CAR_Public/080311.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, March 11, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 50
  
                            Headlines

ABLE ENERGY: Resolution of Explosion Lawsuit Expected Next Month
ALL-POWER: Recalls Air Compressors Due to Fire, Electrical Risk
AMEREN CORP: Court Dismisses Illinois PPA-Related Cases
ARROWHEAD CLINIC: Court Certifies C. Toler's Georgia Lawsuit
AWP LITIGATION: 11 Pharmaceuticals Agree to $125 MM Settlement

BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Face Cipro Antitrust Lawsuits
CELLCOM ISRAEL: $2.94-Billion Lawsuit in Jerusalem Dismissed
DIEBOLD INC: Ohio District Judge Throws Out Derivative Lawsuit
GENESEE & WYOMING: Faces Suit in Ky. Over 2007 Trail Derailment
GENESEE & WYOMING: Settlement Over Outremont Yard Noise Approved

GUIDANT CORP: Investors Lose in Defibrillator Lawsuit
INDIAN TRUST: Judge Wants 12-Year "Cobell" Case Resolved
JONES SODA: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in Wash. Fraud Suit
MARATHON OIL: WV Court Certifies Class in Faulty Gasoline Suit
NEW YORK: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Wetlands Suit

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL: Agrees to Settle Oil Reserve Restatement Suit
SEALED AIR: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
SKECHERS USA: Discovery Yet to Commence in CA Securities Lawsuit
SOUTHERN COPPER: Still Faces Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger
STARTEK INC: Still Faces Consolidated Colo. Securities Lawsuit

UAL CORP: Still Working to Settle Multiple Suits Over Surcharges
UNITED STATES: Immigrants File N.Y. Lawsuit Over Unlawful Delays
VERISIGN INC: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
VERISIGN INC: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Stock Option Grants
WESTERN CULINARY: Faces Lawsuit in Portland Over Student Loans


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ENERNOC INC: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
MBIA INC: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
MF GLOBAL LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Lockridge Grindal Filed MD Securities Suit
OPNEXT INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ



                           *********


ABLE ENERGY: Resolution of Explosion Lawsuit Expected Next Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Almost five years after Morris, Downing, and Sherrod, in Newton,
New Jersey, filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of residents
affected by the Able Energy Inc. explosion on Diller Avenue,
attorneys for both sides will seek a resolution next month, New
Jersey Herald reports.

According to NJ Herald, Morris Downing is scheduled to meet with
lawyers for Able Energy in April for mediation hearings before
retired Judge Robert Cohen.

The suit, as reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 4,
2003, was commenced after Able Energy's Newton, New Jersey
facility experienced an explosion and fire on March 14, 2003,
resulting in the destruction of an office building, as well as
damage to 18 company vehicles and neighboring properties.

NJ Herald recalls that members of the class are people who lived
within 1,000 feet of the explosion.  David Johnson, Esq., and
Paul Hunczak, Esq., of Morris Downing, said that they have
identified about 400 to 500 members of the class.

The state Superior Court judge certified on June 17, 2005, the
class of residents and businesses affected by the blast,
including named plaintiffs Karen Hicks, Karen Lewis and William
Dolan, who lived at the Merriam Gateway Apartments.  The court
found that the class showed legal standards such as "typicality"
and "commonality" in its claims and gave the lawsuit a go-ahead
to move forward.

The lawsuit seeks compensation and punitive damages for the
class members' out-of-pocket expenses and the vexing evacuation
that followed the blast.

In a boon for the plaintiffs, NJ Herald relates, the court ruled
that the inconvenience of a week-long evacuation could be cited
in residents' requests for compensation.  Able Energy had argued
that class members should not be entitled to more than their
tangible losses, such food and clothing.

David Menzel, Esq., an attorney for Able Energy, said he hopes
mediation becomes "productive."

NJ Herald recounts that the court had also previously ruled that
people who did not respond to interrogatories from Able Energy
could not be included in the class.

Mr. Johnson said that his firm "respectfully disagreed" with
this decision, while Able Energy's attorney asserted there are
"strong legal authorities supporting that position."

"Each class member is going to have to support their damage
claim anyway," Mr. Menzel said.  "I think the decision in
striking the claims of non-responsive class members is certainly
well-founded."

Attorneys for the class also are seeking punitive damages in
light of the illegal transfer of propane that caused the blast,
describing it as willful conduct that "demands punishment."

Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hunczak said they can point to at least 300
violations by Able Energy that are on record with the state
Department of Community Affairs.

Able Energy, Inc. -- http://www.ableenergy.com/-- is engaged in   
the retail distribution of and the provision of services
relating to home heating oil, propane gas, kerossene and diesel
fuels.  The Company offers complete heating, ventilation and
air-conditioning installation and repair services and
markets other petroleum products to commercial customers,
including on-road and off-road diesel fuel, gasoline and
lubricants.


ALL-POWER: Recalls Air Compressors Due to Fire, Electrical Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
All-Power America, of City of Industry, Calif., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 64,000 Strike Force Portable Air Compressors.

The company said the compressor's motor can overheat and ignite
the protective cover, posing a fire hazard to consumers.  Also,
the cover might not prevent internal components from being
touched, which poses an electrical shock hazard.

The firm has received four reports of fires. No injuries have
been reported.

The recall involves the 4.6 gallon, 3.5 HP Strike Force brand
portable air compressor and includes the following model and
serial numbers:

          Model Number         Serial No.
          ------------          ----------
          BMM2524 (25254)   JWAPC4005xxxxxxxxx
          AC251FT (2516)   YFJAC4005xxxxxxxxxx
          APC4005 (4005)   CSCC4005xxxxxxxxxxx

The compressor has twin air tanks that are black-colored.  The
model and serial numbers are located on the compressor's
housing.

These recalled air compressors were manufactured in China and
were being sold at Advance Auto Parts stores nationwide and
online at http://www.partsamerica.com/from October 2006 through  
December 2007 for about $90.

A picture of the recalled air compressors is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08210.jpg

Consumers are advised stop using the air compressor immediately
and return it to any Advance Auto Parts store for a full refund.

For further information, contact All-Power America toll-free at
(888) 896-6881 between 8:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit either: http://www.allpoweramerica.com/or  
http://www.advanceautoparts.com/

    
AMEREN CORP: Court Dismisses Illinois PPA-Related Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted a motion filed by Ameren Corp. and other defendants  
that sought for the dismissal of lawsuits over the Illinois
power procurement auction of 2006.

Two similar class actions filed with the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, in March 2007 named as defendants:

       -- Ameren Corp.,

       -- Illinois Power Co. (IP),

       -- Commonwealth Edison Co.,

       -- Exelon Corp., and

       -- 15 electricity suppliers, including Ameren Energy  
          Marketing Co.,

The defendants are selling power to the Illinois utilities
pursuant to contracts entered into as a result of the September
2006 power procurement auction.

The asserted class seeks to represent all customers who
purchased electric service from Commonwealth Edison Co. or the
Ameren Illinois Utilities.

Both lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Illinois
utilities and the power suppliers illegally manipulated prices
in the September 2006 power procurement auction.

Relief sought in both cases is actual damages to be determined
at trial and legal costs, including attorneys' fees.  One of the
lawsuits also seeks punitive damages and recovery of illegal
profits and excludes the Ameren Illinois Utilities from the
requests for relief.

In April 2007, the defendants in these lawsuits filed notices
removing these cases to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The defendants have pending motions to
dismiss.

In December 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the lawsuits, and the time to appeal this court decision has
expired, according to its Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Ameren Corp. -- http://www.ameren.com-- is a public utility  
holding company, whose subsidiaries operate rate-regulated
electric generation, transmission and distribution businesses,
rate-regulated natural gas distribution businesses, and non-
rate-regulated electric generation businesses in Missouri and
Illinois.  


ARROWHEAD CLINIC: Court Certifies C. Toler's Georgia Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Christy Toler's lawsuit, filed in 2006, against Brown Arrowhead
Chiropractic Clinic in Brunswick, attorney John E. King, and
several others, was certified as a class action by Chatham
County State Court Judge Hermann Coolidge, according to Savannah
Morning News.

Ms. Toler, the report recounts, was struck by a car on March 7,
2005, and sought treatment at the Arrowhead Clinic.  Before
arriving at the clinic, she was met by a paralegal for Mr. King
and signed a contract for representation.

Savannah News says that the certification order means that
attorneys for Ms. Toler, three other Savannahians, and the
others named in the original suit can pursue a class of others
who fit similar experiences.  

The class, which will include plaintiffs statewide, could number
as many as 3,500 individuals, said Stanley Karsman, Esq.  The
class would include anyone in similar circumstances to Ms. Toler
between Jan. 1, 2004, and March 3, 2008 -- the date of the
order.

In addition to Arrowhead clinics in Savannah and Brunswick and
Mr. King -- or John E. King and Associates -- the defendants
include Arrowhead Management Inc.; H. Brown Management Co.;
Harry W. Brown, a chiropractor and sole owner of Arrowhead
Management Inc.; and Harry W. Brown Jr.

The original lawsuit, filed by Mr. Karsman and attorneys Brent
Savage and Steven Scheer, contended that the defendants used
their chiropractic centers to encourage incoming accident
victims to use Mr. King to handle legal aspects of their
accident claims.  They made no disclosure of any relationship
between the defendants, the suit alleged.

The suit did not specify a damage sum.

According to Savannah News, the typical arrangement was for the
patient, Mr. King and the clinic to each receive one-third of
any money recovered from insurance companies, the suit
contended.

The suit alleged professional negligence, fraud, negligence and
breach of trust duties to the plaintiffs.  According to the
lawsuit, the defendants placed a profit motive "over and above
the interest of the patient."

The defendants are also accused of engaging in "unauthorized
disclosure of private information and . . . the over-utilization
of chiropractic services."

Judge Coolidge, the report notes, directed the parties in the
case to confer and submit a proposed notice to class members
within 30 days.

Patrick O'Connor, Esq., a lawyer for the defendants, said he
will appeal Judge Coolidge's ruling, an action that could take
"from a few months to as much as a year" for the appeals court
to rule.  Class certifications in Georgia may be appealed
directly to the state Court of Appeals.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stanley M. Karsman, Esq. (skarsman@savagelawfirm.net)
          Savage, Turner, Pinson and Karsman
          304 East Bay Street
          Savannah, Georgia 31401
          Phone: 1-800-626-1975
          Fax: 1-912-232-4212

Representing the defendants are:

          Patrick T. O'Connor, Esq. (pto@omg-law.com)
          Oliver Maner & Gray LLP
          PO Box 10186
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Phone: 912-236-3311
          Fax: 912-236-8725


AWP LITIGATION: 11 Pharmaceuticals Agree to $125 MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eleven major pharmaceutical companies, including Abbott
Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) and Watson Pharmaceuticals (NYSE: WPI),
agreed to a $125-million nationwide settlement in the average
wholesale price litigation filed in 2002 by consumers and
insurance companies, which claimed that the defendants
intentionally inflated reports of the average wholesale prices
on certain prescription drugs.

The published AWP is used to set the price that consumers making
Medicare Part B co-payments and Medicare pay for the drug, as
well as insurance companies and other third-party payors.  The
lawsuit contends that consumers and third-party payors paid more
than they should because of the drug companies' false AWP
reporting.

Seattle-based Hagens Berman, co-lead counsel in the case,
announced the settlement which includes branded and generic
drugs used primarily in the treatment of cancer, HIV and other
serious illnesses.  Under the terms of the settlement, 82.5% of
the settlement fund is designated for third-party payors' claims
and the remaining 17.5% is designated for consumer claims.

"This is a very good settlement for third-party payors and
consumers," said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman managing partner.
"The battle isn't over yet, but every settlement signifies that
our claims are just and these drug companies have many years of
damage to repay to drug purchasers."

The AWP class action suit was originally filed in 2002 with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The
original complaint names 23 pharmaceutical companies including
many of the U.S.'s major drug manufacturers, AstraZeneca,
Bristol-Meyers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson.
The original suit represents all people who have taken or paid
for any one of 37 named drugs in the original filing.

The defendants included in the recent settlement are:

     -- Abbott Laboratories,
     -- Amgen Inc.,
     -- Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
     -- Hoechst Marion Roussel,
     -- Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
     -- Baxter International Inc.,
     -- Bayer Corporation,
     -- Dey, Inc.,
     -- Fujisawa Healthcare, Inc.,
     -- Fujisawa USA, Inc.,
     -- Immunex Corporation,
     -- Pharmacia Corporation,
     -- Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC,
     -- Sicor, Inc.,
     -- Gensia, Inc.,
     -- Gensia Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
     -- Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
     -- ZLB Behring, L.L.C.

Drugs covered in this settlement include:

     -- Aranesp,
     -- Epogen,
     -- Neupogen,
     -- Neulasta,
     -- Anzemet,
     -- Ferrlecit and
     -- Infed.

Medicare Part B recipients eligible to participate in the
settlement will receive a mail outlining claim procedures.  The
class includes anyone who reimbursed any portion of an insured's
Medicare Part B co-payment between Jan. 1, 1991, through Jan. 1,
2005, or those who made reimbursements outside of Medicare Part
B for any of the named drugs from Jan 1, 1991, through March 1,
2008.

The court will hold a final hearing to approve all settlement
details.

Other settlements in the AWP case came in August 2006 when
GlaxoSmithKline agreed to a nationwide $70-million settlement
and in May 2007 when AstraZeneca agreed to a $24-million
settlement to Medicare Part B Zoladex users nationwide.

After a trial, the court, in November 2007, ordered AstraZeneca
and Bristol-Myers Squibb to pay nearly $14 million to insurance
companies and consumers in Massachusetts for the companies'
roles in unfair trade practices  (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 5,
2007).

The court is expected to set a trial date for remaining claims
against AstraZeneca and BMS on behalf of insurance companies and
consumers outside of Massachusetts.

The suit is "In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale
Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456,  Civil Action No. 01-12257-PBS,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292                 
          e-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/  

             - and -

          Mark Firmani (Mark@firmani.com)
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone:(206) 443-9357


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Face Cipro Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to face several purported
antitrust class action lawsuits in relation with Ciprofloxacin
filed with various courts, according to Barr Pharma's Feb. 29,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Initially, the company was named as a co-defendant with Bayer
Corp., The Rugby Group, Inc., and others in approximately 38
class-action complaints filed with state and federal courts by
direct and indirect purchasers of Ciprofloxacin from 1997 to the
present.

The complaints allege that the 1997 Bayer-Barr patent litigation
settlement agreement was anti-competitive and violated federal
antitrust laws and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.

A prior investigation of this agreement by the Texas Attorney
General's Office on behalf of a group of state Attorneys General
was closed without further action in December 2001.

The lawsuits include nine consolidated suits in California state
court, one in Kansas state court, one in Wisconsin state court,
one in Florida state court, and two consolidated in New York
state court, with the remainder of the actions pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.

On March 31, 2005, the Court in the MDL Case granted summary
judgment in the Company's favor and dismissed all of the federal
actions before it.  

On June 7, 2005, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On Nov. 2, 2007, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion for summary affirmance, based on the Second Circuit's
decision in the Company's favor in the Tamoxifen antitrust case.

On Nov. 7, 2007, the Second Circuit transferred the appeal
involving certain parties to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeals
of the other parties in the case.  Briefing on the merits is now
proceeding in the Federal Circuit.

Merits briefing has not been scheduled or commenced in the
Second Circuit, pending a ruling on the defendants' motion for
summary affirmance.

                      Wisconsin Litigation

On Sept. 19, 2003, the Circuit Court for the County of Milwaukee
dismissed the Wisconsin state class action for failure to state
a claim for relief under Wisconsin law.

The Court of Appeals reinstated the complaint on May 9, 2006,
and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that decision on
July 13, 2007, while not addressing the underlying merits of the
plaintiffs' case.

The matter was returned to the trial court for further
proceedings, and the trial court has stayed the case.

                       New York Litigation

On Oct. 17, 2003, the Supreme Court of the State of New York for
New York County dismissed the consolidated New York state class
action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted and denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

An intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, and
plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal to the New York Court of
Appeals.

                      California Litigation

On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court of San Diego, California
ordered a stay of the California state class actions until after
the resolution of any appeal in the MDL Case.  

The plaintiffs have moved to lift the stay.  The court has not
ruled on the motion but has scheduled a further status hearing
for March 7, 2008.

                        Kansas Litigation

On April 22, 2005, the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas
similarly stayed the action before it, until after any appeal in
the MDL Case.

                       Florida Litigation

The Florida state class action remains at a very early stage,
with no status hearings, dispositive motions, pre-trial
schedules, or a trial date set as of yet.

Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.barrlabs.com/-- is  
primarily a holding company.  The Company's subsidiaries, Barr
Laboratories, Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develop,
manufacture and market generic and proprietary pharmaceutical
products, respectively.  It operates in two business segments.  
In the generic pharmaceutical segment, it manufactures and
distributes approximately 150 different dosage forms and
strengths of approximately 75 different generic pharmaceutical
products, including 22 oral contraceptive products that
represent the largest category of its generic product portfolio.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: $2.94-Billion Lawsuit in Jerusalem Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed with the District Court
of Jerusalem against Cellcom Israel Ltd. and two other cellular
operators and two landline operators, in January 2007, was
dismissed without prejudice on March 5, 2008, following the
plaintiffs' request to withdraw their claim.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had violated the
defendants' statutory duty to allow their subscribers to
transfer with their number to another operator, thus, allegedly
causing monetary damage to the subscribers.

Had the dismissed lawsuit been certified as a class action, the
total amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiffs to be at
least $2.944 billion, without specifying the amount claimed from
the Company.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. offers a broad range of value added services
including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for
tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional
services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc. to its
2.8 million subscribers at December 2006.

For more information, contact:

          Shiri Israeli
          Investor Relations Coordinator
          Phone: +972-52-998-9755
          e-mail: investors@cellcom.co.il

             - and -

          Ehud Helft (ehud@gkir.com)
          Ed Job (ed.job@ccgir.com)
          Investor Relations Contact
          CCGK Investor Relations
          Phone: +1-866-704-6710 (US)
                 +1-646-213-1914


DIEBOLD INC: Ohio District Judge Throws Out Derivative Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
dismissed a shareholders' derivative action alleging that
current and former officers and board members of automated
teller machine and voting machine maker Diebold Inc. breached
their fiduciary duty and wasted company assets, Securities
Law360 reports.

On March 13, 2006, the defendants moved to consolidate the
securities, derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security
Act violations cases against the company for purposes of
discovery and to consolidate separate securities, derivative and
ERISA cases for all other purposes.

Judge Peter C. Economus granted parties motion to consolidate
securities, ERISA violations suits, and derivative suits against
Diebold Inc. as:

      -- In Re: Diebold Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:05 CV
         2873,
   
      -- In Re: Diebold ERISA Litigation, Case No. 5:06 CV
         0170, and

      -- In Re: Diebold Derivative Litigation, Case No. 5:06 CV
         0233.

The actions involve allegations against Diebold, Inc. and its
current and former directors and officers and related parties
relating to alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by
officers and directors at Diebold.  Each of the Actions falls
into one of three categories:

     -- five of the actions assert federal securities claims on
        behalf of shareholders of Diebold;

     -- four of the actions assert claims pursuant to the ERISA
        Act by purported participants in the Diebold 401(k)
        Savings Plan, on behalf of themselves and others
        similarly situated; and

     -- two of the actions assert derivative claims on behalf
        of Diebold against certain Individual Defendants.

The plaintiffs in the securities actions allege that
misrepresentations or omissions caused artificial inflation in
Diebolds stock price during the class period, and seek relief on
behalf of people who acquired Diebold stock in the open market.

This court also approves Diebold Lead Securities Plaintiffs
selection of Scott + Scott, LLC and Milberg Weiss Bershad and
Schulman LLP as lead counsel and Strauss & Troy as liaison
counsel.  

With respect to the designation of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, this court appoints Recht and Wietschner as the Diebold
Lead Derivative Plaintiff Group.  

The court also approves Diebold Lead Derivative Plaintiff Groups
selection of Federman & Sherwood and Bull & Lifshitz, LLP as
lead counsel and Weisman, Kennedy & Berris Co., LPA as liaison
counsel for the consolidated derivative actions.

Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
April 27, 2007.

On July 13, 2007, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  It is expected that Lead
Plaintiffs will file an opposition to Defendants' Motion (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 30, 2007).

In a recent opinion, Judge Sara Lioi of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed the amended
consolidated suit, saying that because she was dismissing the
only federal claim in the suit, she was not comfortable allowing
the state claims to proceed.

The suit is "In re: Diebold Derivative Litigation, case number
5:06-cv-00233," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.


GENESEE & WYOMING: Faces Suit in Ky. Over 2007 Trail Derailment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. faces a purported class action filed
with U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky in
connection with a train derailment in Sheperdsville, Kentucky.

On Jan. 16, 2007, CSX Corp.'s freight train Q502-15 derailed in
Sheperdsville, Kentucky.  The derailment involved approximately
13 railcars carrying a variety of chemicals.  As a consequence
of this derailment, the company was named as a defendant in a
class action suit filed on Jan. 16, 2008, by Roberta Green,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons.

The purported class action was brought against General Electric
Capital Services, Inc., General Electric Railcar Services Corp.,
and Genesee & Wyoming, Inc..  It was filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the derailment was
caused by one or more defective components on a railcar owned by
GE, which railcar bears the railroad operating marks of one of
our subsidiaries.

The complaint alleges causes of action against GWI for :

       -- nuisance;

       -- trespass; and

       -- negligence (with respect to transportation/operations
          and duty to warn).

The suit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, according
to the company's Feb. 28, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Green et al v. CSX Corporation et al., Case No.  
3:07-cv-00024-CRS-DW," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, Judge Charles R. Simpson, III,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          William L. Bross, Esq. (wlbross@hgdlawfirm.com)
          Heninger Garrison Davis LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205-326-3336
          Fax: 205-326-3332

               - and -

          Lee L. Coleman, Esq. (lcoleman@hughesandcoleman.com)
          Hughes & Coleman
          P.O. Box 10120
          Bowling Green, KY 42102
          Phone: 270-782-6003
          Fax: 270-782-8820

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard W. Edwards, Esq. (redwards@bsg-law.com)
          Boehl Stopher & Graves, LLP
          400 W. Market Street
          2300 Aegon Center
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: 502-589-5980
          Fax: 502-561-9400

               - and -

          Knox D. Nunnally, Esq. (knunnally@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins LLP
          1001 Fannin Street
          Suite 2500
          Houston, TX 77002-6760
          Phone: 713-758-2416
          Fax: 713-615-5220


GENESEE & WYOMING: Settlement Over Outremont Yard Noise Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of class action over noise at the Outremont rail
yard, which names certain subsidiaries of Genesee & Wyoming,
Inc., as well as Canadian Pacific Railway, as a defendant, has
been approved.

In February 2002, a certain Mr. Paquin, an individual living
adjacent to the Outremont rail yard, filed a motion for
authorization of class certification with the Quebec Superior
Court in Canada in connection with a claim against two of the
company's subsidiaries, Genesee Rail-One Inc., now Genesee &
Wyoming Canada Inc., and Quebec-Gatineau Railway Inc., as well
as Canadian Pacific.  

Mr. Paquin alleged that the noise from the Outremont rail yard
causes significant nuisance problems to the residents who live
near the rail yard.  Canadian Pacific owns the rail yard with
part of it being leased and operated by Quebec-Gatineau Railway,
Inc.  

The plaintiff described the proposed class as comprised of all
owners and tenants of dwellings who have lived within a defined   
section of the Outremont neighborhood in Montreal, which
surrounds the rail yard.   

Mr. Paquin requested the issuance of an injunction in order to
limit the hours when the rail yard may operate.  He has not
alleged any specific monetary claim with respect to the damages
of other members of the class, but is seeking to recover for his
"trouble and inconvenience" as well as for "potential
devaluation of the value of his property."

Following a May 2007 settlement conference, the parties agreed
on the terms of a settlement agreement whereby all outstanding
claims under the class action will be dropped.  

In December 2007 a settlement agreement for all outstanding
claims was approved by all parties and the Quebec Superior
Court, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2008 form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Connecticut-based Genesee & Wyoming Inc. -- http://www.gwrr.com   
-- is an owner and operator of short line and regional freight
railroads in the U.S., Australia, Canada and Mexico, and owns a
minority interest in a railroad in Bolivia.  It has interests in
48 railroads located in the United States, Canada, Australia,
Mexico and Bolivia.  The Company also leases and manages
railroad transportation equipment in the U.S., Canada and
Mexico, and provides freight car switching and ancillary rail
services.


GUIDANT CORP: Investors Lose in Defibrillator Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corp. investors have lost a class-action lawsuit that
claimed Guidant executives hid knowledge of defects in the
company's heart defibrillators and pacemakers so the value of
the company wouldn't slump at a time it was about to be
acquired, Indianapolis Business Journal reports.

According to IBJ, Judge Sarah Evans Barker dismissed the case,
saying that the investors didn't produce enough evidence to show
the executives deceived them.  The investors claimed they bought
stock at inflated prices as a result of Guidant's not disclosing
the problems.

IBJ recalls that five suits were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court of the Southern District of Indiana in March
2006.  Investors bringing the case in Indianapolis bought
Guidant stock between Dec. 1, 2004, and Oct. 18, 2005.

Guidant was headquartered in Indianapolis until it was acquired
in 2005 by Boston Scientific Corp., another medical device
company based in the Boston area.  Boston Scientific paid
$27 billion to win a bidding war against Johnson & Johnson.

The plaintiffs claimed that Guidant continued issuing positive
news about its growth prospects even as problems with the
defibrillators and pacemakers began to emerge.

The first of several deaths caused by faulty defibrillators
occurred in March 2005.  Guidant eventually recalled tens of
thousands of certain models of defibrillators, which deliver
electronic shocks to correct heartbeats.


INDIAN TRUST: Judge Wants 12-Year "Cobell" Case Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia issued a strict timeline to the "Cobell v.
Kempthorne" case's lawyers at a March 5, 2008 hearing, saying it
is "time to bring this to a conclusion," The Blog of Legal Times
relates.

According to the Associated Press, Judge Robertson said he wants
to resolve the 12-year lawsuit over government mismanagement of
American Indian lands this June.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit began in 1996 with a filing by Elouise Cobell, a
member of the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana.  It was originally
assigned to Judge Royce Lamberth, but the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit ordered the case reassigned in 2006.

The class action suit, titled "Cobell v. Kempthorne," is
based on the government's admitted mismanagement of a land
trust, which the Congress called a "Broken Trust," that was
established in 1887.  The Broken Trust was to handle the
proceeds from the government-arranged leasing of 11 million
acres of Indian lands, mostly in the West.  As the papers
presented to Judge Robertson noted, the trust was mismanaged by
the government almost from its inception.  Despite repeated
orders from Congress and the Courts, the government is still
years away from its long-promised accounting of the accounts,
(Class Action Reporter Jan. 8, 2008).

The government had proposed in March 2007 to pay $7 billion
partly to settle the lawsuit.  However, the proposal was
rejected by the plaintiffs, who estimated that the government's
liability could exceed $100 billion.  The Interior Department
estimates that it has spent $127 million on its accounting in
the past five years.

             Interior Can't Account for Owed Money

In late January 2008, Legal Times recounts, Judge Robertson
issued a 165-page opinion concluding that the Interior
Department is incapable of performing an accurate accounting of
the land trust fund.  

According to AP, Judge Robertson said that the department's
accounting for billions of dollars owed to America Indian
landholders has been "unreasonably delayed" and is ultimately
impossible.

                        Hearings Slated

The judge set up the March 5 status hearing to move forward.
At the hearing, he set out a schedule for the next few months
that will allow both sides to argue how the trial should
proceed.

"Both sides have addressed me with a lot of generality and
rhetoric [today]," Judge Robertson said.  "I have to get a lot
more specifics."  So, he gave the plaintiffs two weeks to
declare what they believe they're entitled to and why.  The
government then will respond to the claims within three weeks.  
Within 10 days of the response, the plaintiff will reply.

Judge Robertson scheduled a hearing on April 21 to set the
"content and shape" for the final proceedings to start on
June 9.  He expects these proceedings to take no more than two
weeks.

AP notes that Judge Robertson said the scheduled June trial "is
meant to bring this matter to a conclusion . . .  It is time to
bring this matter to a close with a decision of one kind or
another."

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under Judge James Robertson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Mark Kester Brown, Esq. (mkesterbrown@attglobal.net)
           607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC
           20005-2000  
           Phone: (775) 542-4938
           Fax: 202-318-2372

           Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. (dennismgingold@aol.com)
           607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor, Washington, DC
           20005
           Phone: (202) 824-1448
           Fax: 202-318-2372

           Richard A. Guest, Esq. (richardg@narf.org)
           Keith M. Harper, Esq. (harper@narf.org)
           Native American Rights Fund
           1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-2976
           Phone: (202) 785-4166
           Fax: 202-822-0068

                - and -

           Elliott H. Levitas, Esq.
           (elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com)
           Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP
           607 14th Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005  
           Phone: (202) 508-5800
           Fax: 202-508-5858

Representing the defendants are:

           Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Esq.
           (robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov)
           Sandra Peavler Spooner, Esq.
           (sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov)
           U.S. Department of Justice
           1100 L Street, NW Suite 10008
           Washington, D.C. 20005
           Phone: (202) 616-0328


JONES SODA: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in Wash. Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington found Hagens Berman and plaintiff Robert Burrell most
adequate to lead the securities case against Jones Soda Co.
(Nasdaq: JSDA).

In Sept. 2007, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a class
action on behalf of investors, against the chief executive and
other executives of the Jones Soda Co (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 12, 2007).

The complaint stems from investigations into allegation
contained in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that certain
officers and directors of Jones Soda disposed of "nearly all
their shares of the company stock" in what was called "a highly
unusual move" by securities experts "during a wave of positive
publicity that kept the stock high."

Subsequently, two other class action lawsuits were commenced
with the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Jones Soda Company
(Jones Soda) common stock during the period between March 9,
2007 and August 2, 2007.

Steve Berman, Esq., filed the complaint on behalf of lead
plaintiff Lael Banner, and all persons who purchased Jones Soda
Corporation common stock between November 1, 2006, and August 2,
2007.

The complaint generally charges that Jones Soda and the
executives made misleading statements about an expansion into
major retailers, such as Wal-Mart, Kroger, Safeway and Kmart,
with a new 12-ounce canned soda and a major marketing campaign.

Judge Robert Lasnick recently ruled that Mr. Burrell's alleged
losses are significantly greater than the losses suffered by any
other proposed plaintiff or group.  Three other groups filing
against Jones Soda were denied lead plaintiff appointment.

The suit is "Banner v. Jones Soda Company et al., Case Number:
2:2007cv01390," filed with the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington.


MARATHON OIL: WV Court Certifies Class in Faulty Gasoline Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia granted class-action status to a purported lawsuit
against Marathon Oil Corp. over defective gasoline that the
company had sold.

The lawsuit, "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al.," alleges that the company's
Catlettsburg refinery sold defective gasoline to wholesalers and
retailers, causing permanent damage to storage tanks, dispensers
and related equipment, resulting in lost profits, business
disruption, and personal and real property damages.  

In 2002, Marathon Petroleum Co. conducted extensive cleaning
operations at affected facilities but denies that any permanent
damages resulted from the incident.  

Class action certification was granted in August 2007.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00966," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Judge Robert C. Chambers presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory B. Breedlove, Esq. (gbb@cbcbb.com)
         Cunningham Bounds Crowder Brown & Breedlove
         P.O. Box 66705
         Mobile, AL 36660
         Phone: 251/471-6191
         Fax: 251/479-1031

              - and -  

         James M. Cawley, Jr., Esq. (jay@jaycawley.net)
         Suite 2110, 440 Louisiana Street
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/426-1700
         Fax: 713/425-5325

Representing the defendants are:

         Joseph S. Beeson, Esq. (jsb@ramlaw.com)
         Robinson & Mcelwee
         400 Fifth Third Center
         700 Virginia Street, East
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566

              - and -

         Jeffrey V. Mehalic, Esq.
         The Law Offices Of Jeffrey V. Mehalic
         P.O. Box 11133
         Charleston, WV 25339-1133
         Phone: 304/346-3462
         Fax: 302/346-3469


NEW YORK: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Wetlands Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 2008, Magistrate Judge George Yanthis issued a 29-
page report to presiding judge Charles Brieant, of the U.S.
Southern District of New York, recommending the dismissal of
every charge in a three-year-old lawsuit against the town of
Lewisboro, in Westchester County, New York, The Lewisboro Ledger
reports.

According to The Ledger, the lawsuit was initiated by a group of
town residents represented by Cross River attorney Alexandra
Manbeck, Esq.  The suit alleges that Lewisboro had illicitly
charged the residents with violations of the town wetlands law,
and that parts of the wetlands law and its procedures were
unconstitutional.

The Ledger recounts that Ms. Manbeck first sued the town and its
employees in 2005, challenging both the town Wetlands and
Watercourses Law and the Planning Board's procedure for hearing
and ruling over wetlands violations.  Ms. Manbeck went through
the system when her husband, Peter Manbeck, was charged with
three wetlands violations.  One was dropped when a violating
structure was removed.  The other two still stand: one for a
shed and the other for filling, clearing and grading the
property.  Both were done, without a permit, within the town's
150-foot wetlands buffer.  Ms. Manbeck was also charged with a
building violation for filling a pool without proper fencing
around it.

The plaintiffs objected to a lack of due process in the Planning
Board's procedure, and what they call a perceived conspiracy
among Town Board members and planners.  The suit calls the law
"vague," "arbitrary" and "discriminatory," leaving "absolute
discretion to [wetlands inspector Jay] Fain to decide without
any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not
in each particular case."

The suit was originally filed with Ms. Manbeck as the sole
attorney, although she later added more plaintiffs and named
additional town officials as defendants.  Three years later, the
suit names the town of Lewisboro, the Planning Board, and the
Conservation Advisory Council; among the individuals named are
Mr. Fain, former Town Supervisor Jim Nordgren, former Planning
Board Chairman Jackie Dzaluk, and the other Planning Board
members.

There are 10 plaintiffs: Mr. Manbeck; Jay and Carol Durante;
Lynn and David Gutermuth; Geoffrey Shaw; Wendy Gennimi; Mary
Clark; Daniel Pritchard; and David Oltman.  

Judge Brieant denied class action status to the original
lawsuit.

According to The Ledger, the lawsuit made it past a critical
first round of litigation in November 2005, when the presiding
judge ruled that the suit had enough unanswered questions to
declare a more in-depth look at the charges, and because of
that, it was not dismissed in federal court as requested by the
defendants.  Judge Brieant also did not feel enough information
was presented to render a decision on the case at that time.

The more serious racketeering charges were thrown out, as was
filing it as a class action lawsuit, The Ledger further recalls.  
However, Judge Brieant determined that the case should remain in
federal court and enter the discovery stage of the court process
that allows for depositions of those named in the suit.

A second lawsuit was filed in 2005 that was similar to the
original lawsuit but included additional plaintiffs.  That
lawsuit was later enveloped into the original lawsuit.

The Ledger says that in his recommendation, Judge Yanthis
analyzed each claim separately.  In some claims, such as those
alleging that the town selectively prosecuted some residents and
not others, he points out flaws in the plaintiff's readings of
the law.

Specifically, Judge Yanthis recommended the dismissal of:

   -- the plaintiffs' claim that the wetlands law is
      unconstitutionally vague, because almost all the
      plaintiffs admitted they knew wetlands existed on their
      property.  In the case of the one plaintiff who claimed to
      be ignorant of wetlands on her property, the wetlands
      there were identified as state wetlands, and therefore
      were not defined by the town law, the judge stated;

   -- the plaintiffs' claim that the plaintiffs' right to be
      represented by a lawyer was violated, because, according
      to Judge Yanthis, every one of them was notified they had
      the right to counsel;

   -- the plaintiffs' claim that former wetland inspector Jay
      Fain's inspections of property violated the Fourth
      Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search, with
      the judge holding that "the town had a legitimate interest
      in protecting the town's wetlands and by extension its
      water supply," and that all inspections were "either done
      in response to a complaint or as part of a permit
      process."


ROYAL DUTCH SHELL: Agrees to Settle Oil Reserve Restatement Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Dutch Shell Plc. said on March 6, 2008, that it had agreed
in principle to settle a class action with American investors
arising from its 2004 restatement of oil reserves, Reuters
reports.

According to Reuters, under the terms of the deal, the group of
U.S. claimants -- who bought shares in the company in a period
before the 2004 reserves restatement -- would receive a base
settlement of $79.9 million, plus $2.95 million and interest.

The deal is subject to the approval of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

The proposed settlement complements a previously announced deal
with non-U.S. investors under consideration by the Amsterdam
Court of Appeals, Shell told Reuters.  Approval of both
settlements would put an end to all pending litigation arising
out of the 2004 restatement.

Reuters recalls that Shell shocked investors in January 2004 by
slashing its proven reserves of oil and gas.  The revelation
that the firm had been exaggerating the size of its reserves for
years sent its stock tumbling and led to the ouster of its top
executives.  The overbooking was blamed in part on the company's
management and ownership structure at the time.

An additional payment of $35 million would also be made
collectively to participants in the U.S. class action and the
Dutch settlement, Shell added.


SEALED AIR: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. continues to face a purported securities fraud
class action lawsuit that was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

The suit, "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System v. Hickey, et al, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-04372-DMC-MF,"
was filed on Sept. 15, 2003.  It seeks class-action status on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of the company from March 27, 2000, through July 30,
2002.

The lawsuit named the Company and five of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  The Company and one of
these individuals remain as defendants after a partial grant of
the defendants' motion to dismiss the action.

The plaintiff's principal allegations against the defendants are
that during the class period, they materially misled the
investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
Company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles by failing to properly account and accrue for the
Company's contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from
past operations of W.R. Grace.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
  
The suit is "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. (pvdahlstrom@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         One North Lasalle Street
         Suite 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602-3908
         Phone: 312-377-1181

              - and -

         Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. (lee@sfclasslaw.com)
         Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
         26 South Maple Avenue, Suite 202
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Phone: (856) 797-4611
         Fax: (856) 797-4612,

Representing the defendants is:

         Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. (greilly@lowenstein.com)
         Lowenstein Sandler, PC
         65 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: (973) 597-2500


SKECHERS USA: Discovery Yet to Commence in CA Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has not yet commenced in a consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit filed in California against Skechers
USA, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors.

Initially, several purported class actions were filed against
the company with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  Each of these class action complaints
alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of
persons who purchased publicly traded securities of the company
between April 3, 2002 and Dec. 9, 2002.  

In July 2003, the court consolidated these federal securities
class actions.  On Sept. 25, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint entitled "In re Skechers USA, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-2094-PA."

The consolidated complaint asserts the same claims and seeks
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and injunctive
and equitable relief.

At the company's behest, the court, on May 10, 2004, dismissed
the complaint, with leave for plaintiffs to file an amendment.   
Thus, on Aug. 9, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated complaint for violations of the federal securities
laws.  The allegations and relief sought were virtually
identical to the original consolidated complaint.  

The company again moved to dismiss the first amended
consolidated complaint, which motion was granted by the court,
with leave for plaintiffs to amend one final time.

The plaintiffs then appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As of the filing date of the Company's quarterly report for the
first quarter of 2007, all briefing by the parties had been
completed, and a hearing date had been scheduled for April 18,
2007.  However, the court took it off the calendar pending a
decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in another matter on the
grounds that the decision from the Supreme Court could affect
the outcome of the appeal.  

The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently handed down its decision in
that matter on Sept. 20, 2007.  The parties prepared briefs
based on that decision and oral arguments were presented before
the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 6, 2007.

Discovery has not commenced in the underlying action, according
to the company's Feb. 29, 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: Skechers USA, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-CV-2094," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Percy Anderson presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-4297
          Phone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Karen T. Rogers, Esq. (krogers@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-617-1200
          Fax: 213-617-1975

Representing the company is:

          Seth A. Aronson, Esq. (saronson@omm.com)
          O'Melveny and Myers LLP
          400 South Hope Street 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Phone: 213-430-7486


SOUTHERN COPPER: Still Faces Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp. continues to face a consolidated class
action derivative lawsuit filed with the Delaware Court of
Chancery, New Castle County, Delaware over the company's
acquisition of Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V.

Late in December 2004 and early January 2005, several actions
were filed against the company.  On Jan. 31, 2005, three suits
were consolidated into one action, "In Re Southern Copper
Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
961-N."

These three suits are:

     1. "Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corp., et al., Civil
        Action No. 961-N,"

     2. "Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and
        Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 969-N,"
        and

     3. "James Sousa v. Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil
        Action No. 978-N."

The complaint filed in "Lemon Bay" was designated as the
operative complaint in the consolidated lawsuit.  The
consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
company's common stockholders.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the transaction is the
result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the company's
directors and is not entirely fair to the company and its
minority stockholders.  It seeks, among other things, a
preliminarily and permanent injunction to enjoin the
transaction, the award of damages to the class, the award of
damages to the company and such other relief that the court
deems equitable, including interest, attorneys' and experts'
fees and costs.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Southern Copper Corp. -- http://www.southernperu.com/-- is an  
integrated copper producer.  The Company produces copper,
molybdenum, zinc and silver.  All of its mining, smelting and
refining facilities are located in Peru and in Mexico, and it
conducts exploration activities in those countries and Chile.


STARTEK INC: Still Faces Consolidated Colo. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
StarTek, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors continue to seek for the dismissal of a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit that was filed against them and
remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.

Initially, the company and others were named as defendants in
two purported class action suits with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado:

      1. "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. StarTek,
         Inc., et al.," filed on July 8, 2005; and

      2. "John Alden v. StarTek, Inc., et al.," filed on July
         20, 2005.

The federal court later consolidated those actions.  The
consolidated action is a purported class action suit brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the company's
common stock in a secondary offering by certain of the company's
stockholders in June 2004, and in the open market between
Feb. 26, 2003, and May 5, 2005.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements about the company and its
business and prospects in the prospectus for the secondary
offering, as well as in filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and in press releases issued during the
class period, and that the market price of the company's common
stock was artificially inflated as a result.

It also alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The plaintiffs in both cases seek compensatory damages on behalf
of the alleged class and award of attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation.

On May 23, 2006, the company and the individual defendants asked
the court to dismiss the action in its entirety.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
Startek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01265-PSF-OES," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge
Phillip S. Figa presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Matthew M. Wolf, Esq. (mwolf@allen-vellone.com)
         Allen & Vellone, P.C.
         1600 Stout Street, #1100
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-534-4499

Representing the company are:

         James E. Nesland, Esq. (neslandje@cooley.com)
         Matthew Voss, Esq. (mvoss@cooley.com)
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         380 Interlocken Crescent, #900
         Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
         Phone: 720-566-4000
         Fax: 720-566-4099


UAL CORP: Still Working to Settle Multiple Suits Over Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
UAL Corp. is still working to settle purported class actions
with regards to certain surcharges included in tariffs for
carrying air cargo and certain passenger pricing practices and
surcharges applicable to international passenger routes.

                 Air Cargo Surcharges Litigation

The company and other air cargo carriers have been named as
defendants in more than 90 class actions alleging civil damages
as a result of a purported air cargo pricing conspiracy.

Those lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial activities in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The company has entered into an agreement with the majority of
the private plaintiffs to dismiss the company from the class
actions in return for an agreement to cooperate with the
plaintiffs' factual investigation, and it is no longer named as
a defendant in the civil lawsuit.

                 Passenger Surcharges Litigation

More than 50 additional putative class actions have also been
filed alleging violations of the antitrust laws with respect to
passenger pricing practices.

Those lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial activities in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The company has entered into a settlement agreement with a
number of the plaintiffs in the passenger pricing cases to
dismiss United from the class actions in return for an agreement
to cooperate with the plaintiffs' factual investigation.

The settlement agreement is subject to review and approval by
the Federal Court.

The company reported no development in this matter in its
Feb. 28, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

UAL Corp. -- http://www.united.com/-- is a holding company   
whose principal subsidiary is United Air Lines, Inc., whose
operations consist primarily of the transportation of persons,
property and mail throughout the U.S. and abroad, and it
accounted for most of UALís revenues during the year ended Dec.
31, 2006.  


UNITED STATES: Immigrants File N.Y. Lawsuit Over Unlawful Delays
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) and the Puerto Rican
Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) filed a class-action
complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of a class of immigrants challenging
unlawful delays in the processing and adjudication of their
naturalization applications by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Federal law requires USCIS to adjudicate naturalization
applications within a reasonable time.  USCIS's failure to do so
has resulted in thousands of immigrants waiting well over six
months, and in some cases years, since the submission of their
applications, with no decision and no word from USCIS.

With the 2008 presidential election less than nine months away,
these delays take on particular significance, as thousands of
applicants, many of them Latino, could wrongfully be denied the
ability to vote and participate in determining the future of
their country.

Plaintiffs, all lawful residents in the United States for the
past five to twenty-five years, have submitted complete
applications for naturalization that have not been adjudicated
within a reasonable time.  Some have been waiting more than
three years for a decision, despite repeated requests for
adjudication.  All have suffered egregious harm as a result of
the delay.  For example, Omar Farfan, a decorated veteran of the
United States Navy who applied for citizenship over three years
ago, cannot get a United States Government job because he is not
a citizen.  Manuel Martinez, who applied for citizenship over
two years ago, is unable to apply for a visa for his elderly
mother to leave Mexico and join him in the United States.

Michael Sant'Ambrogio, one of the NYLAG attorneys on the case,
said, "The government has been sitting on our clients'
applications for years.  We have no choice but to seek relief
from the Court."

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund is co-counsel
with NYLAG on the case.  PRLDEF, established in 1972, has won
landmark civil rights cases in education, housing, voting,
migrant, immigrant, employment and other civil rights.  PRLDEF
has fought for the right of non-English speaking students to get
a good education, against housing discrimination in city-owned
apartments, and to open up employment opportunities for all
people.

Founded in 1990, the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) --
http://www.nylag.org/-- is a not-for-profit law office that  
provides free civil legal services to low-income New Yorkers.  A
full service agency, NYLAG provides consultation, representation
and advocacy.  Last year, NYLAG handled 22,370 cases and
impacted additional thousands through successful impact
litigation and community legal education.


VERISIGN INC: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California certified a class in a consumer
fraud lawsuit that accuses VeriSign, Inc. of false and
misleading advertisement with regards to its Internet-security
software.

On Feb. 14, 2005, Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP filed
a putative class action in the Superior Court of California,
alleging violations of the unfair competition laws, breach of
express warranty and unjust enrichment relating to the company's
Secure Site Pro SSL certificates.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased the Secure Site Pro certificate from February 2001 to
present.  On April 17, 2006, the class was certified and class
notice was issued on May 21, 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb.
29, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com-- is a provider of  
intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect
billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks
worldwide.


VERISIGN INC: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Stock Option Grants
--------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc., continues to face a purported class action in
California that alleges false representations and disclosure
failures regarding certain historical stock option grants.

On May 15, 2007, a putative class action, "Mykityshyn v. Bidzos,
et al., and VeriSign, Inc.," was filed with the Superior Court
for the State of California, Santa Clara County, naming the
company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors as defendants.   

The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned
VeriSign common stock between April 3, 2002, and Aug. 9, 2006.

The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and
2006 Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the
1998 Option Plan.  It also seeks to enjoin the defendants from
granting any stock options and from allowing the exercise of any
currently outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006
Option Plans.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, costs and attorneys fees.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com-- is a provider of  
intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect
billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks
worldwide.


WESTERN CULINARY: Faces Lawsuit in Portland Over Student Loans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Gozzi and Megan Koehnen, of Portland, Oregon, filed a
class-action lawsuit against Western Culinary Institute and its
corporate parent, alleging that the private trade school
misleads students with its sales pitches and leaves them ill-
prepared to pay off their large student loans, Oregon Live
reports.

The lawsuit was filed on March 5, 2008, with the Multnomah
County Circuit Court in Portland against Western Culinary and
its Hoffman Estates, Illinois-based parent, Career Education
Corp., alleging violation of Oregon's unlawful trade practices
act and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the school failed to warn students
that their tuition would exceed their ability, upon graduation,
to pay off their federal loans.  It further alleges that the
school also misrepresented its job-placement rate and failed to
disclose that students would "not obtain material benefit from
the course of study."

"A lot of these people have incurred tremendous debt," said
David Sugerman, Esq., who represents the students.  "When they
get out, they often qualify for jobs that pay very little
relative to the debt they incur."

Mr. Sugerman estimated that the class, if certified, could range
from 1,000 and 3,000 people.

Oregon Live relates that in late 2004, Oregon regulators
postponed renewing Western Culinary's authority to grant degrees
while it reviewed complaints about the school's recruiting
practices, larger class sizes, sudden schedule changes and
financial aid arrangements.  The Oregon Office of Degree
Authorization renewed the authority in February 2005 but pledged
to monitor the school closely.

Oregon Office of Degree Authorization program specialist Carolyn
Sinclair said the agency has received "only three complaints"
about the school since early 2005, according to Oregon Live.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ENERNOC INC: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, commenced a class action
lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased
or acquired securities of EnerNOC, Inc. in the open market from
November 1, 2007 through February 27, 2008, or in the Offering
which closed November 19, 2007.

Throughout the class period, EnerNOC presented itself as a
company that was growing rapidly, and one, which was able to
provide services and book revenues on an almost immediate basis.
On November 1, 2007, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Timothy Healey told analysts that the Company's sales
force was driving rapid organic revenue growth, but as alleged
in the Complaint, failed to adequately reveal expenses trends,
and the increasing number of "megawatts under management" that
involve prolonged lags in revenue recognition.

On November 19, 2007, the Company and certain insiders sold
2.5 million EnerNOC shares at $43.00 per share in a secondary
offering.  Mr. Healey sold over 64,000 of his own shares for
proceeds of approximately $2.7 million, and David Brewster, the
Company's President sold approximately 140,000 of his own shares
for proceeds of $6 million.  In all, 2.5 million shares were
sold for proceeds of over $100 million.  The Prospectus for the
Secondary Offering failed to reveal certain material adverse
facts.

At the end of the Class Period, EnerNOC revealed, among other
things, that:

     (1) ballooning operational and compensation expenses were
         outpacing revenue growth, resulting in losses greater
         than the market expected; and

     (2) that an increasing number of ENOC forward capacity
         contracts involve substantial upfront costs, but a
         prolonged "lag" in the ability to recognize revenues.

Upon announcement of the adverse news, EnerNOC's shares dropped
from $25.50 to $16.31 in heavy trading, wiping out over $100
million in shareholder value.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired ENOC securities during the Class
Period.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. (nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com)
          Susan Lee, Esq. (slee@abbeyspanier.com)
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700 or 1-800-889-3701 (Toll Free)
          Web Site: http://www.abbeygardy.com


MBIA INC: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action with the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
suffered injury through their transactions in connection with
MBIA, Inc. securities between January 30, 2007, and January 9,
2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges MBIA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding its exposure to collateralized debt obligations,
residential mortgage-backed securities and the subprime market.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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

For more information, contact:

          Scott Levy, Esq. (slevy@murrayfrank.com)
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Ave
          New York, NY 10016-1101
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com


MF GLOBAL LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. Announced that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock of MF Global, Ltd. (NYSE:MF) between July 19, 2007,
through Feb. 28, 2008, inclusive and pursuant or traceable to
the Company's March 30, 2007 Secondary Public Offering.

On July 18, 2006, MF announced that the IPO of 97,379,765 shares
of its common stock had been priced at $30 per share, for gross
proceeds of more than $2.92 billion, and that the shares would
begin trading the following day, July 19, 2007.  Prior to the
IPO, no public market existed for trading of the Company's
securities.

The complaint alleges that unbeknownst to investors, however,
the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with the IPO were materially false and misleading because, among
other things:

     -- it materially misrepresented MF's risk management
        policies, procedures, and systems;

     -- falsely described them as disciplined, comprehensive and
        effective;

     -- falsely represented that it manages its exposure to risk
        with a centralized, hands-on approach;

     -- falsely represented that it monitors clients' open
        positions and margin levels on a real-time basis, with
        both sophisticated technical systems as well as
        continuous oversight by highly experienced risk
        managers;

     -- falsely represented that its risk management methods
        conform to industry practices;

     -- falsely represented that its clients are required to
        maintain margin accounts with collateral sufficient to
        support their open trading positions;

     -- failed to disclose that in an effort to speed trades and
        be "efficient," MF had suspended or eliminated its own
        internal risk management technical and human controls
        and supervision; and

     -- failed to disclose that it eliminated credit and risk
        analysis and buying power limits and controls from its
        systems, effectively allowing any MF employee to place
        orders without regard to the account's satisfaction of
        margin requirements, collateral or ability to pay.

For more information, contact

          Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Director of Shareholder Relations
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1877 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Lockridge Grindal Filed MD Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Municipal
Mortgage & Equity, LLC (NYSE:MMA) between May 3, 2004, and
January 29, 2008, inclusive, against MuniMae and certain of its
officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the Complaint, on March 10, 2006, MuniMae issued a
press release disclosing that the Company would be restating
more than three years of earnings and that the Company would
delay the filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal 2005. According to
this press release, the restatement was needed to correct
accounting errors related to:

     1) recognition of syndication fees,
     2) application of equity method accounting,
     3) recognition of interest income, and
     4) amortization of mortgage servicing rights.

Defendants assured investors that the restatement would "not
impact cash available for distribution," and would actually
result in an increase in "previously reported net earnings" for
certain periods.

On January 28, 2008, MuniMae announced that it was slashing its
dividend and would again delay the filing of its restated
financials.  Before the market opened the following day, the
Company disclosed that the previously announced restatement
would impact an even greater portion of the Company's business.

On this news, the MuniMae's stock fell to a close of $9.19 per
share, on January 29, 2008, or 46% below the prior day's close
of $17.20.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. (gmfishbein@locklaw.com)
          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


OPNEXT INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action with the United States District Court, District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of
Opnext, Inc. (Nasdaq: OPXT) pursuant or traceable to the
Company's February 14, 2007 Initial Public Offering .

The Complaint charges Opnext and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  Opnext
is a laser technology company formed out of Hitachi.  The
Company's products and services are used in communications
networks, security systems, medical systems and consumer
electronics.

The Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's
IPO, defendants, in the Registration Statement, failed to
disclose or indicate the following:

     (1) that the financial statements contained in the
         Registration Statement understated the Company's net
         loss for fiscal year ended March 31, 2006 by
         approximately $1 million;

     (2) that the Company overstated its net income for the
         quarter by $700,000, or nearly 27%; and

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls.

On February 13, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it would be restating earnings for fiscal year
ended March 31, 2006, and March 31, 2007, and for the three
month periods ended December 31, 2006, and September 30, 2006,
due to stark errors in its Registration Statement.  As a result,
previous figures for these periods could no longer be relied
upon.

Specifically, the Company stated that the its net income was
overstated by $1.8 million for fiscal year ended March 31, 2007,
and its net loss was understated by $1 million for fiscal year
ended March 31, 2006.  Moreover, net income was overstated by
$0.7 million for the three-month period ended December 31, 2006,
and understated by $0.1 million for the three-month period ended
September 30, 2006.  Finally, net loss was understated by
$0.5 million for the three-month period ended June 30, 2006.

In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined
$0.89 per share, or 16.06 percent, to close on February 13,
2008, at $4.65 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
This closing price on Opnext represented a cumulative loss of
$10.35, or 69 percent, of the value of the Company's shares at
the time of its IPO just months prior.

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

For more information, contact:

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





                           *********


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  * * *