CAR_Public/080324.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 24, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 58
  
                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Sued Over Racial Discrimination in Tax System
AUCTION (KOREA): Lawsuits Over Personal Information Leakage Loom
BEAR STEARNS: Faces ERISA Fiduciary Breach Lawsuit in N.Y.
BEAR STEARNS: Wolf Popper LLP Files ERISA Fiduciary Breach Suit
ELRON ELECTRONICS: Faces Lawsuit Over Given Imaging Rejection

EXPEDITORS INT'L: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y. Federal Court
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Ill. Court Denied Class Certification Motion
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Litigation in Texas Over Recording Fees
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces N.Y. Title Insurance Purchasers' Suits
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Suits Over Title Insurance "Premiums"

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Kans. Court Dismisses Recording Fees Lawsuit
FLORIDA: Archer Aids Dismal High School Graduation Rates Suit
GETTY IMAGES: Brian Felgoise Announces Suit Filing in Washington
HANNAFORD BROS: Consumers File ME Lawsuit Over Card Data Loss
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in W.Va.

INTERNATIONAL COAL: W.Va. Court Mulls Motion to Junk IPO Lawsuit
INDIANA: Marion County CIB Faces Suit Over Use of Auction Funds
LIVE NATION: Appeals Class Certification of CA Antitrust Lawsuit
LOUISIANA: Gulf Coast Citizens Sue Over Toxic Relief Trailers
MICROSOFT CORP: Windows Vista Users Want Suit to Move Forward

PHARMION CORP: Settles Del. Litigation Over Celgene Corp. Merger
PHILADELPHIA CONSOLIDATED: Faces LASIC Policyholders' Suit in FL
STERLING JEWELERS: Cohen Milstein Files Gender Bias Suit in N.Y.
TOWN SPORTS: Still Faces N.Y. Suits Alleging Labor Violations
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: CalPERS Stock-Options Lawsuit Certified

WASHINGTON: Chelan PUD Settles Overtime Lawsuit with Workers


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Holzer Announces Fla. Securities Suit Filing
SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Hagens Berman Files CA Securities Fraud Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
WACHOVIA CORP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
WELLPOINT INC: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in IN

WELLPOINT INC: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Suit Filing



                           *********


ALABAMA: Sued Over Racial Discrimination in Tax System
------------------------------------------------------
Jim Blacksher, Esq., a civil rights attorney, filed a lawsuit
contending that Alabama's lowest-in-the-nation property taxes
were rooted in racial discrimination a century ago and still
harm black students in disproportionate numbers, the Associated
Press reports.

According to AP, the suit -- filed in Alabama's northern
district federal court March 14, 2008, on behalf of some
Lawrence and Sumter county public school students -- seeks an
order for the governor and Legislature to restructure Alabama's
tax system across the board to sufficiently fund K-12 schools.  
It also seeks class-action status that could impact all public
schools in the state.

AP relates that Mr. Blacksher earlier told The Birmingham News
that the suit, if successful, would require the state to
confront tax reform, including sales taxes that hit the poor
hardest.

"Local school systems in Alabama cannot raise funds for their
schools that come anywhere near the support the school needs,"
Mr. Blacksher had said.  "Property taxes are taxes on wealth.
Sales taxes are not."

Mr. Blacksher, according to AP, is a lead attorney in Alabama's
long-running college desegregation case, which raised in 2004
the issue of how Alabama's property tax system affects minority
students.  U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy found that the
property tax system is a vestige of discrimination, but said it
would need to be raised in a separate case.

"This is the case," Mr. Blacksher said.

Robert Hunter, Esq., who represented the state in the higher
education case, said he was disappointed that the issue was
raised in federal court and not left to the legislative process
and Alabama residents.

The suit, which names Gov. Bob Riley and Revenue Commissioner
Tim Russell as defendants, contends that the 1901 constitution
first set out racially discriminatory property tax restrictions
that force local governments to fund public schools primarily
through regressive sales taxes while letting large landowners
pay little in property taxes.

It also cites what is known as the "lid bill," a 1973
constitutional amendment that sets limits on property tax
collections.

"The current ad valorem tax structure is a vestige of
discrimination inasmuch as the constitution provisions governing
the taxation of property are traceable to, rooted in, and have
their antecedents in an original segregative discriminatory
policy," the suit adds.


AUCTION (KOREA): Lawsuits Over Personal Information Leakage Loom
----------------------------------------------------------------
Korea's largest online shopping mall, Auction, who has some 18
million subscribers, could face class action suits from members
in connection with a leak of their personal information, the
Digital Chosunilbo reports.

Attorneys Kim Hyun-sung, of law firm Sangsun, and Park Jin-shik,
of law firm Next Law, told Chosunilbo that they will separately
file for damages in early April against Auction.  The two
lawyers are now recruiting litigants online.

Chosunilbo writes that as of March 19, Mr. Kim had recruited
some 3,200 litigants and Mr. Park about 1,700 for their
respective suits.  Legal insiders share with Chosunilbo that
they predict each of the litigants could get between KRW200,000
(US$1=KRW1,009) and KRW1 million in compensation.

The report recalls that on Feb. 4, 2008, Auction admitted that
in the wake of an attack by Chinese hackers on its computer
security system, files of subscribers' residence registration
numbers, names, telephone numbers, and personal refund
information had been leaked.

Chosunilbo relates that in November 2007, a court ordered
Kookmin Bank to pay KRW200,000 to each victim of the bank's leak
of customer personal information.  In another case, a court
ordered LG Electronics to pay KRW700,000 to each victim of a
leak of personal information in jobseekers' applications.


BEAR STEARNS: Faces ERISA Fiduciary Breach Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed  
the first lawsuit of its kind with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of The Bear Stearns Companies
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the federal law
governing employee benefit plans.

The lawsuit seeks to recover, on behalf of the Plan and its
aggrieved participants, losses in connection with the
unprecedented devaluation of The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.,
common stock held by Plan participants between December 14,
2006, and the present.

This case epitomizes the danger of concentrating hundreds of
millions of "retirement eggs: in one basket -- employer stock --
even for employees of an institution like Bear Stearns."

The plaintiff alleges that Bear Stearns, like too many others,
has inflicted long-term harm on its most precious resource --
its workers.

Pursuant to ERISA, the defendants-fiduciaries of the Plan were
obligated to ensure that the Plan's assets were prudently
invested.  The Complaint alleges that the defendants utterly
failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties and, as a result, the
Plan's participants have suffered tremendous losses to their
retirement savings.

The Complaint generally alleges that Bear Stearns and certain of
its officers and directors allowed the imprudent investment of
the Plan's assets/participants' retirement savings in Bear
Stearns equity throughout the Class Period, despite the fact
that they clearly knew or should have known that such investment
was imprudent due to, among other things:

     (a) the Company's failure to disclose material adverse
         facts about its financial well-being including its
         ability to continue as a going concern;

     (b) the foreseeable deleterious consequences to the Company
         resulting from its substantial entrenchment in the
         subprime mortgage market;

     (c) the fact that, as a consequence of the above, the
         Company's stock price was artificially inflated; and

     (d) the fact that heavy investment of retirement savings in
         Company stock would therefore result in significant
         losses to the Plan, and consequently, to its
         participants.

Specifically, the plaintiff's complaint alleges that Bear
Stearns stock was an inherently imprudent Plan investment
vehicle because the Company:

     (1) was grossly over-exposed to the potential for
         substantial losses as conditions in the subprime
         industry deteriorated;

     (2) actively concealed the ominous dangers it faced;
      
     (3) failed to take accurate and timely write-downs for
         losses resulting from the collapse of the subprime
         market; and that the

     (4) Company's statements about its financial well-being and
         future business prospects were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

For more information, contact:

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


BEAR STEARNS: Wolf Popper LLP Files ERISA Fiduciary Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of participants
and beneficiaries of the Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan, for violations of the federal pension law
in connection with the loss in value of The Bear Stearns
Companies, Inc. common stock acquired and held by present and
former employees of Bear Stearns through the Plan.

The goal of this litigation is to recover damages sustained by
the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan.  The complaint
can be viewed on Wolf Popper's website or obtained from the
Court.

According to Marian Rosner, who represents the plaintiff, "Bear
Stearns has acted with gross disregard to its fiduciary duties
under ERISA and once again employee retirement savings are left
to disintegrate while company insiders reaped tens of millions
of dollars from their sales of company stock."

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Bear Stearns,
and certain of its officers and directors, allowed the imprudent
investment of the Plan's assets in Bear Stearns common stock
despite the fact that they knew or should have known that such
investment was unduly risky and imprudent due to the Company's
serious mismanagement and improper business practices including,
among other practices:

     (a) causing Bear Stearns to spend billions of dollars
         purchasing subprime loans despite increasing
         delinquency rates among subprime borrowers;

     (b) failing to adequately disclose Bear Stearns's subprime
         loan loss exposure to investors, including the Plan's
         participants;

     (c) operating without the requisite internal controls to
         determine appropriate loan loss provisions;

     (d) understating loan loss provisions that did not properly
         reflect the risk facing Bear Stearns; and

     (e) subjecting the company to billions of dollars in
         liabilities from civil and criminal lawsuits, all of
         which caused Bear Stearns's financial statements to be
         misleading and which artificially inflated the value of
         shares of Bear Stearns stock.

In short, the company was seriously mismanaged and faced dire
financial crisis due to such mismanagement, which rendered Bear
Stearns stock an imprudent investment.  Bear Stearn's actions
have caused the Plan to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars.

For more information, contact:

          James Kelly-Kowlowitz
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel.: 212.451-4635
          Toll Free: 877.370.7703
          Fax: 212.486.2093
          Toll Free Fax: 877.370.7704
          e-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
          Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


ELRON ELECTRONICS: Faces Lawsuit Over Given Imaging Rejection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elron Electronic Industries (Nasdaq: ELRN; TASE: ELRN) is facing
a class action suit over its failure to disclose material
information and to issue an immediate report regarding a
material issue, Globe Online reports.

The plaintiffs claim that the delay in the disclosure of the FDA
rejection of Given Imaging's PillCam was misleading.

Globe Online says that the class action suit, which was filed on
March 20, 2008, with the Tel Aviv District Court, notes that
Elron has a material holding in Given Imaging (Nasdaq: GIVN;
TASE: GIVN), which is dual-listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange
(TASE) and Nasdaq.


EXPEDITORS INT'L: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y. Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., is facing a
purported antitrust class action lawsuit in New York, according
to the company's Feb. 28, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

On Jan. 3, 2008, the Company was named as a defendant, with
seven other of the largest European and North American-based
global logistics providers, in a federal antitrust class action
lawsuit filed in New York.  

The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class
of customers (which has not yet been certified), alleges that
the defendants engaged in various forms of anti-competitive
practices.  

Seattle-based Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. --
http://www.expeditors.com/-- is engaged in the business of  
providing global logistics services.  The Company offers its
customers an international network supporting the movement and
positioning of goods.  Its services include the consolidation or
forwarding of air and ocean freight.  In each U.S. office and in
many overseas offices, the Company acts as a customs broker.  It
also provides additional services, including distribution
management, vendor consolidation, cargo insurance, purchase
order management and customized logistics information.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Ill. Court Denied Class Certification Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division denied a motion seeking class-action status
for two lawsuits, which allege that Fidelity National Financial,
Inc. violated the Illinois Title Insurance Act, the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, and has been unjustly enriched through the
practice of paying Illinois attorney’s agency fees.

The suits, each filed on May 11, 2006, are captioned:

       -- "Chultem v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Chicago
          Title and Trust Company and Ticor Title Insurance
          Company;" and

       -- "Colella v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Chicago
          Title and Trust Company and Ticor Title Insurance
          Company."

The complaint alleges the payments are in exchange for the
referral of business and the attorneys do not perform any "core
title services."

Although the Company's motions to dismiss and for summary
judgment were granted, the plaintiffs were permitted to and did
amend their complaints.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied on
Feb. 22, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fntg.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is a provider of title insurance,
specialty insurance and claims management services.  The Company
also provides flood insurance, personal lines insurance and home
warranty insurance through its specialty insurance subsidiaries.
FNF has two business segments.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Litigation in Texas Over Recording Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial Inc. is facing a class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
over allegations the company overcharged for recording fees in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas, according to
the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas on March 24, 2006 by Rosa Maria Arevalo.  It
seeks to recover the recording fees for the class that was
overcharged, interest, and attorney's fees.  

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Company's
motions to dismiss and for summary judgment are under
submission.

The suit is "Arevalo, et al. v. Fidelity National Financial, et
al., Case No. 5:06-cv-00265-OLG," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Orlando L. Garcia
presiding.

Representing plaintiff are:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Diab & Bock
          20 N. Wacker Drive
          Suite 1741
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 334-1970
          Fax: (312) 334-1971

               - and -

          Vic Feazell, Esq.
          The Law Offices of Vic Feazell PC
          6300 Bridgepoint Pkwy.
          Bridgepoint II, Suite 220
          Austin, TX 78730
          Phone: (512) 372-8100
          Fax: (512) 372-8140

Representing the defendants is:

          Tricia R. DeLeon, Esq.
          Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
          1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3800
          Dallas, TX 75202-2711
          Phone: (214) 758-1074
          Fax: (214) 468-3888
          e-mail: tricia.deleon@bracewellgiuliani.com


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces N.Y. Title Insurance Purchasers' Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., along with several of its
affiliates, face several purported federal class actions that
filed on behalf of purchasers of title insurance in New York,
according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2007.

In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced
against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity
National Title Insurance Co., Chicago Title Insurance Co., and
Ticor Title Insurance Co. (Fidelity Affiliates).  

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service
organization which is also named as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.

The complaints seek monetary damages, including treble damages,
as well as injunctive relief.  

The actions, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, are in their preliminary stages.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fntg.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is a provider of title insurance,
specialty insurance and claims management services.  The Company
also provides flood insurance, personal lines insurance and home
warranty insurance through its specialty insurance subsidiaries.
FNF has two business segments.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Suits Over Title Insurance "Premiums"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. faces several purported class
actions, alleging improper premiums were charged for title
insurance, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suits are:

       -- "Dubin v. Security Union Title Insurance Company,
          filed on March 12, 2003, in the Court of Common Pleas,
          Cuyahoga County, Ohio;"

       -- "Patterson v. Fidelity National Title Insurance
          Company of New York, filed on Oct. 27, 2003 in the
          Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
          Pennsylvania;"

       -- "O'Day v. Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
          filed on Oct. 18, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
          the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;"

       -- "Cohen v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, filed on
          Jan. 27, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of
          Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania;" and

       -- "Guizarri v. Ticor Title Insurance Company, filed on
          Oct. 17, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
          Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

These cases allege that the named defendant companies failed to
provide notice of premium discounts to consumers refinancing
their mortgages, and failed to give discounts in refinancing
transactions in violation of the filed rates.

In Dubin, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which
is under submission and trial is scheduled for early 2008.

In Patterson, the court sustained the Company's motion to
dismiss all counts except counts for fraud and for violation of
a consumer protection law.

The Company's motion for summary judgment on the remaining two
causes of action and the plaintiff’s motion for class
certification are under submission.

The Company's motions to dismiss were denied in the Cohen,
O'Day, and Guizarri cases, and classes have been certified.  The
parties are proceeding with discovery.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fntg.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is a provider of title insurance,
specialty insurance and claims management services.  The Company
also provides flood insurance, personal lines insurance and home
warranty insurance through its specialty insurance subsidiaries.
FNF has two business segments.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Kans. Court Dismisses Recording Fees Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed a
purported class action against Fidelity National Financial Inc.
over allegations that the company overcharged for recording
fees.  

The suit is "Doll v. Chicago Title Insurance Company," was filed
on Sept. 28, 2006, alleging that the Company charged consumers
more than the County Recorder charges to record their documents
in conjunction with closing transactions.  

The plaintiff's motion to certify the class was denied.  This
action has been dismissed, according to the company's Feb. 29,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Doll et al v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02416-JWL-JPO," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, Judge John W.
Lungstrum presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Phillip G. Greenfield, Esq.
          Rouse Hendricks German May PC
          One Petticoat Lane Bldg.
          1010 Walnut St., Ste. 400
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: 816-471-7700
          Fax: 816-471-2221
          e-mail: philg@rhgm.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Feazell & Tighe, LLP
          6300 Bridgepoint Parkway
          Bridgepoint 2, Suite 220
          Austin, TX 78730
          Phone: 512-372-8100
          Fax: 512-372-8410

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard N. Bien, Esq.
          Lathrop & Gage, LC
          2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2800
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: 816-460-5520
          Fax: 816-292-2001
          e-mail: rbien@lathropgage.com

               - and -

          Amii N. Castle, Esq.
          Douthit, Frets, Rouse, Gentile & Rhodes, LLC
          903 E. 104th Street, Suite 610
          Kansas City, MO 64131
          Phone: 816-941-7600
          Fax: 816-941-6666
          e-mail: acastle@dfrglaw.com


FLORIDA: Archer Aids Dismal High School Graduation Rates Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
New York Law School Professor Deborah N. Archer, Director of the
Law School's Racial Justice Project, is one of the attorneys in
the class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union and the ACLU of Florida against the Palm Beach County
School District, which charges that low high school graduation
rates demonstrate a violation of students' constitutional rights
to high quality education.

"Our public education system must at least provide students with
a meaningful opportunity to graduate from high school,"
Professor Archer said.  "In Florida this is a constitutional
right that cannot be denied because of race, gender or socio-
economic status. By not graduating a third of its students, Palm
Beach County is failing to provide the high quality education
mandated by the Florida constitution."

The lawsuit claims that the Palm Beach County School District
violates the state constitution's declaration of the
"fundamental value" of educating children and the right that
free public education be "uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and
high quality" (Class Action Reporter, March 19, 2008).

It is estimated that as many as one in three Palm Beach County
students does not graduate on time with a regular diploma,
placing well below state and national averages.  There is also a
significant disparity between the graduation rates of African-
American and Hispanic students compared to white students. The
lawsuit was filed on behalf of parents and students in the
district, and seeks for the school district to improve
graduation rates without pushing students out of the school
system.

American Civil Liberties Union on the net: http://www.aclu.org


GETTY IMAGES: Brian Felgoise Announces Suit Filing in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., announced that a class
action has been commenced the Superior Court of Kings County,
Washington on behalf of shareholders of Getty Images, Inc. in
connection with the offer by an affiliate of the private equity
firm, Hellman & Friedman, LLC to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of GYI.

The suit is filed against certain officers and directors.  The
goal of the lawsuit is to seek the highest possible offer for
the public shares.

For more information, contact:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046
          Phone: (215) 886-1900


HANNAFORD BROS: Consumers File ME Lawsuit Over Card Data Loss
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 19, 2008, the law firm of Berger & Montague, PC filed a
class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine on behalf of all consumers in the United States whose
credit card or debit card data was stolen from the computer
network of Hannaford Brothers Co. supermarkets.

The complaint alleges that Hannaford was negligent for failing
to maintain adequate computer data security of customer credit
and debit card data, which was accessed and stolen by a computer
hacker.

On March 17, 2008, Hannaford announced on its website that there
was a "data intrusion into its computer network that resulted in
the theft of consumer credit and debit card numbers."  The
stolen data included "credit and debit card numbers and
expiration dates," which were accessed from Hannaford's computer
system "during transmission of card authorization."  The
intrusion affected all Hannaford stores located throughout the
North Eastern U.S., as well as Sweetbay stores in Florida.

Published news reports indicated that 4.2 million unique credit
and debit card numbers have been exposed to potential fraud.  To
date, there have been approximately 1,800 cases of reported
credit and debit card fraud stemming from the breach.

Reportedly, the breach began on December 7, 2007, and was not
contained until March 10, 2008.  Hannaford stated that it became
aware of the breach on February 27, 2008.  However, Hannaford
did not publicly announce the breach until almost three weeks
later, on March 17, 2008.

Because of Hannaford's inadequate data security, its customers
have had their personal financial information compromised, have
been exposed to the risk of fraud, have incurred and will
continue to incur time to monitor their accounts and dispute
fraudulent charges, and have otherwise suffered damages.

For more information, contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. (ssavett@bm.net)
          Michael T. Fantini, Esq. (mfantini@bm.net)
          Jon J. Lambiras, Esq. (jlambiras@bm.net)
          Berger & Montague, PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA, 19103
          Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000
          Fax: 215-875-4604
          Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in W.Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Coal Group, Inc. faces a purported securities
fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, according to the company's
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Jan. 7, 2008, Saratoga Advantage Trust filed a class action
lawsuit against the company, and certain of its officers and
directors.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading
statements in the registration statements filed in connection
with the company's November 2005 reorganization and December
2005 public offering of common stock.

In addition, the complaint challenges other of the company's
public statements regarding its operating condition and safety
record.

The suit is "Saratoga Advantage Trust v. ICG, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:08-cv-00011," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, Judge John T. Copenhaver,
Jr. presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Troy N. Giatras, Esq.
          The Giatras Law Firm
          Suite 400
          118 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: 304/343-2900
          Fax: 304/343-2942
          e-mail: troy@thewvlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          Finkelstein & Krinsk
          Suite 1250
          501 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619/238-1333
          Fax: 619/238-5425
          e-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Bronson J. Bigelow, Esq.
          Jones Day
          222 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017-6702
          Phone: 212/326-3939
          Fax: 212/755-7306
          e-mail: bjbigelow@jonesday.com

               - and -  

          Edward D. McDevitt, Esq.
          Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love
          P. O. Box 1386
          Charleston, WV 25325-1386
          Phone: 304/347-1100
          Fax: 304/343-3058
          e-mail: emcdevitt@bowlesrice.com


INTERNATIONAL COAL: W.Va. Court Mulls Motion to Junk IPO Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a purported
class action against International Coal Group, Inc., which is
accusing it of misleading investors about its operations when it
made an initial public offering of stock in late 2005.

On April 5, 2007 a class action was filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against the
company and certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that our registration statements filed in
connection with its initial public offering contained false and
misleading statements, and that investors relied upon those
securities filings and suffered damages as a result.

The court ordered certain plaintiffs to serve as lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel, and, as a result, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on Aug. 24, 2007.  

The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint on Sept. 28, 2007, and that motion remains pending.

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

The suit is "City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, et
al. v. ICG, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00226," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. presiding.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Mark W. Carbone, Esq.
          Carbone & Blaydes
          2442 Kanawha Boulevard
          East Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: 304/342-3650
          Fax: 304/342-3651
          e-mail: wvjustice@aol.com

Representing the defedants are:

          Bronson J. Bigelow, Esq.
          Jones Day
          222 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017-6702
          Phone: 212/326-3939
          Fax: 212/755-7306
          e-mail: bjbigelow@jonesday.com

          John R. Hoblitzell, Esq.
          Kay Casto & Chaney
          P.O. Box 2031
          Charleston, WV 25327-2031
          Phone: 304/345-8900
          Fax: 304/345-8909
          e-mail: j.hoblitzell@kaycasto.com

               - and -

          Edward D. McDevitt, Esq.
          Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love
          P.O. Box 1386
          Charleston, WV 25325-1386
          Phone: 304/347-1100
          Fax: 304/343-3058
          e-mail: emcdevitt@bowlesrice.com


INDIANA: Marion County CIB Faces Suit Over Use of Auction Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Indianapolis law firm has filed a lawsuit to prevent money
from an online auction of RCA Dome memorabilia from going to the
Indianapolis Colts Foundation and the Indiana Sports
Corporation, the Associated Press reports.

The plaintiffs say that proceeds from the sale of public
property should go to taxpayers rather than to the two private
non-profit organizations.

The lawsuit, specifically filed against the Marion County
Capital Improvement Board -- which owns and manages the stadium
-- is seeking class action status.

According to AP, the CIB is selling seats, pieces of turf and
the fabric roof, and even urinals to the public in an online
auction.  The RCA Dome will be demolished and replaced in time
for the start of the 2008 NFL season by Lucas Oil Stadium.


LIVE NATION: Appeals Class Certification of CA Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation, Inc. filed a motion with U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California for reconsideration of its
Oct. 22, 2007 order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of a consolidated antitrust lawsuit filed against
the company.

The suit alleges anti-competitive practices for concert
promotion services by the company caused artificially high-
ticket prices.

Originally, the company is a defendant in 22 putative class
actions filed by different named plaintiffs in various U.S.
District Courts throughout the country.

The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to
claims made in the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-04503-JES," except that the geographic markets
alleged are statewide or more local in nature, and the members
of the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased
tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged.  

The company filed its answers in all actions, and it has denied
liability.  

On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the above-listed
actions and any similar ones commenced in the future to a single
federal district court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  

On April 17, 2006, the Panel granted the company's motion and
ordered the consolidation and transfer of the actions to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On June 4, 2007, the Court conducted a hearing on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On June 25, 2007,
the Court entered an Order to stay all proceedings in the case
pending the Court's ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification.

On Oct. 22, 2007, the Court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor,
granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and
certifying a class in the Chicago, New England, New York/New
Jersey, Colorado and Southern California regional markets.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the Company filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal from Order Granting Class Certification with the U.S.
District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

At a status conference conducted on Nov. 5, 2007, the U.S.
District Court extended its stay of all proceedings pending
further developments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On Feb. 15, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit issued an order denying the company's Petition for
Permission to Appeal.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the company filed a Motion with the U.S.
District Court for Reconsideration of its Oct. 22, 2007 order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2007.

For more details, contact:

         [Plaintiffs] Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
         1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-7292
         e-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         [Defendants] Paul Chalmers, Esq.
         Paul Chalmers Law Offices
         Two Lafayette Centre, 1133
         21st Street NW #405
         New York, NY 920036
         Phone: 202-772-1834

              - and -

         [Defendants] Sara B. Ciarelli, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
         12 East, 49th Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-999-5859


LOUISIANA: Gulf Coast Citizens Sue Over Toxic Relief Trailers
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit that could include thousands
of Gulf Coast citizens who have resided in allegedly toxic
housing units distributed after the landfalls of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita in 2005 was filed against the federal
government and dozens of trailer manufacturers in New Orleans
federal court.

The lawsuit, which adds new claims to and consolidates several
cases previously filed in Gulf Coast federal courts, names as
defendants the Federal Emergency Management Agency and 62
manufacturers of government-distributed travel trailers, park
models, and mobile homes, according to the seven-law firm
plaintiffs' Steering Committee, which will seek to have the case
certified as a class action.

The Complaint, which names 55 representative plaintiffs, claims
multiple violations of federal and Louisiana, Texas,
Mississippi, and Alabama law.  The lawsuit alleges that
manufacturers failed to warn the federal government about the
risks of formaldehyde used in particle board, fiberboard,
plywood, glues, and adhesives used to manufacture the housing
units and then "ignored or deliberately and fraudulently
concealed" the risks.

FEMA is accused in the lawsuit of distributing housing units
well after undisclosed air sampling of housing units at
government staging facilities showed formaldehyde levels that
exceeded government standards; seeking to avoid comprehensive
testing of the housing units after widespread health problems
were reported by residents of the housing units; ignoring the
scientific work and concerns of federal scientists familiar with
formaldehyde issues; and manipulating governmental testing of
the housing units by seeking to ensure that long-term
formaldehyde exposure considerations would not be addressed in
testing findings.

Tony Buzbee, Esq., of the Buzbee Law Firm, in Houston, Texas,
stated, "We contend that FEMA and the manufacturers knew or
should have known of health hazards inherent in these housing
units.  Published medical studies -- and the government's own
testing -- make it clear that the dangers of long-term
formaldehyde exposure were no secret to either the federal
government or the manufacturers.  Our clients report a wide
range of symptoms that are consistent with formaldehyde
exposure.  The time is coming when the industry will be forced
to explain why these housing units were so toxic to the
displaced families living in them."

Attorney Raul Bencomo, of Bencomo & Associates, in New Orleans,
stated, "Until very recently, FEMA's handling of this health
issue has been deplorable, but we do agree with the agency's
position that responsibility for the safety of families living
in the trailers also falls on the manufacturers.  We are
determined to have the government and the responsible
manufacturers account for creating and prolonging this crisis.
Because the government paid billions of taxpayer dollars for
these housing units, we also urge the Congress to investigate
this matter."

Besides FEMA, the named defendants include:

     -- Coachmen Industries (NYSE: COA);
     -- Fleetwood Enterprises Inc. (NYSE: FLE);
     -- Thor Industries Inc. (NYSE: THO);
     -- Gulf Stream Coach, Inc;
     -- Forest River Inc.;
     -- Jayco Enterprises, Inc.;
     -- Monaco Coach Corporation;
     -- Pilgrim International, Inc.;
     -- Recreation By Design, LLC; and
     -- Starcraft RV, Inc.

The case is "In Re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Product Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1873," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division.


MICROSOFT CORP: Windows Vista Users Want Suit to Move Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Windows Vista users are asking U.S. District Judge
Marsha Pechman to let a lawsuit over a related marketing program
advance toward trial even as Microsoft Corp. appeals a pivotal
ruling in the case, seattlepi.com reports, citing court papers
filed on March 17, 2008.

The report relates that the filing follows Microsoft's request
for Judge Pechman to freeze the case while the company asks the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review her ruling
certifying it as a class action.  The plaintiffs, who also plan
to oppose that appeal, contend that Microsoft is trying to avoid
the release of more internal e-mails showing the behind-the-
scenes discussions about Windows Vista.





Earlier e-mails revealed Microsoft officials' personal
complaints about Windows Vista. They also showed internal
wrangling over the company's decision to lower the standards for
the "Windows Vista Capable" designation in an apparent attempt
to appease chip maker Intel Corp.

Microsoft's request for a stay "is driven by the realization
that continued discovery and trial preparation will require it
to produce even more documents that reveal the truth behind its
Vista Capable program to a now astonished, disappointed and
concerned public," lawyers for the plaintiffs argued in the
filing.

The filing noted that the plaintiffs have expanded their quest
for documents, in part by issuing subpoenas to computer makers
and retailers. They've also made another series of requests for
internal documents and e-mails from Microsoft.

Microsoft didn't immediately comment on the plaintiffs' latest
assertions. Its March 6 request for a stay in the case cited
factors including the high cost of finding and turning over
related documents, a process that could be unnecessary if the
appeals court rules in its favor.

The lawsuit alleges that Microsoft misled consumers by allowing
computers to be touted as "Windows Vista Capable" even in
situations where the underlying hardware wasn't enough to run
the operating system's best-known features. Microsoft disputes
that assertion, saying that it considers the lower-end Windows
Vista Home Basic a bona fide edition of the operating system,
and a notable improvement over Vista's successor, Windows XP.



PHARMION CORP: Settles Del. Litigation Over Celgene Corp. Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmion Corp. settled a purported class action lawsuit in
Delaware over a merger agreement with Celgene Corp., according
to Pharmion's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

On Nov. 18, 2007, Pharmion entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Delaware-based Celgene Corp. and Cobalt Acquisition
LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Celgene.

Under the terms of the Agreement, Celgene will acquire  Pharmion
by means of a merger, in which Pharmion will be merged with and
into the Merger Sub.

On Nov. 21, 2007, subsequent to the announcement of the
execution of the Merger Agreement, a purported class action was
filed with the Court of Chancery in Delaware naming the company
as defendants, as well as Celgene, the Merger Sub, and the
company's directors -- Patrick J. Mahaffy, Brian G. Atwood,
James Blair, M. James Barrett, Cam L. Garner, Edward J.
McKinley, John C. Reed and Thorlef Spickschen.

The complaint against Celgene and Merger Sub was subsequently
dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice.

The complaint, which was purportedly brought on behalf of the
company's public stockholders (other than the defendants), in
substance alleged that the terms of the Merger are unfair to the
company's public stockholders because, in the view of the
plaintiff, the value of our publicly held common stock is
greater than the consideration being offered to the company's
public stockholders in the Merger.  

The complaint asserted claims against the director-defendants
for breach of fiduciary duty and against the company for aiding
and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On Feb. 7, 2008, the complaint was amended.  The amended
complaint deleted the claim that the proposed Merger is unfair
and asserts instead claims that the proxy statement/prospectus,
dated Feb. 5, 2008, and mailed to the company stockholders on or
about Feb. 6, 2008, relating to the special meeting of the
company stockholders, scheduled to be held on March 6, 2008, to
consider the approval of the Merger Agreement and the Merger,
contains materially inaccurate, incomplete and  misleading
disclosures relating to the Merger.

In its prayer for relief, the complaint sought, among other
things, to enjoin the Merger.  The action is captioned as
follows, "Arthur Murphy v. Pharmion Corporation, et al., C.A.
No. 3367-VCL  (Del. Ch. Nov. 21, 2007)."

On Feb. 17, 2008, the company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with Celgene, the Merger Sub and the plaintiff
relating to a proposed settlement of the case.

Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties agreed that
the plaintiff will seek an order of the Delaware Court of
Chancery certifying the class for settlement purposes,
dismissing the action with prejudice and releasing the
defendants, Celgene and Merger Sub from any liability with
respect to the claims asserted in the amended complaint, in
exchange for the company's agreement to provide the company's
stockholders with additional information concerning the Merger
and related matters.  

In addition, the defendants have agreed not to object to an
application by the plaintiff for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount not to exceed $450,000, such fees having
been negotiated and agreed to by the parties after all other
substantive terms of the settlement had been negotiated and
agreed to.

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, on or about
Feb. 19, 2008, the company mailed to its stockholders a
supplement to the proxy statement/prospectus, dated Feb. 19,
2008, containing additional information regarding the Merger and
related matters.

Pharmion Corp. -- http://www.celgene.com/acquisitionHome.aspx--  
is a global pharmaceutical company that acquires, develops and
commercializes products for the treatment of hematology and
oncology patients.  The Company has established its own
research, regulatory, development and sales and marketing
organizations in the U.S., the European Union, and Australia.


PHILADELPHIA CONSOLIDATED: Faces LASIC Policyholders' Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. faces a purported class
in Florida over insurance policies issued by Liberty American
Select Insurance Co., according to Philadelphia Consolidated's
Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Feb. 26, 2008, the Company received a complaint filed on
Feb. 14, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by seven individuals.  These individuals
purported to act on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons who had been issued insurance policies by Liberty
American Select Insurance Co., formerly known as Mobile USA
Insurance Company.

The complaint, which is alleged to be a "class action
complaint," was filed against Philadelphia Insurance and its
subsidiaries, LASIC, Liberty American Insurance Co., and Liberty
American Insurance Group, Inc.

The complaint requests an unspecified amount of damages "in
excess of $5,000,000," and equitable relief to prevent the
defendants from committing what are alleged to be unfair
business practices.

The plaintiffs allege that from the period from at least as
early as Sept. 1, 2003, through Dec. 31, 2006, they and other
policyholders sustained property damage covered under policies
issued by LASIC, and that LASIC improperly denied or paid only a
portion of the policyholders' claims for which they were
entitled to be reimbursed.

The suit is "Appel et al v. Liberty American Insurance Company
et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-20385-DLG," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge
Donald L. Graham presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. (ta@aronovitzlaw.com)
          Aronovitz Jaffe
          150 W. Flagler Street
          Suite 2700 Museum Tower
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-372-2772
          Fax: 305-375-0243

              - and -

          Michael H. Lax, Esq. (mhlax@laxpa.com)
          Michael H. Lax, P.A.
          18001 Old Cutler Road
          Suite 409
          Miami, FL 33157
          Phone: 305-256-5529
          Fax: 305-256-5597


STERLING JEWELERS: Cohen Milstein Files Gender Bias Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, co-lead
counsel for the plaintiffs, filed a class action lawsuit with
the federal court in the Southern District of New York on
March 18, 2008, on behalf of 15 current and former female
employees of Sterling Jewelers, the nation's largest chain of
jewelry stores.

Sterling Jewelers was charged with committing widespread sex
discrimination against its female retail sales employees.

Sterling Jewelers operates more than 1300 stores located in
shopping malls and centers in every state in the nation. The
stores operate under at least 12 retail brand names, including
Jared The Galleria of Jewelry, Kay Jewelers, Belden Jewelers, JB
Robinson Jewelers, Marks & Morgan Jewelers, Weisfield Jewelers,
Osterman Jewelers, Shaw's Jewelers, Rogers Jewelers, LeRoy's
Jewelers, Goodman Jewelers and Friedlanders Jewelers.

The suit was filed by 15 current and former female employees who
have worked at stores located in New York, Florida, California,
Texas, Indiana, Missouri, Massachusetts, Nevada and New Jersey.

The suit claims Sterling Jewelers has engaged in a pattern or
practice of sex discrimination by denying female retail sales
employees equal opportunities to be promoted into and within
management jobs, and by paying them less than men performing the
same work, at the same levels, in the same stores and at the
same time period.

The suit seeks fundamental changes to Sterling's personnel
policies, as well as awards of earnings and benefits lost
because of discrimination and compensatory and punitive damages.

"While Sterling Jewelers sold more than $ 1 billion in jewelry
last year, it failed to pay the women behind the counter the
same wages it paid men and failed to offer them the same chances
for promotion," said Joseph M. Sellers, Esq., a partner in Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC and co-lead counsel for the
plaintiffs.

Co-lead counsel Sam J. Smith, Esq., of Burr & Smith, said, "It
is outrageous that female employees with similar experience were
hired for several dollars per hour less than male employees
working in the same job in the same store."

"Sterling treated female employees as second class citizens in
their promotion practices as well and gave preferences to men
who were significantly less qualified," added Tallahassee
attorney and co-lead counsel Thomas A. Warren, Esq.

After examining sworn charges of discrimination filed by the
plaintiffs and reviewing statistical analyses of Sterling's
workforce data, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
found reasonable cause on January 3, 2008, to believe Sterling
subjected its female retail sales employees throughout the
company "to a pattern or practice of sex discrimination in
regard to promotion and compensation."

For more information, contact:

          Deborah Schwartz (deborah@mediarelationsinc.com)
          Media Relations, Inc.
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          5818 Conway Road
          Bethesda, MD 20817
          Phone: 301-897-8838
          Fax: 301-897-9143
          Mobile: 240-355-8838


TOWN SPORTS: Still Faces N.Y. Suits Alleging Labor Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International, Inc., the parent of New York Sports
Club chains, continues to face two purported class actions in
New York, alleging violations of various overtime provisions of
state labor law.

                       First Litigation

The first suit is "Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports
International, Inc.," filed on March 1, 2005, with the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County.  The plaintiffs
are Sarah Cruz of Union City, New Jersey, and Mathew Dockswell
of Forest Hills, New York.

The plaintiffs contend that they and many other employees
routinely worked more than 40 hours in a week but did not earn
overtime because the company deliberately misclassified them as
managers.

According to court documents, the lawyers are seeking class-
action status for the lawsuit, which they say could involve
hundreds of personal trainers and assistant fitness managers at
65 New York Sports Clubs in the state, including in New York
City and on Long Island.

The suit covers the past six years.  It states that Ms. Cruz,
who has worked for the chain since 1999, often has worked 13-
hour days, five days a week, or about 65 hours, and
Mr. Dockswell, who has worked for New York Sports Club since
2002, has regularly worked more than 40 hours a week.

On or about Nov. 2, 2005, the lawsuit was stayed upon agreement
of the parties pending mediation.  On or about Nov. 28, 2006,
the plaintiffs gave notice that they wished to lift the stay.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
file a second amended complaint, which seeks to add to the
purported class all New York hourly employees and alleged
additional violations of the provisions of the New York State
Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages.

                       Second Litigation

On June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second
purported class action against the Company with the Supreme
Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that
TSI LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of
the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of
wages to all New York purported hourly employees.

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

New York, New York-based Town Sports International Holdings,
Inc. -- http://www.mysportsclubs.com-- is an owner and operator    
of fitness clubs in the northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of
the U.S. It owns and operates 141 fitness clubs in the U.S., and
Switzerland.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: CalPERS Stock-Options Lawsuit Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Chief District Judge James M. Rosenbaum has given class-
action status to a lawsuit against UnitedHealth Group Inc. filed
by the California Public Employees' Retirement System over the
health insurer's past stock-option grant practices.

In the order, Judge Rosenbaum certified the class as anyone who
bought or otherwise acquired UnitedHealth Group's publicly
traded securities between Jan. 20, 2005, and May 17, 2006,
including those buyers who also held UnitedHealth stock during
the 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 UnitedHealth proxy
solicitations and those who acquired UnitedHealth's stock in or
related to its Dec. 20, 2005 merger with PacifiCare Health
Systems.

The judge named CalPERS, the largest U.S. public pension fund,
as well as the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension Trust,
as representatives of the class.

In e-mailed comments, Karl Oestreich, a spokesman for
UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) said the ruling is "an ordinary
step in these kinds of cases, and was not unexpected, since
classes are often certified in securities litigation."

In June 2007, Judge Rosenbaum ruled the suit could move forward
(BestWire, June 7, 2007).

According to that ruling, in March 2006, a Wall Street Journal
story reported that UnitedHealth executives received back-dated
stock options, with "grant dates" designed to coincide with low
points in the company's stock price.

CalPERS, which sued in December 2006, charged that UnitedHealth
and some of its officers and directors violated sections of the
Securities Act of 1933 and parts of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (BestWire, June 7, 2007).

In October 2006, UnitedHealth's chairman and chief executive
officer, Dr. William W. McGuire, stepped down as chairman and
director, and left the company Dec. 1 of that year after an
independent report to the company's board found that many of his
stock options likely were backdated.

In his latest ruling, the judge also named the law firm of
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins as the attorneys
representing the class.

To contact Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP:

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058


WASHINGTON: Chelan PUD Settles Overtime Lawsuit with Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Chelan County PUD has agreed to pay $360,000 to settle a
class-action lawsuit over overtime pay, Wenatchee World reports.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2006 with the U.S. Federal
Court in the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of 81
union employees.  The employees, all dam-related mechanics,
wiremen, systems operators and fish bypass operators, demanded
double-time pay for the approximately 10- to 15-minute intervals
they arrived early to be briefed by the previous shift members.
Specifically, the employees demanded damages of $790,000 for
wages owed since 2000, plus attorney fees.

PUD lead attorney Carol Wardell, Esq., explained that the PUD
had disputed the employees' claim because they earned fixed
salaries and not hourly wages.

According to the report, on March 17, 2008, commissioners
approved the settlement, which is conceived to avoid a costlier
legal battle in federal court.  

The settlement includes $155,000 in damages to employees and
$205,000 to cover the employees' attorney fees, Mr. Wardell told
Wenatchee World in a phone interview.

Moreover, pursuant to the settlement, many of the employees
agreed to stop arriving early for the shift-turnover briefing.
Those who may continue to arrive early for the briefing agreed
to document their extra time, Mr. Wardell further shared to
Wenatchee World.

The settlement, Wenatchee World notes, awaits court approval.

"I'm relieved that this issue is going to be resolved and we can
all go forward," said Steve Hendrickson, spokesman for Local 77
of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which is
the plaintiffs' labor union.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Holzer Announces Fla. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
Darden Restaurants Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between June 19, 2007, and December 18, 2007.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Darden and
certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting and failing to disclose
material facts and other information regarding the Company's
financial condition during the Relevant Period.

Specifically, the class action alleges that the defendants
misrepresented Darden's financial condition with respect to its
core restaurants, including Red Lobster, Olive Garden, and
LongHorn.

For more information, contact:

           Corey D. Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com)
           Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
           Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
           Toll-free: (888) 508-6832


SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Hagens Berman Files CA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who purchased Schwab
YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares or Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select
Shares from Charles Schwab Corporation from March 17, 2005 to
March 18, 2008.

The complaint claims Charles Schwab Corporation headquartered in
San Francisco, CA, the funds' underwriter, investment advisers
and officers and directors issued untrue statements regarding
the lack of diversification of these funds and the extent of
investments assigned to sub-prime mortgage backed and related
securities.

The complaint alleges the funds registration statements and
prospectuses contained untrue statements of material facts, and
omitted important information regarding the funds' investments,
ultimately misleading investors.

On Nov. 15, 2004, the Company began offering the Schwab
YieldPlus investment funds through a registration statement and
prospectus.  The YieldPlus funds are advertised by the
defendants as 'a safe alternative to money market funds that
preserve principal while being designed with your income needs
in mind'.

Throughout the Class Period the Company claimed the funds were
investments in a large, well-diversified portfolio, a seasoned
team of taxable bond portfolio managers actively managed the
funds, and that investment in Schwab YieldPlus would return
higher yields on cash with only marginally higher risk, a smart
alternative.  Since July of 2007, the share price for the funds
began lowering, for a total loss of 18 percent.  Today the funds
stand at an all-time low of $7.96, down more than 11 percent
from Jan. 1, 2008.

The lawsuit claims the funds are not well diversified, instead
concentrated in a single risky industry with more than 50
percent of the funds assets invested in the mortgage industry.
The lawsuit seeks remedies under the 1933 Act on behalf of all
fund purchasers during the Class Period.

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

For more information, contact:

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Ste 202
          Berkeley, CA, 94710  
          Phone: 510/725-3000
          e-mail: info@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com


TD AMERITRADE: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York  on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate
Securities from TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation and TD
Ameritrade, Inc., formerly known as TD Waterhouse Investor
Services, Inc., between March 19, 2003 and February 13, 2008,
inclusive, and who continued to hold such securities as of
February 13, 2008.

The Complaint alleges that TD Ameritrade 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, TD Ameritrade 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 TD Ameritrade 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 TD Ameritrade to "withdraw their
support" for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates
paid on auction rates securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that TD Ameritrade 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 TD Ameritrade and other broker-
         dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating
         the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of
         liquidity and stability;

     (3) TD Ameritrade 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) TD Ameritrade 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 move the court no later than May 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


WACHOVIA CORP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit  
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate
Securities from Wachovia Corporation and Wachovia Securities,
LLC., between March 19, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive,
and who continued to hold such securities as of February 13,
2008.

The class action is brought against Wachovia Corporation and its
wholly-owned broker-dealer subsidiary, Wachovia Securities, LLC.
The Complaint alleges that Wachovia 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, Wachovia 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 Wachovia 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 Wachovia to "withdraw their support"
for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on
auction rates securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that Wachovia 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 Wachovia and other broker-dealers
         were artificially supporting and manipulating the
         auction rate market to maintain the appearance of
         liquidity and stability;

     (3) Wachovia 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) Wachovia 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 move the court no later than May 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


WELLPOINT INC: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in IN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. has commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District
of Indiana on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
WellPoint, Inc., between January 23, 2008, and March 10, 2008,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The action is pending before the
Honorable Sarah Evans Barker.

The complaint charges WellPoint and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Federal Securities Laws.

WellPoint operates as a commercial health benefits company in
the United States.

Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts concerning WellPoint's medical costs and
medical enrollment levels.  In addition, based on these false
and misleading statements of current fact, defendants misled the
market by issuing false and misleading earnings guidance.
Additionally, during the class period, defendant Glasscock sold
$6.6 million worth of WellPoint stock.

In truth, the Company was experiencing significant increases in
its medical costs and adverse reserve developments in 2008 which
would require increases to WellPoint's medical cost reserve.

WellPoint's membership growth was weighted more towards the less
profitable self-funded products and enrollment in fully insured
products was down.  As a result of these known facts at the
beginning of the Class Period, defendants provided earnings
guidance which they knew WellPoint would not be able to achieve.

When defendants disclosed the truth to the market on March 10,
2008, the price of WellPoint's common stock dropped 28.3% to
close at $47.26, on volume of more than 54 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased the common stock of WellPoint between January 23,
2008, and March 10, 2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building
          Juniper and Market Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: (215) 561-3600
          Toll Free: (866) 561-3600
          Fax: (215) 561-3000


WELLPOINT INC: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announced that a
securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of WellPoint, Inc.,
between January 23, 2008, through March 10, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges WellPoint and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Federal Securities Laws.

WellPoint operates as a commercial health benefits company in
the United States.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements including failing to disclose material facts
concerning WellPoint's medical costs and medical enrollment
levels.  In this regard, Defendants misled the market by, inter
alia, issuing false and misleading earnings guidance.

Additionally, during the class period, defendant Glasscock sold
$6.6 million worth of his WellPoint stock.

In truth, the Company was experiencing significant increases in
its medical costs and adverse reserve developments in 2008 which
would require increases to WellPoint's medical cost reserve.

Moreover, WellPoint's membership growth was weighted more
towards the less profitable self-funded products and enrollment
in fully insured products was down.  As a result of these known
facts at the beginning of the Class Period, defendants provided
earnings guidance which they knew the Company would not be able
to achieve.  When defendants disclosed the truth on March 10,
2008, the price of WellPoint's common stock dropped 28.3% to
close at $47.26, on volume of more than 54 million shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19,
2008for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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





                           *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *