CAR_Public/080304.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 45
  
                            Headlines

ALLCO FINANCE: Lawsuit Over Millions of Undisclosed Debts Looms
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Reaches $2M Settlement in CO Securities Suit
ARIZONA: Legislators Seek to Extend Looming Deadline in ELL Suit
AURORA DAIRY: MDL Panel Sends Organic Milk Suits to St. Louis
AVISTA CORP: Wash. Court Approves $9.5M Securities Settlement

AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Del. Suit Over Sumitomo TakeOver Bid
CANADA: Faces Suit Over Abuse of Aboriginal Students
CHINESE DAILY: $5.19-Million Award Granted in Overtime Lawsuit
ENDOSCOPY CENTER: NV Suit Accuses Clinic of Using Dirty Syringes
FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Magnetic Dart Boards Posing Risks to Kids

FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Calif. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Stockholder Derivative Litigation in Del.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Lawsuit Over Anti-Depressant Medication
HERCULES OFFSHORE: Still Faces Texas Lawsuit Over TODCO Purchase
MASTERCARD: 30 Million Credit Card Users Get Offer to Join Suit

MUNIRE FURNITURE: Recalls Cribs Failing Safety Standards
ONEOK INC: Kans. Court Favors Defendants in Appeal of Nev. Suits
ONEOK PARTNERS: Court Mulls Class Certification in Price I, II
PFIZER INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Torcetrapib-Related Litigation
PFIZER INC: Throws Questions About Celebrex and Bextra RX Bills

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Iowa
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Remaining Suit in Iowa
R&G FINANCIAL: Settles Securities, Derivative Litigation in N.Y.
SILICON IMAGE: Ninth Circuit Hears Appeal in Calif. Litigation
SOLUTIA INC: Class Certified in Consolidated Pension Plan Case

SOLUTIA INC: Parties Settle N.Y. Lawsuits Over SIP Plan
SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Billing for Roaming Charges
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Calif. Suit Over $18 "Upgrade Fee" Charges
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeal in "Proctor"
WORLDCOM INC: Carbon County Gets $49,000 as Settlement for Suit

YAHOO! INC: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
YAHOO! INC: Faces Calif. Stockholder Suits Over Microsoft Offer
YAHOO! INC: Faces Del. Stockholder Lawsuits Over Microsoft Offer


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBAC FINANCIAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
SUNOPTA INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Eric J. O'Bell Files LA Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ALLCO FINANCE: Lawsuit Over Millions of Undisclosed Debts Looms
---------------------------------------------------------------
A potential class action is looming against Allco Finance Group
after it failed to disclose multi-millions of dollars in
current liabilities, Sky Net Online reports.

According to Sky Net, shares in Allco Finance have continued to
tumble after the company announced that it has $3.5 billion in
liabilities coming due this year.  Sky Net notes that this
figure is around half of Allco's total borrowings.  

Allco's 2007 annual report only reflected $200 million in
liabilities.

Lawyers say investors may be able to take legal action, given
that the proper level of debt had not been disclosed, as is
required by the Corporations Act.

                    About Allco Finance

Allco Finance Group Ltd. is an integrated global financial
services business, specializing in asset origination, funds
creation and funds management.  The Company is a fund manager of
alternative assets in its core asset classes, which include
aviation, rail, shipping, infrastructure, property, private
equity and financial assets.  Its primary focus is on commercial
property, predominately completed office buildings and select
development opportunities. It also purchases new and existing
commercial passenger and cargo aircraft for lease to commercial
airlines.


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Reaches $2M Settlement in CO Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allos Therapeutics Inc. reached a $2-million settlement in a
securities class action filed in Colorado against the company
and one of its former officers, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 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 with the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado in May 2004.  The complaint was then amended in
August 2004.  

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's securities during the period from
May 29, 2003 to April 29, 2004.  It sought unspecified damages
relating to the issuance of allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the cancer drug EFAPROXYN during this
period and subsequent declines in the company's stock price.

On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  In an opinion
dated Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the
plaintiffs' complaint failed to meet the legal requirements
applicable to its alleged claims.

On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

In October 2006, the parties held talks to settle the matter,
and on Feb. 6, 2008, they signed a stipulation of settlement,
resolving the case for $2,000,000.  

The Court of Appeals accordingly has remanded the case to the
District Court for consideration of the settlement.  The
settlement is subject to various conditions, including without
limitation approval of the District Court.

The suit is "Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01030-RPM," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado, Judge Richard P. Matsch presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq. (jberens@dyershuman.com)
          Dyer & Shuman, LLP
          801 East 17th Avenue
          Denver, CO 80218-1417
          Phone: 303-861-3003
          Fax: 303-830-6920

Representing the defendants are:

         Tara L. Acton, Esq. (tacton@bw-legal.com)
         Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C.
         370 - 17th Street, Republic Plaza #4800
         Denver, CO 80202-5698
         Phone: 303-825-0800
         Fax: 303-629-7610

              - and -

         Paul Howard Schwartz, Esq. (schwartzph@cooley.com)
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         380 Interlocken, Crescent #900
         Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
         Phone: 720-566-4000
         Fax: 720-566-4099


ARIZONA: Legislators Seek to Extend Looming Deadline in ELL Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 25, 2007,  Tim
Hogan, Esq., filed a motion asking a federal judge to fine the
Arizona Legislature and declare it in contempt of a court order
to spend more on English language programs.

Mr. Hogan proposes a daily fine on the Legislature's failure to
adequately fund programs that teach English to Arizona students
who speak it as a second language.  The fine would be $500,000 a
day for the first month that it fails to act, $1 million a day
for the next month, $1.5 million a day for the next month, and
so on.  

According to the Associated Press, U.S. District Judge Raner C.
Collins had set a March 4, 2008 deadline for lawmakers to
increase funding for instruction of students learning English.  
The judge ruled in October 2007 that the 2006 law revamping
English Language Learning programs to use new instruction models
does not do enough to satisfy federal mandates for equal
opportunities in education.  He also ruled that several
provisions violate federal laws.

Judge Collins, AP notes, has threatened to impose unspecified
sanctions if the Legislature does not meet the deadline he set
in the 16-year-old class-action case challenging the adequacy of
Arizona's ELL programs.  He previously imposed $21 million of
daily fines against the state in the same case, though the fines
later were erased on appeal.

Against this backdrop, the legislative leaders asked Judge
Collins to extend for six weeks -- until April 18 -- the looming
deadline.  This after a federal appeals court upheld Judge
Collins' October Order.

"The relatively brief extension is necessary because of delays
caused by a number of school districts that submitted inflated
and incomplete funding requests," the extension motion stated.
"Moreover, at least half of the requests were submitted at the
last possible minute, congesting the review process."

The state Department of Education is still processing 247
funding requests and has not told the Legislature how much
additional funding that districts and charter schools should get
to implement the new models, the motion said.  That means the
Legislature won't know how much money is needed before the March
4 deadline, the motion said.  The delays were outside the
control of the legislative leaders and "were unforeseen" when
Judge Collins issued his October Order, the motion further
added.

However, Mr. Hogan said that the six-week extension requested is
too much time and is unfounded because state Superintendent of
Public Instruction Tom Horne has already estimated that the cost
figure will range between $30 million to $50 million.

"So they're in a position to comply with the court order.  It's
not impossible.  If that's his estimate, then appropriate the
money and they reconcile it after all the I's are dotted and the
T's are crossed," Mr. Hogan asserted.

Mr. Hogan also said the lawmakers were aware of circumstances
surrounding the late development of the models and the Feb. 8
deadline for districts to submit funding request.

Mr. Hogan said he was willing to accept only a two-week delay.

"The issue is getting the money out there so that school
districts can hire teachers to implement these models," he said.
"That has to be done as quickly as possible."

AP points out that consideration of the ELL funding issue comes
at a tough time for lawmakers because the state faces a revenue
shortfall approaching $1.2 billion in the current $10.6 billion
budget and an even larger projected deficit in the next
fiscal year, which starts July 1.

                        Case Background

The state was ordered to improve its offering to students
learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000
that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students
were inadequately funded.  The order was part of a ruling in a
class action, which was originally filed in 1992 and led by
Mr. Hogan on behalf of Nogales Unified students and parents.

The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that
guarantees equal opportunities in education.  The state was
fined $500,000 in January 2006 for missing a deadline to draft
ways to improve the program.  The fine was increased to
$1 million, resulting to a $21 million in total fines.  The
fines were stopped when the latest version of a Republican bill
seeking to revamp the English learning programs was passed into
law in March 2006.

In April 2006, Judge Collins ruled that the law still does not
adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out
the costs of providing those programs, and does not explain the
basis for funding that it does provide.

The 9th Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San
Francisco on July 25, 2006.  In August 2006, it vacated orders
by Judge Collins, blocked the distribution of the fines to
public schools, and allowed the state to return the money to the
general fund.

The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the
state has made improvements to its programs in light of changes
in education funding and related circumstances since the
original 2000 ruling.

The August 2006 ruling of the appellate court did not rule
directly on the latest law regarding the program.  

Judge Collins finished on Jan. 25, 2007, a hearing to determine
whether the state has already improved the program.  In March
2007, he issued a ruling stating that the system is still
deficient.  He ordered lawmakers to resolve the issue by the end
of their current session.  

Meanwhile, the Legislature adjourned in 2007 without any
discussion of revamping English language learning to comply with
Judge Collins' judgment.  Instead, Republican lawmakers and the
state schools chief asked the 9th Circuit to put Judge Collins'
ruling on hold.

The appeals court rejected that request on June 25, 2007, saying
Judge Collins has not yet found the Legislature in contempt for
ignoring his earlier ruling to boost the programs.  

The class action is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et
al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Timothy Michael Hogan, Esq. (thogan@aclpi.org)
          Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
          202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste. 153
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Phone: 602-258-8850
          Fax: 602-258-8757

Representing the defendants are:

          Lynne Christensen Adams, Esq. (ladams@lrlaw.com)
          Jose A. Cardenas, Esq. (jcardenas@lrlaw.com)
          Lewis & Roca, LLP
          40 N. Central Ave., Phoenix
          AZ 85004-4429
          Phone: 602-262-5372
                 602-262-5790
          Fax: 602-734-4015
               602-734-3852


AURORA DAIRY: MDL Panel Sends Organic Milk Suits to St. Louis
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel of Multi-District Litigation decided that at
least 15 lawsuits accusing Aurora Dairy Corp. and retailers of
selling milk mislabeled as organic will be grouped together in a
federal court in St. Louis, AZ Central relates.

The report explains that Target Corp., Costco Wholesale Corp.,
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Safeway Inc., and Whole Foods Market Inc.
are alleged to have sold milk produced by closely held Aurora
Dairy that did not meet organic standards set by the United
States Department of Agriculture.  The suits seek for damages
and an injunction not to sell milk mislabeled as organic.

As of December last year, the Class Action Reporter stated on
Dec. 14, 2007, five lawsuits against the retailers have been
filed so far.  And law firms based in Seattle, St. Louis, New
York and other cities have filed at least eight lawsuits against
Aurora, representing plaintiffs in over 30 states.

The MDL Panel decided on Feb. 20 to assign all the litigation to
Judge E. Richard Webber of the Eastern District of Missouri
after lawyers argued last month over the appropriate court for
the lawsuits.

"Given the geographic dispersal of the constituent actions and
the potential tag-along actions, the Eastern District of
Missouri offers a relatively convenient forum for this
litigation," the judges said in their ruling.  The
panel, AZ Central explains, oversees case consolidations when a
company is sued in different U.S. federal courts over the same
product.

"We argued for the cases to be consolidated in Denver because we
are based here, but the location has no bearing on the outcome
of the case," Aurora's spokeswoman, Sonja Tuitele, told AZ
Central in a telephone interview.

AZ Central points out that in order for dairy milk to get USDA
organic certification, the cows must have access to pasture,
their feed must be pesticide-free and they must not be
given bovine-growth hormones or antibiotics, according to
federal legislation enacted in 1990.  However, the plaintiffs
say that Aurora claimed its milk was organic after willfully
violating federal certification requirements.

The USDA notified Aurora in April 2007 that the company was
found to have violated the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990,
according to a letter from USDA National Organic Program
Associate Deputy Administrator Mark A. Bradley.  

AZ Central recounts that the agency entered into a consent
agreement with Aurora in August addressing inconsistencies in
regulations between state and federal agencies.  Aurora agreed
to make eight specific changes to its organic system plans and
address all the issues raised by the agency, according to the
consent agreement.

At the end of the one-year review period, Aurora must verify
that it has made all the changes, the report relates.  The USDA
may withdraw from the consent agreement if the terms of the
agreement are not reasonably met.

"The cornerstone of our defense is the fact that the USDA has
confirmed that our milk has been produced under continuous valid
organic certifications," Ms. Tuitele said.  "That means our milk
has been properly labeled with the USDA organic seal."

Aurora's violations were inconsistencies in interpretations of
USDA regulations and not done willfully, she said.

Headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, Aurora Dairy Corporation --
http://www.auroraorganic.com/-- provides milk that is sold as  
organic and packaged as store-brand products for many of the
nation's biggest chains.  Besides Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, and
Safeway, Aurora serves as supplier to 15 other national and
regional chains.

    
AVISTA CORP: Wash. Court Approves $9.5M Securities Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
gave final approval to the proposed $9.5-million settlement of
the lawsuit titled, "The Hackett Group, et al. v. Avista Corp.,
et al., Case No. 2:00-cv-00262-RHW."

                        Case Background

Several class action complaints were filed in September through
November 2002 with the same court against the company, its
former chairman of the board, president and chief executive
officer, current chairman of the board and chief executive
officer; and former senior vice president and chief financial
officer (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2007).

In February 2003, the court issued an order consolidating the
suits and in August 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint.

On Oct. 19, 2005, at the company's request, the court dismissed
the amended complaint.  The dismissal order was issued without
prejudice, and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

The second amended complaint, which was filed on Nov. 10, 2005,
alleged approximately $2.6 billion in damages due to the
decrease in the total market value of the company's common stock
during the class period.  These alleged losses stemmed from
violations of federal securities laws through alleged
misstatements and omissions of material facts with respect to
the company's energy trading practices in western power markets.

The plaintiffs asserted that alleged misstatements and omissions
regarding these matters were made in the company's filings with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other
information made publicly available by the company, including
press releases.

The class action asserted claims on behalf of all persons who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between Nov. 23, 1999, and Aug. 13, 2002.

In January 2006, the company again requested to have the second
amended class action dismissed, asserting deficiencies in it,
including the plaintiffs' failure to adequately allege loss
causation.

On June 2, 2006, the District Court entered an order denying the
company's dismissal motion.  Settlement negotiations
subsequently began and the sides made progress with a federal
mediator in January 2007.

A second round of mediation in April 2007 led to an agreement in
principle to settle the suit.  During the time period in
question, Messrs. Matthews, Ely and Eliassen were not trading
large amounts of stock, according to court records, a factor
that showed the executives did not enrich themselves by cashing
in before the stock price tanked.

                           Settlement

On June 1, 2007, Avista entered into a $9.5-million settlement
agreement with respect to the class action .  That settlement
agreement was filed submitted to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington on June 4, 2007.

In January 2008, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, and entered an order certifying the class
and dismissing the claims in the lawsuit with prejudice,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "The Hackett Group, et al. v. Avista Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:00-cv-00262-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington, Judge Robert H. Whaley
presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Karl P. Barth, Esq. (kbarth@lmbllp.com)
          Lovell Mitchell & Barth LLP
          11542 NE 21st Street
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Phone: (425) 452-9800
          Fax: (425) 452-9801

               - and -

          Steve W Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue
          Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594

Representing the defendants are:   

          David M. Jacobson, Esq. (jacobson.david@dorsey.com)
          Dorsey & Whitney LLP - SEA
          U.S. Bank Center
          1420 5th Avenue
          Suite 3400
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-903-8800
          Fax: 206-903-8820

               - and -

          Louis David Peterson, Esq. (ldp@hcmp.com)
          Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson
          1221 Second Avenue
          Suite 500
          Seattle, WA 98101-2925
          Phone: 206-623-1745
          Fax: 206-623-7789


AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Del. Suit Over Sumitomo TakeOver Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axcelis Technologies Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington claiming  
that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duty by
rejecting a $532-million takeover bid from Japanese firm
Sumimoto Heavy Industries Ltd, various reports say.

Reuters recounts that Sumitomo, earlier this month, made an
unsolicited bid to buy Axcelis, which had rebuffed requests for
merger talks for about 18 months.  U.S. private equity firm TPG
Group [TPG.UL] would be a minority partner with Sumitomo in
making the bid.

Bloomberg News cites Axcelis -- based in Beverly, Mass. -- as
saying that it rejected Sumitomo's offer because it undervalues
the company and its prospects for reclaiming market share.  The
deal was not in the best interests of the company and its
shareholders, Axcelis said in a statement.  Axcelis' revenue
declined 27% from its peak in the fourth quarter of 2006 and the
company recorded losses in the past two quarters.

Shareholders then filed a class action lawsuit against the
company, alleging that it did not act in the best interest of
shareholders when it rejected the merger bid, the Boston
Business Journal says.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to force Axcelis "to engage in a
proper process to maximize value for the class and enjoin
defendants from unlawfully entrenching themselves in their
positions of control."

"In addition to painting Sumitomo as a predator seeking to take
advantage of the company's vulnerable position . . . (Axcelis
Chairman Mary) Puma reiterated the company's bright future
prospects as an excuse for the board's entrenchment," the
complaint says.

Axcelis and its board "have not and are not exercising
independent, fully informed business judgment and have acted and
are acting to the detriment" of shareholders, the lawsuit
contends.

The lawsuit was filed by Axcelis shareholder Shirley Simon.  The
suit, however, did not detail how many shares Ms. Simon owns.


CANADA: Faces Suit Over Abuse of Aboriginal Students
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been commenced against the Canadian federal
government based on allegations of abuse of Aboriginal students
at a residential school in Labrador, The Western Star reports.
The lawsuit is seeking class action status.

The lawsuit was filed with the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador by the firm Kiosk Minsky of Toronto as lead counsel,
the report notes.  Ches Crosbie Barristers is acting as local
counsel.

According to Western Star, the statement of claims targets Yale
School in Northwest River which was established in 1948 and
ceased operation as a residential school in 1979.  The class
action, however, extends to 1996.  The school accommodated
aboriginal children aged six to 16.

"During the class period, children at the school were subjected
to systemic child abuse, neglect and maltreatment.  They were
forcibly confined in the school and were systematically deprived
of the essential components of a healthy childhood," the
statement of claim alleges.  "They were subjected to physical,
emotional, psychological, cultural, spiritual and sexual abuse
by those who were responsible for their well being."

The claim further alleges that the Canadian government not only
failed to respond appropriately or at all to disclosure of
abuses, but "conspired" with the operators to suppress
information about the abuses taking place at the school.  
"Canada knew, or ought to have known, that as a consequence of
its mistreatment of children at the school, these plaintiffs and
class members would suffer significant mental, emotional,
psychological and spiritual harm which would adversely affect
their relationships with the families and their communities,"
the statement of claim asserts.

The complaint contends that the accommodations were crowded,
cold and sub-standard and the children underfed and forbidden to
speak their native language.  The lawyers also say that the
federal government failed to inspect or audit the school
adequately or at all.

"The funding provided by Canada was inadequate to meet the costs
of operating and maintaining the school, and in particular, to
meet the daily and educational needs of the students at the
school," the complaint states.  It also alleges that children
were removed from their homes without the permission of their
parents.  The lawyers further assert that staff at the school
were unskilled and unsuitable for dealing with children.

The complaint, according to Western Star, named two students --
one attended the school from 1972-76 and the other, from 1969-77
-- who were not only abused physically and verbally, but were
"repeatedly sexually abuse[d] by dorm supervisors, supposed
caregivers and other students."  

The action seeks payment of more than $700 million in damages
and seeks compensation for family members.


CHINESE DAILY: $5.19-Million Award Granted in Overtime Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Consuelo B. Marshall of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California ordered The Chinese Daily News  
to pay an aggregate of $5.19 million to 200 employees who were
denied years of overtime pay and subjected to other labor law
violations, Rebecca Cathcart writes for The New York Times.

NY Times recounts that employees at the Chinese Daily News have
been fighting for fairness and a union voice since 2001 but had
been blocked by a long management campaign of intimidation,
illegal firings and other fear tactics.

In 2004, the employees brought the class-action lawsuit charging
that the paper withheld overtime pay and denied workers rest and
meal breaks during shifts of 12 hours and longer.

According to the employees' lawyer Randy Renick, Esq., the paper
owes its employees overtime wages dating to 2000, adding that
many employees who joined the suit "have either been fired or
forced to quit."

The NY Times explains that the $5.19-million award includes
penalties for violating labor laws as well as 10% interest on
the original $2.5-million award, which was granted by a jury in
2007.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 15, 2007, the
jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California awarded a minimum of $2.5 million to the workers at
Chinese Daily News in Monterey Park, California, in relation to
the newspaper's willful violations of federal and state wage and
hour laws.  The jury verdict in the class action suit found that
Chinese Daily News violated California provisions on overtime
pay and meal and rest periods, as well as the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit is "Lynne Wang et al. v. Chinese Daily News Inc et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-01498-CBM-JWJ," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge
Consuelo B. Marshall, with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson.

Representing defendants are:

          Steven D. Atkinson, Esq. (satkinson@aalrr.com)
          Scott K. Dauscher, Esq. (sdauscher@aalrr.com)
          Thomas A. Lenz, Esq. (tlenz@aalrr.com)
          Mark T. Palin, Esq. (mpalin@aalrr.com)
          Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo
          17871 Park Plaza Dr, Ste 200
          Cerritos, CA 90703-8597
          Phone: 562-653-3200
          Fax: 562-653-3333

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Randall R. Renick, Esq.
          Randall R Renick Law Offices
          128 N Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Phone: 626-585-9608
          Fax: 626-585-9610


ENDOSCOPY CENTER: NV Suit Accuses Clinic of Using Dirty Syringes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada is facing a class-action
complaint filed on Feb. 28, 2008, with the District Court in
Clark County, Nevada, accusing it of potentially exposing as
many as 40,000 patients to HIV and hepatitis by treating them
with used syringes over a four-year period, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Michael Cordero and Richard Taylor claim that
during the period from March 2004 until Jan. 11, 2008, Endo
Center treated class members with dirty syringes that were
previously exposed to unknown persons.

A used syringe or dirty syringe is a defective product that is
unfit for its intended use because the dirty syringe exposes
persons to communicable disease from the prior person that the
dirty syringe was used upon, the report notes.

The plaintiffs bring the class action on behalf of of all other
persons who were treated with dirty syringes previously used for
unknown persons at the Endo Center during the time period.  They
want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Endo Center had a common practice during the
         time periods March 2004 through Jan. 11, 2008, to re-
         use syringes for persons receiving needle injections;

     (b) whether a "dirty syringe" is a defective product; and

     (c) whether Endo Center distributed "dirty syringes."

The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:

     -- directing payment of costs to be tested for Hepatitis B,
        Hepatitis C and HIV antibody;

     -- directing payment of general damages in excess of
        $10,000;

     -- directing payment of special damages in excess of
        $10,000;

     -- directing payment of punitive damages in an amount to be
        determined at trial;

     -- directing payment of reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- directing payment of costs of suit.

The suit is "Michael Cordero et al v. Endoscopy Center of
Southern Nevada, LLC, Case No. A558091," filed with the District
Court of Clark County, Nevada.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Will Kemp, Esq. (hkj@hkj-law.com)
          Harrison, Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP
          3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
          Seventeenth Floor
          Las Vegas, Nevada 89169


FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Magnetic Dart Boards Posing Risks to Kids
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar, of Charlotte, N.C., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 250,000
FUN 'N SAFE Magnetic Dart Boards.

The company said small magnets at the ends of the darts can
detach.  Magnets found by young children can be swallowed or
aspirated.  If more than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets
can attract each other and cause intestinal perforations or
blockages, which can be fatal.  No injuries have been reported.

The magnetic dart board is about 15 inches wide with a black,
white, green, and red bulls eye checkered design and was sold
with six 4-inch long magnetic darts.  The darts magnetically
adhere to the dart board when thrown.  "Made in China" is
embossed on the back of the board.

These recalled dart boards were made in China and were being
sold exclusively at Family Dollar stores nationwide from January
2001 through January 2008 for about $5.

A picture of the recalled dart board is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08201.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from children and return the board and all of the darts to a
Family Dollar store for a refund.

For additional information, contact Family Dollar at (800) 547-
0359 between 8:30 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday,
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.familydollar.com


FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Calif. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud
class action lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

The purported stockholder class action, titled "Danny McCasland,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y. Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard
M. Freeman," was filed on Oct. 31, 2007, and names the company
and certain of its current officers, including one officer who
is a director, as defendants.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed two other purported
stockholder class actions with the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California under the captions:

       -- "Yuk Ling Lui, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
          Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y.
          Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman,"
          and

       -- "Victor Albertazzi, Individually and on Behalf of All
          Others Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y.
          Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman."

The plaintiffs filed these actions following the Company's
restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that
year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30,
2007.

The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and
Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging
that the defendants knowingly issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results prior to the restatements.

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages,
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

The three actions have been consolidated.

The consolidated suit is "McCasland v. Formfactor, Inc., Case
No. 3:07-cv-05545-SI," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Judge Susan Illston presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq. (shawnw@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. (aplutzik@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

               - and -

          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          (ashingler@scott-scott.com)
          Scott + Scott, LLC
          600 B. Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Fax: 619-233-0508

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert P. Varian, Esq. (rvarian@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5700
          Fax: 415-773-5759


FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Stockholder Derivative Litigation in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc., is facing stockholder derivative lawsuits
filed with the the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Alameda.

The purported stockholder derivative action was filed on
Nov. 19, 2007, and names the Company as a nominal defendant and
certain of its directors and officers as defendants.  The suit
is captioned, "John King, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal
Defendant FormFactor, Inc. v. Dr. Igor Y. Khandros, Dr. Homa
Bahrami, Dr. Thomas J. Campbell, G. Carl Everett, Jr., Lothar
Maier, James A. Prestridge, Harvey A. Wagner, Ronald C. Foster
and Richard M. Freeman, and FormFactor, Inc."

Subsequently, another plaintiff filed a second purported
stockholder class action under the caption, "Joseph Priestley,
Derivatively on Behalf of FormFactor, Inc. v. Igor Y. Khandros,
Mario Ruscev, James A. Prestridge, Thomas J. Campbell, Harvey A.
Wagner, G. Carl Everett, Jr., Homa Bahrami, Lothar Maier,
William H. Davidow and Joseph R. Bronson, and FormFactor, Inc."

The plaintiffs filed the actions following the Company's
restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that
year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30,
2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and violated applicable law by issuing, and
permitting the Company to issue, materially false, and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results prior to the restatements.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

FormFactor, Inc. -- http://www.formfactor.com/-- designs,  
develops, manufactures, sells and supports precision
semiconductor wafer probe cards.  Semiconductor manufacturers
use the Company’s wafer probe cards to perform wafer probe test
on the whole wafer in the front end of the semiconductor
manufacturing process.  FormFactor offers products and solutions
that are custom designed for semiconductor manufacturers’ wafer
designs.  


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Lawsuit Over Anti-Depressant Medication
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faith Gibson, a Surrey, Canada resident, launched a class-action
lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline PLC, which manufactures Paxil, a
commonly-used anti-depressant medication, CKNW reports.

Ms. Gibson claims, in court documents, that she had been
prescribed Paxil during and after her pregnancy, which resulted
to her daughter Meah born with cardiovascular birth defects.

The suit alleges Glaxo-Smith-Kline failed to notify pregnant
women about the risks associated with the drug and suggests the
company targeted pregnant women, who are often susceptible to
depression.

Based in Middlesex, England, GlaxoSmithKline plc creates and
discovers, develops, manufactures and markets pharmaceutical
products, including vaccines, over-the-counter medicines and
health-related consumer products.


HERCULES OFFSHORE: Still Faces Texas Lawsuit Over TODCO Purchase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc., continues to face a consolidated
lawsuit filed with the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas, in relation to TODCO's proposed acquisition of  
the company.

On March 19-20, 2007, two stockholder lawsuits were filed in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, both alleging that
the board of directors of TODCO breached their fiduciary duties
in approving the proposed acquisition of TODCO by Hercules
Offshore, Inc.

The first suit, pending in the 333rd Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16397, is a purported
stockholder class action against the TODCO directors, and
contains claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

The second suit, pending in the 269th Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16357, is a stockholder
derivative action purportedly filed on behalf of TODCO against
the TODCO directors and the company, and contains:

     -- claims for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty, due
        care, candor, good faith and/or fair dealing;

     -- corporate waste;

     -- unlawful self dealing; and

     -- claims that the defendants conspired, aided and abetted
        and assisted one another in a common plan to breach
        these fiduciary duties.

Both complaints allege, among other things, that the TODCO
directors engaged in self-dealing in approving the proposed
acquisition by the Company by advancing their own personal
interests or those of TODCO's senior management at the expense
of the stockholders of TODCO, utilized a defective sales process
not designed to maximize stockholder value, and failed to
consider any value maximizing alternatives, thus causing TODCO
stockholders to receive an unfair price for their shares of
TODCO common stock.

The second suit also alleges that the Company conspired, aided
and abetted or assisted in these violations.

The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction
preventing the completion of the acquisition by the company,
rescission if the acquisition is consummated, imposition of a
constructive trust in favor of plaintiffs upon any benefits
improperly received by the defendants, attorneys' fees and
expenses associated with the lawsuit and any other equitable
relief the court deems just and proper.

On Aug. 29, 2007, the two lawsuits were consolidated and
transferred to the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Hercules Offshore, Inc. -- http://www.herculesoffshore.com--    
provides shallow-water drilling and liftboat services to the oil
and natural gas exploration and production industry in the Gulf
of Mexico, and internationally.  


MASTERCARD: 30 Million Credit Card Users Get Offer to Join Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 30 million credit card users have gotten a class action
lawsuit offer in the mail, WQAD says.

The class action offer first got plenty of people confused over
its legitimacy because it requested credit card information,
according to the report.  However, the Better Business Bureau
clarified that the offer is legitimate.

According to WQAD, the offer stems from a lawsuit claiming that
Mastercard, Visa and Diner's Club charged millions of people
hidden fees when they used their credit card overseas or bought
something from another country.  Those people could now be
eligible for money back if a settlement is approved.

Anyone who used one of the credit cards overseas between 1996
and 2006 could get a refund of $25 or more, the report notes.

For more information, log in to the settlement administrator Web
site http://www.ccfsettlement.com/or call 1-800-954-9890.


MUNIRE FURNITURE: Recalls Cribs Failing Safety Standards
--------------------------------------------------------
Munire Furniture Inc., of Piscataway, N.J., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
24,000 Majestic Curved Top and Flat Top Cribs, Essex Cribs,
Brighton/Sussex Cribs and Captiva Cribs.

The company said the cribs fail to meet the federal safety
standards for cribs.  The four support brackets on the mattress
support spring are too long.  The brackets prevent the spring
from lowering to the full 26 inch minimum height in its lowest
position, allowing children inside to crawl over the railing,
posing a fall hazard.  No injuries have been reported.

The cribs are wooden.  The recalled cribs include:

     -- Majestic Curved Top cribs with model number 9500;
     -- Majestic Flat Top cribs with model number 9000;
     -- Essex cribs with model number 7100;
     -- Brighton/Sussex cribs with model number 9100 and
     -- Captiva cribs with model number 5100.

Only cribs with manufacture dates between November 1, 2005, and
November 1, 2007 are included in the recall.  The crib model
number is printed on the white label on the bottom inside of the
right side rail.  The crib manufacture date is printed on either
the white label near the model number or on the white label
located on the bottom of the headboard.  Cribs with a green
sticker on the mattress frame are not included in the recall.

These recalled cribs were manufactured in Indonesia and were
being sold at specialty juvenile product stores nationwide from
November 2005 through November 2007 for between $400 and $600.

Pictures of the recalled cribs are found at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08202a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08202b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08202c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08202d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08202e.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled cribs and
contact Munire Furniture to receive replacement spring brackets.

For additional information, contact Munire Furniture Inc. at
(866) 586-9639 between 8:00 a.m. And 6:00 p.m. ET or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.munirefurniture.com

    
ONEOK INC: Kans. Court Favors Defendants in Appeal of Nev. Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled in favor of ONEOK, Inc. and
several of its subsidiaries on an appeal in two separate class
actions filed against them by owners of residential real estate
in Reno County, Kansas relating to certain gas explosions in
Hutchinson, Kansas.  

In early 2001, two separate class actions were filed against  
the defendants in connection to gas explosions in Hutchinson,
Kansas.

The suits, which were both filed with the District Court of Reno
County, Kansas, are:

       -- "Loyd Smith, et al v. Kansas Gas Service Company,
          Inc., ONEOK, Inc., Western Resources, Inc., Mid
          Continent Market Center, Inc., ONEOK Gas Storage,
          L.L.C., ONEOK Gas Storage Holdings, Inc., and ONEOK
          Gas Transportation, L.L.C., Case No. 01-C-0029," and

       -- "Gilley et al. v. Kansas Gas Service Company, Western
          Resources, Inc., ONEOK, Inc., ONEOK Gas Storage,
          L.L.C., ONEOK Gas Storage Holdings, Inc., ONEOK Gas
          Transportation L.L.C. and Mid Continent Market Center,
          Inc., Case No. 01-C-0057."

The court certified two separate classes of claimants, which
included all owners of residential real estate in Reno County,
Kansas, whose property had allegedly declined in value, and
owners of businesses in Reno County whose income had allegedly
suffered.

Both cases were adjudicated in September 2004 and resulted in
jury verdicts.

In the class action relating to the residential claimants, the
jury awarded $5 million in actual damages, which was covered by
insurance.  In the business owners' class action, the jury
rendered a defense verdict awarding no actual damages.  The jury
rejected claims for punitive damages in both cases.

In a separate hearing on the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, the
court awarded $2,047,406 in fees and $646,090.78 in expenses,
which was also covered by insurance.

On April 11, 2005, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a
new trial and denied a post-trial motion filed by the
defendants.  

The business-class plaintiffs and residential-class plaintiffs
filed notices of appeal.

The company filed a notice of appeal of the residential class
action verdict and the attorney fee award.  The cases were
transferred to the Kansas Supreme Court.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the Kansas Supreme Court issued unanimous
opinions on the appeals of the class action verdicts.  The
Court:  

       -- affirmed the no-damage verdict in favor of defendants
          in the Gilley business class, and

       -- reversed the $5 million actual damage verdict and $2.6
          million attorneys fees and costs awarded to the Smith
          residential class, with instructions to enter judgment
          in favor of defendants.  

The plaintiffs' rights to file a motion for a rehearing expired
without them taking any action, and the Court's judgment was
entered as directed on Dec. 20, 2007.  

This case and all other cases regarding the gas explosions have
been fully resolved, according to ONEOK, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

ONEOK, Inc. -- http://www.oneok.com-- purchases, gathers,  
processes, transports, stores and distributes natural gas.  The
Company’s largest distribution markets are Oklahoma City and
Tulsa, Oklahoma; Kansas City, Wichita, and Topeka, Kansas, and
Austin and El Paso, Texas.  Its energy services operation is
engaged in wholesale and retail natural gas marketing and
trading activities, and provides services to customers in many
states and Canada.  The Company is the sole general partner and
owns 45.7% of ONEOK Partners, L.P., a limited partnership, which
gathers, processes, stores, and transports natural gas in the
U.S., and owns a natural gas liquids (NGLs) system that connects
much of the NGL supply in the Mid-Continent region with key
market centers.  The Company has four business segments: ONEOK
Partners, Distribution, Energy Services and Other.

    
ONEOK PARTNERS: Court Mulls Class Certification in Price I, II
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 26th Judicial District, District Court of Stevens County,
Kansas has yet to rule on the certification of a class in a
consolidated lawsuit against several subsidiaries of ONEOK
Partners, L.P., according to ONEOK, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2008 form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The consolidated suits are:

      -- "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al., Case No.
         Case No. 99C30 (Price I) (f/k/a Quinque Operating
         Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.);" and
  
      -- "Will Price and Stixon Petroleum, et al. v. Gas
         Pipelines, et al., 26th Judicial District, District
         Court of Stevens County, Kansas, Civil Department, Case
         No. 03C232 (Price II)."

The plaintiffs in Price I brought the suit on May 28, 1999,
against MidContinent Market Center, Inc., ONEOK Field Services
Co., ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.P., and ONEOK Hydrocarbon,
L.P., formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP -- all of which were
recently acquired by the company -- as well as approximately 225
other defendants.

The plaintiffs sought class certification for their claims that
the defendants had underpaid gas producers and royalty owners
throughout the U.S. by intentionally understating both the
volume and the heating content of purchased gas.

After extensive briefing and a hearing, the court refused to
certify the class sought by the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs then
filed an amended petition limiting the purported class to gas
producers and royalty owners in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming and
limiting the claim to under measurement of volumes.  They are
seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Oral argument was conducted on April 1, 2005, on the plaintiffs'
motion to certify the suit as a class action.  The court has not
yet ruled on the class certification issue.

The plaintiffs filed Price II on May 12, 2003, after the court
denied class status in Price I.  The plaintiffs claim that 21
groups of defendants, including MidContinent Market Center,
ONEOK Field Services, ONEOK WesTex Transmission, and ONEOK
Hydrocarbon, intentionally underpaid gas producers and royalty
owners by understating the heating content of purchased gas in
Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.

Price II has been consolidated with Price I for the
determination of whether either or both cases may properly be
certified as class actions.  The plaintiffs in this suit are
also seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Like Price I, oral argument was conducted on April 1, 2005, in
relation to the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a
class action.  The court has not yet ruled on the class
certification issue.

ONEOK Partners, L.P., -- http://www.oneok.com– formerly  
Northern Border Partners L.P., owns and manages natural gas
gathering, processing, storage, interstate and intrastate
pipeline assets, natural gas liquids (NGLs) gathering and
distribution pipelines, and storage and fractionators,
connecting much of the natural gas and NGL supply in the Mid-
Continent region with various market centers.  The Company
operates through four segments: Gathering and Processing
segment, Natural Gas Liquids segment, Pipelines and Storage
segment and Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines segment.  


PFIZER INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Torcetrapib-Related Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed a class-action securities
complaint against Pfizer Inc., whose share price dropped by 11
percent after it suspended testing of its anti-cholesterol drug
torcetrapib late in 2006, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to court documents, on Dec. 26, 2006, Pfizer announced
that it was halting clinical trials of the developmental drug
torcetrapib.  By close of the next trading day, the price of
Pfizer common stock had declined by 10.62%.  The plaintiffs then
brought a class action against Pfizer and three of its current
and former officers and directors.  They seek recovery against
defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Recently, Judge Kaplan found that the lead plaintiffs -- the
Uniformed Sanitationmen's Association Accrual Fund -- "have not
pleaded with particularity facts sufficient to support their
allegation that defendants' statements were materially
misleading."

The suit is "In Re: Pfizer, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
06 Civ. 14199(LAK)," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


PFIZER INC: Throws Questions About Celebrex and Bextra RX Bills
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. last month asked Madison County Associate Judge
Ralph Mendelsohn to compel plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit
against the company to provide answers to certain questions
relating to the prescription of painkillers Celebrex and Bextra,
The Madison St. Clair Record recounts.

However, class action attorney Stephen Tillery, Esq., won't tell
Pfizer who prescribed the pills for his clients or who paid for
the pills.

"Complete pharmacy records are vital to discovering the details
of plaintiffs' use of Celebrex and Bextra and are relevant to
plaintiffs' claim that they have been injured due to the
prescription and purchase of Celebrex and Bextra," Pfizer's
attorney, Robert Shultz, Esq., wrote.

According to Mr. Shultz, Mr. Tillery has refused to produce
information about how much the plaintiffs or their insurers paid
for the pills.  Mr. Tillery also has not produced records of the
doses that doctors prescribed or the number of pills the
plaintiffs took, as well as did not divulge whether any client
sought a refund or received one.

Madison Record recounts that Mr. Tillery sued Pfizer in 2005, on
behalf of Ricky Lott, Gerald Sumner, Sandy Becker and Mike
Baldwin.  He alleged that Pfizer deceptively promoted Celebrex
and Bextra as superior to other non steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs.  The plaintiffs, Madison Record notes, claim economic
injury.  They seek damages equal to the difference between what
they paid and what they would have paid if they had known the
truth about the drugs.

Pfizer served questions on the plaintiffs in September and
requested production of documents.

In December, Mr. Shultz wrote, Mr. Tillery objected to most of
the requests and provided less than 20 pages of heavily redacted
pharmacy records.  Mr. Tillery claimed physician-patient
privilege and a constitutional right to privacy.

However, Mr. Shultz responded in his motion that the right to
privacy "does not protect against disclosure of medical
information relevant to a plaintiff's claim."  He said that
"Pfizer is entitled to investigate the decisions of plaintiffs'
prescribing physicians in order to respond to plaintiffs'
claims. . ."

Noting that Mr. Tillery alleges deception in advertising, Mr.
Shultz argued that the influence of advertising on physicians
was directly relevant.  "Plaintiffs have not completely answered
whether they or their physician saw any allegedly misleading
advertisements or promotional materials . . .  Plaintiffs merely
state that they 'recall seeing' advertisements either in
television or magazines, but fail to describe the date and
substance of any advertising and fail to state how they were
misled in any way," Mr. Schultz wrote.

According to Madison Record, Mr. Shultz seeks to learn about
reasons why doctors prescribed Celebrex and Bextra, the
responses of the patients, and other medicines they took.  He
also wants to know what physicians told patients about the
pills.

The report notes that Judge Mendelsohn has tentatively set an
April 22 hearing on Mr. Tillery's motion to certify a class
action.  But first, the judge will hold hearings on a Pfizer
motion to transfer the case to Cook County and a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The defendant is represented by:

          Robert H. Shultz, Jr. (rshultz@hrva.com)
          Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen PC
          103 West Vandalia, Suite 100, P.O. Box 467
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Phone: 618-656-4646  
          Fax: 618-656-7940


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Life Insurance Co., a unit of Principal Financial
Group, Inc., continues to a face a purported class action filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

A trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement Savings Plan filed
the purported class action over allegations that the company
received secret kickbacks from mutual funds.

Originally, the putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Nov. 8,
2006.  

The suit alleges, among other things, that Principal Life
breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services
to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose,
to employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life
receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are
included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed
to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services
provided to the plans.  

The plaintiff further alleges that these acts constitute
prohibited transactions under Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all retirement plans
to which Principal Life was a service provider and for which
Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from
mutual funds.  The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief.

Principal Life's Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa was granted.  It is
aggressively defending the lawsuit.

The suit is "Ruppert v. Principal Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 4:07-cv-00344-HDV-TJS," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa, Judge Harold D. Vietor
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Klint L. Bruno, Esq. (kbruno@koreintillery.com)
         Korein Tillery
         209 South LaSalle, Suite 701
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-759-7510

Representing the defendant is:

         Joel S. Feldman, Esq. (jfeldman@sidley.com)
         Sidley, Austin et al.
         10 South Dearborn Street, Bank One Plaza
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Pone: 312-853-7000
         Fax: 312-853-7036


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Remaining Suit in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc., and Princor Financial Services
Corp. are seeking for the dismissal of sole remaining lawsuit
that was filed against them in Iowa.

Initially, two purported class actions -- one alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, the other alleging violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 -- were
filed against the defendants.

On Aug. 28, 2007, two plaintiffs filed two putative class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against the company and Princor Financial (Principal
Defendants).

One of the lawsuits alleges that the Principal Defendants
breached alleged fiduciary duties to participants in employer-
sponsored 401(k) plans who were retiring or leaving their
respective plans, including providing misleading information and
failing to act solely in the interests of the participants,
resulting in alleged violations of ERISA.

The second suit is based upon the same facts and alleges
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities Act of 1933.

The allegations of the second suit include alleged omissions and
misrepresentations by the Principal Defendants related to mutual
fund shares purchased by plan participants rolling out of
employer-sponsored retirement plans.

The Plaintiffs dismissed the second suit which was based upon
the same facts and alleged violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.  

The defendants have filed a request to dismiss the remaining
lawsuit, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com--   
is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services.  


R&G FINANCIAL: Settles Securities, Derivative Litigation in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
R&G Financial Corporation has reached an agreement in principle
to settle all claims with the lead plaintiffs in a shareholder
class action originally filed in 2005.

Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to notice
being provided to the class and final approval by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the
Company and the other settling defendants will pay the
plaintiffs an aggregate of $39 million.

The Company also announced that it has reached an agreement in
principle to settle all claims in the shareholder derivative
litigation filed against the Company in 2005.  The derivative
settlement is also subject to notice and approval from the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

In connection with these settlements, the Company agreed to
certain corporate governance enhancements which will, among
other things, impose additional director independence
requirements.  As part of the global settlement, the Company
will pay approximately $29 million and the Company's insurers
and certain individual defendants will pay an aggregate of
approximately $11 million.

"I am pleased with the settlement that we reached with the
plaintiffs," said Rolando Rodriguez, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company. "Today is another significant
step in our efforts to fully address our pending legal and
regulatory matters."

The Company had been in discussions, led by a mediator, with the
lead plaintiffs and the derivative plaintiffs regarding a
settlement.

                          Case Background

On May 26, 2005, investors sued R&G Financial claiming that the  
financial holding company issued false and misleading financial  
statements to the investing public.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of New York seeking damages for violations of  
federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased  
R&G common stock from April 21, 2003, through and including
April 25, 2005.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)  
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules  
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.  
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.

According to the complaint, R&G's financial statements were  
materially false and misleading when made because defendants  
failed to disclose:  

     -- that the company's earnings quality had been  
        significantly weakened by the company's use of more  
        aggressive assumptions to generate gain on sale income,  
        as well as to the value it retained in its interest only  
        residuals in securitization transactions;  

     -- that R&G's methodology used to calculate the fair value  
        of its IO residual interests was incorrect and caused  
        the company to overstate its financial results by at  
        least $50 million;  

     -- that the company's financial statements were not  
        prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted  
        Accounting Principles;  

     -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and  
        was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial  
        condition of the company; and  

     -- that as a result, the value of the company's net income  
        and financial results were materially overstated at all  
        relevant times.

On April 25, 2005, after the close of trading, R&G shocked the  
investing public when it announced that it would restate its  
earnings for 2003 and 2004.

On this news, R&G stock fell $8.14 per share, or 35 percent, to  
close at $15.04 on April 26, 2005, a two-year low.

On June 27, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead  
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with court.  Judge John  
Sprizzo heard oral arguments on July 25, 2005 and, on July 26,  
2005 signed an Order consolidating all related cases into one  
class action, as "In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities  
Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," and appointing  
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, according to an update posted  
by at the Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &  
Pucillo (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2006).


SILICON IMAGE: Ninth Circuit Hears Appeal in Calif. Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit continues to
hear an appeal in connection with the dismissal of the fourth
consolidated amended securities fraud complaint in a purported
class action against Silicon Image, Inc.

The lawsuit, "Curry v. Silicon Image, Inc., Steve Tirado, and
Robert Gargus," was filed on Jan. 31, 2005, with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
case was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock from Oct. 19, 2004 to Jan. 24, 2005.

The suit asserts that the company and certain of its officers
and directors made alleged misstatements of material facts and
violated certain provisions of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the
U.S. Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.  In July  
2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
which dropped Robert Gargus, but added Dr. David Lee as
individual defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint also expanded the class
period from June 25, 2004 to April 22, 2005.  The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in
September 2005.  

On Dec. 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint, which extended the end of the class period
from April 22, 2005, to Oct. 13, 2005, and added additional
factual allegations under the same causes of action against the
company, Mr. Tirado and Dr. Lee.  The complaint also added a new
plaintiff, James D. Smallwood.  

The defendants, on Feb. 9, 2006, filed a motion to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint.  This request was granted
by the court on June 21, 2006, with leave to amend.  

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended
complaint (by the court established deadline of July 21, 2006),
which the defendants again sought to be dismissed.   
Subsequently, on Feb. 23, 2007, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with
leave to amend.  

The plaintiffs filed a fourth consolidated amended complaint,
which was again dismissed by the court at the defendants'
behest, without further leave to amend.  Final judgment was
entered in favor of the defendants on Sept. 25, 2007.

On Oct. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal of the
court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The appellants' opening brief was due on Feb. 28, 2008, and the
company's answer is due on or before April 14, 2008, according
to the company's Feb. 27, 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 Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Judge Maxine M.
Chesney.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Aaron H. Darsky Esq. (adarsky@schubert-reed.com)
          Schubert & Reed, LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-788-4220
          Fax: 415-788-0161

          Merrick Scott Rayle, Esq. (mrayle@lshllp.com)
          Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP
          212 Wood Street
          Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227
          Phone: 831-333-0309
          Fax: 831-333-0325

              - and -

          Richard A. Speirs, Esq. (rspeirs@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 212-223-3900

Representing the defendants is:

          Emmett C. Stanton, Esq. (estanton@fenwick.com)
          Fenwick & West, LLP
          Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street
          Mountain View, CA 94041-2008
          Phone: 650-988-8500
          Fax: 650-938-5200


SOLUTIA INC: Class Certified in Consolidated Pension Plan Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class was certified in a consolidated lawsuit that claims
Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan discriminated against
employees on the basis of their age, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Since October 2005, current or former  participants in the
Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan have filed three class
actions alleging that the Pension Plan is discriminatory based
upon age and that the lump sum values of individual account
balances in the Pension Plan have been, and continue to be,
miscalculated.

Two of these cases are:

       -- "Davis, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension
          Plan," and

       -- "Hammond, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension
          Plan."

The two are still pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.  

Those two cases have been consolidated with similar cases
against Monsanto Co., and Monsanto Company Pension Plan, and
Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, Pharmacia Corp., Pharmacia
and Upjohn, Inc., and Pfizer Inc.  

Those two cases that were consolidated with the Solutia suits
are:

       -- "Walker et al. v. The Monsanto Pension Plan, et al."
          and

       -- "Donaldson v. Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, et
          al."

The plaintiffs seek to obtain injunctive and other equitable
relief (including money damages awarded by the creation of a
common fund) on behalf of themselves and the nationwide putative
class of similarly situated current and former participants in
the Pension Plan.

A Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed by all of the
plaintiffs in the consolidated case on Sept. 4, 2006.  

The Complaint alleged three separate causes of action against
the Pension Plan:

       -- the Pension Plan violates the Employee Retirement
          Income Security Act by terminating interest credits on
          prior plan accounts at the age of 55;

       -- the Pension Plan is improperly backloaded in violation
          of ERISA; and

       -- the Pension Plan is discriminatory on the basis of
          age.  

In September 2007, the second and third of these claims were
dismissed by the court.

By consent of the parties, the court certified a class in
September 2007 with respect to the Pension Plan on the
plaintiffs' claim that the Pension Plan discriminated against
employees on the basis of their age by only providing interest
credits on prior plan accounts through age 55.

Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its  
subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety
of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in
a range of consumer and industrial applications.  Solutia has
two segments.  The Performance Products segment manufactures
performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market
applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals,
heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid.  The
Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of
nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers.
Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various
industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a
lesser extent, by using distributors.

    
SOLUTIA INC: Parties Settle N.Y. Lawsuits Over SIP Plan
-------------------------------------------------------
Parties in two purported class actions against current and
former officials of Solutia Inc. have reached a settlement in
the cases, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Two companion purported class actions were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suits
are:

       -- "Dickerson v. Feldman et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
          07935-LAP," filed in October 2004; and

       -- "Reiff v. Metz, Case No. 07-06011," filed in June
          2007.

The suits were filed against a number of defendants, including
Solutia's former officers and employees and the Solutia Employee
Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and Savings Funds
Committee.  

The company was not named as a defendant.  

The actions alleged breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA and
sought to recover alleged losses to the Solutia Inc. Savings and
Investment Plan during the period December 16, 1998, to the date
the action was filed.  

The plaintiffs in both cases alleged the investment of SIP Plan
assets in our common stock was imprudent, and the actions sought
monetary payment to the SIP Plan to recover the losses resulting
from the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, as well as
injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and interest.  

In addition, the plaintiffs in these actions filed a proof of
claim for $269 million against the company.

In December 2007, the company, the named defendants, and the
plaintiffs reached a global settlement in principle which would
resolve the Dickerson and Reiff lawsuits on a class wide basis.  

Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its  
subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety
of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in
a range of consumer and industrial applications.  Solutia has
two segments.  The Performance Products segment manufactures
performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market
applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals,
heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid.  The
Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of
nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers.
Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various
industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a
lesser extent, by using distributors.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Billing for Roaming Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corporation is facing a class-action complaint
filed on Feb. 28 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York accusing it of billing for roaming charges
despite promising that subscribers to its PCS International Plan
would not incur those charges, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Andrey Torkiver claims that the defendant failed
to disclose to consumers that Sprint customers who subscribed to
Sprint PCS International would incur substantial roaming charges
while traveling internationally.

This civil action is brought as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b) and (c)(4)(b) and
case law thereunder, on behalf of all wireless subscribers to
Sprint PCS International Plans, from inception of these plans to
present, who were charged and paid international roaming fees.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant breached its contracts with the class
         members by charging their standard international
         roaming fees despite their express representation that
         Sprint PCS International Plan was to minimize these
         charges substantially;

     (b) whether defendant violated Section 349 of the New York
         General Business Law, in that they engaged in deceptive
         acts or practices in the conduct of their business;

     (c) whether defendant violated Gen. Bus. L., Section 350 by
         engaging in false advertising in the conduct of their
         businesses;

     (d) whether defendant engaged in unfair, deceptive and/or
         misleading practices when it concealed the fact that
         the class members would incur international roaming
         charges for calls made outside of the Sprint network
         notwithstanding their enrollment in Sprint PCS
         International Plans;

     (e) whether defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense
         of plaintiff and the class;

     (f) whether defendant acted negligently, as alleged;

     (g) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         restitution of all monies acquired by defendant from
         plaintiff and the class and the general public as a
         result of defendant's unlawful conduct, and if so, the
         appropriate measure of damages;

     (h) the appropriate form of injunctive, declaratory and
         monetary relief.

The plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

     -- compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial, together with interest;

     -- punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- for an order awarding plaintiff and the class
        restitution of all monies acquired by defendant from
        plaintiff, the class, and the general public, as a
        result of defendant's wrongful practices;

     -- for an order awarding the plaintiff and the class pre-
        judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their
        reasonable attorneys' and experts' witness fees and
        other costs;

     -- for an order imposing a constructive trust upon all
        monies and assets defendant has acquired from plaintiffs
        and the class as a result of defendant's unlawful,
        unfair, fraudulent and deceptive practices;

     -- for an order awarding plaintiffs and the class equitable
        and declaratory relief, as the court deems appropriate;
        and

     -- for an order awarding such other and further relief as
        the court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Andrey Torkiver et al v. Sprint Nextel Corporation
et al., Case No. 08 852," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Marina Trubitsky, Esq.
          Marina Trubitsky & Associates, PLLC
          11 Broadway, Suite 861
          New York, New York 10004
          Phone: (212) 732-7707


T-MOBILE USA: Faces Calif. Suit Over $18 "Upgrade Fee" Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California alleging it charges customers an $18 "upgrade fee"
for new wireless phones, without disclosing it until the next
bill comes, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Philip Martinet claims that the fee:

     (i) was not disclosed by T-Mobile's sales representatives
         at the time the subscribers obtain new phones or
         handsets;

    (ii) was not charged at the time of the sale; and

   (iii) appears as a line item charge on the customer's next T-
         Mobile invoice.

The Plaintiff brings the action pursuant to Rule 23 on behalf of
T-Mobile subscribers in the United States assessed an $18
"upgrade fee" for obtaining new wireless telephones and
handsets.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether T-Mobile breached its contracts with the
         members of the class;

     (b) whether T-Mobile charged class members fees in
         violation of the contracts between T-Mobile and the
         members of the class; and

    (c) whether T-Mobile violated California Civil Code Section
        1750 et seq., California Business and Professions Code
        Section 17200 et seq. and Section 17500 et seq., and
        similar consumer statutes in other states as alleged.

The plaintiff seeks:

     -- an order certifying the action as a class action on
        behalf of the class;

     -- restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
        wrongfully charged to plaintiff and members of the
        class;

     -- damages according to proof;

     -- costs of suit;

     -- both pre- and post-judgment interest on any and all
        amounts awarded;

     -- an award of treble or punitive damages under
        applicable law;

     -- an award of attorney's fees appropriate pursuant to
        the provisions of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
        Act, and other similar states' statutory provisions; and

     -- declaratory judgment and injunctive relief declaring
        any and all mandatory arbitration clauses and class
        action waiver of rights to participation in contracts
        and terms and conditions of service as
        unconstitutional, unconscionable and unenforceable and
        enjoining enforcement thereof.

The suit is "Philip Martinet et al v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case
No. 08CV381," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Joseph G. Dicks, Esq. (jdicks@dicks-workmanlaw.com)
          Linda G. Workman, Esq. (lworkman@dicks-workmanlaw.com)
          Dicks & Workman, APC
          750 B Street, Suite 2720
          San Diego, California 92101
          Phone: (619) 685-6800
          Fax: (619) 557-2735


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeal in "Proctor"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal in the purported class action captioned "Proctor et
al v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
04134-JF," in connection with a permanent injunction restraining
the plaintiffs from prosecuting the case.

Following Vishay's Feb. 22, 2001 announcement of a proposed
tender offer for the publicly-held shares of Siliconix, 12
separate class and derivative actions were filed with California
and Delaware state courts against Vishay, Siliconix, and various
officers and directors of both companies.

In August 2002, purported shareholder Rebecca Proctor filed a
complaint with the California Superior Court against, among
others, the Vishay Defendants.  The complaint purported to bring
direct and derivative causes of action solely based on Vishay's
supposed misappropriation of Siliconix sales subsidiaries.

In January 2005, an amended class action complaint was filed
with the Superior Court of California on behalf of all non-
Vishay stockholders of Siliconix against Vishay, Ernst & Young
LLP (the independent registered public accounting firm that
audits the Company's financial statements), Dr. Felix Zandman,
Executive Chairman and Chief Technical and Business Development
Officer of Vishay, and as a nominal defendant, Siliconix.

The suit made various claims against Vishay and the other
defendants for actions allegedly taken in respect of Siliconix
during the period when Vishay owned an 80.4% interest in
Siliconix.  It sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

In May 2005, Vishay successfully completed a tender offer to
acquire all shares of Siliconix that were not already owned by
Vishay.

Following the announcement of Vishay's intent to make the tender
offer, several purported class-action complaints were filed with
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  

These actions were consolidated into a single class action and a
settlement agreement was reached with the plaintiffs, who
effectively represented all non-Vishay stockholders of
Siliconix.  The settlement agreement was approved by the
Delaware Court of Chancery in October 2005.

The Proctor plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the
Superior Court of California in November 2005.  In June 2006,
the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a permanent injunction
restraining the Proctor plaintiffs from prosecuting the Proctor
action.  An appeal of the injunction order brought by a former
stockholder of Siliconix was dismissed by the Delaware Supreme
Court in January 2007.

Also in June 2006, the Proctor litigation was removed from the
Superior Court of California to federal District Court there.

The District Court granted a motion by Ernst & Young to dismiss
the complaint and a motion by Vishay for summary judgment,
effective Oct. 15, 2007.  

The Proctor plaintiffs thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is
pending, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Proctor et al v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. et
al., Case No. 5:06-cv-04134-JF," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California Judge Jeremy Fogel
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

        Joseph H. C. Wood, Esq. (jhcwlaw@yahoo.com)
        Attorney at Law
        425 California Street
        Nineteenth Floor
        San Francisco, CA 94104-2296
        Phone: 415-421-6100
        Fax: 415-421-1815

Representing the defendants are:

        Daniel H. Bookin, Esq. (dbookin@omm.com)
        O'Melveny & Myers LLP
        275 Battery Street, 25th Floor
        San Francisco, CA 94111
        Phone: (415) 984-8786
        Fax: (415) 984-8701

        Alan R. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@kramerlevin.com)
        Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
        1177 Avenue of the Americas
        New York, NY 10036
        Phone: 212-715-9100
        Fax: 212-715-8000

             - and -

        Patrick Edward Gibbs, Esq. (patrick.gibbs@lw.com)
        Latham & Watkins LLP
        140 Scott Drive
        Menlo Park, CA 94025
        Phone: 650-328-4600
        Fax: 650-463-2600


WORLDCOM INC: Carbon County Gets $49,000 as Settlement for Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon County's lawsuit against WorldCom Inc. has been settled
for $49,000, The Morning Call says.

Commissioners at a county Retirement Board meeting were told by
county Controller Robert Crampsie that Carbon got a $49,000
settlement from the class action lawsuit against WorldCom as a
result of stock losses associated with what Mr. Crampsie called
the largest corporate fraud scandal in the United States.

Morning Call points out that a total of $6.1 billion was awarded
to thousands who joined the suit.  However, Mr. Crampsie said,
the county's award amounts to just 5% of what the county
lost as a result of the stocks.

According to the report, Carbon County officials had initially
aimed to regain $970,000 in retirement funds lost to the
WorldCom accounting scandal.  Authorities said that WorldCom
executives inflated revenue.  Carbon County's pension plans had
held stock in the company.

Carbon was among public entities that in 2003 asked the federal
government to help them recoup the money, but were told they
would have to sue on their own, Morning Call recounts.  The same
year, the collapse of Texas energy trading company Enron cost
the county $327,000.


YAHOO! INC: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. continues to face two purported securities fraud
class actions that were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

On May 11, 2007, the first of two purported securities class
actions was filed against Yahoo! and certain of its officers and
members of the board of directors.  The lawsuit was filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by plaintiff Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky, under the caption, "Ellen
Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., Case No.
2:2007cv03125."

The second lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California by plaintiff Manfred Hacker,
under the caption, "Manfred Hacker v. Yahoo! Inc et al., Case
No. 2:2007cv03902."

The plaintiffs in both cases allege, among other things,
violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 sections
10(b) and 20(a), as well as Rule 10b-5.  The plaintiffs
generally claim that Yahoo! issued false, deceptive or
misleading statements concerning its advertising business,
financial results, and sales and growth potential between
April 8, 2004, and July 18, 2006.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, costs and attorneys' fees, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com-- is a global Internet  
brand.  To its global users, it provides owned and operated
online properties and services.   To its advertisers, it
provides tools and marketing solutions.  Many of Yahoo!'s
services are free to its users.  


YAHOO! INC: Faces Calif. Stockholder Suits Over Microsoft Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. faces several purported class actions that were
filed with the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County in
connection to Microsoft Corp.'s unsolicited proposal to acquire
the company, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Since Feb. 1, 2008, four separate shareholder lawsuits have been
filed against Yahoo!, members of the Board of Directors and
selected former officers by plaintiffs Edward Fritsche, the
Thomas Stone Trust, Tom Turberg and the Congregation Beth Aaron.

The plaintiffs in the California Lawsuits purport to assert
class claims on behalf of all Yahoo! stockholders, except
defendants and their affiliates.  In addition, certain of the
plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to assert shareholder
derivative claims on behalf of Yahoo!.  

The complaints allege that the Yahoo! Board of Directors
breached fiduciary duties in connection with Microsoft Corp.'s
unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo!.  

The plaintiffs in two of the lawsuits allege that Microsoft's
Feb. 1, 2008 unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo! is
inadequate and that the Yahoo! Board of Directors breached
fiduciary duties by favoring Microsoft's unsolicited proposal.

The plaintiffs in the other Lawsuits allege that the Yahoo!
Board of Directors breached fiduciary duties by, among other
things, failing to negotiate a transaction with Microsoft or
other potential bidders in the past and presently.

The complaints in the California Lawsuits seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and costs.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com-- is a global Internet  
brand.  To its global users, it provides owned and operated
online properties and services.   To its advertisers, it
provides tools and marketing solutions.  Many of Yahoo!'s
services are free to its users.  


YAHOO! INC: Faces Del. Stockholder Lawsuits Over Microsoft Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. faces several purported class actions that were
filed with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in
connection to Microsoft Corp.'s unsolicited proposal to acquire
the company, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Since Feb. 11, 2008, three separate shareholder lawsuits have
been filed against Yahoo! Inc., and the members of the company's
Board of Directors by these plaintiffs:

   -- The Wayne County Employees' Retirement System,

   -- Ronald Dicke, and

   -- The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
      Detroit along with The General Retirement System of the
      City of Detroit.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to assert class claims on
behalf of all Yahoo! stockholders, except defendants and their
affiliates.

The plaintiffs generally allege that defendants breached
fiduciary duties by rejecting Microsoft Corp.'s Feb. 1, 2008
unsolicited offer to acquire Yahoo! Inc. without fully informing
themselves whether Microsoft would offer additional
consideration and that defendants are not acting in the best
interests of shareholders and are seeking to entrench
themselves.

One of the Delaware Lawsuits alleges that the Board of Directors
have pursued various blocking transactions, adopted an employee
severance plan, and a shareholder rights plan in violation of
fiduciary duties.

The complaints in the Delaware Lawsuits seek unspecified
damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief, as well as an
award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com-- is a global Internet  
brand.  To its global users, it provides owned and operated
online properties and services.   To its advertisers, it
provides tools and marketing solutions.  Many of Yahoo!'s
services are free to its users.  


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBAC FINANCIAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities
of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. between October 19, 2005, and
January 15, 2008, inclusive against Ambac and certain of its
officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements about Ambac's
business and financial results and materially misrepresented,
inter alia, its exposure to collateralized debt obligations and
subprime mortgages.  It is also alleged that defendants failed
to mark down the Company's CDO and other mortgage-backed
security assets in a timely manner, resulting in the Company
issuing materially false and misleading financial statements and
results.  Moreover, it is alleged that certain executives of the
Company reaped millions of dollars in proceeds from the sale of
Ambac shares during the Class Period at artificially inflated
prices.

It is also alleged that on January 16, 2008, Ambac announced its
preliminary fourth quarter 2007 results which included an
estimated net loss of $3.4 billion for the fourth quarter,
including an approximate $1.1 billion loss that was attributed
to CDOs backed by subprime mortgages.  As a result, it is
alleged the price of Ambac stock plummeted on January 16, 2008,
to close at $12.97 per share, a 38% decline from the prior day
close.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the
court no later than March 17, 2008 to serve as a lead plaintiff
for the Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.

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

For more information, contact:

          Karen H. Riebel, Esq. (khriebel@locklaw.com)
          Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN  55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. between October 30,
2007, and February 4, 2008, inclusive.

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

SiRF develops and markets semiconductor and software products
that are designed to enable location- awareness utilizing Global
Positioning System and other location technologies.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and
prospects.  Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose or
indicate:

     (1) that there were not sufficient amounts of orders by
         major customers to meet the targets set by the Company;

     (2) that SiRF's acquisition of Centrality Communications,
         Inc. and its system- on-chip product line would result
         in overall lower margins and would adversely affect
         SiRF's existing product line, resulting in lower gross
         margins for the Company's products;

     (3) that SiRF was not adequately equipped to deal with
         competition from other companies offering superior
         technology, specifically with regard to cellular-
         enabled products;

     (4) that SiRF was being forced to decrease prices due to
         market pressures, which would adversely affect earnings
         and lead to lower gross margins going forward;

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

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On February 4, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced an 89% year over year decrease in fourth quarter
profits.  For fourth quarter 2007, the Company reported net
income of $0.7 million, as compared to $9.1 million in net
income for fourth quarter 2006.  Further, the Company stated
that its net loss for fiscal 2007 was $10.4 million, as compared
to net income of $2.4 million for fiscal 2006.  Additionally,
the Company gave a "miserable outcome" for the first quarter,
predicting a loss of 4 cents per share.  Upon the release of
this news, the Company's shares fell $8.91 per share, or 54.76
percent, to close on February 5, 2008 at $7.36 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) or 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


SUNOPTA INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action against SunOpta Inc. and
certain officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The action is on behalf of those purchasing SunOpta common stock
during the period beginning August 8, 2007, to January 25, 2008,
inclusive, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the Company's
reported earnings and that, as a result, the price of the
Company's securities was inflated during the Class Period,
thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
Company's reported earnings.  In addition, among other things,
defendants falsely stated that the Company's internal controls
were adequate and that the Company's financial statements were
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.

As a result, on January 24, 2008, Defendants informed
shareholders that "significant issues" would cause the Company
to write down $12 to $14 million pre-tax.  In addition,
Defendants' disclosed that the Company's quarterly and annual
financial statements for the fiscal year 2007 could no longer be
relied upon and that it would likely be required to restate its
financial statements for previous quarters.

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

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Eric J. O'Bell Files LA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Eric J. O'Bell, LLC filed a class action
lawsuit against Superior Offshore International Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of the Company in connection with Superior Offshore's
Initial Public Offering on or about April 20, 2007, or who
purchased shares thereafter through January 9, 2008.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with making a series of materially false and
misleading statements in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, violation of the
Securities Act of 1933.

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

For more information, contact:

          Eric J. O'Bell, Esq. (ejo@obelllawfirm.com)
          Law Offices of Eric J. O'Bell, LLC
          3500 North Hullen Street
          Metairie, Louisiana 70002
          Phone: 504-456-8677
          Fax: 504-456-8624




                           *********


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  * * *