CAR_Public/080226.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, February 26, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 40
  
                            Headlines

AK STEEL: Ohio Judge Approves $663M Settlement in "Bailey" Case
ALBERTA: Judge Gives Suit Over Abused Children in Care Go-Ahead
ALLIED WASTE: April 17 Hearing Set on Appeal of Nixed Ariz. Suit
AVON PRODUCTS: To Oppose Class-Status Request in Calif. Lawsuit
AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Suit in N.Y.

AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Securities Suit Nixing
AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
CISCO TRAVEL: Faces Suit Over Fuel Shortages in Georgia Pumps
FAIRFIELD RESORTS: Faces NV Sexual Harassment, Gender Bias Suit
FASTENAL CO: Faces Ex-Workers' FLSA Violations Suit in Calif.

GAYLORD GAS: Faces Suit in Mich. Over High Price of Propane
KANSAS CITY: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Fuel Surcharges Price-Fixing
MEDCO HEALTH: Mass. Court Mulls Approving PolyMedica Merger Suit
MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Face Several ERISA Complaints in N.Y.
MEDCO HEALTH: Still Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.

MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in California
MEDCO HEALTH: Opposes Stay Recommendation in Pharmacies' Suit
MODINE: Settlement in Environmental Suit Okayed on Interim Basis
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Lawsuit
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Discovery Underway in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit

NEWMONT MINING: CO Court Gives Final OK to $15M Suit Settlement
OMNICOM GROUP: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Litigation
PMA CAPITAL: Court Approves Settlement of Securities Litigation
PROTIVITI INC: Still Faces Consultant's Overtime Suit in Calif.
ROBERT HALF: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit by Executives, Managers

ROBERT HALF: Calif. Court Stays Suit by "Inside Sales Persons"
ROBERT HALF: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Pay Suit
ROBERT HALF: Mass. Court Reserves Judgment in Overtime Lawsuit
YAHOO: Sued by Detroit Pension Funds for Rejecting Microsoft Bid
* U.K. Class Action Litigation Should be Expanded, Study Says


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SUNOPTA INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit


                           *********


AK STEEL: Ohio Judge Approves $663M Settlement in "Bailey" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Timothy Black of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio approved the $663 million
settlement of the class action, "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel
Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv-00468-MRB," WHIO Radio reports.

According to a previous report by The Cincinnati Enquirer, on
Feb. 12, 2008, Judge Black opened a two-day hearing into the
fairness of the settlement, which would settle the 20-month-old
class action filed by AK retirees who challenged the steel
maker's decision to make them pay more for their health benefits
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2008).

In the course of the packed hearing, Judge Black closely
questioned attorneys for the retirees who challenged the
proposed settlement.  

Specifically, Judge Black asked Glenn Whitaker, Esq., who is
representing the objectors to the settlement, what would happen
if he rejects the proposed settlement.

Mr. Whitaker told the judge that AK Steel would sweeten it,
since it would relieve the company of the uncertainty of paying
for the retirees' future health care, a cost estimated at more
than $1 billion.

When asked if the case should proceed to trial, Mr. Whitaker
answered, "I believe (the plaintiffs) will win," Cincinnati
Enquirer relates.

                        Case Background

On June 1, 2006, AK Steel notified approximately 4,600 of its
current retirees (or their surviving spouses) who formerly were
hourly and salaried members of the Armco Employees Independent
Federation that AK Steel was terminating their existing
healthcare insurance benefits plan and implementing a new plan
more consistent with current steel industry practices (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2008).  

However, this new plan would require the retirees to contribute
to the cost of their healthcare benefits, effective Oct. 1,
2006.

On July 18, 2006, a group of nine former hourly and salaried
members of the AEIF filed a purported class action with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging that
AK Steel did not have a right to make changes to their
healthcare benefits.

The named plaintiffs in the action seek injunctive relief
(including an order retroactively rescinding the changes) and
unspecified monetary relief for themselves and the other members
of the putative class.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to prevent AK Steel from implementing the
previously announced changes to healthcare benefits with respect
to the AEIF-represented hourly employees.  

AK Steel opposed that motion, but on Sept. 22, 2006, the trial
court issued an order granting the motion.  Almost immediately,
AK Steel filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit seeking a reversal of the decision to
grant the preliminary injunction.

                           Settlement

However, while the appeal was pending, AK Steel announced on
Oct. 8, 2007, that it had reached a tentative settlement of the
claims of the retirees.

Accordingly, on Oct. 18, 2007, the pending appeal from the
preliminary injunction was dismissed at the request of the
parties.

Under the terms of the settlement, AK Steel will transfer to a
Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association trust all post
employment benefit obligations owed to the plaintiffs under the
Company's applicable health and welfare plans.

The VEBA will be utilized to fund the future OPEB Obligations to
the Class Members.  AK Steel will initially fund the VEBA with a
contribution of $468 million in cash, with three subsequent
annual cash contributions of $65 million each, for a total of
$663 million.  The settlement will relieve AK Steel of any
further liability for any OPEB Obligations to the plaintiffs.

The suit is "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00468-MRB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Judge Michael R. Barrett presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:
       
         David Marvin Cook, Esq. (dcook@dmcllc.com)
         Stephen A. Simon, Esq. (ssimon@dmcllc.com)
         22 West Ninth Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-721-6500 and 513-721-7500

Representing the company is:

         Gregory Parker Rogers, Esq. (Rogers@Taftlaw.com)
         Taft, Stettinius & Hollister
         1800 First Star Tower
         425 Walnut Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-357-9349

Representing the objectors is:

         Glenn Virgil Whitaker, Esq. (gvwhitaker@vssp.com)
         Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease
         Atrium Two, 221 E Fourth Street, Suite 2000
         Cincinnati, OH 45201-0236
         Phone: 513-723-4000


ALBERTA: Judge Gives Suit Over Abused Children in Care Go-Ahead
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Edmonton judge has allowed a class-action lawsuit that seeks
to hold the Alberta government responsible for not seeking
compensation for abuses suffered by children in provincial care
to go ahead, the Canadian Press reports.

According to Edmonton Journal, the lawsuit covers former wards
of the province who were injured either before or after they
were taken into the custody of child welfare.  Members of the
class must have been victims of crimes such as physical or
sexual assault, or victims of civil wrongdoings such as car
accidents or falls.

The lawsuit, Brandon Sun notes, claims that the Alberta
government knew that thousands of children were being abused and
then failed to provide the legal services necessary for them to
seek redress from their abusers.  The suit, according to
Edmonton Journal, alleges that child welfare and the public
trustee failed to seek compensation the children were entitled
to under the victims-of-crime laws or through civil actions.

Edmonton Journal writes that in a 39-page decision, Court of
Queen's Bench Justice Denny Thomas certified the suit, which can
now be joined by those who were subject to temporary and
permanent guardianship orders between July 1966 and February
2004, and who suffered sexual or physical injuries while in
care.

Vancouver-based class-action lawyer David Klein and local lawyer
Robert P. Lee are leading the action, Edmonton Journal notes.

Mr. Lee told Canadian Press that about 300 people have so far
signed on the lawsuit, but that the number could go as high as
20,000 with damages reaching  to hundreds of millions.

Mr. Lee further said that the problem will be finding all the
former children.  "Once they've gotten abused and didn't get
help for their problem and didn't get the compensation that they
needed to get -- counselling or whatever they needed -- they
fall through the cracks of our system," Mr. Lee said.

According to Mr. Lee, the injuries suffered by the children
include damages from both physical and sexual assaults.  "We're
of the belief that the law clearly says the government had the
obligation and didn't meet the obligation," he added.

CTV Edmonton cites Alberta Justice spokesman David Dear as
saying that the government cannot comment on the case while it's
before the courts.

Edmonton Journal notes that next, the court will hear
submissions from lawyers on the common issues among the
plaintiffs, such as whether child-welfare authorities had a duty
to protect the legal interests of children in their care.  If
the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs at that point, the
action will go on to the second stage, where individual cases
will be examined to determine whether the government should have
filed for compensation and, if so, how much in damages is owed.

The date of the next hearing has not yet been set.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert P. Lee, Esq.
          7904 - 103 Street
          Edmonton, Alberta
          T6E 6C3
          Phone: (780) 438-4972
          Fax: (780) 436-7771

          David Klein, Esq.
          Klein Lyons
          1100-1333 Broadway West
          Vancouver, BC V6H 4C1, Canada
          Phone: (604) 874-7171
          e-mail: nhartigan@kleinlyons.com

               - and -

          Clint Docken, Q.C. (cgd@docken.com)
          Docken & Company
          900, 800-6th Ave. SW
          Calgary, Alberta
          Canada, T2P 3G3
          Phone: (403) 269-3612
          Fax: (403) 269-8246
          Web site: http://www.docken.com/


ALLIED WASTE: April 17 Hearing Set on Appeal of Nixed Ariz. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April 17, 2008 hearing is scheduled for an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in connection with the
dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.

A consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed against
Allied Waste and five of its current and former officers on
March 31, 2005, consolidating three lawsuits previously filed on
Aug. 9, 2004, Aug. 27, 2004 and Sept. 30, 2004.   

The amended complaint asserted claims against all defendants
under Section 10 (b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and claims against the
officers under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange  
Act.  The complaint alleged that from Feb. 10, 2004, to
Sept. 13, 2004, the defendants caused false and misleading
statements to be issued in the company's public filings and
public statements regarding the company's anticipated results
for fiscal year 2004.  The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount
of damages.  

At the company's behest, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, on Dec. 15, 2005, dismissed the case with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs then appealed the dismissal to the
U.S. Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit and on Oct. 6, 2006 the
plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief, which the
defendants opposed.  

Oral argument before the Court of Appeals is scheduled for
April 17, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 20, 2008 form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Steven Zack, et al. v. Allied Waste Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01640-MHM," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge Judge Mary H.
Murguia presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com)
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056

              - and -

         Richard Glenn Himelrick, Esq. (rgh@tblaw.com)
         Tiffany & Bosco, PA
         Camelback Esplanade II, 2525 E. Camelback Rd., 3rd Fl.
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Phone: 602-255-6021
         Fax: 602-255-0103

Representing the defendants are:

         Shahzeb Lari, Esq. (shahzeb.lari@friedfrank.com)
         Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
         1 New York Plaza
         New York, NY 10004
         Phone: 1.212.859.8096
         Fax: 1.212.859.4000

              - and -

         Doug C. Northup, Esq. (dnorthup@fclaw.com)
         Fennemore Craig, P.C.
         3003 N. Central Ave., Ste. 2600
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913
         Phone: 602-916-5000
         Fax: 602-916-5562


AVON PRODUCTS: To Oppose Class-Status Request in Calif. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc., intends to oppose a motion seeking class-
action status for the matter, "Blakemore, et al. v. Avon
Products, Inc., et al.," which was filed with the Superior Court
of the state of California, Los Angeles County.

Commenced in March 2003, the purported class action was filed on
behalf of Avon sales representatives who, "since March 24, 1999,
received products from Avon they did not order, thereafter
returned the unordered products to Avon, and did not receive
credit for those returned products."  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, restitution and
injunctive relief for alleged unjust enrichment and violation of
the California Business and Professions Code.  

The company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three
subsequent amended complaints, asserting that they failed to
state a cause of action.  The Superior Court sustained these
demurrers and dismissed the plaintiffs' causes of action except
for the unjust enrichment claim of one plaintiff.  The court
also struck the plaintiffs' class allegations.   

The plaintiffs sought review of these decisions by the Court of
Appeal of the State of California and, in May 2005, the Court of
Appeal reinstated the dismissed causes of action and the class
allegations.  

In January 2006, the company filed a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' asserted nationwide class.  In February 2006, the
trial court declined to grant the motion, but instead certified
the issue to the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory basis.  

In April 2006, the Court of Appeal denied the company's motion
and instructed the trial court to consider the issue at a
subsequent point in the proceedings.

In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification on behalf of "all Avon Sales Representatives who,
since March 24, 1999, and while residing in California, received
products from Avon they did not order, returned the unordered
products to Avon, paid for the unordered products, and/or paid
shipping costs for their return and did not receive
reimbursement therefore by Avon or Avon initially made
reimbursement therefore by means of a credit and later reversed
the credit."

The company intends to oppose that motion, according to its
Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Blakemore et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., B174825,
B175973," filed with the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County under Judge Wendell Mortimer.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jeffrey Huron, Esq.
         Huron Law Group
         1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-284-3400
         Fax: 310-772-0037
         Web site: http://www.huronlaw.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Kendall v.
Employees' Retirement Plan of Avon Products and the Retirement
Board," are appealing the dismissal of the case to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The suit was filed by a retired employee of Avon Products Inc.
who, before retirement, had been on paid disability leave for
approximately 19 years.  It was commenced in April 2003 with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

The initial complaint alleged that the Employees' Retirement
Plan of Avon Products violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and, as a consequence, unlawfully reduced the
amount of the plaintiff's pension.

The plaintiff sought a reformation of the Retirement Plan and
recalculation of benefits under the terms of the Retirement
Plan, as reformed for the plaintiff and for the purported class.  

In November 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging additional Retirement Plan violations of ERISA and
seeking, among other things, elimination of a social security
offset in the Retirement Plan.

The purported class includes "all Plan participants, whether
active, inactive or retired, and their beneficiaries and/or
Estates, with one hour of service on or after Jan. 1, 1976,
whose accrued benefits, pensions or survivor's benefits have
been or will be calculated and paid based on the Plan's unlawful
provisions."

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

In September 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion
to dismiss and plaintiff thereafter filed a notice of appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Avon Products, Inc. -- http://www.avoncompany.com-- is a global  
manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products.  Its
products fall into three product categories: Beauty, which
consists of cosmetics, fragrances, skin care and toiletries
(CFT); Beauty Plus, which consists of fashion jewelry, watches,
apparel and accessories, and Beyond Beauty, which consists of
home products and gift and decorative products.

    
AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Securities Suit Nixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud suit filed
against Avon Products Inc. with n the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York are opposing a motion by the
company to dismiss the suit.

In August 2005, the company reported the filing of class action
complaints for alleged violations of the federal securities
laws.  These actions are:

     -- "Nilesh Patel v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.," and

     -- "Michael Cascio v. Avon Products, Inc. et al."         

The actions were subsequently consolidated.  A consolidated
amended class action complaint for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws was filed in December 2005 with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Master
File Number 05-CV- 06803) under the caption "In re Avon
Products, Inc. Securities Litigation," naming Avon, an officer
and two officer/directors as defendants.

The consolidated action, brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 3, 2004, and Sept. 20, 2005,
seeks damages for alleged false and misleading statements
"concerning Avon's operations and performance in China, the U.S.
. . . and Mexico."

The consolidated amended complaint also asserts that during the
class period certain officers and directors sold shares of the
company's common stock.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint, asserting, among
other things, that it failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.  The plaintiffs have opposed that motion.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-06803-LAK," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Brian Philip Murray, Esq. (bmurray@murrayfrank.com)
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892

              - and -

         Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com)
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: (212) 964-0046

Representing the defendants is:

         Peter C. Hein, Esq. (PCHein@wlrk.com)
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: (212) 403-2000

    
AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated class action filed against the company and certain
other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District Court of New York over alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In October 2005, the company reported the filing of class
actions for alleged violations of ERISA in actions entitled:

      -- "John Rogati v. Andrea Jung, et al.;" and

      -- "Carolyn Jane Perry v. Andrea Jung, et al."  

The cases were subsequently consolidated and a consolidated
complaint for alleged violations of ERISA was filed in December
2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York under the caption, "In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA
Litigation, Master File Number 05-CV- 06803," naming the
company, certain officers, its Retirement Board and others as
defendants.  

The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
Avon Products, Inc. Personal Savings Account Plan and the Avon
Products, Inc. Personal Retirement Account Plan and on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan "for whose individual
accounts the Plan purchased or held an interest in Avon
Products, Inc. . . . common stock from Feb. 20, 2004, to the
present."  

The consolidated complaint asserts breaches of fiduciary duties
and prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA arising out
of, inter alia, alleged false and misleading public statements
regarding the company's business made during the class period
and investments in company stock by the Plan and Plan
participants.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, asserting that it failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, and the plaintiffs have
opposed that motion.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master  
File Number 05-CV-06803," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com)
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: (212) 964-0046

              - and -

         Brian Philip Murray, Esq. (bmurray@murrayfrank.com)
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892

Representing the defendants are:  

         Peter C. Hein Wachtell, Esq. (PCHein@wlrk.com)
         Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: (212) 403-2000

              - and -

         Melissa C. Rodriguez, Esq.
         (mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         101 Park Avenue, 37th Floor
         New York, NY 10178
         Phone: 212 309-6394
         Fax: 212 309-6273


CISCO TRAVEL: Faces Suit Over Fuel Shortages in Georgia Pumps
-------------------------------------------------------------
The owners of two Camden County truck stops suspected of
shorting fuel customers are now facing a lawsuit that seeks at
least $5 million in damages, Rome News Tribune reports.

The class-action suit was filed earlier this month with the U.S.
District Court in Brunswick by two trucking companies and one
individual who purchased fuel from the Cisco Travel Plazas
located off Interstate 95 at Exit 1 and Exit 6.  

Specifically, the named defendants are Cisco Travel Plaza in
Kingsland, Cisco Travel Plaza II in St. Marys, Georgia Energy
USA, and Georgia Petro USA.  The only individual listed as a
defendant in the lawsuit is St. Marys businessman Fairley Cisco,
who has done business as Cisco Oil Inc.

Rome News relates that the Georgia Agriculture Department shut
down the businesses' fuel pumps on Feb. 12 when inspectors found
that customers were shorted about one quart of fuel for every
five gallons the pump gauges said was dispensed.

"This amount is based upon the fact that the two fuel facilities
at issue in this case are very busy operations that provide fuel
to a large number of customers," the lawsuit said in justifying
the damages.  "Many of these customers are tractor-trailer
owners and/or drivers."

The lawsuit is seeking compensation for customers going back the
past six years but did not explain the time period.  The lawsuit
estimate "several thousands of individuals" and companies were
shorted when they bought gas at the truck stops, making it
"impractical to bring all such persons before the court."

The suit asserts that people who were shorted when they
purchased gas at the truck stops should be compensated for their
losses regardless of whether the fuel pumps were deliberately
altered or if the owners were negligent in maintaining their
pumps.

According to Rome News, Georgia Agriculture Commissioner Tommy
Irvin said investigators believe that the pumps were
deliberately altered because all the pumps at both stations were
shorting customers.

Nathan Williams, Esq., a Brunswick attorney who filed the
lawsuit with Savannah lawyer C. Dorian Britt, Esq., said that
the stations were recently sold by the Cisco family.  Because of
uncertainty about the identities of the new owners and Cisco's
current role with the truck stops, Fairley Cisco was listed
among the defendants, Mr. Williams said.  The identities of the
individuals who actually own the businesses are being determined
and will be clear before a trial, he said.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          C. Dorian Britt, Esq. (dbritt@savagelawfirm.net)
          Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman
          304 East Bay Street
          Savannah, GA 31401-1206
          Phone: (912) 231-1140
          Fax: (912) 232-4212


FAIRFIELD RESORTS: Faces NV Sexual Harassment, Gender Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfield Resorts Inc., and its corporate parents, Wyndham
Vacation Resorts and Cendant Corp., face a purported class
action filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada, alleging sexual harassment and gender bias by male
managers, The Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 21, 2008 by six current and former
female employees of the timeshare firm, who are alleging in
their 72-page complaint that male managers "formed a brotherhood
of predators who bonded by terrorizing, intimidating and
victimizing female employees," according to AP.

The plaintiffs in the suit are:

       -- Lynda Kalemis;
       -- Rhodalyn Villa;
       -- Rania Dante;
       -- Sabra Laursen;
       -- Doreet Hakman; and
       -- Adero Fleming.

Aside from the firms, several male employees are also listed as
defendants in the suit.  They include:

       -- Walter Laxon;
       -- Ken Alexander;
       -- Mason Gangel;
       -- Steve Coen;
       -- Art Loftin;
       -- Greg Liddle;
       -- Larry Johnson;
       -- Paul Sciacca;
       -- Troy Fubler;
       -- Ken Gray;
       -- Paul Herman;
       -- Mark Van Sydner;
       -- Don Woolbright;
       -- Richard Escovedo;
       -- Devon Boyd;
       -- Tony Walker;
       -- Ralph Madeiros; and
       -- Dean Owens.

AP reports that the suit is is generally alleging violations of
federal civil rights and family medical leave acts, and Nevada
state equal employment opportunity laws.

According to the lawsuit, "Sexual harassment and gender
discrimination are deeply engrained in Fairfield's corporate
culture."

In the suit, AP relates, up to 18 men were accused of groping,
rubbing, and demanding sex from female co-workers, who,
according to the suit, were told by managers to wear revealing
clothes to advance in the company.

Women who complained were targeted for retaliation or denied
promotion, the suit states.

According to AP, the plaintiffs are seeking class-action status
for the matter, and $50 million in damages.

The suit is "Kalemis et al v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00217-RLH-LRL," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, Judge Roger L. Hunt presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mary F. Chapman, Esq. (maryf.chapman@juno.com)
         Law Office of Mary F. Chapman, Ltd.
         7473 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 100
         Las Vegas, NV 89128
         Phone: 702-562-1246
         Fax: 702-562-1247

         Grant E. Morris, Esq.
         Law Offices of Grant E. Morris
         1666 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 310
         Washington, DC 20009
         Phone: 202-742-7783
         Fax: 202-742-7776

              -and -

         David W. Sanford, Esq. (dsanford@nydclaw.com)
         Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP
         1666 Connecticut Ave NW
         Washington, DC 20009
         Phone: 202-742-7780


FASTENAL CO: Faces Ex-Workers' FLSA Violations Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fastenal Co. faces a purported class action filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging  
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California and
Pennsylvania state statutes, according to the company's Feb. 21,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Oct. 18, 2007, against
Fastenal Co. on behalf of two former employees claiming to
represent all those employed in the store position of Assistant
General Manager in the U.S. within three years prior to the
filing date (four years for California employees).

The suit alleges that Fastenal misclassified its Assistant
General Managers as exempt for purposes of the overtime
provisions of the FLSA and California and Pennsylvania state
statutes.  It also alleges that Assistant General Managers in
California did not receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest
periods under the California Labor Code.

The complaint seeks overtime pay, meal and rest period
penalties, liquidated damages, restitution, attorneys' fees,
costs and interest.  It also seeks class-action status.

The suit is "Calhoun et al. v. Fastenal Company, Case No.
3:2007cv05326," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn H. Patel
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq. (helland@nka.com)
          Nichols Kaster & Anderson, LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-277-7235
          Fax: 415-277-7238

Representing the defendants is:

          Leslie Erin Wallis, Esq.
          (leslie.wallis@ogletreedeakins.com)
          Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
          633 West Fifth Street, 53rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800


GAYLORD GAS: Faces Suit in Mich. Over High Price of Propane
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gaylord Gas, Inc., and Kansas City, Mo. parent company Inergy
Propane, LLC, face a purported class action filed in Crawford
County, Michigan by a local man who claims that a he was charged
more than a dollar a gallon above the state market price for
propane, Michael Jones of The Gaylord Herald Times reports.

The suit was filed on Feb 14, 2008, by attorney Lawrence
Friedman, Esq., who divides his time between residences in
Grayling, Mich., and Wilton, Conn., where his law office is
located.

Gaylord Herald relates that if Mr. Friedman prevails in his
complaint against the propane supplier, a number of Gaylord Gas
customers, also allegedly overcharged, could stand to receive
financial relief from the high prices for propane they have been
charged this heating season.

Mr. Friedman told Gaylord Herald that he decided to file the
complaint against the defendants after receiving a bill for a
propane fill-up at his Grayling residence on Jan. 25, 2008, at
$3.49 a gallon.  

He pointed out that the amount is more than a dollar over the
state average of $2.44 a gallon.  In his lawsuit, Mr. Friedman
even includes a document from the Michigan Public Service
Commission showing that the average residential prices for
propane the week of Jan. 21, 2008 was $2.44 a gallon.

Mr. Friedman also told Gaylord Herald that under Michigan's
class action laws, if a court finds a class of people have been
impacted in this case, being overcharged for propane they
have the opportunity to get (financial) relief even if they have
not been signed up as a part of the complaint.

According to Mr. Friedman, "They do not need to appear in court.
If the court finds in our favor to receive relief, Gaylord Gas
would be required to contact each of their customers impacted by
this and offer relief."

For more details, contact:

          Lawrence Friedman, Esq.
          98 Thunder Lake Rd.
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Phone: 917-334-2215


KANSAS CITY: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Fuel Surcharges Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. along with five other railroads   
face a purported class action with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, alleging that they reaped
billions of dollars in additional revenues by fixing fuel
surcharges among themselves, The Kansas City Star reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 21, 2008, by Sterling Steel Co., LLC
of Carthage, Mo., stating that the alleging price-fixing by the
railroads has been going on since July 2003.  It is seeking
class-action status, according to The Kansas City Star.

Besides Kansas City Southern Railway, The Kansas City Star  
reports that other defendants named in the suit include:

       -- Union Pacific Railroad Co.,
       -- BNSF Railway Co.,
       -- CSX Transportation, Inc.,
       -- Norfolk Southern Railway Co., and
       -- Association of American Railroads, which represents
          big and small railroads in North America.

The suit is "Sterling Steel Company, LLC v. Union Pacific
Railroad Company et al., Case No. 4:2008cv00122," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Judge
John T. Maughmer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq. (tbender@wbsvlaw.com)
          Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC
          1100 Main St., Ste. 2500
          P O Box 26188
          Kansas City, MO 64196
          Phone: (816) 421-6620
          Fax: (816) 421-4747

          Nicholas S. Clevenger, Esq. (nsc@petersonlawfirm.com)
          Peterson & Associates
          801 West 47th Street, Suite 107
          Kansas City, MO 64112-1253
          Phone: (816) 531-4440
          Fax: (816) 531-0660

               - and -

          Robert A. Horn, Esq. (rhorn@hab-law.com)
          Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 421-0700
          Fax: (816) 421-0899


MEDCO HEALTH: Mass. Court Mulls Approving PolyMedica Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Massachusetts for Middlesex County has yet
to approve a proposed settlement in a class action against Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., which Merck & Co., Inc., acquired in
1993 over a merger agreement with PolyMedica Corp.

Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
Aug. 27, 2007, PolyMedica shareholders received $53 in cash for
each outstanding share of PolyMedica common stock.  Medco funded
the transaction on Oct. 31, 2007, through a combination of $1
billion in bank borrowings from its existing $2 billion
revolving credit facility and cash on hand.

In August 2007, a putative stockholder class action related to
the merger was filed by purported stockholders of PolyMedica
Corp. with the Superior Court of Massachusetts for Middlesex
County against, amongst others, the Company and its affiliate,
MACQ Corp.

The lawsuit captioned, "Groen v. PolyMedica Corp. et al.,"
alleges, among other things, that the price agreed to in the
merger agreement was inadequate and unfair to the PolyMedica
stockholders and that the defendants breached their duties to
the stockholders and aided breaches of duty by other
defendants in negotiating and approving the merger agreement.
Shortly thereafter, two virtually identical lawsuits (only one
of which named the Company as a defendant) were filed in the
same court.

The complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
seek injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the parties to these actions reached an
agreement in principle to settle the actions.  The settlement is
subject to, among other things, the execution of definitive
documentation and court approval.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Medco Health Solutions Inc. -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a  
pharmacy benefit manager.  The Company provides traditional and
specialty prescription drug benefit programs and services for
its clients, members of client-funded benefit plans or those
served by the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program
(Medicare Part D), and individual patients.  


MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Face Several ERISA Complaints in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., which Merck & Co., Inc., acquired
in 1993, continues to face purported class actions alleging
violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

                        Gruer Litigation

In December 1997, a lawsuit captioned, "Gruer v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C.," was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Merck and the
Company.

The suit alleges that the Company should be treated as a
"fiduciary" under the provisions of ERISA, and that the Company
had breached fiduciary obligations under ERISA in a variety of
ways.

After the Gruer case was filed, a number of other cases were
filed with the same court asserting similar claims.

In December 2002, Merck and the Company agreed to settle the
Gruer series of lawsuits on a class action basis for
$42.5 million, and agreed to certain business practice changes,
to avoid the significant cost and distraction of protracted
litigation.

The release of claims under the settlement applies to plans for
which the Company has administered a pharmacy benefit at any
time between Dec. 17, 1994 and the date of final approval.  It
does not involve the release of any potential antitrust claims.

In May 2004, the U.S. District Court granted final approval to
the settlement and a final judgment was entered in June 2004.

Various appeals were taken and in October 2007, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit overruled all but one
objection to the settlement that had been the subject of the
appeals.

The appeals court vacated the lower court's approval of the
settlement in one respect, and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings relating to the manner in which
the settlement funds should be allocated between self-funded and
insured plans.

The plaintiff in one of the Gruer series of cases -- "Blumenthal
v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., et al." -- has elected to
opt out of the settlement.

Similar ERISA-based complaints against the Company and Merck
were filed in eight additional actions by ERISA plan
participants, purportedly on behalf of their plans, and, in some
of the actions, similarly situated self-funded plans.

The ERISA plans themselves, which were not parties to these
lawsuits, had elected to participate in the Gruer settlement
discussed above and, accordingly, seven of these actions had
been dismissed pursuant to the final judgment discussed above.

                        Jones Litigation

The plaintiff in another action, "Betty Jo Jones v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C., et al.," has filed a Second Amended
Complaint, in which she seeks to represent a class of all
participants and beneficiaries of ERISA plans that required such
participants to pay a percentage co-payment on prescription
drugs.

The effect of the release under the Gruer settlement discussed
above on the Jones action has not yet been litigated.

                     United Food Litigation

In addition to these cases, a proposed class action complaint
against Merck and the Company has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by
trustees of another benefit plan, the United Food and Commercial
Workers Local Union No. 1529 and Employers Health and Welfare
Plan Trust.  This plan has elected to opt out of the Gruer
settlement.

The suit, "United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No.
1529 and Employers Health and Welfare Plan Trust v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc.," has been transferred and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by order of the Judicial Panel on Multi-
district Litigation.

                        Miles Litigation

In September 2002, a lawsuit captioned, "Miles v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C.," based on allegations similar to those in
the earlier ERISA cases, was filed against Merck and the Company
with the Superior Court of California.  The theory of liability
in this action is based on a California law prohibiting unfair
business practices.

The Miles case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California and was later transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
consolidated with the ERISA cases pending against Merck and the
Company in that court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Medco Health ERISA Litigation, Case No.
7:03-md-01508-CLB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Linda J. Cahn, Esq.
          Mark Gardy, Esq.
          Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700

               - and -         

          Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq. (pselendy@bsfllp.com)
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
          570 Lexington Avenue 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 446-2300

Representing the company is:

          James P. Tallon, Esq. (jtallon@shearman.com)
          Shearman & Sterling
          555 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 616-1100


MEDCO HEALTH: Still Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., and Merck & Co. Inc., which
acquired Medco in 1993, continue to face several class actions
that were consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

                   Brady Enterprises Lawsuit

In August 2003, a lawsuit "Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v.
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al." was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
the company and Merck.

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a national class of retail
pharmacies that had contracted with the company, allege that the
company has conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and
used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain
competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs.

The plaintiffs allege that, through the alleged conspiracy, the
company has engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct,
including, among other things, setting artificially low
reimbursement rates to such pharmacies.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act
and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is currently pending.

                North Jackson Pharmacy Lawsuit

In October 2003, a lawsuit captioned "North Jackson Pharmacy,
Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al." was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
against Merck and the company.

In their Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs allege that:

     -- Merck and the company have engaged in price fixing and
        other unlawful concerted actions with others, including
        other Pharmacy Benefit Managers, to restrain trade in
        the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs to
        customers of retail pharmacies who participate in
        programs or plans that pay for all or part of the drugs
        dispensed; and

     -- Merck and the company have conspired with, acted as the
        common agent for, and used the combined bargaining power
        of plan sponsors to restrain competition in the market
        for the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs.

The plaintiffs allege that, through such concerted action, Merck
and the company have engaged in various forms of anticompetitive
conduct, including, among other things, setting reimbursement
rates to such pharmacies at unreasonably low levels.  

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act
and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs'
motion for class certification has been granted, but this matter
has been consolidated with other actions where class
certification remains an open issue.

                 Mike's Medical Center Lawsuit

In December 2005, a lawsuit captioned "Mike's Medical Center
Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al." was
filed against the company and Merck in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all pharmacies and
pharmacists that had contracted with the company and California
pharmacies that had indirectly purchased prescription drugs from
Merck and make factual allegations similar to those in the
Alameda Drug Co. action.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust law, and California law prohibiting unfair
business practices.  The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained
profits, and injunctive relief.

In April 2006, the Brady plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer
and consolidate various antitrust actions against Pharmacy
Benefit Managers, including North Jackson, Brady, and Mike's
Medical Center before a single federal judge.  

The actions are now consolidated for pretrial purposes in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The consolidated action is known as "In re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation."

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification in certain
actions is currently pending before the multi-district
litigation court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Medco Health Solutions Inc. -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a   
pharmacy benefit manager.  The Company provides traditional and
specialty prescription drug benefit programs and services for
its clients, members of client-funded benefit plans or those
served by the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program
(Medicare Part D), and individual patients.  


MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., remains a defendant in a purported
antitrust class action, "Alameda Drug Co., Inc., et al. v. Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., et al.," that was filed against the
company and Merck & Co. with the Superior Court of California

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek to represent a class of all
California pharmacies that had contracted with the company and
that had indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck.  
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that since the
expiration of a 1995 consent injunction entered by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, if not
earlier, the company has:

     -- failed to maintain an Open Formulary (as defined in the
        consent injunction), and

     -- failed to prevent nonpublic information received from
        competitors of Merck and the company from being
        disclosed to each other.

The complaint also copies verbatim many of the allegations in
the amended complaint-in-intervention filed by the U.S. Attorney
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The matters relate to:

     -- a consolidated action pending in the Eastern District of
        Pennsylvania.  The consolidated action included a
        government complaint-in-intervention filed in September
        2003 and two pending qui tam, or whistleblower,
        complaints filed in 2000.

        The complaints alleged violations of the False Claims
        Act and various other state statutes.  Additional legal
        claims were added in an amended complaint-in-
        intervention filed in December 2003, including a count
        alleging a violation of the Public Contracts Anti-
        Kickback Act.  This Consolidated Action has been settled
        for $137.5 million.

     -- a qui tam that remains under seal in the Eastern
        District of Pennsylvania.  The U.S. Attorney's Office
        had informed the company that the Complaint alleges
        violations of the federal False Claims Act, that the
        company and other defendants inflated manufacturers'
        "best price" to Medicare and Medicaid, and that the
        company and other defendants offered and paid kickbacks
        to third parties to induce the placement on formularies
        and promotion of certain drugs.  This matter has been
        settled for $9.5 million.

     -- an investigation that began with a letter the company
        received from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern
        District of Pennsylvania in January 2005 requesting
        information and representations regarding the company's
        Medicare Part B coordination of benefits recovery
        program.  This matter was settled for $8.0 million.  

On Oct. 23, 2006, the company entered into settlement agreements
with the Department of Justice on these matters.

The plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of these alleged
practices, the company has been able to increase its market
share and artificially reduce the level of reimbursement to the
retail pharmacy class members, and that the prices of
prescription drugs from Merck and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers that do business with the company had been fixed
and raised above competitive levels.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of California
antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair business
practices.  

The plaintiffs demand, among other things, compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits, and
injunctive relief.  

In the complaint, the plaintiff further alleges, among other
things, that the company acts as a purchasing agent for its plan
sponsor customers, resulting in a system that serves to suppress
competition.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Medco Health Solutions Inc. -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a   
pharmacy benefit manager.  The Company provides traditional and
specialty prescription drug benefit programs and services for
its clients, members of client-funded benefit plans or those
served by the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program
(Medicare Part D), and individual patients.  


MEDCO HEALTH: Opposes Stay Recommendation in Pharmacies' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., is objecting to a recommendation
by a court to deny its motion to stay, pending arbitration, a
suit filed by a class of Oklahoma pharmacies.  

The suit was filed by Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC in February
2006, and seeks to represent a class of Oklahoma pharmacies that
have contracted with the company within the last three years.  
It alleges, among other things, that the company has contracted
with retail pharmacies at rates that are less than the
prevailing rates paid by ordinary consumers and has denied
consumers their choice of pharmacy by placing restrictions on
the plaintiff's ability to dispense pharmaceutical goods and
services.

The plaintiff asserts that the company's activities violate the
Oklahoma Third Party Prescription Act, and seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive
relief.  

On April 12, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and on June 12, 2006, filed a motion to stay the
action pending arbitration.

On Sept. 21, 2007, the Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma recommended that the
District Court deny Medco's request to stay the action pending
arbitration.  The Company objected to the Magistrate's Report
and Recommendation.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

The suit is "Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv-00118-TCK-SAJ," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oklahoma, Judge Terence
Kern presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Bradford D. Barron, Esq. (Bbarron@gbbfirm.com)
          Gibbon Barron & Barron, PA
          2 W. 6th St., Ste. 320
          Tulsa, OK 74119-1215
          Phone: 918-745-0687
          Fax: 9180745-0821

               - and -

          Bobby Leon Latham, Jr., Esq. (blatham@lswsl.com)
          Latham Stall Wagner Steele & Lehman, PC
          1800 S. Baltimore, Ste. 500
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Phone: 918-382-7523
          Fax: 918-382-7541

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark Banner, Esq. (mbanner@hallestill.com)
          Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson
          320 S. Boston, Ste. 400
          Tulsa, OK 74103-3708
          Phone: 918-594-0432
          Fax: 918-594-0505

               - and -

          John Briggs, Esq. (BriggsJ@howrey.com)
          Howrey, LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2402
          Phone: 202-383-7015
          Fax: 202-318-8594


MODINE: Settlement in Environmental Suit Okayed on Interim Basis
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter stated on Jan. 29, 2008, that
Modine Manufacturing Company (NYSE: MOD) and plaintiffs
represented by Aaron Freiwald, Esq., of Layser & Freiwald, PC,
have reached a settlement in principle in connection with a
litigation against Modine, alleging environmental contamination
in McCullom Lake Village, McHenry County, Illinois, where the
company operates a manufacturing facility.

The case, "Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Co., et al., Case No.
06-1743," involved allegations of personal injury from exposure
to solvents that were allegedly released to groundwater and air
for an undetermined period of time (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 21, 2007).  In the suit, residents of McCullom Lake
Village, a town of about 1,000 in the northeast corner of
Illinois, claim that their exposure to "volatile organic
compounds" from two nearby factories has put them at greater
risk of contracting brain cancer.  Specofocally named as
defendants in the suit are Rohm and Haas Co. and its subsidiary,
Morton International Inc., the maker of Morton Salt, and Modine
Manufacturing, which is a manufacturer of heating and cooling
technology.

The lawsuit sought damages for medical monitoring and property
value diminution for the putative class of residents that are
allegedly at risk for personal injuries as a result of exposure
to the allegedly contaminated groundwater and air.  

In an update, The Legal Intelligencer relates that U.S. District
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter granted preliminary approval of the $2-
million partial settlement by Modine.

In her 30-page opinion, Judge Pratter rejected the argument of
the non-settling defendants who said it would be unfair to grant
preliminary approval of a class settlement before ruling on
whether the ongoing claims satisfy the requirements for class
certification.  Judge Pratter, Legal Intelligencer notes, flatly
rejected the argument, saying in a footnote that "it is proper
for the court to preliminarily certify the settlement classes at
this juncture, provided that the grant of preliminary approval
is without prejudice to the defenses and positions of the
nonsettling defendants as to any issue, including certification
of the litigation classes."

In addition to the proposed class action in federal court, Mr.
Freiwald has also filed 23 separate personal injury suits with
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on behalf of residents
who now have, or have died from, brain cancer.  

Mr. Freiwald said that Modine has also agreed to settlements in
all of the state court cases but that the terms are
confidential.

In the medical monitoring suit, Judge Pratter had ruled in a
prior opinion that the Supreme Court of Illinois "is likely to
recognize" a claim for medical monitoring, Legal Intelligencer
says.  "Given the apparent trend of the federal and appellate
courts in Illinois, the cost of diagnostic testing, even if
periodic or ongoing, likely is a compensable injury under
Illinois law," Judge Pratter wrote.

The report stated that defense lawyers had argued that the
Supreme Court of Illinois has never recognized a claim for
medical monitoring in a case where there is no present physical
injury.  

But Mr. Freiwald argued that prior decisions of Illinois'
highest court as well as decisions of the lower Illinois
appellate courts gave a strong indication that the state would
recognize a medical monitoring claim.

The suits allege that over several decades, both the Morton
plant and the Modine plant were "dumping" millions of gallons of
chemical waste in a lagoon that ultimately contaminated the
town's drinking water.  According to the suits, the chemicals
dumped in the lagoon included trichloroethylene and
dichloroethylene, both of which degrade to a compound known as
vinyl chloride, a substance that has allegedly been found to
cause cancer.

But Rohm and Haas' lawyer, Dennis R. Suplee of Schnader Harrison
Segal & Lewis, said the plaintiffs have no evidence to support
two critical elements of their cases.  Testing of the town's
wells, Mr. Suplee said, has shown that none of them are
contaminated, and the scientific evidence does not support the
theory that vinyl chloride causes cancer.

Under the terms of Modine's settlement, the class of residents
who lived one year or more in McCullom Lake Village between
Jan. 1, 1968, and Dec. 31, 2002, and have not yet had brain
cancer detected or have not yet filed personal injury claims
because of alleged exposure to chlorinated solvents will receive
$1.4 million, Legal Itelligencer relates, citing court papers.

The settlement will allow for reimbursement of up to $1,400 per
class member to obtain a magnetic resonance imaging scan, or
MRI, to detect brain cancer.

The class of people who owned property in the locality between
April 25, 2006, and Jan. 18, 2008, will receive $100,000 for
their property value devaluation claim.  Another $500,000 will
go toward attorney fees and costs of administering the
settlement.

Judge Pratter noted that the settlement negotiations included
two full days of mediation before former U.S. Magistrate Judge
Diane Welsh, now a mediator with JAMS.

And although the parties have not officially conducted any
discovery on the merits, the judge found that the ongoing
discovery related to class certification issues and in the state
court cases was extensive enough to give lawyers on both sides a
good sense of the case.

The suit is "Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company, et al.,
Case No. 06-1743," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Gene E.K. Pratter.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq. (ajf@layserfreiwald.com)
         Layser & Freiwald PC
         1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 215-875-8000

Representing the defendants is:

         Albert G. Bixler, Esq. (abixler@eckertseamans.com)
         Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
         1515 Market Street, 9th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 215-851-8412


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed with prejudice a purported class action filed against
Monster Worldwide, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the
company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

A former company employee filed the putative class action in
October 2006 against the company and a number of its current and
former officers and directors.  The action purports to be
brought on behalf of all participants in the company's 401(k)
plan.  It alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to plan participants under Sections 404, 405, 409
and 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 et seq., by allowing
plan participants to purchase and to hold and maintain company
stock in their plan accounts without disclosing to those plan
participants the historical stock option practices.

The complaint seeks equitable restitution, attorneys' fees and
an order enjoining defendants from violations of ERISA.

At the defendants' behest, the Court, on Dec. 14, 2007,
dismissed the ERISA action with prejudice as against the company
and certain of the individual defendants (including all of the
company's current directors who have been named as defendants)
and without prejudice against certain of the individual
defendants including one current employee of the company.

The suit is "Taylor v. McKelvey et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08322-
AKH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
         (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
         Gainey & McKenna, LLP
         295 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 983-1300
         Fax: (212) 983-0383

Representing the defendants are:

         Evan T. Barr, Esq. (ebarr@steptoe.com)
         Steptoe & Johnson
         750 Seventh Avenue, Ste. 1900
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212)-506-3918
         Fax: (212)-506-3961

              - and -

         Geoffrey Shannon Stewart, Esq. (gstewart@jonesday.com)
         Jones Day
         222 East 41st Street
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212)-326-3939
         Fax: (212)-755-7306

    
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Discovery Underway in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in a securities fraud class action filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Monster Worldwide, Inc.

The putative securities shareholder class action was filed on or
about March 15, 2007, by Middlesex County Retirement System
against the Company and certain former employees with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit
was designated as "In re Monster Worldwide Securities
Litigation, 07 Civ. 2237 (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR)."

The suit seeks an indeterminate amount of damages on behalf of
all persons or entities, other than the defendants, who
purchased or acquired the securities of the Company from May 6,
2005, until June 9, 2006.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs amended their complaint in the
securities class action asserting claims against the Company,
Andrew McKelvey, and Myron Olesnyckyj based on an alleged
violation of Section 10(b) the Exchange Act and against the
individual defendants based on an alleged violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

The Company answered the amended complaint on Sept. 11, 2007.  
Discovery in the action is underway, according to the company's
Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-02237," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Jed S. Rakoff
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY, 10017
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          e-mail: info@labaton.com

               - and -

          Goldman, Scarlato & Karon. P.C.
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 360
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 484.342.0700 or 888.668.4130
          Fax: 484.342.0701
          e-mail: info@gsk-law.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Andrew J. Levander, Esq. (andrew.levander@dechert.com)
          Dechert LLP
          P.O. Box 5218
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (212) 698-3500
          Fax: (212) 698-3500

               - and -

          Arunabha Bhoumik, Esq. (ABhoumik@manatt.com)
          Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 790-4554
          Fax: (212) 536-1861


NEWMONT MINING: CO Court Gives Final OK to $15M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado gave final
approval to a tentative settlement of a consolidated securities
class action filed against Newmont Mining Corp.

                        Case Background

On June 8, 2005, UFCW Local 880 - Retail Food Employers Joint
Pension Fund filed a putative class action with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado purportedly on
behalf of purchasers of Newmont Mining Corp.'s publicly traded
securities between July 28, 2004, and April 26, 2005.

The action named Newmont, Wayne W. Murdy, Pierre Lassonde and
Bruce D. Hansen as defendants.  Substantially similar purported
class actions were filed with the same court on June 15, 2005,
by John S. Chapman and on June 20, 2005, by Zoe Myerson.

In November 2005, the court consolidated these cases and, in
March 2006, appointed a lead plaintiff.  

In April 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint naming David Francisco, Russell Ball, Thomas Enos and
Robert Gallagher as additional defendants.  It alleged, among
other things, that Newmont and the individual defendants
violated certain anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities
laws by failing to disclose alleged operating deficiencies and
sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

In October 2006, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a settlement
class consisting of all purchasers of Newmont securities from
Nov. 1, 2003, through and including March 23, 2006 (except
defendants and certain related persons), entered into a
stipulation of settlement with the defendants.

                        Settlement Terms

If approved by the Court, the Settlement:

       -- would release all claims asserted, or that could have
          been asserted, in the action;

       -- would provide for a payment by Newmont of $15 to be
          distributed to class members pursuant to a plan of
          allocation developed by the lead plaintiff; and

       -- would provide that all defendants deny any wrongdoing
          or liability with respect to the settled matters.

On Dec. 11, 2007, the Court approved the settlement on a final
basis, according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "UFCW Local 880-Retail Food Employers Joint Pension
Fund v. Newmont Mining Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01046
MSK-BNB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, Judge Marcia S. Krieger presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Darby K. Kennedy, Esq. (dkennedy@dyershuman.com)
          Dyer & Shuman, LLP
          801 East 17th Avenue
          Denver, CO 80218-1417
          Phone: 303-861-3003
          Fax: 303-830-6920

Representing the defendants is
       
          Pamela Robillard Mackey, Esq. (pmackey@hmflaw.com)
          Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey &
          Foreman, PC
          150 East 10th Avenue
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 303-831-7364
          Fax: 303-832-2628


OMNICOM GROUP: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action
filed against Omnicom Group, Inc., and certain of its senior
executives are planning to appeal a dismissal of their case by
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class actions were
filed.  The actions have been consolidated under the caption,
"In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-4483
(RCC)," on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 20, 2001, and June 11, 2002.

The consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the
company's public filings and other public statements during that
period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to
state material information relating to:

      -- the company's calculation of the organic growth
         component of period-to-period revenue growth,

      -- the company's valuation of and accounting for certain
         Internet investments made by its Communicade Group,
         which it contributed to Seneca Investments LLC in 2001,
         and

      -- the existence and amount of certain contingent future
         obligations in respect of acquisitions.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages plus costs and attorneys fees.  The defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint and, on March 28, 2005, the court
dismissed certain portions of the complaint.

The court's decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss
the remainder of the complaint did not address the ultimate
merits of the case, but only the sufficiency of the pleading.

Discovery was then concluded in the second quarter of 2007.  On
April 30, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for
class certification.  

In the third quarter of 2007 the defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claim.  
Subsequently, on Jan. 28, 2008, the court granted the
defendants' motion in its entirety, dismissing all claims and
closing the case.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to
appeal the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the company's
Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Judge John Keenan presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Max W. Berger, Esq. (mwb@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 554-1403
          Fax: (212) 554-1444
          
               - and -

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com)
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
                 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants are:

          David Harold Braff, Esq. (braffd@sullcrom.com)
          Stacey Rubin Friedman, Esq. (friedmans@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-558-4705 and 212-558-4000
          Fax: 212-558-3333 and 212-558-3588


PMA CAPITAL: Court Approves Settlement of Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has approved the settlement of the securities class action, "In
re PMA Capital Corporation Securities Litigation (Civil Action
No. 03-6121)."  

The amounts necessary to fund the settlement, according to PMA
Capital's results release for the quarter and fiscal year
periods ended Dec. 31, 2007, have been paid by PMA Capital's
insurance carriers.  The company did not disclose the exact
settlement amount.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 11, 2007,
PMA Capital had reached an agreement to settle the securities
class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, but made no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company or its officers and directors.

                         Case Background

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of purported
purchasers of the company's Class A Common Stock, 4.25% Senior  
Convertible Debt due 2022 (4.25% Convertible Debt) and 8.50%
Monthly Income Senior Notes.   

The complaint names as defendants the company, former chairman,
Frederick W. Anton, and former chief executive officer, John W.
Smithson, and two other individuals who were top officers at the
company during the class period.

On June 28, 2004, the court issued an order consolidating the
cases under "In Re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation,   
Civil Action No. 03-6121," and appointing Sheet Metal Workers   
Local 9 Pension Trust, Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund
and Communications Workers of America for Employees' Pension and   
Death Benefits as lead plaintiffs.   

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder by making materially false and misleading public
statements and material omissions during the class period
regarding the company's underwriting performance, loss reserves
and related internal controls.  

It also alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act by making materially false and misleading statements in
registration statements and prospectuses about the company's
financial results, underwriting performance, loss reserves and
related internal controls.    

The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, the right
to rescind the purchases of securities in the public offerings,
interest, and plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.   

By order dated July 27, 2005, the court partially granted the
company's previously filed motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, dismissing all allegations with respect to The PMA
Insurance Group, and otherwise denying the motion to dismiss.  
By virtue of the order, the alleged class period was reduced to
Nov. 6, 2003.
     
The suit is "In Re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation,   
Civil Action No. 03-6121," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Petrese B.
Tucker.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

         Robert A. Kauffman, Esq. (rkauffman@bm.net)
         Arthur Stock, Esq. (astock@bm.net)
         Sherri Savett, Esq. (ssavett@bm.net)
         Berger and Montague
         1622 Locust Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-875-3000
         Fax: 215-875-4636

              - and -

         Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
         (sgraziano@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212-594-5300

Representing the company are:

         David M. Howard, Esq. (david.howard@dechert.com)
         Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
         (michael.kichline@dechert.com)
         Joseph A. Tate, Esq. (joseph.tate@dechert.com)
         Dechert, LLP
         4000 Bell Atlantic Tower, 1717 Arch Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2973
         Phone: 215-994-2218


PROTIVITI INC: Still Faces Consultant's Overtime Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Protiviti, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Robert Half
International, Inc., faces a purported class action in
California relating to unpaid overtime pay.

On May 4, 2006, plaintiff Don Tran, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of salaried consultants, and a sub-class of
terminated salaried consultants, filed a complaint with the
California Superior Court naming Protiviti Inc. as defendant.  

The complaint alleges that salaried consultants based in
California have been misclassified under California law as
exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid
overtime pay alleged to be due to them had they been paid as
non-exempt, hourly employees.  The plaintiff also seeks an
unspecified amount for statutory penalties for alleged
violations of the California Labor Code arising from the alleged
misclassification of these employees as exempt employees.

The complaint further seeks damages and penalties for the
failure to provide meal and rest periods, and for the failure to
reimburse business expenses, including, without limitation,
parking and cellular telephone expenses.

Robert Half reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 20, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Robert Half International, Inc. -- http://www.rhi.com/--  
provides specialized staffing and risk consulting services.  The
Company, through its Accountemps, Robert Half Finance &
Accounting, and Robert Half Management Resources divisions, is a
specialized provider of temporary, full-time project
professionals in the fields of accounting and finance.


ROBERT HALF: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit by Executives, Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Half International, Inc. and its subsidiaries face a
purported class action in California over unpaid overtime.

On Sept. 24, 2007, Van Williamson, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of salaried account executives and staffing
managers, filed the complaint with the California Superior Court
naming the company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that salaried account executives and
staffing managers based in California were not provided meal
periods, paid rest periods, and accurate itemized wage
statements.  It seeks one hour of wages for each employee for
each meal and rest period missed during the statutory liability
period.  

The suit also seeks an unspecified amount for statutory
penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code
arising from the alleged failure to provide the meal and rest
periods and accurate itemized wage statements.

The allegations in the complaint are substantially similar to
the allegations included in the complaint filed by Mark Lafitte
against the company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries
on Sept. 10, 2004.

Robert Half reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 20, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Robert Half International, Inc. -- http://www.rhi.com/--  
provides specialized staffing and risk consulting services.  The
Company, through its Accountemps, Robert Half Finance &
Accounting, and Robert Half Management Resources divisions, is a
specialized provider of temporary, full-time project
professionals in the fields of accounting and finance.


ROBERT HALF: Calif. Court Stays Suit by "Inside Sales Persons"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
stayed a lawsuit over unpaid overtime that was filed against
Robert Half International, Inc.

On Aug. 9, 2005, Lizette Greene, on behalf of herself and a
putative class of salaried "inside sales persons," filed the
complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California naming the Company and three of its wholly owned
subsidiaries as defendants.  

In December 2005, the plaintiff amended the complaint, alleging
that purported "inside sales persons" based in California have
been misclassified under federal law as exempt employees and
seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to
be due to them had they been paid as non-exempt, hourly
employees.  In addition, the plaintiff also makes two claims
under the California Private Attorney Generals Act seeking an
unspecified amount for statutory penalties for alleged
violations of the California Labor Code arising from the alleged
misclassification of these employees as exempt employees.

The plaintiff also asserts a claim under California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 for a putative nation wide class
of purported "inside sales persons."

On Dec. 22, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
certification of their federal claims in which they seek to
represent a class of salaried employees who worked for the
Company and certain of its subsidiaries in California within
three years before the complaint was filed and seeking
permission to mail class members a notice regarding their right
to opt into the case as plaintiffs.

In June 2007, the Court stayed this litigation pending
resolution of a litigation filed with the California Superior
Court against the company by Mark Laffitte.

Robert Half reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 20, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Greene v. Robert Half International Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03248-SC," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Samuel Conti
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Mark Andrew Chavez, Esq. (mark@chavezgertler.com)
         Chavez & Gertler LLP
         42 Miller Avenue
         Mill Valley, CA 93941
         Phone: 415-381-5599
         Fax: 415-381-5572

Representing the defendant is:

         Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr., Esq. (gdiekmann@seyfarth.com)
         Seyfarth Shaw LLP
         560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-397-2823
         Fax: 415-397-8549


ROBERT HALF: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Pay Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court certified a class in a lawsuit
filed by employees of Robert Half International, Inc., who were
allegedly denied overtime compensation.

On Sept. 10, 2004, plaintiff Mark Laffitte, on behalf of himself
and a putative class of salaried account executives and staffing
managers, filed the complaint with the California Superior Court
naming the company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that salaried account executives and
staffing managers based in California have been misclassified
under California law as exempt employees and seeks an
unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to be due to
them had they been paid as non-exempt hourly employees.

In addition, the plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount for
statutory penalties for alleged violations of the California
Labor Code arising from the alleged misclassification of these
employees as exempt employees.

The court heard cross-motions concerning class certification,
and on Sept. 18, 2006, issued an order certifying a class with
respect to claims for alleged unpaid overtime pay, but denied
certification with respect to claims relating to meal periods
and rest time breaks.

Robert Half reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 20, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Robert Half International, Inc. -- http://www.rhi.com/--   
provides specialized staffing and risk consulting services.  The
Company, through its Accountemps, Robert Half Finance &
Accounting, and Robert Half Management Resources divisions, is a
specialized provider of temporary, full-time project
professionals in the fields of accounting and finance.

    
ROBERT HALF: Mass. Court Reserves Judgment in Overtime Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
reserved judgment regarding a request for certification of a
class based on state law claims in connection with a purported
class action against Robert Half International, Inc., over
unpaid overtime work.

On Dec. 6, 2004, Ian O'Donnell and David Jolicoeur, on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of salaried staffing managers,
account executives and account managers, filed the complaint
with the Massachusetts Superior Court naming the Company and one
of its wholly owned subsidiaries as defendants.

The complaint alleges that salaried staffing managers, account
executives and account managers based in Massachusetts within
the past two years have been misclassified under Massachusetts
law as exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount equal to
three times their unpaid overtime compensation alleged to be due
to them had they been paid as non-exempt, hourly employees, plus
costs and legal fees.

It also makes similar allegations under the U.S. Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of all staffing managers, account
executives and account managers employed in any state other than
Massachusetts and California within the past three years and
seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to
be due to them had they been paid as non-exempt, hourly
employees, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages.

The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  

On March 30, 2006, the Court allowed the plaintiffs to amend
their complaint to add claims that the Company failed to pay its
exempt employees on a "salary basis" as required by
Massachusetts and federal law, but denied the plaintiffs' first
motion seeking conditional certification of their federal claims
as a collective action on behalf of a group of staffing
managers, account executives and account managers.

The plaintiffs later filed a second motion for conditional
certification, which the Court denied on May 10, 2007.  In
January 2008, the Court denied two other pleadings brought by
the plaintiffs -- for reconsideration of the Court's denial of
conditional certification and for certification of that question
to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the same January 2008 decision, the Court also denied cross-
motions for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' salary basis
claims.

Finally, the Court reserved judgment regarding the plaintiffs'
motion for certification of a class based on state law claims,
subject to further briefing by the parties, according to the
company's Feb. 20, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "O'Donnell et al v. Robert Half International, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-12719-NMG," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq. (sliss@prle.com)
         Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
         18 Tremont Street, Suite 500
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-367-7200
         Fax: 617-367-4820

Representing the defendants is:

         Richard L. Alfred, Esq. (ralfred@seyfarth.com)
         Seyfarth Shaw
         World Trade Center East, Two Seaport Lane, Suite 300
         Boston, MA 02210-2028
         Phone: 617-946-4800
         Fax: 617-946-4801


YAHOO: Sued by Detroit Pension Funds for Rejecting Microsoft Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Detroit pension funds -- Detroit's Police and Fire
Retirement System and General Retirement System -- sued Yahoo
Inc. and its board on Feb. 22 for rejecting Microsoft Corp.'s
unsolicited $US41.2-billion offer in a sign of growing
shareholder frustration with the online search and media
company, Stuff.co.nz reports.

According to Reuters, the proposed class action, filed by
veteran shareholder litigation firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman, takes Yahoo directors to task for spurning the
February 1 offer and "pursuing all manner of value-destructive
third-party deals."

A release posted at Bernstein Litowitz's Web site informs that
the case was filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No.
3561.

Stuff.co.nz notes that PFRS and GRS are concerned about news
reports of a "potential imminent deal" sought by the Yahoo board
with media conglomerate News Corp. or Time Warner's AOL that
would not require a shareholder vote.

The plaintiffs, Reuters says, asked the court to block the Yahoo
board from completing any such transaction with those companies,
to force it to reconsider Microsoft's offer, and to block it
from implementing defensive measures that would render the
company unattractive to potential buyers.

Stuff.co.nz points out that lawsuits by Yahoo shareholders have
multiplied in the wake of Yahoo's February 11 refusal to
entertain Microsoft's offer, which represented a 62% premium
over Yahoo's share price.  Yahoo said that the bid substantially
undervalues the company, failing to take into account its
500 million users worldwide, investments in its advertising
platform and lucrative overseas holdings.  Microsoft has yet to
show signs it would raise its offer.

Before the offer, Yahoo's share price had dropped 46% since
October as it struggled to compete with Internet search leader
Google, Stuff.co.nz recounts.  Yahoo co-founder and Chief
Executive Jerry Yang forecast a tough year for the Sunnyvale,
California-based company as he pledged to reduce Yahoo's work
force by 7% in January.

In the lawsuit, PFRS and GRS accused Mr. Yang and the board of
placing "personal distaste for Microsoft ahead of shareholder
welfare" by refusing to negotiate with the software maker and by
adopting a company-wide severance plan that would cost an
acquirer an additional $US1 billion to $US3 billion.  The funds
also feared the board was scheming to prevent a hostile takeover
by Microsoft by entering into inferior deals with either News
Corp or AOL that would not have to be approved by shareholders,
the lawsuit said.

PFRS and GRS asked the court to order the board to invalidate
the severance plans, rescind a poison pill that would be
triggered when Microsoft's stake reaches 15%, and ban the board
from taking any action to make the company "more burdensome or
expensive" for an acquirer, Stuff.co.nz notes.

According to Appscout, Yahoo did not comment on the matter.

For more information, contact:

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq. (markl@blbglaw.com)
          Brett M. Middleton, Esq. (brettm@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP
          Phone: (212) 554-1519
                 (858) 720-3189


* U.K. Class Action Litigation Should be Expanded, Study Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action-style litigation in the United Kingdom should be
expanded better to address issues such as sex discrimination,
product liability claims and other common grievances, the
Financial Times relates, citing new research.

The Civil Justice Council report is the latest in a series of
papers to conclude that the U.K.'s current system of group
litigation is failing to provide widespread consumer redress.

While stopping short of advocating the adoption of a U.S.-style
class action system, the CJC report says that the government
should consider requiring potential claimants to opt out if they
do not want to be part of a class lawsuit.  Under the current
system, consumers have to formally opt in to a complaint if they
want to participate.

Lawyers said the CJC report, written by Rachael Mulheron, law
professor at Queen Mary, University of London, was another
"significant" step towards reforming class litigation in England
and Wales.

FT notes that most class action-style claims are currently
brought as group litigation orders.  However, since the GLO
regime was introduced in May 2000, only 62 such actions have
been certified.  One-fifth of the GLOs that have been brought
centered on care home abuse, more than any other category, FT
relates.

The regime is thus failing to tackle the types of complaints
commonly pursued through class litigation in other
jurisdictions, such as cartel activity, shareholder actions and
employment disputes, the research found.

Britain's main competition watchdog, the Office of Fair Trading,
has recently recommended moving towards an opt-out system to
boost private enforcement of competitive behavior, according to
FT.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SUNOPTA INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of SunOpta, Inc. common stock during the period
between January 4, 2007, to January 25, 2008.

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

SunOpta primarily specializes in the natural and organic food
markets in the United States and Canada.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
failed to disclose:

     (a) that the Company's financial results were materially
         overstated because SunOpta failed to timely record an
         impairment in the value of its berry inventory --
         indeed, SunOpta has publicly announced that it would be
         restating its previously issued financial results for
         2007 to correct for the over-valuation of its berry
         inventory;

     (b) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

     (c) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company, its prospects and earnings growth.

According to the complaint, on January 24, 2008, the Company
announced that it was lowering its 2007 earnings guidance and
that financial restatements were likely. In response to this
announcement, on the next trading day, shares of the Company
stock fell $3.51 per share, or 37%, to close at $6.05 per share,
on extremely heavy trading volume.

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. (SRudman@csgrr.com)
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (Drosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock of TeleTech Holdings, Inc. between February 8,
2007, and November 8, 2007, inclusive and pursuant or traceable
to the Company's March 30, 2007 Secondary Public Offering.

The Complaint charges TeleTech and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

TeleTech is a provider of business process outsourcing
solutions.  It supports approximately 300 business process
outsourcing programs serving approximately 135 global clients in
the automotive, communications, financial services, government,
healthcare, retail, technology and travel and leisure
industries.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company's financial statements were
         overstated;

     (2) that specifically, the Company improperly accounted for
         compensation expenses and in doing so, backdated tens
         or hundreds of millions of dollars in options granted
         to executives between 1999 and 2007;

     (3) that the financial statements (including those
         presented in the Registration Statement), were
         overstated because the Company under- reported its
         employment taxes and compensation expenses, as well as
         its reserves, and over-reported its earnings and gross
         margins and failed to make the proper adjustments to
         operational and financial reports;

     (4) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

On March 30, 2007 the Company conducted its SPO. In connection
with the SPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and
Prospectus with the SEC.  As part of the SPO, Defendant Kenneth
Tuchman registered as much as 5.75 million shares of his
privately owned TeleTech common stock at $36.50 per share.  Upon
the completion of the SPO (which closed on April 4, 2007 after
the underwriters exercised their Green Shoe shares), Defendant
Tuchman profited handsomely to the tune of nearly $210 million.
Following this, the Company continued to paint a picture of
sound financial health and markets.  However, on November 8,
2007, TeleTech shocked investors when it disclosed that it was
reviewing its equity-based compensation practices and would
likely have to restate previously issued financial statements,
possibly going back to 1999.  The Company concluded that
financial statements for the periods 1999 through the second
quarter of 2007 should not be relied upon.  Upon the release of
this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $2.18 per
share, or 9.64%, to close on November 9, 2007, at $20.43 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbtklaw.com)
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. (rmaniskas@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
                 1-610-667-7706
          Fax: (484) 270-1484


                           *********


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  * * *