CAR_Public/080317.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 17, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 54
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN HONDA: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges False Claims for Years
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Okla. Court Certifies Class in "Simmons"
ARLINGTON PARK: Backstretch Workers Sue Over Unfair Eviction
BC FERRIES: Lawsuit Expected to Solve Ferry Sinking Mystery
BEUSA ENERGY: Suit by Business Owners Over Well Blowout Looms

CROCS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Colorado Federal Court
CRUM & FORSTER: Dismissal of N.J. RICO/Antitrust Suit Appealed
FIRST NLC: Calif. Court Approves $14M Settlement for Labor Cases
FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Litigation
GAMMON GOLD: Faces $80 Mln. Inappropriate Option Granting Suit

ICE MAKERS: Antitrust Ice Conspiracy Alleged in Minn. Lawsuit
NETLIST INC: Seeks Nixing of Consolidated Calif. Securities Suit
NEW JERSEY: Suit to Protect from Deceptive Law Offices Filed
NORTH COAST: Still Faces W.Va. Landowners Royalties Litigation
NOVARTIS AG: Faces Calif. Suit Over Cough Medicine for Kids

OK INDUSTRIES: 300 Farmers Get $21MM Award in Monopsony Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Judge Certifies Workers' Class in Lawsuit
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued Over Ketek Antibiotic Purchase Price
SILICON VALLEY: Calif. Court Dismisses Claims in Vitesse Lawsuit
STATE FARM: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Policyholders' Fraud

TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Dismissal of Ga. Antitrust Suit Appealed
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Ky. Court Mulls Bid to Junk Securities Suit
TITLE INSURANCE COS: Accused of Rates Fixing in Mass. Lawsuit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN DENTAL: Cohen Milstein Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
CAMTEK LTD: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
DARDEN RESTURANTS: Coughlin Stoia Files FL Securities Fraud Suit
FORCE PROTECTION: Bronstein Announces Securities Suit Filing
FORCE PROTECTION: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing

FORCE PROTECTION: Dreier Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
FORCE PROTECTION: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in SC Commenced
FORCE PROTECTION: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
MF GLOBAL: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
MICHAEL BAKER: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.

VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Lawsuit



                           *********



AMERICAN HONDA: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges False Claims for Years
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., is facing a class-action
complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California claiming that the company sold Hondas and
Acuras from 1987 to 2007 by falsely claiming they had rear
double wishbone suspensions, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The class claims Honda Motor made the deceptive claims about
five Honda models, from 1986 to 2007, and six Acura models, from
1987 to 2007.

The CourtHouse News Service contends that Honda allegedly made
the deceptive and fraudulent claims about these models:

     -- 1986-2007 Honda Accord, coupe and hybrid;

     -- 1988-2007 Honda Civic, CRX, Del Sol and Hybrid;

     -- 1997-2007 Honda CR-V SUV;

     -- 2003-2008 Honda element SUV;

     -- 1995-2008 Honda Odyssey Minivan;

     -- 1990-2007 Acura Integra/RSX;

     -- 1992-1995 Acura Vigor;

     -- 1987-2004 Acura Legend Coupe/CL;

     -- 1990-2006 Acura Legend Sedan/TL' 2004-2006 Acura TLX;
        and

     -- 1998-2004 Acura RL.

This is a class action brought by plaintiffs on behalf of all
persons who purchased new Honda motor vehicles (including Acura
motor vehicles designed, manufactured and marketed by Honda from
four years to the date this complaint was filed, to the present
which were represented by defendant to have been designed and
manufactured with a rear double wishbone suspension (RDWS) when
in fact such suspension did not exist.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant represented to the consuming public
         that the subject Honda/Acura vehicles were manufactured
         and sold with rear double wishbone suspension;

     (b) whether any of the subject Honda/Acura vehicles
         designed, manufactured, marketed and advertised by the
         defendant had rear double wishbone suspension;

     (c) whether the conduct (unfair, fraudulent and deceptive
         business practices) of defendant constitutes unfair
         competition and violations of B&P Code Section 17200,
         17500 et seq. and violations pursuant to Civil Code
         Section 1709, 1710, 1711 and 1770;

     (d) whether the conduct and business practices of defendant
         constitute unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business
         practices;

     (e) whether defendant's conduct constitutes inducement and
         dissemination by misrepresentation in violation of B&P
         Code Section 17500;

     (f) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         compensatory damages, and if so, the means of measuring
         such damages;

     (g) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         injunctive relief prohibiting defendant from
         representing the existence of "rear double wishbone
         suspension" in the subject Honda/Acura vehicles and
         future Honda/Acura vehicles;

     (h) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         restitution;

     (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         damages;

     (j) whether defendant is liable for pre-judgment interest;

     (k) whether defendant is liable for attorney's fees and
         costs;

     (l) whether plaintiffs are entitled to seek punitive
         damages; and

     (m) when plaintiffs discovered the non existence of a rear
         double suspension system.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- for injunctive relief, compelling defendant to cease and
        desist from representing any Honda/Acura vehicles to
        have rear double wishbone suspension is such system does
        not exist on said vehicle;

     -- for injunctive relief compelling defendant to publish
        national retractions for a six-month period of time that
        the rear wishbone suspension on the subject Honda/Acura
        vehicles do not exist;

     -- for damages according to proof;

     -- for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses; and

     -- for all costs of suit.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas E. Frankovich, Esq.
          2806 Van Ness Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Phone: (415) 674-8600
          Fax: (415) 674-9900

               - and -

          Steven R. Pingel, Esq.
          Law Offices of Steven R. Pingel
          444 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 400
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (562) 432-0302
          Fax: (866) 734-3220


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Okla. Court Certifies Class in "Simmons"
------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Caddo County, Oklahoma, certified a class
in the matter, "Ivan J. Simmons, Madaline M. Thompson and Gaylon
Lee Mitchusson v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation."

In the suit, which was filed on February 2004, the plaintiffs
claim that Anadarko failed to correctly pay royalties on gas,
arguing that costs associated with compression, gathering,
dehydration, and processing should not have been deducted or
factored into the royalty calculation.  They are seeking an
award of monetary and punitive damages.

In January 2008, the District Judge issued an order certifying
the case as a class action.  

The defined class generally includes all royalty interest owners
in Oklahoma wells where Anadarko is or was the operator, working
interest owner or lessee and relates only to payment of
hydrocarbons produced from those wells since 1985, according to
Anadarko's Feb. 28, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. -- http://www.anadarko.com-- is an oil  
and gas exploration and production company with 2.43 billion
barrels of oil equivalent of proved reserves as of Dec. 31,
2007.  The Company's major areas of operation are located
onshore in the U.S., the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico, and
Algeria.  Anadarko also has production in China and a
development project in Brazil.  It markets natural gas, oil and
natural gas liquids and owns and operates gas gathering and
processing systems.  In addition, Anadarko has hard minerals
properties that contribute operating income through non-operated
joint ventures and royalty arrangements in several coal, trona
(natural soda ash) and industrial mineral mines located on lands
within and adjacent to its Land Grant holdings.  The Land Grant
is an eight million acre strip running through portions of
Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah where the Company owns most of its
fee mineral rights.


ARLINGTON PARK: Backstretch Workers Sue Over Unfair Eviction
------------------------------------------------------------
The Arlington Park racetrack is facing a class action lawsuit  
alleging that families of backstretch workers were unfairly
evicted, Chicago Tribune.

The lawsuit was filed last week with the Cook County Circuit
Court by the HOPE Fair Housing Center in Wheaton and the
Lawyers' Committee for Better Housing in Chicago.

The lawsuit states that racetrack officials abruptly forced
three employees to vacate their apartments in 2007 without
explanation or an opportunity to retrieve personal items.

"It's not just humiliating for families who are deprived of
their homes, but as a result of being locked out . . . they have
lost virtually everything that they own," Bernard J. Kleina,
HOPE's executive director, told Chicago Tribune.

According to the complaint, racetrack workers Angelica Garcia
and David Benitez returned from a park with their infant son on
July 5, 2007, to find that smoke from a small fire had damaged
their unit.  The family was ordered to leave the next day and
was forbidden to remove clothes, furniture and money.

The suit also relates that nearly two weeks after the July 5
incident, Rita Lara returned to her apartment to find a security
guard with her three children.  A track official then told her
that she had two hours to leave.

Chicago Tribune points out that the eviction lawsuit was filed
about a year after Arlington Park agreed to build or upgrade 175
units for backstretch workers with children who had complained
that they were denied air conditioned housing with private
bathrooms.  Racetrack officials had previously contended that
air conditioned housing units with private bathrooms were not
safe for children because they were too close to horse barns and
machinery.

Racetrack officials said they had not seen the latest lawsuit
and could not comment on its allegations.


BC FERRIES: Lawsuit Expected to Solve Ferry Sinking Mystery
-----------------------------------------------------------
The mystery over what happened in the 14 minutes before the
Queen of the North sank could be solved by this time next year,
when a class-action lawsuit filed by survivors of the crash
finally heads to trial, Vancouver Sun reports.

According to Globe and Mail, the man at the helm of the ferry
the night it slammed into an island and sank said he is sorry --
two years after the tragedy that killed two people.  The report
says that fourth officer Karl Lilgert offered his apology
shortly after the Transportation Safety Board of Canada released
a report that said he was distracted by a conversation with his
ex-girlfriend, quartermaster Karen Bricker, when the accident
occurred on March 22, 2006.

The ferry, southbound from Prince Rupert to Port Hardy, sank
shortly after midnight when it failed to make a required course
alteration as it left Grenville Channel.  The vessel hit Gil
Island and sank.  Ninety-nine people escaped; two passengers --
Shirley Rosette and Gerald Foisey -- remain missing and are
presumed drowned.

Vancouver Sun relates that since the ferry sank, rumors have
swirled around what happened between the only two people on the
bridge in the moments before the crash -- Mr. Lilgert and Ms.
Karen, former lovers who were working their first night shift
together after breaking up.  The two have remained tight-lipped
since the crash, speaking only to investigators from the TSB.

However, David Varty, a lawyer representing the ferry's 53
surviving passengers in the class-action suit, said that within
months, Mr. Lilgert and Ms. Bricker will be forced to answer his
questions as part of pre-trial examination for discovery,
according to Vancouver Sun.  Mr. Varty said he is scheduled to
interview Mr. Lilgert on May 22, 2008, and Ms. Bricker on
Sept. 24.

Mr. Varty told Vancouver Sun that what the two witnesses say
will initially remain secret.  But he said that once the trial
-- scheduled to start on Feb. 2, 2009 -- gets underway, the
information should become public.

Mr. Varty further told Vancouver Sun that the line of
questioning will focus on whether Mr. Lilgert and Ms. Bricker
were negligent.  He said that he suspects it will provide the
answers the public is looking for.

Globe and Mail cites Jackie Miller, president of the union
representing the bridge crew, asked for public sympathy for the
pair on the bridge, whom she described as "broken" by the
events.

Vancouver Sun says that BC Ferries fired Mr. Lilgert and Ms.
Bricker last year -- along with senior officer Keven Hilton, who
was on a meal break at the time of the crash -- after they
failed to cooperate with its investigation.

According to Globe and Mail, the BC. Ferry and Marine Workers'
Union, has filed a grievance because B.C. Ferries fired the
three crew members over the incident.  "We can't talk about the
details, but in general you don't make a ferry system safer by
firing some people," Ms. Miller said.

Last fall, Vancouver Sun recounts, the RCMP, which is conducting
a criminal probe of the accident, complained that some of the
ferry's staff, including members of the bridge crew, had still
not given it witness statements.  Howver, unlike BC Ferries and
the RCMP, the TSB has the legal power to force people to answer
questions about an accident it is investigating, and those who
refuse can be found in contempt of court.

"Our legislation gives us quite extensive powers," said Yvette
Myers, director of marine investigations with the TSB. "Under
our act, if we need to interview people, they have to
cooperate."

However, Vancouver Sun points out, the same law that gives the
TSB those powers -- the Canadian Transportation Accident
Investigation and Safety Board Act -- also severely limits what
it can do with the information it receives.  The TSB can only
use the interviews it conducts to advance transportation safety,
such as making recommendations on how to prevent future
accidents.  It cannot lay blame or provide the statements it
receives to other agencies, like the police.

As a result, while the TSB conducted multiple, detailed
interviews with Mr. Lilgert and Ms. Bricker, its report provides
few details about what the two were talking about.


BEUSA ENERGY: Suit by Business Owners Over Well Blowout Looms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for a truck stop that sued Beusa Energy, whose well
blowout forced the closure of Interstate 10 in 2007, want to
open the case as a class-action lawsuit to more than 200 other
businesses and property owners, The Advocate reports, citing
court filings.

The report recalls that Silver's Travel Center, in Breaux
Bridge, filed a federal lawsuit against Texas-based Beusa Energy
last year, seeking damages for lost business during the road
closure.  The Advocate relates that Silver's Travel's attorneys
have proposed expanding the list of potential plaintiffs to
include not only businesses along Interstate 10 but also those
along sections of Interstate 49 and U.S. 190 that suffered
traffic snarls as a detour route.

The proposed class could include more than 200 plaintiffs in
St. Martin, Lafayette, St. Landry, Iberville and West Baton
Rouge parishes, according to court filings.

The Advocate notes that most of I-10 between Lafayette and Baton
Rouge was closed for 10 days in November 2007 while crews capped
a well blowout next to the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge near Ramah.

The report relates that Lafayette officials had also threatened
a lawsuit against Beusa Energy earlier this year, alleging the
company was not honoring an agreement to reimburse Lafayette
officers for 1,112 off-duty hours for the traffic detail.  The
oil company averted that lawsuit when it agreed to pay Lafayette
police officers $44,480 for off-duty work at closed interstate
interchanges.  

In addition, the board of directors of St. Martin Parish School
was also considering a lawsuit to recover tax receipts that were
down because of slow business during the road closure.  St.
Martin Parish School Superintendent Richard Lavergne said that
accountants are still reviewing the numbers, but legal action is
unlikely.

According to The Advocate, Beusa Energy has denied legal
responsibility for the well blowout, arguing that the accident
was beyond the company's control.

No hearing date has been set on the class-action request.


CROCS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Colorado Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
CROCS, Inc., and two of its executive officers are facing a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District Court of Colorado, according to
CROCS' Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Starting in November 2007, certain shareholders filed several
purported shareholder class actions with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged statements
made by the company between July 27, 2007, and Oct. 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages on behalf of the
alleged class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award
of attorney's fees and costs of litigation.  

These actions were subsequently consolidated.  The Court is
currently considering motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.  

The suit is "Dhingra, et al. v. CROCS, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:2007-cv-02351," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Robert E. Blackburn presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens, LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203-3507
          Phone: 303-861-1764
          Fax: 303-395-0393

          Joseph C. Cohen, Jr., Esq. (jcohen@wolfslatkin.com)
          Wolf, Slatkin & Madison, P.C.
          44 Cook Street #1000
          Denver, CO 80206-5827
          Phone: 303-355-2999
          Fax: 303-329-6826

               - and -

          Thomas P. McMahon, Esq. (tmcmahon@joneskeller.com)
          Jones & Keller, P.C.
          1625 Broadway, 16th Floor
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-573-1600
          Fax: 303-573-8133

Representing the defendants are:

          Brian Neil Hoffman, Esq. (bhoffman@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster, LLP
          370 17th Street
          Republic Plaza #5200
          Denver, CO 80202-5638
          Phone: 303-592-1500
          Fax: 303-592-1510


CRUM & FORSTER: Dismissal of N.J. RICO/Antitrust Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action over allegations that
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. violated both the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and antitrust statutes   
are appealing the dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court of
Appeal for the Third Circuit.

The company and U.S. Fire, among other insurance companies and
insurance brokers, have been named as defendants in a class
action filed by policyholders alleging, among other things, that
the defendants used contingent commission structure to deprive
policyholders of free competition in the market for insurance.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class
consisting of all persons who between Aug. 26, 1994, and the
date of the class certification engaged the services of any one
of the broker defendants and who entered into or renewed a
contract of insurance with one of the insurer defendants.

In October 2006, the court partially granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, subject to the
plaintiffs' filing an amended statement of their case.

The plaintiffs thereafter filed their "supplemental statement of
particularity," and amended case statement.  In response,
defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice.   On
Sept. 28, 2007, the court dismissed the RICO case with prejudice
and declined to accept supplemental jurisdiction over
plaintiffs' state law claims.

On Oct. 24, 2007, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the trial
court's dismissals with the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third
Circuit.  

The plaintiffs' opening brief was filed and served on Feb. 19,
2008.  Absent an extension, the insurers' opposition briefs will
be due on March 20, 2008, and reply briefs will be due on
April 3, 2008.

Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. and U.S. Fire continue to be named
as defendants.

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

Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. -- http://www.cfins.com-- through     
its eight subsidiaries, offers an array of property/casualty
insurance products to businesses, including management
liability, automobile, and workers' compensation coverage.


FIRST NLC: Calif. Court Approves $14M Settlement for Labor Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave final approval to a $14-million settlement that resolves
two putative class actions pending against First NLC Financial,
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Friedman Billings Ramsey
Group, Inc.

The suits that were settled are:

       -- "Stanfield, et al. v. First NLC Financial Services,
          LLC, Case No. C 06-3892 SBA;" and

       -- "Sparrow-Milrot, et al. v. First NLC Financial
          Services, LLC, Case No. SA CV 07-0119 AHS RCX."

The suits allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
violations of California wage and hour laws.  

The agreement was reached in June 2007, resolving all disputes.
First NLC has agreed to pay $14 million in exchange for a full
release of asserted claims against it.  

In September 2007, the federal district court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.  

In December 2007 the federal district court judge granted final
approval of the settlement and the case was dismissed with
prejudice, according to Friedman's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. -- http://www.fbr.com/--  
is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that, through its REIT
subsidiaries, operates investment banking, institutional
brokerage and research and asset management businesses.  At the
parent REIT level, the Company invests as a principal in
mortgage-backed securities (MBS), non-conforming residential
mortgages and other mortgage-related assets, and makes merchant
banking investments.  In addition, it also originates non-
conforming residential mortgage loans through First NLC
Financial Services, LLC, one of its REIT subsidiaries.  FBR
operates primarily in the U.S. and Europe.  It operates in four
business segments: principal investing, capital markets (which
include investment banking and institutional brokerage and
research operations), asset management and non-conforming
residential mortgage loan origination.


FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Friedman Billings Ramsey Group, Inc., along with other
defendants in the matter "In Re: FBR, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-04617," asks for the dismissal of the
consolidated securities fraud class action, which remains
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

Initially, the company and certain of its current and former
senior officers and directors were named in a series of putative
securities class actions filed in the second quarter of 2005.

The complaints in these actions are brought under various
sections of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and allege misstatements and omissions concerning the
investigation conducted by the staff of the Division of
Enforcement of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
the staff of the Department of Market Regulation of National
Association of Securities Dealers, concerning insider trading
and other charges related to the company's trading in a company
account and the offering of a private investment in public
equity on behalf of CompuDyne, Inc. in October 2001.  

The suits also allege misstatements and omissions with regard to
the company's expected earnings, including the potential adverse
impact on the company of changes in interest rates.

These cases have been consolidated under, "In re FBR Inc.
Securities Litigation."  A consolidated amended complaint has
been filed asserting claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint, which is pending before the
court.

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

The suit is "In Re: FBR, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
05-CV-04617," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Richard J. Holwell
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

          Eric James Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
          Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 907-0790
          Fax: (212) 883-7579

               - and -

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. (nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com)
          Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700
          Fax: (212) 684-5191

Representing the defendants is:

          George Anthony, Esq.
          Borden Williams & Connolly, LLP
          725 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 434-5563
          Fax: (202) 434-5029
          e-mail: gborden@wc.com


GAMMON GOLD: Faces $80 Mln. Inappropriate Option Granting Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gammon Gold Inc. (TSX: GAM / AMEX: GRS) has been named as a
defendant in a statement of claim. The plaintiff is seeking,
among other things, an order certifying the action as a class
proceeding and $80 million in damages.

The statement of claim has not yet been served on the Company.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company's 2007 prospectus
contained misstatements with respect to production run rates and
the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. The plaintiff
also alleges inappropriate option granting.

Gammon Gold considers the allegations in the statement of claim
to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. The
Company believes that it acted with appropriate care, diligence
and skill at all times.

"The claim relating to the production run rates is a copycat
claim, on a class action basis, of a claim filed in New York
courts last year," said Rene Marion, CEO of Gammon Gold.  "The
Company has brought a motion asking the court to dismiss that
claim as groundless and lacking merit and is awaiting a hearing
on that issue.  The Company denies the plaintiff's allegations
that it misled investors with respect to production run rates
and considers the allegations in this claim to be without merit
and intends to vigorously defend its position."

Last year, the plaintiff's counsel wrote to the Company about
potential concerns with stock options granted between 2001 and
2007.

McInnes Cooper, a leading Nova Scotia law firm, was retained to
steward an independent investigation into the Company's options
granting process and independent consultants were retained to
assist in the investigation.

Following the investigation, McInnes Cooper reported to the
Board that with respect to the options granted by the Board
between April 25, 2001 and September 7, 2007, "there have been
no violations of the Plan, or of the rules of the TSX or
applicable securities laws in the granting, pricing or reporting
by Gammon of the options granted pursuant to the Plan.
Accordingly, no past or present directors, officers or other
employees of Gammon could have profited from any improper
exercise of options."

At the time of this press release, the McInnes Cooper report had
not been made available to the plaintiff's counsel.

Gammon Gold remains focused on meeting its short term
deliverables provided in the March 11, 2008 press release for
the end of Q1.

Gammon Gold Inc. is a Nova Scotia based mid-tier gold and silver
producer with properties in Mexico.  The Company's flagship
Ocampo Project in Chihuahua State achieved commercial production
in January 2007.  Gammon Gold also operates its El Cubo
operation in Guanajuato State and has the promising development
Guadalupe y Calvo property in Chihuahua State.  The Company
remains 100% unhedged.


ICE MAKERS: Antitrust Ice Conspiracy Alleged in Minn. Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint was filed with the U.S. District court
for the District of Minnesota alleging Reddy Ice Holdings
conspired with other ice-makers to fix prices and apportion
monopolistic sales areas for the $1.8 billion packaged ice
business, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.
     -- Arctic Glacier, Inc.
     -- Arctic Glacier International Inc. and
     -- Home City Ice Company

According to CourtHouse News Service, the three lead defendants
reports ice sales of more than $750 million in 2007.

The complaint states Reddy Ice, the nation's biggest icemaker,
reported sales of $339 million; Arctic Glacier, of Canada, the
second-largest ice company, reported $249 million in sales.

Home City Ice Co., of Cincinnati, is privately held.  According
to the complaint, it is about three-fourths the size of Arctic
Glacier.

The complaint claims that as early as Jan. 1, 2002 the
conspirators fixed prices, allocated markets and otherwise
restrained and interfered with commerce.

Canada is a major exporter of ice to the United States, claims
lead plaintiff Ridge Plaza, a "convenience and beverage store."

Plaintiff Ridge Plaza Inc. brings this action under the federal
antitrust laws, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 USC
Sections 15 and 26, to recover treble damages, injunctive
relief, and the costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys'
and experts' fees, for the injuries to the plaintiff and members
of the proposed class it represents resulting from defendants'
violations of the federal antitrust laws, specifically Section 1
of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 USC Section 1.

This antitrust class action arises out of an international
conspiracy among defendants and their co-conspirators with the
purpose and effect of fixing prices, allocating markets and
territories and committing other anticompetitive practices
designed to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize
prices of packaged cubed, crushed, block and dry ice in the
United States and Canada.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants conspired with the purpose and
         effect of fixing prices, allocating markets and
         committing other anticompetitive practices designed to
         unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices
         of packaged ice;

     (b) whether the defendants' conduct violated Section 1 of
         the Sherman Act;

     (c) the existence, duration, and illegality of the
         contract, combination or conspiracy alleged;

     (d) the effect upon and the extent of injuries sustained by
         plaintiff and members of the class and the appropriate
         type and measure of damages;

     (e) whether defendants took affirmative steps to conceal
         the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged; and

     (f) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         declaratory and injunctive relief.

The plaintiff requests:

     -- that the court determine that the action may be
        maintained as a class action under Rule 23(c)(2),
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be given each and
        every member of the class;

     -- that the unlawful combination and conspiracy alleged be
        adjudged and decreed to be in unreasonable restraint of
        trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiff and the class recover compensatory
        damages, as provide by law, be determined to have been
        sustained by each of them, and that joint and several
        judgments in favor of plaintiff and the class, be
        entered against defendants, in an amount to be trebled
        in accordance with antitrust laws, and each of them;

     -- that the defendants be enjoined from continuing the
        unlawful contract, combination or conspiracy alleged;

     -- that the plaintiff and the class recover their costs of
        the suit, including reasonable attorney's fees, expert
        fees, and accountant's fees, as provided by law; and

     -- that the plaintiff and the class be granted such other,
        further and different relief as the nature of the case
        may require or as may seem just and proper to the court.

The suit is "Ridge Plaza Inc., et al. v. Reddy Ice Holdings,
Inc. et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          Gustafson Gluek PLLC
          650 Northstar East
          608 Second Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844

          Bernard Persky, Esq.
          Hollis L. Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Morissa Falk, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, New York 10005
          Phone: (212) 907-0700

               - and -

          Guri Ademi, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          David J. Syrios, Esq.
          Ademi & O'reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: (414) 482-8000


NETLIST INC: Seeks Nixing of Consolidated Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April 28, 2008 hearing is set for a motion seeking the
dismissal of the consolidated securities fraud class action,
"Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677 DOC
(MLGx)," which remains pending with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  

Beginning in May 2007, the Company and certain of its officers
and directors were named as defendants in four purported
shareholder class actions, two of which were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the
others filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The New York suits are:

       -- "Tran v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV 3754;" and

       -- "Benjamin v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV5518."

The California suits are:

       -- "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. SACV07-677 DOC
          (MLGx);" and
    
       -- "Swofford v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. CV07-04006 PSG
          (FMOx)."

These purported class actions were filed on behalf of persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Nov. 30,
2006 Initial Public Offering.

The complaints allege that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued by the Company in connection with the IPO
contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of
material fact in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
Securities Act of 1933.  

They seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action, under
th caption, "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677
DOC (MLGx)," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on Nov. 5,
2007.  Generally, the consolidated complaint alleged that the
Registration Statement issued by the company in connection with
the IPO contained untrue statements of material fact or
omissions of material fact in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of
Securities Act of 1933.

The defendants filed their motions to dismiss the complaint on
Jan. 9, 2008.  The hearing on the defendants' dismissal motions
is set for April 28, 2008, according to Netlist's Feb. 29, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

The suit is "Bruce Belodoff v. Netlist Inc et al., Case No.  
8:07-cv-00677-DOC-MLG," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. (ctrinko@trinko.com)
          Curtis V. Trinko Law Office
          16 West 46th Street 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-490-9550

Representing the defendants are:

          Sean T. Prosser, Esq. (sprosser@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster LLP
          12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130-2040
          Phone: 858-720-5100

               - and -

          Keith E. Eggleton, Esq. (keggleton@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Rd
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-565-5100


NEW JERSEY: Suit to Protect from Deceptive Law Offices Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Susan Chana Lask announced a Federal Class Action RICO
lawsuit filed in the District Court of New Jersey by Jane F.
Hind on behalf of the public against attorney Stephen J. Hyland
and his New Jersey associates operating as having "expertise" in
same sex couples' issues.

The lawsuit alleges Mr. Hyland's wholesale unethical legal
practices victimize the public confidence in legal services and
defrauded the public, State Bar and Judiciary by deceptive
advertising about a case he never won and a legal decision that
never happened.

The lawsuit alleges Mr. Hyland's January 30, 2008 press release
e-mailed to major media outlets that republished it in print and
on the web falsely states:

"NJ Woman Awarded Equitable Distribution in Domestic Partnership
Termination

WOODBURY, NJ--Attorneys from the Law Offices of Stephen J.
Hyland won a significant victory that will affect the
approximately 5,000 gay and lesbian couples who are registered
in domestic partnerships. On January 15, 2008, Judge John
Tomasello, a Gloucester County family court judge ordered the
equitable distribution of a same-sex couple's assets ..... The
case was one of first impression that clarified that the New
Jersey Domestic Partnership Act allows a court to follow the
same principles of asset distribution when terminating a
domestic partnership as it does when granting a divorce to a
married couple."

Contrary to Hyland's press release, on January 15, 2008,
Gloucester County Family Court Judge Tomasello actually denied
Mr. Hyland's request for equitable distribution and agreed with
Ms. Hind's request for "equitable principles" applied upon a
relationship, not a marriage, stating on the record in Docket
FM-08-08947-07:

"I, frankly, never saw this case as being anything unusual than
any -- the separation of any two other people. and I'm going to
apply equitable principles to get a fair result, based upon, not
the marriage, but the relationship. and I think I tried to be
careful about not calling anything equitable distribution . . ."

The case involved the termination of domestic partners Jane F.
Hind and Hyland's client, Sharon Miken.  Judge Tomasello simply
returned Ms. Miken's $43,000 she paid for a property with
interest, totaling $71,000. Sharon Miken, was offered a
$53,000.00 settlement by Ms. Hind nine months ago for the money
she contributed to Ms. Hind's home.

Mr. Hyland rejected the settlement, leaving Ms. Miken with only
$46,000 after deducting his $25,000 legal fee demand from the
$71,000.  Presumably another $10,000 in legal fees will be
demanded from Ms. Miken for Hyland's trial time in a case he
lost, leaving a larger loss for her, says Ms. Hind.

On February 22, 2008, Mr. Hyland appealed to the Appellate Court
for exactly what he claimed he won -- he now wants equitable
distribution.  He never released his appeal to the media.

"It's not about his client for Hyland, it's about him trying to
build a false reputation by targeting the gay community," says
Ms. Hind.  "At the expense of his clients, Hyland victimizes the
public and the Judiciary, leaving clients liable while he
financially gains," said attorney Susan Chana Lask representing
Ms. Hind.  The effect of false information about a case decision
causes attorneys to counsel clients differently in family law,
causes the public to act differently with respect to their legal
rights and property and prejudices cases before judges who
follow case law that never happened.

Ms. Lask's office obtained statements from Mr. Hyland's present
client and another woman who consulted him.  According to the
lawsuit, Mr. Hyland claimed he had connections in government
offices to help his clients.

A young, 25-year-old female client of Mr. Hyland's stated he
informed her that a Family Court judge predetermined her case as
a marriage and she won three million dollars in a domestic
partnership of only 22 months -- a decision that never happened.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Hyland directed her to withdraw
$58,000.00 in disputed monies, endorse it to him and then
demanded the other partner pay him another $100,000 without
basis.  An immediate court order removed the money from Mr.
Hyland's account.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Hyland and his client are now
defendants in a conspiracy and conversion civil action in New
Jersey and his client is a defendant for slander.

Ms. Hind's RICO lawsuit seeks to stop deceptive and fraudulent
business practices, ban Mr. Hyland from operating a law office
and make full restitution to injured consumers who have been
defrauded by false claims of a decision that never happened.

To contact Ms. Lask:

          Law Offices of Susan Chana Lask
          244 Fifth Avenue Suite 2369
          New York NY 10001
          Phone: 212.358.5762
          Web site: http://www.appellate-brief.com


NORTH COAST: Still Faces W.Va. Landowners Royalties Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
North Coast Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of EXCO Resources, Inc.,
continues to face a putative class action over the payment of
royalties in the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia.

The suit, "PRC Holdings, LLC, et al. v. North Coast Energy,
Inc., Civil Action No. 06-C-80E," was filed on Oct. 11, 2006.
Certain landowners and lessors in West Virginia brought it for
themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated landowners
and lessors in West Virginia.  

Specifically, the suit alleges that North Coast has not been
paying royalties to the plaintiffs in the manner required under
the applicable leases, has provided misleading documentation to
the plaintiffs regarding the royalties due, and has breached
various other contractual, statutory and fiduciary duties to the
plaintiffs with regard to the payment of royalties.  

In the case, "The Estate of Garrison Tawney v. Columbia Natural
Resources, LLC," announced in June 2006, the West Virginia
Supreme Court held that language such as "at the wellhead" and
similar language contained in leases when used in describing how
to calculate royalties due lessors was ambiguous and, therefore,
should be construed strictly against the lessee.  

Accordingly, in the absence of express language in a lease that
is intended allocate between a lessor and lessee post-production
costs such as the costs of marketing the product and
transporting it to the point of sale, no post-production costs
may be deducted from the lessor's royalty payment due from the
lessee.  

The claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed
against the company are similar to the claims alleged in the
Tawney case.  

The plaintiffs are seeking common law and statutory compensatory
and punitive damages, interest and costs and other remedies.   

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

EXCO Resources, Inc. -- http://www.excoresources.com/-- is a  
public oil and natural gas  acquisition, exploitation,
development, and production company with principal operations in
Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia.


NOVARTIS AG: Faces Calif. Suit Over Cough Medicine for Kids
-----------------------------------------------------------
California resident Kelly Carter has sued drug maker Novartis AG
in what the company believes to be the first proposed class
action involving its Triaminic children's cough and cold
medicines since overdose fears prompted a recall of the drugs,
Reuters reports.

Reuters relates that the lawsuit, filed on March 11, 2008, with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(los Angeles), states that several studies have shown deaths and
serious injuries linked to over-the-counter children's cold
remedies.  As a result, Novartis "either knew . . . or
reasonably should have known that their cough and cold products
were ineffective and dangerous when used by children under the
age of six," the lawsuit says.

Ms. Carter dosed her 4-year-old son with Triaminic Daytime Cough
& Cold in 2007.  Reuters says it was not immediately clear from
the lawsuit whether or how the drug harmed the child.

Novartis, which recalled Triaminic oral infant cough and cold
medicines late last year, said it believed the lawsuit is the
first to bring claims involving the drugs.

The report explains that Novartis sells a number of products
under the Triaminic brand.  The lawsuit alleges that Americans
spend more than $2 billion annually on over-the counter cough
and cold remedies for children.

In October, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, a
trade group representing makers of over-the-counter medicines,
said overdoses of oral infant cough and cold medicines have led
to death and serious injury in rare instances, Reuters notes.  
The group also stressed that the medications are safe when used
as directed.

According to the report, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
reviewers have recommended that over-the-counter cough and cold
medicines that contain decongestants and antihistamines should
come with new instructions saying they are not for very young
children.  According to a recent report by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, over-the-counter cough and cold
drugs send an estimated 7,000 U.S. children under the age of 12
to emergency rooms every year, mostly for overdoses.


OK INDUSTRIES: 300 Farmers Get $21MM Award in Monopsony Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
More than 300 farmers and growers were awarded $21 million on
March 10, 2008, in a class-action lawsuit filed almost six years
ago in Oklahoma against OK Industries Inc., The Morning News
reports.

According to Morning News, an eight-member jury in the U.S.
District Court of Eastern Oklahoma deliberated about four hours
before levying the multi-million judgment against the company
and its subsidiaries, including OK Foods Inc. and OK Farms Inc.

The original lawsuit was filed in 2002, with the federal
district court in Muskogee ruling against the plaintiffs in
2005.  That was then overruled in the appeals court in July
2007, the report recalls.

The 10th Circuit of Appeals in Denver ruled that the growers --
mainly from the LeFlore County area -- who filed the lawsuit did
raise questions of an "unfair" contract under the Packers and
Stockyards Act.  The split decision then sent the matter to a
jury in Oklahoma.

The civil claim presented to the jury was violation of the
Packers and Stockyards Act, alleging that OK Industries was a
monopsony in the area of which it operates in eastern Oklahoma.
A monopsony, the report notes, is similar to a monopoly, but in
this case, it's where sellers only have one buyer, which the
plaintiffs claimed created a power to impose negative pricing
and other procedural practices on growers that benefited the
poultry company.

If an appeal is filed by the defendants and then denied, the
district court will outline the method and the amount of
distribution to the plaintiffs, Goodwin said.

"This was an important case addressing 10 years of unfair
treatment of poultry growers in eastern Oklahoma," Charles
Goodwin, Esq., of Crowe & Dunlevy in Oklahoma City, who
represents the plaintiffs, said.  "We appreciate the jury's
careful attention to all the evidence in the case and are
thankful after a long and difficult struggle the harmed growers
will be addressed."

Mr. Goodwin said there were more than 100 hundred exhibits
presented to the jury over four days, with most evidence relying
primarily on the examination of OK Industries' own statistical
data over 20,000 to 30,000 flocks grown by its growers.  

The defense will have a certain time period -- likely 10 days --
to start filing appeals if it wishes to do so, Mr. Goodwin told
Morning News.

The suit is "Been, et al. v. OK Industries Inc, et al., Case No.
6:02-cv-00285-RAW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Charles B. Goodwin, Esq.
          (charles.goodwin@crowedunlevy.com)
          Crowe & Dunlevy (OKC)
          20 N Broadway, Ste 1800
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273
          Phone: 405-239-6648
          Fax: 405-272-5215

Representing defendants is:

          Don A. Smith, Esq.
          Smith Maurass Cohen Redd & Horan
          PO Box 10205
          Fort Smith, AR 72917-0205
          Phone: (479) 782-1001


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Judge Certifies Workers' Class in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harry Barnes, of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division, has granted class-
action status to a lawsuit filed by workers at Pilgrim's Pride
Corp. who seek payment for the time they spent putting on and
taking off protective gear, The Associated Press reports.

According to Dow Jones Newswires, Judge Barnes' March 13, 2008
ruling permits current and former workers engaged in chicken
processing from 20 plants to participate in the case.  However,
the motion for certification of a collective action was granted
in part and the court can create subclasses at a later date.

Dow Jones writes that the suit claims that Pilgrim's Pride
refused to compensate the employees for the time they spend
putting on, taking off and cleaning the gear they must wear
while working on or near the chicken processing line.

AP cites the lawsuit as claiming that workers arrive at their
job sites early for their shifts so they can put on protective
and sanitary equipment.  The workers also use unpaid time to
take off the gear.  Pilgrim's Pride asserts that putting on and
taking off gear is not work.

Specifically, the suit includes workers from plants in: Athens,
Ala.; Athens, Ga.; Batesville, Ark.; Broadway, Va.; Canton, Ga.;
Chattanooga, Tenn.; Clinton, Ark.; Dalton, Ga.; De Queen, Ark.;
Elberton, Ga.; El Dorado, Ark.; Enterprise, Ala.; Farmerville,
La.; Gainesville, Ga.; Lufkin, Texas; Marshville, N.C.;
Mayfield, Ky.; Moorefield, W.V.; Mt. Pleasant, Texas;
Nacogdoches, Texas; and Natchitoches, La.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued Over Ketek Antibiotic Purchase Price
---------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Aventis U.S., which manufactures Ketek, an antibiotic
used to treat adults with respiratory infections, is facing a
consumer fraud class action lawsuit by a St. Clair County
consumer, alleging that the company fraudulently misrepresented
the drug's health and safety risks to the Food and Drug
Administration, St. Clair Record reports.

The report relates that Jessica Kent, of Belleville, is the
proposed class representative seeking damages over the purchase
price of Ketek for persons in Illinois and New Jersey.

"This action is not a products liability action nor is it an
action seeking recovery for personal, psychological or emotional
injury and does not involve the physical or mental condition of
the named plaintiff nor any class member," the complaint, which
was filed on Feb. 28, 2008, clarifies.

Represented by Christopher Cueto, Esq., of Belleville and Robert
Salim, Esq., of Natchitoches, La., the plaintiffs allege that
Sanofi-Aventis engaged in a campaign of "over-promoting Ketek in
written marketing literature, in written product packaging, and
in direct to consumer advertising via written advertisements and
television commercial ads."

The complaint states that "Defendant's over promotion of the
product was undertaken by touting the safety and efficacy of
Ketek while concealing, misrepresenting, and actively
downplaying the serious, severe and life-threatening risks of
harm to users of Ketek, when compared to comparable or superior
drug therapies."

St. Clair Record points out that Telithromycin, sold under the
brand name Ketek, was approved by the European Commission in
July 2001 and subsequently went on sale in Europe in October
2001.  In the U.S., telithromycin was approved in April 2004 by
the FDA for sale and marketing.

According to the complaint, Sanofi-Aventis submitted to the FDA
safety and efficacy results from a Ketek study that it knew to
be false.  Among other things, the complaint alleges that the
study violated numerous protocols by enrolling fictitious
subjects, reporting data on patients who never participated in
or completed the study, obtaining analysis of blood samples from
persons other than patients enrolled in the study and falsely
documenting results and other study data.

The complaint further adds that Sanofi-Aventis knew that "prices
which it charged for Ketek were far in excess of the fair market
value Ketek would have had but for Sanofi Aventis' omissions,
suppressions, and/or concealments."

St. Clair Record says that Sanofi-Aventis also faces a lawsuit
filed in November 2007, with the St. Clair County Circuit Court
on behalf of 47 claimants seeking damages for personal and
economic injuries.  Mr. Cueto is also co-plaintiffs' attorney in
this suit.


SILICON VALLEY: Calif. Court Dismisses Claims in Vitesse Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed all claims made against Silicon Valley Bank, a
principal subsidiary of SVB Financial Group, in the matter, "In
Re: Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 06-CV-02639."

On Oct. 4, 2007, a consolidated class action was filed,
purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the
common stock of Vitesse Semiconductor Corp.

The complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against
Vitesse, the Bank and other named defendants in connection with
alleged fraudulent recognition of revenue by Vitesse,
specifically with respect to sales of certain accounts
receivable to the Bank.

The relief sought under the complaint included rescission of the
Vitesse shares held by plaintiffs and other class members or the
appropriate measure of damages, as well as prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and certain fees, costs and expenses.

On Jan. 28, 2008, the court dismissed with prejudice all claims
against the Bank under the action, according to Silicon Valley's
Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 06-CV-02639," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. (nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com)
          Abbey Spanier Rodd and Abrams
          212 E 39th St.
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-889-3700

Representing the defendants are:

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

               - and -

          Douglas J. Clark, Esq. (dclark@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Rd
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300


STATE FARM: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Policyholders' Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is facing a
class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California accusing it of cheating  
policyholders, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Arnesha M. Garner claims State Farm cheats
policyholders by refusing to base payments for lost or damaged
vehicles on the "market value, age and condition at the time the
loss occurred," but using a "projected sales price" and an "age
of ad adjustment," both of which it refuses to explain.

The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all California
residents insured under a State Farm private passenger vehicle
policy who:

     (1) received a first party total loss settlement or
         settlement offer based in whole or in part on the
         "projected sales price" of a comparable vehicle; or

     (2) whose settlement or settlement offer was reduced to
         account for the difference between the date on which a
         comparable vehicle was advertised or sold and the date
         of the loss of the claimant's vehicle.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether State Farm's use of a "projected sales price"
         to determine the value of the Loss Vehicle violates the
         Total Loss Regulation;

     (b) whether State Farm's use of the Ad Age Adjustment
         violates the Total Loss Regulation;

     (c) whether State Farm's Valuation is "fully itemized and
         explained in writing for the claimant at the time the
         settlement offer is made" as required by the Total Loss
         Regulation;

     (d) whether State Farm's use of projected sales prices and
         the Ad Age Adjustment and its intentional failure to
         fully itemize and explain the valuation of Loss
         Vehicles was intended to evade the purpose of Total
         Loss regulation and to disguise its violation of the
         regulation;

     (e) whether State Farm's use of projected sales prices and
         the Ad Age Adjustment violate the express terms of its
         automobile policies which require it to pay the insured
         the value of the Loss Vehicle;

     (f) whether State Farm's use of projected sales price and
         the Ad Age Adjustment and its intentional failure to
         fully itemize and explain the valuation of Loss
         Vehicles represents a breach of the covenant of good
         faith and fair dealing implied in its automobile
         policies;

     (g) whether State Farm's use of projected sales prices and
         the Ad Age Adjustment actually and proximately caused
         damage to plaintiff and the class;

     (h) whether and in what amount State Farm's use of
         projected sales prices and the Ad Age Adjustments
         resulted in unjust enrichment to State Farm's use of
         projected sales prices and the Ad Age Adjustment
         resulted in unjust enrichment to State Farm at the
         expense of plaintiff and the class;;

     (i) whether and in what amount State Farm is liable to
         plaintiff and the the class for actual damages and the
         amount of such damages;

     (j) whether State Farm is liable to plaintiff and the class
         for punitive damages and the amount of such damages.

The plaintiff asks the court:

     -- for certification of the lawsuit as a class action;

     -- for restitution to plaintiff and the class of the
        aggregate Claim Amount described in the complaint for
        plaintiff and each member of the class;

     -- for exemplary and punitive damages;

     -- for an order enjoining State Farm, its agents, servants
        and employees, and those acting in concert with them:

        (1) from paying total loss claims based on the use of
            any value for Comparable Vehicles other than the
            asking or actual sales price of such vehicles in the
            local market area within 90 days of the settlement
            offer; and

        (2) to explain fully and fairly to its insured the
            methods by which the calculation complies with the
            Total Loss Regulation; and

     -- for reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit.

The suit is "Arnesha M. Garner et al. v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., et al.," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David M. Birka, Esq.
          Stephen Oroza, Esq.
          Thomas D. Hicks, Esq.
          Birka-White Law Offices
          744 Montgomery Street, Fourth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 616-9999
          Fax: (415) 616-9494

               - and -

          Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
          Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
          Berding & Weil, LLP
          3240 Stone Valley Road West
          Alamo, California 94507
          Phone: (925) 838-2090
          Fax: (925) 820-5592


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Dismissal of Ga. Antitrust Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Jacobs et al v. Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc., Case No. 4:2007cv00002," are appealing the
dismissal of their case by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, according to Tempur-Pedic's
Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 13, 2008.

The suit was filed on Jan. 5, 2007, and alleges violations of
federal antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic
mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain
distributors.  

The action alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-Pedic
mattresses in the U.S. since Jan. 5, 2003, and seeks damages and
injunctive relief.  

Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on
June 25, 2007, based on a motion filed by the Company.  

Following a decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Leegin
Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc." on June 28, 2007,
the company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts
of the antitrust suit on July 10, 2007.  

On Dec. 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result,
judgment was entered in favor of the Company and the plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed with prejudice.  

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment," which has been fully briefed.  

The suit is "Jacobs et al v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
Case Number: 4:2007cv00002," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Robert L. Vining,
Jr. presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Phillip D. Bartz, Esq. (pbartz@mckennalong.com)
          McKenna Long & Aldridge
          1900 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-496-7500

               - and -

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

Representing the defendants are:

          Jesse Anderson Davis, Esq. (adavis@brinson-askew.com)
          Brinson Askew Berry Siegler Richardson & Davis
          P.O. Box 5513
          615 West First Street
          Omberg House
          Rome, GA 30162-5513
          Phone: 706-291-8853

                - and -

          William N. Berkowitz, Esq.
          (bill.berkowitz@bingham.com)
          Bingham McCutchen, LLP
          150 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-951-8375


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Ky. Court Mulls Bid to Junk Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has
yet to rule on Tempur-Pedic International Inc.'s motion seeking
for the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against it.

Between Oct. 7 and Nov. 21, 2005, five complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its directors and officers
purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased
the company's stock between April 22, 2005, and Sept. 19, 2005.

These actions were consolidated and lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on Feb. 27, 2006, and asserted claims
arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The lead plaintiffs allege that certain of the company's public
disclosures regarding its financial performance between
April 22 and Sept. 19, 2005 were false and misleading.

On Dec. 7, 2006, the lead plaintiffs were permitted to file an
amended complaint.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
costs, fees and other relief within the court's discretion.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 13, 2008.

The suit is "Grillo, et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00410-JMH," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Joseph
M. Hood.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michelle M. Ciccarelli, Esq. (michelec@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-213-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Peter E. Seidman, Esq. (pseidman@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, & Schulman, L.L.P.
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-613-5625
          Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael D. Blanchard, Esq.
          (michael.blanchard@bingham.com)
          Bingham McCutchen, LLP
          One State Street
          Hartford, CT 06103-3178
          Phone: 860-240-2700
          Fax: 860-240-2800

               - and -

          Barry D. Hunter, Esq. (bhunter@fbtlaw.com)
          Frost Brown Todd, LLC
          250 W. Main Street, 2700 Lexington, Financial Center
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: 859-231-0000
          Fax: 859-231-0011


TITLE INSURANCE COS: Accused of Rates Fixing in Mass. Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action antitrust claim filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts accuses Chicago Title
Insurance Co. of conspiring with other title companies to fix
rates in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Virginia, West Virginia
and the District of Columbia, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Also named in the complaint are:

     -- Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company;
     -- Fidelity National Finance, Inc.;
     -- Fidelity National Title Insurance Company;
     -- First American Title Insurance Company;
     -- LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.
     -- Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation;
     -- Stewart Information Services Corporation;
     -- Stewart Title Insurance Company;
     -- The first American Corporation;
     -- Ticor Title Insurance Company; and
     -- United General Title Insurance Company.

Named plaintiff Lucien Gougeon alleges that the Defendants
engaged in unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive practices,
pursuant to which the Defendants set the rates that consumers
pay for title insurance in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Virginia, West
Virginia and the District of Columbia.

The defendants have collectively fixed, manipulated and
maintained their title insurance rates at supracompetitive
levels.  The rates charged by Defendants for an average home or
property purchaser are in the thousands of dollars and bear no
reasonable relationship to the cost or expense of providing the
insurance.  The rates charged chiefly cover kickbacks and other
costs unrelated to the issuance of title insurance and are so
disproportionate to the insurance provided as to be unfair and
unconscionable.  Moreover, the rates have been imposed upon
consumers who lack the knowledge and opportunity to challenge
them.

The plaintiff brings this action under Section 16 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 26, to prevent and restrain violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, and for
damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C, Section 15
on behalf of all members of the following state subclasses:

         ALABAMA: All persons residing in Alabama who purchased
                  title insurance in Alabama from one or more of
                  the Defendants during the Class Period;

        ARKANSAS: All persons residing in Arkansas who
                  purchased title insurance in Arkansas from one
                  or more of the Defendants during the Class
                  Period;

         GEORGIA: All persons residing in Georgia who purchased
                  title insurance in Georgia from one or more of
                  the Defendants during the Class Period;

        ILLINOIS: All persons residing in Illinois who
                  purchased title insurance in Illinois from one
                  or more of the Defendants during the Class
                  Period;

         INDIANA: All persons residing in Indiana who purchased
                  title insurance in Indiana from one or more of
                  the Defendants during the Class Period;

   MASSACHUSETTS: All persons residing in Massachusetts
                  who purchased title insurance in Massachusetts
                  from one or more of the Defendants during the
                  Class Period;

     MISSISSIPPI: All persons residing in Mississippi who
                  purchased title insurance in Mississippi from
                  one or more of the Defendants during the Class
                  Period;

        OKLAHOMA: All persons residing in Oklahoma who
                  purchased title insurance in Oklahoma from one
                  or more of the Defendants during the Class
                  Period;

        VIRGINIA: All persons residing in Virginia who
                  purchased title insurance in Virginia from one
                  or more of the Defendants during the Class
                  Period;

   WEST VIRGINIA: All persons residing in West Virginia
                  who purchased title insurance in West Virginia
                  from one or more of the Defendants during the
                  Class Period; and

            D.C.: All persons residing in the
                  District of Columbia who purchased title
                  insurance in the District of Columbia from one
                  or more of the Defendants during the Class
                  Period.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (1) Whether defendants have engaged in the alleged illegal
         price-fixing activity;

     (2) The duration and scope of the defendants' alleged
         illegal price-fixing activity;

     (3) Whether the defendants' alleged illegal price-fixing
         has caused higher prices to Plaintiff and other
         purchasers of title insurance in Massachusetts and
         other Class Jurisdictions;

     (4) The extent to which the defendants' unlawful activities
         artificially inflated title insurance rates;

     (5) Whether the defendants' devised its pricing models and
         schemes to receive grossly artificially inflated
         price(s) for their title insurance;

     (6) Whether the defendants' title insurance was so grossly
         overpriced that such pricing practices constitute
         unfair sales practices in violation of consumer
         protection laws;

     (7) Whether the defendants' practices of providing
         kickbacks to law firms and real estate brokers for
         steering business to them was unfair and deceptive; and

     (8) Whether the title insurance carried gross profit
         margins that did not bear any reasonable relationship
         to the protection provided to consumers.

The plaintiff and the class request the following relief:

     -- That the Court declare, adjudge, and decree that
        defendants have committed the violations of federal law
        alleged herein;

     -- That the defendants, their directors, officers,
        employees, agents, successors, and assigns be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner,
        directly or indirectly, unlawfully fixing or maintaining
        their title insurance rates at supracompetitive levels,
        and committing any other violations of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act, and/or of other statutes having a similar
        purpose and effect;

     -- That the Court award damages sustained by Class members
        from the defendants' violations of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act in an amount to be proven at trial, to be
        trebled according to law, plus interest (including
        prejudgment interest), to compensate them for the
        overcharges they incurred;

     -- That the Court award the Class members actual damages in
        an amount to be proved at trial as a result of the
        wrongful conduct alleged, plus interest and costs;
        treble damages; and all other damages available under
        the laws of the Class Jurisdictions;

     -- That the Court award the Class attorneys' fees and costs
        of suit, and grant such other and further relief as the
        court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Lucien Gougeon et al. v. Chicago Title Insurance
Company et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
          Daniel D'Angelo, Esq.
          Gilman and Pastor, LLP
          225 Franklin Street, 16th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617.742.9700
          Fax: 617.742.9701
  
               - and -

          Peter A. Lagorio, Esq.
          Law Office of Peter A. Lagorio
          63 Atlantic Avenue
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-367-4200
          Fax: 617-227-3384


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN DENTAL: Cohen Milstein Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of its client and on behalf
of other similarly situated purchasers of American Dental
Partners, Inc., securities between August 10, 2005, through
December 13, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges ADPI and three of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It is alleged that defendants
omitted or misrepresented material adverse facts about the
Company's financial condition, business prospects, and revenue
expectations during the Class Period.

ADPI claims to be a leading provider of business services to
multidisciplinary dental group practices in selected markets
throughout the United States.  As of December 31, 2006, ADPI was
affiliated with 22 dental group practices, comprising 470 full-
time equivalent dentists practicing in 209 dental facilities in
18 states and its securities were actively traded on the NASDAQ.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants issued numerous materially false and misleading
statements which caused ADPI's securities to trade at
artificially inflated prices.  More specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company engaged in unlawful conduct towards
         Park Dental Group;

     (2) that as a result of this conduct, the Company booked a
         large portion of earnings and revenue which materially
         inflated its financial figures;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

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

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

Beginning on January 1, 1999, ADPI's subsidiary, PDHC, Ltd.,
entered into a Service Agreement with PDG.  The Service
Agreement was amended January 1, 2001, and again on August 10,
2005.  According to the Company's financial statements, the
relationship with PDG accounted for approximately 30% of its
consolidated net revenues between 2004 and 2006.  No other
customer of ADPI accounted for more than 10% of the Company's
consolidated net revenue.

The complaint alleges that on December 12, 2007, investors were
shocked to learn that a judgment had been awarded in favor of
PDG, against PDHC and ADPI.  As the complaint describes, the
jury in the case awarded PDG more than $88,290,000 in damages,
broken down as follows: $9,413,397 in compensatory damages for
breach of the Service Agreement; $11,500,000 for breach of
implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing; $200,000 for
breach of fiduciary duty; $67,000,000 for tortious interference
with contract or prospective advantage; and $177,250 for
defamation.

The complaint alleges that upon the release of this news, the
Company's shares declined $5.36 per share, or 27.21 percent, to
close on December 12, 2007 at $14.34 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

The complaint further alleges that the following day, as the
public continued to learn of the December 12, 2007 judgment
against ADPI, investors were shocked to learn that due to ADPI's
alleged conduct and actions, the jury had also awarded PDG
$42,250,000 in punitive damages.  On this news, the Company's
shares declined $9.72 per share, or 67.78 percent, to close on
December 13, 2007 at $4.62 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Laura Armstrong, Esq. (larmstrong@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600


CAMTEK LTD: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Camtek Ltd. between Nov. 22,
2005, and Dec. 20, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its executive officers, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 9, 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
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


DARDEN RESTURANTS: Coughlin Stoia Files FL Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of Darden
Restaurants Inc. common stock during the period between June 19,
2007, and December 18, 2007.

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

Darden, through its subsidiaries, engages in the ownership and
operation of casual dining restaurants in the United States and
Canada.  The Company operates restaurants under the names Red
Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones, and Seasons
52.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that
misrepresented and failed to disclose:

     (a) that the Company's core restaurants, such as Olive
         Garden, Red Lobster and LongHorn, were underperforming
         and same-store sales were experiencing negative trends;

     (b) that the Company was experiencing rising food costs
         which were above internal expectations; and

     (c) that, as a result of the forgoing, the defendants had
         no reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company's prospects and guidance for fiscal 2008.

On December 18, 2007, Darden announced its financial results for
the fiscal second quarter of 2008, the period ended November 25,
2007.  For the quarter, the Company reported net earnings from
continuing operations of $44.1 million, or $0.30 per diluted
share, and sales of $1.52 billion.  Moreover, the Company
dramatically reduced its diluted net earnings per share growth
for fiscal 2008 from 10-12% to 7-9%.  Upon this news, shares of
the Company's stock fell $7.68 per share, or over 21%, to close
at $28.39 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Darden common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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


FORCE PROTECTION: Bronstein Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, announced that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock Force Protection, Inc.

The class consists of purchasers of the Force Protection common
stock for the period August 14, 2006, through and including
February 29, 2008.

The complaint alleges that during the class period mentioned
above, Force Protection and certain individual defendants Frank
Kavanaugh, Gordon R. McGilton, Michael Moody, Michael S. Durski
and Raymond W. Pollard violated the federal securities laws by
issuing false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business, financial results and prospects.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Force Protection
stock traded at artificially inflated prices reaching as high as
$30.27 on May 30th, 2007.  Prior to and during the class period,
Force Protection continually boasted its dominance in the Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected market was due to its superior
product design and its ability to meet deadlines.

In a report dated June 27th, 2007, the Inspector General of the
US Department of Defense, Force Protection's primary customer,
questioned both of these claims and criticized the awarding of
contracts on a sole source basis without competitive bidding.

The report noted that there were other U.S. companies that could
have competed with Force Protection on both product capability
and faster delivery schedules.  On February 29th, 2008, after
the market closed, Force Protection issued a press release,
which stated it would have to delay the release of its 2007 form
10-K and restate its form 10-Q for the period ended Sept. 30,
2007.  As a result of this news, Force Protection shares dropped
to close at $3.58 on March 3rd, 2008, a 13% decline from its
February 29th, 2008 stock value.  Shares of Force Protection
have declined over 85% during this class period.

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

For more information, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-697-6484
          Web site: http://www.bgandg.com


FORCE PROTECTION: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Force Protection, Inc., between Aug. 14,
2006, and Feb. 29, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          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

FORCE PROTECTION: Dreier Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP announced that a class action lawsuit was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on
behalf of investors who purchased Force Protection, Inc. common
stock during the period from Aug. 14, 2006, through Feb. 29,
2008, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Force Protection and certain of the
Company's officers and directors (collectively, the Defendants)
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Force Protection and its subsidiaries engage in the manufacture
of ballistic and blast protected vehicles.  The Company's
products are used to protect personnel during transport, removal
of unexploded ordnance, route clearance, humanitarian de-mining,
and other missions that require protection from landmines and
hostile fire.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors by making materially false and misleading
statements concerning Force Protection's business, financial
results and prospects.  Among other things, the Complaint
alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that:

     (i) Force Protection's dominance in the Mine Resistant
         Ambush Protected market was not a result of
         superior product design and rapid delivery rates, as
         the Company boasted, but was due to a lack of
         competitive bidding;

    (ii) due to Force Protection's continuing failure to meet
         contractual delivery deadlines, the Company's
         competitiveness in the market for MRAPs was diminished;

   (iii) Force Protection's ability to compete for government
         contracts was threatened by audit reports issued by the
         Defense Contract Audit Agency, which had been critical
         of the Company's finances and financial accounting
         system; and

    (iv) Force Protection falsely reported at least its third
         quarter 2007 financial results.

As a result of Defendants' misleading statements, Force
Protection common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period.

On February 29, 2008, after the market closed, the Company
announced it would have to delay the release of its 2007 Form
10-K and restate its Form 10- Q for the period ended Sept. 30,
2007.  As a direct and proximate result of this news, on March 3
the price of Force Protection stock declined $0.53 per share to
close at $3.58 per share, a one day decline of 13%, on extremely
high trading volume.

Dreier LLP on the net: http://www.dreierllp.com


FORCE PROTECTION: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in SC Commenced
----------------------------------------------------------
On March 7, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina against
Force Protection, Inc.

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 Aug. 14, 2006, through Feb. 29, 2008.

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

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

For more information, contact:

          K. Lynn Nunn, Esq. (kln@federmanlaw.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


FORCE PROTECTION: 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 District of South Carolina on behalf of
all persons who purchased the common stock of Force Protection,
Inc. between Aug. 14, 2006, and Feb. 29, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Force Protection and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, financial results and prospects.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 9, 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


MF GLOBAL: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of MF Global, Ltd. in its Initial
Public Offering on July 19, 2007, or in the open market from
July 19, 2007, through February 28, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by including, or allowing the inclusion
of, materially false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 6, 2008
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          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


MICHAEL BAKER: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., filed a lawsuit with  
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania seeking class action status on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Michael Baker
Corporation between March 19, 2007, and February 22, 2008,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges that MBC and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements inflating reported revenue
from the Company's energy business segment.

After the close of the market on February 22, 2008, the Company
announced that it would be filing a restatement of its first,
second and third quarter 2007 financial statements to correct
errors in MBC's revenue recognition practices in the energy
business segment.  The Company's February 22, 2008 disclosure
revealed, inter alia, that the amount of the restatement might
exceed the total earnings reported for the energy business
segment for the first nine months of the 2007 fiscal year -- the
business segment that accounted for almost 70 percent of the
Company's total earnings for that period. Furthermore, the
February 22, 2008, announcement disclosed that the Company was
still evaluating whether it would need to restate earnings for
fiscal year 2006 financial statements.

Following the issuance of the Company's February 22, 2008 press
release, the price of the Company's common stock dropped from a
closing price of $36.10 on February 22, 2008, to a closing price
of $27.57 at the end of the next trading day.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 12,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, 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


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated publicly traded securities during the period
between June 12, 2007, and November 2, 2007.

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

Vertex is a pharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery,
development and commercialization of small molecule drugs for
the treatment of serious diseases.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements about the development of
Vertex's HCV protease inhibitor, telaprevir or VX-950, for the
treatment of hepatitis C.  Specifically, defendants made
favorable statements regarding VX-950 but failed to disclose
unfavorable data from a trial of the drug called PROVE 2.  When
the truth was disclosed on November 2, 2007, Vertex's stock
price dropped from $31.64 to $24.08 in two trading days.

According to the complaint, defendants' statements regarding VX-
950 and the PROVE 2 trial were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose unfavorable data regarding VX-
950 from the PROVE 2 trial compared to PROVE 1.  Specifically,
PROVE 1 showed that patients taking VX-950 experienced 16%
greater total viral reduction after twelve weeks compared to the
control group.  The results of PROVE 2, which defendants did not
disclose during the Class Period, showed an advantage over the
control group of only six percent.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Vertex publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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




                           *********


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  * * *