CAR_Public/080313.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 13, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 52
  
                            Headlines

AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Penna. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
AUCTION RATE: Auction Rate Securities Losses Investigated
BEIGEL & BEIGEL: Settles $1.99-Million Suit in Tel Aviv Court
BEMIS CO: Still Faces Labelstock Suits in State, Federal Courts
BRIGHT HORIZONS: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Bain Capital Merger

CANADA: Faces Claims Over Abuse of Deaf Students at Schools
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces $125,000 Lawsuit Over Unlawful Charges
CEMA CONSTRUCTION: Construction Worker's NY Wage Suit Certified
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Class Period in NY Securities Suit Extended
DIGIMARC CORP: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected in 2008

DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Renters' Overcharging Lawsuit in Calif.
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Wage, Hour Violations Suit in California
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging Antitrust Violations
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Suits in California Over PCRTA Program
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Suit by TEPPCO Unitholder

FIRST BANCORP: P.R. Court Approves $74.25M Securities Suit Deal
GAYLORD GAS: Parent Firm May Settle Price-Gouging Lawsuit
GEORGIA: ACLU Sues Over Failed Privately-Run Alternative School
GRAEME REEVES: Abused and Mutilated Aussie Women Prepare to Sue
GRANT PRIDECO: Tex. Court Mulls Consolidation of Merger Lawsuits

HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: CD CA Securities Suit Dismissed Partially
ISRAEL DISCOUNT: Accused of Switching Customer Accounts
KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: April 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Suit Deal
MICROSOFT CORP: Objects to Certification of "Vista" Lawsuit
NASH FINCH: Settles Minn. Securities Fraud Suit for $6.75 Mln.

NEW YORK LIFE: $14MM ERISA Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay
NORTEL NETWORKS: Investors Still Await Suit Settlement Payment
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
SCIELE PHARMA: Reaches $4.65M Settlement in Ga. Securities Suit
SUNOPTA: Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for Mar. 28

UNITED PARCEL: Seeks Review of Class Certification of "Hohider"
VALUECLICK: Mediator in Adware Lawsuit Proposes $1.5M Settlement
VALUECLICK INC: Faces Consolidated Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
* PRI Compares Legal Climates in All 50 U.S. States


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Maryland
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Federman Announces Securities Suit Filing
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: KGS Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing



                           *********


AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Penna. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Mobility is facing a class-action complaint filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
alleging that the top cellular carrier violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by refusing overtime pay to a former corporate
recruiter and possibly others with similar job responsibilities,
Jeffrey Silva of the RCRNews.com reports.

The lead plaintiff, Wayne Masters -- regional corporate
recruiter/staffing coordinator from May 9, 2007, to Nov. 30.
2007 -- claims that AT&T's refusal to authorize payment for all
of the hours that he and other class members worked each
business week, as well as its failure to keep accurate payroll
records with respect to him and other class members was part of
a policy, pattern and practice of denying overtime pay to class
members.

The suit refers to Spherion as a staffing agency that
technically was Mr. Masters' employer even though he was
supervised by and worked exclusively with AT&T Mobility.  The
suit stated that "Masters continued to work in excess of 40
hours per week after June, 29, 2007.  However, after that date,
AT&T failed to pay or authorize Spherion to pay Masters for the
overtime that he earned and was entitled to."

The plaintiffs' lawyers are seeking back overtime pay and other
compensation for employees, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

"We have not seen this suit, so we have no comment," Walt Sharp,
an AT&T spokesman, said.

AT&T Mobility does business as the New AT&T, formerly known as
Cingular Wireless.


AUCTION RATE: Auction Rate Securities Losses Investigated
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, is investigating alleged securities fraud
in connection with the sale of Auction Rate Securities by:

     -- Citigroup, Inc.,
     -- Bear Sterns,
     -- Goldman Sachs,
     -- J.P. Morgan Securities,
     -- Lehman Brothers Holdings,
     -- Merrill Lynch,
     -- Morgan Stanley,
     -- RBC Dain Rauscher,
     -- Wachovia Corp.,
     -- UBS,
     -- H&R Block, and
     -- E*Trade.

On May 31, 2006, an investigation conducted by the Securities
Exchange Commission revealed that the Auction Rate Securities
were manipulated by certain broker-dealers conducting the
auctions.

Among other things, the SEC alleged that these broker-dealers
improperly intervened in sales and collaborated with favored
customers by asking them to bid at auctions and then
compensating them with higher-than-clearing rates in the
secondary market.

The broker-dealers engaged in such market manipulations in order
to support the "no failed auction" marketing claim so that
investors would believe the Auction Rate Securities auction
market was healthier than it actually was.

As a result, certain of the Broker Dealers described above paid
a total of $13 million in fines, were censured by the SEC and
ordered to "cease and desist" from committing future violations.

For more information, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          39 Broadway, Suite 1601
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          e-mail: info@zlk.com
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com


BEIGEL & BEIGEL: Settles $1.99-Million Suit in Tel Aviv Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beigel & Beigel Food Ltd. settles the $1.99-million lawsuit
filed against it with the Tel Aviv District Court, Yitzhak Danon
of The Globes reports.

The lawsuit, filed by Adv. Reuven Cohen, claims that Beigel &
Beigel had misled consumers of its oriental sesame biscuits by
failing to inform them that the package sizes had been reduced
from 500 grams to 400 grams and 250 grams to 200 grams, while
leaving the price unchanged.

Under the recent settlement, the snack food manufacturer will
offer retail customers 337,483 packets of its oriental sesame
biscuits with an extra 25% free.

The value of the settlement is worth an estimated $273,504.


BEMIS CO: Still Faces Labelstock Suits in State, Federal Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bemis Co., Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Morgan
Adhesives Co., continue to face several purported class actions
in both state and federal courts that are alleging a conspiracy
to fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry,
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.

                       Federal Actions

Six lawsuits purporting to represent a nationwide class of
labelstock purchasers were initially filed against the company.  

On Nov. 5, 2003, the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation
issued a decision consolidating all of the federal class actions
for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, before the Honorable Chief Judge
Thomas I. Vanaskie.  

On Nov. 20, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Defendants have petitioned the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals to hear an appeal of the district court's
decision granting class certification.

At this time, a discovery cut-off and a trial date have not been
set.  

                      State Court Actions

The Company has also been named in three lawsuits filed in the
California Superior Court in San Francisco.  These three
lawsuits, which have been consolidated, seek to represent a
class of all California indirect purchasers of labelstock and
each alleged a conspiracy to fix prices within the self-adhesive
labelstock industry.  

Finally, the Company has been named in one lawsuit in Vermont,
seeking to represent a class of all Vermont indirect purchasers
of labelstock, one lawsuit in Nebraska seeking to represent a
class of all Nebraska indirect purchasers of labelstock, one
lawsuit in Kansas seeking to represent a class of all Kansas
indirect purchasers of labelstock, and one lawsuit in Tennessee,
seeking to represent a class of purchasers of labelstock in
various jurisdictions, all alleging a conspiracy to fix prices
within the self-adhesive labelstock industry.  

Bemis Co., Inc. -- http://www.bemis.com/-- is a manufacturer of  
flexible packaging products and pressure sensitive materials,
which sells its products to customers throughout the U.S.,
Canada, South America and Europe, as well as Asia Pacific and
Mexico.  It operates in two segments: Flexible Packaging and
Pressure Sensitive Materials.  


BRIGHT HORIZONS: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Bain Capital Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., faces a consolidated
class action lawsuit filed with the Middlesex County Superior
Court in Massachusetts in connection with the proposed merger
between the company, and Bain Capital Partners, according to the
company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

In connection with the proposed Merger between the Company and
affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, the Company has been named
as a defendant, along with the Company's Board of Directors, and
Bain, in putative class actions filed with the Massachusetts
state court.

The suits are:

       -- "Aaron Solomon, on behalf of himself and all others
          similarly situated v. Bright Horizons Family
          Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-0214," filed with
          the Middlesex County Superior Court; and

       -- "William Smith, individually and on behalf of all
          other similarly situated shareholders, v. Bright
          Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-
          0467," filed with the Middlesex County Superior Court.

On Feb. 26, 2008, the Massachusetts state court consolidated
these lawsuits into a single action.  

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Merger is
the product of a flawed process and that the consideration to be
paid to the Company's stockholders is unfair and inadequate.

The lawsuits further allege that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, ignoring
certain alleged conflicts of interest of one of the Special
Committee's financial advisors, taking steps to avoid a
competitive bidding process, and improperly favoring a merger
over other potential transactions.

The lawsuits further allege that Bain aided and abetted the
directors' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties.

The lawsuits seek, among other things, class certification,
injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the Merger, and
monetary relief.

Watertown, Massachusetts-based Bright Horizons Family Solutions,
Inc. -- http://www.brighthorizons.com-- is a provider of  
workplace services for employers and families.  Workplace
services include center-based child care, education and
enrichment programs, elementary school education, back-up care,
before and after school care, summer camps, vacation care,
college preparation and admissions counseling (College Coach),
and other family support services.  


CANADA: Faces Claims Over Abuse of Deaf Students at Schools
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Saskatchewan-based law firm that specializes in class actions
is moving ahead with a claim on behalf of deaf students who say
they were physically and sexually abused at boarding schools
across Canada over four decades since the mid-1950s, The
Canadian Press reports.

According to Canadian Press, the first of several claims against
provincial governments was filed by lawyer Tony Merchant on
March 11, 2008, in Edmonton on behalf of students who stayed at
the Alberta School for the Deaf between 1955 and 1996.

Merchant Law Group told National Post that the suit against the
Alberta government is the first of what will be claims against
every province except New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.  
The statement of claim was filed in the Court of Queen's Bench
of Alberta in Edmonton.

TheStar.com also relates that the lawsuit against Alberta is
part of a proposed class action involving 12 Canadian schools
for the deaf.  Mr. Merchant said the claim covers more than
61,500 students who attended the schools between the said
period.

Students at the schools ranged in age from about 10 to 17 years,
National Post notes.

The claim, which contains allegations not proven in court,
alleges repeated abuse on the part of teachers, house parents
and fellow students during that time, according to Canadian
Press.  The alleged victims were easy prey for their abusers,
Mr. Merchant said, because they were only able to communicate
using sign language, a skill that was discouraged at the school
during that time.

"Unfortunately, deaf children were ideal victims for this kind
of abuse, imprisoned in a world with ineffectual communication
and inadequate safeguards," said Mr. Merchant.  He said
information lawyers have gathered leads them to believe that
thousands of students -- almost entirely young girls -- were
sexually and physically abused at schools around the country.

"We've been contacted by a series of people in various provinces
over abuse in schools in their provinces and we intend to launch
proceedings province by province based on the wrongdoing to
which students were subjected," Mr. Merchant added.

The Alberta claim uses three former students as representatives
for the class, Canadian Press writes.  One male student, who
attended the school from 1972 to 1982, claims he was subjected
to repeated physical abuse including being strapped, slapped,
caned, choked and hit with various objects.  Two female students
say they were raped, one by a house parent and the other by an
older student.  The latter student claims that after one of the
attacks, she became pregnant and had an abortion against her
will.

The claim alleges that the provincial government breached its
duties both to care for the children and to provide them with an
appropriate education.

"The employees and agents, and through them, the government,
acted in bad faith with careless disregard for the safety of the
non-hearing and communication-restricted children in their
care," the claim says.

For more information, contact:

          Tony Merchant, Q.C. (merchant@merchantlaw.com)
          Evatt Merchant (emerchant@merchantlaw.com)
          Merchant Law Group LLP
          Phone: (888) 567-7777
                 (877) 359-7777
          Web site: http://www.merchantlaw.com/


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces $125,000 Lawsuit Over Unlawful Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) was served with a purported
class action lawsuit with the District Court of Central Region,
by plaintiffs claiming to be subscribers of the Company.

The plaintiffs claim that the company unlawfully charged its
subscribers for providing them with call details records.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed from the Company is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately $125,000.

At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.

For more information, contact:

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

               - and -

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


CEMA CONSTRUCTION: Construction Worker's NY Wage Suit Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Walter B. Tolub of the New York Supreme Court granted
class certification to New York City construction workers of
bankrupt company Cema Construction Corp., Bankruptcy Law 360
reports.

The workers accuse the company of failing to pay prevailing
wages to employees who worked on public construction projects.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Class Period in NY Securities Suit Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, announced that shareholders of
Centerline Holding Company (NYSE:CHC) who purchased shares of
the Company between December 5, 2006, and December 28, 2007,
have only until March 18, 2008, to move for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Prior to the filing of KGS' case, the earliest a shareholder
could have purchased Centerline shares to be included in this
class action was March 12, 2007.  No class has yet been
certified in the action.

Centerline and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with making a series of materially false and misleading
statements related to the Company's business and operations in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act).

On December 28, 2007, Centerline shocked shareholders when it
issued a press release stating it had sold its "$2.8 billion
tax-exempt affordable housing bond portfolio" to a third party
and had transformed the Company's business model to a pure asset
management firm.  As a result, Centerline disclosed that it
would be slashing its annual dividend from $1.68 per share to
only $0.60 per share.

Further, Centerline disclosed that Defendants had entered into
agreement with a related party owned by certain of the
Defendants called The Related Companies, L.P., whereby TRCLP
would provide the Company with $131 million in financing and
would receive 12.2 million shares of newly-issued convertible
preferred stock that would pay certain Company insiders an 11%
dividend.  On this news, Centerline stock fell from $10.27 per
share on December 27, 2007, to close at $7.70 per share on
December 28, 2007, representing a 25% single-day decline, on
unusually heavy trading volume of 4,152,688 shares.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          12 East 41st St., 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          Cell phone: 504-301-7900
          Web site: http://www.kgscounsel.com


DIGIMARC CORP: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Digimarc Corp. is expecting the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon to issue this year a ruling on an appeal
against the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
filed against the company.

Beginning in September 2004, three purported class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities during the period April 17, 2002 to July 28, 2004.

These lawsuits were later consolidated into one action for all
purposes.  The amended complaint, which sought unspecified
damages, asserted claims under the federal securities laws
relating to the company's restatement of its financial
statements for 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004 and
alleged that the company issued false and misleading financial
statements and issued misleading public statements about the
company's operations and prospects.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and entered judgment in the
Company's favor.  

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The appeal was stayed pending
the recent U.S. Supreme Court's determination in another case of
issues relating to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
and briefing is scheduled to be completed by the end of the
year.

The Company anticipates oral argument and a decision in 2008.

The company reported no development in the case at 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 "Garcia et al. v. Digimarc Corp. et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-01455-BR," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Judge Anna J. Brown presiding.
   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gary M. Berne, Esq. (gberne@ssbls.com)
         Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter
         PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor
         Portland, OR 97204
         Phone: (503) 227-1600
         Fax: (503) 227-6840

              - and -

         Gary I. Grenley, Esq. (ggrenley@grebb.com)
         Paul H. Trinchero, Esq. (ptrinchero@grebb.com)
         Grenley Rotenberg Evans Bragg & Bodie PC
         1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100
         Portland, OR 97204
         Phone: (503) 241-0570
         Fax: (503) 241-0914


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Renters' Overcharging Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., faces a purported class
action lawsuit that was filed with the Superior Court for Los
Angeles County, California, according to the company's Feb. 29,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit was filed on July 20, 2007, against DTG Operations,
Inc., and the Company by Marquis Smith, on his behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

It is seeking to recover amounts alleging overcharges to
California renters for loss damage waivers on complimentary
upgrade rentals and for the issuance of a permanent injunction.

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--  
through its subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the business
of daily rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers
through Company-owned stores.  The Company has two rental car
brands, Dollar and Thrifty, both of which operate through a
network of Company-owned stores and franchisees.  DTG also
leases vehicles to franchisees for use in the daily vehicle
rental business, sells vehicle rental franchises worldwide, and
provides sales and marketing, reservations, data processing
systems, insurance and other services to franchisees.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Wage, Hour Violations Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is facing a purported
class action suit that was filed with the Superior Court for
Orange County, California, alleging violations of state wage and
hour laws.

The suit was filed on Sept. 23, 2007, against the Company and
DTG Operations, Inc., by Maria Albayero, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees in California.

The lawsuit is an action for alleged violations of wage and hour
laws including not providing and compensating for missed meal
and rest periods, failure to reimburse uniform maintenance, as
well as other things.

The suit seeks payment of wages, damages, penalties and
injunctive relief, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--  
through its subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the business
of daily rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers
through Company-owned stores.  The Company has two rental car
brands, Dollar and Thrifty, both of which operate through a
network of Company-owned stores and franchisees.  DTG also
leases vehicles to franchisees for use in the daily vehicle
rental business, sells vehicle rental franchises worldwide, and
provides sales and marketing, reservations, data processing
systems, insurance and other services to franchisees.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging Antitrust Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., faces a purported class
action that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court of California, alleging antitrust
violations.

The suit, "Shames et al. v. Hertz Corporation et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM," was filed on Nov. 14, 2007, by Michael
Shames and Gary Gramkow, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

The lawsuit claims that the pass through of the California Trade
and Tourism Commission and Airport Concession Fees authorized by
legislation effective in January 2007 constitute antitrust
violations of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair
Competition Act.

The suit seeks injunctive and equitable relief to stop the pass
through, restitution, damages and fees, according to the
company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Shames et al. v. Hertz Corporation et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court of California, Judge Marilyn L. Huff
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Dennis James Stewart, Esq. (dstewart@hulettharper.com)
          Hulett Harper Stewart
          550 West C. Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 338-1133
          Fax: (619) 338-1139

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael L. Weiner, Esq. (mweiner@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6522
          Phone: (212) 735-2666
          Fax: (917) 777-2632

          Jeffrey Alan LeVee, Esq. (jlevee@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 243-2572
          Fax: (213) 243-2539

               - and -

          Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 984-8947
          Fax: (415) 984-8701


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Suits in California Over PCRTA Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is facing a purported
class actions that were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District Court of California in connection to the
Passenger Car Rental Tourism Assessment Program.

On Dec. 13, 2007, and Dec. 14, 2007, purported class actions
were filed against the Company, by Thomas Comisky and Isabel
Cohen, respectively, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.

These lawsuits claim a violation of rights guaranteed under the
Free Speech and Free Association Clauses by compelling out-of-
state visitors to subsidize the Passenger Car Rental Tourism
Assessment Program, that the Program violates the Interstate
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by limiting the
assessment to airport locations renting to out-of-state
travelers and a violation of the California Constitution by not
maintaining segregated accounts for the pass through funds.

These suits seek injunctive relief to stop the pass through, a
refund of all assessments, damages and fees, according to the
company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--  
through its subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the business
of daily rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers
through Company-owned stores.  The Company has two rental car
brands, Dollar and Thrifty, both of which operate through a
network of Company-owned stores and franchisees.  DTG also
leases vehicles to franchisees for use in the daily vehicle
rental business, sells vehicle rental franchises worldwide, and
provides sales and marketing, reservations, data processing
systems, insurance and other services to franchisees.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Suit by TEPPCO Unitholder
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. remains a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by a unitholder of its
TEPPCO Partners, L.P. affiliate, a publicly traded Delaware
limited partnership.

On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of
TEPPCO Partners, filed a complaint with the Court of Chancery of
New Castle County in the State of Delaware, in his individual
capacity, as:

       -- a putative class action on behalf of other unitholders
          of TEPPCO, and

       -- derivatively on behalf of TEPPCO.

The suit concerns, among other things, certain transactions
involving TEPPCO and Enterprise Products or its affiliates.

The complaint names as defendants TEPPCO, its directors, and
certain of its affiliates; Enterprise Products and certain of
the company's affiliates; EPCO, Inc.; and Dan L. Duncan, the
chairman and controlling shareholder of EPCO.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have caused TEPPCO to enter into certain transactions with the
company or its affiliates that are unfair to TEPPCO or otherwise
unfairly favored the company or the company's affiliates over
TEPPCO.  

These transactions are alleged to include the joint venture to
further expand the Jonah Gas Gathering System -- located in the
Greater Green River Basin of southwestern Wyoming -– entered
into by TEPPCO and one of the company's affiliates in August
2006 and the sale by TEPPCO to one of the company's affiliates
of the Pioneer gas processing plant in March 2006.

The Jonah system gathers and transports natural gas produced
from the Jonah and Pinedale fields to regional natural gas
processing plants and major interstate pipelines that deliver
natural gas to end-use markets.

The complaint seeks:

     -- rescission of these transactions or an award of
        rescissory damages with respect thereto;

     -- damages for profits and special benefits allegedly
        obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged
        wrongdoings in the complaint; and

     -- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees
        and expenses of his attorneys and experts.

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

Enterprise Products Partners L.P. -- http://www.epplp.com-- is  
a North American midstream energy company providing a range of
services to producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas
liquids, crude oil, and certain petrochemicals.  


FIRST BANCORP: P.R. Court Approves $74.25M Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico gave
final approval to the $74.25 million settlement of a
consolidated securities fraud class action against First
BanCorp.

Initially, the company and certain of its officers and directors
and former officer and directors were named as defendants in
five separate securities class actions filed between Oct. 31,
2005, and Dec. 5, 2005, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

All securities class actions were later consolidated into one
case, under the caption, "In Re: First BanCorp Securities
Litigations."

In 2007, First BanCorp reached an agreement in principle to
settle all claims with lead plaintiffs in a shareholder class
action filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2007).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico later
issued a preliminary order approving the stipulation of
settlement filed in connection with a $74.25-million settlement
of a class action brought on behalf of First BanCorp's
shareholders (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2007).

Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to notice
being provided to the class and final approval by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, First BanCorp
will pay the plaintiffs $74,250,000.

On Nov. 28, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico approved the settlement of all claims in the
consolidated securities class action relating to the accounting
for mortgage-related transactions named, "In Re: First BanCorp
Securities Litigation."

The suit is "In Re: First BanCorp Securities Litigations, Case
No. 3:05-cv-02148-GAG," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico, Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles S. Hey-Maestre, Esq.
          De Jesus, Hey & Vargas Law Office
          1060 Borinquena St.
          Santa Rita Bldg., Suite C-8
          San Juan, PR 00925
          Phone: 787-758-8950
          Fax: 787-758-8911
          e-mail: fedcases@djhv-derechopr.com

          Glenn Carl James-Hernandez, Esq.
          James Law Offices
          PMB 501, 1353 Rd. 19
          Guaynabo, PR 00966-2700
          Phone: 787-763-2888
          Fax: 787-763-2881
          e-mail: jameslawoffices@centennialpr.net

          Andres W. Lopez, Esq. (andreswlopez@yahoo.com)
          Andres W. Lopez Law Office
          207 Del Parque St., Third Floor
          San Juan, PR 00912
          Phone: 787-406-9075
          Fax: 787-641-4544

               - and -

          PHV Kevin McGee, Esq. (kmcgee@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Swerling, LLP
          595 South Federal Highway, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432, US
          Phone: 561-544-2500
          Fax: 561-544-2501

Representing the defendants are:

          PHV Joseph S. Allerhand, Esq.
          (joseph.allerhand@weil.com)
          Weil, Gotshal & Manges
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153, US
          Phone: (212) 310-8945
          Fax: (212) 310-8007

               - and -

          Eyck O. Lugo-Rivera, Esq. (elugo@mocpr.com)
          Martinez Odell & Calabria
          P.O. Box 190998
          San Juan, PR 00919-0998
          Phone: 787-274-2903
          Fax: 787-764-5664


GAYLORD GAS: Parent Firm May Settle Price-Gouging Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Inergy Propane may resolve a class action lawsuit filed against
it for price-gouging customers this winter, Traverse City Record
Eagle reports, citing company officials.

As noted in the Class Action Reporter on March 6, 2008, Lawrence
Friedman, Esq., an attorney and resident of Crawford County,
initially filed the class-action lawsuit against Gaylord Gas and
its parent company Inergy Propane, LLC, on Feb. 14.  He amended
his original complaint to include as defendants Petoskey Propane
and all other companies owned by Inergy Propane in the state of
Michigan -- Blue Flame, Lagasco Propane, McBride Oil & Propane,
Northwest Energy, Pearl Gas, ProGas Propane and Quality Propane.
Mr. Friedman filed his original lawsuit against Gaylord Gas
after he was charged $3.49 a gallon.  During the course of his
lawsuit, he said he found that customers were being charged
upward of $4.49 a gallon.

Mr. Friedman alleged that the company charged at least $1 above
the state's average retail propane price of $2.45 in January.

Now, Inergy will try to settle the dispute with the plaintiff,
who challenged their pricing policy under the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act, the Record Eagle says.

According to the report, Inergy officials said a resolution
would affect all customers, not just Mr. Friedman.  That means
customers from the Inergy-owned companies will be affected.

"The company is looking forward to resolving the issue on behalf
of everyone," Inergy spokeswoman Debbie Hagen told Record Eagle.
Ms. Hagen, however, declined to disclose details of the pending
agreement.

The company contends the average price their propane customers
paid this winter was $2.22 per gallon, below the state average.  
However, most customers sign a fixed price contract and those
who don't face fluctuating rates.

"I have met with Inergy Propane executives and they have
demonstrated good faith efforts to resolve the situation.  I am
optimistic we will reach a resolution very soon," Mr. Friedman
said in a written statement.

Meanwhile, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox also is
investigating the company after numerous complaints of
excessively high prices reached his office, the report adds.  
Mr. Cox issued a notice of intended action last week, the first
step before hauling the business into court.

Record Eagle recalls that Forty-Sixth Circuit Trial Judge Janet
Allen heard arguments on the Inergy case in February and agreed
that Inergy-owned companies charged at least $1 more per gallon
than competing companies.  She ruled that anyone who paid more
than $3 per gallon deserves the option to return the gas and get
a refund without any fees.


GEORGIA: ACLU Sues Over Failed Privately-Run Alternative School
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a case with national implications, the American Civil
Liberties Union and ACLU of Georgia filed a class action lawsuit
against the Atlanta Independent School System and Community
Education Partners for violating students' constitutional right
to an adequate public education.

CEP is a for-profit corporation paid nearly $7 million a year by
the city to run its alternative school, which is among the most
dangerous and lowest performing schools in Georgia.

"The appalling performance of Community Education Partners is
matched by the dereliction of the city of Atlanta in its duty to
provide students with an adequate public education," said Emily
Chiang, a staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program.
"It is a national disgrace that the Atlanta school system has
handed over its constitutional responsibility to a private, for-
profit corporation and let the taxpayers and children of Atlanta
pay the price."

The ACLU's lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of eight
students, charges that the school district and CEP are in
violation of multiple federal and state constitutional
obligations, including the students' right to be free from
unreasonable searches.  

AISS-CEP was designed as a privately-run, taxpayer-funded
alternative middle and high school for students with behavioral
problems.  However, the placement process is often arbitrary and
students who do not belong at AISS-CEP are given few meaningful
opportunities to challenge compulsory assignment to the school.

CEP has run alternative schools in Houston, Philadelphia,
Richmond, Orlando, and Florida's Pinnellas and Bay districts
through contracts with public school systems since 1995.  In
2005, CEP's annual revenues totaled $70 million.  Since its
contract began with AISS in 2002, Atlanta's taxpayers have paid
CEP a total of $36,570,941.  CEP's record nationwide is
similarly poor and suggests a political strategy to win
contracts and increase profits, not a commitment to education,
according to the ACLU.

The performance and practices of the AISS-CEP school is abysmal
by nearly every available measurement.  For example:

     * Not a single child at the school made it to senior year
       in 2006;

     * The school has a "no homework" policy and also prohibits
       students from taking supplies home -- including books.

     * AISS-CEP has no cafeteria, no gym and no library;

     * Students are subjected to full body pat-down searches
       that include even the soles of their feet every day, and
       all students -- both boys and girls -- are forced to lift
       their shirts up to their necks in front of the search
       team;

     * Watches, jewelry, purses, combs, brushes, keys, and money
       in excess of five dollars are all considered contraband
       and are strictly prohibited -- girls are not permitted
       even to bring tampons into the building;

     * In 2006-2007, 91.1 percent of students failed to achieve
       proficiency in math and 65.8% failed to achieve
       proficiency in reading on Georgia's statewide Criterion-
       Referenced Competency Tests.

     * Fewer than 23 percent of students at the school met or
       exceeded standards across all subjects, compared to two
       nearby alternative schools where over 50%  of
       students did; and

     * The AISS-CEP School alone accounted for 67.7%  of
       all reported incidents of battery, 46% of all
       reported incidents of vandalism, and 20% of all
       reported incidents of gun possession in the district.

"Parents and taxpayers deserve better than a system that simply
funnels their children through a pathway to prison," said Reggie
Shuford, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice
Program.  "It would be a stretch to even call this a school
since there is little to no academic instruction and its
students are treated like criminals -- it is nothing more than a
warehouse largely for poor children of color."

The education practices at the AISS-CEP school range from the
bizarre to the blatantly unconstitutional.  For example, no
functional curriculum exists at the school and teachers spend
little time instructing students.  Rather, students spend most
of the day filling out worksheets, for which they receive no
feedback.  Teachers employed by AISS-CEP are extremely
inexperienced relative to their local peers.  In 2006-2007,
teachers at AISS-CEP averaged only 0.94 years of experience
compared to teachers in other local alternative schools, who
averaged 19.07 years and 10.58 years, respectively.

"Under this arrangement, students suffer while a private company
prospers and nobody is held accountable," said Mawuli Davis, a
cooperating attorney from the law firm Davis Bozeman.  "If
Atlanta is going to farm out its responsibilities to a third
party, it must still uphold its constitutional obligations to
these children."

Attorneys on the case are Chiang, Shuford, and Larry Schwartztol
of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, Nancy Abudu of the ACLU
Southern Regional Office, Chara Jackson of the ACLU of Georgia,
and cooperating attorneys Davis and Robert Bozeman of Davis
Bozeman.

ACLU Racial Justice Program on the net:

          http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/index.html


GRAEME REEVES: Abused and Mutilated Aussie Women Prepare to Sue
---------------------------------------------------------------
A public meeting on the New South Wales far south coast is
expected to hear the extent of serious misconduct allegations
leveled against former obstetrician and gynecologist Graeme
Reeves, ABC Online reports.

According to ABC Online, Dr. Reeves is being investigated over
claims of sexual assault and genital mutilation while practicing
in Sydney and at Bega and Pambula hospitals over a period of 14
years.  Dr. Reeves, Sydney Morning Herald relates, is also
specifically accused of a string of botched surgeries,
inappropriate internal and breast examinations and verbal abuse.

Reports have revealed that Dr. Reeves' work as an obstetrician
and gynecologist had been monitored since 1997 and include
suspicions regarding his mental health, News-Medical.Net says.
Anonymous reports also suggest that Dr. Reeves's conduct towards
his patients and nursing/theater staff at Pambula Hospital was
unprofessional and raises questions why patients continued to be
referred to him despite doubts over his competency and
character.

ABC Online recalls that Dr. Reeves was banned from practicing
obstetrics in 1997 but continued to do so on the far south
coast.  He went before the Medical Board over the breaches and
was deregistered in 2004.

Up to 200 of Dr. Reeve's former patients attended a forum in New
South Wales, ahead of a likely launch of a series of legal
claims.  News-Medical says that in the forum, lawyers briefed
former patients on their options along with patient action
groups.

Lorraine Long, from the victims' support group, told ABC Online
that the forum gave more women the opportunity to come forward
and make preparations for a class action for compensation.

"We've had about 1,200 emails and at the moment, we have
documented about 550 complaints," Ms. Long said.  "The majority
of the people are from the Bega Valley [but] there are a lot
from the northern Sydney suburbs where the doctor once
practised, so a lot of those people have made contact as well."

According to News-Medical, an independent inquiry into the NSW
Health System will investigate the allegations against Dr.
Reeves and how he was hired by the Southern Area Health Service,
despite his past record.  Critics say NSW Health Minister Reba
Meagher needs to explain why no action was taken when the issue
was first raised in Parliament in September 2007.

Minister Reba, News-Medical notes, has promised that the
Government will take responsibility for any damages resulting
from proven malpractice.

SMH says that the federal government health advisory group --
Health and Hospitals Reform Commission -- says professional
standards will be under review in the wake of revelations about
Dr. Reeves.  The Commission is tasked with designing a major
shake-up to the health system.

"Quality, and obviously structural issues around those sorts of
professional matters will be part of our brief," Christine
Bennett, the commission chairperson, told journalists in a
meeting in Canberra, following a question about Dr. Reeve's
case.


GRANT PRIDECO: Tex. Court Mulls Consolidation of Merger Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 269th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, has
yet to rule on a motion that seeks for the consolidated of
several purported class actions against Grant Prideco, Inc.

The company was are aware of five shareholder lawsuits that have
been filed in connection with the proposed merger between it and
National Oilwell Varco.

These lawsuits, each of which has been filed in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas, against the company, its board of
directors and, in one case, National Oilwell Varco, are as
follows:

       -- "Mark Bornstein, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
          Similarly Situated vs. Grant Prideco, Inc., et al.,
          Cause No. 2007-76092," In the District Court of Harris
          County, Texas, 269th Judicial District;

       -- "Catholic Medical Mission Board, On Behalf of Itself
          and All Others Similarly Situated vs. Grant Prideco,
          Inc., et al., Cause No. 2007-76418," In the District
          Court of Harris County, Texas, 55th Judicial District;

       -- "Thomas Gray, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
          Similarly Situated vs. Grant Prideco, Inc., et al.,
          Cause No. 2007-76419," In the District Court of Harris
          County, Texas, 133rd Judicial District;

       -- "Roslyn Feder, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
          Similarly Situated vs. Grant Prideco, Inc., et al.,"
          In the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 61st
          Judicial District; and

       -- "Kenneth Engberg, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
          Similarly Situated vs. Grant Prideco, Inc., et al.,
          Cause No. 2008-02244," In the District Court of Harris
          County, Texas, 281st Judicial District.

Each of the plaintiffs in these five lawsuits alleges that they
are stockholders of us and each of these five lawsuits is
brought as putative class action.

Each of these lawsuits alleges that the proposed merger
consideration is inadequate and that the company's and its
individual directors breached fiduciary duties owed to its
stockholders in connection with the proposed merger.

Additionally, in the Bornstein suit, the plaintiff alleges that
National Oilwell Varco aided and abetted the alleged breach of
fiduciary duty by us and our board of directors.

The plaintiffs in each of these actions seek certification of
their lawsuits as class actions, seek to enjoin the proposed
merger and also ask for other legal and equitable relief,
including an award of attorneys' fees and costs of court.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the company filed a motion requesting that all
of these shareholder actions be consolidated with the Bornstein
case in the 269th Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Texas.

The Court has not yet ruled on this motion to consolidate,
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.

Grant Prideco, Inc. -- http://www.grantprideco.com-- is a  
player in drill stem technology development and drill pipe
manufacturing, sales, and service.  


HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: CD CA Securities Suit Dismissed Partially
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Central District of
California has dismissed individual defendants from a class
action initially naming as defendants HiEnergy and its former
officers and directors Bogdan Maglich, Barry Alter and Gregory
Gilbert and an alleged control person of HiEnergy, Phillip
Gurian.

In October 2004, the suit was filed, on behalf of a class of  
persons who acquired the stock of the Company during the period  
from February 22, 2002, through July 8, 2004.  

In January 2005, the Company was officially served and has
retained legal counsel to defend it and assert all available
defenses.

In February 2005, plaintiff's counsel filed a First Amended
Complaint, alleging various violations of the federal securities
laws, generally asserting the same claims involving Philip
Gurian, Barry Alter, and the Company's failure to disclose their
various securities violations including, without limitation,
allegations of fraud (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2005).

The First Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and declaratory relief.  

The case will now proceed against HiEnergy.

Deadline to file for class exclusion is on April 19, 2008.
Deadline to file individual lawsuits is on June 23, 2008.

The suit is "In re: HiEnergy Technologies, Inc.  
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 8:04-CV-01226-DOC  
(JTLx)," filed with the United States District Court for the  
Central District of California, under Judge David O. Carter.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kenneth Catanzarite, Esq.
          (kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com)
          Jim T. Tice, Esq. (jtice@catanzarite.com)
          Catanzarite Law Offices
          2331 W Lincoln Ave
          Anaheim, CA 92801
          Phone: 714-520-5544

               - and -

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
          Rosen Law Firm
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060


ISRAEL DISCOUNT: Accused of Switching Customer Accounts
-------------------------------------------------------
Israel Discount Bank (TASE: DSCT) is facing a $5.12-million
class-action suit with the Tel Aviv District Court, Yitzhak
Danon of The Globes reports.

The lawsuit claims that the bank transferred customers to more
expensive management fees packages on current accounts after the
expiry of the benefits period without the customers' consent.

Claimants, Ron Ozeri and Liat Miali allege that they were
initially charged a low management fees package on current
accounts (such as the basic NIS 10 per month fee package, or
special no-fee package).

After a year, the bank switched them to a more expensive fee
package, "Discount Fix Package," at a cost of NIS 30 per month,
the report says.

Israel Discount Bank is one of Israel's leading financial
groups.  With over 210 branches and offices in Israel and in 18
financial centers around the world, the Bank is well positioned
to provide a full range of domestic and international financial
products and services.  As a major banking group, the Bank
prides itself on its longstanding dedication to its customers
and to the community.


KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: April 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles set an April 2008 hearing to consider approval of a
proposed settlement for two purported class actions against
Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., over its merger agreement
with LKQ Corp.

On July 16, 2007, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with LKQ Corp., a Delaware corporation, and LKQ
Acquisition Company, a California corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of LKQ Corp., by which LKQ Corp., has agreed to
acquire the Company.  

The merger agreement is subject to shareholder and regulatory
approval.  The merger is expected to close in the fourth quarter
of calendar 2007.

On July 18, 2007, two putative class actions were filed against
the Company and its directors in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles in connection with the
Company's proposed merger with LKQ Corp. pursuant to the terms
of a definitive merger agreement between the Company, and LKQ
Corp.

The suits are:  

       -- "Lynch v. Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., Case
          No. BC374399," and

       -- "Shoys v. Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.,  Case
          No. BC374480."

The lawsuits purport to represent a class of all holders of the
Company's common stock, allege self-dealing and breach of
fiduciary duty and challenge the adequacy of the process
employed by the Company and the share price to be paid to the
Company's stockholders in the merger.

The lawsuits seek to enjoin the proposed merger and request
payment of attorneys' fees.

On Sept. 17, 2007, Keystone entered into a conditional
memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs' counsel and the
other named defendants in the actions pursuant to which the
parties agreed to settle the actions, subject to certain
conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval
of the final settlement.

The hearing at which the court will consider approval of the
settlement is scheduled for April 2008, according to the
company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. -- http://www.keystone-
auto.com/ -- is a distributor of aftermarket collision
replacement parts produced by independent manufacturers for
automobiles and light trucks.  Keystone distributes products
primarily to collision repair shops throughout most of the
United States and certain areas in Canada.  It also recycles and
produces chrome plated and plastic bumper, and remanufactures
alloy and steel wheels.  The Company's principal product lines
consist of automotive body parts, bumpers and remanufactured
alloy wheels, light truck accessories, as well as paint and
other materials used in repairing a damaged vehicle.


MICROSOFT CORP: Objects to Certification of "Vista" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge
Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington granted class-action status to a lawsuit
against Microsoft Corp. alleging that the company unjustly
enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even
when they could only run a bare-bones version of the operating
system, called "Vista Home Basic."

According to the CAR report, the slogan was emblazoned on PCs
during the 2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by
Microsoft to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the
launch of Windows Vista was delayed.

A subsequent CAR report on March 7, 2008, stated that internal
Microsoft e-mail messages released with court documents
as evidence in a class-action suit suggested that the software
company bowed to pressure from partner Intel Corp. in the run-up
to the release of Windows Vista, allowing computers to be
labeled "Windows Vista Capable" despite concerns that they were
not up to the task of running the operating system.  According
to the e-mails, Microsoft was pressured by Intel to certify some
chips as capable of running the Windows Vista operating system
to help Intel meet earnings estimates.

In an update, vnunet.com relates that Microsoft has appealed
against the court's decision affording class action status to
the Vista lawsuit.  The company has also asked for the trial to
be temporarily halted to prevent the further disclosure of the
e-mails that have proved highly embarrassing.

Accordng to Computerworld, Microsoft petitioned the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to hear its challenge of the case's
class-action status.  The separate motion to stay the suit's
proceedings pending the appeal was filed with Judge Pechman on
March 6.

Microsoft said in its petition that the court had made "errors"
in allowing the case to be opened up to class action status as
it exposed the company to potentially huge numbers of complaints
that had little relevance.

"Microsoft produced nearly 50,000 pages of documents in the
course of class discovery at a substantial cost," the company
said.  "The sheer size of Microsoft makes this process an
enormous and costly undertaking . . .  Without a stay, Microsoft
fully expects to spend substantial additional sums in out-of-
pocket discovery expense, not to mention the lost productivity
of employees whose testimony will be required."

Many of these documents have proved embarrassing for Microsoft
as they show senior management expressing grave concerns about
Vista and the Vista Capable campaign.

The company's petition to the Ninth Circuit spelled out two
questions it thinks the appellate court should consider,
Computerworld notes.  The first was Judge Pechman's decision to
base the call for class-action status on Washington state law
because Microsoft is headquartered there.  The second questions
Judge Pechman's approval of a "price inflation" theory, which
argues that PC buyers paid more than they would have without the
Vista Capable program, since Microsoft's marketing boosted
demand and increased the prices of systems that could run the
lowest-priced and lowest-powered version of the operating
system, Vista Home Basic.

According to Computerworld, Microsoft hopes to have a ruling on
its appeal within 90 days, which would push back several
tentative deadlines in the lawsuit, including a trial start in
October, if the stay request is granted.

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          e-mail: office@gmtlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com    


NASH FINCH: Settles Minn. Securities Fraud Suit for $6.75 Mln.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nash Finch Company, a leading national food distributor, signed
a Stipulation of Settlement which, if approved by the Court,
will fully resolve all of the claims in a putative securities
fraud class action lawsuit pending with the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On Dec. 19, 2005, and Jan. 4, 2006, two purported class actions
were filed against the company and certain of the company's
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock during the period:

     * from Feb. 24, 2005, the date the company announced an
       agreement to acquire two distribution divisions from
       Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc., and

     * through Oct. 20, 2005, the date the company announced a
       downward revision to its earnings outlook for fiscal
       2005.

One of the complaints was voluntarily dismissed on March 3,
2006, and a consolidated complaint was filed on June 30, 2006.  
The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants violated
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false
statements regarding, among other things, the integration of the
distribution divisions acquired from Roundy's, the performance
of the company's core businesses, its internal controls, and its
financial projections, so as to artificially inflate the price
of the company's common stock.  

The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, which the Court denied on May 1, 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, July 25, 2007).

Pursuant to the recent settlement, which is subject to certain
conditions, $6.75 million will be paid into a settlement fund
that will be distributed to members of a class of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock from February 24, 2005,
the date the Company announced an agreement to acquire certain
assets from Roundy's, through and including October 20, 2005,
the date the Company announced a downward revision to its
earnings guidance for fiscal 2005.  The settlement payment will
be funded in full by the Company's insurance coverage.  Notice
of the settlement must be provided to the class and then it is
subject to final approval by the Court.

"We believed, and continue to believe, that this case lacks
merit and had planned to defend the litigation vigorously," said
Alec Covington, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nash
Finch.  "However, after reaching an accommodation that will be
fully covered by our directors and officers insurance and is
acceptable to our insurance carrier, we have agreed to the
settlement so that we can eliminate the distraction and expense
of further litigation.  We believe that our shareholders are
best served with this matter behind us and our attention focused
on our business and the implementation of our strategic plan,
Operation Fresh Start."

The suit is "In Re: Nash Finch Co. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 0:02-cv-04736-JMR-FLN," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, under Judge James M. Rosenbaum,
with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
         (g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com)
         Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
         332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Phone: 651-287-2100

         Connie M. Cheung, Esq. (conniec@lcsr.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudma & Robbins LLP
         100 Pine St., Ste. 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 288-4545
         Fax: (415) 288-4534
  
              - and -

         Vernon J. Vander Weide, Esq. (vvanderweide@hsvwlaw.com)
         Head Seifert & Vander Weide
         333 S. 7th St., Ste. 1140
         Mpls, MN 55402-2421
         Phone: 612-339-1601
         Fax: 612-339-3372

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Bleck, Esq. (mbleck@oppenheimer.com)
         Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, LLP
         45 S. 7th St., Ste 3300
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-607-7000
         Fax: 612-607-7100


NEW YORK LIFE: $14MM ERISA Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bruce W. Kauffman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval to a
$14-million class action settlement in an Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 lawsuit against New York Life
Insurance Co., Jeff Casale of the Business Insurance reports.

The lawsuit was filed by employees alleging that the insurer
mismanaged its pension funds by exclusively investing in its own
mutual funds.  The suit stems from allegations that NYL
improperly invested billions of dollars in assets of various
NYL-sponsored employee benefit plans into NYL mutual funds in a
scheme to boost profits and help the funds appear more
attractive to investors, according to the original complaint
filed in November 1999.

Furthermore, the suit alleges that NYL's actions drained
millions of dollars in "excessive and easily avoidable" fees and
expenses as the insurer's trustees continued to invest in
"inappropriate and over-priced NYL-proprietary vehicles" when
better-performing options were available from investment
managers unaffiliated with NYL.

The plaintiffs argued that NYL's investment advisor also was
president of the insurer's mutual funds and that trustees who
approved the pension investments were not made aware of options
that would have been less expensive to maintain.

NYL denied the allegations and "asserted that the plans'
investments, or menu of investment options in the case of the
401(k) plans, have at all times been prudently selected,"
according to a statement by the insurer.

They further contended that ERISA does not prohibit the
investment of a retirement plan's assets in proprietary mutual
funds offered by the plan's sponsor, provided that the
investments and fees are appropriate.

Recently, Judge Kauffman affirmed the settlement in "Mehling et
al. vs. New York Life Insurance Co."  The judge awarded
$4.2 million of the settlement as attorney fees and
administrative costs for the plaintiff party.  The remaining
amount will be deposited in the New York-based NYL retirement
plans to directly benefit the plans' participants who were
involved in the settlement class.

In addition to the monetary settlement, NYL also agreed to
receive independent advice on their investments through May 31,
2010.

In an NYL statement sent to the Business Insurance, an NYL
spokesman said, "The company's receptivity to a settlement
centered on the fact that the bulk of the settlement monies
would go to work for the affected employee and agent
participants in the plans.  The result is a reaffirmation of New
York Life's commitment to its employees and agents through the
company's highly competitive benefit and pension plans."


NORTEL NETWORKS: Investors Still Await Suit Settlement Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Investors who won a US$2.4-billion settlement in a U.S. global
class-action suit against Nortel Networks Corp. two years ago
could be getting closer to collecting compensation if lawyers in
the United States and Canada succeed in court bids to speed up
the payment of most of the proceeds to eligible shareholders,
Ottawa Citizen reports.

The report notes that the settlement, whose value has dropped to
roughly US$1.23 billion because of Nortel's flagging share
price, covers lawsuits stemming from allegations of accounting
and disclosure irregularities at the company.

Under the court-mediated global settlement agreement, which,
according to the report, is considered one of the largest in
class-action history, Nortel agreed to pay close to $809 million
in cash for two groups of class-action members.  It also agreed
to issue 628.7 million common shares, representing 14.5% of its
equity at that time.

Because Nortel has implemented a 10-for-1 stock consolidation
since the settlement was reached, the number of shares to be
issued now totals about 62.9 million.  And while the money put
aside for the cash portion of the settlement has been earning
interest, the original estimated US$2.4 billion value of the
settlement was based on Nortel's share price at that time.  The
stock price has tumbled since then.

Nortel shares, Ottawa Citizen notes, which traded as high as
US$31.63 just over a year ago, closed Friday last week at
US$6.75 on the New York Stock Exchange, down 53 cents.  At that
level, the stock portion of the settlement would be valued at
US$425 million.

Under the proposed payment arrangement, shareholders who have
already been ruled eligible for compensation by claims
administrator Garden City Group Inc. would receive 75% of the
cash put aside by Nortel for the claim and 100% of common shares
to be issued as part of the settlement.

Judges in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and New York overseeing
the cash-and-shares settlement are being asked to approve a plan
for early distribution to close to half a million investors,
lawyers involved in the process told Ottawa Citizen.

New York lawyers have already filed their motion for an early
interim payment before the Southern District of New York court
after lawyers representing all sides in the settlement agreed on
the early payment.  Lawyers are expected to file a similar
motion in Quebec Superior Court, confirmed Quebec lawyer
Philippe Trudel, of Trudel & Johnston LLP, who is working on
behalf of Quebec claimants involved in two separate Nortel class
actions.  Filings by lawyers for claimants in Ontario, where
Nortel is based, and British Columbia are also imminent.

Mr. Trudel said that if all courts approve the petitions for the
new arrangement, eligible shareholders could receive
compensation "significantly faster" than the many months it will
take for a court review of some contested claims and legal
challenges over how much some of the lawyers are to be paid for
their role in the settlement.  Those items would be covered out
of the remaining 25% of the settlement cash.

"The fact is the process of revision is going to take time,"
Mr. Trudel shared to Ottawa Citizen.  "The consensus is the
money is there, let's give it to investors.  Distributing 100
per cent of the shares would avoid a second issue and the costs
associated with that."

Mr. Trudel said the new court petitions ask judges to allow
7,640 claimants who filed after November 2007's closing date and
whose claims have been ruled valid by the claims administrator  
to be part of any early partial distribution.  Those late
claimants are included in a total of 296,029 claims that have
been declared eligible by Garden City from all jurisdictions for
compensation for Nortel I -- the action covering the period from
Oct. 24, 2000, to Feb. 15, 2001 -- and 174,158 claims for Nortel
II, for the period from April 24, 2003, to April 27, 2004.
Rejected claims total 69,979 for Nortel I and 88,065 for Nortel
II.  Out of that, 360 Nortel I claims will be put before the
court for review, said Mr. Trudel.  In Nortel II, there have
been 378 requests for review.


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NutriSystem, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors
face a consolidated class action filed with the the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 suits were first commenced on Oct. 9, 2007.  The complaints
purport to bring claims on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between Feb. 14, 2007, and
Oct. 3, 2007, or Oct. 4, 2007.

The complaints allege that the defendants issued various
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
Company's projected performance that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of its securities.

These actions were consolidated in December 2007 under the
captioned, "Kairalla v. NutriSystem, inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-04215-MK."

On Jan. 3, 2008, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel pursuant to the requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and a consolidated amended
complaint is due to be filed on March 7, 2008.

The suit is "Kairalla v. NutriSystem, inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-04215-MK," filed with the the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Marvin Katz
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, PC
          100 Penn Square East
          John Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-561-3600
          Fax: 215-561-3000

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (DRosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Rd., Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100

               - and -

          Leon W. Silverman, Esq. (leon@steinandsilverman.com)
          Stein & Silverman PC
          230 S. Broad St. 18th Fl.
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-985-0255
          Fax: 215-985-0342

Representing the defendants is:

          Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq.
          (kpohlmann@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: 215 963-5740
          Fax: 215-963-5001


SCIELE PHARMA: Reaches $4.65M Settlement in Ga. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sciele Pharma, Inc., f/k/a First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp.,
reached a tentative $4.65 million settlement for a consolidated
securities fraud class action that was filed against it,
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 Aug. 22, 2002, the company, certain former and current
officers and directors were named as defendants in a
consolidated securities lawsuit filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiffs in the class action alleged in general terms that
the company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(a) of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and that the company violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

In an amended complaint, plaintiffs claim that the company
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market in connection with the company's public offering on
April 24, 2002 and thereafter relating to alleged "channel
stuffing" activities.

The amended complaint also alleged controlling person liability
on behalf of certain of the company's officers under Section 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages.

On Sept. 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia dismissed, without prejudice, the class
action.  

Although the lawsuit was dismissed, the court granted the
plaintiffs the right to refile provided that the plaintiffs pay
all of the defendant's fees and costs associated with filing the
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint as
permitted, but instead filed a motion asking the District Court
to reconsider its Sept. 29, 2004 order and lift the condition
that they must pay defendants' fees and costs before further
amendment.  

On June 22, 2005, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
and gave them another opportunity to amend if they pay
defendants' fees and costs.

Once again, plaintiffs chose not to file a second amended
complaint.  Instead, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

On Sept. 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's determination that the Amended Complaint was a "shotgun
pleading" that did not satisfy the pleading requirements under
the federal rules.

The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with the remedy ordered
by the District Court.  Instead of dismissing the Amended
Complaint with a right to further amend if Plaintiffs paid
Defendants’ fees and costs, the Court of Appeals held that the
District Court should have ordered Plaintiffs to replead under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).  

The Court of Appeals also held that plaintiffs' claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 must meet the heightened pleading
standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) because those
claims sound in fraud.  

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's
orders and remanded with instructions to order a repleading.  

On April 20, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
On June 29, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, which is currently pending.

The parties recently engaged in a mediation that led to an
agreement in principle to settle all claims in the class action
for an amount up to $4.65 million.  

The suit is "In re First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
J. Owen Forrester.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dab@classlaw.com)
         Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
         1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900

Representing the defendants is:

         John Patterson Brumbaugh, Esq. (pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding
         191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763       
         Phone: 404-572-5100


SUNOPTA: Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for Mar. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, reminds shareholders of the March 28,
2008 deadline to file lead plaintiff applications for the class
action lawsuit against SunOpta, Inc. (NasdaqGS:STKL) with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The suit is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock of the Company between August 8, 2007, and Jan. 25,
2008, inclusive.

SunOpta and certain of the Company's officers and directors are
charged with making a series of materially false and misleading
statements related to the Company's business and operations in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          12 East 41st St., 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          Cell phone: 504-301-7900
          Web site: http://www.kgscounsel.com


UNITED PARCEL: Seeks Review of Class Certification of "Hohider"
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., is seeking for a review by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of a decision that
certified a class in the matter, "Hohider v. United Parcel
Servic, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00363-JFC."

The case was certified as a class action on July 2007.  In it,
the plaintiffs have challenged certain aspects of the Company's
interactive process for assessing requests for reasonable
accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of over 35,000
current and former employees.  They are seeking backpay,
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees.

In August 2007, the Company filed a Petition with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit to hear the appeal of the trial
court's recent certification order.

The company reported no development in the case at 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 "Hohider v. United Parcel Servic, et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-00363-JFC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Joy Flowers Conti
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christian Bagin, Esq. (christian@wienandandbagin.com)
          Wienand & Bagin
          312 Boulevard of the Allies, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1916
          Phone: (412) 281-1110
          Fax: 412-281-8481

               - and -

          Donald A. Broggi, Esq. (dbroggi@scott-scott.com)
          Scott + Scott
          600 B Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-4565

Representing the defendants are:

          Joseph E. Culleiton, Esq. (jculleiton@reedsmith.com)
          Reed Smith
          435 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886
          Phone: (412) 288-7216

               - and -

          R. Steve Ensor, Esq. (steve.ensor@alston.com)
          Alston & Bird
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: (404) 881-7448


VALUECLICK: Mediator in Adware Lawsuit Proposes $1.5M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The mediator in a consolidated class action suit pending with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against ValueClick, Inc., proposed to settle the case for a one-
time payment of $1.5 million.

On April 20, 2007, two putative class actions were filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by Mireille Carrier, and Settlement Recovery Center.

The suits are alleging that defendants ValueClick, Inc.;
Commission Junction; and Be Free, engaged in unfair business
practices resulting in harm to affiliates and merchants on their
affiliate networks.

According to the complaints, ValueClick has failed to take
reasonable steps to address malicious adware and adware users on
its networks (Class Action Reporter, June 28, 2007).

The following are a few examples identified in the complaints of
how adware may result in harm to ValueClick's affiliates and
merchants:

       -- by unlawfully diverting earned commissions from
          legitimate affiliates;

       -- by fraudulently causing merchants to pay commissions
          and fees for traffic that was not generated by
          legitimate affiliate activity;

       -- by threatening the integrity of merchant affiliate
          programs; and

       -- by exposing merchants to liability for breach of their
          contracts with affiliates.

The lawsuits also allege that ValueClick has a motive to allow
unlawful adware activity on its networks because adware results
in increased revenues to ValueClick.

The lawsuits seek payment of monetary damages to affiliates and
merchants as well as changes in ValueClick's corporate practices
related to adware and compliance.

The complaints have been consolidated into one action.  A formal
mediation in this matter occurred on Feb. 25, 2008.  

At the end of the mediation session, the mediator made a
"mediator's proposal" that the action be settled for a one time
payment of $1.5 million, according to the company's Feb. 29,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit "Settlement Recovery Center LLC v. Valueclick Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02638-FMC-CT," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Florence-Marie Cooper presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. (jefff@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: 510-725-3000

               - and -

          Kassra Powell Nassiri, Esq.
          (knassiri@nassiri-jung.com)
          Nassiri and Jung
          251 Kearny Street, Suite 501
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-373-5699

Representing the defendants is:

          S. Ashlie Beringer, Esq. (aberinger@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-298-5718


VALUECLICK INC: Faces Consolidated Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ValueClick, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud
class action with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Aug. 17, 2007, a purported securities fraud class action was
filed by Carl Waldrep, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, presuming to represent all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of ValueClick,
Inc. between Nov. 1, 2006, and July 27, 2007.

The lawsuit alleges violations of certain federal securities
laws and is brought against the Company, its Executive Chairman
and its Chief Administrative Officer.

Since Aug. 17, 2007 and through the date of this filing, one
other similar purported class action was filed, and both actions
have since been consolidated.

The suit is "Carl Waldrep, et al. v. ValueClick, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:2007cv05411," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Dean D. Pregerson
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. (dbacine@barrack.com)
          Barrack Rodos and Bacine
          3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600

               - and -

          Mary K. Blasy, Esq. (maryb@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael B. Smith, Esq. (mbsmith@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-849-5300


* PRI Compares Legal Climates in All 50 U.S. States
---------------------------------------------------
The Pacific Research Institute released its report comparing the
legal climates of all 50 states.

Tort Liability Index: 2008 Report, Florida ranked the worst in
terms of tort costs and litigation risks, while North Dakota
ranked the best.  

In a separate ranking, the study also evaluated the tort laws of
each state.  Colorado had the best tort laws on its books, while
Rhode Island had the worst.

"In the competition for jobs and capital investment among the
states, those states that suffer from high tort costs and
litigiousness will continue to lose jobs and businesses to
states with superior tort systems.  PRI developed the Index as a
tool for governors and state legislators to assess their tort
systems and to enact laws that will improve the business climate
of their states," said Dr. Lawrence J. McQuillan, co-author of
the study and director of Business and Economic Studies at PRI.

North Dakota may be #1, but consigned to "sucker" status

By merging the quantitative tort costs ranking with the tort
laws ranking, the study divided the states into four groups:
saints, sinners, suckers, and salvageables.

Saints: States that have relatively low tort costs and/or few
litigation risks and relatively strong tort rules on the books.  
These states are well positioned to contain their tort liability
costs in the future if the rules are implemented as written.  
These states include Alaska, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and
Utah.

Sinners:  States that have relatively high tort costs and/or
high litigation risks and relatively weak tort rules on the
books.  The sinners are likely to face high and rising tort
liability costs in the future if lawsuit abuse continues
unchecked.  These states include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.

Suckers:  States that have weak tort rules on the books because
they currently have relatively low tort costs and/or few
litigation risks and, therefore, foolishly believe that they are
not vulnerable and reform is not needed.  These states include
Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, and
Virginia.

Salvageables:  States that have moderate to high relative tort
costs and/or moderate to high litigation risks, yet have
moderate to strong tort rules, probably as a result of recent
reforms.  These states include Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey,
South Carolina, and Texas.

"While North Dakota may top our list in terms of low tort costs,
the state lacks strong tort reform laws and could be the next
target for trial lawyers looking to strike gold," said Dr.
McQuillan.  "By the same measure, Floridians should take heart.  
Although their state presently has the highest tort costs and
risks, Florida has among the best tort laws in America due to
recent reforms.  As a 'salvageable' state, Florida's tort
climate should improve as a result of its reforms."

"On the other hand, some states are slow to reform.  New York is
a 'sinner' state in this edition of the Index as well as the
last," added Dr. McQuillan.

                  Best and Worst Tort Costs

In its quantitative ranking, the study uses 13 variables in two
areas -- monetary tort losses and litigation risks.  These
"output" rankings are free of any subjective influence.  In
addition to North Dakota, the top five states are Alaska, North
Carolina, Iowa, and Virginia.  At the bottom are Rhode Island,
Pennsylvania, Montana, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and last,
Florida.

                   Best and Worst Tort Laws

The study uses 28 variables to examine which states have rules
on the books that, if implemented and enforced, reduce lawsuit
abuse and tort costs.  These rules are controlled by voters,
legislators, and/or judges, either directly or indirectly in
each state.  The states that have the best overall tort rules on
the books, and that will be heading in the right direction if
the rules are fully implemented, are Colorado, Texas, Ohio,
Georgia, Indiana, Florida, and Michigan.  At the bottom are
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Vermont, and last,
Rhode Island.

"Enormous resources are wasted today on the unnecessary and
unproductive redistribution of wealth that occurs with excessive
tort litigation," said co-author Hovannes Abramyan, a PRI public
policy fellow.  "Meaningful tort reform translates into a better
legal environment in which to invest human, physical, and
financial capital -- the ingredients for self-sustaining
economic growth and prosperity.  We hope that our rankings will
encourage state officials and residents to enact tort reforms or
to enforce and defend strongly those they have on the books."

                            About PRI

For 29 years, the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) --
http://www.pacificresearch.org/-- has championed freedom,  
opportunity, and individual responsibility through free-market
policy solutions.  PRI is a non-profit, non-partisan
organization.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announced that class
action lawsuits have been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland asserting claims on
behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Municipal
Mortgage & Equity, (PINKSHEETS: MMAB) between May 3, 2004 and
January 29, 2008, inclusive, including those who purchased
shares in connection with the Company's February 3, 2005
Secondary Public Offering and through the Company's dividend
reinvestment plan.

Brower Piven is one of the counsel that has filed lawsuits for
plaintiffs asserting these claims.

MuniMae provides debt and equity financing to developers of
multifamily and commercial properties in the United States.

The complaints filed allege that the Company, and certain of its
officers and directors, issued materially false and misleading
registration statements, proxy statements, proxy-prospectuses,
and other periodic filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as well as public statements through press
releases and statements reported in the press.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (piven@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-003 or 410-986-0036
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Federman Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
On January 30, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC (NYSE: MMA).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The class period is from January 30, 2003 through January 28,
2008.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          (wfederman@aol.comwww.federmanlaw.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120


MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: KGS Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) has filed a class action lawsuit
against Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC (PINKSHEETS: MMAB)
(formerly NYSE: MMA) in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
the common stock of the Company between May 3, 2004, and
Jan. 29, 2008, inclusive.

MMA and certain of the Company's officers and directors are
charged with making a series of materially false and misleading
statements related to the Company's business and operations in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

MMA provides debt and equity financing to developers of
multifamily and commercial properties in the United States.

The complaint alleges that the Company, and certain of its
officers and directors, failed to disclose and misrepresented
material adverse facts known to defendants, or recklessly
disregarded by them, pertaining to MMA's business prospects,
financial condition and financial performance.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company
and the other defendants misled investors concerning the
adequacy of the Company's internal controls and the value and
performance of its tax-exempt bond portfolio.

The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the true financial condition and operations of
the Company.

On January 28, 2008, MMA announced a reduction in its dividend
and a delay in the filing of its restated financials.  The
following day, MMA disclosed that the foregoing restatement
would have a significant effect on the Company's ongoing
business -- causing shares of MMA to close at $9.19 per share,
down almost 50% from the prior day's close.

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

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          12 East 41st St., 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          Cell phone: 504-301-7900
          Web site: http://www.kgscounsel.com


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. announced that a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of SiRF Technology
Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:SIRF) between October 30, 2007, and
February 4, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that SiRF and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws.  Specifically,
during the Class Period, Defendants knew but concealed the
following:

     (i) SiRF's acquisition of Centrality Communications, Inc.
         was having an adverse impact on SiRF's results due to
         the similar products sold by Centrality which were
         cannibalizing SiRF's sales;

    (ii) SiRF's major customers were not placing orders at
         sufficient quantities for SiRF to meet the aggressive
         targets;

   (iii) Centrality's System-on-Chip (SoC) product line had
         lower gross margins than SiRF's products and defendants
         knew that although the Centrality acquisition would
         increase revenues in the fourth quarter, it would also
         significantly lower SiRF's gross margins;

    (iv) competitive pressures were having a more adverse impact
         on the Company than acknowledged by defendants, as
         SiRF's customers were moving to cellular-enabled
         products which SiRF could not adequately compete with;

     (v) as of October 30, 20007, fourth quarter gross margins
         would be down significantly because of the lower SoC
         product line margins; and

    (vi) downward pricing pressures were accelerating and would
         lead to lower margins and earnings in future quarters.

On February 4, 2008, the Company announced disappointing
financial results for its fourth quarter and fiscal 2007. On
February 5, 2008, SiRF's stock fell $8.91 per share to close at
$7.36 per share, a one-day decline of 54%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 8,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C.
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@snilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.snilaw.com




                           *********


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  * * *