numerous
continuing legal education seminars.  For many years he was a
member of the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee.  From 1998
to 2001, Worley served as Chairman of the Democratic Party of
Georgia and a member of the Democratic National Committee and
has been a delegate to four Democratic National Conventions.  He
currently serves as a member of the Georgia State Election
Board.

Mr. Worley received his undergraduate degree cum laude from
Harvard College in 1980, and graduated from the University of
Virginia School of Law in 1985, where he was a member of the
National Moot Court Team and received the Johnson & Swanson
Award for excellence in written advocacy.  He has been admitted
to the trial and appellate courts of Georgia, the U.S. District
Courts for the Northern and Middle Districts of Georgia, the
Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme
Court. He is a member of the American Bar Association and the
State Bar of Georgia.

Page Perry, LLC on the net: http://www.pageperry.com


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
February 21-22, 2008
  CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
    ALI-ABA
      Washington DC
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 26, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: MAXIMIZING COVERAGE - ANTICIPATING  
    YOUR CLIENT'S INSURANCE NEEDS BEFORE THE CLAIM HAPPENS
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 27, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CLIMATE CHANGE AND
    INSURANCE EXPOSURES
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

February 28, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION WEBINAR: THE
    KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL RAINMAKING
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

February 28-29, 2008
  LITIGATING TRADEMARK, INTERNET, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CASES
    ALI-ABA
      New Orleans
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 28-29, 2008
  TRIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
    ALI-ABA
      Newport Beach
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 28-29, 2008
  TRIAL OF A PATENT CASE
    ALI-ABA
      Scottsdale
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 3-5, 2008
  MEALEY'S EMERGING TRENDS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    A PLAINTIFF/DEFENSE FORUM & DEBATE
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Four Seasons Los Angeles at Beverly Hills
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 4-5, 2008
  SUBPRIME LITIGATION AND REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
    American Conference Institute
      Dallas
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

March 5, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ATTORNEY-CLIENT
    PRIVILEGE IN CLASS ACTIONS
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 6, 2008
  MEALEY'S SUBPRIME-BACKED SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Harvard Club, New York
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 11, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CHALLENGES OF THE MANAGING
    GENERAL AGENT MODEL
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 11, 2008
  MEALEY'S PRODUCT LIABILITY TELECONFERENCE: DIACETYL LITIGATION
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 12, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: ASBESTOS RISK TRANSFER
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 12, 2008
  MEALEY'S SUBPRIME MORTGAGE TELECONFERENCE: COVERAGE ISSUES
    ARISING FROM SUBPRIME LENDING
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: REINSURANCE/ARBITRATION
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES CONFERENCE
    WHO'S SUING, WHO'S RESTORING AND CAN THEY DO BOTH?
      Mealeys Seminars
        Loews Philadelphia Hotel
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 13-14, 2008
  PRIVACY LAW: DEVELOPMENTS, PLANNING, AND LITIGATION
    ALI-ABA
      Washington DC
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 26, 2008
  MEALEY'S PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE: PREEMPTION
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

March 31 - April 1, 2008
  FDA BOOT CAMP
    American Conference Institute
      New York
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

April 2, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
    EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION FOR ATTORNEYS - HAVING THE
      HARD CONVERSATIONS
        Mealeys Seminars
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 3-4, 2008
  MEALEY'S LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort, Orlando
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 9-12, 2008
  MEALEY'S 15th Annual Insurance Insolvency & Reinsurance
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 10-11, 2008
  Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
    Mass Torts Made Perfect
      Wynn, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-320-2227

April 14-15, 2008
  MEALEY'S CONFERENCE: FOOD & PRODUCT RECALL BUSINESS STRATEGIES
    Mealeys Seminars
      The MGM Grand, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 15, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING OUTSIDE COUNSEL COSTS
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT &
    MOLD LITIGATION UPDATE
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Gleacher Center, Chicago
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 30 - May 1, 2008
  ACI LAW FIRM GENERAL COUNSEL SUMMIT
    American Conference Institute
      New York
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

April 30 - May 1, 2008
  WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Miami
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

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

May 5-6, 2008
  MEALEY'S ASBESTOS TRIAL STRATEGIES CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 7, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 8, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: BENZENE LITIGATION
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 8, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (ATLANTA)
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Atlantic Station Building, Atlanta, GA
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 13-14, 2008
  D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
    American Conference Institute
      New York
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

May 15, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION TELECONFERENCE
    SERIES: ASSUMING A LEADERSHIP POSITION
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 19-20, 2008
  MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUMMIT: CAPITAL MARKETS CONVERGENCE AND
    STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FACING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Westin Grand, Washington, DC
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 20-21, 2008
  MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 29-30, 2008
  MASS LITIGATION
    ALI-ABA
      Charleston, SC
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 23-24, 2008
  MEALEY'S WRAP INSURANCE CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Signatures at the MGM Grand, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 25, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (NEW YORK)
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Harvard Club, New York
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 10-11, 2008
  CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2008: PROSECUTION AND
    DEFENSE STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

July 30, 2008
  MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW
    DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        Chicago
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

October 23-24, 2008
  Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
    Mass Torts Made Perfect
      Bellagio, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-320-2227

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
February 1-28, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
    CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
  CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
    DEFECT LIABILITY
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
    CLEOnline.Com
      Phone: 512-778-5665
        e-mail: info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
  IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
    CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
  BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE
    -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION,  
      INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
        CLEOnline.Com
          Phone: 512-778-5665
            e-mail: info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
    TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
  CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
    DEFECT LIABILITY
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

December 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS  
  (2004)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2005)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

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

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
  WRITTEN DISCOVERY
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

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

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
  LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
  LawCommerce.Com
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
  SALES AND ADVERSTISING
    American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-285-2221
        e-mail: abacle@abanet.org



                           *********


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  * * *