CAR_Public/080319.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, March 19, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 56
  
                            Headlines

AT&T CORP: Customers Say Cingular Merger Suit Should Go Forward
BALLY TOTAL GYMS: Suit Over Health Club Act Violation Certified
BLUEGREEN CORP: April 18 Hearing Set for N.J. Lawsuit Settlement
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Technicians' Work Policy Suit Certified
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Consumer Suits in U.S. and Canada

DANNON CO: Will Vigorously Fight Yogurt Advertisement Lawsuit
EARTHLINK INC: Faces N.J. Suit Over VOIP Service Non-Termination
EINSTEIN NOAH: Faces Calif. Store Managers' Overtime Pay Suits
HARMONIC INC: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit for $15 Mln.
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Florida Home Buyers Shout Fraud

HSBC FINANCE: Faces Discrimination Lawsuits in Calif. & Mass.
HSBC FINANCE: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Interchange Fee Lawsuit
HSBC FINANCE: Expert Discovery in Ill. Suit to End in March 2008
LEVITT CORP: Deadline to Join Suit Over Failed BFC Merger Nears
LIBERTY MUTUAL: KY Lawsuit Accuses Insurers Of Bilking Customers

MORRISON HOMES: Sued Over Violation of Unfair Competition Law
NYMEX HOLDINGS: Faces Dela. Lawsuit Over Sale to CME Group
OREGON: Gov't Retirees Entitled to 72-Cents-Per-Dollar Recovery
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Still Faces Savings Plan Members' Suit in N.J.
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Court Mulls Summary Judgment Motions in NJ Suit

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Continues in K-DUR Antitrust Lawsuits
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Lawsuits Over VYTORIN, ZETIA Products
SIOUX FALLS: Red-Light Camera Suit Also Alleges Misuse of Fines
SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Lawsuit in Alabama Over "Picture Mail"
TITLE INSURANCE COS: Accused of Rates Fixing in Calif. Lawsuit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BEAR STEARNS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
DEUTSCHE BANK: Girard Gibbs Sues Over Auction Rate Securities
MF GLOBAL: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing in NY
MF GLOBAL: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MICHAEL BAKER: Brower Piven Announces PA Securities Suit Filing

NEUROMETRIX INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in Mass.
PMI GROUP: Dreier LLP Announces Securities Suit Filing in Calif.
PMI GROUP Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing in Ca.
SOCIETE GENERALE: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
VERTEX PHARMA: Brower Piven Announces MA Securities Suit Filing


            Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


AT&T CORP: Customers Say Cingular Merger Suit Should Go Forward
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cell phone customers who sued AT&T Corp. and Cingular Wireless
over abuses in the companies' 2004 merger are asking the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington to protect
their rights and give them their day in court.

In papers filed last week, lawyers representing potentially
millions of AT&T cell phone customers asked the court to
invalidate the class action ban embedded in the company's
arbitration clause, which AT&T claims requires the court to
dismiss the case.

"At stake here is the right of AT&T customers to get a fair
hearing and obtain justice," said Harvey Rosenfield, a lawyer
with the non-profit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights
(FTCR).  "If the court rules that AT&T and Cingular's customers
cannot join together to sue these companies, then the companies
will never be held accountable."

     Lawsuit Targets Cingular Practices in Merger with AT&T

When Cingular bought its rival cell phone company AT&T in 2004,
it promised regulators and the public that AT&T customers would
continue to enjoy the same quality service.

However, according to the lawsuit filed in July 2006, after the
merger, Cingular deliberately degraded the quality of the AT&T
network in order to force AT&T customers to move to Cingular's
network, pay an $18 "upgrade fee," buy brand new phones and sign
up for new two year plans. Dissatisfied consumers who wanted to
move to a different company were required to pay Early
Termination Fees of $150 or more.

         Defendants Say Arbitration Clause Bars Lawsuit

After the suit was filed, AT&T asked the court to dismiss the
case on the grounds that all AT&T customers had agreed as a
condition of obtaining service that any disputes had to be
handled on an individual, one-on-one basis by private
arbitration firms paid for by AT&T.  While AT&T has made various
changes to its arbitration clause over the past few years, the
critical ban on class actions has remained unchanged.
In a lengthy investigation into the arbitration clause that
included the deposition of numerous AT&T witnesses, lawyers for
AT&T customers learned that:

     1. The arbitration clause to which consumers allegedly
        agreed was contained in the fine print in the back of a
        booklet packaged in a box with their cell phones.  In
        other transactions, it was mentioned but not explained.

     2. The actual rules that govern the arbitration process
        consume over 12,000 words.  They do not appear on AT&T's
        web site.  They can only be found through following a
        link to the site of a company hired by AT&T to
        administer the arbitrations, which are conducted through
        private "judges."

     3. According to reports published by AT&T's arbitration
        provider, only 10 consumer arbitrations have been held
        against AT&T since October 2006, proving that the class
        action ban exculpates the company from liability.

After the lawsuit was filed, AT&T changed the arbitration clause
to try to make it more likely that the court would uphold it.
Indeed, it was changed a second time during a deposition in the
case when a lawyer for consumers got a witness for AT&T to
acknowledge a loophole, at which point Cingular's lawyer got up
and made a phone call to dictate a change in the agreement.

In their opposition to individual arbitration filed last week,
lawyers for AT&T customers said that the class action ban was
unlawful under state contract law because it would effectively
prevent customers from obtaining justice.  They also pointed out
that numerous courts have invalidated AT&T's (and other cell
phone companies') class action bans on the same grounds.

"AT&T makes much of the window-dressing terms it has tacked on
to its arbitration clause to hide the impact of its class action
ban," said Leslie Bailey of Public Justice.  "But we're
confident that once the court looks at all the evidence, it will
recognize that without a class action, these customers would not
be able to hold the company accountable."

The suit is "Coneff et al v. AT&T Corporation et al., Case
Number: 2:2006cv00944," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez,
presiding.


BALLY TOTAL GYMS: Suit Over Health Club Act Violation Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter has certified a consumer
class action against two chains of gyms -- Holiday Universal
Inc. and Scandinavian Health Spa -- that alleges they violated
Pennsylvania's Health Club Act by charging grossly excessive
initiation fees to more than 14,000 members since 1998, The
Legal Intelligencer reports.  Both gyms are owned by Bally Total
Fitness Holding Corp.

In her 63-page opinion in "Allen v. Holiday Universal," Judge
Pratter rejected the argument that the case was not amenable to
class treatment due to numerous individual issues.  Instead,
Judge Pratter found that a class action would be the superior
method for handling the claims because common questions of law
predominate and that the differences among the individual
members of the class would become relevant only at the damages
phase of the litigation.

"Overall, the central issue in this case is the same for each
and every member of the proposed class, and the class action
device appears to be the most efficient and fair way to resolve
class members' claims," Judge Pratter wrote.

The suit alleges that members of the Holiday and Scandinavian
gyms were forced to pay excessive membership fees that violate
Pennsylvania's Health Club Act.  Under the HCA, the suit says,
"the amount of any initiation fees imposed by a health club
shall be reasonably related to the club's costs for establishing
the initial membership."

The plaintiffs lawyers contend in the suit that such fees should
never exceed $100, but that the two lead plaintiffs were charged
$632 by Holiday and $1,275 by Scandinavian.

Legal Intelligencer recounts that the suit was initially filed
with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, but defense lawyers
removed the case to federal court and successfully defended that
move by defeating the plaintiffs' motion for a remand to state
court.  Since then, the defense team has suffered two major
setbacks.

The first was September 2007, the report recalls, when Judge
Pratter refused to dismiss the case and rejected a defense
argument that the HCA is unconstitutionally vague because health
clubs would find it impossible to define the statute's
requirement that fees be "reasonable."  Specifically, Judge
Pratter found that "although the word 'reasonable' has been
considered to be vague in some settings unless it is tied to
some measurable standard, here, the measurable standard is
'costs for establishing the initial health club membership.'"

Defense lawyers had insisted that the alleged measurable
standard was itself vague because it includes all costs of
establishing a membership, Legal Intelligencer notes.  However,
the plaintiffs argued that it includes only the costs of getting
the customer into the gym membership contract itself.

Judge Pratter sided with the plaintiffs, finding that "the
health clubs are straining to inject doubt as to the meaning of
words where no doubt would be felt by the normal reader."

Although the statute does not define what the costs that might
be considered are, Judge Pratter found that "the plain language
of the statute's reference to 'costs of establishing the initial
membership' is decidedly not the same as 'costs of establishing
the health club.'"  As a result, the judge said, "a commonsense
reading of the provision suggests reference to the costs of
including the person as a member of the club, not reference to
the costs of establishing the club itself."

Now, Judge Pratter rejected numerous arguments that opposed
class certification.

Legal Intelligencer notes that in their brief, the defense team  
argued that the class definition is overly broad because it
includes persons who have not been injured.  The defense brief
said that, as the class was defined by the plaintiffs, it would
include health club members who "not only accepted the benefits
of their contracts, but wanted such benefits and thus would not
be able to establish liability, as well as current members who
do not wish to void their contracts."

And because the health clubs are asserting ratification of the
contracts as an affirmative defense, the issue of liability
would hinge on the individual circumstances of each class
member, the defense team argued.

Judge Pratter disagreed, saying "the class definition does not
include persons who have not suffered an injury."  If the
initiation fees violate the HCA, Judge Pratter said, "then all
persons who paid those fees have been injured, regardless of
whether they personally view the fees as excessive or wish to
void their contracts."

Judge Pratter also found that the plaintiffs were not seeking to
void all of the contracts but instead were asking for a
declaration that the contracts are "voidable."

Although the defense team was correct in arguing that some
members might choose to ratify their contracts even after they
were deemed to be voidable, Judge Pratter found that would not
preclude class certification.  "The ratification defense is only
relevant if liability is proved, and then only with respect to
damages."

"Under the circumstances presented here, no legally cognizable
ratification can have occurred because at this time the health
club members remain unaware of any facts rendering their
contracts voidable," Judge Pratter further wrote.  "Only if
liability is proved, will the class members then have the option
to rescind -- and thus the corollary opportunity to ratify --
their contracts.  Prior to any such determination on liability,
the class members do not have 'full knowledge of all material
facts,' as required to ratify a contract."

Businessweek says that Bally Total declined to comment on the
recent ruling.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          Donovan Searles
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 732-6067
          Fax: (215) 732-8060

          Daniel S. Blinn, Esq. (dblinn@consumerlawgroup.com)
          Consumer Law Group, LLC
          35 Cold Spring Road, Suite 512
          Rocky Hill, CT 06067
          Phone: (860) 571-0408
          Fax: (860) 571-7457

               - and -

          John Blim, Esq.
          Blim & Edelson
          The Monadnock Building
          Suite 1642, 53 West Jackson Boulevard
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 913-9400
          Fax: (312) 913-9401

The defendants are represented by:

          Albert G. Bixler, Esq. (abixler@eckertseamans.com)
          Anita J. Murray, Esq. (amurray@eckertseamans.com)
          Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott
          Two Liberty Place
          50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 851-8412
          Fax: (215) 851-8383

               - and -

          Norman T. Finkel, Esq. (Norm.Finkel@sfnr.com)
          William R. Klein, Esq. (Bill.Klein@SFNR.com)
          Schoenberg Finkel Newman & Rosenberg
          222 South Riverside Plaza
          Suite 2100
          Chicago, Illinios 60606
          Phone: (312) 648-2300
          Fax: (312) 648-1212


BLUEGREEN CORP: April 18 Hearing Set for N.J. Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April 18, 2008 hearing is set for the proposed settlement in
a purported class action filed by Michelle Alamo, Ernest Alamo,
Toniann Quinn and Terrance Quinn against Bluegreen Corp.  

The suit (Docket No. L-6716-05) was filed with the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Bergen County.  It also names as defendants
Vacation Station LLC, LeisurePath Vacation Club, and
LeisurePath, Inc.

The plaintiffs filed the purported class action on Sept. 23,
2005. The complaint raises allegations concerning the marketing
of the LeisurePath Travel Services Network product to the
public, and, in particular, New Jersey residents by Vacation
Station, LLC, an independent distributor of travel products.  

Vacation Station purchased LeisurePath membership kits from
LeisurePath's master distributor, Mini Vacations, Inc., and then
sold the memberships to consumers.  

The initial Plaintiffs -- none of whom actually bought the
Leisure Path product -- assert claims for violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, fraud, nuisance, negligence and for
equitable relief all stemming from the sale and marketing by
Vacation Station of the LeisurePath Travel Services Network.  

The plaintiffs are seeking the gifts and prizes they were
allegedly told by Vacation Station that they won as part of the
sales promotion, and that they be given the opportunity to
rescind their agreement with LeisurePath along with a full
refund.

The plaintiffs further seek punitive damages, compensatory
damages, attorney's fees and treble damages of unspecified
amounts.

In February 2007, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to add
two additional plaintiffs or proposed class representatives --
Bruce Doxey and Karen Smith-Doxey.  

Unlike the initial plaintiffs who were first contacted by
Vacation Station some seven months after LeisurePath terminated
its relationship with Vacation Station and who did not purchase
LeisurePath products, the Doxeys purchased a participation in
the LeisurePath Travel Services Network.

Vacation Station and its owner have each filed for bankruptcy
protection and, accordingly, the case is being pursued against
LeisurePath and Bluegreen Corp.

In the Fall of 2007, the court denied the plaintiffs' request to
certify their claims as a class action.  

Subsequently, the parties negotiated a settlement in an effort
to extinguish the claims of persons who purchased the benefits
of the Leisure Path Travel.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to a
settlement pursuant to which persons who purchased a
participation in the Network from Vacation Station's sales
office in Hackensack, New Jersey, will be allowed to select
either:

       -- seven consecutive nights of accommodations in a
          Bluegreen resort located in either Orlando, Las Vegas,
          or Myrtle Beach to be used by Dec. 31, 2009; or

       -- continued memberships and a waiver of their Network
          membership fees until 2012.

In an effort to resolve any claims of individuals who may allege
improper soliciting, but did not purchase a participation in the
Network, an agreed upon number of three day/two night vacation
certificates (for use at the same properties listed above) will
be made available.  The first non-purchasers who submit a
prepared affidavit swearing to the validity of their claim will
receive these certificates.

Furthermore, the defendants have agreed in principle to a "high-
low agreement" with regard to the plaintiffs' counsel's fees
pursuant to which he will receive a minimum of $150,000 and a
maximum of $300,000, depending upon the Court's fee award.

Incentive payments totaling $13,000 will be made to the six
named plaintiffs in the suit.

This settlement structure was preliminarily approved by the
court on Jan. 18, 2008.  

A Fairness Hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement
will take place on April 18, 2008, according to Bluegreen's
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.

Bluegreen Corp. -- http://www.bluegreencorp.com/-- is a  
provider of vacation and residential lifestyle choices through
its resorts and residential community businesses.  The Company
is organized into two divisions: Bluegreen Resorts and Bluegreen
Communities.  Bluegreen Resorts acquires, develops and markets
vacation ownership interests in resorts generally located in
drive-to vacation destinations.  Bluegreen Corp. also generates
interest income through its financing of individual purchasers
of VOIs, and to a nominal extent, homesites sold by Bluegreen
Communities.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Technicians' Work Policy Suit Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Crabb, of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, has granted class action status to a
complaint filed by Charter Communications Inc. technicians and
installers who allege that the company's policies regarding the
vehicles that workers took home caused the technicians to work
off the clock, according to Multichannel News.

The suit, filed in 2007, was certified as a class action on
March 3, 2008.  It applies to broadband technicians, senior
systems technicians, installers and installer/repairmen who took
company trucks home overnight.

In the suit, the workers allege that Charter has a task-based
quota system for field workers.  Raises and promotions are based
on meeting the quotas, they point out.  However, points are not
assigned and there is no time credit for other necessary tasks
such as loading and unloading equipment from company trucks at a
worker's home or for maintenance of the trucks.

Moreover, Charter holds workers responsible for hardware in
their possession, and requires that workers secure the equipment
in their homes if they take vehicles overnight.

In addition, the workers said they felt compelled to do
inventory and other paperwork before going on the clock, in
order to leave time to complete their points-earning assigned
tasks for the day.

The named plaintiff is Maurice Sjoblom of Beloit, Wis., but, the
report notes, the judge ruled that alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act may have occurred in Charter's dealings
with field workers across the country.

Attorneys for the workers have until May 15, 2008, to solicit
for class members.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Consumer Suits in U.S. and Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. faces several consumer class actions
filed in various federal courts throughout the United States and
in Canada, 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. 30, 2007.

                          Federal Suits

In October 2006, Cypress, along with a majority of the other
SRAM manufacturers, was sued in over 82 purported consumer class
action suits in various U.S. Federal District Courts.

The cases variously allege claims under the Sherman Antitrust
Act, state antitrust laws and unfair competition laws.  They
seek restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified
amount.

The cases are now consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  The cases have been
largely stayed with the exception of document production, which
Cypress continues to deliver to the plaintiffs.

                         Canadian Suits

In addition to the federal class action lawsuits, Cypress, along
with a number of the SRAM manufacturers, was also sued in
purported consumer anti-trust class action suits in three
separate provinces in Canada.

Cypress Semiconductor Corp. -- http://www.cypress.com/-- is a  
broad-line semiconductor company.  The Company delivers mixed-
signal, programmable solutions.  Its offerings include the
Programmable System-on-Chip products, universal serial bus or
USB controllers, general-purpose programmable clocks and
memories.  Cypress also offers wired and wireless connectivity
solutions.  Cypress serves numerous markets, including consumer,
computation, data communications, automotive and industrial.


DANNON CO: Will Vigorously Fight Yogurt Advertisement Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dannon Co. Inc. is prepared to "vigorously" defend itself in
court against a proposed class action lawsuit that could last
for years, Reuters reports.

The lawsuit, filed in a Los Angeles federal court in January
2008, accuses the North American unit of France's Groupe Danone
SA of mounting a false advertising campaign to convince
consumers to pay more for yogurt containing "probiotic" bacteria
because of the products' health benefits.

The complaint contends that Dannon's studies failed to support
its advertised claims that its Activia and DanActive brands were
"clinically" and "scientifically" "proven" to have health
benefits that other types of yogurt did not.

Dannon's Chief Executive Juan Carlos Dalto told Reuters that the
company "very proudly stands by" its contention that it had been
"truthful and compliant with all laws and regulations."  

Aside from some negative headlines, Mr. Dalto said that so far
the suit has not had any impact on business and that Dannon's
relationship with consumers has not been harmed at all.

Mr. Dalto said that Dannon has run numerous "clinical studies"
testing the effects that its Activia and DanActive yogurts have
when eaten daily.  The company claims that a special live
bacteria in Activia promotes digestive regularity, while one in
DanActive is meant to boost immunity.

"These tests are run in partnership with scientific groups and
then reviewed by scientific experts before publication in
scientific journals," Ms. Dalto asserted.  "We are very strong
and convinced about what we're doing.  We are optimistic about
the outcome."

                        About Dannon Co.

The Dannon Company is America's founding national yogurt  
company and continually leverages its expertise to develop and  
market innovative cultured fresh dairy products in the United  
States.  The company produces and sells approximately 100  
different types of flavors, styles and sizes of cultured fresh  
dairy products.  

Dannon is owned by Groupe Danone, one of the world's leading  
producers of packaged foods and beverages, and Dannon is the  
top-selling brand of yogurt products worldwide, sold under the  
names Dannon and Danone.


EARTHLINK INC: Faces N.J. Suit Over VOIP Service Non-Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
EarthLink, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey accusing
the company of refusing to terminate VOIP telephone services at
subscribers' request, and continues to take electronic bank
payments for the unwanted service, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a class action pursuant to F.R.C.P 23, on behalf of all
persons or entities in the States of New Jersey and California
who purchased from Earthlink, Inc. residential DSL and telephone
service and were charged for services and cancellation fees
after requesting cancellation of the Earthlink, Inc. services.

This is an action to secure compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including
cessation of collections and other equitable relief.  The claims
asserted here are premised on deceptive, unlawful and unfair
business practices, unconscionable commercial practices,
misrepresentations and fraud in violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act - 15 U.S.C
Section 1693 and other claims set forth.

Earthlink offers purportedly high-quality Internet DSL access
and telephone service.  However, when customers wish to cancel
their services, Earthlink makes cancellation extremely
difficult.

Often after a customer requests cancellation, Earthlink
continues to charge customers for services and unconscionable
cancellation fees and shipping fees directly to their customers'
credit card account or debit card associated with bank accounts.

Earthlink fails to adequately notify customers of their
forthcoming automatic charges and the unconscionable
cancellation fee and shipping fees before charges are incurred
by the customers for the continued billing after the requests
for cancellation.

The plaintiff brings the action pursuant to the provisions of
F.R.C.P. 23 on behalf of all persons and entities residing in
the State of New Jersey and California who purchased from
Earthlink, Inc., residential DSL and telephone service and were
charged for services or cancellation fees after requesting
cancellation of Earthlink, Inc. services.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     a. Whether Earthlink fraudulently and deceptively
        misleads purchasers of their DSL Internet Access and
        telephone services when they seek to cancel their
        Earthlink services;

     b. Whether Earthlink's cancellation system is designed to
        mislead consumers;

     c. Whether Earthlink's erects improper barriers that impede
        the cancellation of its services by customers;

     d. Whether Earthlink fails to provide adequate notice to of
        the cancellation charges and shipping charges before
        charging its customers;

     e. Whether Earthlink was aware of standards of fair dealing
        and ethical business practices in connection with
        selling Internet access services and telephone services
        but nevertheless failed to conduct its business
        according to said standards and practices;

     f. Whether Earthlink charges unconscionably inflated prices
        for cancellation fees and shipping charges under its
        cancellation program;

     g. Whether Earthlink's business practices constitute
        violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the
        California C.L.R.A. Civ. Code Section 1770(a)(5), the
        Electronic Fund Transfer Act, breach of contract and, if
        so, the measure of damages and triple damages;

     h. Whether Earthlink's business practices have proximately
        caused injury to plaintiffs and all others similarly
        situated and, if so, the proper measure of damages;

     i. Whether Earthlink has been unjustly enriched by its
        practices as detailed herein;

     j. Whether Earthlink's actions were sufficiently wrongful
        so as to entitle plaintiffs and all others similarly
        situated to punitive damages; and,

     k. Whether the Class has been damaged and suffered
        irreparable harm and, if so, the extent of such damages
        and the nature of the equitable and injunctive relief
        which each member of the Class is entitled.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the members of the
class, demand judgment as follows:

     -- A determination that this action is a proper class
        action maintainable under Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure, Rule 23, and certifying an appropriate Class
        and Subclass and certifying Plaintiffs as Class  
        representatives;

     -- Equitable and injunctive relief enjoining Earthlink and
        affiliates from pursuing the policies, acts and
        practices described in this Complaint;

     -- An order requiring disgorgement and imposing a
        constructive trust upon Earthlink monies received from
        service fees after cancellation, cancellation fees and
        shipping fees, and requiring defendants to pay the
        plaintiffs and all members of the class for any act or
        practice declared by this Court to be unlawful;

     -- Damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- Statutory damages for violations of the applicable
        federal law and state statutes, including the New Jersey
        Consumer Fraud Act and the California Consumers Legal
        Remedies Act.

     -- Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum
        rate allowable at law;

     -- Compensatory and statutory damages for violations of
        the Electronic Fund Transfer Act;

     -- Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- For a declaratory judgment declaring the service fees
        after cancellation and cancellation fees and
        shipping fees unenforceable and setting them aside;

     -- The costs and disbursements incurred by plaintiffs in
        connection with this action, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees and expert fees; and

     -- Such other and further relief as the court deems just
        and proper.

The suit is "Danielle Demetriou et al. v. Earthlink, Inc.,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Representing the plaintffs are:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, New Jersey 07645
          Phone: (201) 391-7000
          Fax:(201) 307-1086

          Michael S. Green, Esq.
          Green & Pagano, LLP
          522 Route 18, P.O. Box 428
          East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816
          Phone: (732) 390-0480
          Fax: (732) 390-0481

               - and -

          Paul Diamond, Esq.
          Diamond Law Office, LLC
          1605 John Street, Suite 102
          Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024
          Phone: (201) 242-1110
          Fax: (973) 302-8189


EINSTEIN NOAH: Faces Calif. Store Managers' Overtime Pay Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc., faces two purported class
actions in the California over its alleged failure to pay
overtime wages to "salaried restaurant employees" of its stores
in the state, according to the Company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 1, 2008.

                      Mathistad Litigation

On Sept. 18, 2007, Eric Mathistad, a former store manager, filed
a putative class action against the Company with the Superior
Court of California for the State of California, County of San
Diego.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to pay overtime
wages to "salaried restaurant employees" of its California
stores who were improperly designated as exempt employees, and
that these employees were deprived of mandated meal periods and
rest breaks.

The plaintiff alleges that these actions were in violation of
the California Labor Code Sections 1194, et seq., 500, et seq.,
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.,
and applicable wage order(s) issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
attorney's fees, restitution and an unspecified amount of
damages for unpaid overtime and for missed meal and rest
periods.

The Company filed a demurrer on Oct. 18, 2007, claiming that,
inter alia:

       -- the plaintiff fails to state a claim against the
          Company;

       -- the plaintiff does not state a claim for a joint
          venture, partnership, common enterprise, or aiding and
          abetting;

       -- the plaintiff's definition of the class is deficient
          and

       -- the plaintiff's claims for declaratory judgment
          regarding Labor Code violations should be dismissed.

                        Mejia Litigation

On Nov. 14, 2007, Bernadette Mejia, another former store
manager, filed a similar case.

The Company filed a demurrer on Dec. 14, 2007, claiming that,
inter alia, the Mathistad case was pending between the same
putative parties on the same causes of action.

Lakewood, Colorado-based Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. --
http://www.einsteinnoah.com/-- commenced operations as an  
operator and franchisor of coffee cafes in 1993, is an
owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty
restaurants in the U.S.  


HARMONIC INC: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit for $15 Mln.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harmonic Inc., a leading provider of broadcast and on-demand
video delivery solutions, reached a tentative agreement for the
settlement of a securities class action filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in 2000.

The cost of the settlement is $15 million, plus an estimated
aggregate of $1.4 million in related legal fees and expenses in
connection with proceedings in the securities class action and
derivative lawsuits.

Of this aggregate cost of settlement, Harmonic will pay
$6.4 million and the Company's insurance carriers, having funded
most litigation costs to date, will contribute the remaining
$10 million.

Between June 28 and Aug. 25, 2000, several actions alleging
violations of the federal securities were filed in or removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The actions were subsequently consolidated.

A consolidated complaint, filed on Dec. 7, 2000, was brought on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Harmonic's
publicly traded securities between Jan. 19 and June 26, 2000.   

It alleged claims on behalf of a purported subclass of persons
who purchased C-Cube Microsystems Inc. securities between
Jan. 19 and May 3, 2000.

In addition to the company and certain of its officers and
directors, the complaint also named C-Cube Microsystems and
several of its officers and directors as defendants.  

The complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading
statements regarding Harmonic's prospects and customers and its
acquisition of C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated
section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 by filing a false or
misleading registration statement, prospectus, and joint proxy
in connection with the C-Cube acquisition.

On July 3, 2001, the District Court dismissed the consolidated
complaint with leave to amend.  An amended complaint alleging
the same claims against the same defendants was filed on
Aug. 13, 2001.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Sept. 24,
2001.  On Nov. 13, 2002, the District Court issued an opinion
granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint without
leave to amend.  Judgment for defendants was entered on Dec. 2,
2002.

On Dec. 12, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to
Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On June 6, 2003, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003.  A
panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit heard the appeal on Feb. 17, 2005.  

On Nov. 8, 2005, the 9th Circuit panel affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings the
decision of the District Court.

The 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' fraud claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs
failed to adequately plead their allegations of fraud.  

The 9th Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act, however, finding that those claims did not
allege fraud and therefore were subject to only minimal pleading
standards.

Regarding the secondary liability claim under Section 15 of the
Securities Act, the 9th Circuit reversed the dismissal of that
claim against Anthony J. Ley, the company's chairman and chief
executive officer, and affirmed the dismissal of that claim
against Harmonic, while granting leave to amend.  The 9th
Circuit remanded the surviving claims to the District Court for
further proceedings.

On Nov. 22, 2005, both the Harmonic defendants and the
plaintiffs petitioned the 9th Circuit for a rehearing of the
appeal.  On Feb. 16, 2006, the 9th Circuit denied both
petitions.

On May 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
the issues remanded for further proceedings by the 9th Circuit,
to which the Harmonic defendants responded with a motion to
dismiss certain claims and to strike certain allegations.

On Dec. 11, 2006, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
respect to the Section 12(a)(2) claim against the individual
Harmonic defendants and granted the motion to strike, but denied
the motion to dismiss the Section 15 claim.

A case management conference was held on Jan. 25, 2007, at which
the court set a trial date in August 2008 (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 16, 2007).

The court also ordered the parties to attend a settlement
conference with a magistrate judge or a private mediation before
June 30, 2007.

A mediation session was held on May 24, 2007 at which the
parties were unable to reach a settlement.

With the recent tentative settlement agreement, the Company
believes that it is in its best interests to avoid the cost,
management distraction and risk associated with a trial,
currently scheduled for August 2008.

The tentative agreement is subject to certain contingencies,
including execution of a definitive agreement and court
approval.  The agreement will provide a full release of Harmonic
and the other named defendants in connection with the
allegations in the lawsuit without any admission of fault on the
part of Harmonic or its officers and directors.

As a result of this tentative agreement, the Company will record
a charge of $6.4 million in its financial statements for the
year ended December 31, 2007 to be included in its Annual Report
on Form 10-K to be filed with the SEC.

In addition, following the completion of year-end audit
procedures, the Company has identified certain adjustments to
its preliminary unaudited financial statements announced on
January 29, 2008, for the quarter and year ended December 31,
2007.  These adjustments result in the reduction of quarterly
and annual revenue and net income by $984,000 and $253,000,
respectively, and will also be included in the financial
statements in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2007.

The impact of the litigation settlement and these other
adjustments will reduce the Company's reported diluted GAAP EPS
for the quarter and year by $0.08 for both periods, but non-GAAP
EPS reported on January 29 will remain unchanged.

Approximately $820,000 of the adjusted revenue and associated
cost of sales of $413,000 are expected to be recognized in the
first quarter of 2008.  Revised unaudited financial statements,
which include the litigation settlement charge and related
expenses, the effect of the year-end adjustments and a revised
GAAP to non-GAAP reconciliation, are attached at the end of this
release.

Harmonic, Inc. -- http://www.harmonicinc.com/-- designs,  
manufactures and sells products and systems that enable network
operators to provide a range of interactive and advanced digital
services that include digital video, video-on-demand, high-
definition television, high-speed Internet access and telephony.

The Company's products generally fall into two categories: video
processing products, and edge and access products.  


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Florida Home Buyers Shout Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. did not receive 10% to 25% of the
purchase price on 1,345 houses in Lee County, Florida, after the
buyers were unable or unwilling to close on the deals, Fort
Myers News-Press reports, citing company officials.

According to News-Press, lawyers filed a class action lawsuit
against Hovnanian, alleging that fraud and misrepresentation by
the company resulted in the failure of those deals to go
through.

News-Press relates that Hovnanian, a publicly traded company
based in Red Bank, N.J., bought the assets of Fort Myers-based
First Home Builders in August 2005 when it was the biggest
residential builder in Lee County.  However, Hovnanian's sales
in the county plummeted after the housing market crashed in 2006
and the company has not started a house since March 2007.

Technically, the houses involved are considered "delivered,"
Hovnanian Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
J. Larry Sorsby told analysts.  He explained that buyers
purchased them with construction loans that paid for the lot --
then Hovnanian would take draws from the loan to pay for the
house's construction.

Buyers were originally supposed to convert the construction loan
to a mortgage on completion of the house, but many were
unwilling or unable to do that as prices plunged and lenders
tightened credit policies after the market started to slide in
early 2006, the report explains.

"Basically we determined we had no ongoing involvement with
those homes," so for accounting purposes the result was the same
as if the buyers had closed on them, Mr. Sorsby said.

In a Dec. 19 conference call with analysts, Mr. Sorsby said that
Hovnanian was not paid between 10% and 25% of the purchase price
of each home because the buyers did not close.

The class action suit, filed with a federal court in Los
Angeles, alleges that Hovnanian officials, including Mr. Sorsby
and CEO Ara Hovnanian, deceived stockholders and the investment
community by misleading them about how little many would-be
buyers had at stake: as little as $1,000 per house even for
investors who never planned to live there.

News-Press relates that most of the 1,345 houses ended up in the
hands of the National Credit Union Administration, which got
them from two credit unions -- the former Norlarco in Fort
Collins and Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Huron River Area Credit Union
-- after the credit unions made thousands of unsecured home
loans in Lee County.

Mr. Sorsby told News-Press in an e-mail on March 11, 2008, that
the company believes the suit is totally baseless and without
merit, and that the defenndants will aggressively defend
themselves.


HSBC FINANCE: Faces Discrimination Lawsuits in Calif. & Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corp. and one or more of its subsidiaries have been
named as defendant in three discrimination class actions filed
either with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California or with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Since July 2007, the company and its subsidiaries have been
facing these purported class actions:

       -- "Zamudio v. HSBC North America Holdings and HSBC
          Finance Corporation d/b/a Beneficial, (N.D. Ill.
          07CV5413),"

       -- "National Association for the Advancement of Colored
          People ("NAACP") v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et
          al. including HSBC Finance Corporation (C.D. Ca., No.
          SACV07-0794AG(ANx)),"

       -- "Toruno v. HSBC Finance Corporation and Decision One
          Mortgage Company, LLC (C.D. Ca., No. CV07-
          05998JSL(RCx)," and

       -- "Suyapa Allen v. Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC,
          HSBC Finance Corporation, et al. (D. Mass., C.A. 07-
          11669)."

Each suit alleges that the defendants racially discriminated
against their customers by using loan pricing policies and
procedures that have resulted in a disparate impact against
minority customers.  

The suits also allege violations of various federal statutes,
including the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 3, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

HSBC Finance Corp. -- http://www.hsbcusa.com/-- is an indirect  
subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc., a bank holding
company, and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC
Holdings plc.  The Company provides middle-market consumers in
the U.S., the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland
with several types of loan products.  HSBC Finance Corp. is the
principal fund raising vehicle for the operations of its
subsidiaries.


HSBC FINANCE: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Interchange Fee Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action "In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-
1720," involving HSBC Finance Corp. and two of its affiliates as
defendants.

Since June 2005, the company, HSBC North America Holdings Inc.,
and HSBC Holdings plc, as well as other banks and the Visa and
Master Card associations, were named as defendants in four class
actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New
York.

The suits are:

      -- "Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
         (D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE))";

      -- "National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v.
         Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520
         (JG))";

      -- "Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et
         al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG))"; and

      -- "American Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.
         (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG))."

Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations -- in
which no HSBC entity is named -- were filed across the country
against Visa, MasterCard and other banks.  

The actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-
surcharge rule by the associations or the establishment of the
interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the
merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supra-
competitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust laws.

At the plaintiffs' request, on Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating the
suits and transferred all of the cases to the Eastern District
of New York.  The consolidated case is known as "In re Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,
MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y."  The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on April 24, 2006, and discovery has begun.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 3, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Master Docket No. 1:05-
md-01720-JG-CLP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Judge John H. Gleeson presiding.

Representing the company is:

         David Sapir Lesser, Esq. (david.lesser@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Cutler of Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP
         399 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-230-8800
         Fax: 212-230-8811


HSBC FINANCE: Expert Discovery in Ill. Suit to End in March 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery in a consolidated securities class action
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois against HSBC Finance Corp. and other defendants is
expected to end by March 2008.

In August 2002, the company restated previously reported
consolidated financial statements.  The restatement related to
certain MasterCard and Visa co-branding and affinity credit card
relationships and a third-party marketing agreement, which were
entered into between 1992 and 1999.  All were part of the
company's Credit Card Services segment.

In consultation with its prior auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP,
the company treated payments made in connection with these
agreements as prepaid assets and amortized them in accordance
with the underlying economics of the agreements.

Its current auditor, KPMG LLP, advised the company that, in its
view, the payments should have either been charged against
earnings at the time they were made or amortized over a shorter
period of time.

The restatement resulted in a $155.8-million after-tax,
retroactive reduction to retained earnings at Dec. 31, 1998.  As
a result of the restatement, and other corporate events,
including, e.g., the 2002 settlement with 50 states and the
District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices,
HSBC Finance Corp., and its directors, certain officers and
former auditors have been involved in various legal proceedings,
some of which purport to be class actions.

A number of the actions allege violations of federal securities
laws were filed between August and October 2002, and seek to
recover damages in respect of allegedly false and misleading
statements about the company's common stock.

The legal actions have been consolidated into a single purported
class action, "Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al.,
No. 02-C-5893 (N.D. Ill., filed Aug. 19, 2002)."  A consolidated
and amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2003.

On Dec. 3, 2004, the court signed the parties' stipulation to
certify a class with respect to the claims brought under Section
10 and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.   

The parties stipulated that the plaintiffs will not seek to
certify a class with respect to the claims brought under Section
11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in this action
or otherwise.

The amended complaint purports to assert claims under the
federal securities laws, on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the company's securities between Oct. 23,
1997, and Oct. 11, 2002, arising out of alleged false and
misleading statements in connection with the company's sales and
lending practices, the 2002 state settlement agreement, the
restatement and the HSBC merger.

The amended complaint, which also names as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., did not specify the amount of damages
sought.

In May 2003, the company, and other defendants, filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint.  On March 19, 2004, the court granted
in part, and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint.

The court dismissed all claims against Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co.  The court also
dismissed certain claims alleging strict liability for alleged
misrepresentation of material facts based on statute of
limitations grounds.

The claims that remain against some or all of the defendants
essentially allege the defendants knowingly made a false
statement of a material fact in conjunction with the purchase or
sale of securities, that the plaintiffs justifiably relied on
the statement, the false statement caused the plaintiffs
damages, and that some or all of the defendants should be liable
for those alleged statements.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the Court also dismissed all alleged Section
10 Claims that arose prior to July 30, 1999, shortening the
class period by 22 months.   

Fact discovery is concluded.  Expert discovery is presently
expected to conclude on March 16, 2008, 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 suit is "Jaffe v. Household Int'l Inc., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-05893," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Ronald A. Guzman presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Gary L. Specks, Esq. (gspecks@kaplanfox.com)
         Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
         203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 558-1584

              - and -

         Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. (spenceb@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058

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


LEVITT CORP: Deadline to Join Suit Over Failed BFC Merger Nears
---------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline to join a lawsuit seeking class action status
against Levitt Corp. is next Tuesday, March 25, South Florida
Business Journal reports.

The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 25, 2008, by Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, centers around the failed merger between
Levitt (NYSE: LEV) and BFC Financial Corp., which is Levitt's
controlling shareholder.  

Business Journal recounts that on Jan. 31, 2007, Levitt said it
agreed to merge with BFC Financial.  The proposed transaction
valued Levitt stock at $14.41 a share, which is 32% over the
closing price of $10.88 a share on the previous trading day.
However, on Aug. 15, 2007, Levitt said that the merger agreement
with BFC was off, prompting the company's shares to fall 79
cents -- more than 21% -- to close at $2.96.

Additional law firms have since filed similar suits.  Levitt,
however, gave no comment.

The lawsuit alleges that between Jan. 31 and Aug. 14, 2007,
Levitt and some of its officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that its Levitt and
Sons subsidiary was "in much worse financial condition than
publicly represented."  That subsidiary filed bankruptcy in
November after lengthy negotiations with creditors.

The suit also says that Levitt was overstating its financial
results during that period because it was failing to timely
record an impairment in the value of its homebuilding inventory
at Levitt and Sons, and that it failed to disclose that its
loans to the subsidiary would not be recovered, as it was
insolvent.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: KY Lawsuit Accuses Insurers Of Bilking Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company is facing a class-action
complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky accusing it of bilking customers by adding
2% or more to their premiums for putative "taxes and collection
fees" the customers do not actually owe, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The insurers falsely claim to owe taxes to local government, and
use that false claim as a "coercive guise" to rake in more
profits, the suit states.

Named plaintiffs Kelly and Stephen Middendorf For years, Liberty
Mutual Fire Insurance Co. and its affiliated companies have
reaped profits at the expense of their customers by engaging in
a practice of overcharging premiums, by including in said
premiums taxes and collection fees that are not, in fact, due
and owing.

Misrepresenting to their customers that the amounts being
charged are correct, Liberty Mutual uses the coercive guise of
taxes and collection fees to, as a practical matter, increase
premium revenue.

Liberty Mutual charges customers for a tax that is not owed and
convert upwards of an additional 2% of the total premium as
self-payment for collecting the tax it claims it owes to a local
government.

The scheme is not complicated -- the more "taxes" Liberty Mutual
claims to owe, the more self-payment fees it collects.  Indeed,
the practice allows insurance companies to increase profits by
as much as 2% without raising premium rates.

The plaintiffs bring the action on behalf All customers, owning
or insuring risks in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, who purchased
an insurance policy from Liberty Mutual or its affiliated
companies during the relevant time period, February 15, 2003, to
the present, and who were charged local government taxes or
collection fees on their premium statements when none were owed,
or were charged such taxes or fees at rates higher than
permitted, as may be determined by information available in
Liberty Mutual and its affiliated companies' policy records.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     a. Whether Liberty Mutual and affiliated companies have
        engaged in unlawful billing practices by overcharging
        customers taxes or fees that were not owed;

     b. Whether Liberty Mutual and affiliated companies have
        engaged in illegal dealing in premiums;

     c. Whether Liberty Mutual and affiliated companies have
        misrepresented to consumers amounts owed for insurance
        coverage;

     d. Whether Liberty Mutual and affiliated companies have
        violated Kentucky's consumer protection laws;

     e. Whether Liberty Mutual and affiliated companies are
        authorized to charge a collection fee in addition to an
        otherwise lawful premium tax;

     f. Whether Liberty Mutual and affiliated companies have
        engaged in fraudulent conduct by charging plaintiff
        class members taxes that were either not owed or at
        rates higher than permitted;

     g. Whether Liberty Mutual and affiliated companies have
        converted plaintiff class members' money when they
        charge for taxes that are not owed and charge upwards of
        an additional 2% of the total premium as self-payment
        for collecting what they claim was a tax due to local
        governments;

     h. Whether Liberty Mutual and affiliated companies have
        been negligent in determining the location of insurable
        risks and misrepresenting premiums for insurance
        charges.

The plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the other
members of the class, ask the court to:

     1. enter an order certifying the action as a class action
        pursuant to the Federal Civil Rules of Procedure and
        appointing the plaintiffs as representatives of
        the plaintiffs' class;

     2. enter an order certifying the action as a class action
        pursuant to the Federal Civil Rules of Procedure and
        naming the defendant as representative of Liberty Mutual
        affiliate companies;

     3. enter a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and class
        members against Liberty Mutual, which amount is to be
        ascertained at trial and includes monies paid to Liberty
        Mutual by plaintiffs and class members for wrongfully
        collected local government taxes and self-pay collection
        fees, and any additional amounts collected by Liberty
        Mutual in furtherance and as a result of its wrongful
        acts;

     4. enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and class members
        awarding interest to compensate for the wrongful use of
        plaintiffs' and class members' money;

     5. enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and class
        members and against Liberty Mutual awarding them
        punitive damages in an amount determined by the jury at
        trial.

     6. enter an order in favor of the plaintiffs and the class
        members and against Liberty Mutual, awarding the
        plaintiffs and class members' attorney fees, incentive
        fees, litigation expenses (including fees and costs of
        expert witnesses) and other costs of this action;

     7. enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and class
        members and against Liberty Mutual, awarding them pre-
        judgment interest to compensate them for the defendants
        wrongful use of their money;

     8. ordering that the undersigned counsel be appointed as
        counsel for the plaintiffs' class; and

     9. enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the class
        members and against Liberty Mutual, awarding them
        declaratory and injunctive or other equitable relief as
        may be just and warranted under the circumstances.

The suit is "Kelly & Stephen Middendorf et al. v. Liberty Mutual
Fire Insurance Company," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher S. Nordloh, Esq.
          Nordloh Law Office, PLLC
          28 West 5th Street
          Covington, Kentucky 41011
          Phone: (859) 491-9991
          Fax: (859) 491-0187

          Alexander F. Edmondson, Esq.
          Jason V. Reed, Esq.
          Edmondson & Associates
          28 West 5th Street
          Covington, Kentucky 41011
          Phone: (859) 491-5551
          Fax: (859) 491-0187

          John Whitfield, Esq.
          Whitfield & Cox PSC
          29 E. Center Street
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Phone (270)-821-0656
          Fax (270)-825-1163

               - and -

           Gary E. Mason, Esq.
           The Mason Law Firm LLP
           1125 19th Street N.W., Suite 500
           Washington, DC 20036
           Phone: (202) 429-2290


MORRISON HOMES: Sued Over Violation of Unfair Competition Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morrison Homes, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the Superior court of the State of California for the
County of Sacramento accusing it of illegally requiring
homebuyers to finance their houses through Morrison Financial
and to use a Morrison affiliated escrow company, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This class action is brought on behalf of residential borrowers
who purchased a home from Morrison Homes, Inc.; received a
mortgage loan for such home purchase that was originated,
processed and  brokered by Morrison Financial; used an escrow
company designated by and affiliated with Morrison; and  bought
title insurance for such home purchase from a title company
designated by and affiliated with Morrison, wherein the
borrower(s) were required by the literal terms of their real
estate purchase agreement with Morrison to finance their
purchase through, and or processed by and brokered by Morrisson
Financial, use a Morrison-affiliated escrow company, and obtain
title insurance through a Morrison-affiliated company.

The plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure Section 382 and California Civil Code Section
1781.

The plaintiffs seek to represent two subclasses:

     * All residential mortgage borrowers, nationally, who,
       within four years of the filing of this Class Action
       Complaint, purchased a home from mortgage with the
       assistance of a federally related financial loan in
       which:

       i. Morrison accepted a fee, kickback, rebate or thing of
          value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral
          or otherwise, from Title Company(s) and or Title
          Insurance Company(s) for referrals of business or
          services or insurance incident to or a part of a real
          estate settlement service for the purchase of a
          Morrison home from Morisson;

      ii. A part of the title insurance premium purchased at the
          time of closing purchase of a home from MORRISON was
          paid to a reinsurance company affiliated with
          MOirrison; and

     iii. Were required by the terms of their real estate
          purchase agreement(s) with Morisson, and addendums
          thereto, to obtain title insurance through and or from
          a company selected or recommended by Morrison.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- for an order certifying this action may be maintained as
        a class action;

     -- for general, special and consequential damages
        according to proof;

     -- for punitive and exemplary damages;

     -- for statutory damages pursuant to Real Estate
        Settlement Procedures Act;

     -- for equitable entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs
        from the common fund;

     -- for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to California
        Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5;

     -- for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting  
        defendant's from engaging in the unlawful, unfair,
        and  fraudulent conduct alleged herein, including:

         a. An injunction prohibiting defendants, in connection
            with a transaction involving a federally related
            mortgage loan, from requiring that its customers use
            any particular title insurer or title company for a
            transaction;

         b. An injunction prohibiting defendants, in connection
            with a transaction involving a federally related
            mortgage loan, from using sales contracts which
            state, in substance, that defendants select the
            title Insurer;

         c. An injunction prohibiting DEFENDANTS from charging
            for escrow fees or escrow related services that have
            not been filed with the GDI and approved.

The suit is "Traci Johnson et al. v. Morrison Homes, Inc.,"
filed with the Superior court of the State of California for the
County of Sacramento.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. (wkreger@maklawyers.com)
          Paul D. Stevens, Esq. (pstevens@maklawyers.com)
          Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, California 90405
          Telephone: (310)396-9600
          Fax:(310)396-9635


NYMEX HOLDINGS: Faces Dela. Lawsuit Over Sale to CME Group
----------------------------------------------------------
On March 17, 2008, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on behalf of shareholders of NYMEX Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE:NMX), against NYMEX, Richard Schaeffer, certain other
directors and officers of the company, and CME Group Inc. for
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed sale
of NYMEX to CME.

The complaint alleges that the director-defendants, aided and
abetted by NYMEX and CME, breached their fiduciary duties to
plaintiff Cataldo J. Capozza -- an original member and
shareholder -- and the other NYMEX shareholders by agreeing to
sell NYMEX to CME for grossly inadequate consideration.

The complaint also alleges that the proposed acquisition was
negotiated through a process that was fundamentally flawed.

According to Mr. Capozza, "I have taken this action to protect
all the NYMEX shareholders from the personal self-interest of
management. If we sell our shares, we should get a fair and
adequate price, not one that rewards Mr. Schaeffer and his
cohorts at our expense."

Mr. Capozza added, "I have been a member and shareholder of the
New York Mercantile Exchange for more than 25 years, and my
concern has always been to see that the members are treated
fairly. This proposed sale is the latest instance of management
operating for their own interest rather than the best interest
of all the shareholders. As a public company, it is more
important than ever that management is accountable to all the
shareholders."

The suit is "Capozza v. NYMEX Holdings, Inc., et al.," filed
with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. (rifkin@whafh.com)
          Rachel Poplock, Esq. (poplock@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600


OREGON: Gov't Retirees Entitled to 72-Cents-Per-Dollar Recovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Retired public employees who are part of a class-action lawsuit
against the public pension system five years ago are entitled to
some money back, Peter Wong writes for Statesman Journal.

The report says that the retirees can get as much as 72 cents
for each dollar they gave, minus handling expenses.

However, Mr. Wrong notes, it has been hard to find some of the
original contributors to the pension fund, which still has
$243,000 on hand.

As a result, a group has turned to publicity in an effort to
return some of the money that retirees raised to pursue one of
the six lawsuits challenging changes the 2003 Legislature made
in the system.  The Oregon Supreme Court upheld some changes in
2005 but overturned others, including a decision by the Public
Employees Retirement System to withhold cost-of-living increases
from those who retired between April 1, 2000, and March 30,
2004.

Mr. Wong relates that nearly a quarter-million dollars is in the
fund after the group's lawyers were paid and after some refunds
have been made.

The Sartain case was financed solely by contributions to the
Oregon Public Retirees Litigation Fund, an arm of Oregon PERS
Retirees, that were made between July 1, 2003, and Oct. 21,
2005.  When the group's lawyers asked the courts to award fees
to their side, the fund's backers pledged to refund
contributions to the greatest extent possible.  The fund
received the money in December, after years of contention, and
started refunds in January.

"Until we got the order of the court, we didn't know how much it
was going to be," said Kathleen Beaufait of Salem, chairwoman of
Oregon PERS Retirees, a member of its litigation committee, and
formerly with the legislative counsel's office.

Refunds amount to 72% of the original contribution, minus a
handling fee of $1 for each application to cover envelopes,
postage and bank fees, the report says.  Ms. Beaufait said any
money remaining after the refund process ends in mid-June will
stay in a litigation fund.

"It is obvious that many contributors have decided not to ask
for a refund, and some have even written us a note telling us to
keep the money to help pay future legal bills," Ms. Beaufait
said.  "But others simply may be out of touch and unaware that a
refund is available to contributors."


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Still Faces Savings Plan Members' Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. and a company executive continue to face a
breach of fiduciary duty suit that remains pending with the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The suit was filed on March 31, 2003, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty against the company, the company's Employee
Savings Plan administrator, and Richard Jay Kogan, who resigned
as chairman of the board Nov. 13, 2002, and stepped down as
chief executive officer, president and director of the company
on April 20, 2003.

In May 2003, the company was served with a second putative class
action complaint filed with the same court with allegations
nearly identical to the complaint filed March 31, 2003.  

On Oct. 6, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
which names as additional defendants' seven current and former
directors and other corporate officers.  

The amended complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses
allegedly suffered by the Plan.  The court dismissed this
complaint on June 29, 2004, and shortly thereafter, the
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.

On Aug. 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
reversed the dismissal by the district court and the matter was
remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
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 "Zhu, et al v. Schering Plough Corp, et al., Case
No. 2:03-cv-01204-KSH-MF," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, Judge Katharine S. Hayden
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. (jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com)
          Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
          Two Gateway Center
          12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5003
          Phone: (973) 623-3000

          Peter Houghton Levan, Jr., Esq. (plevan@hangley.com)
          Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
          20 Brace Road, Suite 201
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-2634
          Phone: 856-616-2100

          Susan D. Pontoriero, Esq. (sdp@njfamilylawyers.com)
          The Pontoriero Law Firm
          Brook 35 Plaza
          Premier Executive Suites
          2150 Highway 35, Suite 250
          Sea Girt, NJ 08750
          Phone: (732) 785-9700
          Fax: (732) 785-9760

Representing the defendants is:

          Douglas Scott Eakeley, Esq. (deakeley@lowenstein.com)
          Lowenstein Sandler PC
          65 Livingston Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
          Phone: (973) 597-2500


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Court Mulls Summary Judgment Motions in NJ Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on motions for summary judgment in connection to the
consolidated securities class action filed against Schering-
Plough Corp.

Following the company's announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration had been conducting inspections of the company's
manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had
issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with
current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were
filed against the company and certain named officers.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material
information and making material misstatements.

Specifically, they allege that the company failed to disclose an
alleged serious risk that a new drug application for CLARINEX
would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing issues, and
they allege that the company failed to disclose the alleged
depth and severity of its manufacturing issues (Class Action
Reporter, March 22, 2007).

These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001,
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
shares of company stock from May 9, 2000, through Feb. 15, 2001.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.

The court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003.
Notice of pendency of the class action was sent to members of
that class in July 2007.  

Discovery has been completed, and motions for summary judgment
have been briefed and are pending, 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 "In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:01cv829," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Katharine S. Hayden presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert J. Berg, Esq. (berg@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Phone: (201) 592-3201

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, Esqs.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Phone: (201) 391-7000

          Andrew Robert Jacobs, Esq. (ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com)
          Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia Jacobs & Sprouls
          245 Green Village Road
          P.O. Box 901
          Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901
          Phone: (973) 593-4900

               - and -

          Justin F. Johnson, Esq. (jfj.lejlaw@attglobal.net)
          Lunga, Evers & Johnson, Esqs.
          710 Route 46E, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Phone: (973) 227-4200

Representing the defendant is:

          Douglas Scott Eakeley, Esq. (deakeley@lowenstein.com)
          Lowenstein Sandler, PC
          65 Livingston Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
          Phone: (973) 597-2500


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Continues in K-DUR Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in several purported antitrust class
actions filed with the federal and state courts against
Schering- Plough Corp. with regards to the drug, K-DUR.

Schering-Plough had settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith,
Inc. and ESI Lederle, Inc. relating to generic versions of K-
DUR, Schering-Plough's long-acting potassium chloride product
supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and
Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications.

Following the commencement of a Federal Trade Commission
administrative proceeding alleging anti-competitive effects from
those settlements, alleged class actions were filed in federal
and state courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
K-DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle.

These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of
action.  

These suits seek unspecified damages.  Discovery is ongoing.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 3, 2008 form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a  
global science-based healthcare company with prescription,
consumer and animal health products.  Through internal research
and collaborations with business partners, Schering-Plough
discovers, develops, manufactures and markets advanced drug
therapies.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Lawsuits Over VYTORIN, ZETIA Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. faces several purported class actions in
connection to the sale and promotion of the VYTORIN and ZETIA
products, 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.

Since mid-January 2008, Schering-Plough has become aware of or
been served with litigation, including civil class actions.
alleging common law and state consumer fraud claims in
connection with Schering-Plough's sale and promotion of the
Merck/Schering-Plough joint-venture products' VYTORIN and ZETIA.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a  
global science-based healthcare company with prescription,
consumer and animal health products.  Through internal research
and collaborations with business partners, Schering-Plough
discovers, develops, manufactures and markets advanced drug
therapies.


SIOUX FALLS: Red-Light Camera Suit Also Alleges Misuse of Fines
---------------------------------------------------------------
I.L. Wiedermann, who sued the city of Sioux Falls over its red-
light cameras, is now accusing the city of misusing the money it
collects in fines, Keloland TV reports.

According to the class action lawsuit, Mr. Wiedermann claims
that not only are the cameras illegal, but the fines should be
going to fund public schools, not to the city.

Keloland relates that ever since the red-light cameras were
installed at 10th and Minnesota, they have raised questions,
controversy, and a lot of money for the city.

Mr. Wiedermann says he wants those who have been fined to get a
refund from the city.

The report points out that Mr. Wiedermann has been fighting his
$86 dollar ticket for two years now.  He filed the class action
lawsuit on behalf of 17,000 people who have been fined over the
years.  Mr. Wiedermann believes that the cameras are illegal and
that everyone should get their money back.

However, if the court does not rule in his favor, Mr. Wiedermann
now says that the city should not be allowed to keep the money
from fines.  "The attorneys and I feel the money should go to
the school system rather than the city that's latched on to all
the illegal gains they've gotten," he says.

Right now, the money amounts to more than $2 million, Keloland
says.

Mr. Wiedermann also claims that the city and Redflex -- the
Arizona company that installed the cameras -- conspired to alter
the traffic signals.  "We also believe they are playing with the
nano seconds of the sequence of the lighting, because if you
change that by a few nano seconds, you'll catch more speeders,"
Mr. Wiedermann adds.

Mr. Wiederman further claims that the sign may say "no right
turn on red", but under state law it's legal, and the city
didn't put an ordinance in place to change that for this
intersection.

The class action lawsuit will be heard in court later in April.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Lawsuit in Alabama Over "Picture Mail"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corporation is facing a class-action complaint
filed March 11 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama accusing it of defrauding consumers by
advertising a $5 monthly cell phone charge for "Sprint Picture
Mail," but concealing that it would charge another 3 cents for
each KB of data transmitted with the service, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is a class action brought pursuant to the provisions of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970,
Title 18 USC 1961, et seq.

Named plaintiff Jerald D. Crawford alleges that the defendant
originated, designed, implemented and executed a policy, a form
or established pattern and practice and  course of conduct, by
which it would transmit via federal interstate wires, including
electronic messaging (e-mail), and federal mails, a series of
deceptive, false, fraudulent and misleading advertisements
regarding its "Sprint Picture Mail" plan to all persons whose
names had been ascertained through the defendant's billing and  
business records.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of a class,
consisting of all persons who purchased the "Sprint Picture
Mail" service after receiving the deceptive, false, fraudulent
and misleading advertisements.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's actions constitute a violation
         of federal RICO statutes;

     (b) whether the advertisements for the "Sprint Picture
         Mail" plan or service were false, deceptive,
         fraudulent, and misleading and designed to induce
         consumers to purchase it;

     (c) whether the defendant's actions are continuous;

     (d) whether the defendant willfully and  intentionally
         sought to deceive consumers with its advertisements;

     (e) whether the defendant was aided in its scheme through a
         pattern of mail and wire fraud; and

     (f) whether the class has been damaged and, if so, the
         extent of such damages and  the nature of the
         equitable relief, statutory damages, or punitive
         damages to which the class is entitled.

The plaintiff requests for relief as follows:

     -- a declaratory judgment holding that this action be
        certified as a class action on behalf of the class
        maintainable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
        23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3);

     -- a declaratory judgment holding that plaintiff is a
        proper class representative and appointing plaintiff's
        counsel to represent the class;

     -- a declaratory judgment enjoining defendant from
        continuing in the future to advertising its Picture Mail
        Plan without notifying consumers of the charges
        separately from the service, and requiring defendant to
        make full disclosure of all charges and itemize all
        bills;

     -- an award monetary damages against defendant for all
        actual damages suffered as a result of and warranted by
        the acts complained of, due to defendant's multiple,
        willful and knowing violation of the RICO.  Wire Fraud
        Statute, and Mail Fraud Statute in an amount equivalent
        to revenues from any and all overcharges dating back to
        the inception of the scheme;

     -- award treble damages and punitive damages as may be
        appropriate;

     -- award the plaintiff and other members of the class their
        costs and expenses in conducting this litigation,
        including reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and
        other costs and reimbursements; and

     -- granting such other and further relief to which
        plaintiff and the class members may be justly entitled.

The suit is "Jerald D. Crawford et al. v. Sprint Nextel
Corporation, Case No. CV-08-AR-0443-S," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lee Winston, Esq. (lwinston@winstoncooks.com)
          Roderick T. Cooks, Esq. (rcooks@winstoncooks.com)
          Winston Cooks, LLC
          The Penick Building
          319-17th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 502-0970 or (205) 502-0940
          Fax: (205) 251-0231


TITLE INSURANCE COS: Accused of Rates Fixing in Calif. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action antitrust claim filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California accuses California
title firms of conspiring to allocate and fix prices for title
insurance in California, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Fidelity National Financial,
     -- Fidelity National Title Insurance Co.,
     -- Ticor Title Insurance Co.,
     -- Ticor Title Insurance Co. of Florida,
     -- Chicago Title Insurance Co.,
     -- National Title Insurance of New York,
     -- Security Union Title Insurance Co.,
     -- The First American Corp.,
     -- First American Title Insurance Co.,
     -- United General Title Insurance Co.,
     -- LandAmerica Financial Group,
     -- Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.,
     -- Lawyers Title Insurance Corp.,
     -- Transnation Title Insurance Co.,
     -- Stewart Title Guaranty Co., and
     -- Stewart Title Insurance Co.

Named plaintiff Lynn Barton brings this action under Rule 23,
and particularly subsection (b)(3), of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons excluding governmental
entities, defendants, subsidiaries and affiliates of defendants,
who purchased directly, from one or more of the defendants and  
their co-conspirators title insurance for residential and
commercial property in California during the four-year period
preceding this lawsuit and who have sustained damages as a
result of the conspiracy alleged.

The plaintiff also brings this action as a class action under
Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 1.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants have engaged in the alleged illegal
         price-fixing activity and market allocation and
         division;

     (b) the duration and scope of defendants' alleged illegal
         price-fixing and market allocation and division
         activity;

     (c) whether defendants' alleged illegal price-fixing and
         market allocation and division has caused higher prices
         to plaintiffs and other purchasers of title insurance
         in California; and

     (d) whether the Insurance commissioner has actively
         supervised defendants' price fixing and market
         allocation and division.

The plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

     -- that the alleged combination and conspiracy among the
        defendants and their co-conspirators be adjudged and
        decreed to be an unreasonable restraint of trade in
        violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     -- that the court declare that the premiums charged are
        excessive under state law and order damages;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants, jointly and
        severally, and in favor of plaintiff, and each member of
        the class it represents, for threefold the damages
        determined to have been sustained by plaintiff, and each
        member of the class it represents, together with the
        cost of suit, including a reasonable attorneys' fee; and

     -- each of the defendants, successors, assignees,
        subsidiaries and transferees, and their respective
        officers, directors, agents and employees, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on behalf thereof or
        in concert therewith, be perpetually enjoined and
        restrained from, in any manner, directly or indirectly,
        continuing, maintaining or renewing the aforesaid
        combination, conspiracy, agreement, understanding or
        concert of action, adopting or following any practice,
        plan, program, or design having a similar purpose or
        effect in restraining competition.

The suit is "Lynn Barton et al. v. Fidelity National Financial,
Inc., Case No. CV 08 1341," filed with the U.S. District court
for the Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. (jefff@hbsslaw.com)
          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. (reed@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenie, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          Fax: (510) 725-3001


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BEAR STEARNS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. common stock
during the period between December 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008.

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

Bear Stearns, through its broker-dealer and international bank
subsidiaries, provides investment banking, securities and
derivatives trading, clearance, and brokerage services
worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Bear Stearns stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $159.36 per share in April 2007.

In late June 2007, news about Bear Stearns' risky hedge funds
began to enter the market and its stock price began to fall. On
March 10, 2008, information leaked into the market about Bear
Stearns' liquidity problems, causing the stock to drop to as low
as $60.26 per share before closing at $62.30 per share.

On March 13, 2008, news that Bear Stearns was forced to seek
emergency financing from the Federal Reserve and J.P. Morgan
Chase hit the market and Bear Stearns stock fell to $30 per
share. Then, on Sunday, March 16, 2008, it was announced that
J.P. Morgan Chase was purchasing Bear Stearns for $2 per share.

By midday on Monday, March 17, 2008, Bear Stearns stock had
collapsed another 85% to $4.30 per share on volume of 75 million
shares.

According to the complaint, the Company's Class Period
statements were materially false due to defendants' failure to
inform the market of the problems in the Company's hedge funds
due to the deteriorating subprime mortgage market, which would
cause Bear Stearns to have to rescue the funds, cause the
Company and its officers possible criminal liability and hurt
the Company's reputation.

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

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
          Pphone: (888) 240-0775
                  (202) 408-4600


DEUTSCHE BANK: Girard Gibbs Sues Over Auction Rate Securities
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate Securities from
Deutsche Bank AG and Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. between
March 17, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive, and who
continued to hold such securities as of February 13, 2008.

The Complaint alleges that Deutsche Bank violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving
investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate
securities and the auction market in which these securities
traded.  Auction rate securities are either municipal or
corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest
at rates set at periodic "auctions."  Auction rate securities
generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials
and top-down management directives, Deutsch Bank offered and
sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid
cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money
market mutual funds.  According to the Complaint, holders of
auction rate securities sold by Deutsche Bank and other broker-
dealers have been unable to liquidate their positions in these
securities following the decision on February 13, 2008, of all
major broker-dealers including Deutsche Bank to "withdraw their
support" for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates
paid on auction rates securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that Deutsche Bank failed to disclose the
following material facts about the auction rate securities it
sold to the class:

     (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives,
         like money market funds, but were instead, complex,
         long-term financial instruments with 30-year maturity
         dates, or longer;

     (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the
         time of sale because Deutsche Bank and other broker-
         dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating
         the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of
         liquidity and stability;

     (3) Deutsche Bank and other broker-dealers routinely
         intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set
         rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed
         auctions; and

     (4) Deutsche Bank continued to market auction rate
         securities as liquid investments after it had
         determined that it and other broker dealers were likely
         to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and
         that a "freeze" of the market for auction rate
         securities would result.

Interested parties may ask the court no later than May 16, 2008,
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.  (dcg@girardgibbs.com)
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (866) 981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/auctionrate.html


MF GLOBAL: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of MF Global, Ltd. (NYSE:MF) in its
Initial Public Offering on July 19, 2007, or in the open market
from July 19, 2007, through February 28, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that MF and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that Defendants included or allowed the
inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements
concerning MF's risk management policies, procedures and systems
in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the IPO.

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

For more information, contact:

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


MF GLOBAL: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
acquired the common stock of MF Global, Ltd. pursuant or
traceable to the Company's July 19, 2007, initial public
offering of approximately 97.4 million shares at $30.00 per
share and through February 28, 2008, and who suffered damages.

The complaint alleges that certain representations made by the
defendants in connection with the IPO contained statements that
were materially false and misleading, or omitted to state other
facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading,
because:

     (1) the Company's risk management infrastructure including
         its policies, procedures and systems were deficient;

     (2) the Company misrepresented that clients open positions
         and margin levels were monitored on a real time basis
         with its sophisticated technical system and oversight;

     (3) the Company's risk management controls were suspended
         or eliminated to speed up certain trades;

     (4) the Company eliminated credit and risk analysis, buying
         power limits and controls which allowed an MF
         representative to place orders disregarding margin
         requirements; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Registration
         Statement and Prospectus were false and misleading at
         all relevant times.

On February 28, 2008, before the markets opened, MF disclosed
via press release that the Company was taking a $141.5 million
bad debt provision after one of its day-trading brokers, who was
trading in wheat futures "substantially exceeded his authorized
trading limit."

The MF broker speculated in wheat futures in his MF personal
account, placing orders for about 15,000 to 20,000 futures
contracts. On this news, MF's shares closed at $21.19 -- down
$8.09 a share, representing a nearly 30% collapse.

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

For more information, contact:

Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP at its Web site:
http://www.zsz.com


MICHAEL BAKER: Brower Piven Announces PA Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Michael Baker Corp. between
March 19, 2007, and February 22, 2008, inclusive.

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


NEUROMETRIX INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers
of NeuroMetrix Inc. common stock during the period between
October 27, 2005, and March 6, 2007.

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

NeuroMetrix designs, develops, and sells medical devices used to
diagnose neuropathies and neurovascular disease in the United
States.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's NC-stat device, which is a strap-on or hand-held
device that allows physicians, usually general practitioners, to
test for problems like carpal tunnel syndrome and back pain
without the need for an exam from a specialist.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period,
unbeknownst to shareholders, NeuroMetrix's sales of its NC-stat
device were artificially inflated as:

     (i) the efficacy of the Company's NC-stat device was highly
         questionable and concerns were being raised by
         practitioners;

    (ii) health insurers were increasingly denying reimbursement
         for procedures using the Company's NC-stat device or
         raising significant payment issues;

   (iii) the Company instructed doctors to bill under the same
         insurance billing codes as the competing needle
         procedure rather than applying for its own insurance
         billing code in order to enable practitioners to get
         reimbursement; and

    (iv) the Company was improperly giving doctors kickbacks in
         the form of free sensors for referring other doctors to
         the NC-stat system.

As the truth began to be disclosed, shares of NeuroMetrix common
stock plummeted, causing substantial losses to investors.

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

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
          Phone: (888) 240-0775
                 (202) 408-4600


PMI GROUP: Dreier LLP Announces Securities Suit Filing in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP announced that a class action lawsuit was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased The PMI Group,
Inc. common stock during the period from November 2, 2006,
through March 3, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that PMI and certain of the Company's
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

PMI, through its subsidiaries, provides credit enhancement
products designed to promote homeownership and facilitate
mortgage transactions in the capital markets in the United
States, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union.

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

     (i) due to the drop-off in value of its mortgage debt,
         PMI's investment in FGIC Corporation, was
         materially impaired as FGIC's bond insurance arm,
         Financial Guaranty, had significant exposure to
         defaults on bonds that it insured;

    (ii) in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles, PMI materially overstated its
         financial results by materially inflating the value of
         its investment in FGIC and by failing to write down
         that investment in a timely fashion;

   (iii) PMI was not adequately accounting for its loss reserves
         in violation of GAAP, causing its financial results to
         be materially misstated;

    (iv) PMI had not sufficiently disclosed its overexposure to
         anticipated losses and defaults related to its book of
         business related to insurance written in 2005 through
         most of 2007; and

     (v) PMI had no reasonable basis to make projections about
         its losses or about new insurance written due to the
         increased volatility in the subprime market.

On March 3, 2008, after the market closed, PMI announced its
preliminary fourth quarter 2007 financial results and that it
would be delayed in filing its Form 10-K for year-end 2007
because it was awaiting financial information from FGIC, which
was necessary for the Company to complete its financial
statements.  As a direct and proximate result of this news, on
March 4 the price of PMI stock declined $0.35 per share to close
at $6.43 per share, a one day decline of 5%, on extremely high
trading volume.

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

For more information, contact Dreier LLP at its Web site:
http://www.dreierllp.com


PMI GROUP Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing in Ca.
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of The PMI Group, Inc between
November 2, 2006, and March 3, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that PMI and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that Defendants concealed the following facts:

     (i) PMI's investment in FGIC Corporation was
         materially impaired as FGIC's bond insurance arm had
         significant exposure to defaults on bonds it insured
         due to the plunge in value of mortgage debt;

    (ii) PMI was materially overstating its financials by
         failing to properly value its investment in FGIC and to
         write down that investment in a timely fashion;

   (iii) PMI was not adequately accounting for its loss
         reserves;

    (iv) PMI failed to engage in proper underwriting practices
         for its business related to insurance written in 2005
         through most of 2007 and consequently, had much greater
         exposure to anticipated losses and defaults than
         previously disclosed; and

     (v) given the deterioration of the subprime market, PMI
         would be forced to tighten its standards and stop
         writing insurance policies to certain categories of
         borrowers.

On March 3, 2008, PMI announced its preliminary fourth quarter
2007 financial results and that its Form 10-K for year-end 2007
would be delayed because it was awaiting financial information
from FGIC necessary to complete its financials.

On this news, PMI's stock fell to $6.43 per share on March 4,
2008, an 87% decline from its Class Period high of $50.21 per
share in February 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 11, 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


SOCIETE GENERALE: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of American Depository Receipts of Societe Generale
(PINKSHEETS: SCGLY) between August 1, 2005, and January 23,
2008, inclusive.

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

For more information, contact:

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


VERTEX PHARMA: Brower Piven Announces MA Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated
between June 12, 2007, and November 2, 2007, inclusive.

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


            Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



                           *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel Senorin, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and
Peter Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *