CAR_Public/080318.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, March 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 55
  
                            Headlines

ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Cal. Securities Suit Over MoisturePlus
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Several Suits Over MoisturePlus Recall
ANNUITY & LIFE: KPMG Bermuda Settles Securities Suit for $10.5MM
ARAMARK UNIFORM: Faces Racism Lawsuit in California
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Still Faces Suits Over Sale to Ventas Realty

DISH NETWORK: Seeks Dismissal of "Brantley" Antitrust Lawsuit
DISH NETWORK: August 2008 Trial Scheduled for Retailers' Lawsuit
FOREMOST INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Want Firm's Lawyer Disqualified
GARFIELD COUNTY: Judge Gives ACLU's Jail Abuse Lawsuit Go-Ahead
HANSEN NATURAL: Calif. Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

HERSHEY ENTERTAINMENT: Customers Get Some Perks as Settlement
HIRAM ZAYAS: Sued Over Ownership of New Mexico "Halfway House"
KEMIRA CHEMICALS: May 13 Hearing Set for $5M Antitrust Agreement
KRATOS DEFENSE: Settles Consolidated Securities Lawsuits in CA
MARK RUE, ESQ: Faces Allegations of Over-billing Clients

MARSULEX INC: May 15 Hearing Set for $1.125M Antitrust Agreement
MEDQUIST INC: Enters Settlement Term Sheet for AAMT Billing Suit
MERRIL LYNCH: April 30 Hearing Set for $1.5M Pa. Suit Settlement
MICHAEL BAKER: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 12
MORGAN KEEGAN: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set April 7

MUNICIPAL DERIVATIVES INDUSTRY: Sued in DC Over Price-Fixing
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Reach Settlement in N.Y. Litigation
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over "Obsolete" Blu-ray Disc Player
TELIK INC: Reaches Settlement in N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Prius' MPG

UTSTARCOM INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Securities Suit
UTSTARCOM INC: Faces Purported Shareholder Litigation in Calif.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Schatz Announces FL Securities Suit Filing
ENERNOC INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
GUNN ALLEN: J. Thompson Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MI
SOCIETE GENERALE: Coughlin Stoia Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Federman Calls on Investors to Join Suit

SWISS REINSURANCE: Spector Announces NY Securities Suit Filing



                           *********


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Cal. Securities Suit Over MoisturePlus
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Medical Optics, Inc., faces purported securities fraud
class actions with the U.S. District Court of the Central
District of California.

On Aug. 24, 2007, and Sept. 13, 2007, two purported class-action
complaints were filed by Scott Kairalla and Barry Galison,
respectively, with the U.S. District Court of the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities between Jan. 4, and May 25, 2007.  

The Galison case was dismissed without prejudice on Nov. 20,
2007.  An amended consolidated complaint was filed on Jan. 18,
2008.

The consolidated complaint alleges claims under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the company, and certain
of its officers and directors.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the company made
material misrepresentations concerning its Complete MoisturePlus
product, according to the company's March 3, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. -- http://www.amo-inc.com/site/--   
is engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of
medical devices for the eye.  


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Several Suits Over MoisturePlus Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Medical Optics, Inc., faces several purported class
actions in relation to the May 25, 2007 recall of Complete
MoisturePlus Multi-Purpose Solution.  

There are currently four Canadian personal injury matters
pending against the company.  They are seeking class-action
status.

In addition to personal injury suits, three U.S. and four
Canadian matters have been filed as purported class actions by
uninjured consumers seeking reimbursement for discarded product
pursuant to various consumer protection statutes.

These cases involve complex medical and scientific issues
relating to both liability and damages and are currently at a
very early stage.  

Moreover, most of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
according to the company's March 3, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. -- http://www.amo-inc.com/site/--   
is engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of
medical devices for the eye.  


ANNUITY & LIFE: KPMG Bermuda Settles Securities Suit for $10.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
KPMG Bermuda -- remaining defendant in the class action
"Schnall, et al. v. Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd., et
al., Civil Action No. 02 CV 2133 (EBB)," filed with the  United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut --   
settled the suit for $10.5 million.

On and since December 4, 2002, certain of Annuity and Life's
shareholders, seeking to act as class representatives, filed
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its present and
former officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut seeking unspecified
monetary damages.  

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated certain
provisions of the United States securities laws by making
various alleged material misstatements and omissions in public
filings and press releases.   

The plaintiffs filed a single consolidated amended complaint in  
July 2003, adding as defendants XL Capital Ltd and two  
additional directors.  

On October 1, 2003, the Company answered the amended and
consolidated complaint and denied liability on the claims the
plaintiffs had asserted.  

In January 2004, the court ordered that a related action that
the plaintiffs filed against the KPMG LLP (United States) and
KPMG in Bermuda be consolidated with the action against the
Company.  

In February 2004, the court denied certain individual
defendants' motions to dismiss the action.  

In March 2004, the court denied motions to dismiss filed by
certain other individual defendants and XL Capital Ltd.  Also in
March 2004, KPMG LLP (United States) and KPMG in Bermuda filed
motions to dismiss the action.

On July 20, 2004, the Company announced that it had reached an  
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs, subject to full  
documentation by the parties to the settlement, notice to the  
class, court approval and other steps required to consummate a  
class action settlement, to settle the lawsuit.  

In August 2004, the parties to the settlement executed and filed
a Stipulation setting forth their settlement agreement, and
sought court approval.  The parties to the settlement are the
plaintiffs and the class (which consists, subject to certain
exclusions, of persons who purchased the Company's common shares
between March 15, 2000, and November 19, 2002), its company, all
individual defendants and XL Capital Ltd.  The settlement is
without any admission of liability or wrongdoing.   

The Company, along with its directors and officers' liability  
carrier and XL Capital Ltd, agreed to pay an aggregate of $16.5  
million.  Its share of the settlement was $2.5 million in cash,  
which the Company paid into escrow in August 2004, and an  
additional $2.5 million to be paid in cash or in common shares  
(subject to a cap of 19.9% of the Company's outstanding shares)  
at the Company's election.

On January 10, 2005, the Company elected to pay the remaining
$2.5 million in cash, which it paid into escrow on that date.

In October 2004, the court ordered that notice of the settlement  
be given to class members, set deadlines for class members to  
exclude themselves from the class or file objections to the  
settlement, and scheduled a Settlement Fairness Hearing for  
January 2005.  

Following the Settlement Fairness Hearing, the District Court
entered an order and final judgment approving the settlement in
January 2005 (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2005).

The suit is filed on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Annuity and
Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. during the period between March 15,
2000 and November 19, 2002, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.

This KPMG Settlement is in addition to a prior $16.5 million
settlement with ANR, XL Capital, Ltd. and certain of ANR's
officers and directors, which was approved by the Court on
January 21, 2005.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut will
hold a fairness hearing  at 10:00 a.m. on June 5, 2008.

Deadline to file for exclusions is on May 6, 2008.  Deadline to
file for objections is on May 7, 2008.  Deadline to file claims
is on July 7, 2008.

The suit is "Schnall, et al. v. Annuity and Life Re (Holdings),
Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 02 CV 2133 (EBB)," filed with the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

For more information, contact:

          Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. Securities
          Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          Claims Administrator
          Post Office Box 9254
          Dublin, OH 43017-4654
          Phone: (800) 298-3208
          Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com

The plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel are:

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          Scott + Scott LLP
          108 Norwich Avenue
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537

               - and -

          Barry A. Weprin, Esq.
          Milberg Weiss LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300


ARAMARK UNIFORM: Faces Racism Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------
Aramark Uniform and Career Apparel, Inc., a uniform-rental
company, is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California alleging
that the company forces employees to work off the clock and
during lunch breaks, fires them if they file for workers'
compensation or if they get old, and condones racist behavior,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

One named plaintiff says Aramark bosses turned a blind eye after
white co-workers urinated on uniforms he was supposed to
deliver, and did not discipline the white men even though one
let a note in the plaintiff's locker stating, "We will get you
fired spook."

The plaintiffs also allege that the wage violations at issue
arose out of a policy and practice of the defendant applicable
to other similarly situated workers.

Pursuant to 29 USC Section 216(b), the plaintiffs seek to
prosecute their Fair Labor Standards Act claims, as a collective
action on behalf of all present and former truck drivers at
ARAMARK located in the United States who were employed as truck
drivers and piece-rate-incentive workers, who worked more than
40 hours in a week without receiving overtime pay at any time
between 2004 and the present.

The plaintiffs request:

     -- that the case be maintained as a collective action and
        that collective action opt-in procedures be adopted;

     -- judgment in an amount that may be determined at
        trial for overtime compensation under the FLSA;

     -- an award of their liquidated damages in the
        amount double their actual damages;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against
        defendants and its directors, officers, owners, agents,
        successors, employees and representatives, and any and
        all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging
        in each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs and
        usages;

     -- an award of interest for unpaid overtime wages;

     -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of
        by individual plaintiffs are unlawful and violate 42 USC
        Section 1981;

     -- an adjustment of plaintiffs and the class to the job he
        would now be occupying but for defendant's
        discriminatory practices;

     -- an adjustment of the wage rates and benefits for
        plaintiffs and to that level which plaintiffs and the
        putative collective action class members would be
        enjoying but for defendant's discriminatory practices;

     -- an award of their reasonable attorney's fees; and

     -- an award for reasonable costs and disbursements
        incurred.

The suit is "Terrence Clark et al. v. ARAMARK Uniform and Career
Apparel, Inc., Case No. CV07-07740 SJO," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Arthur G. Lesmez, Esq.
          Bernard Ware, Esq.
          The Law Offices of Arthur G. Lesmez
          A Professional Corporation
          1717 Fourth Street, Third Floor
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Phone: (310) 576-6000
          Fax: (310) 395-3884

   
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Still Faces Suits Over Sale to Ventas Realty
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., continues to face two purported
class actions in New York and Delaware arising out of the sale
of certain facilities of the company to Ventas Realty Limited
Partnership in 2004.

The first action was, "David T. Atkins et al. v. Apollo Real
Estate Advisors, L.P., et al.," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 15, 2005, by
current and former limited partners in 36 investing
partnerships.

On March 17, 2006, a third amended complaint was filed in the
action.  The third amended complaint was brought on behalf of
current and former limited partners in 14 investing
partnerships.

It names as defendants, among others, the company; Brookdale
Living Communities, Inc., a subsidiary of the company; GFB-AS
Investors, LLC, a subsidiary of BLC; the general partners of the
14 investing partnerships, which are alleged to be subsidiaries
of GFB-AS; Fortress Investment Group, an affiliate of the
company's largest stockholder; and R. Stanley Young, its former
chief financial officer.

The nine count third amended complaint alleges, among other
things:

      -- that the defendants converted for their own use the
         property of the limited partners of 11 partnerships,
         including through the failure to obtain consents the
         plaintiffs contend were required for the sale of
         facilities indirectly owned by those partnerships to
         Ventas;

      -- that the defendants fraudulently persuaded the limited
         partners of three partnerships to give up a valuable
         property right based upon incomplete, false and
         misleading statements in connection with certain
         consent solicitations;

      -- that certain defendants, including GFB-AS, the general
         partners, and our former Chief Financial Officer, but
         not including the Company, BLC, or Fortress, committed
         mail fraud in connection with the sale of facilities
         indirectly owned by the 14 partnerships at issue in the
         Action to Ventas;

      -- that certain defendants, including GFB-AS and its
         former Chief Financial Officer, but not including the
         Company, BLC, the general partners, or Fortress,
         committed wire fraud in connection with certain
         communications with plaintiffs in the Action and
         another investor in a limited partnership;

      -- that the defendants, with the exception of the Company,
         committed substantive violations of the Racketeer
         Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act;

      -- that the defendants conspired to violate RICO;

      -- that GFB-AS and the general partners violated the
         partnership agreements of the 14 investing
         partnerships;

      -- that GFB-AS, the general partners, and the company’s
         former Chief Financial Officer breached fiduciary
         duties to the plaintiffs; and

      -- that the defendants were unjustly enriched.

The plaintiffs have asked for damages in excess of $100.0
million on each of the counts described above, including treble
damages for the RICO claims.

On April 18, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
claims with prejudice, which remains pending before the court,
and plan to continue to vigorously defend the Action.

A putative class action was also filed on March 22, 2006, by
certain limited partners in four of the same partnerships
involved in the Action.  The suit was filed in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware as "Edith Zimmerman et al. v.
GFB-AS Investors, LLC and Brookdale Living Communities, Inc."

On Nov. 21, 2006, an amended complaint was filed in the Second
Action.  The putative class in the Second Action consists only
of those limited partners in the four investing partnerships who
are not plaintiffs in the Action.  BLC and GFB-AS were named as
defendants in the Second Action.  

The complaint alleges a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
arising out of the sale of facilities indirectly owned by the
investing partnerships to Ventas and the subsequent lease of
those facilities by Ventas to subsidiaries of BLC.

The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an accounting, damages
in an unspecified amount, and disgorgement of unspecified
amounts by which the defendants were allegedly unjustly
enriched.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the company filed an answer denying the claim
asserted in the amended complaint and providing affirmative
defenses.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs moved to certify the Action as
a class action.  Both the plaintiffs and defendants have served
document production requests and the first action is currently
in the beginning stages of document discovery.  The company also
intends to vigorously defend the Second Action.

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.

Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. -- http://www.brookdaleliving.com/
-- is an operator of senior living facilities in the U.S. with
546 facilities in 35 states and the ability to serve over 51,000
residents.  The company offers its residents access to a full
continuum of services across all sectors of the senior living
industry.  BSL operates in four segments: independent living,
assisted living, retirement centers/continuing care retirement
communities and management services.  


DISH NETWORK: Seeks Dismissal of "Brantley" Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of the purported
class action titled "Rob Brantley et al v. NBC Universal, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:2007cv06101."

On Sept. 21, 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite
subscribers filed the antitrust action against the company with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  

The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision,
Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC
Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney Co.  

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to
bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the
ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss, which the court has not
yet ruled upon, according to the company's March 3, 2008 form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Rob Brantley et al v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
          Blecher & Collins
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-622-4222

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk and Wardwell
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-752-2005

          John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com)
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513
          Phone: 213-243-4000

               - and -

          Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6321


DISH NETWORK: August 2008 Trial Scheduled for Retailers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An August 2008 trial is scheduled for a class action lawsuit
filed in California against DISH Network Corp. by certain of its
retailers.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state
and federal court attempting to certify nationwide classes on
behalf of certain of the company's retailers.  The plaintiffs
are requesting the courts declare certain provisions of, and
changes to, alleged agreements between the company and the
retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for
lost incentives and payments, charge backs, and other
compensation.  

The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of
the state court action.  

The company filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts
and against all plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond
to the motion.  

The court granted limited discovery which ended in 2004.  The
plaintiffs, however, claimed that the company did not provide
adequate disclosure during the discovery process.  

The court agreed, and recently denied the company's motion for
summary judgment as a result.  The final impact of the court's
ruling cannot be fully assessed at this time.  

Trial has been set for August 2008, according to the company's
March 3, 2008 form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

DISH Network Corp. -- http://www.dishnetwork.com-- is a  
provider of satellite delivered digital television to customers
across the United States.  DISH Network services include
hundreds of video, audio and data channels, interactive
television channels, digital video recording, high definition
television, international programming, professional installation
and around the clock customer service.  


FOREMOST INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Want Firm's Lawyer Disqualified
--------------------------------------------------------------
After almost four years of litigation in the Circuit Court of
Miller County, Ark., the plaintiffs' attorneys are attempting to
remove opposing attorney Richard Griffin, Esq., and his law firm
Jackson Walker LLP from representing Foremost Insurance Company,
Southeast Texas Record reports.

The motion, filed on Feb. 25, 2008, argues that Mr. Griffin's
disqualification is necessary because the attorney acted as both
an advocate and a witness, alleging violation of Arkansas Rules
of Professional Conduct 3.7.

The report explains that the rule states that a lawyer shall not
act as an advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to
be a necessary witness.  The rule includes three exceptions:

     i. if the testimony is regarding an uncontested issue;

    ii. if the testimony relates to the nature and value of
        legal services; and

   iii. if the disqualification would cause substantial
        hardship.

Texas Record recounts that the lawsuit, filed on Sept. 8, 2004,
involves allegations that insurance companies did not disclose
or pay the general contractors' overhead and profit after a loss
or damage to an insured's property.

Although the insurance companies paid the claims of those
insured, the plaintiffs' attorneys believe that their clients
are entitled to more money.

A heated dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant Foremost
began in 2006 over discovery responses and requests for
production.  Originally, the plaintiffs included Foremost in an
agreement with other insurance companies seeking only a
statistical sampling of claim files.  Foremost objected to the
requests, citing compliance with federal privacy regulations to
guard those who have not agreed to join the ongoing litigation.

The plaintiffs' attorneys declared the defendant's efforts as
"lame" and retracted the previous agreement, changing the
request for Foremost to produce all of its claim files from
1996.  Responding in objections to the full requests, Foremost
described that to produce the over 600,000 individual claim
files (with an average of 47 pages per file); it could incur
costs of over $45 million, which included thousands of attorney
hours to remove confidential information.

Foremost argues that the "plaintiffs are attempting to
manipulate the judicial process in order to gain an unfair
advantage over Foremost by forcing Foremost to spend millions of
dollars to collect and produce documents with the aim of forcing
early settlement."

In mid-July 2007, Judge Kirk Johnson ordered Foremost to produce
"unredacted claims files pursuant to discovery requests," within
10 days.  Foremost called the order "outrageous discovery abuse"
and filed a motion for reconsidered along with a request for
extension of time.  In late August, Foremost offered to make its
claim files available by remote server so plaintiffs' counsel
could select a sampling of 2,000.  The plaintiffs, however,
denied this offer.  

In mid-September 2007, Foremost sent the plaintiffs' attorney a
CD with the same type of data that other defendants had
provided.  The plaintiffs sent the unopened CD package back.  
Foremost also filed a notice of appeal to the Arkansas Supreme
Court regarding the court's order that denied Foremost's motion
for protective order.  Shortly after the notice of appeal,
Foremost filed a Motion to Stay pending a ruling by the Arkansas
Supreme Court in the GM Class action.

Within the stay motion, Foremost wrote that the higher court is
expected to rule on whether a nationwide class action under the
laws of all 51 jurisdictions can or should be certified.  Even
if the higher court does not rule in the GM class action,
Foremost seeks a stay of the litigation until the circuit court
rules on a motion for reconsideration regarding the discovery
order or other pending counterclaims and motions.

In a letter filed in December 2007, Judge Johnson ordered
Foremost to provide a list of all its' claim files, allowing the
plaintiff to select a sampling.  Within answers to discovery
responses, Mr. Griffin submitted an affidavit relating to the
potential attorney expense.  Within the affidavit at issue, Mr.
Griffin states that after he reviewed the affidavit of
Foremost's claims system business manager relating to the amount
of claim files, Mr. Griffin estimates that there is a necessary
attorney review of the files for protected information and will
require 235,833 hours of attorney time, at an expense occurring
at $180 per hour.

Within the motion for disqualification, the plaintiffs argue
taht Mr. Griffin's affidavit does not meet any of the exceptions
to the Arkansas rules.  Specifically, the plaintiffs argue the
issue of the cost and burden of producing the claim file is
contested, the affidavit does not relate solely to the nature or
value of legal services but relates to the truthfulness of the
claim's managers affidavit, discusses the process for reviewing
claim files, testifies to the amount of money required to
produce the files and argues that the disqualification will not
create a substantial hardship.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs state that Mr. Griffin and his law
firm are the only material witnesses able to testify as to
whether or not Foremost destroyed certain claims files (from
1996 and 1997), after plaintiffs requested production of them.
The plaintiffs also believe that the attorney's testimony is the
only means for the court to determine the possible sanctions
against Foremost.

The motion for disqualification comes less than a week after
Foremost responded to a circuit court order and produced 2,100
claim files to the plaintiffs.  A list of the claim files
provided by Foremost Insurance Company is filed under seal with
the circuit court.


GARFIELD COUNTY: Judge Gives ACLU's Jail Abuse Lawsuit Go-Ahead
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new federal judge presiding over the American Civil Liberties
Union's lawsuit against the Garfield County Sheriff's Department
has allowed the class-action case to proceed, The Daily Sentinel
reports.

According to Daily Sentinel, the ACLU filed the suit in July
2007, claiming that inmates at the jail were abused through jail
employees' misuse of pepperball guns, restraint chairs, Tasers,
pepper spray and electroshock belts.

The lawsuit names Sheriff Lou Vallario and Jail Commander Scott
Dawson as defendants.  Named plaintiffs are jail inmates
Clarence Vandehey, William Langley, Samuel Lincoln and Jared
Hogue.

Daily Sentinel relates that the Sheriff's Department said in a
statement last week that it already expected the judge, who was
appointed after the previously presiding judge fell ill, to
certify the lawsuit.

"This is not a victory or defeat," Sheriff Vallario said in a
statement, adding that the department is considering appealing
the ruling.

"The Garfield County Sheriff's Office is 100 percent confident
that when we have our day in court and the truth is presented to
the judge we will prevail in every aspect of this frivolous
lawsuit," the statement also said.


HANSEN NATURAL: Calif. Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed the consolidated securities fraud class action, "In
Re: Hansen Natural Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No.:
CV 06-7599-JFW(PLAx)," according to Hansen's Feb. 29, 2008 form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

From November 2006 through December 2006, several plaintiffs
filed shareholder class actions with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against Hansen and certain of
its employees, officers and directors, entitled:

      -- "Hutton v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (No. 06-   
         07599),"

      -- "Kingery v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (No. 06-
         07771),"

      -- "Williams v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (No. 06-
         01369),"

      -- "Ziolkowski v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (No. ED 06-
         01403)," and

      -- "Walker v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (No. 06-
         08229)."  

On Feb. 27, 2007, the Class Actions were consolidated by the
District Court and styled, "In re Hansen Natural Corporation
Securities Litigation (CV06-07599 JFW (PLAx))."

The Court appointed Jason E. Peltier as lead plaintiff and
approved lead counsel.  Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint on April 30, 2007 (Class Action Reporter,
June 27, 2007).

The consolidated class-action complaint supersedes all
previously filed class-action complaints and is the operative
complaint to which the Company must respond.

The Lead Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of all persons who
purchased Hansen common stock during the period beginning
Nov. 12, 2001, through Nov. 9, 2006, that Hansen and the
individual defendants made misleading statements and omissions
of material fact which artificially inflated the market price of
Hansen common stock throughout the Class Period.  

The Plaintiffs further allege that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by misrepresenting or
failing to disclose that defendants incorrectly dated stock
option grants, that the Company's internal controls were
inadequate, and that, as a result, defendants engaged in
improper accounting practices.  

The Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.

On June 25, 2007, Hansen filed its motion to dismiss
consolidated class action complaint.  On Aug. 16, 2007, lead
plaintiff Jason E. Peltier filed his Omnibus Opposition to
defendant's motions to dismiss consolidated class action
complaints.

On Sept. 12, 2007, the defendants filed their Consolidated Reply
Brief in Support of their Motions to Dismiss.  The court found
the matter appropriate for submission on the papers without
argument.  

The matter was, therefore, removed from the court's Sept. 24,
2007 hearing calendar, and the parties were given advance
telephonic notice.

On Oct. 16, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint with prejudice
and without leave to amend.

The court then entered final judgment in favor of the
Defendants, and the time within which to appeal the judgment has
expired.

The suit is "In Re: Hansen Natural Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No.: CV 06-7599-JFW(PLAx)," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
John F. Walter presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull Stull and Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          (frankb@johnsonbottini.com)
          Johnson Bottini
          655 West Broadway
          Suite 1400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-230-0063

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark T. Drooks, Esq. (mtd@birdmarella.com)
          Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks & Lincenberg
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Phone: 310-201-2100

               - and -

          Thomas V. Reichert, Esq. (tvr@birdmarella.com)
          Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert
          1875 Century Park E, 23rd Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Phone: 310-201-2100


HERSHEY ENTERTAINMENT: Customers Get Some Perks as Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Customers who used credit cards at Hersheypark or other Hershey
Entertainment & Resorts properties between Dec. 4, 2006, and
Sept. 1, 2007, could be entitled to some compensation, The
Patriot-News reports.  

According to the report, the customers may get either a coupon
for $8 off a single admission at Hersheypark or a voucher for
coffee or hot chocolate and a slice of pound cake and a cookie
at the Hershey Lodge Cocoa Beanery.

Patriot-News says that the choices are part of a settlement
agreement that Hershey Entertainment has reached in a class
action dispute regarding information contained on credit card
receipts.  

The report recounts that the class action lawsuit was filed in
2007 by Amanda Curiale, with the U.S. Middle District Court,
alleging that Hershey Entertainment's credit card receipts
contained information about the cards' expiration dates and more
than five numbers of each card, a violation of a new law
intended to help prevent identity theft.

As part of the settlement, Hershey does not admit any
wrongdoing.

The company agreed to settle "because of the expense associated
with litigation," said Garrett F. Gallia, the director of
corporate relations at Hershey Entertainment.  Class action
lawsuits consume "a lot of internal resources," he said, "and
we'd rather use those resources for the upcoming park season."

There is no evidence that the company's actions compromised the
identity of anyone in the suit, Mr. Gallia added.

A notice of the proposed settlement contains a claim form that
can be submitted to Hershey Entertainment to receive the
voucher.  The claim form must be mailed by May 28, 2008 -- a
week after a court hearing on the proposed settlement.  The
settlement period is from Dec. 4, 2006, to Sept. 1, 2007.
Each person claiming a voucher must provide his or her
approximate date of visit, as well as location.

Patriot-News explains that the proposed settlement is one of a
number of similar class action agreements that are being reached
because of issues over the 2003 Fair and Accurate Transaction
Act.  The act requires that no one accepting credit cards or
debit cards for transactions print more than five digits or the
expiration date on the receipt.  Retailers were to be in
compliance with the act by Dec. 4, 2006.

Mr. Gallia had explained that Hershey Entertainment always
"obliterated" the card number and felt "it wasn't necessary"
under the law to also remove the expiration date from the
receipt.  Since Sept. 1, the company has removed the cards'
expiration dates from receipts.

In the settlement, Ms. Curiale is to receive $2,000 from Hershey
Entertainment.  Lawyer fees will amount to $105,000.  In
addition, Hershey Entertainment is to contribute $5,000 to a
charity selected by Hershey and approved by the class counsel.

U.S. Middle District Judge Yvette Kane is handling the case.


HIRAM ZAYAS: Sued Over Ownership of New Mexico "Halfway House"
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed with the 12th Judicial District
Court against Hiram Zayas, who owns a halfway house in the Oro
Vista 1 subdivision, south of Alamogordo, Karl Anderson writes
for The Daily News.  Mr. Zayas' halfway house business is
alleged to be in violation of the community's restrictive
covenants.

Eleven home and property owners in the subdivision opted to
collectively file the suit on March 6, 2008, against Mr. Zayas,
a resident of New Buffalo, Michigan.  The Plaintiffs named in
the lawsuit include Maxine LaPlace, Paul H. Langner, Gayle
Palshook, George L. Wiley, Michael W. Knowles, William R.
Condon, Pamela J. Hay-Grinstead, Mark Grinstead, Thomas D.
Phillips, Karla Flowers and Randy Flowers, who are all being
represented by John D. Wheeler, Esq., of Alamogordo.

According to The Daily News, Mr. Zayas owns four lots in the
center of the subdivision that adjoin most of the properties
owned by other residents.  The plaintiffs are alleging that Mr.
Zayas had constructive notice of the covenants at the time he
purchased his property.

Mr. Zayas' company, Southwest Regional Care Centers LLC,
established what the plaintiffs say is, among other purposes, a
"halfway house" or "comprehensive reintegration services home"
for convicted criminals.  The suit also alleges that the halfway
house does not have a mandatory "clean" period that a resident
must satisfy prior to entering the program, and that the
business does not limit itself to individuals recognized as
having a "disability," as defined by the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The report notes that residents in the subdivision believe Mr.
Zayas has marketed his halfway house to the New Mexico
Department of Corrections as an alternative to more restrictive
means of incarceration for various offenders, and that the
facility will include individuals who have been convicted of
violent offenses.

"Doing so would constitute a direct threat to the health and
safety of other residents of the subdivision," Mr. Wheeler said
Friday.

Up to 16 residents may be housed at the facility, a figure Mr.
Zayas confirmed in an earlier interview with the Daily News.
However, the suit claims that this number "far exceeds the
number of individuals that the residence was designed to house"
and that "the septic system is not designed to accommodate the
number of people the defendant intends to house in the
residence."

The suit also states that the halfway house operation "threatens
to change the private residential character of the neighborhood
and to decrease the value of plaintiffs' respective properties."

Mr. Wheeler said courts in New Mexico have traditionally used
their powers to permanently enjoin violations of restrictive
covenants.  The suit seeks to have a permanent injunction
enjoined against Mr. Zayas that would prevent him from using his
property in any manner inconsistent with the restrictions stated
in the covenants, which were established in 1966.

"This would be to the extent that such restrictions are
consistent with the Fair Housing Act," Mr. Wheeler said.

The Daily News says that although originally assigned to Judge
Frank Wilson, a notice of peremptory excusal was filed with the
court by Mr. Wheeler's office last week to excuse Judge Wilson
from presiding over the case.  A different judge will be
assigned to the case by the end of March or beginning of April.

Mr. Zayas was issued a summons on March 6 and was given 30 days
to respond.

On Jan. 11, Mr. Zayas told the Daily News that he felt court
action would not be needed.  "Even if we were within the
confines of the law, we certainly do not want to have one of our
facilities in a community where we are not welcome," he said.
"This doesn't have to go as far as litigation."

Mr. Zayas was again contacted on Friday and said his
organization will respond to the suit.  "The whole thing has
subsequently changed," he said.  "Our legal department will be
handling this, so I am unable to comment at this time."


KEMIRA CHEMICALS: May 13 Hearing Set for $5M Antitrust Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on May 13, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. for a
proposed $5,000,000 settlement by Kemira Chemicals, Canada,
Inc., and Kemira Oyj in the matter, "In Re: Hydrogen Peroxide
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-666, MDL Docket No. 1682."

The hearing will be held before Judge Stewart Dalzell in
Courtroom 1-B, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, at 601 Market St., in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs, individually and as
representatives of all persons, who purchased Hydrogen Peroxide
(including sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate) in the U.S.
or from a facility located in the U.S., directly from any of the
defendants listed below:

       -- Akzo Nobel Chemicals International B.V.;

       -- Akzo Nobel Inc.;

       -- Arkema Inc. (f/k/a Atofina Chemicals, Inc. and Elf
          Atochem North America, Inc.);

       -- Arkema France (f/k/a Atofina S.A. and Elf Atochem
          S.A.);

       -- Degussa Gmbh (f/k/a Degussa A.G.);

       -- Degussa Corporation;

       -- EKA Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- FMC Corporation;

       -- Kemira Chemicals, Canada, Inc.;
     
       -- Kemira Oyj;
     
       -- Solvay America;

       -- Solvay Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- Solvay S.A.; and

       -- Total S.A. (f/k/a Totalfinalelf S.A. and Total, S.A.).

In general, the suit asserts that, as a result of the alleged
conduct of the defendants, the prices paid to the defendant
manufacturers for hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate and sodium
percarbonate were higher than they otherwise would have been
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 24, 2007) .

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs from defendants.  However, no
application for attorneys' fees or reimbursement of expenses is
being made as of the moment.

For more details, contact:

          Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation
          Settlement Administrator
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          P.O. Box 58309
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-8309
          Phone: 1-800-252-5745
          http://www.hydrogenperoxideantitrustlitigation.com/

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          e-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com
          Web site: http://www.cmht.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. (rkaplan@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          805 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or 212-687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com


KRATOS DEFENSE: Settles Consolidated Securities Lawsuits in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (f/k/a Wireless
Facilities, Inc.), a leading national defense and security
solutions provider, has reached agreements in principle to
settle civil litigation relating to two shareholder class action
lawsuits filed against the Company in 2004 and 2007.

In August 2004, as a result of the Company's announcement on
Aug. 4, 2004 that it intended to restate its financial
statements for the fiscal years ended Dec. 31, 2000, 2001, 2002
and 2003, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors were named as defendants in several
securities class action lawsuits filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.

In March and April 2007, there were three federal class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company and several of its current and
former officers and directors.

These class actions followed the Company's March 12, 2007 public
announcement that it was conducting a voluntary internal review
of its stock option granting processes.  

These actions have been consolidated into a single action, "In
re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation II, Master
File No. 07-CV-0482-BTM-NLS,"  (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11,
2007).

These actions were filed on behalf of those who purchased, or
otherwise acquired, the Company's common stock between April 26,
2000, and Aug. 4, 2004.

As a result of the recent settlement agreement, Kratos will
delay the filing of its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2007
financials on Form 10-K so that the Company can have adequate
time to incorporate these recent developments into its financial
statements.

Kratos expects to file its financials on Form 10-K for the
fourth quarter and fiscal year 2007 on or before March 28, 2008,
within the timeline as prescribed under Rule 12b-25 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The Company's financial earnings conference call, originally
scheduled for March 17, 2008, will be rescheduled to occur
within the next two weeks.

The settlement of the two class action lawsuits, both related to
the Company's financial restatement activities in prior years
and the Company's completed stock option review, represents a
significant and positive development for Kratos by eliminating
or reducing legacy legal actions, associated costs, expenses,
cash outlays and management distraction.

The Company estimates that its collective cash contribution to
the two settlements will be approximately $4 million, with the
remainder to be paid by insurance.  Further details about the
settlements, including their impact on the Company's financial
statements, will be described in the 10-K.

The parties are beginning the process of documenting their
agreements and then will seek determinations by the Court that
the proposed settlements are fair, reasonable and adequate.
Kratos makes no assurances at this time that the Court will
approve the proposed settlements or that the matters ultimately
will be settled, though the Company expects settlement to occur.

Despite the tentative settlements reached in these two actions,
Kratos continues to believe that the allegations lack merit. The
previously disclosed shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in
2004 and 2007 remain pending.

The suit is "In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities
Litigation II, Master File No. 07-CV-0482-BTM-NLS," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
under Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Johnson & Perkinson
          1690 Williston Road
          South Burlington, VT, 05403
          Phone: 802.862.0030
          Fax: 802.862.0060
          e-mail: JPLAW@adelphia.net

          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti PC
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, NY, 10038
          Phone: (212) 964-0046
          Fax: (212) 267-8137
          e-mail: shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott & Scott LLC
          P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT, 06415
          Phone: 860.537.5537
          Fax: 860.537.4432
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


MARK RUE, ESQ: Faces Allegations of Over-billing Clients
--------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Springs attorney Mark Rue, Esq., is facing a class
action lawsuit that accuses him of over-billing his clients by
possibly several hundred thousands of dollars, KRDO.com reports.

According to KRDO, the complaint alleges that Mr. Rue engaged in
theft and fraud of at least one client, 74-year-old Gretchen
Smith.  The claim suggests that there could be nearly 1,000
total client victims.

The complaint, filed on Feb. 29, 2008, alleges that Mr. Rue
inflated and fabricated time records and billing statements for
his representation of Ms. Smith.  Ms. Smith paid Mr. Rue $4,500
to defend her in a DUI case.  She later paid him another $15,000
for representation in two other cases.  The claim alleges that
Mr. Rue also charged Ms. Smith for "phantom time," and that he
mislead and deceived her into believing he did more work on her
cases than he really did.

One part of the claim also says Mr. Rue billed a total of 42-
hours worth of work to multiple clients in one 24-hour day.  
Another alleges that the attorney billed clients a total of 195-
hours over a 12-day span.  That's the equivalent of more than
16-hours of work each day for more than $66,000, according to
the claim.

KRDO relates that this is the first step in a possible class
action lawsuit.  A judge will have to decide if enough evidence
exists to allow multiple clients to file the same case against
Mr. Rue.

According to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, a
lawyer must hold in trust all fees paid by the client until the
lawyer has earned the fee.  In other words, when you pay a
lawyer, the lawyer must put the money in a trust account, not
their own account, until they do work on your case to earn that
money, KRDO explains.

The report further says that one can pay a lawyer in a number of
ways, sometimes up-front or a little at a time.  As the lawyer
works on a case, he will bill the client for their time.  The
lawyer can then withdraw money from the trust account and
deposit it into their personal account.

"A lawyer has to provide an honest accounting to the client of
why he took money and how the fees were earned," trial attorney
Jeff Hill, Esq., who is still not involved in the case, told
KRDO.  "As the lawyer performs work on the case and earns the
fees, the lawyer can pay himself, but he cannot pay himself fees
he hasn't earned, for work he hasn't performed."

"The allegations are completely unfounded.  The other attorney
misinterpreted internal documents without contacting my office
to explain those documents," Mr. Rue told NEWSCHANNEL 13.  "I've
been an attorney in Colorado Springs for 27 years and never had
a grievance or allegation brought against me.  I built a
practice in Colorado Springs by doing a good job for my clients.  
There is no allegation that Ms. Smith was unhappy with my work
or the outcome of the cases."

The claim also alleges Mr. Rue of "theft from at-risk adult"
based on Ms. Smith's age.  An at-risk adult crime is a felony
under Colorado law.


MARSULEX INC: May 15 Hearing Set for $1.125M Antitrust Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
will hold a fairness hearing on May 15, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. for a
proposed $1,125,000 settlement by Marsulex, Inc., and ChemTrade
Logistics (U.S.) Inc., in the matter, "In Re: Sulfuric Acid
Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1536, Case No. 03 C 4576."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court, Everett
McKinley Dirksen Bldg., 219 South Dearborn St., Courtroom 1419,
Chicago, Illinois 60804.

                         Case Background

Named as defendants in the class action are:

      -- E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.,
      -- Norfalco LLC (formerly known as Noranda DuPont LLC),
      -- Noranda Inc.,
      -- Falconbridge Ltd.,
      -- Pressure Vessel Services, Inc.,
      -- PVS Chemicals, Inc. (Ohio),
      -- PVS Chemical Solutions, Inc.,
      -- PVS Nolwood Chemicals, Inc.,
      -- GAC Chemical Corp.,
      -- Marsulex, Inc.,
      -- ChemTrade Logistics (U.S.) Inc.,
      -- Intertrade Holdings, Inc.,
      -- Koch Sulfur Products Co., and
      -- Koch Sulfur Products Co., LLC.

Beginning in 2003, seven class actions were filed against the
various defendants by purchasers of Sulfuric Acid.  

In its Order of July 9, 2003, the Court, among other things,
consolidated the various Sulfuric Acid cases and appointed
Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel:

      -- Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC;

      -- Mary Jane Edelstein Fait of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
         Freeman & Herz, LLC;

      -- Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.; and

      -- Steven O. Sidener of Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP.

The plaintiffs have filed a Third Consolidated Amendment
Complaint in which they allege that the defendants violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by engaging in a
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of
Sulfuric Acid in the U.S. at artificially high prices, and to
allocate markets and customers for the sale of Sulfuric Acid in
the U.S. during the Class Period of Jan. 1, 1988, through
Jan. 16, 2003.

They further allege that, as a result of the conspiracy, they
and other members of the proposed Class have been injured by
paying more for Sulfuric Acid than they would have paid in the
absence of the illegal conduct, and seek recovery of treble
damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an award of
attorneys' fees.

The suit is "In Re: Sulfuric Acid, et al. v. EI du Pont, et al.,
Case No. 1:03-cv-04576," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Judge David H. Coar
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Mary Jane Fait, Esq. (fait@whafh.com)
         Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLC
         55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 984-0000

         Steven A. Asher, Esq.
         Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC
         1845 Walnut Street Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: (215) 545-7200
         Fax: (215) 545-6535
         e-mail: info@wka-law.com

         Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. (jkohn@kohnswift.com)
         Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.
         One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: (215) 238-1700
         Fax: (215) 238-1968

              - and -

         Steven O. Sidener, Esq. (ssidener@gbcslaw.com)
         Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2300
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
         Phone: (415) 777-2230 or (800) 778-1822
         Fax: (415) 777-5189


MEDQUIST INC: Enters Settlement Term Sheet for AAMT Billing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 10, 2008, MedQuist Inc. (Pink Sheets: MEDQ.PK) executed
a settlement term sheet with the individual named plaintiffs and
certain other putative class members represented by plaintiffs'
counsel in the South Broward customer class action.

The action was originally filed in the U.S. District Court
Central District of California on Sept. 9, 2004, against the
company and certain present and former company officials.

It was purportedly brought on behalf of an alleged class of non-
federal governmental hospitals and medical centers that the
complaint claims were wrongfully and fraudulently overcharged
for transcription services by defendants based primarily on the
company's use of the AAMT line billing unit of measure.

The complaint charges fraud, violation of the California
Business and Professions Code, unjust enrichment, conversion,
negligent supervision and violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
   
Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, plus costs and
interest, an injunction against alleged continuing illegal
activities, an accounting, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

In addition to the company, other defendants in the case include
a senior vice president, its former executive vice president of
marketing and new business development, its former executive
vice president and chief legal officer, and its former executive
vice president and chief financial officer.

On Dec. 20, 2004, the company and individual defendants filed
motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and
improper venue, or in the alternative, to transfer the putative
action to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey.  On
Feb. 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint both
adding and deleting named plaintiffs in an attempt to keep the
putative action in the U.S. District Court Central District of
California.  

On March 30, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California issued an order transferring the putative
action to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey.

On Aug. 1, 2005, the company and the individual defendants filed
their respective answers denying the material allegations
contained in the Second Amended Complaint.  

On Aug. 31, 2005, the company and individual defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim and a motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration,
or in the alternative, to stay pending arbitration.  On Dec. 12,
2005, the plaintiffs filed an Amendment to the Second Amended
Complaint.  

On Dec. 13, 2005, the court issued an order requiring plaintiffs
to file a Third Amended Complaint and set forth a briefing
schedule for the filing of anticipated motions to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint.  A March 8, 2006 hearing was set.

On January 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed the Third Amended
Complaint, which expands the claims made beyond issues arising
from contracts based on AAMT line billing and beyond customers
billed based on an AAMT line, alleging that the company engaged
in a scheme to inflate customers' invoices without regard to the
terms of individual contracts and even in the absence of any
written contract (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2006).  

The Third Amended Complaint also limits plaintiffs' claim for
fraud in the inducement of the agreement to arbitrate to the
three named plaintiffs whose contracts contain an arbitration
provision and a subclass of similarly situated customers.

On March 30, the court ruled on a number of motions in a 74-page
decision.  On the motion by MedQuist to dismiss the case and
compel arbitration, the court found that MedQuist had waived its
right to compel arbitration and the case will now move forward
in the Court (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 4, 2007).

In the opinion, the court denied MedQuist's motion to dismiss
the claim of fraud, finding that the plaintiff hospitals
sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against all
named plaintiffs.

Claims alleging a violation of RICO and RICO conspiracy were
dismissed against MedQuist but are going forward as to
individual defendants, certain present and former MedQuist
senior executive officers.

The court dismissed claims of negligent misrepresentation and
negligent supervision, as well as claims of violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Protection Act and the California Unfair
Business Practices Act.

Under the settlement term sheet, the Company will pay
$7,537,001.83 to resolve all claims by the individual named
plaintiffs and certain other putative class members represented
by plaintiffs' counsel but not named in the action.  The
settling parties will release the company and all individual
defendants from any and all claims and dismiss the action in its
entirety with prejudice.  The settlement is subject to formal
documentation by the parties.

Because the parties are not settling on a class-wide basis, no
class will be certified, and thus there is no requirement to
give notice.  Neither the company, nor any of the individual
defendants, has admitted or will admit to liability or any
wrongdoing in connection with the proposed settlement.

The suit is "South Broward Hospital District et al. v. MedQuist
Inc., et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-02206-JBS-JBR," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Jerome B. Simandle, with referral to Judge Joel B. Rosen.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Roger B. Kaplan, Esq. (kaplanr@gtlaw.com)
          Greenberg Traurig LLP
          200 Campus Drive
          P.O. BOX 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Phone: (973) 360-7957
          Fax: (973) 301-8410

Representing the defendants is:

          Marc J. Gross, Esq. (mgross@greenbaumlaw.com)
          Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, & Davis, LLP
          6 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 535-1600


MERRIL LYNCH: April 30 Hearing Set for $1.5M Pa. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on April 30, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. for
a proposed $4,500,000 settlement by Merril Lynch & Co., Inc., in
the matter, "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:03-CV-5336."  

The hearing will be held before Judge Legrome D. Davis in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, at
601 Market St., in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The class consists of all persons or entities that purchased or  
otherwise acquired the securities of DVI (its common stock and 9  
7/8% Senior Notes), between Aug. 10, 1999, and Aug. 13, 2003,   
both dates inclusive.  In general, the suit, filed in 2003, is
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated    
thereunder.  
  
The suit alleged that the company issued a series of material   
misrepresentations to the market between Nov. 7, 2001, and
June 27, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of DVI's   
publicly traded securities.   
  
The complaint alleged that these statements were materially   
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented these adverse facts, among others:

     -- that the company had failed to timely write down the   
        value of certain assets which had become impaired;   
   
     -- that the company's accounting and financial reporting   
        policies and procedures for non-systematic (non-  
        recurring) transactions were inadequate;   
  
     -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and   
        was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial   
        condition of the company; and   
  
     -- that as a result, the values of the company's assets,   
        net income and earnings per share were materially   
        overstated at all relevant times.   
  
The class period ended June 27, 2003.  On that date, DVI shocked
the investing public when it announced that the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission had rejected its March 30, 2003
quarterly report because an independent auditor had not reviewed
it.

The company also disclosed that it was continuing to consider
the need for the accounting change, and, if adopted, its net
income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003, its earnings per
share for the first nine months of fiscal 2003 and its net
income for the fiscal year 2002 would all be drastically
reduced.   
  
Specifically, $1.4 million, or 44.47%, its earnings per share
for the nine months ended March 31, 2003 was reduced by $0.10,
or 44.45% and its net income for fiscal year ended June 30,
2002, was reduced by $1.395 million or 34.12%, reduced the
company's net income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003.  
  
Investor reaction was swift and negative, with DVI stock falling
from a close of $5.84 on June 26, 2003, to a close of $4.30 on
June 27, 2003, or a single-day decline of more than 26% on very
high trading volume.
  
The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:03-CV-5336," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Legrome D. Davis
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          M. Reas Bowman, Esq.
          Krislov & Associates Ltd.
          20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1350
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-606-0500
          Fax: 312-606-0207
          Web site: http://www.krislovlaw.com/
  
Representing the defendants are:  
  
          Antonia M. Apps, Esq. (aapps@khhte.com)
          Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd and Evans, PLLC
          1615 M. Street, North West, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-326-7900
          Fax: (202)326-7999
  
          Thomas V. Ayala, Esq. (tayala@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-5719

               - and -
  
          Gregory Ballard, Esq. (gregory.ballard@cwt.com)
          Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP,   
          One World, Financial Center
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: 212-504-6701


MICHAEL BAKER: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, reminds shareholders that May 12, 2008
is the deadline to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities fraud class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Michael
Baker Corp. between March 19, 2007, and February 22, 2008,
inclusive.

MBC and certain of the Company's officers and directors are
charged with making a series of materially false and misleading
statements related to the Company's business and operations in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act) (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2008).

After MBC announced a restatement to its earnings following the
market's close on February 22, 2008, shares of the Company fell
from a closing price of $36.10 to $27.57 the next trading day.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq. (Lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          Poydras Center, 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
     

MORGAN KEEGAN: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set April 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Morgan Keegan & Company have until April 7,
2008, to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in a securities
class action lawsuit currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee against
Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., Morgan Keegan Asset Management,
Inc., Regions Financial Corporation and related companies and
officers and directors.

The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP charges
the Company, the Funds and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008).

This action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of shares of
the following Funds: RMK Advantage Income Fund, RMK Strategic
Income Fund and RMK High Income Fund (the Funds) between
December 6, 2004, and February 6, 2008.

Morgan Keegan served as distribution agent and underwriter for
the Funds' shares during the Class Period, and also served as
the Transfer and Dividend Disbursing Agent.  RMK Advantage
Income Fund, RMK Strategic Income Fund and RMK High Income Fund
are closed-end management investment companies that invest
primarily in debt securities.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Funds'
Registration Statements failed to disclose or indicate the
following:

     (1) the true nature and extent of the risk related to the
         concentrated securities within the Funds;

     (2) the extent to which the Funds were invested in illiquid
         securities;

     (3) that the Funds were invested in risky, new investment
         structures in which data was difficult to obtain;

     (4) that due to the Funds' illiquidity, the manager would
         be forced to initially sell first the liquid, lower
         risk assets, thereby penalizing holders of the Funds;

     (5) that the Funds were heavily invested in illiquid and
         subprime structures, such as collateralized debt
         obligations;

     (6) that the Funds were invested in assets that were being
         valued subjectively under "fair valuation" procedures;

     (7) that the Funds' Boards of Directors created a conflict
         of interest by not discharging their responsibilities
         with respect to "fair valuation" and passing said
         responsibilities to the Funds' investment advisor whose
         compensation was tied to the value of the Funds'
         assets;
   
     (8) that the Funds did not employ sufficient "value-
         investing" strategies, yet they were sold to the public
         as being committed to "value-oriented" investing;

     (9) that although the Funds were said to be independent and
         employ different investment strategies, they were
         managed in a nearly identical fashion and employed
         nearly identical strategies, resulting in increased
         risk;

    (10) that the Funds were heavily invested in risky, non-
         conforming mortgages that did not comply with FHLMC or
         FNMA standards;

    (11) that the Funds' pre-2006 results were attributable to
         their concentration in illiquid, subprime and untested
         investment structures; and

    (12) that adequate internal and financial controls did not
         exist.

Each of the Funds, pursuant to an individual yet substantially
similar Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the SEC
were initially offered for $15 per share.

On December 6, 2004, the share price for each of the Funds was
as follows: RMA at $15.82 per share, RSF at $16.60 per share and
RMH at $18.20 per share.  As a result of various statements and
news stories issued, the value of the Funds' shares consistently
declined.  By February 6, 2008, each of the Funds was trading
far below the closing price on December 6, 2004.  On February 6,
2008, RMA declined to $4.10 per share for a cumulative loss of
$11.72, or over 74% of the price on December 6, 2004.

Similarly, RSF declined to $3.90 per share for a cumulative loss
of $12.70, or over 76% of the price on December 6, 2004.

Finally, RMH declined to $4.20 for a cumulative loss of $14, or
almost 77% of the price on December 6, 2004. As a result of
defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Funds' securities, Plaintiff
and other Class Members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

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

For more information, contact:

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


MUNICIPAL DERIVATIVES INDUSTRY: Sued in DC Over Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Mississippi, the City of Chicago, and Fairfax
County, Virginia, among other plaintiffs, filed two nationwide
class action lawsuits on March 12 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia against thirty seven leading banks,
insurance companies, and brokers alleging widespread price-
fixing and bid-rigging in the multi-billion dollar municipal
derivatives industry dating back to 1992.

The plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent are state,
local, and municipal governments and their agencies, as well as
private entities, that purchased municipal derivatives from or
through any of the following defendants:

     -- AIG Financial Products Corp.;
     -- AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Co.;
     -- GE Funding Capital Market Services, Inc.;
     -- Genworth Financial Inc.;
     -- JP Morgan Chase & Co.;
     -- Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.;
     -- Societe Generale SA;
     -- UBS AG; Lehman Brothers Inc.;
     -- Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.;
     -- Morgan Stanley;
     -- Wachovia Bank N.A.;
     -- Natixis S.A.;
     -- Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd.;
     -- Financial Security Assurance, Inc.;
     -- Financial Guaranty Insurance Company;
     -- Trinity Funding Co. LLC;
     -- Piper Jaffray & Co.;
     -- Security Capital Assurance Inc.;
     -- XL Asset Funding Company LLC;
     -- XL Life Insurance & Annuity, Inc.;
     -- National Westminster Bank plc; or
     -- Bank of America N.A.

Municipal derivatives are used to invest the proceeds of
municipal bonds. Because municipal bonds commonly fund multi-
year public works projects, most of their proceeds cannot be
spent immediately, and must be invested to earn interest until
they are ripe for use.  These investment vehicles are known as
municipal derivatives, an umbrella term that refers to various
tax-exempt vehicles, including guaranteed investment contracts,
advance refunding escrows, swaps, options, swaptions, collars,
and floors.

"This appears to be one of the longest running, most
economically pervasive antitrust conspiracies ever to be
uncovered in the U.S.," said Michael D. Hausfeld, senior partner
at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., and attorney for
the plaintiffs.  "As a result of this conspiracy, the plaintiffs
and other class members were deprived of extra money they
otherwise would have received from their municipal bond
investments and could have spent on important public works
projects such as roads, buildings, and mass transit."

The lawsuits come on the heels of a nearly two year old
unprecedented investigation by the United States Department of
Justice's Antitrust Division, the Internal Revenue Service, and
the Securities and Exchange Commission into industry-wide
collusive practices in the two-hundred year old municipal bond
industry.  A grand jury investigation currently is being
conducted by the Antitrust Division in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Approximately thirty large commercial and investment banks,
insurance companies, and brokers have been subpoenaed, and the
offices of three brokers have been raided by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.  Numerous employees and former employees of
various defendants recently received letters notifying them that
they are regarded as targets of the grand jury investigation.

The lawsuits also follow Bank of America's conditional
acceptance into the Antitrust Division's amnesty program, in
connection with which there was disclosure of information
regarding the conspiracy described below and the promise to
provide full and complete cooperation to the Antitrust Division
and the plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent.

Because Bank of America has committed to cooperating with the
plaintiffs, because its alleged wrongdoing occurred during a
shorter period than was the case for its co-conspirators, and
because the parties are engaged in early discussions to see if a
settlement can be achieved, one lawsuit names Bank of America as
the sole defendant and alleges a class period of January 1, 1998
through December 31, 2004.

The other lawsuit names as defendants the other companies listed
above, and alleges a class period of January 1, 1992, through
the present.

For more information, contact:

          Deborah Schwartz (deborah@mediarelationsinc.com)
          Media Relations Inc.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: 301-897-8838
          Cell: 240-355-8838


OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Reach Settlement in N.Y. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action, "In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW," have
reached a tentative settlement for the matter.

Under the terms of the settlement, the pending action will be
dismissed with prejudice and without any admission of liability
on the part of the Company or any of the individually named
defendants.  The amount of the settlement is $9 million.

Approximately, $500,000 will be paid by OSI, and the balance of
the settlement will be paid by OSI insurer.  The settlement will
have no impact on the Company' s 2008 financials.  The terms of
the settlement are subject to court approval.

                        Case Background

On or about Dec. 16, 2004, several purported shareholder class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against the company, certain of its current
and former executive officers, and the members of its Board of
Directors.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's common stock during certain
periods in 2004, which periods differed in the various
complaints.  

The court appointed a lead plaintiff who, on Feb. 17, 2006,
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint seeking to
represent a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's common stock during the period from
April 26, 2004, through Nov. 22, 2004.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
material misstatements and omissions concerning the survival
benefit associated with company's product, Tarceva and the size
of the potential market of Tarceva upon FDA approval of the
drug.

It alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

On April 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Briefing on this motion was
completed on June 21, 2006.

In an opinion dated March 31, 2007 (and entered on the docket on
April 4, 2007), the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss.   

The Court dismissed claims against some of the individual
defendants and dismissed the Section 11 and 15 claims, but
granted the plaintiff 30 days leave to replead the Section 11
claim in accordance with the Court's order and to renew the
Section 15 claim.

Plaintiff did not amend, and thus those claims were dismissed
with prejudice.  The parties have now informed the Court that
they have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
action.  The parties are in the process of finalizing the
settlement papers, which will then be subject to Court approval.

The suit is "In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge
Joanna Seybert with referral to Judge William D. Wall.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@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

              - and -

         Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. (frank@spornlaw.com)
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, PC.
         19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 212-964-0046
         Fax: 212-267-8137

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
         Dechert LLP
         Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19104
         Phone: (215) 994-4000


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over "Obsolete" Blu-ray Disc Player
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert McGovern filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics
America in federal court in Newark, N.J., over his Blue-ray disc
player, Douglas S. Malan writes for The Connecticut Law Tribune.

According to the report, Mr. McGovern claims that Samsung
Electronics ripped him off when he bought one of the company's
early Blu-ray players last summer, a model that has since become
obsolete.  The complaint seeks class action status.  

Connecticut Law Tribune relates that rapid development of Blu-
ray technology, spurred by the race against other types of high-
definition-DVD players, has resulted in consumers having access
to models with drastic differences in capability.

The report explains that Blu-ray discs are the same size as a
DVD or CD, but can store about six times as much high-definition
video and data.  The technology is called a Blu-ray because of
the blue-violet laser used to read and write the disc.

The Blu-ray Disc Association was formed in February 2002 by a
consortium of companies that wanted to develop and license Blu-
ray technology, Connecticut Law Tribune points out.  When
competing HD-DVD players started appearing on store shelves in
April 2006, the association was pressured to release its
products just as quickly.

Connecticut Law Tribune recalls that Samsung launched the first
player, the BD-P1000, in June 2006.  Mr. McGovern bought the
successor player, the BD-P1200, last summer.  It was the
earliest second-generation player to appear on the market.

With the association wanting to beat back HD-DVD players, it
approved a base set of technological requirements for its early
players that limited their potential and virtually assured they
would be incompatible with the future technology.

Mr. McGovern "soon noticed that a number of Blu-ray disc titles
that he purchased . . . were incompatible" with his player, his
complaint states.  He also confirmed that Samsung "does not
intend to provide future firmware updates or otherwise repair"
the early-generation players, an inaction that he describes as
"negligent" and "reckless."

According to Connecticut Law Tribune, older players either may
not be able to take advantage of the extra features on newer
discs, such as picture-in-picture, or may not be able to play
the discs at all.  The picture-in-picture feature, called Bonus
View, can be used to show director or actor commentary in a
small window while the movie plays.

Mr. McGovern alleges that Samsung was "fully aware of the
defective nature of the player at the time of manufacture and
sale" and has failed to provide a remedy.

Blu-ray technology continues to change, leaving the detritus of
obsolete technology in its wake.  Sony Corp., which invented the
disc, earlier announced that it will debut this summer its first
player that can download bonus materials, such as movie trailers
and games, from the Internet.  Toshiba Corp., on the other hand,
announced recently that it would stop making players for the HD
DVD, the disc it invented, mainly because Warner Bros.
Entertainment said it would drop the format to focus on Blu-ray
discs.

A Samsung spokeswoman said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. (JosephSauder@chimicles.com)
          Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
          One Haverford Center
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: 1-866-399-2487
                 (610) 645-4717

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq. (drscott@scott-scott.com)
          Scott + Scott LLP
          108 Norwich Avenue
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: (860) 537-5537


TELIK INC: Reaches Settlement in N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telik, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in securities fraud
class action suits filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's
March 3, 2008 form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Beginning on June 6, 2007, a series of putative securities class
actions were commenced against Telik, Inc. and certain of its
current officers, one of whom is also a director.  

The suits were filed with either the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

The complaints filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York also named as defendants the
underwriters for the company’s November 2003 and January 2005
stock offerings.  

The plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California subsequently voluntarily dismissed their
complaints without prejudice.  

All of the complaints allege violations of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising
out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements
about the company's business and prospects, including the
efficacy, safety and likelihood of success of the company's drug
TELCYTA.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of purchasers of the company common stock during the
period between March 27, 2003, and June 4, 2007, including
purchasers in the January 2005 stock offering.

In January 2008, the parties to the securities class action
reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims.  This
agreement is contingent on a number of factors, including
confirmatory discovery and court approval.

The suit is "In re Telik Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
1:07-cv-04819-CM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Colleen McMahon presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joseph R. Seidman, Esq. (seidman@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 779-1414
          Fax: (212) 779-3218

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
          Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C.
          240 Mineola Blvd.
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-741-4977


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Prius' MPG
---------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., and Toyota Motor North America,
Inc., are facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California accusing
the company of inflating the Prius hybrid's miles per gallon by
nearly 50% to sell more cars, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or leased, not for resale, a new 2004, 2005, 2006 or
2007 model year Toyota Prius Hybrid from Toyota in the United
States between March 12, 2004, through March 12, 2008.

The plaintiffs say Toyota tried to cover up conflicting reports
by saying that driver experience "varied."

CourtHouse News Service relates that Consumer Reports reported
recently that the Prius averaged 35 miles per gallon during city
driving, not the 60 mpg that Toyota promised.

Toyota was able to charge more for the Prius because buyers were
willing to factor their supposed fuel savings into the purchase
price, the suit states.

Toyota allegedly ran its scheme by using old EPA testing methods
and continuing to use old mileage estimates instead of updating
as tests become more accurate.

The company also changed the federally mandated mileage
disclaimer posted on cars from "actual mileage will vary" to the
slightly more vague "actual mileage may vary," and sometimes
failed to post either disclaimer, the suit states.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Toyota knew, or by the exercise of reasonable
         care should have known that the TPH's actual fuel
         efficiency was significantly below the figures Toyota
         advertised;

     (b) whether Toyota advertised the TPH to the class
         throughout the United States with materially deceptive,
         untrue, or misleading statements of fuel efficiency
         expressed in miles per gallon or cost savings;

     (c) whether Toyota made materially untrue or misleading
         statement of facts to the class concerning the fuel
         efficiency of the TPH;

     (d) whether Toyota concealed from or omitted to state
         material facts to the class concerning the actual fuel
         efficiency of the TPH;

     (e) whether Toyota knew, or by the exercise of reasonable
         care should have known, that the materially misleading
         statements of fact made to the class about the fuel
         economy and fuel cost savings of the TPH had the
         capacity or tendency to confuse and mislead;

     (f) whether, by the misconduct as set forth in the
         complaint, Toyota engaged in unfair or unlawful
         business practices with respect to the advertising,
         marketing and sale of the TPH pursuant to California
         Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.;

     (g) whether, by the misconduct as set forth in the
         complaint, Toyota engaged in unfair, deceptive, untrue
         or misleading advertising relative to the TPH pursuant
         to California Business & Professions Code sections
         17200, et seq.;

     (h) whether, by the misconduct as set forth in the
         complaint, defendants engaged in unfair business
         methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
         practices intended to result in the sale or lease of
         goods to consumers in violation of California Civil
         Code sections 1750 et seq.;

     (i) whether, as a result of Toyota's misconduct as set
         forth in the complaint, plaintiff and the class are
         entitled to damages, restitution, equitable relief and
         other relief, and the amount and nature of such relief;

     (j) whether Toyota has acted on grounds generally
         applicable to the class, making injunctive relief
         appropriate;

     (k) whether the class can be certified pursuant to Fed. R.
         Civ. P. 23(b)(2); and

     (l) whether, alternatively, the class can be certified
         pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

The plaintiff requests:

     -- that the matter be certified as class action with the
        class defined as set forth under Fed. R. Civ. P
        23(b)(3), or in the alternative Fed. R. Civ. P.
        23(b)(2), and that the plaintiff be appointed class
        representative, and his attorneys be appointed class
        counsel;

     -- that the court enter an order requiring defendants to
        immediately cease the wrongful conduct as set forth;
        enjoining defendants from continuing to falsely
        advertise or conceal material information and conduct
        business via the unlawful and unfair business acts and
        practices complained of; and ordering defendants to
        engage in a corrective notice campaign;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants in an amount
        undetermined for unjust enrichment, including
        disgorgement of profits received by defendants as a
        result of said purchases, appropriate equitable relief
        and costs of suit including attorneys' fees;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants for damages,
        statutory damages, punitive damages, cost of suit, and
        attorneys' fees, and injunction; and

     -- for such other damages, equitable relief and pre- and
        post- judgment interest as the court may deem just and
        proper.

The suit is "Anthony Z. Aberdeen et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales,
USA, Inc. et al., Case No. Cv08-01690," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
          Marc Primo, Esq.
          Monica Balderrama, Esq.
          Payam Shahian, Esq.
          Orlando Arellano, Esq.
          Initiative Legal Group, LLP
          1800 Century Park East, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-5637
          Fax: (310) 861-9051

    
UTSTARCOM INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
fraud class action pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against UTSTARCOM, Inc.,
according to UTSTARCOM's March 3, 2008 form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class actions
alleging federal securities violations were filed against the
company and various officers and directors.  The actions were
later consolidated as "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities
Litigation."  

The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint on July 26, 2005, which alleged
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and was
brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who
purchased the company's stock after April 16, 2003, and before
Sept. 20, 2004.  

On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint, adding new allegations and extending the end of the
class period to Oct. 6, 2005.  In addition to the Company
defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing Softbank.  The
plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of damages in an
unspecified amount.

On June 2, 2006, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  On March 21,
2007, the Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the  
Second Amended Complaint.  The Court, however, granted the
plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint, which
plaintiffs filed on May 25, 2007.

On July 13, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss and strike the Third Amended
Complaint.  That motion has been briefed and argued, but has not
yet been decided by the Court.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the Court appointed James R. Bartholomew as
lead plaintiff.  On Jan. 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

The suit is "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415/288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534

              - and -

         Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310/201-9150
         Fax: (310) 201-9160
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100

              - and -

         Scott Christensen Hall, Esq. (halls@sullcrom.com)
         Sullivan & Cromwell
         1870 Embarcadero Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94303
         Phone: 650-461-5600
         Fax: 650-461-5700


UTSTARCOM INC: Faces Purported Shareholder Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
UTSTARCOM, Inc., is facing a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the company's March 3, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The shareholder class action complaint was filed on Sept. 4,
2007, against the company and some of its current and former
directors and officers.  The complaint alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed
improper accounting practices concerning the company's
historical equity award grants.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between
July 24, 2002, and Sept. 4, 2007.  

The suit is "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-04578-SI," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Susan Illston presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
          (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          100 Bush Street
          Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-398-8700
          Fax: 415-398-8704

               - and -

          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. (ekt@ftllaw.com)
          Attorney at Law
          1050 30th Street
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000

Representing the defendants are:

          Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-565-5100


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Schatz Announces FL Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announced that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Darden Restaurants Inc. (NYSE:DRI)
between June 19, 2007, and December 18, 2007.

The Complaint charges that Darden and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws.  Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that Defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to
disclose:

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

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

   (iii) 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%. On this news, shares of the
Company's stock fell $7.68 per share -- or over 21%, to close at
$28.39 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 12,
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


ENERNOC INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of EnerNOC, Inc., between November 1, 2007 and
February 27, 2008, inclusive, and pursuant or traceable to the
Company's November 13, 2007 Secondary Public Offering.

The Complaint charges EnerNOC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

EnerNOC is a leading developer and provider of clean and
intelligent energy solutions to utilities and electric power
grid operators, as well as commercial, institutional, and
industrial customers.

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

     (1) that expenses were rising at a dramatic rate, such that
         there would be a net loss despite rising revenues;

     (2) that the Company was facing rising operating costs and
         was unable to recognize revenue from new projects;

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

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

Prior to and throughout the Class Period, EnerNOC represented
that they were experiencing continued growth and rising
revenues.  However, on February 27, 2008, the Company revealed
they had experienced a net loss for the fourth quarter 2007 of
$9 million and a net loss for the year of $23.6 million, despite
the fact that the Company's revenue had tripled with the
increasing of megawatts of capacity and adding more customers.

On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $9.19 per
share, or 36.04 percent, to close on February 27, 2008 at $16.31
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  This closing
price represented a cumulative loss of $26.69, or over 62
percent of the value of the Company's shares at the time of its
SPO just months prior.  Moreover, the following day, as
investors continued to learn of the Company's shocking news,
shares of the Company's stock fell $2.55, or 15.63%, to close on
February 28, 2008 at $13.76.  This closing price represented a
cumulative loss of $29.24, or 68 percent of the value of the
Company's shares at the time of the SPO just months prior.

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

For more information, contact:

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


GUNN ALLEN: J. Thompson Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MI
-------------------------------------------------------------
J. Thompson & Associates and Zimmerman Reed, PLLP announced that
a class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons who purchased unregistered securities
from:

     -- Edward P. May,
     -- Frank J. Bluestein,
     -- The Maximum Financial Group, Inc.,
     -- Questar Capital Corporation or
     -- GunnAllen Financial, Inc.

or otherwise acquired the common stock between January 1, 2000
and March 4, 2008, against Defendants and certain of its
officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

The complaint charges that Defendants sold unregistered
securities to class members in violation of Sections 12(1),
12(2) and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, and in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
sold class members unregistered securities in the form of
interests in non-existent limited liability companies (LLCs)
created by Defendant May and sold by Defendant Bluestein,
through The Maximum Financial Group, Inc. and with the
assistance of broker-dealer Defendants Questar Capital
Corporation and GunnAllen Financial, Inc., in violation of
federal securities laws and state laws.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who invested in
unregistered securities purchased from Defendants between
January 1, 2005, and March 4, 2008, and seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Acts of 1933 and 1934.

For more information, contact:

          Darin LeBeau
          Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
          Phone: 248.644.5500
          Web site: http://www.zimmreed.com


SOCIETE GENERALE: Coughlin Stoia Files NY 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 Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the American
Depositary Receipts and all U.S. residents and citizens who
purchased the stock of Societe Generale Group (EPA:GLE) during
the period between August 1, 2005, and January 23, 2008.

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

SocGen is one of the largest French banking groups, operating in
network banking, retail banking, finance and investment banking
and asset management services worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made gross misrepresentations about the value of SocGen's
securities and the quality of its internal controls and risk
management.  Defendants' misrepresentations began to be
disclosed on January 24, 2008, when SocGen issued a public
statement claiming that a trader named Jerome Kerviel had
single-handedly risked tens of billions of euros on behalf of
the Company, causing a loss of almost $7.5 billion, and that the
Company's publicly reported financial results failed to disclose
billions in losses related to subprime real estate in the U.S.
SocGen's stock price dropped over $3.00 per share in one day
when SocGen's trading and subprime losses were disclosed on
January 24, 2008.  Thereafter, it came to light that Robert A.
Day, a SocGen board member and founder of Trust Company of the
West, in which SocGen owns a major stake, had secretly disposed
of $206 million of SocGen stock owned and controlled by him
before SocGen's balance sheet manipulations were publicly
revealed and long after SocGen's executives were advised of the
Kerviel trades and perjuries.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of the ADRs and all U.S. residents and citizens who
purchased the stock of SocGen during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
March 12, 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
                     (202) 408-4600


SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Federman Calls on Investors to Join Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood, who filed the first securities class action
in Texas against Superior Offshore International, Inc. and
certain of its current officers and directors, urges investors
who have lost more than $100,000 to inquire about applying for
the lead plaintiff position in the case.

The Complaints allege violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, including allegations of material
misrepresentations and omissions in Superior's IPO prospectus
and later to the market.  The class period begins with the IPO
on April 20, 2007, through the present.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 29,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wbf@federmanlaw.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (405) 239-2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


SWISS REINSURANCE: Spector Announces NY Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., announced that
a securities class action lawsuit was commenced with the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of all U.S. residents or citizens who
purchased the common stock of Swiss Reinsurance Company
(SWX:RUKN) between May 8, 2007, through November 19, 2007,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that Swiss Re's Credit Solutions unit had written two
credit default swaps that exposed the Company to financial risk.

In a credit default swap, one party guarantees that a third
party borrower will not default on a debt.  In this case, Swiss
Re guaranteed certain mortgage-backed securities which included
a number of subprime and collateralized debt obligations.  When
the existence and nature of the credit default swaps was
disclosed, Swiss Re's stock price dropped from CHF97.55 to
CHF87.55 (Swiss Francs) the next day.

Interested parties have until April 25, 2008, for lead plaintiff
appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (888) 844-5862





                           *********


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  * * *