CAR_Public/080221.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, February 21, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 37
  
                            Headlines

3M CO: Minn. Court Mulls Class Certification for Age Bias Suit
3M CO: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Decatur, Ala. Pollution
ARSENAL DIGITAL: Shareholder Files Suit Over $110M Acquisition
AWB LIMITED: Withdraws Request to Dismiss Disclosure Lawsuit
BOEING CO: Faces Lawsuits in Kans. Alleging ERISA Violations

CANADA: Ex-Soldiers Commence Lawsuit Over Radiation Exposure
CANADA: Appeals Court Allows Citizenship Oath Suit to Continue
CAREER EDUCATION: Students Sue Over Medical Assistant Program
CHOCOLATE PRODUCERS: Juroviesky & Ricci Files Price-Fixing Suit
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Tex. SC Dismisses Products Liability Lawsuit

DELPHI CORP: Mich. Court OKs $38.25M Securities Suit Settlement
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: May 5 Docket Call Scheduled for FCA Case
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: May 5 Docket Call Scheduled for PVC Case
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Nov. 3 Trial Set for "Staples" Lawsuit
KPMG LLP: Implements Plan to Redress Workers for Unpaid Overtime

LIFEBLOOD MID-SOUTH: Sued Over Missing Laptops with Donor Data
LINCOLN NAT'L: No Certification for Variable Annuities Fee Case
MAGMA DESIGN: Settlement Reached in Calif. Shareholder Lawsuit
NORTH CAROLINA: Can Keep Income on Returned Property, Court Says
SEARS ROEBUCK: To Install Brackets in Tipping-Stove Suit Deal

SERACARE LIFE: Calif. Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement
STATION CASINOS: Ex-Employees File Nev. Suit Over Payroll Abuses
THIRD FEDERAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in "Greenspan" Lawsuit
ZEON BIOMUNE: Louisville, Ken. Residents' Pollution Suit Settled
* AlixPartners to Host Securities Litigation Conference in N.Y.

* Investors' Lack of Participation Leave $12B in Unclaimed Funds
* Kentucky Lawyers Review Class Lawsuits to Prevent Wrongdoing


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTERLINE HOLDING: Wolf Popper Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
SUNOPTA INC: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.



                           *********


3M CO: Minn. Court Mulls Class Certification for Age Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Ramsey County in Minnesota has yet to rule
on a motion that is seeking class certification for an age
discrimination class action against 3M Co.

On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company
filed a purported class action, seeking to represent a class of
all current and certain former salaried employees employed by 3M
Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were aged 46
or older at any time during the applicable period to be
determined by the court (Class Action Reporter, Nob. 7, 2007).

The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and
Michael Mucci, 55.  According to the lawsuit, since at least
2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the
company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45
-- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new
business methodologies adopted by the company."  

It also alleges that the company disproportionately selects
younger employees for a leadership-training program called "Six
Sigma."

The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs suffered various forms
of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of
the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble
under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive
damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and
attorneys' fees.

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.  This motion was unopposed by the
Company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case,
although one claim has been dismissed following an individual
settlement.

The class certification hearing was held in December 2007.  The
Company expects a ruling on the class certification in the first
half of 2008.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Decatur, Ala. Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to face purported class actions in Alabama  
over alleged perflourooctanyl pollution at its Decatur facility,
according to the company's Feb. 15, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

                        2002 Litigation

A former employee filed a purported class action in 2002 with
the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, involving
perfluorooctanyl chemistry, alleging that the plaintiffs
suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and
property damage from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry at
or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the named plaintiffs personal injury-related claims on
the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity
provisions of the states Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

                        2005 Litigation

Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action
lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama,
seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving
alleged damage to their property from emissions of
perfluorooctanyl compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds) granted the Company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the action filed in the same court
in 2002.

Despite the stay, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property
damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a
purported class.

No further action in the case is expected unless and until the
stay is lifted.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.  The Company manages its
operations in six operating business segments: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Display and Graphics; Consumer and
Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services, and Electro
and Communications.  


ARSENAL DIGITAL: Shareholder Files Suit Over $110M Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
A minority shareholder of Arsenal Digital Solutions USA Inc.
filed a purported class action suit with the Court of Chancery
in Delaware, seeking money from IBM's $110-million acquisition
of the company, Beth Pariseau of SearchStorage.com reports.

The suit alleges that Arsenal Digital's two major venture
capitalist firms -- Southeast Interactive Technology Fund and
Covestco-Seteura LLC -- received an inordinate amount of the
money from the IBM acquisition announced last December 2007.

According to court documents obtained by SearchStorage.com,
Delaware resident Dwight Johnson filed the class action on
Jan. 25, 2008, on behalf of Arsenal Digital common stock
shareholders.  The suit was brought against IBM, Arsenal
Digital's holding company Arsenal Digital Worldwide Inc.,
Arsenal's directors, and officers of Southeast Interactive and
Covestco-Seteura.

Mr. Johnson specifically alleges that the venture capitalists,
who are holders of preferred stock in the company, took
$20.8 million from the IBM-Arsenal acquisition for themselves,
rather than distributing it among the owners of common stock.

In addition, the suit also claims that IBM aided the venture
capitalist firms in defrauding shareholders out of their
rightful stake in the acquisition, and that an Information
Statement released to shareholders about the merger was
incomplete and misleading.

Cary, North Carolina-based Arsenal Digital Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. -- http://www.arsenaldigital.com-- provides data storage  
systems installation and support services.  The company targets
customers in markets ranging from telecommunications and
manufacturing to banking and insurance.  Arsenal backs up PC and
server data to its data centers or partners' hosted data
centers.  It also provides on-site management.  Arsenal Digital
has locations across the U.S., as well as in Asia and Europe.


AWB LIMITED: Withdraws Request to Dismiss Disclosure Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
AWB Limited has backed down from a request to have a class-
action lawsuit against it dismissed, ABC Online reports.  Thus,
Justice Gyles threw out AWB's strike-out motion by consent at a
directions hearing in Sydney.

ABC Online writes that AWB incurred costs of about $10,000 after
its attempt at dismissal.

The report recalls that the $25-million class action lawsuit was
filed with the Federal Court in April 2007 by Australian wheat
farmers and ABW shareholders John and Kaye Watson, alleging that
AWB failed to disclose information relevant to the market
between March 2002 and January 2006, which cost them $10,000
when the share price plummeted.  

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 24, 2007,  the
shareholders claim that they lost money because AWB failed to
inform the market about steps it made to be in breach of United
Nations sanctions under the oil-for-food program.  In August
2007, the proceeding was converted from a proceeding under Order
6 rule 13 of the Federal Court Rules into a proceeding under
Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act following an
application brought by the plaintiffs and heard by Justice
Gyles.

AWB filed a strike-out motion against the class action in
October last year, claiming the case not only had no prospect of
success but that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear
it.

However, at a hearing on Feb. 19, AWB elected to withdraw its
strike-out motion, and Justice Gyles reserved a costs order in
favor of the plaintiffs.  Justice Gyles also set down a
timetable for AWB to produce documents in the case.

The case will return to the Federal Court in May.

or more information, contact:

          Ben Slade, Esq.
          Jason Geisker, Esq.
          Juliana Tang, Esq.
          Maurice Blackburn Cashman
          Phone: (02) 9261 1488
          e-mail: sjovanovski@mauriceblackburn.com.au
                  mluppino@mauriceblackburn.com.au  


BOEING CO: Faces Lawsuits in Kans. Alleging ERISA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. faces purported class action lawsuits filed with
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
according to the company's Feb. 15, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

                        First Litigation

The company was served with the first complaint on March 2,
2006.  It is alleging that hiring decisions made by Spirit
Aerosystems, Inc., near the time of the company's sale of the
Wichita facility were tainted by age discrimination and violated
ERISA.

The case is brought as a class action on behalf of individuals
not hired by Spirit.  

                       Second Litigation

A second alleged class action involving the company's sale of
the Wichita facility to Spirit was filed on Feb. 21, 2007, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

The case is also brought under ERISA, and, in general, claims
that we have not properly provided benefits to certain
categories of former employees affected by the sale.

The plaintiffs have been exhausting their administrative
remedies by making appeals to the company's benefits committee;
that phase of the case has been completed, and it is expected
that the case will move into the early stages of discovery.

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.  


CANADA: Ex-Soldiers Commence Lawsuit Over Radiation Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian veterans who participated in atomic weapons tests
during the Cold War are suing the Canadian government for
compensation for illnesses they say were caused by exposure to
radiation from the detonations, Globe and Mail reports.

National Post says that the former soldiers of the Canadian
military were once sent to stand as close as two kilometers away
from nuclear explosions.

The class-action lawsuit filed in Federal Court in Ottawa on  
Feb. 19, 2008, alleges that the government knew about the health
risks associated with the testing of nuclear weapons, but
continued to send hundreds of Canadian soldiers to Nevada and
other secret locations between 1946 and 1963, Globe and Mail
relates.  The government also ordered soldiers to enter toxic
areas without informing them about the risks.

According to National Post, Regina lawyer Tony Merchant filed
the statement of claim in federal court on behalf of what he
describes as an estimated 1,000 "atomic human guinea pigs," who
were sent to the U.S., Australia, and islands in the South
Pacific between 1946 and 1963.  There, soldiers were exposed to
huge doses of radiation that caused radiation sickness and,
later, cancers and untimely deaths, the suit claims.

The statement of claim also alleges that the government was well
aware of the harmful effects of radiation when the military
volunteered its soldiers to be unwitting test subjects.

CBC News points out that in 1988, the United States government
awarded a lump-sum payment of $75,000 to their own soldiers who
came down with one or more ailments on a list, mostly cancers.
Some 62,000 U.S. veterans and widows were eligible for the
money.  Mr. Merchant said that the Canadian veterans deserve at
least as much compensation as U.S. troops received, which, with
inflation, comes out to $150,000.

CBC News recounts that in November 2007, Australian Defence
Minister Peter MacKay said that the government intended to
compensate the veterans "soon" but gave no timeline.  Earlier
reports said that the amount on offer would be a one-time
payment of $24,000, which veterans decried as insufficient.

Jim Huntley of Calgary said that he, other veterans and their
widows resorted to the class action suit when their pleas to
government for recognition and compensation went without
responses, National Post says.

Mr. Huntley, National Post writes, was sent to Nevada in 1957
for top-secret "training" exercises, where he watched at least
six blasts detonate, where he was knocked over by shock waves,
and where one trench he sheltered in collapsed.  

Mr. Huntley told Globe and Mail that about half of his 40-member
unit is now dead, many as the result of cancer.  The statement
of claim alleges that the government sent Mr. Huntley to Nevada
to test the effects of radiation on humans.

In a statement to CBC News on Tuesday, the defence minister's
office would only say that the government is working on a "fair
and speedy" resolution.

CBC notes that a report commissioned by Minister MacKay's
predecessor, Gordon O'Connor, and publicized by the Ottawa
Citizen in 2007, stated that 689 Canadian military personnel
were exposed to radiation while taking part in the U.S. and
British weapons tests.  However, the report, written by nuclear
expert John Clearwater, did not look at how many veterans became
ill after the tests, although it questioned the level of
protection given to the men, with some living on the testing
grounds for months at a time.


CANADA: Appeals Court Allows Citizenship Oath Suit to Continue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal denied the federal
Attorney-General's request to dismiss a class action commenced
by Charles Roach, a black Toronto lawyer, that challenges the
citizenship oath's "allegiance to Her Majesty," National Post
reports.  

This means that the Queen's place in Canada is going to trial.  
The class action, in which damages of CDN$5,000 are being sought
for people who have refused to swear the oath or swore it under
duress, can now proceed in the Ontario Superior Court.

Mr. Roach, the report notes, is against the monarchy's past
connection to slavery.  Thus, his case has rallied the diverse
forces of Canadian republicanism, from Irish and Indian
nationalism to casual distaste for monarchies.

As the test case, Mr. Roach, a permanent resident of Canada who
was born a British subject in Trinidad and immigrated to Canada
more than 50 years ago, argues that the requirement to swear an
oath to the Queen violates the Charter's freedom of conscience
provision.

National Post explains that, with exemptions only for the
disabled, new Canadian citizens must swear an oath to "be
faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth
II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. . ."  Citizenship
then permits people to vote, serve on juries, get a passport,
run for office, leave Canada with the right to return and pass
citizenship to their children born elsewhere.

The lower court had ruled last year that the lawsuit can go
ahead.  As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 14,
2007, Justice Edward Belobaba found the case "fascinating" and
refused to dismiss the case as an abuse of process.

Kristina Dragaitis, a lawyer for the Attorney-General, argued
before the three judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal that
Mr. Roach is "forum shopping" after losing a similar case in the
Federal Court of Appeal in 1994.  Regardless, she said, federal
court is where citizenship disputes are settled, not provincial
court.

Ms. Dragaitis had also argued that Judge Belobaba was wrong to
conclude that the case "is not an immigration matter" and that
"no one is caught up in federal immigration procedures; no one
is appealing a denial of citizenship, or complaining about
delays in the processing of citizenship papers."

Without even hearing from Mr. Roach's lawyer and daughter
Kikelola Roach, the judges upheld the earlier ruling, and
dismissed the government's appeal, calling the case a
"straightforward, Charter-based constitutional challenge of a
federal law," and not a dispute over the conduct of federal
officials.


CAREER EDUCATION: Students Sue Over Medical Assistant Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Brown College and Career Education Corp. are facing a
class-action complaint filed on Feb. 11, 2008, with the Madison
County Circuit Court, alleging that the defendants fraudulently
induced the plaintiffs and the class to join a medical assistant
program through a number of deceptive acts, Steve Gonzalez of
the St. Clair Record reports.

According to CourtHouse News Service, defendants defrauded the
students by misrepresenting transferability of credits in their
RN program and financial aid opportunities at Sanford's
Collinsville campus.

The named plaintiffs are:

     * Jenna Lilley,
     * Jessica Lilley,
     * Candace Lindsay and
     * Ashley Cunningham.

The plaintiffs claim that they were aware they needed to take
prerequisite courses in order to attend an accredited
institution and inquired with Sanford Brown to see if the
medical assistant program would fulfill the prerequisite
requirements for a nursing program.

"None of the four putative class representatives had any
interest in taking the medical assistant program to become a
medical assistant," the complaint states.  "They saw the medical
assistant program as a stepping-stone to becoming a registered
nurse."

The admissions representatives at Sanford Brown allegedly claim
that:

     -- The tuition to attend Sanford Brown and obtain a medical
        assistant certificate was fixed, however students were
        forced to pay twice for classes they failed;

     -- The instructors had real-world experience and were
        otherwise well-qualified, however the majority of the
        instructors were themselves graduates of Sanford Brown,
        with little or no real-world experience.

     -- The students would be provided with the most up-to-date
        training aids and equipment but much of the perishable
        equipment provided was past its expiration date;

     -- The students would be placed in an actual doctor's
        office, however Sanford Brown was unable to place
        students in externships; and the students that were
        placed were assigned as a secretary or receptionist, not
        a medical assistant; and

     -- That there was a high demand for medical assistants,
        however the field is well staffed and doctors do not
        hire students from Sanford Brown because they are not
        properly trained.

According to the complaint, Sanford Brown violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by engaging
in conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion or
misunderstanding.

The plaintiffs, who are area nursing students, assert that they
suffered actual damages by Sanford Brown's deceptive practices
by the payment of fraudulently obtained tuition, by the payment
for textbooks which were of no use, being overcharged for
equipment and medical aides, being forced to purchase items from
the school and exhausting federal aide available to them making
it impossible to pursue a legitimate degree.

"Plaintiffs and class members would not have sustained the
damages but for the defendants deceptive practices in
fraudulently inducing them to enroll in the medical assistant
program," the complaint further states.

According to the complaint, all persons who attended Sanford
Brown in Collinsville and enrolled in the medical assistant
program are eligible to join the class.

The plaintiffs and the class want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants represented that tuition would be
         set at a fixed amount;

     (b) whether defendants gave plaintiffs and the class
         inaccurate and inflated data concerning wages graduates
         could reasonably expect to earn including signing
         bonuses they could reasonably expect to receive;

     (c) whether defendants claimed Sanford Brown credits were
         transferable to other colleges and universities within
         Illinois;

     (d) whether Sanford Brown instructors were well experienced
         and well-qualified in teaching at the college level;

     (e) whether defendants misrepresented that there were a
         limited number of seats available for Sanford Brown
         programs that were filling up quickly;

     (f) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members would be provided with the most up to
         date training aids and equipment upon which to learn;

     (g) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members would be placed in a safe, educational
         environment for clinical study that was in close
         proximity to their homes;

     (h) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members would receive large financial grants and
         loans and the program would cost nothing out of pocket;

     (i) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members needed to purchase scrubs and other
         equipment from the school;

     (j) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members needed to purchase certain new textbooks
         to master the information needed to pass the classes;

     (k) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members needed to purchase all new textbooks and
         other equipment from the Sanford Brown bookstore;

     (l) whether defendants misrepresented that there was a high
         demand for workers in the fields for which plaintiffs
         and class members would be educated;

     (m) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members would receive large federal loans with
         low payments and interest;

     (n) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members would obtain their degrees much quicker
         and earn more money post degree completion than they
         would at a community college;

     (o) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and
         class members could only finance their education at
         Sanford Brown through Sanford Brown's Financial Aid
         Office;

     (p) whether defendants misrepresented to plaintiffs and
         class members that class sizes would be small and not
         exceed 20 people;

     (q) whether defendants intended the public to be misled by
         its various misrepresentations;

     (r) whether defendants' conduct constituted breach of
         contract;

     (s) whether defendants' conduct constituted a breach of the
         implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

     (t) whether the defendants' conduct is in violation of the
         Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; and

     (u) whether the conduct of alleged results in damages to
         plaintiffs and class members and, if so, the proper
         measure of those damages.

The plaintiffs and class are seeking a judgment for:

     -- Compensatory, consequential, and incidental damages;

     -- General damages, including emotional distress in amount
        to be proved at trial;

     -- Disgorgement and restitution of all monies converted,
        taken or appropriated by Sanford Brown; and

     -- Prejudgment interest, attorney fees and costs of the
        suit.

The suit is "Jenna Lilley et al. v. Career Education Corp., et
al., Case No. 08 L 113," filed in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Illinois.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Carey, Esq. (jcarey@careydanis.com)
          David Bauman, Esq. (dbauman@careydanis.com)
          Corey Sullivan, Esq. (csullivan@careydanis.com)
          Carey & Danis, L.L.C.
          8235 Forsyth Blvd. Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Toll Free: (800) 721-2519
          Phone: (314) 725-7700 (voice)
          Fax: (314) 721-0905            


CHOCOLATE PRODUCERS: Juroviesky & Ricci Files Price-Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP have filed a class
action lawsuit with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
against the Canadian divisions of these major Chocolate
manufacturers for allegedly colluding to fix the prices of their
chocolate products:

        * Nestle,
        * Hershey,
        * Cadbury, and
        * Mars.

The suit claims that the defendants conspired to inflate the
price of their products by 5% or more at least three times
during the Class Period, in violation of a variety of statutes
including the Competition Act, and the various provincial
Consumer Protection Acts. Chocolate sales in Canada in 2007 were
approximately $1.4 Billion.

The class currently includes all persons resident in Canada that
consumed chocolate products in Canada since February 2004.

For more information, contact:

          Henry Juroviesky, Esq.
          Juroviesky and Ricci LLP
          4950 Yonge Street, Suite 904
          Toronto, Ontario
          Canada
          M2N 6K1
          Phone: (416) 481-0718
          Fax: (416) 481-1792
          e-mail: info@jrclassactions.com
          Web site: http://www.jrclassactions.com


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Tex. SC Dismisses Products Liability Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
After eight years of litigation, a team of attorneys from
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP emerged victorious as they defended
DaimlerChrysler in a nationwide products liability class action
suit brought by owners and lessees of DaimlerChrysler vehicles.

Austin-based trial partner Roberta J. Hegland served as Lead
Texas Trial Counsel for DaimlerChrysler.

The plaintiffs sought $745 billion in damages against the
corporation, alleging that the seatbelt buckles found in
DaimlerChrysler models from the years 1993-2002 had a design
defect that rendered them unreasonably dangerous and
ineffective.

Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that the seatbelts were easily
subject to accidental release and therefore demonstrated
negligence in design.

On Feb. 1, 2008, the Texas Supreme Court dismissed the case,
holding that the possibility of concrete injury to plaintiffs
was extremely remote, and thus, they lacked standing to bring
the class action.  During the discovery phase of the trial,
Ms. Hegland's team learned that the plaintiffs had either never
experienced anything like what they claimed might happen, or
were uncertain as to whether they had, but ultimately none of
the plaintiffs had been injured due to defective seatbelt
buckles.

"We are grateful that the Court carefully examined the
allegations in this case and reaffirmed Texas law on this
issue," said Ms. Hegland.  "We've devoted countless hours and
resources to resolve this case for our client and are thrilled
that the Court dismissed these meritless claims."

To contact Ms. Hegland:

          Roberta J. Heglan, Esq. (roberta.hegland@bgllp.com)
          Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300
          Austin, Texas 78701-4061  
          Phone: 512.472.7800
          Fax: 512.472.9123


DELPHI CORP: Mich. Court OKs $38.25M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Gerald E. Rosen of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan granted preliminary approval to a
settlement providing for a recovery of $38,250,000 to be paid by
Deloitte & Touche LLP.  

Judge Rosen has also preliminarily certified a Class consisting
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Delphi Corporation, including
securities issued by Delphi Trust I and Delphi Trust II between
March 7, 2000, and March 3, 2005, inclusive, and who suffered
damages, including all persons and entities who acquired shares
of Delphi common stock and preferred stock in the secondary
market and all persons or entities who acquired debt securities
of Delphi in the secondary market or pursuant to a registration
statement.

The Class will also receive interest on the Deloitte & Touche
Settlement Amount.

Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on April 15,
2008.  Deadline to file claims is on May 30, 2008.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m., on April 29, 2008, before the
Honorable Gerald E. Rosen.

                   Securities Fraud Lawsuit

A group of putative class actions against Delphi variously
alleges, among other things, that the company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers and others made
materially false and misleading statements in violation of
federal securities laws.

On Sept. 23, 2005, securities actions against Delphi were
consolidated before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly-traded securities of the company,
including securities issued by Delphi Trust I and Delphi Trust
II, during a putative class period of March 7, 2000, through
March 3, 2005.

The amended securities action names several new defendants,
including Delphi Trust II, certain former directors, and
underwriters and other third parties, and includes securities
claims regarding additional offerings of Delphi securities.

The securities actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (and a related securities
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida concerning Delphi Trust I) were subsequently
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan as part of the Multidistrict Litigation.

                      ERISA Litigation

One group of putative class actions, which are purportedly
brought on behalf of participants in certain of the company's
and its subsidiaries' defined contribution employee benefit
pension plans that invested in Delphi common stock, was brought
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs in the ERISA Actions allege, among others, that the
plans suffered losses as a result of alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  

On Oct. 21, 2005, the ERISA Actions were consolidated before one
judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  The ERISA Actions were subsequently transferred to
the Multidistrict Litigation.

On March 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint with a putative class period of May 28, 1999, to
Nov. 1, 2005.  

                       Derivative Lawsuit   

Another group of lawsuits against certain current and former
directors and officers of Delphi is comprised of shareholder
derivative actions.

A total of four complaints were filed: two in the federal court
(one in the Eastern District of Michigan and another in the
Southern District of New York) and two in Michigan state court
(Oakland County Circuit Court in Pontiac, Michigan).

These suits alleged that certain current and former directors
and officers of the Company breached a variety of duties owed by
them to Delphi in connection with matters related to the
company's restatement of its financial results.

The federal cases were consolidated with the securities and
ERISA class actions before Judge Gerald E. Rosen in the Eastern
District of Michigan, described above.

Following the filing on Oct. 8, 2005, of the Debtors' petitions
for reorganization relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code, all the derivative cases were administratively closed.

The consolidated suit is "Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative
and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-01725-GER,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen.

Representing some of the plaintiffs are:

         Cari C. Laufenberg, Esq.
         (claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com)
         Keller Rohrback
         1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-1900
         Fax: 206-623-3384

              - and -

         Sara L. Madsen, Esq. (slmadsen@locklaw.com)
         Lockridge Grindal
         100 S. Washington Ave., Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981

Representing the company are:

         Stuart Baskin, Esq. (sbaskin@shearman.com)
         Shearman & Sterling
         599 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-848-4000
         Fax: 212-848-7179

              - and -

         Joseph E. Papelian, Esq. (joseph.e.papelian@delphi.com)
         Delphi Corporation Legal Staff,
         5825 Delphi Drive
         Troy, MI 48098-2815
         Phone: 248-813-2000


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: May 5 Docket Call Scheduled for FCA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas set a
May 5, 2008 docket call for a purported class action filed by
Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., against funeral home
businesses, including Hillenbrand Industries Inc., according to
Hillenbrand's Feb. 8, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

On May 2, 2005, FCA, a non-profit entity, and several individual
consumers filed a purported antitrust class action against three
national funeral home businesses Service Corporation
International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Stewart Enterprises,
Inc., together with Hillenbrand, and its Batesville Casket
Company, Inc. subsidiary, with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The lawsuit alleged:

       -- a conspiracy to suppress competition in an alleged
          market for the sale of caskets through a group boycott
          of so-called independent casket discounters, that is,
          third-party casket sellers unaffiliated with licensed
          funeral homes;

       -- a campaign of disparagement against these independent
          casket discounters; and

       -- concerted efforts to restrict casket price competition
          and to coordinate and fix casket pricing, all in
          violation of federal antitrust law and California's
          Unfair Competition Law.

The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that Batesville's
maintenance and enforcement of, and alleged modifications to,
its long-standing policy of selling caskets only to licensed
funeral homes were the product of a conspiracy among Batesville,
the other defendants and others to exclude independent casket
discounters and that this alleged conspiracy, combined with
other alleged matters, suppressed competition in the alleged
market for caskets and led consumers to pay higher than
competitive prices for caskets.

The FCA Action further alleged that two of Batesville's
competitors, York Group, Inc., and Aurora Casket Company, are
co-conspirators but did not name them as defendants.  The FCA
Action also asserted that SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and
other unnamed co-conspirators conspired to monopolize the
alleged market for the sale of caskets in the United States.

After the FCA Action was filed, several more purported class
actions on behalf of consumers were filed based on essentially
the same factual allegations and alleging violations of federal
antitrust law and related state law claims.  

Batesville, Hillenbrand, and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the FCA Action and a motion to transfer to a more
convenient forum.  In response, the court in California
permitted the plaintiffs to replead the complaint and later
granted the defendants' motion to transfer the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the FCA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
consolidating all but one of the other purported consumer class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.  The amended FCA complaint contains substantially the
same basic allegations as the original FCA complaint.  

The only other then remaining unconsolidated purported consumer
class action, "Fancher v. SCI et al.," was subsequently
dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff after the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss.
  
The FCA plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class that
includes all U.S. consumers who purchased Batesville caskets
from any of the funeral home co-defendants at any time during
the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of
limitations.

On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court denied the defendants' November 2005
motion to dismiss the amended FCA complaint.  Class
certification hearings were then held on the matter in early
December 2006.  Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class
certification motions was completed in March 2007, though
briefing on certain supplemental evidence related to class
certification in the FCA Action also occurred in September 2007
and October 2007.  The Court has not yet ruled on the motions
for class certification.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
both cases, including the previously set February 2008 trial
date.  

The Court reset a docket call in the FCA Action for May 5, 2008.
A docket call is typically a status conference with the Court to
set a trial date.  It is anticipated that new deadlines,
including a trial date, will not be set until sometime after the
Court has ruled on the motions for class certification.

The plaintiffs in the FCA Action filed a report indicating that
they are seeking damages ranging from approximately $947 million
to approximately $1.46 billion before trebling.

The suit is "Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc et al. v. Service
Corp. International, Case No. 4:05-cv-03394," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under
Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to Judge Calvin Botley.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan S. Abady, Esq. (jabady@ecbalaw.com)
          Emery Celli Brinckerhoff
          545 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-763-5000
          Fax: 212-763-5001
           
               - and -

          Gordon Ball, Esq. (gball@ballandscott.com)
          Ball & Scott
          550 W. Main Ave., Ste. 750
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Phone: 865-525-7028
          Fax: 865-525-4679

Representing the defendants are:  

          John F. Cove, Jr., Esq. (jcove@bsfllp.com)
          Richard Bruce Drubel, Jr., Esq. (rdrubel@bsfllp.com)          
          Boies Schiller Flexner
          Phone: 510-874-1000 and 603-643-9090
          Fax: 510-874-1460 and 603-643-9010

               - and -

          Kenneth S. Marks, Esq. (kmarks@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey, LLP
          1000 Louisiana, Ste. 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Phone: 713-946-9567
          Fax: 713-654-6666


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: May 5 Docket Call Scheduled for PVC Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas set a
May 5, 2008 docket call for the case, "Pioneer Valley Casket, et
al. v. Service Corp. International, et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV
03399," which names Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., as a
defendant, according to the company's Feb. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On July 8, 2005 Pioneer Valley Casket Co., an alleged casket
store and Internet retailer, filed a purported class action
against Batesville, Hillenbrand, Service Corp. International,
Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of the class of "independent casket distributors."

The complaint alleges violations of state and federal antitrust
law and state unfair and deceptive practices laws based on
essentially the same factual allegations as in the consumer
cases.  

Pioneer Valley claimed that it and other independent casket
distributors were injured by the defendants' alleged conspiracy
to boycott and suppress competition in the alleged market for
caskets, and by an alleged conspiracy among SCI, Alderwoods,
Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators to monopolize the
alleged market for caskets.

Plaintiff Pioneer Valley seeks certification of a class of all
independent casket distributors who are now in business or have
been in business since July 8, 2001.  

Pioneer Valley generally seeks actual unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class, trebling of any such
damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and
costs and injunctive relief.

The Pioneer Valley complaint was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas but was not
consolidated with the action, “Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc.
et al. v. Service Corp. International, Case No. 4:05-cv-03394,”
although the scheduling orders for both cases are identical.   

On Oct. 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed an amended complaint
adding three new plaintiffs, each of whom purports to be a
current or former "independent casket distributor."  

Like Pioneer Valley's original complaint, the amended complaint
alleges violations of federal antitrust laws, but it has dropped
the causes of actions for alleged price fixing, conspiracy to
monopolize, and violations of state antitrust law and state
unfair and deceptive practices laws.  

On Oct. 25, 2006, the district court denied the defendants
December 2005 motions to dismiss the amended Pioneer Valley
complaint.

Class certification hearings on the FCA Action and the Pioneer
Valley Action were held in early December 2006.  

Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class certification
motions in both cases was completed in March 2007, though
briefing on certain supplemental evidence related to class
certification in the FCA Action also occurred in September 2007
and October 2007.  

The Court has not yet ruled on the motions for class
certification.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
both cases, including the previously set February 2008 trial
date.

The Court reset a docket call in the Pioneer Valley Action for
May 5, 2008.  A docket call is typically a status conference
with the Court to set a trial date.

It is anticipated that new deadlines, including a trial date,
will not be set until sometime after the Court has ruled on the
motions for class certification.

The plaintiffs in the Pioneer Valley Action generally seek
monetary damages, trebling of any such damages that may be
awarded, recovery of attorneys fees and costs, and injunctive
relief.

The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs filed a report indicating that
they are seeking damages of approximately $99.2 million before
trebling.

The suit is "Pioneer Valley Casket, et al. v. Service Corp.
International, et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV-03399," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge
Kenneth M. Hoyt presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404
         
         Robert S. Green, Esq. (rsg@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM)
         Green Welling, LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2750
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710

              - and -
  
         Christine P. Bartholomew, Esq.             
         (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
         Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
         601 Montgomery Street, Suite 665
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-398-8700
         Fax: 415-398-8704

Representing the company is:

         Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
         (andrew.edison@bracewellgiuliani.com)
         Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP
         711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-221-1371
         Fax: 713-221-2144


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Nov. 3 Trial Set for "Staples" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 3, 2008 trial date was set for the purported class
action, "Vertie Staples v. Batesville Casket Company, Inc., Case
No. 5:2007cv00214," which names Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., as
a defendant.

On Aug. 17, 2007, the lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the company.

The case is a putative class action on behalf of the plaintiff
and all others who purchased a Monoseal casket manufactured by
Batesville from a licensed funeral home located in Arkansas from
Jan. 1, 1989, to the present.

The plaintiff claims that Monoseal caskets were marketed as
completely resistant to the entrance of air and water when they
allegedly were not resistant.  The plaintiff asserts causes of
action under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and for
fraud, constructive fraud and breach of express and implied
warranties.

On Jan. 9, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
added another putative class plaintiff, restated the pending
claims, and added a claim for unjust enrichment.

In order to establish federal jurisdiction over the claims under
the Class Action Fairness Act, the plaintiff alleges that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

Though the action is in the very early stages of litigation, a
trial date of Nov. 3, 2008 has been scheduled, according to the
company's Feb. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Vertie Staples v. Batesville Casket Company, Inc.,
Case No. 5:2007cv00214," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas, Judge James M. Moody.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles P. Boyd, Jr., Esq. (boyd_law_firm@yahoo.com)
          The Boyd Law Firm
          Post Office Box 3494
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3494
          Phone: (501) 372-0770

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. (tomthrash@sbcglobal.net)
          Thrash Law Firm
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 374-1058

Representing the defendants is:

          Jess L. Askew, III, Esq. (jaskew@williamsanderson.com)
          Williams & Anderson, PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 2200
          Little Rock, AR 72201-2413
          Phone: (501) 372-0800


KPMG LLP: Implements Plan to Redress Workers for Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
KPMG LLP (Canada) has begun to implement a plan to redress
employees for unpaid overtime.

In September 2007, the law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP,
in conjunction with Kenneth Alexander of Ball and Alexander,
Barristers and Solicitors, filed a class action with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against KPMG LLP, a member of the
international firm of KPMG (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 6,
2007).

The suit claims overtime compensation for employees of KPMG were
wrongfully denied, or never properly compensated for their
overtime work.

The class includes all employees of KPMG such as lawyers, non-CA
staff and others, that worked more than 44 hours in a week, were
not paid overtime pay, and are not exempt under applicable
regulation.

KPMG immediately began a thorough investigation and has now
developed an Overtime Redress Plan to provide compensation to
all eligible employees as soon as possible.

Under the terms of the plan, KPMG intends to ensure that all its
eligible current and former employees are fully and fairly
compensated, according to the relevant provincial laws, for all
overtime since January 1, 2000 that has been determined to have
been earned but unpaid.

The KPMG Overtime Redress Plan will be administered by an
independent third party, Crawford Class Action Services
(Canada), which has an international reputation for managing
redress plans.  Crawford will notify current and former
employees about the Plan through individual letters and
advertisements in Canadian national newspapers.

"At the time we learned of the allegations in the class action
we promised a thorough review of our work practices," said Bill
MacKinnon, Chief Executive Officer, KPMG.  "The Overtime Redress
Plan directly and fairly addresses any past concerns about
unpaid overtime.  We estimate the total amount of the payout
from the Plan will be less than $10 million."

"We very much regret that we did not pay overtime when it was
earned by current and former employees," added Mr. MacKinnon.
"While this was an error of omission, not commission, it should
not have happened.  The principles of the Plan will be reflected
in all KPMG's overtime remuneration in the future."

It is KPMG's view that the Overtime Redress Plan is the
preferred method of dealing with overtime claims by both its
current and former employees.  Implementing the plan now does
not constitute an admission of liability.  KPMG reserves all of
its rights to fully respond to any motions that may be brought
in the class action and to defend the class action.

KPMG LLP -- http://www.kpmg.com/-- is a global network of   
professional firms providing audit, tax, and advisory services.
The company operates in 148 countries and have more than 113,000
professionals working in member firms around the world.


LIFEBLOOD MID-SOUTH: Sued Over Missing Laptops with Donor Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lifeblood Mid-South Regional Blood Center is facing a purported
class action in a Tennessee court after laptop computers with
personal information of roughly 321,000 blood donors came up
missing and are presumed stolen, Michael Erskine of The
Commercial Appeal reports.

The suit was filed with the Shelby County Circuit Court by
Collierville resident and blood donor Robert M. Saino, who is
seeking to have the case certified as class action.  

In general, the suit contends that Lifeblood was "grossly
negligent and engaged in a willful and intentional pattern of
conduct to conceal its negligence from affected persons," after
Lifeblood waited more than three months to notify donors of the
missing computers and the potential for identity theft.

Additionally, Commercial Appeal says that the suit is seeking
money damages that would amount to millions, if awarded.


LINCOLN NAT'L: No Certification for Variable Annuities Fee Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony and empirical work by NERA expert Dr. Robert Mackay
contributed significantly to and was cited extensively in a
decision issued last week denying class certification in a
variable annuity case.

On Tuesday, Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven rejected the
testimony of plaintiffs' expert witness and issued a 63-page
recommendation denying plaintiffs' request for class
certification in AC Brooks vs. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company and Lincoln Financial Distributors, Inc., a
proposed lawsuit alleging that Lincoln National Life Insurance
Co. withheld key information about its variable deferred
annuities products when selling those products to individuals
and groups.

Plaintiffs initially filed a proposed class action against
Lincoln in February 2003 on behalf of customers who purchased
either an individual variable deferred annuity contract or a
certificate to a group variable deferred annuity.

The case alleged that Lincoln violated Section 10(b), Section
20(a), and Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act by omitting
material information when it sold variable annuities, an
investment tool for accumulating tax-deferred savings that can
come with various insurance benefits and that later may be used
to purchase an immediate annuity.

Plaintiffs argued that the main benefit of variable annuities,
tax deferral, is unnecessary when annuities are purchased for
investments in qualified retirement plans, such as 401(k) plans,
and that variable annuities are sold with higher fees that are
not justified by any additional benefits provided relative to
investments such as mutual funds.

Lincoln retained NERA Senior Vice President Dr. Robert Mackay to
testify about the ways in which variable annuities can be
suitable investments for investors in qualified plans by
offering unique features which reduce the risks of investing for
retirement.

These additional features, which expose the insurance companies
to costs and risks not borne by mutual fund companies, help to
explain the additional costs of investing in variable annuities.

Second, Dr. Mackay testified that no support could be found for
plaintiffs' theory that variable annuity fees are an implicit
payment for tax deferral.  A study conducted by Dr. Mackay finds
that variations in the tax redundancy disclosures have no impact
on fees.  Further, Dr. Mackay testified that the variable
annuity marketplace is highly competitive and in a competitive
market variable annuity issuers can charge for actual product
features, not for tax deferral.

In additional testimony, Dr. Mackay also argued that the
testimony of plaintiffs' expert should be excluded as it failed
to include support for assertions about how the variable annuity
marketplace functions and provided no way to replicate the
analysis that led to the conclusions of the plaintiffs' expert.
As an example, Dr. Mackay testified that the plaintiffs' expert
provided no estimate of the size of the implicit charge for tax
deferral and provided no methodology for estimating the charge.

While finding the opposing expert qualified to testify, Judge
Craven nevertheless threw out his expert report for lacking a
sound basis for his conclusions, particularly in the light of
NERA's empirical work and substantive arguments.  Judge Craven
also found that individual claims in the case predominated over
common ones because, for example, individual investors relied on
suggestions made by the representatives who sold variable
deferred annuities based on individual investors' circumstances,
not scripted sales pitches.  Therefore, Judge Craven also denied
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

NERA Economic Consulting – http://www.nera.com-- is an  
international firm of economists who understand how markets
work.

NERA, founded in 1961 as National Economic Research Associates,
is a unit of the Oliver Wyman Group, an MMC company.


MAGMA DESIGN: Settlement Reached in Calif. Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in the purported shareholder
class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Magma Design Automation, Inc.,
according to the company's Feb. 14, 2008 form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Jan. 6, 2008.

On June 13, 2005, The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust filed a
putative shareholder class action against:

      -- Magma Design Automation, Inc.,

      -- Rajeev Madhavan,

      -- Gregory C. Walker, and

      -- Roy E. Jewell.

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
information regarding the risk of Magma infringing intellectual
property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.

In March 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiff filed a further
amended complaint in June 2006, which the defendants again moved
to dismiss.  

The defendants' motion was granted in part and denied in part by
an order dated Aug. 18, 2006, which dismissed claims against
several of the defendants.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the parties agreed to a settlement.  The
Company anticipates seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement in March 2008.

The suit is "Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. Magma Design
Automation, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-02394-CRB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Judge Charles R. Breyer presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Elizabeth P. Lin, Esq. (elin@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One California Plaza, 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213/617-1200
         Fax: (213) 617-1975
        
         Eric J. Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0878
         Fax: 212-818-0477

              - and -

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. (info@glancylaw.com)
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160

Representing the defendant is:

         Dale M. Edmondson, Esq. (dedmondson@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers
         2765 Sand Hill Road
         Menlo Park, CA 94025
         Phone: 650/473-2632
         Fax: 650/473-2601
         

NORTH CAROLINA: Can Keep Income on Returned Property, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals sided with the state of North Carolina and
Treasurer Richard Moore when it ruled that they do not have to
include interest or other income made on forgotten cash,
dividends or other property when it is returned to the original
owner, the Associated Press says.

AP recounts that four individuals -- Kevin Patrick Rowlette,
Janith Martin, Marchella Thomas and Wanda Adams -- filed a
class-action lawsuit in 2004 against the state and Mr. Moore,
whose job includes managing the state's $694-million unclaimed
property fund.  The fund retains long-forgotten cash from
insurance policies, checking accounts, utility deposits and
other items.  Proceeds from the fund's investments, which
totaled $22.7 million in 2007, are required by law to go toward
scholarships and loans for needy college students.

The complaint argued that the plaintiffs and others similarly
situated should have received the income generated from the
money they later reclaimed.  The principal ranged from $71.95 in
retail credit for one individual to $236 in dividends for
another, according to Mr. Moore's office.

According to AP, a trial judge threw out the case in 2006.  

Subsequently, the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals
rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that North Carolina had
violated state and federal constitutions by keeping the
investment income.

Court of Appeals Judges Linda Stephens, John Martin, and Judge
Rick Elmore wrote that case law does not appear to directly
address the situation.  Since the state's possession of the
unclaimed property does not equate with taking private property
through eminent domain for public use, the state can retain the
interest it earns, the judges said in their opinion.  They
determined that in the case, the North Carolina Unclaimed
Property Act does not violate the governmental guarantees which
operate for the security of property.

John Wylie, a Chicago-based attorney representing the
plaintiffs, said he is considering taking the case to the state
Supreme Court for review.  Mr. Wylie contended that the college
grants and loans are a laudable goal but it does not change the
legal tenet of keeping interest and principal together.

"The state has every right to take the property," Mr. Wylie
said, but "when a person claims it and gets that property back .
. . the interest is as much as part of the property as the
principal."

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          John R. Wylie, Esq. (jwylie@futtermanhoward.com)
          Futterman Howard Watkins Wylie & Ashley, Chtd.                 
          122 South Michigan Avenue
          Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603

               - and -

          Norman B. Smith, Esq.
          Smith James Rowlett & Cohen, LLP
          P. O. Box 990
          Greensboro, NC 27402-0990
          Phone: (336) 274-2992
          e-mail: sjrclaw@earthlink.net


SEARS ROEBUCK: To Install Brackets in Tipping-Stove Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck has agreed to install safety brackets on its
stoves in some 4 million households to settle a class action
about gas or electric ranges that lack anti-tipping device,
Michael Sorkin of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The suit was filed in 2004 on behalf of people who purchased
free-standing or slide-in gas or electric ranges, which Sears
delivered and set up without installing an "anti-tipping" safety
device from Sept. 11, 1999, until the date of certification
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2007).

The plaintiffs -- Charles and Annemarie Parker and Joyce and
David Sumpter -- alleged the ranges they purchased from Sears
were not installed properly.  They claimed Sears breached
warranty by not installing "anti-tip brackets," which put them
in danger, rather than claim injuries.  The class had wanted
$60-125 to have the brackets installed.

On Sept. 18, Stephen Tillery, Esq., of St. Louis and Sears
attorney Larry Hepler, Esq., of Edwardsville announced a
settlement.  They agreed to certify a settlement class of range
buyers in 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,
back to July 2, 2000 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007).

Under the agreement, a class member can request installation of
an anti-tip device on his or her range from Sears free of
charge.  Alternatively, a class member can request a $50 gift
card on a Sears range.  A class member who has paid for anti-tip
installation can receive reimbursement up to $100, they agreed.

Sears agreed to install anti-tip devices as part of normal
delivery for three years.

The class excluded anyone who filed a personal injury suit over
a tipping range, anyone who moved since buying a range, and
anyone who might opt out of the settlement.

"The settlement excludes those customers for whom installation
of a range stability device is not reasonably feasible due to
the physical condition of the class member's range or home," the
parties wrote in a joint motion for preliminary approval.

Meanwhile, consumer advocates are pressing the government's
safety agency to warn consumers that tipping stoves have killed
or injured at least 100 children and adults, St. Louis Post-
Dispatch says.

The report notes that the problem is that the modern kitchen
stove is being made so light, to keep costs down, that it can be
unstable without securing it to a wall or floor.  The cost is
negligible, but consumer groups say Sears and other retailers
often neglect to connect the safety brackets when delivering a
stove.

To contact Mr. Tillery:

         Stephen Tillery, Esq. (stillery@koreintillery.com)
         Korein Tillery LLC
         Gateway on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 300
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Phone: (314) 241-4844
         Fax: (314) 588-7036

Representing Sears is:

         Larry E. Hepler, Esq. (leh@heplerbroom.com)
         Hepler, Broom, MacDonald, Hebrank, True & Noce, LLC
         Two Mark Twain Plaza, Suite 300
         103 West Vandalia Street
         P.O. Box 510, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025-0510
         Phone: 618-307-1117
         Telecopier: 618-656-1364


SERACARE LIFE: Calif. Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
gave final approval to the proposed settlement of the
consolidated securities fraud class action against SeraCare Life
Sciences, Inc., 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.

The first of seven shareholder class-action complaints was filed
against the company on Dec. 22, 2005.

All seven cases were subsequently consolidated under the
caption, "In re SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C-05-2335-H."

Generally, the consolidated suit alleges violations of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against certain of SeraCare's current and former officers
and directors, its former auditor, and its controlling
shareholders and investment bankers, including the company due
to the firm having been a co-manager of SeraCare's 2005
secondary offering of common stock.  

On Sept. 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California approved the motion for final settlement
of the federal class actions and entered an order of settlement
and final judgment dismissing with prejudice the claims.  

There were no objections to the final settlement.  However,
shareholders owning a non-material number of shares opted out of
the final settlement.

The suit is "In Re: SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-02335," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Janis L.
Sammartino presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter Arthur Binkow, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@cmht.com)
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll
          1100 New York Ave NW
          West Tower Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005-3955
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4600

Representing the defendants are:

          Meredith N. Landy, Esq. (mlandy@omm.com)
          O'Melveny and Myers
          2765 Sand Hill Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025-7019
          Phone: (650) 473-2600
          Fax: (650) 473-2601
          
               - and -

          Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
          (robert.herrington@skadden.com)
          Skadden Aprs Slate Meagher and Flom
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3144
          Phone: (213) 687-5000
          Fax: (213) 687-5600


STATION CASINOS: Ex-Employees File Nev. Suit Over Payroll Abuses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos, Inc., is facing a potential class-action
complaint filed on Feb. 4, 2008, with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada over alleged non-payment of overtime
wages and non-compensation for all hours worked, Valerie Miller
writes for the Las Vegas Business Press.

Reno law firm McInerney & Jones filed the suit on behalf of
three former Station employees:

       1. Josh Lukevich
       2. Cathy Scott and
       3. Julie St. Cyr.

The complaint claims that Station Casinos failed to pay its
employees for all hours worked, failed to pay overtime and
failed to pay wages in a timely manner.  An additional charge of
conversion was also levied.  Conversion is when a person's
property is converted for use by another.

McInerney & Jones seeks to have the case certified as a class
action.  If certified, the lawsuit would seek claims exceeding
$5 million, said Charles Jones, Esq., the lawyer for the named
plaintiffs.

According to the report, Station Casinos denied the claims in an
e-mail statement.

"Station Casinos . . . has recently learned that three former
team members have filed a lawsuit alleging that they were not
paid for certain hours worked during a portion of their tenure
at the company," the e-mail statement from Station reads in
part.  "The company is justifiably proud of its reputation as
one of the best employers in the gaming industry, and is,
therefore, disappointed that these former team members would
make such baseless and unfounded allegations."

The suit is "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case
Number: 2:2008cv00141," filed with the District Court of Nevada,
Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding with referral to Magistrate
Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt.


THIRD FEDERAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in "Greenspan" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Gary A. Greenspan
vs. Third Federal Savings and Loan," which names Third Federal
Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, a unit of TFS
Financial Corp., as a defendant, appealed the final order of The
Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas in the matter to the
8th District Court of Appeals.

The suit, which was filed on June 13, 2006 under the caption,
"Gary A. Greenspan vs. Third Federal Savings and Loan" is a
dispute over "document preparation fees."

The plaintiffs allege that Third Federal Savings and Loan
impermissibly charged customers a "document preparation fee"
that included the cost of preparing legal documents relating to
mortgage loans.

The suit asserts that the Association should disgorge the
document preparation fees because the document preparation
constituted the practice of law and was performed by employees
who are not licensed attorneys in the State of Ohio.

The plaintiffs seek a refund of all document preparation fees
from June 13, 2000, to the present (approximately $26.9 million
from June 13, 2000 through March 31, 2007), as well as
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of the lawsuit.

Third Federal Savings and Loan Association vigorously disputes
these allegations and answered the plaintiff’s complaint with a
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On April 26, 2007, the Court of Common Pleas issued a final
order which granted the Association’s motion.

On May 11, 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the final order of the
Court of Common Pleas to the 8th District Court of Appeals
(Cuyahoga County).  

The plaintiffs filed an appellate brief and the Association
filed its answer brief on July 20, 2007, according to TFS
Financial Corp.'s Feb. 14, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

TFS Financial Corp. -- http://www.thirdfederal.com/-- was  
established as a mid-tier stock holding company for Third
Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, and the
ownership of Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of
Cleveland is its primary business activity.  


ZEON BIOMUNE: Louisville, Ken. Residents' Pollution Suit Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed by residents of Louisville, Kentucky, with the  
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky  
complaining of hazardous pollutants emitted by three chemical  
companies, has been settled, James Bruggers of Courier-Journal
reports.

The suit names as defendants:

         * Zeon Biomune Inc.,
         * Zeon GP LLC, and
         * Zeon Chemicals Limited Partnership

According to an Aug. 25, 2006 report of the Class Action Report,
the suit alleges that:

     -- defendants utilize chemicals and chemical compounds to  
        create and manufacture goods for sale;

     -- defendants discharge chemicals and chemical substances  
        which are odiferous, invasive and noxious and some of  
        which are extra hazardous;

     -- defendants by and through current technological  
        processes and current engineering standards could and  
        should preclude the discharge of any noxious odors and  
        extra hazardous substances to plaintiffs properties;

     -- defendants breached their duty to exercise ordinary care  
        and diligence when they improperly constructed,  
        maintained, operated and designed facility and knew, or  
        should have known, that such actions would cause  
        plaintiffs' person and property to be invaded by noxious  
        odors and air contaminants; and

     -- defendants are vicariously liable for the negligence and  
        gross negligence of its employees, representatives and  
        agents, who, during the course and scope of their  
        employment, allowed or failed to correct the problem  
        which caused noxious odors and air contaminants to  
        physically invade plaintiffs' person and property.

The suit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages,  
attorneys' fees and interests.

Recently, a revised class-action emissions settlement with Zeon
Chemicals was agreed on, which may include $700,000 for future
air monitoring and environmental education, Courier-Journal
says.

According to the report, the residents' Michigan-based lawyer,
Peter W. Macuga II, Esq., told U.S. District Judge John G.
Heyburn II today in a status conference, that as envisioned, two
trusts would be set up to for the monitoring and education
programs, in addition to $1.1 million to be shared by the Bells
Lane plant's closest neighbors and their lawyers.

It is also on top of an estimated $4 million the company had
previously said it would spend on pollution controls, the report
says.

The details of the proposed trusts are still being worked out,
but Mr. Macuga said the plaintiffs’ lawyers would not be taking
a percentage of the additional money that would come from the
company for monitoring and education.

Louisville air quality officials have said Zeon would need to
make those pollution control efforts anyway to comply with the
city's toxic air reduction program.

According to the report, attorneys for both sides said they
could wrap up negotiations in a couple of months.

After the hearing, Mark Riddle, an attorney who represents Zeon,
stressed that there is no final agreement and that negotiations
were continuing, Courier-Journal adds.

The suit is "Cochran et al. v. Zeon Biomune Inc. et al., Case  
No. 3:06-cv-00363-JGH," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky under Judge John G. Heyburn.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Peter W. Macuga, II, Esq. (pmacuga@mlclassaction.com)
          Macuga & Liddle, PC
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 28307
          Phone: 313-392-0015

Representing defendants is:

          Mark S. Riddle, Esq. (msr@gdm.com)
          Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC
          3500 National City Tower
          101 South Fifth Street
          Louisville, KY 40202-3140
          Phone: (502) 587-3623
          Fax: (502) 540-2194


* AlixPartners to Host Securities Litigation Conference in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
AlixPartners LLP will host its Securities and Litigation
Conference, "Quantifying Securities Class Action Damages," on
February 27, 2008, at the Hilton Hotel in New York City.

This year's topic analyzes the uncertainty surrounding damage
estimation in securities cases and how the Supreme Court's
recent landmark decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Broudo
has deeply impacted the conceptual and methodological analysis
of these estimates.

Leading the discussion of experts will be Richard Rosen, a
partner at the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, who has extensive experience in federal and state
civil litigation across a variety of securities, corporate
governance, M&A and other complex business disputes.  He will be
joined by:

     -- Allen Ferrell, Professor of Securities Law at Harvard
        University, a member of the NASD's Economic Advisory
        Board and a faculty associate at the Kennedy School of
        Government.

     -- Atanu Saha, PhD, a managing director of AlixPartners
        with more than 15 years of experience in the area of
        economic and litigation consulting. Saha has provided
        expert testimony in securities matters and is the author
        of numerous peer-reviewed articles in economics and
        finance.

The conference will begin at 8:00 a.m. with a continental
breakfast, followed by a presentation from 9:00 to 10:30.  
Please RSVP to Ruth Labossiere by February 25, 2008 at
RSVP@AlixPartners.com or 1.646.746.2424 to attend this event.

AlixPartners -- http://www.alixpartners.com-- is a global  
restructuring, consulting, and financial advisory-services firm
that helps its large and middle-market corporate clients achieve
improved outcomes when it really matters.

The AlixPartners' "one-stop-shop" suite of services range from
operational performance improvement and financial restructuring
across all major corporate disciplines (manufacturing, supply
chain, IT, sales and marketing, etc.), to financial advisory
services (financial reporting, corporate governance and
investigations, and litigation consulting), to technology-
enabled claims management.  Headquartered in Michigan, the firm
has more than 700 employees with offices in Chicago, Dallas,
Detroit, Dusseldorf, London, Los Angeles, Milan, Munich, New
York, Paris, San Francisco, Shanghai and Tokyo.


* Investors' Lack of Participation Leave $12B in Unclaimed Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly $12 billion had been left unclaimed by institutional
investors worldwide due to their lack of participation in U.S.  
securities class actions, new research indicates.

According to The Securities Industry News, a study by Global
Operations & Administration, a U.K.-based withholding tax
reclamation and class-action services specialist, indicated that
about $8.4 billion have not been claimed by U.S. investors, and
around $3.6 billion were left unclaimed by Europeans -- with 25%
of that figure attributed to U.K. investors.  

All that unclaimed money was from securities class actions
carried out between 2000 and 2007, David Ricketts of Pensions
Week reports.

The recently released study also indicated that more than 25% of
claims that could be filed by institutions are not filed due to
operational difficulties.

Peter Taylor of The Business Magazine writes that American
investors have long used litigation to recover losses stemming
from fraud and mis-governance.  

Typically, in any class action, when a judge rules in the
plaintiffs' favor, he or she determines the size of a settlement
fund.  Once the settlement fund is determined, all relevant
investors are then eligible to share in the pool, even if they
have not taken part in the litigation, The Business Magazine
reports.

Stephen Everard, managing director of Global Operations, claims
that investors who led stocks within the relevant time period
could generally have recouped 6%-12% of their losses as
compensation.

However, not all investors will still be able to claim, as the
time limit for claiming would have run out in many cases, The
Business Magazine reports.

In addition, Mr. Everard pointed out that some investors would
not have claimed as they acted as advisors to the sued
companies, and did not want to cause a conflict of interest.

Despite such obstacles, the report argues that securities fraud
class actions in the U.S. are increasingly relevant to European
investors, since the typical European portfolio is now 25%
weighted to foreign shares.

Global Operations is using the findings to recommend that
institutional investors and financial intermediaries use
outsourced services such as theirs to process the complex
paperwork necessary to obtain the money for shareholders,
according to Securities Industry News.  The firm entered the
securities class-action services business through its
acquisition of London-based Magenta One in February 2007.

"Astute and responsible institutional investors are already
using one of the outsourced, automated services available on the
market to process class-action claims without incurring high
expense," Global Operations said in its report.

The firm has 57 clients, which includes four U.S. prime brokers,
and the remainder custodian banks, and U.K. pension funds.   
Global Operations said that it charges either a flat fee or a
sliding-scale fee, representing a percentage of the value of the
settlement recovered.  

Global Operations' competitors include RiskMetrics Group's
Rockville, Md.-based ISS Governance Services unit, Class Action
Services in Sausalito, Calif., and the asset servicing units of
some large global custodian banks.

According to Securities Industry News, the processing of class
action settlements is similar to that of corporate actions:  
both require financial intermediaries and funds to notify their
clients about the lawsuit, determine investor eligibility, and
collect and distribute entitlements.  However, for class
actions, investors who have filed accurate paperwork on time
divvy up the extra compensation from the pool of those who
didn't.

With 25% of the typical European portfolio invested in overseas
firms, European shareholders are coming to understand that they
could be left out of U.S. securities lawsuits unless they take
action, Global Operations stated.

Overseas funds can sue U.S. and even non-U.S. companies in U.S.
courts if the defendants sold stock or conducted business in the
country, according to Securities Industry News.


* Kentucky Lawyers Review Class Lawsuits to Prevent Wrongdoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of lawyers and judges is reviewing how Kentucky courts
handle class action lawsuits and mass torts to see if there is
more that can be done to prevent wrongdoing by attorneys, the
Associated Press reports.

According to AP, the meetings follow criminal charges against
three former Lexington-area lawyers -- William Gallion,
Melbourne Mills, and Shirley Cunningham, Jr. -- who face federal
wire fraud charges related to their handling of a $200-million
settlement involving the diet drug fen-phen.

Kentucky's mass tort and class-action litigation committee --
made up of lawyers and current and retired judges -- has been
looking at various issues including better case management and
strengthening ethics rules for lawyers, the report notes.  The
committee will also look at whether the state should change its
rules to mirror federal court rules, which are more specific and
include a mechanism for moving similar lawsuits into one court
or under one judge.

The group hopes to have some recommendations to forward to the
state Supreme Court for consideration in the next 12 months,
Supreme Court Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson, co-chair of the
committee, told AP.

"This committee will look at whether the nature of mass tort and
class action lends itself more easily to abuse and, if so, what
can be done to prevent it," Judge Abramson said.

Susan Pope, Esq., a Lexington lawyer who frequently defends
corporations and a member of the committee, said there have been
concerns for some time that Kentucky's ethics rules might need
to be tweaked.  "Some of these ethics rules were written at the
time when Lincoln was president," she added.

"I think the crux of the problem is that historically the
attorney-client relationship has been one attorney and one
client, such as your typical medical malpractice case," Judge
Abramson further stated.  "There are a whole lot more issues
raised when attorneys are representing hundreds of clients."

The committee is also looking at what other states have done to
improve ethics and case management.

AP relates that Kentucky's rules could be placed under the
spotlight in May for the criminal trial in Covington federal
court over the fen-phen settlement.

Messrs. Cunningham, Mills and Gallion, who are accused of taking
$65 million more than what their individual contracts with 440
clients said they should receive, have pleaded not guilty to the
federal wire-fraud charges.  The three are expected to argue
that the state's procedures involving class action and mass tort
lawsuits are vague and that they relied on a now-disgraced state
court judge to set their fees.


The Kentucky Bar Association has already suspended the lawyers.
A judge in a civil lawsuit regarding the same fen-phen
settlement has said the lawyers have to repay at least
$42 million to their former clients, AP says.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTERLINE HOLDING: Wolf Popper Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against
Centerline Holding Company and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of investors who purchased
Centerline common stock on the open market from March 12, 2007,
through December 28, 2007 alleging claims for securities fraud.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period Defendants
failed to disclose that they were in the process of structuring
a sale of Centerline's mortgage revenue bond portfolio to a
third party.

On December 28, 2007, the Company shocked the market by its
announcement that Centerline had sold its "$2.8 billion tax-
exempt affordable housing bond portfolio" to Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and in the process, altered
the Company's business model to a sole asset management company.

As a result of this transaction, Centerline was required to take
a $95 million charge on the sale to Freddie Mac to reflect the
current value of the portfolio.  In addition, Centerline was
also required to assume a $140 million contingent obligation on
the sale of the debt portfolio to Freddie Mac.  Lastly,
Defendants said that Centerline would be cutting its annual
dividend 65%, from $1.68 per share to only $0.60 per share.  As
a result of the news, Centerline stock fell from $10.27 per
share on December 27, 2007, to $7.70 per share on December 28,
2007, representing a 25% one-day decline, on unusually high
trading volume of more than 4.1 million shares.

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

For more information, contact:

          Danielle Disporto, Esq.
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel.: (212) 759-4600
                (877) 370-7703 (toll free)
          Fax: (212) 486-2093
               (877) 370-7704 (toll free)
          e-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
          Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


SUNOPTA INC: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action in the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of SunOpta, Inc.
during the period August 8, 2007, through January 25, 2008,
inclusive.

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

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants
failed to disclose that SunOpta lacked adequate internal
controls, improperly overstated SunOpta's earnings during the
Class Period, and materially misrepresented that SunOpta's
financial results were prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles.

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

For more information, contact:

          Brian D. Brooks, Esq. (bbrooks@murrayfrank.com)
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-1101
          Phone: (212) 682-1818 or (800) 497-8076
          Fax: (212) 682-1892
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com




                           *********


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and
Peter Chapman, Editors.

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *