CAR_Public/080312.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 12, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 51
  
                            Headlines

ALAZ FINE: Recalls Golden Raisins for Undeclared Sulfites
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: NAACP Fast Tracks Discrimination Lawsuit
CASE-IH: Court Rules in Favor of Retirees in Health Benefit Suit
CHOICE HOTELS: Colo. Court Considers Motions in Securities Suits
CORN PRODUCTS: Ill. Court Gives Final OK to $6M Suit Settlement

CORN PRODUCTS: April 2008 Hearing Set for Price-Fixing Case
ENERGY EAST: N.Y. Court Considers Investor Suit Settlement
GRANGE INSURANCE: Proposes to Settle "Bad Faith" Insureds' Suit
HARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Cats' Vit. Care for Possible Health Risk
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Cal. Court Mulls Motion to Nix Securities Suit

LIBERTY NATIONAL: Ala. Court Mulls Approving Policyholder Deal
MIDLAND CO: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Opposes Plaintiff's Motion in "Beary" Suit
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Bid in ERISA Suit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Ohio Court Dismisses Some Claims in "Carr" Case

NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal of Market Timing Suit Still on Appeal
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Ala. Court Considers Motions in "Ruth" Lawsuit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Wash. Court Considers Dismissal of ERISA Suit
NEW ENGLAND:  La. Suit Over "Fraudulent Videotaping" Withdrawn
NEWS-PRESS: Settles Employee Overtime Lawsuit for $140,000

RAIT FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa.
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Workers' Suit Over False Promises
SLM CORP: Discovery Ensues in CA FFELP Billing Practices Lawsuit
SLM CORP: Faces Putative Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery Ongoing in Kans. Securities Fraud Suit

SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
THE VILLAGES: To Pay $40MM on Repairs as Part of Suit Settlement
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set June 5
UNITED AMERICAN: Discovery Ongoing in Ark. Insurance Policy Suit
UNITED AMERICAN: Tex. Lawsuit Over UA Partners Program Amended

UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
UNITED RENTALS: Enters Settlement MoU for 2004 Accounting Suits
UNITED WATER: West Nyack Residents File Lawsuit for Negligence
VALERO ENERGY: Kans. Court Denies Dismissal Motion v. Fuel Suits
VALERO ENERGY: Ill. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Rosolowski"


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CAMTEK LTD: Jacob Sabo Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
ENERNOC INC: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA
FORCE PROTECTION: Coughlin Stoia Files SC Securities Fraud Suit
MF GLOBAL: Weiss & Lurie Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit


              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ALAZ FINE: Recalls Golden Raisins for Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------
Alaz Fine Food Corp., located at 119 32nd St., in Brooklyn, New
York, is recalling Delta brand Golden Raisins because it
contains undeclared sulfites.

People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of
serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume this
product.

The recalled Delta brand Golden Raisins is sold in 16 oz un-
coded plastic bags.  The product was sold in New York City.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets food inspectors and
subsequent analysis by food laboratory personnel revealed the
presence of undeclared sulfites in Delta brand Golden Raisins
which did not declare sulfites on the label.  The consumption of
10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to
elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock
could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon
ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have reported to date in connection with this
product.  Consumers who have purchased Delta brand Golden
Raisins should return them to the place of purchase.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-718-832-5300.


AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: NAACP Fast Tracks Discrimination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
which filed a class action in July against a dozen major
subprime lenders alleging institutionalized racism in
lending practices, and lead counsel Brian Kabateck, filed papers
on March 7 2008, that will fast track their federal class action
lawsuit against Washington Mutual, Citi, GMAC and 15 other
mortgage firms who systematically steered African American
borrowers into predatory loans.

"The victims in this case had the same credit, the same income
and the same qualifications as the lenders' other customers.  
The only difference was the color of their skin.  That's why
they were stuck with abusive loans," said Mr. Kabateck, Managing
Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP.

"Quickly resolving this case is essential for victims who have
ruined credit and who are losing their homes.  This isn't just
about justice for the victims.  This case is about making sure
that this kind of discrimination is stamped out for good," said
NAACP General Counsel Angela Ciccolo.

In July 2007, NAACP filed a class-action complaint with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California accusing:

  -- Ameriquest Mortgage Co.,
  -- Fremont Investment & Loan,
  -- Option One,
  -- WMC Mortgage Corp.,
  -- Citigroup Inc.,
  -- BNC Mortgage Inc.,
  -- Accredited Home Lenders,
  -- Bear Sterns Residential Mortgage Corp. d/b/a Encore Credit,
  -- First Franklin Financial Corp.
  -- HSBC Finance Corp.,
  -- Washington Mutual, Inc.,

of discriminating against black homebuyers, who are 30 percent
more likely to be charged higher rates for subprime mortgages
than white applicants "with the same qualifications" (Class
Action Reporter, July 16, 2007).

The NAACP accuses the lending industry, including 11 other named
defendants, of "institutionalized, systematic racism," in
violation of fair housing, civil rights and credit laws.  It
claims mortgage lenders were put on notice of this racist
behavior in 2004, but the problem has become even worse since
then.

The NAACP says President George Bush's plan to freeze
introductory mortgage rates for five years won't help the
majority of African Americans who have already been victimized
by discriminatory lending practices.

A report published by Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation) showed that minority borrowers pay higher annual
percentage rates on mortgage loans than non-minorities with
equal income and credit risk.  For instance, in 2005, African
American borrowers paid an average of 128 basis points more for
loans than their white counterparts.  In the subprime market,
the difference was event greater -- 275 basis points more.

In Dec. 2007, the NAACP added six additional lenders to the suit
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2007).

The new defendants are:

          -- CitiMortgage,
          -- Suntrust Mortgage,
          -- GMAC Rescap,
          -- JP Morgan,
          -- National City and
          -- First Horizon

This suit is the first to have ever charged so many major
mortgage lenders with racial discrimination.

The suit is "National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al., Case No.
SACV07-0794 AG," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brian S. Kabatek, Esq.
          Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Phone: (213) 217-5000
          Fax: (213) 217-5010
          e-mail: bsk@bklawyers.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Vic Feazell, Esq.
          Feazell & Tighe, LLP
          6300 Bridgepoint Parkway
          Bridgepoint 1, Suite 220
          Austin, Texas 78730
          Phone: (512) 372-8100
          Fax: (512) 372-8140


CASE-IH: Court Rules in Favor of Retirees in Health Benefit Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patrick Duggan, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, has issued rulings in favor of Case-IH
retirees who sued the company over retirement health care
benefits, the Associated Press reports.

According to Quad-Cities Online, Judge Duggan issued on March 7,
2008, three rulings favoring the retirees in the long-pending
case.

The main issue, upheld in federal court Friday, maintained
Case-IH's responsibility to provide lifetime health care
benefits to the retirees who retired before July 1, 1994, QC
Online notes.  

The company, now known as CNH America, had earlier argued that
it no longer bore responsibility for the benefits, AP recalls.

Specifically, Judge Duggan upheld the plaintiffs' argument that
Case-IH was responsible for the lifetime health benefits even
though it had contracted with El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company
to take over administration of the retirees' benefits.

The judge rejected CNH's argument that it was a different
company since its reorganization and was no longer responsible
for the benefits.  Moreover, Judge Duggan rejected El Paso
Tennessee Pipeline's argument that it could modify or change the
retirees' health care plan.

QC Online recounts that Judge Duggan last year ruled that those
who retired after July 1, 1994, and their surviving spouses,
were entitled to company-paid lifetime health care benefits.

"It's been a champagne day in this office," QC Online quotes
Roger McClow, Esq., of Southfield, Mich., who represented more
than 5,000 Case-IH retirees, surviving spouses and the dependent
spouses, in class-action lawsuits filed in 2004.

Mr. McClow told QC Online that the next step is to await damages
to be awarded by the court.  When CNH and El Paso Tennessee
Pipeline increased the medical insurance premiums on its
retirees, about half of the retirees stayed with the company's
health plan and paid the higher premiums of up to $501 a year,
Mr. McClow said.  The other half either dropped out of the
health care plan and bought their own insurance or incurred
other costs.

Damages for all the affected retirees are estimated to be in the
range of $25 million to $28 million, Mr. McClow said.

Damage awards in the case are pending in federal court.

CNH spokesman Thomas Witom told AP that the company will
consider how to proceed.


CHOICE HOTELS: Colo. Court Considers Motions in Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to
rule on motions filed by both parties with regards to two
purported securities fraud class actions against Choice Hotels
International, Inc., initiated in April 2007.

The suits were brought on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's stock between April 25, 2006, and July 26, 2006.  Both
assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the company, its current vice chairman and
chief executive officer, and its former executive vice president
and chief financial officer.

These claims are related to the Company's July 25, 2006
announcement of its results of operations for the second quarter
of 2006.

Since the initial filings, the Company has filed a motion to
transfer the litigation from Colorado to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.  

Additionally, one plaintiff has petitioned the Court to be named
lead plaintiff in the dispute.  

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 first identified complaint is "Anthony Genovese, et al. v.
Choice Hotels International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00734-REB-BNB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Robert E. Blackburn presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kip Brian Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com)
          The Shuman Law Firm
          801 East 17th Avenue
          Denver, CO 80218-1417
          Phone: 303-861-3003
          Fax: 303-830-6920

               - and -

          Gerald Bader, Jr., Esq. (gbader@bader-associates.com)
          Bader & Associates, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue #200
          Denver, CO 80014-1160
          Phone: 303-534-1700
          Fax: 303-534-1701

Representing the defendants is:

          Laurie Beth Smilan, Esq. (laurie.smilan@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP-Reston
          11955 Freedom Drive
          Two Freedom Square #500
          Reston, VA 20190-5651
          Phone: 703-456-1000
          Fax: 703-456-1001


CORN PRODUCTS: Ill. Court Gives Final OK to $6M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
gave final approval to the proposed $6-million settlement of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against Corn
Products International, Inc., and certain of its officers.

Between May and June of 2005, the company, Samuel Scott, and
Cheryl Beebe were named as defendants in five purported
securities class actions filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The plaintiffs are:

       -- Monty Blatt,
       -- Dale Anderson,
       -- Adam Shapiro,
       -- Neil Hildebrand, and
       -- Philip Brust.

The complaints, alleging violations of certain federal
securities laws, seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the company's common stock between Jan. 25,
2005, and April 4, 2005.

The plaintiffs alleged that the company made false and
misleading statements and omissions of material facts based on
its disclosure regarding earnings projections and operating
margins, claiming alleged violations by each named defendant of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged
violations by certain of the company's officers of Section 20A
of U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In August 2005, all of these class actions were consolidated in
the matter of "Monty Blatt v. Corn Products International, Inc.
(N.D. Ill. 05 C 3033)."

In November 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint containing essentially the same legal claims.  Cheryl
Beebe was not named as a defendant in the consolidated amended
complaint.

In August 2006, the company answered the consolidated amended
complaint and in October 2006 the plaintiffs moved for class
certification.  A limited amount of discovery has taken place to
date.

On June 19, 2007, the court preliminarily approved an agreement
to settle this case.

Under the terms of the settlement we agreed to make payments to
claimants and counsel totaling $6.6 million, most of which we
expect to be covered by insurance.

The deadline to file objections to the settlement passed on
Sept. 15, 2007.  With no objections being raised, the Court
granted final approval to the settlement on Nov. 15, 2007,
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 "Blatt v. Corn Products International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-03033," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Judge James B. Zagel
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. (SRudman@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 693-1058
          Fax: (212) 693-7423

Representing the defendants are:

          Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. (neimer@eimerstahl.com)
          Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP,
          224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 660-7600

               - and -

          Robert J. Kopecky, Esq. (rkopecky@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
          200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100
          Chicago, IL 60601,
          Phone: (312) 861-2000


CORN PRODUCTS: April 2008 Hearing Set for Price-Fixing Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
An April 2008 hearing is set for appeals and cross-appeals
regarding the dismissal order in a purported anti-competition
class action lawsuit that was filed with the Supreme Court of
British Colombia against Corn Products International, Inc.

In April 2006, the company was served with the suit, which was
filed on June 13, 2005, on behalf of Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and
Wendy Weberg against a number of industry participants,
including the company.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for an alleged
conspiracy to fix the price of high fructose corn syrup sold in
Canada during the period between 1988 and June 1995.  

In the alternative, the complaint seeks recovery under
restitutionary principles.  

In May 2007, the Court ruled on a joint defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit based on the statute of limitations.  The
court held that the plaintiffs' causes of action other than the
claims based on restitutionary principles are time-barred.

Appeals and cross-appeals regarding the order are pending, and
set for argument in April 2008, 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.

Corn Products International, Inc. -- http://www.cornproducts.com
-- together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells a
number of ingredients to a variety of food and industrial
customers.  It operates as a corn refiner and a supplier of food
ingredients and industrial products derived from wet milling and
processing of corn and other starch-based materials, such as
tapioca.  Its sweetener products include high-fructose corn
syrup (HFCS), glucose corn syrups, high-maltose corn syrups,
caramel color, dextrose, polyols, maltodextrins, and glucose and
corn syrup solids.  Its starch-based products include both
industrial and food-grade starches.


ENERGY EAST: N.Y. Court Considers Investor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York for Kings County
(Brooklyn) has yet to approve a tentative settlement for a
purported class action against Energy East Corp. in connection
with Iberdrola S.A.'s proposed acquisition of the company.

Howard Lasker, an alleged shareholder of Energy East, filed the
suit on July 6, 2007, against the company and its directors.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, the
consideration for the proposed acquisition is unfair and
inadequate because it does not provide Energy East shareholders
with a sufficient premium and the defendants have breached their
fiduciary duty.  It seeks an injunction on the completion of the
Merger as well as monetary damages in an amount not specified.  

On Sept. 26, 2007, the plaintiff, and Energy East and its
directors agreed, subject to confirmatory discovery and court
approval, to settle the lawsuit.  

The settlement is based on Energy East's agreement to include
certain additional disclosures in its proxy statement.  As a
result of the settlement, plaintiff will not seek to enjoin the
transaction.

The settlement, if completed and approved by the court, will
result in dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit.  The
settlement also will result in a release of claims that have
been or could have been asserted relating to the Merger, the
Merger Agreement, or any disclosures relating to the Merger by
the plaintiff and the purported class of Energy East
shareholders.

In connection with such settlement, the plaintiff's counsel will
apply to the court for attorneys' fees and expenses not to
exceed in the aggregate $340,000, which Energy East has agreed
to pay, if awarded by the court, provided the court approves the
settlement and dismisses the lawsuit with prejudice.

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.

Energy East Corp. -- http://www.energyeast.com-- is a public  
utility holding company that through its subsidiaries, has
regulated transmission, distribution and generation operations
in New York and Maine, and is engaged in regulated natural gas
transportation, storage and distribution operations in New York,
Connecticut, Maine and Massachusetts.  It also controls energy-
marketing companies and has other non-utility businesses.  The
Company created a support services company in 2004, Utility
Shared Services Corp., to consolidate support service functions
for its utilities.


GRANGE INSURANCE: Proposes to Settle "Bad Faith" Insureds' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grange Insurance Company proposed a nationwide "bad faith" class
action settlement for Grange insureds who submitted UM/UIM
(Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage) bodily injury claims,
pursuant to Grange auto policies between Jan. 1, 1999, and
Dec. 12, 2007, Alison De Villiers of Cincinnati Injuryboard.com
reports.

The lawsuit alleges that Grange underpaid people for UM/UIM
bodily injury claims by using a computer program known as
COLOSSUS, or other programs known as Claims Outcome Advisor and
InjuryIQ.

Specifically, Grange underpaid UM/UIM bodily injury claims
through the use of COLOSSUS and conspired with others to reduce
the amounts paid for general damages for bodily injury claims
submitted under the UM/UIM portion of auto policies.

According to the report, bad faith actions like this one reveal
the insurance industry's continued attempts to take money away
from policyholders and put it into the pockets of the
shareholders.

Cincinnati Injuryboard.com's Ms. De Villiers said the victims in
this case are Grange's own policyholders, who paid premiums to
Grange.

Grange owes a duty of good faith to policyholders and should not
work against them when they seek fair compensation for bodily
injuries, Ms. De Villiers writes.


HARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Cats' Vit. Care for Possible Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartz Mountain Corporation is voluntarily recalling a second
specific lot of Hartz Vitamin Care for Cats due to concerns that
bottles within the lot may have been potentially contaminated
with Salmonella.

Hartz is fully cooperating with the US Food and Drug
Administration in this voluntary recall.

Hartz recalled a specific lot code of Hartz Vitamin Care for
Cats last November due to similar concerns.  Both lot codes were
manufactured for Hartz by UFAC (USA) Inc. in 2007, and were
removed from distribution last November.  However, bottles from
the second lot had been shipped to customers prior to their
having been removed from distribution.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems, all of whom are at particular risk from
exposure and should avoid handling these products.

Salmonella symptoms may include fever, diarrhea, abdominal pain,
and nausea in both cats and humans.  Anyone experiencing the
symptoms of Salmonella infection should seek immediate medical
attention.  Owners of cats exhibiting these symptoms should also
seek veterinary assistance.

The product involved is 739 bottles of Hartz Vitamin Care for
Cats, lot code SZ 22771, UPC number 32700-97701.  While normal
testing conducted by Hartz and UFAC has not revealed the
presence of Salmonella in any Hartz products, recent sampling
conducted by the FDA did detect the presence of Salmonella.

Although the company has not received any reports of animals or
humans becoming ill as a result of coming into contact with this
product, Hartz is taking immediate steps to recover this product
from consumers.  Cat owners should check the lot code on their
bottles, and, if the code is not visible, or if the bottle has
lot code SZ 22771 or lot code SZ-16371 imprinted thereon, they
should immediately discontinue use of the product and discard it
in a proper manner.

Consumers can contact Hartz at 1-800-275-1414 with any questions
they may have and to obtain reimbursement for purchased product.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Cal. Court Mulls Motion to Nix Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion that seeks for the dismissal of a
securities fraud class action filed against Juniper Networks,
Inc.

On July 14, 2006, a purported class-action complaint captioned,
"Garber v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C-06-4327 MJJ,"
was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California against the company and certain of its officers
and directors.  The plaintiff filed a corrected complaint on
July 28, 2006.

The Garber class action is brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Juniper Networks' common stock between Sept. 1, 2003, and
May 22, 2006.

On Aug. 29, 2006, another purported class-action complaint
captioned, "Peters v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C 06
5303 JW," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company and certain
of its officers and directors.  

The Peters class action is brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Juniper Networks' common stock between April 10, 2003, and
Aug. 10, 2006.

Both of these purported class actions allege that the company
and certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by manipulating stock option grant dates to
coincide with low stock prices and issuing false and misleading
statements including, among others, incorrect financial
statements due to the improper accounting of stock option
grants.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the court appointed the New York City Pension
Funds as lead plaintiffs.  The lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on Jan. 12, 2007.  

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
purchasers of, or those who otherwise acquired, Juniper
Networks' publicly traded securities from April 10, 2003 through
and including Aug. 20, 2006.

It alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors.  

On Feb. 15, 2007, the parties agreed that plaintiffs may file an
amended consolidated complaint within 30 days after the company
files its restated financial statements with the U.S. Securities
Exchange Commission and the court approved the stipulation on
Feb. 16, 2007.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
certain of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007.
The Court has not yet issued a ruling.

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 "In Re: Juniper Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:06-cv-04327-JW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge James Ware presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard Bemporad, Esq. (rbemporad@ldbs.com)
         Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad Selinger & Cohen, P.C.
         White Plains Plaza, 1 North Broadway, 5th Floor
         White Plains, NY 10601-2310
         Phone: (914) 997-0500

              - and -

         William M. Audet, Esq. (waudet@audetlaw.com)
         Audet & Partners
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-982-1776
         Fax: 415-576-1776

Representing the defendants is:

         Joni L. Ostler, Esq. (jostler@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100


LIBERTY NATIONAL: Ala. Court Mulls Approving Policyholder Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Barbour County Circuit Court has yet to approve a settlement
in the consolidated class action over cancer policies that was
filed against Liberty National Life Insurance Co., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Torchmark Corp.

The companies were parties to a purported class action, titled
"Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Case No.
CV-2002 009-B," filed with the Circuit Court of Choctaw County,
Alabama, on behalf of all persons who currently are or in the
past were insured under Liberty cancer policies, which were no
longer being marketed, regardless of whether the policies
remained in force or lapsed.   

The case was based on allegations of breach of contract in the
implementation of premium rate increases, misrepresentation
regarding the premium rate increases, fraud and suppression
concerning the closed block of business and unjust enrichment.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion
granting Liberty's and Torchmark's petition for a writ of
mandamus, concluding that the Choctaw Circuit Court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction and ordering that Circuit Court to
dismiss the action.  

The plaintiffs then filed their purported class action, "Roberts
v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Civil Action No. CV-
03-0137," against Liberty and Torchmark with the Circuit Court
of Barbour County, Alabama, on Dec. 30, 2003.  

On April 16, 2004, the parties filed a written Stipulation of
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement with the Barbour County,
Alabama Circuit Court seeking potential settlement of the
Roberts case.   

A fairness hearing on the potential settlement was held by the
Barbour County Circuit Court on July 15, 2004.  After receipt of
briefs on certain issues and submission of materials relating to
objections to the proposed settlement to the court-appointed
independent special master, the Court reconvened the previously
continued fairness hearing on Sept. 23, 2004.   

After the Sept. 23, 2004 hearing, the court, after hearing from
the objectors to the potential settlement, ordered the
appointment of an independent actuary to report back to the
Court on certain issues.  The report of the independent actuary
was subsequently furnished to the special master and the Court
on a timely basis.

On Nov. 22, 2004, the court entered an order and final judgment  
in "Roberts" wherein the court consolidated it with "Robertson
v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, CV-92-021," for
purposes of the Roberts stipulation of settlement, and certified
the Roberts class as a new subclass of the class previously
certified by that court in "Robertson."

The court approved the stipulation and settlement and ordered
and enjoined Liberty to perform its obligations under the
stipulation.   

Subject to the stipulation, Liberty and Torchmark were
permanently enjoined from:  

      -- instituting, engaging or participating in, maintaining,  
         authorizing or continuing premium rate increases  
         inconsistent with the Stipulation;  

      -- failing to implement temporary premium waivers in  
         accordance with the Stipulation;  

      -- failing to implement the new benefits procedure  
         described in the Stipulation; and  

      -- failing to implement the special schedules and special  
         provisions of the stipulation for subclass members who  
         have cancer and are receiving benefits and for subclass  
         members who have no other cancer or medical insurance  
         and are not covered by Medicare.  

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, released the
defendants, enjoined Roberts subclass members from any further
prosecution of released claims and retained continuing
jurisdiction of all matters relating to the Roberts settlement.

In an order issued on Feb. 1, 2005, the court denied the
objectors' motion to alter, amend or vacate its earlier final
judgment on class settlement and certification.   

The companies proceeded to implement the settlement terms.  On
March 10, 2005, the "Roberts" plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court.

In an opinion issued on Sept. 29, 2006, the Alabama Supreme
Court voided the Barbour County Circuit Court's final judgment
and dismissed the Roberts appeal.   

The Supreme Court held that the Barbour County Court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction in "Roberts" to certify the Roberts
class as a subclass of the Robertson class and to enter a final
judgment approving the settlement since "Roberts" was filed as
an independent class action collaterally attacking "Robertson"
rather than being filed in "Robertson" under the Barbour County
Court's reserved continuing jurisdiction over that case.   

On Oct. 23, 2006, Liberty filed a petition with the Barbour
County Circuit Court under its continuing jurisdiction in
"Robertson" for clarification, or in the alternative, to amend
the Robertson final judgment.

Liberty sought an order from the Circuit Court declaring that
Liberty pay benefits to Robertson class members based upon the
amounts accepted by providers in full payment of charges.  

A hearing was held on Liberty's petition on March 13, 2007.  On
March 30, 2007, the Barbour County Circuit Court issued an order
denying Liberty's petition for clarification and modification of
"Robertson," holding that Liberty's policies did not state that
they will pay "actual charges" accepted by providers.

On April 8, 2007, the Court issued an order granting a motion to
intervene and establishing a subclass in "Robertson" comprised
of Liberty cancer policyholders who are now or have within the
past six years, undergone cancer treatment and filed benefit
claims under the policies in question.

Liberty filed a motion with the Barbour County Circuit Court to
certify for an interlocutory appeal that Court's order on
Liberty's petition for clarification in Robertson on April 17,
2007.  An appellate mediation of these issues was conducted on
Aug. 9, 2007.  

On Oct. 16, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court entered orders,
based upon the conclusion by the parties of the appellate
mediation, staying the proceedings for a writ of mandamus,
reinstating the cases on the appellate docket, and remanding the
cases to the Barbour County Circuit Court to implement the
parties' settlement agreement.  

A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement agreement was held
by the Barbour County Circuit Court on Jan. 15, 2008, 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.

Torchmark, Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com-- is an   
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


MIDLAND CO: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Midland Co. has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed against members
of its board of directors over their approval of a $1.3-billion
sale of the company to Munich Re insurance company, Business
Courier reports.

Business Courier recounts that the class-action complaint was
filed in December 2007 with the common pleas court in Clermont
County by Brualdi Law Firm P.C. in New York, purportedly on
behalf of Midland shareholders.  The complaint alleged that
Midland's directors stand to reap "enormous benefits" from the
sale, that some of those benefits had not been disclosed to
shareholders, and that certain details of Midland's sale and
valuation process were not properly disclosed.

The only named plaintiff, Superior Partners, was not otherwise
identified.

The benefits to Midland directors that were disclosed include:

   * cash for non-employee directors' share equivalents ranging
     from $146,027 for Richard Norman to more than $1 million
     for John O'Mara; and

   * acceleration of stock options worth $1.6 million each and
     cash for stock-based performance awards of $1.3 million
     each for CEO John W. Hayden and Joseph P. Hayden III, the
     company's chairman and chief operating officer.

Undisclosed benefits include severance payments to J.P. Hayden
III under a change of control agreement and incentives to him
related to the sale of its barge transportation business, and
payments to John W. Hayden under a post-merger employment
agreement, the lawsuit said.

"The individual defendants failed to properly inform themselves
of Midland's value or give adequate consideration to having the
company remain independent and failed to do so because of their
interest in quickly signing the sale agreement and thereby
obtaining the improper personal benefits they will receive," the
complaint charged.

According Business Courier, Midland and the plaintiff entered
into a memorandum of understanding that provides for the
proposed settlement.

Business Courier notes that in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Midland said it had agreed, as part of the
proposed lawsuit settlement, to make certain additional
disclosures, which were included in a revised proxy statement
that was filed in February.  It did not otherwise identify any
additional disclosures that are in that document.

It also has agreed to pay the plaintiff's legal fees and
expenses, the amount of which also were not disclosed.  

All the settlement terms are subject to court approval.

Midland has scheduled a special shareholders meeting on March 24
to vote on its proposed sale to Munich Re for $65 a share.  The
sale process was triggered last summer when Midland CEO John
Hayden informed the board that the Hayden family, which owns
about 28% of Midland stock, had decided to sell some or all of
its stake in the company, according to a description of the
events leading up to the sale that was included in the proxy
statement.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Opposes Plaintiff's Motion in "Beary" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., National Life Insurance
Co., and Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc., are opposing a
motion to vacate judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint in the matter "Beary v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.,
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00967-EAS-NMK."

The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of a class of all sponsors of 457(b)
deferred compensation plans in the U.S. that had variable
annuity contracts with NFS, NLIC and NRS.  The suit was filed on
Nov. 15, 2006, NFS by Kevin Beary, Sheriff of Orange County,
Florida, In His Official Capacity, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all sponsors of
457(b) deferred compensation plans in the U.S. that had variable
annuity contracts with the defendants at any time during the
class period, or in the alternative, all sponsors of 457(b)
deferred compensation plans in Florida that had variable annuity
contracts with the defendants during the class period.

The class period is from Jan. 1, 1996 until the class notice is
provided.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by arranging for and retaining service payments
from certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks an accounting, a declaratory judgment, a
permanent injunction and disgorgement or restitution of the
service fee payments allegedly received by the defendants,
including interest.

On Jan. 25, 2007, NFS, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss.
On Sept. 17, 2007, the Court granted the motion to dismiss.  

On Oct. 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment
and for leave to file an amended complaint.  On Oct. 25, 2007,
NFS, NLIC and NRS filed their opposition to the plaintiff's
motion, according to NFS' 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 "Beary v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00967-EAS-NMK," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Edmund A. Sargus
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Scott E. Smith, Esq. (ses@smithphillipslaw.com )
          Smith Phillips & Associates
          1225 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-846-1700
          Fax: 614-486-4987

               - and -

          Allen C. Engerman, Esq. (acelaw@mcn.org)
          4800 North Federal Highway
          Suite 100D
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-2222
          Fax: 561-392-2123

Representing the defendants are:

          Quintin Franc Lindsmith, Esq. (qlindsmith@bricker.com)
          Bricker & Eckler LLP
          100 South Third Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-227-2300
          Fax: 614-227-2390

               - and -

          Mark Bieter, Esq. (mark.bieter@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Hale
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6126
          Fax: 202-663-6363


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Bid in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied a
motion by plaintiffs in the matter, "Haddock, et al. v.
Nationwide, et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01552-SRU," which had
sought to dismiss the amended counterclaim made by Nationwide
Financial Services, Inc., and its Nationwide Life Insurance Co.
subsidiary, according to NFS' Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Aug. 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die, Inc.
Deferred Compensation Plan, et al. v. Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Company," alleging  
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Currently, the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint, filed
March 21, 2006, purports to represent a class of qualified
retirement plans under ERISA that purchased variable annuities
from NLIC.

The plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in
their variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS breached
ERISA fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments
from certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments
allegedly received by NLIC and NFS, other unspecified relief for
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’
fees.  To date, the District Court has rejected the plaintiffs'
request for certification of the alleged class.

On Sept. 25, 2007, NFS' and NLIC's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint was denied.  

On Oct. 12, 2007, NFS and NLIC filed their answer to the
plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint and amended counterclaims.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss NFS'
and NLIC's amended counterclaims.  On Nov. 15, 2007, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  

On Feb. 8, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss the amended counterclaim, with the exception that it was
tentatively granting the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss with
respect to NFS' and NLIC's claim that it could recover any
"disgorgement remedy" from plan sponsors.  

The suit is "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No.   
3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Stefan R. Underhill presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard A. Bieder, Esq. (rbieder@koskoff.com)
          Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.
          350 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport
          CT 06604
          Phone: 203-336-4421  
          Fax: 203-368-3244

          Gregory G. Jones, Esq. (greg@gjoneslaw.com)
          603 S. Main, Suite 200
          Grapevine, TX 76051
          Phone: 871-424-9001
          Fax: 817-424-1665

               - and -

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq. (rmandel@smi-law.com)
          Stanley, Mandel & Iola
          3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Phone: 214-443-4300
          Fax: 214-443-0358

Representing the defendants are:

          Jessica A. Ballou, Esq. (jballou@llgm.com)
          LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae
          Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 860-293-3535
          Fax: 860-293-3555

               - and -

          Sam Broderick-Sokol, Esq.
          (sam.broderick-sokol@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr-LLP-DC
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6000
          Fax: 202-663-6363


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Ohio Court Dismisses Some Claims in "Carr" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio dismissed certain
claims in the purported class action, "Michael Carr v.
Nationwide Life Insurance Co.," according to National Financial
Services, Inc.'s Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

On Feb. 11, 2005, NLIC, a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc., was named in a class action filed with the
Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio entitled, "Michael
Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company."  

The complaint seeks recovery for breach of contract, fraud by
omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and unjust enrichment.  The complaint also seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, disgorgement of all amounts in excess of
the guaranteed maximum premium and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification on the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims.  The court certified a class consisting of
all residents of the United States and the Virgin Islands who,
during the class period, paid premiums on a modal basis to NLIC
for term life insurance policies issued by NLIC during the class
period that provide for guaranteed maximum premiums, excluding
certain specified products.

Excluded from the class are NLIC; any parent, subsidiary or
affiliate of NLIC; all employees, officers and directors of
NLIC; and any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the State of
Ohio who may hear the case.

The class period is from Feb. 10, 1990, through Feb. 2, 2006.  

On Jan. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment.  On April 30, 2007, NLIC filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the court heard oral argument on the motions
for summary judgment.  On Feb. 4, 2008, the Court entered its
ruling on the parties' pending motions for summary judgment.  

The Court granted NLIC's motion for summary judgment for some of
the plaintiffs' causes of action, including breach of contract
claims on all decreasing term policies, plaintiff Carr's
individual claims for fraud by omission, violation of the Ohio
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and all unjust enrichment claims.

However, several claims against NLIC remain, including the
plaintiff's individual claim for breach of contract and the
claims for breach of contract for the term life policies in 43
of 51 jurisdictions.

The Court has requested additional briefing on NLIC's
affirmative defense that the doctrine of voluntary payment acts
as a defense to the breach of contract claims.  

Based in Columbus, Ohio, Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --  
http://www.nationwide.com/nw/-- is the holding company for   
Nationwide Life Insurance Co. and other companies that
comprise the domestic life insurance and retirement savings
operations of the Nationwide group of companies.  The company, a
provider of long-term savings and retirement products in the
U.S., develops and sells a diverse range of products, including
individual annuities, private and public group retirement plans,
other investment products sold to institutions, life insurance
and advisory services.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal of Market Timing Suit Still on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the Mutual Funds Investment Litigation are
appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
the dismissal of their case, which names as one of the
defendants Nationwide Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.  

On April 13, 2004, NLIC was named in a class action filed with
the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois, entitled, "Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance
Company."  NLIC removed this case to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois on June 1, 2004.

On Dec. 27, 2004, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland and included in the multi-
district proceeding entitled, "In Re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation."

In response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed the first
amended complaint purporting to represent, with certain
exceptions, a class of all persons who held (through their
ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product) units of any
NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included foreign
securities in their portfolios and that experienced market
timing or stale price trading activity.

The first amended complaint purports to disclaim, with respect
to market timing or stale price trading in NLIC's annuities sub-
accounts, any allegation based on NLIC's untrue statement,
failure to disclose any material fact, or usage of any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection
with any class member's purchases or sales of NLIC annuities or
units in annuities sub-accounts.

The plaintiff claims, in the alternative, that if NLIC is found
with respect to market timing or stale price trading in its
annuities sub-accounts, to have made any untrue statement, or to
have failed to disclose any material fact or to have used or
employed any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance,
then the plaintiff purports to represent a class, with certain
exceptions, of all persons who, prior to NLIC's untrue
statement, omission of material fact, use or employment of any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, held (through
their ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product) units
of any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included
foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced
market timing activity.

The first amended complaint alleges common law negligence and
seeks to recover damages not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or
class member, including all compensatory damages and costs.

On June 1, 2006, the District Court granted NLIC's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.  The plaintiff appealed the
District Court's decision, and the issues have been fully
briefed.

NFS 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 "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No.
1:04-cv-03944-JFM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Judge J. Frederick Motz presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq. (fbalint@bffb.com)
         Andrew Steven Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com)
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC
         2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Phone: 1-602-776-5903
         Fax: 1-602-274-1199

              - and -

         Eugene Yevgeny Barash, Esq. (ebarash@koreintillery.com)
         George A. Zelcs, Esq. (gzelcs@koreintillery.com)
         Korein Tillery 701 Market St.
         Ste. 300
         St. Louis, MO 63108
         Phone: 1-314-241-4844
         Fax: 1-314-241-3525

Representing the company are:

         Shoshana Leah Gillers, Esq.
         (shoshana.gillers@wilmerhale.com)
         Eric John Mogilnicki, Esq.
         (eric.mogilnicki@wilmerhale.com)
         Charles Collier Platt, Esq.
         (charles.platt@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 1-212-230-8841
         Fax: 1-212-230-8888


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Ala. Court Considers Motions in "Ruth" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama has yet to
rule on both parties motions in the purported class action,
"Gwin et al v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company et al., Case
No. 2:08-cv-00059-RDP," which names a subsidiary of Nationwide
Financial Services, Inc., as a defendant.

On Nov. 20, 2007, Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and Nationwide
Retirement Solutions, Inc., were named in a lawsuit filed with
the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama entitled, "Ruth
A. Gwin and Sandra H. Turner, and a class of similarly situated
individuals v. NLIC, NRS, Alabama State Employees Association,
PEBCO, Inc. and Fictitious Defendants A to Z."

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all participants
in the Alabama State Employees Association plan, excluding
members of the Board of Control during the Class Period and
excluding ASEA's directors, officers and board members during
the class period.

The class period is the date from which NLIC and NRS first made
a payment to ASEA or PEBCO arising out of the funding agreement
dated March 24, 2004, to the date class notice is provided.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties, converted plan participants' properties, and
breached their contract when payments were made and the plan was
administered under the funding agreement.

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, an injunction,
disgorgement of amounts paid, compensatory and punitive damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other equitable
and legal relief to which the plaintiffs and class members may
be entitled.

On Jan. 9, 2008, NLIC and NRS filed a Notice of Removal to the
U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama.  On Jan. 16,
2008, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss.  On Jan. 24, 2008,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.  

The motions have been fully briefed, according to NFS' 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 "Gwin et al v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company et
al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00059-RDP," filed with U.S. District Court
Northern District of Alabama, Judge R. David Proctor presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James S. Christie, Jr., Esq.
          (jchristie@bradleyarant.com)
          Bradley Arant Rose & White
          P.O. Box 830709
          Birmingham, AL 35283-0709
          Phone: 521-8000

Representing the defendants are:
         
          J. Kirkman Garrett, Esq. (jkgarrett@csattorneys.com)
          Christian & Small LLP
          Financial Center, Suite 1800
          505 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2696
          Phone: 795-6588

          Rebecca G. DePalma, Esq. (rdepalma@waadlaw.com)
          White Arnold Andrews & Dowd PC
          2025 3rd Avenue, North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 323-1888

               - and -

          Joseph C. Espy, III, Esq. (jespy@mewlegal.com)
          Melton Espy & Williams PC
          301 Adams Avenue
          P.O. Drawer 5130
          Montgomery, AL 36103-5130
          Phone: 334-263-6621
          Fax: 334-263-7252


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Wash. Court Considers Dismissal of ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
has yet to rule on a motion that seeks for the dismissal of a
purported class action against Nationwide Life Insurance Co., a
subsidiary of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.

On July 11, 2007, NLIC was named in a lawsuit filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
which is alleging violation of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The suit was filed by Jerre Daniels-Hall and David Hamblen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
against:

     -- National Education Association,
     -- NEA Member Benefits Corporation,
     -- NLIC,
     -- Security Benefit Life Insurance Company,
     -- Security Benefit Group, Inc.,
     -- Security Distributors, Inc.

The plaintiffs seeks to represent a class of all current or
former National Education Association members who participated
in the NEA Valuebuilder 403(b) program at any time between
January 1, 1991 and the present (and their heirs and
beneficiaries).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by failing to
prudently and loyally manage plan assets, by failing to provide
complete and accurate information, by engaging in prohibited
transactions, and by breaching their fiduciary duties when they
failed to prevent other fiduciaries from breaching their
fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks to have the defendants restore all losses to
the plan, restoration of plan assets and profits to
participants, disgorgement of endorsement fees, disgorgement of
service fee payments, disgorgement of excessive fees charged to
plan participants, other unspecified relief for restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.

On Oct. 12, 2007, NLIC filed a motion to dismiss, according to
NFS' 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 "Daniels-Hall et al v. National Education
Association et al., Case No.," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Ronald B.
Leighton presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Allen C. Engerman, Esq. (ACELaw@mcn.org)
          Law Offices of Allen C. Engerman, P.A.
          Sanctuary Centre
          4800 N Federal Hwy., Ste. 100-d
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-2222

               - and -

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq. (dloeser@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 3rd Ave.
          Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark Bieter, Esq. (mark.bieter@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6126

               - and -

          Abigail V. Carter, Esq. (acarter@bredhoff.com)
          Bredhoff & Kaiser
          805 Fifteenth St. NW
          Ste. 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-842-2600


NEW ENGLAND:  La. Suit Over "Fraudulent Videotaping" Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit
against The New England Patriots plan to withdraw the complaint,
which claims that their "fraudulent videotaping" of the St.
Louis Rams' walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI 2002 Super
Bowl should cost the team damages in excess of $100 million, the
Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana on Feb. 15, 2008.  Specifically named as
defendants in the matter are:

       -- The New England Patriots;

       -- New England Patriots Limited Partnership; and

       -- Coach Bill Belichick (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19,
          2008).

The suit was brought on behalf of Willie Gary, identified as a
Rams employee and football player, Kevin Hacker, Marcus Miller,
and Peter Trout.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Patriots fraudulently
gained an unfair advantage by taping a Rams walk-through
practice the day before the teams played in the Super Bowl
XXXVI.  They asked for refunds on behalf of everyone who
paid to attend Super Bowl XXXVI in New Orleans.  

The suit further claimed that the Patriots were engaged in
fraud, racketeering, breach of contract, and were in violation
of Louisiana's unfair trade practices, and consumer protection
act.

The suit sought restitution for three classes: Rams players,
coaches, staff and employees of the team that met New England in
the Super Bowl in 2002, all 72,922 fans who attended the game,
and owners of St. Louis Rams seat licenses for the 2001 and 2002
seasons.

In addition, the suit asked for $35 million in damages, which
would be tripled under a federal racketeering act dating back to
the 1970s, plus punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The allegations stemmed from reports that the Patriots, in
addition to videotaping their 2007 season opener against the
Jets for which they were fined and penalized a first round pick,
had been illegally videotaping walk-throughs and defensive
signals back for seven seasons, according to the ESPN.COM
report.

In September 2007, both Mr. Belichick, and the Patriots were
penalized by the N.F.L. for the alleged pattern of videotaping
opposing sidelines, a violation of league rules.  Commissioner
Roger Goodell then had all pertinent material destroyed, which
has drawn concern from Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

In court papers filed recently, the plaintiffs' attorneys say
they sued last month in an attempt to secure sworn testimony
from former Patriots employee Matt Walsh, who allegedly taped a
walkthrough practice by the Rams before New England's Super Bowl
win.  They asked a federal judge in New Orleans to dismiss the
case.

Eric Deters, Esq., one of Mr. Gary's attorneys, said they are
reserving their right to refile the suit if they learn more
about Mr. Walsh's alleged role in the Spygate episode.

"We're not giving up on the case," Mr. Deters said.  "We just
want to back off and see what he has to say before we make a
move."

A lawyer for Mr. Walsh told Associated Press on Sunday that he
was hopeful an agreement could be reached that would give his
client the "necessary legal protections so (he) can come forward
with the truth."

The suit is "Gary et al v. New England Patriots et al., Case No.
2:08-cv-01002-ILRL-JCW," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle
presiding.


NEWS-PRESS: Settles Employee Overtime Lawsuit for $140,000
----------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Barbara News-Press has settled a lawsuit filed against
it by two former newsroom employees who alleged that the paper
had shortchanged them on overtime pay and on meal and rest
periods, The Santa Barbara Independent reports.

The Santa Barbara Independent recounts that the suit was
originally filed with the Santa Barbara Superior Court on
October 11, 2006, by former reporter Hildy Medina.  In February
2007, the suit was amended to include former reporter Anna
Davison.  The two alleged that the newspaper failed to pay
overtime to employees who worked more than eight hours a day or
more than 40 hours a week.  It also alleged that the News-Press
did not provide its employees with meal and rest periods that
are required by California law.

In addition, the plaintiffs also claimed that if, by the end of
the year, an employee had not used vacation time, the paper's
management would eliminate that accrual, which move is a
violation of state law.

According to the report, the settlement amount is $140,000.  
Pursuant to this settlement, any person who has worked for the
paper in the past six years -- beginning October 2002 --
regardless of whether they lost out on overtime pay or vacation
time, is eligible to take a share in the money.

The settlement also allows for anyone who has actual  
documentation that they did not receive proper payment for hours
work or vacation time earned to still file a claim against the
paper.  

The reason to do it in bulk, according to Bruce Anticouni, Esq.,
a local lawyer who specializes in employment litigation, is
that there was no sufficient information to figure out who all
the individuals were that missed out on the funds and time off
afforded to them.

The plaintiffs, who are a couple of the dozens of newsroom staff
who have left the paper in the last two years, decided that
while their case was strong, there was a chance the claim would
not be certified as a class action, as many of those involved
had different individual circumstances surrounding their
employment.

"There was too much diversity with respect to the facts,"
Mr. Anticouni explained.  "This way seemed like it was going to
allow anyone who worked there to get some [of the settlement]."

In addition to whatever they are entitled to as part of the
group of former employees receiving a slice of money, the
plaintiffs will each receive $5,000 in addition to whatever
they are entitled to as members of the class, for being the
named plaintiffs.

The Santa Barbara Independent also notes that as part of the
settlement, the paper's management "denies any liability or
wrongdoing of any kind associated with the claims alleged,"
adding that a class action suit would've been inappropriate.
"Defendant contends, among other things, that it has complied
at all times with the Labor Code, the California Business and
Professions Code, and all applicable wage and hour laws and
regulations," according to the settlement agreement.


RAIT FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAIT Financial Trust faces a purported securities fraud class
action lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint, which is seeking class certification, was filed
on Aug. 1, 2007, against RAIT Financial Trust, certain of its
officers and trustees and the lead underwriters involved in its
public offering of common shares in January 2007.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired RAIT securities between Jan. 10,
2007, and July 31, 2007.  This action purports to assert claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, and the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiff alleges that, during the class period, RAIT did
not adequately disclose that RAIT had provided TruPS to American
Home Mortgage Investment Corp. that the payment by AHM under the
TruPS was supposedly in jeopardy and that RAIT did not
adequately reserve for the risk of nonpayment by AHM.

The plaintiff further alleges that, as a result, certain of
RAIT's statements, including statements in the registration
statement, prospectus and prospectus supplement for RAIT's
January 2007 offering, were materially false and misleading.  
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

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 "A1 Credit Company v. RAIT Financial Trust, et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-03148-LDD," filed with with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Legrome D.
Davis presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gerald S. Berkowitz (gsb@berklein.com)
          Berkowitz and Klein LLP
          625 B Swedesford Rd.
          Swedsford Corporate Center
          Malvern, PA 19355-1530
          Phone: 610-889-3200
          Fax: 610-889-9564

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          (rliebenberg@finekaplan.com)
          Fine, Kaplan and Black
          1835 Market St.
          28th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-567-6565
          Fax: 215-568-5872

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert W. Hayes, Esq. (rhayes@cozen.com)
          Cozen O'Connor
          1900 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-665-2094
          Fax: 215-665-2013

              - and -

          Barbara W. Mather, Esq. (matherb@pepperlaw.com)
          Pepper Hamilton LLP
          3000 Two Logan Sq.
          18th & Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Phone: 215-981-4895
          Fax: 215-981-4756


SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Workers' Suit Over False Promises
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Poverty Law Center of Montgomery, Ala., has filed a
class action suit against Signal International, an oil rig
construction and repair company, on behalf of immigrant workers
involved in the reconstruction and cleanup of New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina, reports say.

A group of 500 foreign welders and pipefitters brought in to
work at Gulf Coast oil rig yards after the storm maintain that
immigrants brought in under the guest worker program are
"systematically exploited and abused," all over the country,
Adam Nossiter of The New York Times writes.

According to an Associated Press report, workers claim that
Signal International lured them into taking jobs at Gulf Coast
shipyards on the false promise of green cards and permanent U.S.
residency and subjected them to abusive living conditions.

The NY Times contends that the workers were recruited in India
and the United Arab Emirates and brought in late 2006 and early
2007 under the government's temporary guest worker program.  
They worked at Signal International, an oil-rig repair and
construction company with yards in Pascagoula, Miss., about 85
miles east of here, and in Orange, Tex., about 100 miles east of
Houston.

In a statement, the company called the workers' charges
"baseless and unfounded" and said it had spent "over $7 million
constructing state-of-the-art housing complexes" for the
workers.  The company said that the "vast majority of the
workers" recruited had been satisfied with their conditions and
that the workers were being paid "in excess" of prevailing rates
and in full compliance with the law

Signal International, LLC  -- http://www.signalint.com/-- is a  
leading Gulf of Mexico provider of marine and fabrication
services. Its facilities span the Gulf of Mexico, affording easy
access to offshore rigs and platforms. Four yards in Texas and
two in Mississippi expeditiously deliver quality workmanship to
maximize customers' uptime.

    
SLM CORP: Discovery Ensues in CA FFELP Billing Practices Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against
SLM Corp. -- a/k/a Sallie Mae -- over its Federal Family
Education Loan Program billing practices.

The suit, "Ann Chae, et al. v. SLM Corp. et al.," was filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on April 14, 2007.  It was served to the Company by several
borrowers.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code 17200, breach of contract, breach of covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, violation of consumer legal
remedies act and unjust enrichment.

The complaint challenges the Company's FFELP billing practices
as they relate to use of the simple daily interest method for
calculating interest.

On June 19, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Sept. 14, 2007, the court entered an
order denying Sallie Mae's request.

The court did not comment on the merits of the allegations or
the plaintiffs' case but instead determined that the allegations
stated a claim sufficient under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Company filed an answer in September 2007 and, in November  
2007 filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The court
denied this motion without ruling on the merits of the
plaintiffs' claims.

The court entered a scheduling order that set July 8, 2008, as
the start date for the trial.  

Discovery has commenced and is scheduled to continue through
May 30, 2008, 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 "Ann Chae et al v. SLM Corporation, Case No. 2:07-
cv-02319-ER-RC," with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Judge Edward Rafeedie presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 109
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@cmht.com)
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll
          West Tower
          1100 New York Avenue NW
          Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005-3964
          Phone: 202-408-4600

               - and -

          William J. Genego, Esq. (wgenego@gmail.com)
          Nasatir Hirsch Podberesky and Genego
          2115 Main Street
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Phone: 310-399-3259

Representing the defendants are:

          Anne K. Edwards, Esq. (aedwards@akingump.com)
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
          Century Twr. Plz.
          2029 Century Park E, Ste. 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010
          Phone: 310-229-1000


SLM CORP: Faces Putative Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corp. -- a/k/a Sallie Mae -- faces a putative securities
class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company and three senior
officers, 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, "Burch v. SLM Corporation, Albert L. Lord, C.E.
Andrews, and Robert S. Autor," was filed on Jan. 31, 2008, and
has been assigned to Judge William H. Pauley, III.

The case purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Common stock of the Company
between Jan. 18, 2007, and Jan. 3, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the named officers
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the class period, which statements allegedly had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

The complaint alleges that the defendants caused the Company's
results for year-end 2006 and for the first three quarters of
2007 to be materially misstated because the Company failed to
adequately accrue its loan loss provisions, which overstated the
Company's net income, and that the Company failed to adequately
disclose allegedly known trends and uncertainties with respect
to its non-traditional loan portfolio.

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) and Rule 10b-5.  The
Company was served on Feb. 5, 2008 and the case is pending.  A
class has not yet been certified in the above action.

The suit is "Burch v. SLM Corporation, Albert L. Lord, C.E.
Andrews, and Robert S. Autor, Case No. 1:2008cv01029," filed
with U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Judge William H. Pauley, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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


SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery Ongoing in Kans. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, "State of
New Jersey And Its Division of Investment, et al. v. Sprint
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:03cv2071-JWL," which was filed  
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and
names as a defendant, Sprint Nextel Corp.

The suit is alleging that the Company's 2001 and 2002 proxy
statements were false and misleading in violation of federal
securities laws to the extent they described new employment
agreements with senior executives without disclosing that,
according to the allegations, replacement of those executives
was inevitable.  

These allegations, made in an amended complaint in a lawsuit
originally filed in 2003, are asserted against the Company and
certain current and former officers and directors, and seek to
recover any decline in the value of FON and PCS common stock
during the class period.  

The parties have stipulated that the case can proceed as a class
action.  

Allegations in the original complaint, which asserted claims
against the same defendants and the Company's former independent
auditor, were dismissed by the court in April 2004.  

The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied
in September 2004, and the parties are engaged in discovery.

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 "State of New Jersey And Its Division of Investment,
et al. v. Sprint Corporation et al., Case No. 2:03cv2071-JWL,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas,
Judge John W. Lungstrum presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas R. Buchanan, Esq. (tbuchanan@mcdowellrice.com)
          McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC -- KC
          605 West 47th Street, Suite 350
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-753-5400/960-7388
          Fax: 816-753-9996

               - and -

          Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq. (gcastaldo@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin & Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants are:

          Francis P. Barron, Esq. (fbarron@cravath.com)
          Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
          Worldwide Plaza
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Phone: 212-474-1000
          Fax: 212-474-3700

               - and -

          Chad C. Beaver, Esq. (cbeaver@spencerfane.com)
          Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP KC
          1000 Walnut, Suite 1400
          Kansas City, MO 64106-2140
          Phone: 816-474-8100
          Fax: 816-474-3216


SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sutter Health and dozens of its medical centers are facing a
class-action complaint filed on March 6, 2008, with the Superior
Court of California, County of Alameda for violating the Labor
Code, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of all individuals who
are, or have been, employed as nurses, registered nurses,
licensed vocational nurses, charge nurses, or as other employees
performing similar tasks, by one or more of the defendants in
the state of California, from Feb. 2004 to the date of the
filing of the complaint.

The action seeks to recover unpaid wages from the defendants for
breaches of their legal obligation under California's Labor Code
and the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders:

     (1) to pay wages for all of the time that the defendants
         instructed or permitted employees to work including but
         not limited to agreed-upon rates or applicable overtime
         compensation;

     (2) to provide employees with unpaid, 30-minute meal
         periods, totally relieved of all duties, for every five
         hours of work;

     (3) to provide employees with paid 10-minute rest periods,
         totally relieved of all duties, for every four hours of
         work; and

     (4) to compensate employees at their regular rate of pay
         for each meal or rest period that they were denied.

The plaintiffs further seek relief under California's Business
and Professions Code for defendants' unfair competition and
unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices of paying
improper wages to plaintiffs and the class, and otherwise
depriving employees of their statutory rights.  Upon information
and belief, throughout the class period, defendants
intentionally engaged in a calculated scheme to evade the nurse
to patient ratio obligations set forth in California's Health
and Safety Code Section 1276.4 and 22 CCR Section 70217.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants maintain or maintained common
         policies and practices that failed to adequately
         compensate plaintiffs and the class adequately for
         their work;

     (b) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Sections
         510, 1194, and IWC Wage Order 5-2001 and other
         applicable IWC Wage Orders, by requiring plaintiffs and
         the class to work without payment for all hours worked;

     (c) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Sections
         226.7 and 512, IWC Wage Orders 5-2001 and other
         applicable Wage Orders, by failing to provide
         plaintiffs and the class with uninterrupted statutorily
         mandated meal and rest periods;

     (d) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Sections
         201-203 by failing to pay all hourly and overtime wages
         and rest and meal period compensation due and owing at
         the time that any class member's employment with
         defendants terminated;

     (e) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Section 1174
         by failing to maintain accurate records of hours worked
         by plaintiffs and the class;

     (f) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Section 226
         and IWC Wage Orders 5-2001 by failing to itemize in
         wage statements all hours worked and the correct hourly
         rate compensation, and by failing to itemize deductions
         from wages and accurately report total hours worked by
         the plaintiffs and the class;

     (g) whether the defendants violated the California Health
         and Safety Code Section 1276.4 and the California Code
         of Regulations, 22 CCR Section 70217, by failing to
         staff hospitals with the minimum nurse to patient
         ratios;

     (h) whether and entity that does not directly pay an
         employee but that directly or indirectly, or through an
         agent or any other person, exercises control over the
         wages, hours, or working conditions of the employee is
         the employee's employer and liable to the employee for
         violations of California's wage and hour law and
         regulations;

     (i) whether the defendants violated Business and
         Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. and Labor Code
         Sections 201-203, 226-226.7, 512, 1194, IWC Wage Order
         2001 and other applicable IWC Wage Orders which
         violation constitutes a violation of fundamental public
         policy;

     (j) what compensatory damages, and injunctive and other
         equitable relief including restitution and disgorgement
         of profits, are the plaintiffs and the class entitled
         to receive from defendants; and

     (k) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         equitable and specific relief pursuant to Business
         and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.

The plaintiffs request judgment as follows:

     -- for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and
        statutory or regulatory penalties, all in accordance
        with proof;

     -- for restitution to plaintiffs and the class including
        unpaid wages, compensation, and penalties for all
        uncompensated work and for meal and rest periods that
        were not provided to plaintiffs and the class, and for
        disgorgement of money or profits acquired by defendants      
        and each of them by means of unfair competition, all in
        accordance with proof;

     -- for injunctive relief to restraining defendants and each
        of them:

        (a) from failing to pay plaintiffs and the class at
            their regular rates for all time worked;

        (b) from failing to keep accurate records showing all
            the time that defendants suffer or permit plaintiffs
            and the class to work;

        (c) from failing to give plaintiffs and the class
            unpaid, 30-minute rest periods for every four hours
            in a work day;

        (d) from failing to give plaintiffs and the class paid,
            10-minute rest periods for every four hours in a
            work day;

        (e) from failing to provide relief registered nurses in
            adequate numbers sufficient to allow all registered
            nurses to take their meal and rest periods totally
            relieved of all duties;

        (f) from coercing registered nurses into not reporting
            overtime and the depr1vation of their meal periods
            and rest periods by, among other things,
            disciplining registered nurses who report working
            through their meal and rest periods; and

        (g) to prohibit defendants engaging in acts constituting
            unfair competition;

     -- for a declaration of the rights and obligations of
        defendants and the class under California law;

     -- for attorney's fees and costs of litigation, pursuant to
        sections 218.5 and 1194 of the California Labor Code,
        section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil
        Procedure, and other applicable legal authorities; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        just and equitable.

The suit is "Luisa Bissett et al. v. Sutter Health et al.,"
filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          Laurence J. Hasson, Esq.
          Amy A. Weaver, Esq.
          Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, New York 10036
          Phone: (212) 447-7070
          Fax: (212) 447-7077

          Robert H. Stropp, Jr., Esq.
          Mooney, Green, Baker & Saindon, PC
          1920 L Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 783-0010
          Fax: (202) 783-6088

               - and -

          Robert A. Cantore, Esq.
          Jay Smith, Esq.
          Michael D. Weiner, Esq.
          Scott G. Miller, Esq.
          Gilbert & Sackman
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, California 90010
          Phone: (323) 938-3000
          Fax: (323) 937-9139


THE VILLAGES: To Pay $40MM on Repairs as Part of Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The companies that run a central Florida retirement community
have agreed to pay $40 million to cover improvements and repairs
as part of a civil lawsuit settlement, the Associated Press
reports.

According to AP, a circuit judge in Lake County approved the
settlement of the class-action lawsuit, which claimed that
monthly amenity fees paid by The Villages' 70,000 residents had
been misused by The Villages of Lake-Sumter Incorporated, the
Village Center Community Development District and developer H.
Gary Morse.

The settlement requires the developer to pay about $40 million
over the next 13 years to replenish maintenance accounts,
according to the report.  The settlement also requires the
defendants to pay $50,000 each to five plaintiffs and
$6.7 million to the plaintiffs' attorneys.

The defendants denied any wrongdoing or misappropriation.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set June 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will hold a fairness hearing at 2:00 p.m., on
June 5, 2008, for the $50,000,000 settlement in the consolidated
securities fraud class action suits filed against Transkaryotic
Therapies, Inc.

The class includes all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Transkaryotic common stock during the period
from Jan. 4, 2001, through Jan. 10, 2003, inclusive.

The deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on
April 26, 2008.  The deadline to file claims is on June 30,
2008.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Rya W. Zobel with
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, at 2:00 p.m., on June 5, 2008.

                         Case Background

In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported
class actions against:

     -- TKT, which was acquired by Shire, PLC, on July 27, 2005;  
        and  

     -- Richard Selden, TKT's former chief executive officer.    

The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the
period from January 2001 through January 2003.  Each of the
complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

They allege that TKT and its officers made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information
concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing
approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during
that period.

On March 25, 2003, motions were filed with the court to appoint
lead plaintiff, lead counsel and for consolidation of all
related cases.   

The court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on April 9,
2003, and subsequently, consolidated all cases into one class
action lawsuit entitled, "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.,
Securities Litigation."

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
class action complaint against:  

     -- TKT;   

     -- Dr. Selden;   

     -- Daniel Geffken, TKT's former chief financial officer;   

     -- Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead,  
        III, and Wayne P. Yetter, then members of TKT's board  
        of directors;   
  
     -- William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members  
        of TKT's board of directors; and   

     -- SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities
        Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann.  

The defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on Sept. 17, 2003, which the lead plaintiffs opposed.  
On Dec. 4, 2003, the court heard oral arguments regarding the
motions to dismiss and took these motions under advisement.  

Thereafter, on May 26, 2004, the court issued an order granting
in part and denying in part the defendants motions to dismiss.
Defendants then filed their answers to the amended complaint on
July 16, 2004.

On July 23, 2004, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which defendants opposed.  Both parties have
provided briefs to the court regarding class certification.

In November 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.    

On May 23, 2005, the court entered judgment on all claims
alleged against SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink
Swann & Company.  

On June 5, 2006, the court entered judgment on all claims
alleged against Messrs. Gilbert, Leff, Moorhead, Yetter, Miller,
and Thomas.  

On Nov. 9, 2006, Mr. Geffken filed an Agreement for Judgment on
all claims alleged against him.  

In October 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the Class Action Shareholder Suit, subject to court
approval, for $50 million.  

Shire will contribute $27 million toward the settlement and its
insurance companies will contribute the remaining $23 million.  
The $27 million settlement cost has been provided for within
SG&A during this quarter.

In February 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted preliminary approval to the settlement
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008).

The suit is "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya W. Zobel
presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Robert Finkel, Esq.(RFinkel@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-759-4600
          Fax: 212-486-2093

               - and -

          Darren Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbtk.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants are:  

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02115
          Phone: 617-526-6145
          Fax: 617-526-5000

          Michael K. Fee, Esq. (MFEE@ropesgray.com)
          Ropes & Gray, LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-951-7000
          Fax: 617-951-7050

               - and -  

          Thomas J. Dougherty, Esq. (dougherty@skadden.com)         
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
          One Beacon Street
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-573-4800


UNITED AMERICAN: Discovery Ongoing in Ark. Insurance Policy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a purported class action against
United American Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Torchmark Corp.,
which was filed with the Circuit Court of Saline County,
Arkansas.

The suit, "Smith and Ivie v. Collingsworth, et al., CV2004-742-
2," was brought on behalf of the Arkansas purchasers of
association group health insurance policies or certificates
issued by the Company through Heartland Alliance of America
Association and Farm & Ranch Healthcare, Inc.

In it, the plaintiffs assert claims for fraudulent concealment,
breach of contract, common law liability for non- disclosure,
breach of fiduciary duties, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment,
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and
violation of Arkansas law and the rules and regulations of the
Arkansas Insurance Department.  

The plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive and equitable
relief, as well as actual and punitive damages.

On Sept. 7, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
assert a nationwide class, defined as all United American
insureds who simultaneously purchased both an individual
Hospital and Surgical Expense health insurance policy and an
individual supplemental term life insurance policy from Farm &
Ranch through Heartland.

The defendants removed this litigation to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas, under Case No. 4:05-
cv-1382, but that Court remanded the litigation back to state
court on plaintiffs' motion.

Discovery is proceeding, 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.

Torchmark, Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com-- is an   
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


UNITED AMERICAN: Tex. Lawsuit Over UA Partners Program Amended
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Neuman v. United
American Insurance Co., Case No. 36593," which was filed with
the Texas state court, against United American Insurance Co., a
subsidiary of Torchmark Corp., have amended their case to add
other allegations, 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.

On July 26, 2007, the purported class action litigation was
filed for a class comprised only of Texas citizens in the state
District Court of Falls County, Texas.

The plaintiffs assert that the UA Partners program is a
fraudulent scheme presented by United American to prospective
insureds when they apply for insurance as a discount product and
service program and the fee for this program is built into the
insurance premium.  They also allege that United American has
been unjustly enriched as a result of the UA Partners program
and are suing for money had and received and attorneys fees

On Jan. 28, 2008, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
allege breach of contract and unfair business practices
prohibited by the Texas Insurance Code in connection with the UA
Partners program and now seek actual and additional statutory
damages.

UA Partners Program

According to the company's Web site, the program offers UA
Partners members and their families access to negotiated rates
with over 300,000 physicians and over 4,100 hospitals across the
country through a network of providers.  

These network programs are administered by Competitive Health.  
The company said it is an optional program.  UA Partners members
who participate in the provider network can expect to save 5%-
40% for physician charges and hospital charges.  Because this
program is not insurance, there are no benefit restrictions.

Torchmark, Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com-- is an   
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet
to rule on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against United Rentals, Inc.

Initially, three purported class actions were filed against the
company.  Plaintiff in each of the suits sought to sue on behalf
of a purported class comprised of purchasers of the company's
securities from Oct. 23, 2003 to Aug. 30, 2004.

The lawsuits initially named as the defendants the company, its
chairman, vice chairman, and chief executive officer, its former
president and chief financial officer, and its former corporate
controller.  

These initial complaints alleged, among other things, that
certain of the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings and other public statements contained false and
misleading statements, which resulted in damages to the
plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the company's securities.  

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each action
asserted claims:

      -- against all defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule  
         10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and  

      -- against one or more of the individual defendants under  
         Section 20(a) of such Act.  

The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs
and expenses.  On Feb. 1, 2005, the court entered an order
consolidating the three actions.   

On Nov. 8, 2005, the court appointed City of Pontiac Policeman's
and Fireman's Retirement System as lead plaintiff for the
purported class.  

The consolidated action is now entitled, "In re United Rentals,
Inc. Securities Litigation."  The parties agreed upon, and the
court subsequently approved, a schedule for the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint in this action and the briefing
of any motions to dismiss directed to the operative complaint in
the action.  

On June 5, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which:

     -- adds allegations relating to, among other things, the
        conclusions of the Special Committee and to other
        matters disclosed in the 2005 Form 10-K;

     -- amends the purported class period to include purchasers
        of the company's securities from Feb. 28, 2001 to Aug.
        30, 2004; and

     -- names as an additional defendant the company's first
        chief financial officer.

In September 2006, the company and certain of the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
in this action.  Briefing with respect to these motions is now
complete.

The company provided no development in the matter in its Oct.
31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The company reported no development in the 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.

The suit is "In re United Rentals, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-1615," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Christopher F. Droney presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Erin Green Comite, Esq.
         Scott & Scott
         108 Norwich Ave., P.O. Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06415
         Phone: 860-537-5537
         Fax: 869-537-4432
         w-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

              - and -

         Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
         Schatz & Nobel
         One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6292
         Fax: 860-493-6290
         e-mail: nancy@snlaw.net

Representing the defendants are:

         David M. Bizar, Esq.
         Day, Berry & Howard
         Hartford, CT 06103-3499
         Phone: 860-275-0648
         Fax: 860-275-0343
         e-mail: dmbizar@dbh.com

              - and -

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


UNITED RENTALS: Enters Settlement MoU for 2004 Accounting Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Rentals, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding
with lead plaintiff's counsel to settle three purported class
action lawsuits that were filed following the August 2004
announcement of an SEC inquiry concerning the company's
historical accounting practices.

The memorandum of understanding provides that the claims of the
plaintiff class will be settled for a cash payment of
$27.5 million.

The contemplated settlement is subject to the prior satisfaction
of a number of conditions, including definitive settlement
documentation and court approval.  In addition, the settlement
is contingent upon United Rentals and its insurance carriers
finalizing agreements on the portion of the settlement to be
funded by the carriers, as well as the amounts that the carriers
will reimburse United Rentals for defense costs concerning the
shareholder actions and related inquiries and matters that have
previously been expensed by the company.

The company currently expects, taking into account anticipated
settlement funding and defense cost reimbursements from its
insurance carriers, that the contemplated settlement will not
have a material effect on its results of operations or cash
flows for any period.

The memorandum of understanding provides that United Rentals and
the individual defendants will each receive a release from the
members of the purported plaintiff class, which consists of
persons who purchased United Rentals securities from Feb. 28,
2001, to Aug. 30, 2004.  The contemplated settlement is without
any admission of liability or fault by the company or any of the
other defendants.

United Rentals noted that the contemplated settlement does not
affect the SEC inquiry of the company, which is still ongoing.
The company is continuing to cooperate fully with the SEC.

Founded in 1997, United Rentals Inc. (NYSE: URI) --
http://www.unitedrentals.com/-- is an equipment rental company  
with more than 700 rental locations throughout the United
States, Canada, and Mexico.  Their diverse customer base
includes construction and industrial companies, utilities,
municipalities, and homeowners.  The company is comprised of 4
principle divisions: General Rentals, Aerial, HVAC/Pump & Power,
and Trench Safety.


UNITED WATER: West Nyack Residents File Lawsuit for Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------------
About 30 West Nyack (New York) residents and business owners
filed a class-action lawsuit with the state Supreme Court in New
City, against United Water New York for negligence during April
nor'easter, Amisha Padnani of The Journal News reports.

According to the report, during a nor'easter in April, a large
volume of water was released from United Water's reservoir and
allegedly flooded yards, basements, garages and streets.

The residents allege the company was negligent when it released
a torrent of water into the surrounding neighborhood during a
heavy rainstorm.

In the past, when asked why the company hadn't released water in
advance of the storm but instead chose to open the dam during
the nor'easter, representatives said they could not always rely
on weather forecasters' predictions, the report recounts.

"Every time it rains, they hold their breath and hope their
basements don't get flooded," said Kevin Mulhearn, the
Orangeburg-based attorney representing the group.  "That's no
way to live."

According to the 75-page complaint, the group is asking for
$30 million in property and punitive damages.

A United Water spokesman told the Journal News that the company
could not comment until officials were served with the lawsuit.

To contact Mr. Mulhearn:

          Kevin T. Mulhearn
          12 Prel Plaza
          Orangeburg Rd, NY 10962
          Phone: (914) 398-0361


VALERO ENERGY: Kans. Court Denies Dismissal Motion v. Fuel Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a
motion that seeks for the dismissal of several consumer class
actions over fuel temperature, some of which names Valero Energy
Corp. as a defendant.

As of Feb. 1, 2008, the company was named in 22 consumer class
action lawsuits relating to fuel temperature.  The complaints,
filed with federal courts in several states, allege that because
fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the defendants have
violated state consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the
volume of fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60 degrees
Fahrenheit.

The complaints seek to certify classes of retail consumers who
purchased fuel in various locations.  They seek an order
compelling the installation of temperature correction devices as
well as associated monetary relief.

In June 2007, the federal lawsuits were consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation case in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas (In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, Multi-District Litigation Docket No.
1840).

In February 2008, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaints, 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.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and  
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


VALERO ENERGY: Ill. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Rosolowski"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Appellate Court has heard oral arguments on
Feb. 20, 2008, in connection to the plaintiff's appeal of a
decision by Judge Cheryl A. Starks of Cook County Circuit that
effectively vacates a $120-million judgment that was won against
the owners of the former Clark Oil refinery in Blue Island to
appeal

The suit is "Rosolowski v. Clark Refining Marketing, Inc., et
al., Case No. 95-L 014703."  Valero Energy, Inc. assumed this
class action after its acquisition of Premcor Inc. under a
merger agreement on Sept. 1, 2005.

The suit, filed on Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release
to the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of
heavy metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery
on Oct. 7, 1994.  The release resulted in the temporary
evacuation of certain areas near the refinery.

The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three
classes, two of which received nominal or no damages, and one of
which received a sizeable jury verdict.  

That class consisted of local residents who claimed property
damage or loss of use and enjoyment of their property over a
period of several years.

In November 2005, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs
of $80.1 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in
punitive damages.

However, following the company's motions for new trial and
judgment notwithstanding the verdict (citing, among other
things, misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel and improper class
certification), the trial judge in November 2006 vacated the
jury's award and decertified the class.  

The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to vacate the
$120 million judgment and decertify the class.  

Oral arguments on the plaintiffs' appeal were heard before the
state appeals court on Feb. 20, 2008, 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.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and  
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CAMTEK LTD: Jacob Sabo Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Jacob Sabo has filed a class action lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Camtek Ltd. between Nov. 22, 2005, and Dec. 20, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Camtek and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Camtek's business and prospects caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

Camtek Ltd. engages in the design, development, manufacture and
marketing of automated optical inspection systems and related
products which are utilized in the printed circuit board and
semiconductor industries to optically inspect various types of
electronic product components for manufacturing defects.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
artificially inflated the price of Camtek shares by issuing
statements touting positive trends in the PCB and semiconductors
markets and the strength of Camtek's business and financial
performance, but that defendants:

     (i) knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose
         to the investing public that the Company lacked
         requisite internal controls, and

    (ii) misrepresented the Company's business and future
         prospects.

Thus, the Company had no reasonable basis to make projections
about its financial results, and as a result, defendants' Class
Period statements concerning the Company's business and future
prospects were, at minimum, reckless.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants were further
motivated to engage in this course of conduct in order to
generate proceeds from a private placement with institutional
investors in April 2006 whereby the Company garnered
approximately $15 million in proceeds.

On December 21, 2006, Camtek issued a press release announcing
The Company's preliminary financial results for fourth quarter
2006.  The Company announced that fourth quarter revenue and
earnings were expected to be lower than anticipated "due to
lower revenues in the semiconductor segment."

This news shocked the market, causing shares of Camtek to
plummet $1.28 per share -- a more than 22% drop from the
previous day's closing price of $5.77 per share -- to close on
December 21, 2006, at $4.49 per share on unusually heavy volume
of more than 1.4 million shares traded.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 9, 2008
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jacob Sabo, Esq. (sabolaw@inter.net.il)
          The Law Office of Jacob Sabo
          The Tower No. 3
          Daniel Frisch Street, 15th Floor
          Tel Aviv, Israel 64731
          Phone: (011) 972-3-6078888


ENERNOC INC: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio filed a class-action complaint on March 4,
2008, with the U.S. District of Massachusetts against EnerNOC,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ENOC) accusing the company of securities law
violations, CNNMoney.com reports.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws and remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
Securities Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act).

The class action was filed on behalf of all investors who
acquired EnerNOC securities from November 1, 2007, through and
including February 27, 2008, and purchasers of EnerNOC common
stock pursuant to Prospectus on Form 424B4 between November 13,
2007, through and including February 27, 2008.

The lawsuit claims that EnerNOC and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j (b) and 78t(a) and Rules 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.

According to the complaint, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about EnerNOC's financial results
during the Class Period, some contained in SEC filings. In
particular, the complaint says that:

     (a) defendants knew, but failed to adequately reveal to the
         investing public, that expenses were rising faster than
         revenues, creating a negative trend; and

     (b) that the increasing number of megawatts under
         management involved prolonged lags in the Company's
         ability to recognize revenue.

As a result, the plaintiff and other members of the class
acquired EnerNOC common stock at artificially inflated prices
during the class period.

With executive offices in Boston, EnerNOC develops and provides
demand response and energy management solutions to utilities and
other commercial clients.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 5, 2008,
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Leslie R. Stern, Esq.
          Bryan A. Wood, Esq.
          Berman DeValerio
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (800) 516-9926
          e-mail: law@bermanesq.com


FORCE PROTECTION: Coughlin Stoia Files SC Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of purchasers
of Force Protection, Inc. common stock during the period between
August 14, 2006, and February 29, 2008.

The complaint charges Force Protection and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Force Protection and its subsidiaries
engage in the manufacture of ballistic and blast protected
vehicles.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, financial results and prospects.

Specifically, defendants continually boasted Force Protection's
dominance in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected market was due
to its superior product design and rapid delivery rates.
However, in a report dated June 27, 2007, the Inspector General
of the Department of Defense questioned both of these claims and
criticized the awarding of contracts to Force Protection on a
sole source basis and without competitive bidding.  Then, on
February 29, 2008, after the market closed, Force Protection
announced it would have to delay the release of its 2007 Form
10-K and restate its Form 10-Q for the period ended Sept. 30,
2007.  On this news, Force Protection's stock collapsed to close
at $3.58 per share on March 3, 2008, a one-day decline of 13%
and an 88% decline from the Class Period high of $30.27 per
share, prior to when Force Protection's problems began to be
revealed.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) as a result of the Company's ongoing problems in
         meeting contractual delivery deadlines, the Company
         would have trouble competing in the MRAP market;

     (b) in audit reports, the Defense Contract Audit Agency had
         been critical of the Company's finances and financial
         accounting system, which threatened the Company's
         eligibility to compete for government contracts;

     (c) the Company's accounting department suffered from
         material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the
         necessary staff and resources to perform its required
         functions;

     (d) contrary to the representations contained in the
         Company's SEC filings, the Company's internal controls
         were inadequate and easily manipulated;

     (e) the Company lacked effective internal controls in its
         financial reporting process, required to enable it to
         properly analyze and estimate Force Protection's
         future financial and operational performance; and

     (f) defendants had caused the Company to falsely report at
         least its third quarter 2007 financial results.

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

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058


MF GLOBAL: Weiss & Lurie Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Lurie announced that on March 6, 2008,
it filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of MF Global, Ltd., in its
initial public offering on July 19, 2007, and on the open market
through February, 28, 2008.

The complaint asserts claims against defendants MF, Man Group
Plc, Kevin R. Davis, Amy S. Butte, Alison J. Carnwath,
Christopher J. Smith, Christopher Bates, Henri J. Steenkamp and
Edward L. Goldberg for violations of Sections 11, 12(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially
false and misleading.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          James E. Tullman, Esq.
          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Weiss & Lurie
          The French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, New York 10176
          Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025
          e-mail: infony@weisslurie.com


              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
March 12, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: ASBESTOS RISK TRANSFER
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 12, 2008
  MEALEY'S SUBPRIME MORTGAGE TELECONFERENCE: COVERAGE ISSUES
    ARISING FROM SUBPRIME LENDING
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: REINSURANCE/ARBITRATION
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES CONFERENCE
    WHO'S SUING, WHO'S RESTORING AND CAN THEY DO BOTH?
      Mealeys Seminars
        Loews Philadelphia Hotel
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 13-14, 2008
  PRIVACY LAW: DEVELOPMENTS, PLANNING, AND LITIGATION
    ALI-ABA
      Washington DC
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 26, 2008
  MEALEY'S PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE: PREEMPTION
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 27-28, 2008
  ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION
    ALI-ABA
      Scottsdale AZ
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 31 - April 1, 2008
  FDA BOOT CAMP
    American Conference Institute
      New York
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

April 2, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
    EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION FOR ATTORNEYS - HAVING THE
      HARD CONVERSATIONS
        Mealeys Seminars
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 3-4, 2008
  MEALEY'S LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort, Orlando
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 9-12, 2008
  MEALEY'S 15th Annual Insurance Insolvency & Reinsurance
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 10-11, 2008
  Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
    Mass Torts Made Perfect
      Wynn, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-320-2227

April 14-15, 2008
  MEALEY'S CONFERENCE: FOOD & PRODUCT RECALL BUSINESS STRATEGIES
    Mealeys Seminars
      The MGM Grand, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 15, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING OUTSIDE COUNSEL COSTS
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT &
    MOLD LITIGATION UPDATE
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Gleacher Center, Chicago
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 30 - May 1, 2008
  ACI LAW FIRM GENERAL COUNSEL SUMMIT
    American Conference Institute
      New York
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

April 30 - May 1, 2008
  WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Miami
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

May 1-2, 2008
  SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES
    ALI-ABA
      Boston, MA
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 5-6, 2008
  MEALEY'S ASBESTOS TRIAL STRATEGIES CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 7, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 8, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: BENZENE LITIGATION
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 8, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (ATLANTA)
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Atlantic Station Building, Atlanta, GA
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 13-14, 2008
  D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
    American Conference Institute
      New York
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

May 15, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION TELECONFERENCE
    SERIES: ASSUMING A LEADERSHIP POSITION
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 19-20, 2008
  MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUMMIT: CAPITAL MARKETS CONVERGENCE AND
    STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FACING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Westin Grand, Washington, DC
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 20-21, 2008
  MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 29-30, 2008
  MASS LITIGATION
    ALI-ABA
      Charleston, SC
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 23-24, 2008
  MEALEY'S WRAP INSURANCE CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Signatures at the MGM Grand, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
         e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 25, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (NEW YORK)
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Harvard Club, New York
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 10-11, 2008
  CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2008: PROSECUTION AND
    DEFENSE STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

July 30, 2008
  MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW
    DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        Chicago
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

October 23-24, 2008
  Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
    Mass Torts Made Perfect
      Bellagio, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-320-2227

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
December 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS  
  (2004)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2005)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
  YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
  WRITTEN DISCOVERY
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
  LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
  LawCommerce.Com
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
  SALES AND ADVERSTISING
    American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-285-2221
        e-mail: abacle@abanet.org















                           *********


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  * * *