CAR_Public/080303.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 3, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 44
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Women Employees File Discrimination Lawsuit
APEX OIL: Mediation Fails in Hartford Vapor Complaints
CANADA: Gov't. Sued by U.S. Car Importers Over Excessive Fees
CENTENE CORP: Mo. Court Junks Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit Over Buyout Offer

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Del. Suit Over Foreclosure Costs
DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits
DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron
DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal
EXXON MOBIL: Sup. Ct. Questions Lawyers on Exxon Valdez Case

FARMERS & MERCHANTS: Tells Effectiveness of Investor Suit Deal
GUAM: Gov't. Retirees to Receive $9 million More in COLA Payout
HUNTSMAN CORP: Courts Consider Approving MOU Over $10.6B Buyout
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Still Faces Urethane Antitrust Suits in Canada
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Urethane Antitrust Suit

LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Denies Motion in Manganese Lawsuit
MCDONALD'S CORP: Continues to Face Obesity Litigation in N.Y.
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Ill. Suit Over French Fries, Hash Browns
NBC UNIVERSAL: Faces Suit Over 99-Cent Charge in Online Game
NEVADA: Las Vegas Clinic Faces Suit Over Hepatitis C Spread

PECOWARE INC: Recalls Kids' Metal Jewelry for Lead Exposure Risk
QUEST SOFTWARE: To See Dismissal of CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
RIVERSIDE PULBISHING: Recalls Cards Failing Lead Paint Standards
SANDISK CORP: CA Supreme Court Asked to Review "Vroegh" Ruling
SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses Suit by msystems Investors

SANDISK CORP: Faces Consolidated Flash Memory Antitrust Lawsuit
SCANA ENERGY: Faces GA Suit Alleging Overcharged Natural Gas
TJX COMPANIES: Privacy Breach Suit Deal Participants Notified
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Consolidated AWP Antitrust Lawsuit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ORION ENERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Women Employees File Discrimination Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint
filed on Feb. 27, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio after it forced 275 employees to take
retirement or severance packages, 248 of them were women,
including at least 30 older than 40, CourtHouse News reports.

The action is brought based upon diversity jurisdiction under
Section 1332 of the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure in that the
parties to the action are citizens of different states and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

The plaintiffs bring the action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons in the
United States and Greater Cincinnati Area who work for American
Airlines, or its subsidiaries, at the Cincinnati Reservation
Airlines location and all other Reservation locations in the
United States as of the date of filing, who are over 40 years
old, and have worked for American Airlines for over 10 years.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether during the employment of the class,  defendants
         engaged in employment practices which discriminated
         against the class based on their age;

     (b) whether during the employment of the class, defendants
         engaged in employment practices which discriminated
         against the class based in their gender; and

     (c) whether such employment practices by defendants caused
         the class to suffer severe emotional distress.

They request that the court grant the following relief:

     -- reinstatement to the plaintiffs' former position and
        compensation;

     -- a judgment for compensatory damages for plaintiffs'
        economic injuries including front pay, back pay and loss
        of employment benefits in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- a judgment for compensatory damages for plaintiffs' non-
        economic injuries in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- a judgment for an award of punitive damages or
        liquidated damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- a judgment for an award of plaintiffs' reasonable fees
        and costs;

     -- statutory prejudgment interest at the legal rate per
        annum from the date said amounts became due and owing;

     -- trial by jury; and

     -- a judgment for such other relief in law and equity which
        the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Karen Ranney et al. v. American Airlines, Inc.,
Case No. 1:08CV137," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Dennis Alerding, Jr., Esq.
          303 Greenup Street, Suite 300
          Covington, Kentucky 41011
          Phone: (859) 431-8100

               - and -

          Eric C. Deters, Esq. (eric@ericdeters.com)
          5247 Madison Pike
          Independence, Kentucky 41051
          Phone: (859) 363-1900
          Fax: (859) 363-1444


APEX OIL: Mediation Fails in Hartford Vapor Complaints
------------------------------------------------------
Nine months of mediation in lawsuits commenced by Hartford
residents claiming damages from petroleum vapors brought the
village to a dead end, the Madison St. Clair Record reports.

According to the report, five oil companies – Apex Oil, Premcor
Refining Group; Shell Oil subsidiary Equilon Enterprises; and BP
Amoco; Sinclair Oil -- rejected a final settlement demand on
Jan. 25.

Plaintiff attorney Stan Faulkner, Esq., of Edwardsville,
informed Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack about the
news on Feb. 8, in a notice of termination of mediation.  He
also informed Judge Stack that discovery would resume.

Madison Record explains that Hartford residents claim damage
from vapors that rise on rainy days from an underground lake of
hydrocarbons resulting from refinery operations.  They are
seeking compensation for economic and physical harm.

As mentioned in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 27, Judge
Stack ordered the lawyers for two competing class action
lawsuits to try to work out a settlement with all the parties to
compensate people who may have been made sick by the underground
gas plume.  Judge Stack ordered mediation on May 1, 2008,
appointing retired judge William Quinlan as mediator.

Mr. Faulkner's notice stated that after formal mediation with
Retired Judge Quinlan, the parties continued informal
discussions.

"Through many in-person conferences, telephone conferences and
electronic mail exchanges, several demands and offers were
discussed and exchanged between these parties," he wrote.

Madison Record notes that oil companies have denied causing the
problem and have pointed fingers of blame at each other.

Madison Record points out that Mr. Faulkner and Mark Goldenberg,
Esq., represent some Hartford residents, and Missouri attorneys
represent others.  The Missouri attorneys filed the first
lawsuit in 2003, seeking to certify a class action, while Mr.
Goldenberg sued in 2004, without asking for a class action.

Judge Stack certified the first suit as a class action in 2005,
but he granted a defense motion to reconsider.  This swung the
advantage to Mr. Goldenberg, who negotiated a settlement with
oil companies on a class basis.

The Missouri attorneys protested that they represented the
class, but in 2006, Judge Stack granted preliminary approval to
the Goldenberg settlement.

Mr. Goldenberg's advantage vanished, however, when his deal
broke down, and Judge Stack then ordered mediation.

Defendants Koch Pipeline, St. Louis Pipeline, Illinois Petroleum
Supply, Marathon Ashland Pipeline, Explorer Pipeline, Alberta
Energy, Encana Corporation, Pan Canadian Energy, Conoco
Phillips, Toscopetro, and Buckeye Pipeline did not participate
in the mediation.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Goldenberg, Esq. (mark@ghalaw.com)
          Stan Faulkner, Esq. (stan@ghalaw.com)
          Goldenberg Heller Antognoli Rowland Short and
          Gori, P.C.
          2227 S. State Route 157
          P.O. Box 959
          Edwardsville, Illinois 62025
          Phone: (618) 656-5150
          Fax: (618) 656-6230


CANADA: Gov't. Sued by U.S. Car Importers Over Excessive Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transport Canada,
Canada Border Services Agency, BMW Canada Inc., Mercedes-Benz
Canada Inc. and Mercedes-Benz USA LLC.

The lawsuit alleges that Mercedes, BMW and the government have
violated competition and consumer protection laws by forcing
Canadians to pay excessive fees for unnecessary vehicle
modifications and approvals when they imported cars from the
United States.

Many Canadians want to buy and import a car from the United
States, where prices are lower.  As long as specific laws and
procedures are followed, a vehicle can be imported.  The lawsuit
alleges that Transport Canada made arrangements with Mercedes,
BMW and others to impose additional procedures and costs on
Canadians who import their brands of vehicles.

The lawsuit was filed by Fournier Leasing Company Ltd. and
Canadian Auto Associates Ltd.  They allege that the government
made them pay thousands of dollars to Mercedes and BMW for
recall information and unnecessary vehicle modifications and
import approvals.  The lawsuit claims that these costs are not
imposed on importers who bring other makes of vehicles into the
country and are not required under Canadian law.

Fournier Leasing and Canadian Auto Associates also allege that
they were compelled to get modifications done at exorbitant
prices by Mercedes and BMW dealerships instead of at competitive
prices by the repair shop of their choice.  They are represented
by lawyers Glyn Hotz, Darrel Hotz and Brian Osler.

"The government has one set of rules for Mercedes and BMW and
another set of rules for everyone else," says Mr. (Glyn) Hotz.
"You have to get authorization from Mercedes and BMW to import
their cars and you even have to pay them a fee for their
authorization, but you don't need authorization from other
manufacturers."

The lawsuit seeks recovery of the unnecessary and excessive fees
the government forced Canadians to pay to Mercedes and BMW.  The
lawsuit also alleges that people have been paying artificially
inflated prices for new Mercedes vehicles in Canada because the
additional costs imposed on importers restricts competition in
the Canadian market.

"Lots of people want to buy a more competitively priced car from
the U.S.," says Mr. Osler.  "But the extra costs and uncertainty
forced on importers by the government, Mercedes and BMW can
prevent it from being worthwhile."

For more information, contact:

          Brian Osler (brian@geodesic.ca)
          Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public
          Phone: (905) 882-7045

               - and -

          Glyn Hotz (hotz@sympatico.ca)
          Barrister & Solicitor
          Phone: (416) 785-7883


CENTENE CORP: Mo. Court Junks Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action against Centene Corp.
are appealing the dismissal of the lawsuit, which was filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
according to its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The consolidated class action dismissed by the Court was
originally two separate class actions filed in July 2006 and
August 2006, respectively.  Both class actions were filed
against the company and certain of its officers and directors,
one in July, and one in August.  Both were filed on behalf of
purchases of the company common stock from June 21, 2006,
through July 17, 2006.

The suits allege that the company and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false statements prior to the announcement
of the company's fiscal 2006-second quarter results.  According
to the suits, these allegedly materially false statements had
the effect of artificially inflating the price of the company's
common stock, which subsequently dropped after the issuance of a
press release announcing the company's preliminary fiscal 2006-
second quarter earnings and revised guidance.  

The suits were consolidated on Nov. 2, 2006, and an amended
consolidated complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri in January 2007.

The consolidated class action alleges, on behalf of purchasers
of the company's common stock from April 25, 2006, through
July 17, 2006, that the company and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false statements prior to the announcement of the
company's fiscal 2006 second quarter results.  According to
suit, these allegedly materially false statements had
artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock,
which subsequently dropped after the issuance of a press release
announcing its preliminary fiscal 2006-second quarter earnings
and revised guidance.

At the company's request, the court dismissed the Consolidated
Lawsuit on June 29, 2007.  However, the plaintiffs have appealed
the dismissal order, and briefing on the appeal has been
completed.  Oral argument on the appeal has not yet been held.  
The company anticipates receiving a decision on the appeal
within 2008.

The suit is "Larry Elam, et al. v. Centene Corp., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-1142," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Judge Catherine D. Perry
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jill S. Abrams, Esq. (jabrams@abbeyspanier.com)
          Abbey & Gardy
          212 E. 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-889-3700

               - and -  

          Joe D. Jacobson, Esq. (jacobson@stlouislaw.com)
          Green & Jacobson, P.C.
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 700
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-862-6800
          Fax: 314-862-1606

Representing the defendants are:

          Jason M. Bohm, Esq. (jbohm@sidley.com)
          Sidley & Austin
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-853-0526
          Fax: 312-853-7036

               - and -

          Edwin L. Noel, Esq. (enoel@armstrongteasdale.com)
          Armstrong Teasdale, LLP
          One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600
          St. Louis, MO 63102-2740
          Phone: 314-621-5070
          Fax: 314-621-5065


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit Over Buyout Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
A stockholder class action lawsuit was filed this month against
Children's Place Retail Stores Inc. and its board members over a
recent offer by its former chief executive officer, Ezra Dabah,
to buy the company, Reuters notes.

The lawsuit claims that the price of Mr. Dabah's recent offer
was unfair and timed to take advantage of a temporarily
depressed market price of the company's stock, Reuters notes,
citing a Children's Place filing with the Securities & Exchange
Commission.

The Reuters report recounts that on Feb. 7, 2008, Mr. Dabah said
he was confident he could make a bid to buy the children's
apparel company for $24 a share, a 35% premium to the shares at
that time.  Mr. Dabah's letter to the company prompted a 20%
rise in its shares, which are down 64% as of the Feb. 27 closing
since January 2007.

Mr. Dabah also said that private equity firm Golden Gate Capital
had shown interest in becoming a potential participant in the
deal.

Reuters explains that Mr. Dabah, who owns 17.2% of the company's
shares, resigned in September 2007 after an internal
investigation found that he had not complied with the company's
securities-trading policies.

Children's Place told Reuters that the lawsuit, filed with the
Superior Court of New Jersey, claimed that any forthcoming
approval by the board of the acquisition by Mr. Dabah would
constitute unfair dealing.  The complaint seeks to permanently
enjoin Children's Place from approving the acquisition.  
Children's Place said it "intends to contest the allegations and
the claims made in this complaint."

Secaucus, N.J.-based The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. is
a specialty retailer of children's merchandise under its
proprietary, The Children's Place and licensed Disney Store
brand names.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Del. Suit Over Foreclosure Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was filed against Countrywide Financial Corp.,
asserting that the company has charged "inflated, unverifiable
or false" fees in foreclosure actions that threaten hundreds of
thousands of homeowners, the Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit, filed on Monday with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, accuses Countrywide Financial of
unjustly profiting from inflated fees charged to homeowners
whose loans were delinquent or in foreclosure to compensate for
huge subprime loan losses, Reuters relates.  The lawsuit seeks
class-action status.

The suit was filed by New Jersey plaintiff Gregory O'Gara.  AP
relates that Mr. O'Gara's mother, Tamara Portnick, died after an
illness during which she missed some payments on her Boynton
Beach, Fla. Home.  Mr. O'Gara called Countrywide while clearing
up his mother's estate and was told how much he would have to
pay to bring the mortgage up to date.  Mr. O'Gara said that
investigation showed "Countrywide had done virtually nothing" to
justify the extra charges it imposed on the deceased woman's
estate.

The lawsuit, Reuters says, comes amid scrutiny by federal and
state law enforcement agencies, including the Office of the U.S.
Trustee and the Florida attorney general, of Countrywide's loan
servicing practices.  Reuters notes that Countrywide is
currently facing numerous lawsuits by investors contending that
the company issued false and misleading statements to inflate
its share price, and at least one other action by homeowners
claiming it conducted false appraisals to artificially drive up
faltering home prices.

While Countrywide mortgage agreements allow it to charge
delinquent homeowners for the costs of bringing their loans
current, they do not allow the lender to tack on "excessive,
unverified and unreasonable costs, fees and expenses," the
lawsuit states.

Moreover, "[t]he mortgage note says the lender shall be 'paid
back' -- those are the critical words, 'paid back' -- for its
costs of enforcement, so you would think that the borrower would
have to reimburse their actual out-of-pocket expenses," said
Jeffrey Norton, Esq., of Harwood Feffer in New York, one of the
attorneys who filed the suit.  "We're alleging padded attorney
fees, charges for appraisals that never happened, all kinds of
made-up fees," Mr. Norton added.

The lawsuit asserts that Countrywide frequently charges $300 to
$500 for appraisals that are not done at all, or that are mere
"drive-by" inspections by appraisers who do not even stop their
cars when passing mortgaged properties.  Countrywide has $300 to
$500 "flat-fee" arrangements with law firms that handle
foreclosures, the lawsuit adds.  Yet it hits homeowners with
legal bills of $1,200 to $2,000.

Mr. Norton wrote that Countrywide's mortgage is a contract that
entitles it to recoup its costs if the loan starts to go south.
When Countrywide charges more than it costs to enforce the loan,
that's a breach of the contract, according to the complaint.

"The law firms are making a bundle," Mr. Norton contended.  
"They frequently have a few attorneys who can go to court and a
fleet of law clerks or paralegals who fill out forms.  The law
firms are probably the biggest beneficiaries of this wave of
foreclosures."

According to AP, if certified as a class action, the suit could
force Countrywide to prove the extra charges it added in
"enforcement actions," from collection activities to
foreclosure, were real, or give the money back to hundreds of
thousands of homeowners.

With mortgage defaults at record levels and expected to rise, AP  
writes, the case is one that will be closely watched by the law
firms and others that are poised to profit from foreclosures
that analysts predict will affect millions of homeowners in the
coming years.

The plaintiff is represented by:

         Jeffrey Norton, Esq. (jnorton@hfesq.com)
         Harwood Feffer
         488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
         New York, New York 10022
         Phone: (877) 935-7400


DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. still faces several lawsuits that
accuse the company of engaging in a conspiracy to violate
antitrust laws in relation to the sale of Trubyte teeth or
products containing Trubyte teeth.

Subsequent to the Department of Justice's filing of a complaint
in 1999, several private party class actions were filed based on
allegations similar to those in the Department of Justice case,
on behalf of dental laboratories, and denture patients in
seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products
containing Trubyte teeth.

These cases were transferred to the United States District Court
in Wilmington, Delaware.  The private party suits seek damages
in an unspecified amount.  

At the Company's behest, the Court declared the lack of standing
of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue damage
claims.  The plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this
decision to the Third Circuit and the Court largely upheld the
decision of the District Court in dismissing the plaintiffs'
damages claims against DENTSPLY, with the exception of allowing
the plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a theory of
resale price maintenance between the Company and its tooth
dealers.

The plaintiffs' also asked the United States Supreme Court to
review the Third Circuit's decision, but the request was denied.

The plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed an amended complaint
asserting that DENTSPLY and its tooth dealers, and the dealers
among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the
antitrust laws.  Dentsply and the dealers have filed motions to
dismiss the plaintiffs' new claims, except for the resale price
maintenance claims.  

Additionally, manufacturers of two competitive tooth lines and a
dealer, as a putative class action, have filed separate actions
seeking damages alleged to have been incurred as a result of the
Company's tooth distribution practice found to be a violation of
the antitrust law.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a   
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.

    
DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International, Inc., continues to face a purported
class action alleging that the company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic
scalers was sold in breach of contract and warranty.  

The company allegedly misrepresented the potential uses of the
product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water.

On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, D.D.S., and Robert Jaffin,
D.D.S., filed a complaint against the company wih the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for Cavitron
scalers and asserts putative class action claims on behalf of
dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs have requested class certification.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
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 "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge R. Barclay
Surrick presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

        Alan Klein, Esq. (aklein@duanemorris.com)
        Duane Morris LLP
        30 South 17th St.
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
        Phone: 215-979-1000
        Fax: 215-979-1020

Representing the defendants is:

        Richard G. Placey (rplacey@mmwr.com)
        Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP
        123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor
        Philadelphia, PA 19109
        Phone: 215-772-7424
        Fax: 215-772-7620


DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal
with regards to the decertification of a purported class action
that accuses DENTSPLY International, Inc., of misrepresenting
its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S., and Richard Nathan,
D.D.S., filed a class action in San Francisco County,
California.   

The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of
the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who
have purchased it for use in oral surgery.  The court certified
the case as a class action on June 15, 2006, with respect to the
breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims.  

The class is defined as California dental professionals who
purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients.

The company filed a motion for decertification of the class,
which was granted.  The plaintiffs have appealed the
decertification of the class to the California Court of Appeals.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a   
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


EXXON MOBIL: Sup. Ct. Questions Lawyers on Exxon Valdez Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court justices questioned on Feb. 27, 2008, the
lawyers for Exxon Mobil Corp. and nearly 33,000 victims of the
massive oil spill in Alaska nearly 19 years ago, various reports
say.

According to Mercury News, the Supreme Court seemed inclined to
let Exxon Mobil off the hook for some of the amount the company
was ordered to pay as punishment for the Exxon Valdez disaster.  
The justices, the report notes, made only one passing reference
to Exxon Mobil's record profits.

Mercury News explains that the $2.5-billion award represents
less than three weeks' worth of Exxon profit, which was
$11.7 billion in the last three months of 2007.

U.S. News recounts that Exxon Mobil is fighting a lower court's
decision that it should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages for
the largest oil spill in U.S. waters.  

              Lawyers Face Questioning by Justices

Justice Stephen Breyer, U.S. News notes, asked Exxon Mobil
lawyer Walter Dellinger, Esq., how he answered those who note
the company's ample resources to pay the judgment.  Mr.
Dellinger maintained that the $3.5-billion that Exxon Mobil has
already spent -- including cleanup and state and federal fines
for environmental damages, plus the $15,000-per-person
compensation to victims -- was punishment enough.

"That amount is enough to deter anyone from anything," Mr.
Dellinger said.  "This was a tragic and terrible event, and one
for which the company paid dearly."

Mercury News says that Justice Breyer, who has voted to overturn
damages awards, said he worried how the court's decision in this
case would play in other maritime accidents.  "This is a very
dramatic accident. It involves oil spills, and they cause an
enormous amount of trouble . . . But there are accidents every
day, and ships are filled with accidents like automobiles in
other places.  And there are all kinds of things that go wrong .
. . What principles do you have to suggest, if any, for creating
a fair system that isn't just arbitrary?" Justice Breyer said.

The New York Times relates that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also
subjected Mr. Dellinger to a rapid-fire series of questions
about his central arguments.  Justice Ginsburg suggested at one
point that the jury that heard the case would have been
justified in concluding that Exxon was a "grave wrongdoer"
itself, not just vicariously through the negligence of the
ship's captain, Joseph J. Hazelwood, who company officials left
in charge of the ship despite having been informed that he was
an alcoholic who had resumed drinking.

NY Times relates that one of Exxon's arguments on appeal is that
the Supreme Court's precedents foreclose awarding punitive
damages against a ship's owner for the misdeeds of the captain.
Mr. Dellinger told the justices that the appeals court, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "erred in
overturning a maritime-law rule that has been settled for 200
years," under which the owner can be liable only for actions
that it directed, ratified or participated in.

However, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Esq., told
the justices that the question of precedent was "more or less an
open issue before you today."  Mr. Fisher said that "you have a
smattering of a few old cases that lean in different
directions."

The question of whether precedent dictated an outcome for one
side or the other appeared to be a draw, NY Times says.

NY Times writes that Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin
Scalia seemed sympathetic to Exxon.  At one point, the report
relates, when Mr. Fisher said Exxon should not benefit from a
particular argument because the company had not raised it,
Justice Scalia said, "They don't have to make every tiny little
argument."

Justices Kennedy and David Souter, according to Mercury News,
suggested that perhaps a reasonable number would be twice the
amount of money the company has paid to compensate victims for
economic losses, about $500 million.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also appeared sympathetic to
Exxon, NY Times observes.  "I don't see what more a corporation
can do" to protect itself from employees who violate explicit
company policy, like a no-drinking rule, he told Mr. Fisher.

When the justices agreed in October to hear Exxon's appeal, they
limited their review to questions of maritime law and excluded a
more general question about the constitutionality of the
punitive damage award, NY Times points out.  Consequently, the
eventual decision is not likely to affect punitive damages in
non-maritime cases.

NY Times points out that with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. not
participating -- as a result of his ownership of Exxon Mobil
stock -- the possibility of a 4-to-4 tie was clearly present. A
tie, the report explains, would affirm the appeals court's
judgment in favor of a class of 32,000 fishermen and business
ownerswho stand to receive about $75,000 each from the
$2.5-billion award.  

NY Times further observes that "it was abundantly clear to
everyone in the crowded courtroom that if the plaintiffs could
just hold on to four votes, they would win the case."

Financial Times, on the other hand, says that several justices
appeared "troubled by the size of the award in the case, which
has dragged on for nearly 20 years.  But it was not clear
whether a majority of the closely divided court would be able to
agree on a way to reduce the damages -- though one justice
mentioned trimming the award to about $1 billion."

The case is "Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, Case No. 07-219"

                        Case Background

U.S. News recalls that on March 24, 1989, the supertanker Exxon
Valdez ran aground and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil
into Prince William Sound.  Wind and waves spread oil across 600
miles of coast and 10,000 square miles of marine ecosystem --
forever changing the lives of the Native Alaskans and fishermen
who relied on the sea.  Among 32,000 of the fishermen took Exxon
Mobile to court.

Exxon Mobile, according to Mercury News, has vigorously fought
to knock down or erase the punitive damages verdict by a jury in
Alaska in 1994 for the accident.  The verdict has been cut in
half once by a federal appeals court.

The class-action suit is "Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc. et al. v. Exxon
Corp. et al. (3:89-cv-00095-HRH)," filed with the U.S. District
Court of Alaska under Judge H. Russel Holland.

Representing the defendants are:  

          John F. Clough, III, Esq.
          Clough & Associates
          POB 211187
          Auke Bay, AK 99821
          Phone: 907-790-1912
          Fax: 907-790-1913

               -  and  -

          Douglas Serdahely, Esq. (dserdahely@pattonboggs.com)
          Patton Boggs LLP
          601 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Phone: 907-263-6300
          Fax: 907-263-6345

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Jeffrey D. Fisher, Esq. (jefffisher@dwt.com)
          Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
          Suite 2200
          1201 Third Avenue
          Seattle, Washington 98101-3045
          Phone: (206) 622-3150
          Fax: (206) 757-7700

          Charles W. Coe, Esq. (charlielaw@gci.net)
          Law Office of Charles W. Coe
          805 W 3rd Avenue, #10
          Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S.
          Phone: 907-276-6173
          Fax: 907-279-1884

               -  and  -

          Lloyd B. Miller, Esq. (lloyd@sonosky.net)
          Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP
          900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700
          Anchorage, AK 99501, U.S.
          Phone: 907-258-6377
          Fax: 907-272-8332  
    

FARMERS & MERCHANTS: Tells Effectiveness of Investor Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach (OTCBB:FMBL) announced
the effectiveness of the settlement of the class action and
derivative litigation brought by shareholder Marcus D. Walker
against certain present and former officers and directors of the
Bank and the Bank as a nominal defendant.

On December 6, 2007, the Bank's shareholders approved a proposal
authorizing the Bank to repurchase shares of the Bank's common
stock, which approval was also a condition to the effectiveness
of the proposed Settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20,
2007).

As part of the settlement, the Bank would commence a tender
offer after the effective date of the proposed settlement
whereby the Bank would offer to purchase up to 14,720 shares of
its common stock at a price of $7,300 per share.

If the proposed Tender Offer does not proceed or close for any
reason other than as a result of the termination of the
settlement, then the Bank would instead commit to make
distributions to its shareholders in the aggregate amount of
$86,000,000 (including the amounts required to be used by the
Bank to repurchase shares from Marcus D. Walker and his related
and affiliated parties pursuant to the Standstill Agreement).

Pursuant to the Settlement, the litigation was dismissed with
prejudice, and the Bank and the other defendants were released
from any and all claims that were or could have been asserted in
the litigation.

As previously announced, plaintiff Marcus D. Walker, members of
his immediate family, and certain of his related and affiliated
parties entered into a Standstill Agreement whereby they agreed
to sell to the Bank all of their 5,827 shares of Bank common
stock.

This repurchase was completed earlier and effectively reduced
the number of the Bank's issued and outstanding shares of common
stock to 145,648 as of February 28, 2008.

Also pursuant to the Settlement, Roger Molvar and Frank O'Bryan
each resigned as directors of the Bank.

Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach -- http://www.fmb.com--   
offers personal and business banking services in California. It
provides business banking products and services, such as
business checking accounts, money market accounts, investment
accounts, merchant card services, small business loans, real
estate and construction loans, commercial loans, church and
nonprofit loans; and personal banking services, including
personal checking accounts, personal money market accounts,
personal savings accounts, and personal and home loans. The bank
operates 20 branches in Long Beach and Orange County.

Farmers & Merchants Bank was founded in 1907 and is based in
Long Beach, California.


GUAM: Gov't. Retirees to Receive $9 million More in COLA Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Retirees of the government of Guam pursuing a class action for
denied cost-of-living (COLA) increases will get $9 million in
promissory note from the proceeds of the sale of GTA to Teleguam
Holdings, the Pacific News Center reports.

The suit was filed in 1993 by government retirees arguing they  
have been denied cost-of-living increases based on inflation as  
required by a law that was in effect between 1988 and 1995.   

Judge Janet Weeks certified the suit as a class action on behalf  
of all Guam retirees in August 1994.  In March 2005, Superior
Court of Guam Judge Arthur Barcinas takes over the case.

In December 2005, the retirees' attorney renews motion for a  
court order stating the COLA must be paid.  In April 2006, Judge  
Barcinas rules in retirees' favor.

In May 2006, the government's attorneys asked the court to  
reconsider decisions made in the case.  The parties were in  
arguments regarding the base year for the computation of  
payments.

The government's legal adviser, which drafted a proposed order  
for the award, said it is 1990.  On the other hand, the  
retirees' attorney said it should be 1988 as ordered by the  
court.

Judge Barcinas, in an oral ruling, determined that the formula  
for most of the payout would be based on the consumer price  
index of 1988.  The lawsuit was filed in 1993 and based on a law  
that was implemented in 1988 but repealed in 1995.

Oct. 6, 2006, Judge Barcinas rejects most of the governor's  
arguments and orders that eligible retirees be paid the amount  
calculated by the Retirement Fund, which he said was $91  
million, minus the $32 million retirees were paid in cost-of-
living allowances during the years in question.

On Nov. 19, Judge Barcinas finally made a decision to order a  
$123.5 million payout to retirees (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 6, 2006).

According to the report, the retirees were supposed to get $10
million in promissory note but COLA class Attorney Mike Phillips
announced the Bank of Guam intends to purchase the note for $9
million before it matures.

The note will be worth $15 million, including interest, by 2013.
Mr. Phillips said the Attorney General's Office will finalize
the necessary paperwork and anticipates this to be completed
soon.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Courts Consider Approving MOU Over $10.6B Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
A memorandum of understanding to settle lawsuits against
Huntsman Corp. that seek to stop the pending $10.6-billion
acquisition by private-equity company Apollo Management LP, has
yet to receive approval from the courts.

On July 12, 2007, Hunstman agreed to be acquired by private-
equity firm Apollo Management for $28 a share, or $10.6 billion,
including debt.  Huntsman will be combined with Apollo's Hexion
Specialty Chemicals Inc. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 25, 2007)

From July 5 to July 13, 2007, four shareholder class-action
complaints were filed against the Company and its directors
alleging breaches of fiduciary duty over the deal.

Three actions were filed with the Court of Chancery for the
State of Delaware:

       -- "Cohen v. Archibald, et al., No. 3070," (filed July 5,
          2007);

       -- "Augenstein v. Archibald, et al., No. 3076," (filed
          July 9, 2007);" and

       -- "Murphy v. Huntsman, et al., No. 3094," (filed July
          13, 2007).

The fourth action, entitled, "Schwoegler v. Huntsman Corp., et
al., Cause No. 07-07-06993-CV," was filed with the 9th Judicial
District Court of Montgomery County, Texas on July 6, 2007.

As subsequently amended, these lawsuits together allege that we
and our directors breached fiduciary duties to the stockholders
by, among other things, engaging in an unfair sales process,
approving an unfair price per share for the Merger with Hexion,
and making inadequate disclosures to stockholders, and that
Basell, Hexion, and MatlinPatterson entities aided and abetted
these breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuits sought to enjoin
the stockholder vote on the Merger.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware and
Texas actions to settle these four lawsuits.  

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 22,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- manufactures  
chemical products and formulations that are marketed in more
than 100 countries to a group of consumer and industrial
customers.


HUNTSMAN INT'L: Still Faces Urethane Antitrust Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman International, LLC, and certain other firms remain
defendants in putative antitrust class actions in Canada,
alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether polyols
industries.

The suits were filed with the Superior Court of Justice in
Ontario, Canada, on May 5, 2006, and with the Superior Court in
Quebec, Canada, on May 17, 2006.  

The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 22,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Huntsman International, LLC -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is   
engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemical products.  The
company manufactures these products at facilities located in
North America, Europe, Asia and Africa, and these products are
sold throughout the world. The company's products are divided
into two categories differentiated and commodity chemicals.  
Huntsman International has four segments: Polyurethanes,
Performance Products, Pigments and Base Chemicals.  Its
Polyurethanes and Performance products businesses mainly produce
differentiated products, and its Pigments and Base Chemicals
businesses mainly produce commodity chemicals.


HUNTSMAN INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Urethane Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated antitrust class action
filed against Huntsman International, LLC, and several other
defendants for alleged conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene
diphenyl diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether
polyols industries.

The suits are now consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols Cases"
in multidistrict litigation known as "In re Urethane Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," by
virtue of an initial order transferring and consolidating cases
filed Aug. 23, 2004.  The case is currently pending with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

Other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases" are
Bayer, BASF, Dow, and Lyondell.  Bayer recently announced that
it entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs,
which is subject to approval by the court.  Class certification
discovery is underway in these consolidated cases.

The company reported no development in the case at its 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 Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616,
Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Nunzio Alioto, Esq. (malioto@tatp.com)
         Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP
         2280 Union Street
         San Francisco, CA 94123
         Phone: 415-563-7200
         Fax: 415-346-0679

              - and -

         Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. (artlaw@alltel.net)
         Arthur N. Bailey & Associates
         111 West Second Street, Suite 4500
         Jamestown, NY 14701
         Phone: 716-664-2967
         Fax: 716-664-2983

Representing the defendants are:

         Floyd R. Finch, Jr., Esq. (ffinch@blackwellsanders.com)
         Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, LLP
         4801 Main Street, Ste. 1000, P.O. Box 219777
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Phone: 816-983-8128
         Fax: 816-983-8080

              - and -

         James S. Jardine, Esq. (jjardine@rqn.com)
         Ray, Quinney & Nebeker
         36 South State Street, Suite 1400
         Salt Lake City, UT 84111
         Phone: 801-323-3337
         Fax: 801-532-7543

    
LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Denies Motion in Manganese Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied
a motion that sought to certify a class in one of several
lawsuits involving claims of manganese-induced illness that
names Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as one of the defendants,
according to its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Up to eight class actions seeking medical monitoring have been
filed in state courts, six of which have been removed and
transferred to the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

In addition, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
seeking medical monitoring on behalf of current and former
welders in eight states, including three states covered by the
single-state class actions, with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  

This case was also transferred to the MDL Court in Ohio.  

A motion to certify a medical monitoring class related to the
case was denied on Sept. 14, 2007.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.lincolnelectric.com/-- is a full-line manufacturer  
and reseller of welding and cutting products. Welding products
include welding power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic
welding packages, fume extraction equipment, consumable
electrodes and fluxes.  The Company's welding product offering
also includes regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding
and cutting.  


MCDONALD'S CORP: Continues to Face Obesity Litigation in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corp. continues to face a purported class action  
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York by minors who became obese or developed other adverse
health conditions allegedly from eating the company's products,
according to its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit was filed in behalf of Ashley Pelman, a child under the
age of 18 years, by her mother and natural guardian, Roberta
Pelman, and in behalf of Jazlen Bradley, a child under the age
of 18 years, by her father and natural guardian, Israel Bradley.

On or about Feb. 17, 2003, the two minors, by their parents and
guardians, filed an amended complaint against the company.  The
suit is seeking class-action status on behalf of individuals in
New York under the age of 18 (and their parents and/or
guardians), who became obese or developed other adverse health
conditions allegedly from eating the company's products.  

On Sept. 3, 2003, the court dismissed all counts of the
complaint with prejudice.  

On Jan. 25, 2005, following an appeal by the plaintiffs, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit Court vacated the
court's decision to dismiss alleged violations of Section 349 of
the New York Consumer Protection Act as set forth in Counts I-
III of the amended complaint.  

On Dec. 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint.  In this complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the
company:

      -- engaged in a deceptive advertising campaign to be
         perceived to be less nutritionally detrimental-than-in-
         fact;

      -- failed adequately to disclose its use of certain
         additives and ingredients; and

      -- failed to provide nutritional information about its
         products.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages; an order
directing defendants to label their individual products
specifying the fat, salt, sugar, cholesterol and dietary
content; an order prohibiting marketing to certain individuals'
funding of an educational program to inform children and adults
of the dangers of eating certain foods' sold by defendants; and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is "Ashley Pelman, et al., v. McDonald's Corp., et al.,
02 Civ. 7821," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Robert W. Sweet presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Samuel Hirsch, Esq.
          Samuel Hirsch & Associates, P.C.,
          Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2418
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: (212) 947-3800
          Fax: (212) 947-9374
          e-mail: info@samuelhirschesq.com
          Web site: http://www.samuelhirschesq.com/
          
Representing the company are:

          Bruce Roger Braun, Esq. (bbraun@winston.com)
          Winston & Strawn LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 558-5600
          Fax: (312) 558-5700

          Theresa L.F. Levings, Esq.
          Badger & Levings, LLC
          1101 Walnut St., Suite 1207
          Kansas City, MI 64106
          e-mail: info@badgerlevings.com
          Web site: http://www.badgerlevings.com/

               - and -

          Thomas P. Battistoni, Esq.
          (tbattistoni@schiffhardin.com)
          Balber Pickard Battistoni Maldonado & Vandertuin, PC
          1370 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-4602
          Phone: (212) 246-2400


MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Ill. Suit Over French Fries, Hash Browns
---------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corp. faces a consolidated class action alleging
fraudulent use of gluten in its french fries and hash browns,
according to the Company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs have filed several complaints against the Company
(and in some instances its franchisee or a franchisee's
operating company), alleging that McDonald's misrepresented its
french fries and hash browns as free of wheat, gluten and milk,
when the french fries and hash browns allegedly contain
derivatives of wheat, gluten and milk.

Eight of the cases have been consolidated into one action that
seeks to form a national class of consumers, generally defined
as individuals who purchased McDonald's french fries and hash
browns and who have allergies or sensitivities to consumption of
wheat and dairy products.

The first case of this type, "Debra Moffatt v. McDonald's
Corporation, MDL Case No. 06-cv-4467," was filed on Feb. 17,
2006, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  

Currently, 14 cases, including Moffatt, have been transferred
and consolidated for pretrial purposes, and are pending as
multi-district litigation with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District court of Illinois.

The complaints include claims for violation of state consumer
fraud acts, unfair competition or deceptive trade practices
acts, strict liability, failure to warn, negligence, breach of
express and implied warranties, fraud and fraudulent
concealment, negligent misrepresentation and concealment, unjust
enrichment, and false advertising.

They seek to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, and attorneys'
fees.

The suit is "In Re: McDonald's French Fries Litigation, Case No.
1:06-cv-04467," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Elaine E. Bucklo presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Larry Daniel Drury, Esq. (ldrurylaw@aol.com)
          Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
          205 West Randolph, Suite 1430
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 346-7950

               - and -

          Francis Richard Greene, Esq. (fgreene@edcombs.com)
          Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
          120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 739-4200

Representing the company is:

          Michael A. Pope, Esq. (mpope@mwe.com)
          McDermott, Will & Emery LLP
          227 West Monroe Street #4400
          Chicago, IL 60606-5096
          Phone: (312) 372-2000


NBC UNIVERSAL: Faces Suit Over 99-Cent Charge in Online Game
------------------------------------------------------------
NBC Universal and the producer of Howie Mandel's hit program,
"Deal or No Deal," is facing a lawsuit filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
a proposed class of people who participated in the Lucky Case
Game, which is an interactive feature of the show, according to
the Daily Report.  

Daily Report says that the Supreme Court of Georgia was asked to
interpret Georgia law for a federal judge overseeing the case,
which was filed by Columbus lawyers -- Buchanan & Land and
Daughtery, Crawford, Fuller & Brown.  The current version of the
law, found at O.C.G.A. § 13-8-3, is at the center of the case.

The plaintiffs' lawyers say that the game -- in which viewers,
like the contestants on the show, try to pick a lucky suitcase
-- ran afoul of Georgia law because participants were charged 99
cents to play through their cell phones.

NBC Universal and the other defendants argue that they are not
obligated to return the 99 cent fees because viewers could play
for free on the Internet.  They also contend that they were not
winners in a gambling contract.  The winners, they say, were the
participants who picked the right suitcase and were then chosen
from a random drawing to get at least $10,000.

Daily Report notes that, according to NBC's Web site, The Lucky
Case Game, is "taking a short break."

The federal judge overseeing the case, Senior Judge William C.
O'Kelley, has suggested that "probably" tens of millions of
dollars are at stake in the case.

The case, Daily Report recounts, was initiated by Forsyth County
residents Michael and Michele Hardin, who say that they are
regular viewers of "Deal or No Deal" and have played the Lucky
Case Game multiple times.  The Hardins want to represent a class
of Georgians who played the game from Georgia cell phone
numbers, as well as those who played other games promoted on
NBC.

The Hardins allege that there are similar legal problems with
games that have been televised as part of NBC's "1 vs. 100" game
show, "America's Got Talent" and the Kentucky Derby and
Preakness Stakes horse races.

The Hardins are relying on O.C.G.A. § 13-8-3.  Along with
voiding gambling contracts, the said law provides that "[m]oney
paid or property delivered upon a gambling consideration may be
recovered from the winner by the loser by institution of an
action for the same within six months after the loss."  Later
suits also can recover money but have to share the proceeds with
county education funds.

A lottery is considered gambling under Georgia law, the
plaintiffs stated in their filings, and only the state can
operate one.  The Lucky Case Game is a lottery because people
pay money -- the 99 cents text message fee -- for a chance to
win a bigger prize, they say.

"If NBC had not charged Georgians premium text message charges
to play," explained one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, J. Clay
Fuller, Esq., "there would have been no lawsuit."

A set of similar cases challenging the Lucky Case Game and other
NBC games is pending before a California federal judge, Daily
Report notes.  Most of the named plaintiffs in those cases also
are Georgia residents, and Atlanta lawyers William A. Pannell,
Esq., and Kevin T. Moore, Esq., are among the plaintiffs'
counsel team that includes lawyers at Milberg Weiss' Los Angeles
office.

NBC Universal show producer Endemol USA and game administrator
VeriSign moved to dismiss the suit pending before Judge O'Kelley
in August 2007.  Represented by lawyers at King & Spalding in
Atlanta and Arnold & Porter in Washington, NBC cited several
problems with the plaintiffs' theory.

In considering the dismissal motion, Judge O'Kelley indicated
that he wasn't ready to buy the defendants' argument that the
game was just an advertising promotion and therefore exempt from
the state law's definition of a lottery.  He noted that the
games likely generate millions in revenue.

Judge O'Kelley however directed a "looming, unresolved question"
to the state high court – whether the loser of an illegal
lottery can sue to recover his losses.  Two Georgia Court of
Appeals decisions from the 1940s concluded that the statute
under which plaintiffs are suing did not apply to lotteries,
Judge O'Kelley noted, but the statute since has been revised.  
He also asked the state Supreme Court to look at the question of
whether the defendants can be considered "winners" of the
Lucky Case Game under the civil recovery statute.

NBC says in its appellate brief that the changes to the civil
recovery statute do not help the plaintiffs.  Moreover, the
defendants argue, the game was not gambling because the
defendants took no risk—regardless of the outcome, they
had to award the prize at a predetermined amount.  They say
they're not the "winners," either.  The defendants say in their
brief that "the true 'winners' of the Lucky Case Game received
prizes every time that the promotion was aired."

The plaintiffs counter that NBC and the other defendants are the
winners because "[w]here Defendants constructed a game to make
huge profits by retaining money paid to play, they have
obtained, earned and won that money."

The case at the state Supreme Court is "Hardin v. NBC Universal,
No. S08Q0323."

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerry A. Buchanan, Esq. (jab@buchananland.com)
          Buchanan & Land
          Post Office Box 2848
          1425 Wynnton Road
          Columbus, Georgia 31902
          Phone: (706) 323-2848
          Fax: (706) 323-4242

               - and -

          J. Clay Fuller, Esq. (clay@dcfblaw.com)
          Daughtery, Crawford, Fuller & Brown
          1430 Wynnton Road
          P.O. Box 1118
          Columbus, GA 31902
          Phone: (706) 320-9646

The defendants are represented by:

          L. Joseph Loveland Jr., Esq. (jloveland@kslaw.com)
          King & Spalding
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Phone: (404) 572-4783
          Fax: (404) 572-5100


NEVADA: Las Vegas Clinic Faces Suit Over Hepatitis C Spread
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada is facing a class action
suit over alleged spreading of hepatitis C, the Associated Press
reports.

The suit, filed by patient Charles Anthony Rader, Jr., alleges
gross negligence and is seeking punitive damages.

According to the report, Southern Nevada health officials say
six cases of Hepatitis C have been traced to the clinic.  Nearly
40,000 patients are being notified they too may have been
exposed.  The clinic had been reusing syringes and vials of
medication for nearly four years, the report contends.

Mr. Rader claims he could have been exposed to Hepatitis and HIV
through unsafe practices at the center, where he received
treatment at that time.


PECOWARE INC: Recalls Kids' Metal Jewelry for Lead Exposure Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pecoware Co. Inc., of Chino, Calif., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
2,900 children's metal necklaces.

The company said the children's necklaces contain high levels of
lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled necklaces include a cat with silver and pink
rhinestones, a heart and lock with pink rhinestones, a silver
colored heart with a rhinestone crown, and a silver colored lock
and key.  The necklaces hang from silver colored chains.

These recalled children's jewelry were manufactured in china and
were being sold at department and specialty stores nationwide
from January 2006 through July 2007 (cat necklace), and from
July 2007 through November 2007 (heart, heart and key, and lock
and key necklaces) for about $13.

Picture of the recalled children's jewelry is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08200.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled necklaces
away from children and contact Pecoware for instructions on
returning the necklaces for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Pecoware at (800) 456-7326
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.pecoware.com


QUEST SOFTWARE: To See Dismissal of CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Software, Inc., will be seeking for the dismissal of the
second amended complaint in a securities fraud class action
filed against it, which case remains pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit, filed in October 2006, alleges that Quest Software,
Inc., and certain of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose and concealing
through various false statements and omissions that they did not
properly account for issuing stock option grants at prices which
were below fair market value on the actual grant date.

Consequently, the price of Quest stock was artificially inflated
during the period starting Nov. 9, 2001, through July 3, 2006.

In January 2007, the Court appointed Middlesex Retirement System
as lead class plaintiff and entered a stipulated order
establishing a pleading schedule for the plaintiffs' first
amended complaint and the defendants' response.  The first
amended class action complaint was filed with the Court in March
2007.

In October 2007, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
under Section 10(b) with respect to Michael Lambert, the
Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and the plaintiffs'
claims under Section 20(a) with respect to the Company and to
Doug Garn, the Company's president, which claims have been
dismissed without prejudice.  The Court also held in abeyance
the plaintiffs' claims under Section 20A pending their filing of
an amended complaint due Dec. 1, 2007.

Otherwise, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as
it related to the Company and other individual defendants.  

Subsequently, the Company and the individual defendants have
filed a motion with the U.S. District Court requesting
certification of the Court's order for interlocutory appellate
review.  This request was denied bu the court.

The plaintiff then filed a second amended class action complaint
in February 2008.  Discovery proceeding remains stayed pending
the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended class action
complaint, which is expected to be filed in March 2008,
according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest Software Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-06863-DOC-RNB," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
David O. Carter presiding.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Patricia I. Avery, Esq. (pavery@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper
          845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-451-9619

               - and -

          Blake M. Harper, Esq. (bmh@hulettharper.com)
          Hulett Harper Stewart
          550 West C Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-338-1133

Representing the defendants are:

          Koji F. Fukumura, Esq. (kfukumura@cooley.com)
          Cooley Godward Kronish
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Phone: 858-550-6000

               - and -

          Richard J. Cutler, Esq. (richard.cutler@dechert.com)
          AUSA - Office of US Attorney
          411 W 4th St., Ste. 8000
          Santa Ana, CA 92701-4599
          Phone: 714-338-3500


RIVERSIDE PULBISHING: Recalls Cards Failing Lead Paint Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Riverside Publishing Co., of Rolling Meadows, Ill., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 5,300 Memory Testing Cards (sold as part of
educational testing kits).

The company said the recall involves the Universal Nonverbal
Intelligence Test-Symbolic Memory Cards. The memory testing
cards are part of a kit used to test children's physical and
mental abilities.  They are white with green figures, measure 1"
x 1", and were sold as part of a kit (model number 922782), or
were sold in packages of 10 cards (model number 922775).  The
model numbers are located on the packaging.

These recalled memory cards were made in China and were being
sold by Riverside Publishing to testing facilities and
administrators nationwide from January 2003 through November
2007 for about $550.

Picture of the recalled memory cards is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08546.jpg

Purchasers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
memory cards and return them to Riverside Publishing for free
replacement cards.  The firm is contacting purchasers directly.

For additional information, contact Riverside Publishing at
(800) 323-9540 between 8:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. CT, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.riverpub.com


SANDISK CORP: CA Supreme Court Asked to Review "Vroegh" Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court is being asked to review a decision
by the First District of the California Court of Appeal that
affirmed the final approval of a settlement in the matter,
"Willem Vroegh, et al. v. Dane Electric Corp. USA, et al.,"
which is a class action suit against SanDisk Corp., and a number
of other manufacturers of flash memory products.

The consumer class action was filed with the Superior Court of
the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco
on Feb. 20, 2004.  It alleged false advertising, unfair business
practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation
and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of flash
memory products, claimed that the defendants overstated the size
of the memory storage capabilities of such products.  It sought
restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified amount.

The parties have reached a settlement of the case, which
received final approval from the Court on Nov. 20, 2006.  

Four objectors to the settlement filed appeals of the Court's
final approval order.  However, on Nov. 30, 2007, the First
District of the California Court of Appeal affirmed in full the
trial court's judgment and final approval of the settlement.

The objectors then filed petitions for the Court of Appeal to
rehear the matter en banc, which petitions were denied on
Dec. 21, 2007.  

The objectors have now filed petitions with the California
Supreme Court, currently pending under Case No. S159760, asking
the Supreme Court to review of the decision of the Court of
Appeal, 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. 30, 2007.

SanDisk Corp. -- http://www.sandisk.com/-- designs, develops,   
markets and manufactures products and solutions in a variety of
form factors using its flash memory, controller and firmware
technologies.


SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses Suit by msystems Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County dismissed
a consolidated class actions filed against SanDisk Corp. by
shareholders of msystems Ltd., a venture partner of the company,
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. 30, 2007.

The company and msystems each own 50% of U3, LLC -- an entity
established to develop and market a next generation platform for
universal serial bus flash drives.

On Aug. 7, 2006, two purported shareholder class and derivative
actions were filed with the Superior Court of California in
Santa Clara County, California.  They are:

       -- "Capovilla v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068760," and

       -- "Dashiell v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068759,"

In August 2006, two additional purported shareholder class and
derivative actions were filed:

       -- "Lopiccolo v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068946," and

       -- "Sachs v. SanDisk Corp., No. 1-06-CV-069534."

These four lawsuits were subsequently consolidated as "In re:
msystems Ltd. Shareholder Litigation, No. 106 CV 068759."  On
Oct. 27, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed that
supersedes the four original complaints.

The consolidated suit is brought by purported shareholders of
msystems.  It names as defendants the company and each of
msystems' directors, including its president and chief executive
officer, and its former chief financial officer (now its chief
operating officer), and names msystems as a nominal defendant.  
The lawsuit asserts purported class action and derivative
claims.

The alleged derivative claims assert, among other things, breach
of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, constructive fraud,
corporate waste, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement with
respect to past stock option grants.

The alleged class and derivative claims also assert claims for
breach of fiduciary duty by msystems' board, which the Company
is alleged to have aided an abetted, with respect to allegedly
inadequate consideration for the merger, and allegedly false or
misleading disclosures in proxy materials relating to the
merger.

The complaints seek, among other things, equitable relief,
including enjoining the proposed merger, and compensatory and
punitive damages.

In January 2008, the court granted, without prejudice, the
Company's and msystems' motion to dismiss.

SanDisk Corp. -- http://www.sandisk.com/-- designs, develops,  
markets and manufactures products and solutions in a variety of
form factors using its flash memory, controller and firmware
technologies.


SANDISK CORP: Faces Consolidated Flash Memory Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corp. faces a consolidated class action that is pending  
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled, "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Case No. C07-0086."

Between Aug. 31 and Dec. 14, 2007, the Company, along with a
number of other manufacturers of flash memory products, was sued
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, in eight purported class action complaints.

On Feb. 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated
into two complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one
on behalf of indirect purchasers, with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California in a purported class
action captioned, "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Case No. C07-0086."

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory products conspired to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in
violation of state and federal laws.

The lawsuits purport to be on behalf of purchasers of flash
memory between Jan. 1, 1999, through the present.  

The lawsuits seek an injunction, damages, restitution, fees,
costs, and disgorgement of profits, 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. 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case
No. C07-0086," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
          (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-398-8700
          Fax: 415-398-8704

          C. Donald Amamgbo, Esq. (Donald@Amamgbolaw.com)
          Amamgbo & Associates, APC
          7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Phone: 510-615-6000
          Fax: 510-615-6024

               - and -

          Robert M. Bramson, Esq. (rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com)
          Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0200
          Fax: 925-945-8792

Representing the company is:

          Amy Elise Keating, Esq. (amy.keating@bingham.com)
          Bingham McCutchen LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-393-2000 x2262
          Fax: 415-393-2286


SCANA ENERGY: Faces GA Suit Alleging Overcharged Natural Gas
------------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Energy Marketing, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint
filed on Feb. 26, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia alleging it overcharged for natural
gas and customer service in Georgia since March 2007, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of all individuals or
entities who during the period from march 2007 to the present
were Georgia residents and Legacy SCANA Customers who were
charged by SCANA a price for natural gas and customer service
charges that exceeded SCANA's published price effective at the
beginning  of their monthly billing cycles.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether SCANA unlawfully charged Legacy SCANA Customers
         prices for natural gas and customer service charges
         that exceeded SCANA's published price in effect at the
         beginning of such consumers' billing cycles in
         violation of OCGA Section 46-4-160(h) and Commission
         Rule 515-7-6-02(a)(5);

     (b) whether SCANA modified the methodology used to compute
         the price Legacy SCANA Customers paid for a natural gas
         that resulted in excessive payments by Legacy SCANA
         Customers;

     (c) whether SCANA failed to provide at least 25 days notice
         to Legacy SCANA Customers prior to the implementation
         of the new methodology in violation of Commission Rule
         515-7-6-01(a)(9);

     (d) whether the activities of SCANA served or could serve
         to mislead, deceive, or work a fraud upon plaintiffs
         and the class members in violation of OCGA Section 46-
         4-153(e);

     (e) whether SCANA violated plaintiffs and class members
         rights pursuant to the Consumers' Bill of Rights set
         forth in OCGA Section 46-4-151(b)(9)(A)-(I); and

     (f) whether plaintiffs and members of the class are
         entitled to an award of damages against SCANA, and, if
         so, in what amount.

The plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

     -- determining that the action is a proper class action and
        certifying an appropriate plaintiff class pursuant to
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- awarding all actual damages, exemplary damages, treble
        damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs against
        SCANA in an amount to be determined at trial; and

     -- granting such other relief as the court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is "David K. Weiskircher et al. v. SCANA Energy
Marketing, Inc., Case No. 1:08-CV-0640," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jason R. Doss, Esq.
          Samuel T. Brannan, Esq.
          Page Perry, LLC
          1040 Crown Pointe Parkway, Suite 1050
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone : (770) 673-0047
          Fax: (770) 673-0120


TJX COMPANIES: Privacy Breach Suit Deal Participants Notified
-------------------------------------------------------------
A notification program began in the United States, Canada, and
Puerto Rico, as ordered by the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, to alert people who made a
purchase or return to a TJX store about a proposed settlement
reached with The TJX Companies, Inc., and Fifth Third Bancorp in
a class action lawsuit against them about the computer system
intrusions into personal and financial information at TJX retail
stores.

In 2007, putative class actions have been filed against TJX in
state and federal courts in Alabama, California, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Puerto Rico, and in provincial
Canadian courts in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec and Saskatchewan, putatively on behalf of customers,
including all customers in the United States, Puerto Rico and
Canada, whose transaction data were allegedly compromised by
computer intrusions, and putative class actions have also been
filed against TJX in federal court in Massachusetts putatively
on behalf of all financial institutions which issued credit and
debit cards purportedly used at TJX stores during the period of
computer intrusions (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2007).

The actions assert claims, generally, for negligence and related
common-law and statutory causes of action stemming from the
Computer Intrusion, and seek various forms of relief including
damages, related injunctive or equitable remedies, multiple or
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

In Sept. 2007, TJX Companies (NYSE: TJX) entered into a
Settlement Agreement with respect to the customer class actions
in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 25, 2007).

The Settlement Agreement, which is subject to court approval and
other conditions, includes the following provisions:

     -- Those customers who returned merchandise without a
        receipt to our stores and to whom TJX sent letters
        reporting that their drivers' license or other
        identification information may have been compromised in
        the intrusion(s), will be offered three years of credit
        monitoring along with identity theft insurance coverage
        (two years for those who previously accepted TJX's
        credit monitoring/identity theft insurance offer), paid
        for by TJX;

     -- TJX will also reimburse these customers for the
        documented cost of certain drivers' license replacements
        and, if their drivers' license or other ID numbers were   
        the same as their social security number, for certain
        losses from identity theft;

     --  For any customers who show they shopped at TJX stores
         located in the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico (excluding
         Bob's Stores) during the relevant periods and incurred
         certain costs as a result of the intrusion, TJX will
         offer vouchers for use in these TJX stores in the
         country in which they reside.

The settlement is contingent on completion of an evaluation by
plaintiffs' independent security expert on the computer security
enhancements made and planned by TJX and acceptance by the
plaintiffs' counsel of these enhancements.

Estimated costs to TJX related to this settlement were reflected
as part of the $107 million (after tax) reserve for estimated
potential losses from the intrusion(s) recorded in the Company's
fiscal 2008 second quarter and previously reported estimated
future non-cash charges of $21 million (after tax) anticipated
to be taken in fiscal 2009.

This settlement covers all customer class actions in the United
States, Puerto Rico and Canada with respect to the intrusion(s)
and is subject to satisfaction of various conditions and final
court approval after notice to the plaintiff class and
expiration of the time for appeal from any order of the court
approving the settlement. While TJX denies the claims and
allegations underlying the putative class actions, TJX has
concluded that further legal activity would be time consuming
and expensive, making it desirable that the actions be settled.

The settlement provides benefits to those shoppers who may have
been damaged in some way.

Notices informing members of a portion of the settlement Class
about their legal rights will be mailed, and otherwise are
scheduled to appear in newspapers and/or magazines all over the
United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico leading up to a hearing
on July 15, 2008, when the Court will consider whether to
approve the settlement.

The Court has appointed Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C.
of Chicago, Illinois; Lester L. Levy, Wolf Popper LLP of New
York, New York; and Sherrie R. Savett, Berger & Montague, P.C.,
of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania as Settlement Class Co-Lead
Counsel to represent the Class.

Deadline to file claims is on May 29, 2008. Deadline to file for
exclusions and objections is June 24, 2008.

The settlement agreement is available at http://www.tjx.com.

The TJX Companies, Inc. is the leading off-price retailer of
apparel and home fashions in the U.S. and worldwide. The Company
operates 841 T.J. Maxx, 767 Marshalls, 278 HomeGoods, and 128
A.J. Wright stores, as well as 34 Bob's Stores, in the United
States. In Canada, the Company operates 186 Winners and 70
HomeSense stores, and in Europe, 214 T.K. Maxx stores.

The suit is "In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach
Litigation, Civil Action, No. 07-10162, MDL No. 1838," filed
with the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

   
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Consolidated AWP Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries
face a consolidated class action, alleging improper or
fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of
average wholesale prices of certain products, according to its
Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Beginning in July 2002, the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, were named defendants in various state and federal
court actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting
practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices
and wholesale acquisition costs of certain products, and that
the defendants committed other improper acts in order to
increase prices and market shares.

Some of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under the
caption, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456."

The consolidated amended Class Action complaint in this case
alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated the
reimbursement amounts paid by various public and private plans
and programs.  The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of
a purported class of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the
price of certain drugs, which price was calculated based on its
average wholesale price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit
manager to provide others with such drugs.

The Company filed an Answer to the Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on April 9, 2004.  Defendants in the
consolidated litigation have been divided into two groups.

The Company and its named subsidiaries are contained in a large
group of defendants that is currently awaiting a ruling on the
plaintiffs' request for certification of classes of plaintiffs
to maintain a class action against the drug company defendants.

Certain other defendants, referred to as the "Track One"
defendants, have proceeded on a more expedited basis.  Classes
were certified against these defendants, a trial has been
completed with respect to some of the claims against this group
of defendants, the presiding judge has issued a ruling granting
judgment to the plaintiffs, that judgment is being appealed, and
many of the claims have been settled.

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.watson.com/-- is a  
specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development,
manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and
generic (off-patent) pharmaceutical products.  It operates
through three business segments: Generic, Brand and
Distribution.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ORION ENERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Fraud 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
the common stock of Orion Energy Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: OESX)  
pursuant or traceable to the Company's December 18, 2007 Initial
Public Offering.

The Complaint charges Orion and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  Orion
is a power technology enterprise that designs, manufactures and
implements energy management systems, consisting primarily of
high-performance, energy efficient lighting systems, controls
and related services, for commercial and industrial customers.

The Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's
IPO, defendants failed to disclose or indicate that the Company
was planning to drastically alter its business model in a way
that would have significant adverse affects on earnings and
revenues.

On December 18, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO.  The IPO
was a financial success for the Company, as it was able to raise
$100 million by selling 7.69 million shares of stock to the
public at a price of $13 per share.  On February 6, 2008, the
Company announced that it was significantly altering its
business model to involve the sale of products which had not yet
gained market acceptance.  This involved far greater risk than
the business model set forth in the Registration Statement
issued just weeks before and would result in a reverse of
sequentially high revenue trends.  In response to this news,
shares of the Company's stock declined $6.39 per share, or 42.89
percent, to close on February 7, 2008 at $8.51 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 11,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

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



                           *********


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  * * *