CAR_Public/080327.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 27, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 61
  
                            Headlines

BEAR STEARNS: Brodsky & Smith Announces ERISA Suit Filing in NY
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Ill. Court Considers Motion in Viewing Fee Case
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Quebec Court Affirms Dismissal of "Yedid" Case
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Suits in British Columbia & Saskatchewan
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Stockholder Suit in Delaware

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Late Fees Lawsuits Dismissed; Two Still Pending
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Tex. Court Nixes Consolidated Securities Suit
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Tex. ERISA Lawsuit
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Dismissal of Del. Suit Over 2004 Deal Appealed
CANADIAN NATIONAL: Faces Third Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime

CARMAKERS: Face Suit by Victoria Car Dealers Over Unfair Gouging
CERTEGY CHECK: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Data Breach Case
ELLAROO LLC: Recalls Infant Sling Carriers Due to Fall Hazard
ENERGY TRANSFER: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Natural Gas Price Suit
ENTERGY CORP: Continues to Face Tex. Electric Power Billing Suit

ENTERGY LOUISIANA: Class Certified in La. Property Owners' Suit
ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS: La. Court Defers Ruling on Fuel Clause Case
F KORBEL: Workers Complain of Unpaid Overtime in Calif. Lawsuit
GNC FRANCHISING: Unfair Business Practices Lawsuit Certified
JCPENNEY: Recalls Cooks Deep Fryers Due to Fire and Burn Hazards

KOREA: Faulty Food Makers to Face Suits by Consumers
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Unit Still Faces Royalties Suits in Kansas
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Class Certification in "Williams" Considered
NORWAY: Faces Suit by Kin of British Divers During Boom Years
OKLAHOMA: Court Grants Nursing Home Suit Class Action Status

PPL CORP: Ill. Court Nixes Suit Over 2006 Power Supply Contracts
PUBLIX SUPER: Empanadas Recalled Over Undeclared Milk Content
ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Subsidiary Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
SLADE GORTON: Recalls Langostinos for Possible Health Risk
SPECTRA ENERGY: To Share Liabilities with Duke in ERISA Case

STARBUCKS: Chestnut Hill Barista Files Another Suit Over Tips
SUNOPTA INC: Faces $110 Million CN Suit Over "Berry Operations"
SUPERVALU: Truckers' Lumping Suit Granted Class Action Status
TYSON FOODS: Workers Want Payment for Preparatory Work
WALGREEN CO: $20M Settlement in IL Discrimination Suit Approved

WARNER CHILCOTT: June 27 Hearing Set for $9M OvCon-35 Settlement
WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Suits by Third-Party Payors, Consumers
YRC WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Fuel Surcharges in LTL Shipments


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BEAR STEARNS: Federman & Sherwood Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
FORCE PROTECTION: Pomerantz Firm Files SC Securities Fraud Suit
HUMANA INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in KY
MERILL LYNCH: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.



                           *********


BEAR STEARNS: Brodsky & Smith Announces ERISA Suit Filing in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a class
action lawsuit has been filed with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of The
Bear Stearns Companies' current and former employees, alleging
the company violated ERISA laws concerning the management of the
Employee Stock Ownership Plan from December 14, 2006, through
the present.

The Complaint 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.

Specifically, the Company failed to manage the Plan's
investments to prevent the Plan's sole investment in Bear
Stearns stock and continued to maintain Bear Stearns stock as
the Plan's sole investment when it was no longer suitable for
participants' retirement savings.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Ill. Court Considers Motion in Viewing Fee Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division is
considering a motion by Blockbuster, Inc., that seeks to
decertify a class in the matter "Cohen v. Blockbuster," which
asserts claims regarding the company's "extended viewing fees
policies," according to Blockbuster's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 6, 2008.

The suit was filed on Feb. 18, 1999.  In it, the plaintiffs --  
Marc Cohen, Uwe Stueckrad, Marc Perper, and Denita Sanders --
assert common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive
practices, unjust enrichment and unlawful penalties regarding
Blockbuster's extended viewing fee policies.

Such claims were brought against Blockbuster, individually and
on behalf of all entities doing business as Blockbuster or
Blockbuster Video.

The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and other
plaintiff class members including actual damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

By order dated April 27, 2004, the Cohen trial court certified
plaintiff classes for U.S. residents who incurred extended
viewing fees and purchased unreturned videos between Feb. 18,
1994 and Dec. 31, 2004, and who were not part of a settlement of
a similar litigation filed on January 2002 with the 136th
Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas or who do not
have a Blockbuster membership with an arbitration clause.

In the same order, the trial court certified a defendant class
comprised of all entities that have done business in the U.S. as
Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video since Feb. 18, 1994.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the trial court denied Blockbuster's motion to
reconsider the trial court's certification of plaintiff classes.

On Sept. 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court remanded the
trial court’s decision to certify plaintiff classes back to the
trial court for reconsideration of Blockbuster's motion to
decertify plaintiff classes.

The plaintiffs did not petition the Illinois Supreme Court for
leave to appeal and the trial court is currently reconsidering
Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff classes.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Quebec Court Affirms Dismissal of "Yedid" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the
purported class action, "Marc Yedid v. Blockbuster Canada,"
which was filed against Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster
Canada, Inc.

On March 10, 2003, in "Marc Yedid v. Blockbuster Canada," which
was filed on Nov. 23, 2001, the Quebec Superior Court certified
a class of customers in Quebec who paid extended viewing fees
during the period of Jan. 1, 1992, to the present.

The case was tried in March 2004, and in September 2004, the
court ruled in Blockbuster's favor, dismissed the lawsuit and
ordered plaintiffs to reimburse Blockbuster its costs.  

The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's dismissal.  On
March 8, 2007, the Quebec Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's dismissal and ordered plaintiffs to reimburse
Blockbuster its costs, according to the company's March 6, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 6, 2008.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Suits in British Columbia & Saskatchewan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., face two
putative class actions that are pending against in Canadian
courts, according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 6, 2008.

                        Hazell Litigation

William Robert Hazell filed an action with the Supreme Court of
British Columbia on Aug. 24, 2001, against Viacom Entertainment
Canada Inc., Viacom, Blockbuster Canada, Inc., and Blockbuster.

The case asserts claims of unconscionability, violations of the
trade practices act, breach of contract and high handed conduct.

The relief sought includes actual damages, disgorgement, and
exemplary and punitive damages.

                        Hedley Litigation

Douglas R. Hedley filed an action with the Court of Queen's
Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, in Saskatchewan on July 19,
2002.

The case asserts claims of unconscionability, unjust enrichment,
misrepresentation and deception, and seeks recovery of actual
damages of $3 million, disgorgement, declaratory relief,
punitive and exemplary damages of $1 million and attorneys'
fees.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Stockholder Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., still faces a purported stockholder class
action that was filed with the Newcastle County Chancery Court,
Delaware, according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 6, 2008.

On Feb. 10, 2004, Howard Vogel filed the lawsuit against John
Muething, Linda Griego, John Antioco, Jackie Clegg, the company,
Viacom, Inc., and the company' directors who were also directors
and officers of Viacom as defendants.

The plaintiff alleges that a stock swap mechanism anticipated to
be announced by Viacom would be a breach of fiduciary duty to
minority stockholders and that the defendants engaged in unfair
dealing and coercive conduct.  

The stockholder class action complaint asks the court to certify
a class and to enjoin the then-anticipated transaction.  

The plaintiff has confirmed that Blockbuster and the other
defendants are not required to respond to the pending complaint.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Late Fees Lawsuits Dismissed; Two Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several putative class actions arising out of Blockbuster,
Inc.'s "end of late fees" program have been dismissed; however,
two similar lawsuits still remain pending, according to the
company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 6, 2008.

                Tallarino & Sanchez Litigation

On Feb. 22, 2005, Thomas Tallarino filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program constitutes
conversion and violates California consumer protection statutes
prohibiting untrue and misleading advertising.  

The suit seeks equitable and injunctive relief.  Blockbuster
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  

On March 22, 2005, Gustavo Sanchez filed a putative class action
with the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging a violation of California's business and professions
code as an unfair business practice and misleading advertising
claim, and a violation of the California rental-purchase act.  

The suit seeks compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief.
Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  

On March 24, 2006, the Tallarino and Sanchez cases were
consolidated.

On Aug. 6, 2007, the Tallarino and Sanchez cases were dismissed
with prejudice.

                     Lustberg Litigation

On Feb. 22, 2005, Gary Lustberg filed a putative class action
against Blockbuster in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, New
York, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment and that
Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates New York's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.

The suit sought compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive
relief.  Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.  

On March 19, 2007, plaintiff Lustberg's case was dismissed with
prejudice.

                     Galfano Litigation

On March 1, 2005, Steve Galfano filed a putative class action
with the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program is a breach
of an express warranty and a violation of California's business
and professions code as an unfair business practice and
misleading advertising claim.  

This suit seeks compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief.  

On Dec. 5, 2007, Mr. Galfano's individual claims were dismissed
with prejudice and the purported claims alleged on behalf of the
putative class were dismissed without prejudice.

              Galeno Litigation (Still Pending)

On Feb. 25, 2005, Michael L. Galeno filed a putative class
action with the Supreme Court of New York County, New York,
alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment and that
Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates New York's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.  

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive
relief.  

Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York.

             Creighton Litigation (Still Pending)

On March 4, 2005, Beth Creighton filed a putative class action
in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon alleging that
Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates Oregon's consumer
protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and misleading
business practices.  

The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable
and injunctive relief.  Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for District of Oregon.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.

    
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Tex. Court Nixes Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
dismissed with prejudice a consolidated class action against
Blockbuster, Inc., alleging violations of federal securities
laws, according to Blockbuster's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Jan. 6, 2008.

On Nov. 10, 2005, Congregation Ezra Sholom filed a putative
collective class action complaint under the Securities Act and
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

On Jan. 4, 2006, Victor Allgeier filed a putative collective
class action complaint under the Exchange Act in the same court.  

On April 28, 2006, the "Sholom" and "Allgeier" lawsuits were
consolidated, and later amended.  The consolidated lawsuit
purports to be filed on behalf of those persons who purchased
Blockbuster stock between Sept. 8, 2004, and Aug. 9, 2005.

In the consolidated lawsuit, the plaintiffs assert claims
against:

      -- the company,
      -- National Amusements Inc.,
      -- Viacom, Inc.,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Richard J. Bressler,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- Philippe P. Dauman,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- Linda Griego,
      -- John L. Muething,
      -- Sumner M. Redstone, and
      -- Larry J. Zine.

The plaintiffs claim the above-referenced defendants committed
securities fraud in violation of the Exchange Act by failing to
disclose at the time of the Blockbuster split-off from Viacom
that Blockbuster lacked the financial and other resources
required to implement initiatives announced at that time.

They also claim violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact
by the defendants regarding Blockbuster's financial results.  

Thus, plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, court costs,
attorney's fees, and expert witness fees.  

On Aug. 22, 2007, the trial court granted the above-referenced
defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed all of plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice.

The suit is "Congregation Ezra Sholom v. Blockbuster, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:05-cv-02213," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Judge David C. Godbey presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Clinton D. Howie, Esq. (chowie@howielawfirm.com)
         Howie Law Firm
         201 Laurence Dr., PMB 314
         Heath, TX 75032
         Phone: 972/722-9290

              - and -

         Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. (rpulliam@baronbudd.com)
         Baron & Budd, 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100
         Dallas, TX 75219
         Phone: 214/521-3605

Representing the defendants are:

         Brian Howard Polovoy, Esq. (bpolovoy@shearman.com)
         Shearman & Sterling
         599 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212/848-4000
         Fax: 646/848-4703

              - and -

         Robert C. Walters, Esq. (rwalters@velaw.com)
         Vinson & Elkins
         2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Phone: 214/220-7704
         Fax: 214/999-7704


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Tex. ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against
Blockbuster, Inc., filed an amended complaint in the matter,
adding an additional named plaintiff.

On Sept. 8, 2006, John Halaris filed a putative collective class
action complaint under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, purporting to act on behalf of all persons who were
participants in or beneficiaries of the Blockbuster Investment
Plan whose accounts included investments in Blockbuster, Inc.
stock, at any time, since Nov. 15, 2003.

The plaintiff asserts claims against:

      -- Vicaom, Inc.,
      -- the Viacom Investment Committee,
      -- the Viacom Retirement Committee,
      -- William A. Roskin,
      -- John R. Jacobs,
      -- Mary Bell,
      -- Bruce Lewis,
      -- Robert G. Freedline,
      -- Larry J. Zine,
      -- Keith M. Holtz,
      -- Barbara Mickowski,
      -- Dan Satterthwaite,
      -- Phillipe P. Dauman,
      -- Sumner M. Redstone,
      -- Richard Bressler,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- John L. Muething,
      -- Linda Griego,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Peter A. Bassi,
      -- Robert A. Bowman,
      -- Gary J. Fernandes,
      -- Mel Karmazin,
      -- Blockbuster, Inc.
      -- the Blockbuster Retirement Committee, and
      -- the Blockbuster Investment Committee.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA.  

The suit seeks declaratory relief, recovery of actual damages,
court costs, attorney's fees, a constructive trust, restoration
of lost profits to the Blockbuster Investment Plan and an
injunction.

On Sept. 21, 2007, the trial court partially granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint and dismissed the
plaintiff's claims for restitution damages and alleged omissions
by the defendants.

The trial court denied other portions of defendants' motions to
dismiss and reserved judgment on other portions of defendants'
motions to dismiss.

The trial court allowed plaintiff the opportunity to re-plead
his claims in light of the trial court's partial dismissal.

On Nov. 5, 2007, plaintiff Halaris filed an amended class action
complaint adding Dennis Conniff as an additional named
plaintiff, according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 6, 2008.

The suit is "Halaris v. Viacom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
01646," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Judge David C. Godbey presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/227-7720
         Fax: 713/227-9404

Representing the defendants is:

         Kenneth P. Held, Esq. (kheld@velaw.com)
         Vinson & Elkins
         1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300
         Houston, TX 77002-6760
         Phone: 713/758-4353
         Fax: 713/615-5219


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Dismissal of Del. Suit Over 2004 Deal Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a shareholder class action that was filed with
the Court of Chancery of New Castle County over allegations that
the executives of Viacom, Inc. lied about the financial state of
Blockbuster, Inc. when it was spun off in a 2004 stock swap deal
has appealed the dismissal of her case.

On Aug. 3, 2006, Beverly Pfeffer filed a putative class action
complaint under Delaware corporate fiduciary laws against:

      -- Sumner M. Redstone,
      -- George S. Abrams,
      -- David R. Andelman,
      -- Joseph A. Califano, Jr.,
      -- William S. Cohen,
      -- Philippe P. Dauman,
      -- Alan C. Greenberg,
      -- Jan Leschly,
      -- Shari Redstone,
      -- Frederic V. Salerno,
      -- William Schwartz,
      -- Patty Stonesifer, and
      -- Robert D. Walter.

On Jan. 12, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint and asserted additional claims under Delaware
corporate fiduciary laws against:

      -- National Amusements, Inc.,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Richard J. Bressler,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- Linda Griego, John L. Muething, and
      -- CBS Corp. (f.k.a. Viacom, Inc.).

The amended class action complaint purports to be filed on
behalf of all former Viacom stockholders who tendered their
Viacom stock in exchange for common shares of Blockbuster stock
as part of the Blockbuster split-off exchange offer commenced on
Sept. 8, 2004, and completed on Oct. 5, 2004, and all
Blockbuster shareholders at the time a special dividend was
declared by the Blockbuster Board of Directors in connection
with the Blockbuster split-off exchange offer in June 2004.

The plaintiff claims that the above-named defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in violation of Delaware corporate
fiduciary laws and, as a result, plaintiff seeks declaratory
relief, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, court costs and expenses, expert witness fees and
attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 1, 2008, the Court of Chancery granted the defendants'
request and dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.

On Feb. 28, 2008, Ms. Pfeffer filed her notice of appeal of the
Court of Chancery's dismissal, according to the company's
March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 6, 2008.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


CANADIAN NATIONAL: Faces Third Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law firms Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP and Roy Elliot O'Connor
LLP, co-lead counsel on the CIBC and Scotiabank unpaid overtime
class actions, announced a third unpaid overtime class action
against the Canadian National Railway Company.

The lawsuit, in Toronto, Ontario, is brought by Michael
McCracken, a CN "first line supervisor," on behalf of over one
thousand present and former CN first line supervisors across
Canada.

The lawsuit alleges that CN misclassified first line supervisors
as management employees in order to escape its obligations to
pay overtime under the Canada Labor Code.  The lawsuit further
alleges that CN first line supervisors across Canada are
routinely required to work hundreds of hours of overtime
annually for which they are not paid.

The allegations in the statement of claim have not been proven
in Court. No statement of defense has been filed by CN.

"The Canada Labor Code requires federally regulated
corporations, including CN, to pay overtime to their non-
management employees," said Louis Sokolov, partner, Sack
Goldblatt Mitchell LLP.  "Employers are not permitted to simply
call someone a manager to avoid their obligations under the
Code."

"This is the third major unpaid overtime national class action
against a federally regulated company that has been brought in
Canada in nine months," said Douglas Elliott, partner, Roy
Elliott O'Connor.  "Unlike the others, this one alleges
misclassification of employees as management, a common feature
in U.S. cases but a new development in Canada."

SGM and REO are working with Chivers Carpenter lawyers in
Alberta and Melancon Marceau Grenier Sciortino in Quebec to
ensure that employees in Western Canada, Ontario, and
Quebec/Eastern Canada have access to local counsel to determine
whether they qualify to be a member of the class.

For more information, contact:

          Douglas Elliott (rde@reolaw.ca)
          REKO LLP Barristers
          200 Front Street West, 23rd Floor
          P.O. Box #45
          Toronto, ON M5V 3K2
          Phone: (416) 362-1989

               - and -

          Louis Sokolov, Esq. (louissokolov@sgmlaw.com)
          Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
          20 Dundas Street West, Suite 1100
          Toronto, Ontario
          M5G 2G8
          Phone: (416) 979-6439


CARMAKERS: Face Suit by Victoria Car Dealers Over Unfair Gouging
----------------------------------------------------------------
A few Victoria car dealers have filed a class action suit
against some of the biggest automakers, saying they are gouging
importers unfairly, CTV British Columbia reports.

CTV cites one dealer as saying that he thinks new measures like
charging for changing a speedometer to kilometers per hour, or
making a temperature read Celsius, are nothing but cash grabs.  
Todd MacDonald, who imports expensive pre-owned vehicles from
the U.S. and re-sells them in Canada, said that the new measures
add as much as $5,000 to the cost of a $100,000 BMW for a local
dealer -- and it takes twice as long to import it.

"Canadians are getting ripped off by these manufacturers," Mr.
MacDonald said.  He added that he thinks the manufacturers are
trying to keep prices high, despite a higher loonie that should
make American goods cost less.

Mr. MacDonald's Victoria lawyer, Rory Lambert, has filed a class
action suit, according to CTV.  Mr. Lambert said that with
almost 200,000 vehicles imported in 2007, a lot of consumers may
sign on.

According to Mr. Lambert, it's a matter of fairness.  "You can
go to a local GM dealer, and ask them how many US cars they have
on their lot," he said.  "They can take advantage of the price
difference but we can't.  Is that fair?"

CTV says the New Car Dealers Association, as well as BMW or
other manufacturers, were out of reach.


CERTEGY CHECK: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Data Breach Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certegy Check Services Inc. has offered to settle a class action
lawsuit over lost personal financial information of millions of
Americans last fall in an insider-related data breach,
SCMagazineUS.com. reports.

According SCMagazine, the tentative settlement between Certegy
and the class-action lawyers is now under review by U.S.
District Court Judge Steven D. Merryday, in Tampa, Floria.

                          Background

The Class Action Reporter reported on Aug. 17, 2007, that the
law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class-action complaint with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of approximately 8.5 million consumers nationwide
whose financial and personal data was stolen by an employee of
Certegy Check, which is a subsidiary of Fidelity National
Information Services Inc., and released to unauthorized third
parties.

Theodore Borreson, a Los Angeles, California-resident, was the
named plaintiff in this litigation, captioned, "Theodore
Borreson v. William G. Sullivan et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05309-
GAF-MAN."  Eric H. Gibbs, Esq., of Girard Gibbs LLP
is representing Mr.  Borreson in the matter.  The presiding
judge is Judge Gary A. Feess, with referral to Judge Margaret A.
Nagle.

Aside from Certegy Check and Fidelity National, two other
defendants named in the lawsuit are William G. Sullivan and       
S&S Computer Services, Inc.

A subsequent CAR report, dated Nov. 5, 2007, stated that Certegy
Check is facing another purported class action suit that also
charges the company of not adequately protecting the
confidential personal and financial information of its clients.

This suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for Middle
District of Florida by Girard Gibbs, likewise on behalf of
customers whose info was sold to direct marketers by a former
employee.  The defendants in this suit are the same as those
named in the first case.

The suit is "Sellers v. Certegy Check Services, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:2007-cv-01020" filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida under Judge Timothy J. Corrigan,
and Senior Judge Howell W. Melton, with referral to Judge Thomas
E. Morris.

SCMagazine recounts that Mr. Sullivan, a Certegy ex-employee,
who has plead guilty to the thefts in November 2007, admitted to
stealing the personal data and selling part of it to a third-
party marketing company.  Certegy, which provides check
verification services to major retailers, filed a civil suit
against him.

Mr. Sullivan has already been scheduled for sentencing.

According to one of the CAR reports, Certegy initially said that
about 2.3 million consumer records were at issue, but later said
that an investigation determined 8.5 million consumer records
were stolen.  The company reiterated though that it has found no
evidence that the information was used for anything other than
marketing purposes.

                        Settlement Terms

The report relates that the proposed settlement offers only
partial help to some of the 8.4 million customers whose personal
information was stolen by a Certegy employee over a five-year
period.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Certegy would also
offer:

   * credit and bank account monitoring,
   * identity theft reimbursement capped at $4 million,
   * reimbursement of some credit monitoring fees, and
   * enhanced security.

Moreover, the settlement calls for Certegy to give consumers a
free one-year subscription to Experian's Triple Alert, which is
a $4.95 monthly service that monitors credit reports for
evidence of fraudulent activity.  According SCMagazine, the plan
limits those eligible to about 1.25 million consumers whose
credit card or debit card information was stolen.

The settlement further calls for Certegy to monitor bank
accounts for evidence of fraud over a two-year period.  Roughly
4.25 million consumers whose account data were stolen would
qualify for this.

                    Settlement Deal Glitches

Avivah Litan, a vice president at research firm Gartner, told
SCMagazine that there were multiple problems with the tentative
settlement plan.  Most notably, she took issue with the first-
come, first-served $4 million reimbursement limit.  That is less
than $1 per victim.

"I don't think it's appropriate to cap that," she said.  "Just
reimburse consumers for any losses incurred or reimburse the
consumers' banks."

It is, after all, the banks who pay the consequences if
consumers prove someone had unauthorized access to their
account.  "The bank has to pay the consumer back," she said.
With a limit, it's likely the impacted banks will sue Certegy if
they incur significant losses, she added.

"That's what happened with TJX -- the banks sued TJX for losses
they accrued when they paid consumers back," Ms. Litan said.

Ms. Litan called the credit monitoring "more like a pacifier."  
Credit monitoring helps only when a potential victim's Social
Security number is used to open a new credit card account, and
Social Security numbers weren't part of the stolen information.

In addition, the bank account monitoring proposal "is
interesting and actually useful," she added.  "But it only
monitors checking accounts within the Certegy system, so it's
not all-inclusive."

In all, she said the settlement was "a mixed bag, with some good
pieces, some irrelevant pieces and some inadequate pieces."


ELLAROO LLC: Recalls Infant Sling Carriers Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellaroo LLC, of McKinney, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,200
Ellaroo Ring Sling Baby Carriers.

The company said the aluminum rings on the sling carriers can
bend or break.  This can cause the fabric to slip through the
rings and infants to fall out of the carrier.

Ellaroo has received four reports of the rings bending and two
reports of rings breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall includes Ellaroo Ring Sling baby carriers with item
numbers 2101 and 2102 printed on the outside of the product box.
The Ellaroo Ring Sling has a fabric carrier with two aluminum
rings that is worn by the user to carry an infant up to 35
pounds.  The carriers are sold in mahogany, mango stone,
brasilia and malay color prints.  Only sling carriers with lot
numbers 03/07 and 07/04 printed on a label, under the size
label, inside the Ring Sling are included in the recall.

These recalled infant slings were manufactured in India and were
being sold at juvenile product and department stores nationwide
and online, including BabiesRUs.com, from June 2007 through
February 2008 for about $100.

A picture of the recalled infant slings is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08215.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the sling
carriers and contact Ellaroo for instructions on returning the
carriers for a repair or replacement Ring Sling.

For additional information, contact Ellaroo at (800) 483-4902
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m CT Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.ellaroo.com/


ENERGY TRANSFER: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Natural Gas Price Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., filed a motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action complaint pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas over the
alleged manipulation of the price of natural gas futures and
options contracts.

The lawsuit alleges that the company engaged in intentional and
unlawful manipulation of the price of natural gas futures and
options contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, in
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.  It further alleges
that during the class period Dec. 29, 2003, to Dec. 31, 2005,
the company had the market power to manipulate index prices, and
that it used this market power to artificially depress the index
prices at major natural gas trading hubs, including the Houston
Ship Channel, in order to benefit the company's natural gas
physical and financial trading positions and intentionally
submitted price and volume trade information to trade
publications.

The action asserts that the unlawful depression of index prices
by the company manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural gas
futures and options contracts to artificial levels during the
class period, causing unspecified damages to the plaintiff and
all other members of the putative class who purchased or sold
natural gas futures and options contracts on NYMEX during the
class period.

The class action complaint consolidated two class actions which
were pending against the company.  Following the consolidation
order, the plaintiffs who had filed these two earlier class
actions filed the consolidated complaint.  

The plaintiffs have requested certification of their suit as a
class action, unspecified damages, court costs and other
appropriate relief.

On Jan. 14, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
suit on the grounds of failure to allege facts sufficient to
state a claim, according to Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.'s
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al.,
Case No. 4:07-cv-03349," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Judge Keith P. Ellison
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory Asciolla, Esq. (gasciolla@labaton.com)
          Labaton & Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-883-7527

          Craig Briskin, Esq. (cbriskin@findjustice.com)
          Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-822-5100
          Fax: 202-822-4997

               - and -

          Anthony G. Buzbee, Esq.
          Attorney at Law
          1910 Ice Cold Storage Building, 104 21st St Moody Ave.
          Galveston, TX 77550
          Phone: 409-762-5393
          Fax: 409-762-0538

Representing the defendants is:

          Charles W. Schwartz, Esq. (schwartz@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps
          1000 Louisiana, Ste. 6800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-655-5160
          Fax: 888-329-2286


ENTERGY CORP: Continues to Face Tex. Electric Power Billing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corp. and several of its affiliates continue to face a
purported class action that was brought on behalf of Texas
retail customers who were billed and paid for electric power,
according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In August 2003, the lawsuit was filed with the district court of
Chambers County, Texas, by Texas residents on behalf of a
purported class apparently of the Texas retail customers of
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., who were billed and paid for electric
power from Jan. 1, 1994 to the present.

The named defendants include Entergy Corp., Entergy Services,
Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy
Arkansas, Inc.  Entergy Gulf States was not named as a
defendant, but is alleged to be a co-conspirator.  

The court granted Entergy Gulf States' request to intervene in
the lawsuit to protect its interests.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price
gouging accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly
situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the
defendants while rejecting and reselling to off-system utilities
less expensive power offered and purchased from off-system
suppliers and generated by the Entergy system.

In particular, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of
generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive
resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

The plaintiffs estimate that customers in Texas were charged at
least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power.  
They seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.

In September 2003, the Entergy defendants removed the lawsuit to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and
in October 2003, filed a pleading seeking dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims.

In October 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.  

In January 2004, the federal court determined that it did not
have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the lawsuit, and
remanded the case to the state district court in Chambers
County.

In November 2004, the state district court dismissed the case
based on a lack of jurisdiction.  The plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal.

In March 2006 the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals determined
that neither the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission nor the
Public Utility Commission of Texas had exclusive jurisdiction
over the plaintiffs' claims and, on this basis, reversed the
district court's dismissal order and remanded the case for
further proceedings.  

The court of appeals also affirmed the district court's decision
allowing Entergy Gulf States to intervene in the case.  Entergy
filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.  

The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for review in
February 2007, and in August 2007 denied Entergy's request for
rehearing.

Entergy filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court for review of the decision, and the writ of
certiorari request was denied in February 2008.  The case is now
pending again in the state district court.

Entergy Corp. -- http://www.entergy.com-- is an integrated  
energy company engaged primarily in electric power production
and retail electric distribution operations.  Entergy owns and
operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of
electric generating capacity and it is a nuclear power generator
in the U.S.  Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility
customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.


ENTERGY LOUISIANA: Class Certified in La. Property Owners' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state court in St. James Parish, Louisiana certified a class
in the lawsuit filed against Entergy Louisiana, LLC; Entergy
Services; Entergy Technology Holding Co.; and Entergy Technology
Co.

The suit, filed on behalf of all property owners in Louisiana
who have conveyed easements to the defendants, alleges that
Entergy installed fiber optic cable across their property
without obtaining appropriate easements.  

The plaintiffs seek actual damages for the use of the land and a
share of the profits made through use of the fiber optic cables
and punitive damages.  

Entergy removed the case to federal court in New Orleans;
however, the District Court remanded the case back to  
state court.   

Entergy appealed this ruling but the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit recently denied this appeal.  In December
2003, the trial court held a hearing to determine if a class
should be certified.  

On Feb. 18, 2004, the trial court entered an order certifying
the matter as a class action.

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

Entergy Corp. -- http://www.entergy.com-- is an integrated  
energy company engaged primarily in electric power production
and retail electric distribution operations.  Entergy owns and
operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of
electric generating capacity and it is a nuclear power generator
in the U.S.  Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility
customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.


ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS: La. Court Defers Ruling on Fuel Clause Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
did not rule on the motion to lift or modify the stay of the
Fuel Adjustment Clause Litigation against Entergy New Orleans,
Inc. -- a unit of Entergy Corp. -- along with several other
affiliates.  Instead the court deferred such a ruling to the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, according to
Entergy Corp.'s Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

In April 1999, a group of ratepayers filed a complaint against
Entergy New Orleans; Entergy Corp.; Entergy Services; and
Entergy Power with the state court in Orleans Parish purportedly
on behalf of all Entergy New Orleans ratepayers.  

The plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged injuries arising
from the defendants' alleged violations of Louisiana's antitrust
laws in connection with certain costs passed on to ratepayers in
Entergy New Orleans' fuel adjustment filings with the City
Council.  

In particular, the plaintiffs allege that Entergy New Orleans
improperly included certain costs in the calculation of fuel
charges and that Entergy New Orleans imprudently purchased high-
cost fuel or energy from other Entergy affiliates.  

The plaintiffs allege that Entergy New Orleans and the other
defendant Entergy companies conspired to make these purchases to
the detriment of Entergy New Orleans' ratepayers and to the  
benefit of Entergy's shareholders, in violation of Louisiana's
antitrust laws.  They also seek to recover interest and
attorneys' fees.  

Entergy filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' allegations,
asserting, among other things, that jurisdiction over these
issues rests with the City Council and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.

In March 2004, the plaintiffs supplemented and amended their
petition.  If necessary, at the appropriate time, Entergy will
also raise its defenses to the antitrust claims.

The suit in state court was stayed by stipulation of the parties
and order of the court pending review of the decision by the
City Council in the proceeding discussed below.

Subsequent to Entergy New Orleans' filing of a bankruptcy
petition in September 2005 with the Eastern District of
Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans filed a notice removing the class
action from the Civil District Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The plaintiffs also filed a corresponding complaint with the
City Council in order to initiate a review by the City Council
of the plaintiffs' allegations and to force restitution to
ratepayers of all costs they allege were improperly and
imprudently included in the fuel adjustment filings.

Testimony was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in this
proceeding asserting, among other things, that Entergy New
Orleans and other defendants have engaged in fuel procurement
and power purchasing practices and included costs in Entergy New
Orleans' fuel adjustment that could have resulted in Entergy New
Orleans customers being overcharged by more than $100 million
over a period of years.  

Hearings were held in February and March 2002.  In February
2004, the City Council approved a resolution that resulted in a
refund to customers of $11.3 million, including interest, during
the months of June through September 2004.

The resolution concludes, among other things, that the record
does not support an allegation that Entergy New Orleans' actions
or inactions, either alone or in concert with Entergy
Corporation or any of its affiliates, constituted a
misrepresentation or a suppression of the truth made in order to
obtain an unjust advantage of Entergy New Orleans, or to cause
loss, inconvenience or harm to its ratepayers.

The plaintiffs appealed the City Council resolution to the state
courts.  On May 26, 2005, the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans affirmed the City Council resolution, finding
no support for the plaintiffs' claim that the refund amount
should be higher.

In June 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the Civil District Court
decision to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.  The
court of appeal held an oral argument in September 2006.

On Feb. 25, 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a
decision affirming in part, and reversing in part, the Civil
District Court's decision.

Although the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal did not reverse any
of the substantive findings and conclusions of the City Council
or the Civil District Court, the Fourth Circuit found that the
amount of damages awarded was arbitrary and capricious and
increased the amount of damages to $34.3 million.

Entergy New Orleans believes that the increase in damages
ordered by the Fourth Circuit is not justified.  

Entergy New Orleans is continuing to review and evaluate this
decision and is considering its options for requesting
rehearing, a writ application to or other review by the
Louisiana Supreme Court, recourse to the federal courts, and
other potential avenues for relief.

                    Bankruptcy Proceeding

In the Entergy New Orleans bankruptcy proceeding, the named
plaintiffs in the Entergy New Orleans fuel clause lawsuit,
together with the named plaintiffs in the Entergy New Orleans
rate of return lawsuit, filed a Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment asking the court to declare that Entergy New Orleans,
Entergy Corp., and Entergy Services are a single business
enterprise, and, as such, are liable in solido with Entergy New
Orleans for any claims asserted in the Entergy New Orleans fuel
adjustment clause lawsuit and the Entergy New Orleans rate of
return lawsuit, and, alternatively, that the automatic stay be
lifted to permit the movants to pursue the same relief in state
court.  

The bankruptcy court dismissed the case on April 26, 2006.  The
matter was appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, and the district court affirmed the
dismissal in October 2006, but on different grounds, concluding
that the lawsuit was premature.

In Entergy New Orleans' plan of reorganization that was
confirmed by the bankruptcy court in May 2007, the plaintiffs'
claims are treated as unimpaired "Litigation Claims," which will
"ride through" the bankruptcy proceeding, with any legal,
equitable and contractual rights to which the plaintiffs'
Litigation Claim entitles the plaintiffs unaltered by the plan
of reorganization.

Upon confirmation in May 2007 of Entergy New Orleans' plan of
reorganization, the automatic bankruptcy stay of the state court
class action lawsuit was lifted.

The stay ordered by the state court that was agreed upon by the
parties (pending completion of the review of the decision by the
City Council), however, remains in place.

In September 2007 the plaintiffs moved to lift or modify that
stay so that the lawsuit could proceed in full or,
alternatively, could proceed against the defendants other than
Entergy New Orleans.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that exhaustion of
review of the City Council decision is required before the class
action lawsuit could or should proceed.

At the hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to lift or modify the
stay, the court inquired as to whether it retained jurisdiction
over the matter after confirmation of Entergy New Orleans'
bankruptcy plan or whether it should equitably remand the case
to Civil District Court.

The court ordered the parties to brief this issue, which would
be decided together with the plaintiffs' motion to lift or
modify the stay.

On Feb. 13, 2008, the federal court held that it would exercise
its discretion to equitably remand the matter to the Orleans
Parish Civil District Court.  It did not rule on the motion to
lift or modify the stay and deferred such ruling to the state
court.

Entergy Corp. -- http://www.entergy.com-- is an integrated  
energy company engaged primarily in electric power production
and retail electric distribution operations.  Entergy owns and
operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of
electric generating capacity and it is a nuclear power generator
in the U.S.  Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility
customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.


F KORBEL: Workers Complain of Unpaid Overtime in Calif. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
F. Korbel & Bros., champagne-makers, is facing a class-action
complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California alleging that it:

     -- cheats its workers of overtime,
     -- makes them work off the clock,
     -- pays less than minimum wage,
     -- denies them legally required rest breaks,
     -- refuses to itemize wage statements, and
     -- violates other Labor Code rules.

CourtHouse News Service reports that workers say Korbel was put
on notice that its policies are illegal but continued them
anyway.

The lawsuit is a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to vindicate rights afforded the class
by Federal and California law.

The action is brought on behalf of a class of non-exempt
employees employed by, or formerly employed by defendant, to
secure and vindicate rights afforded them by:

     -- the Agricultural Workers Protection Act,

     -- the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Section
        201 et seq.,

     -- California Labor Code Section 200 et. Seq., and

     -- California Business and Professions Code Section 17200
        et. seq.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant violated AWPA, FLSA and the
         California Labor Code and Wage Orders as a result of
         the allegations described in this complaint;

     (b) whether defendant violated AWPA and the California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by compensating plaintiffs
         and other class members at hourly wage rates below the
         minimum wage rate;

     (c) whether defendant violated AWPA or FLSA and California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by compensating plaintiffs
         and other class members at rates below the required
         overtime rate;

     (d) whether defendant violated AWPA and the California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by failing to provide daily
         rest periods to plaintiffs and other class members for
         every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and
         failing to compensate said employees one hours' wages
         in lieu of rest periods;

     (e) whether defendant violated AWPA and the California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by failing to provide
         required meal periods to plaintiffs and other class
         members and failing to compensate said employees one
         hours' wages in lieu of meal periods;

     (f) whether defendant violated AWPA and the California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by failing to, among other
         things, maintain accurate records of plaintiffs' and
         other class members' earned wages and work periods,
         itemize all hours worked and wages earned, and
         accurately maintain other records pertaining to
         plaintiffs and the other class members;

     (g) whether defendant violated AWPA and the California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by failing to pay all earned
         wages due and premium wages due and owing at the
         time that the employment of any class members,
         including plaintiffs were terminated;

     (h) whether defendant violated section 17200 et seq. of the
         Business and Professions Code by the actions contained
         in the complaint;

     (i) whether defendant failed to pay class members,
         including plaintiffs, statutory penalties pursuant to
         California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203;

     (j) whether plaintiffs and other class members are entitled
         to damages, restitution, statutory penalties, premium
         wages, declaratory, injunctive and declaratory relief,
         attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs, and other relief
         pursuant to Federal and California Labor Code and Wage
         Orders, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et
         seq.; and

     (k) whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief under AWPA  
         for the claimed violations of the working arrangement
         and failure to pay wages due.

The plaintiffs ask:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class with the named plaintiffs
        appointed as class representatives;

     -- for the plaintiffs' attorneys to be named class counsel;

     -- for compensatory damages in an amount according to proof
        with interest;

     -- for a declaratory judgment that each of the defendant
        violated the plaintiffs' and the class members' rights
        under AWPA, FLSA, California Labor and Business and
        Professions Code;

     -- that defendant be ordered and enjoined to make
        restitution to the class due to their unfair
        competition, restitutionary disgorgement;

     -- that defendant be enjoined from continuing the unlawful
        course of conduct, alleged;

     -- for premium pay, wages, and penalties;

     -- for attorneys' fees, interest and costs of suit;

     -- for liquidated damages;

     -- for restitution and damages; and

     -- for all other relief provided by the AWPA, FLSA, the
        California Labor Code, and California Business and
        Professions Code.

The suit is "Juan Ruiz et al v. F. Korbel & Bros. Inc.," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

For more information, contact:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq. (StanM@Mallisonlaw.com)
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq. (HectorM@Mallisonlaw.com)
          Marco A. Palau, Esq. (MPalau@Mallisonlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Mallison & Martinez
          1042 Brown Avenue, Suite A
          Lafayette, CA 94549
          Phone: (925) 283-3842
          Fax: (925) 283-3426


GNC FRANCHISING: Unfair Business Practices Lawsuit Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted certification to the lawsuit
"Ahussain v. GNC Franchising LLC, Case Number: 8:2006cv01090."

On Nov. 13, 2006, the plaintiff franchisees allege that GNC
engages in unfair business practices which detrimentally and
illegally harm their businesses.

These practices include, among other acts, wrongfully using the
internet to compete with its franchisees, wrongfully using the
"Gold Card" program to steal customers from franchisees, and
forcing franchisees to purchase obsolete and slow moving
merchandise.

On March 19, 2008, in a 19 page order, Judge Carter granted the
motion of the Plaintiffs, certain GNC franchisees, to certify a
class of all California franchisees in the case.

James G. Bohm, Esq., an attorney for the Plaintiffs stated, "We
are very pleased with the court's ruling.  This is a textbook
example of a case appropriate for class certification -- we have
a large number of class members who have common legal and
factual issues and claims.  We look forward to vindicating the
rights of these California Franchisees."

Omar A. Siddiqui, Esq., also an attorney for the Plaintiffs,
indicated that the class of franchisees is seeking an injunction
as well as restitution in excess of $50 million.  The case will
now proceed to merits based discovery with a trial date in
November of 2008.

The suit is "Ahussain v. GNC Franchising LLC, Case Number:
8:2006cv01090," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter,
presiding.


JCPENNEY: Recalls Cooks Deep Fryers Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
JCPenney, of Plano, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 27,000 Cooks Deep
Fryers.

The company said the deep fryer has a faulty heating element
which can cause it to overheat, posing a fire and burn hazard to
consumers.

JCPenney is aware of five incidents involving the deep fryers,
including one report of a minor burn and three reports of
damaged countertops.

The Cooks deep fryer has a brushed stainless steel exterior, a
wire mesh basket with a handle, a lid with a window and black
handles.  The deep fryer has a 1/3-gallon capacity.  "Cooks" is
stamped on the side of the deep fryer.  Model number 22016 is
printed on the bottom of the deep fryer.

These recalled deep fryers were manufactured in China and were
being sold exlusively at JCPenney's stores nationwide, catalog
and at http://www.jcp.com/from August 2007 through January 2008  
for about $50.

Pictures of the recalled deep fryers is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08216.jpg

Consumers should immediately stop using the deep fryer and
return it to the nearest JCPenney store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact JCPenney toll-free at (888)
333-6063 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at:
http://www.jcp.com


KOREA: Faulty Food Makers to Face Suits by Consumers
----------------------------------------------------
Food makers will face class-action lawsuits by consumers over
unhygienic or low quality food, Bae Ji-sook writes for Korea
Times.

According to the report, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and
Family Affairs announced that, similar to compensation
litigation against stock price manipulators, more than 50
consumers can join hands to sue the faulty food manufacturers.

In a report to President Lee Myung-bak, chronic faulty food
producers will face closure and chief executive officers can be
sentenced to a minimum of three years in prison.  In addition,
profits made through the sale of harmful products will be
seized, the ministry said.

Korea Times relates that food manufacturers say they understand
the tough measures but worry that the class action suit may be
abused.  This tough measure, the report explains, came out after
a rat head was found in a best-selling snack and a blade was
discovered in a tuna can.


MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Unit Still Faces Royalties Suits in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. continues to
face two purported class actions in Kansas state courts over
allegations of underpayment of royalties, according to
MidAmerican's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

                        2001 Litigation

On June 8, 2001, two subsidiaries of MidAmerican, namely
Northern Natural Gas Co. and Kern River Gas Transmission Co.,
along with a number of interstate pipeline companies, were named
defendants in a nationwide class action filed with the 26th
Judicial District, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas, Civil
Department.
  
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in the alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer plaintiffs.  

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a fourth amended petition alleging a class of gas royalty owners
in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.  The court granted the motion
for leave to amend on July 28, 2003.  

Kern River was not a named defendant in the amended complaint
and has been dismissed from the action.  Northern Natural Gas
filed an answer to the fourth amended petition on Aug. 22, 2003.

On Jan. 4, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their class certification
motion and brief in support of that motion.  Northern Natural
Gas filed its joint brief and expert affidavits in opposition to
class certification on Feb. 22, 2005.  

On Nov. 9, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a request for a new
briefing schedule on class certification in light of a new
Kansas Supreme Court case on class actions which ruled that in
that case the trial court failed to engage in properly rigorous
analysis of class certification and choice of law issues and
remanded a denial of class certification for such an analysis.

The plaintiffs hope to use this as grounds for further class
certification briefing.

On July 31, 2007, both the plaintiffs and Northern Natural Gas,
as one of the coordinated defendants, filed their proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding class
certification.

                        2003 Litigation

Similar to the June 8, 2001 matter referenced above, the
plaintiffs in that matter filed a new companion action on May
12, 2003 against Northern Natural Gas and other parties, but
excluding Kern River, in a Kansas state district court for
damages for mismeasurement of British thermal unit content,
resulting in lower royalties.

After fully briefing the class certification issue, on Nov. 9,
2006, the plaintiffs filed a request for a new briefing schedule
on class certification in light of a new Kansas Supreme Court
case on class actions which ruled that in that case the trial
court failed to engage in properly rigorous analysis of class
certification and choice of law issues and remanded a denial of
class certification for such an analysis.

The plaintiffs hope to use this as grounds for further class
certification briefing.

On July 31, 2007, both the plaintiff and Northern Natural Gas,
as one of the coordinated defendants, filed their proposed
findings of fact and conclusion of law regarding class
certification.

MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. -- http://www.midamerican.com/
-- is a public utility with electric and natural gas operations.  
The Company is primarily engaged in the business of generating,
transmitting, distributing and selling electric energy and in
distributing, selling and transporting natural gas.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Class Certification in "Williams" Considered
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
yet to rule on a motion seeking for the certification of a class
in the matter "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. Case
No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM."

Four plaintiffs filed the suit in January 2004.  The case
purports that plaintiffs are former and current employees of the
company and that the actions and conduct of the company,
including the employment of persons who are not permitted to
work in the U.S., have damaged them and the other members of the
purported class by suppressing the wages of the company's hourly
employees in Georgia (Class Action Reporter, Jun 19, 2007).

The Plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including:

      -- treble damages;
      -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and
      -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

According to the original complaint, the company sent its
employees "to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville,
Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the
U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North
Georgia.

The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters
provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them
jobs with the company.  It even charges that although some of
the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped
others evade detection.

Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired
several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work
force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under
different names.  It claims that the company destroyed documents
in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal
workers.

One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to
inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers,
thereby depressing wages.  Another was to reduce the number and
expense of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal
employees are unlikely to file," the suit states.

In February 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was denied by the District Court in April 2004.  

Following appellate review, the case has been returned to the
District Court and discovery is proceeding.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on Jan. 30, 2008, the Company filed its
opposition to such motion.  

The court has not yet made a ruling on the motion, according to
the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Case No.
4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Georgia, Judge Harold L. Murphy presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Bobby Lee Cook, Esq.
         Cook & Connelly
         P.O. Box 370
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370
         Phone: 706-857-3421
         e-mail: LisaDodd@alltel.net

              - and -

         Ronan P. Doherty, Esq. (doherty@bmelaw.com)
         John Earl Floyd, Esq. (floyd@bmelaw.com)
         Nicole G. Iannarone, Esq. (iannarone@bmelaw.com)
         Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq. (thorpe@bmelaw.com)
         Bondurant Mixson & Elmore
         1201 West Peachtree St., N.W.
         3900 One Atlantic Ctr.
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
         Phone: 404-881-4100

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Thomas Cottreau, Esq. (scottreau@sidley.com)
         Juan P. Morillo, Esq. (jmorillo@sidley.com)
         Virginia A. Seitz, Esq. (vseitz@sidley.com)
         Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
         1501 K. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-736-8000

              - and -

         R. Carl Cannon, Esq. (ccannon@constangy.com)
         Rosemary C. Lumpkins, Esq. (rlumpkins@constangy.com)
         Constangy Brooks & Smith
         230 Peachtree St., N.W., 2400 Peachtree Center Tower
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1557
         Phone: 404-525-8622


NORWAY: Faces Suit by Kin of British Divers During Boom Years
-------------------------------------------------------------
Relatives of British deep-sea divers killed in the North Sea
during the boom years of oil exploration are to seek
compensation from the Norwegian Government which is expected to
run to millions of pounds, Times Online reports.

The report relates that the families of seven British divers,  
all of whom died between the 1960s and 1980s as the scramble for
oil intensified in the North Sea, are expected to submit formal
applications for compensation over the next few weeks.

The families claim that they have been forgotten by Oslo and
that their loved ones died because of factors -- including
faulty equipment and excessive working hours -- that were
ultimately the responsibility of the Norwegian Government as
owner of the oilfields, Times Online says.

According to the report, the families also hope to join a class
action lawsuit against the Government by 24 former divers who
claim that they were treated as "human guinea-pigs" and sent to
extreme and dangerous depths, sometimes as low as 1,300 feet
(396 meters), which is more than twice the current safety limit.

The court case has raised awkward questions about Norway's
pursuit of oil in the early years of North Sea exploration,
Times Online points out.  Of 17 fatalities in the Norwegian
sector of the North Sea between 1967 and 1987, 11 were British
and the rest Norwegians and Americans.  It is believed that the
family of only one dead British diver has been compensated by
the Norwegian Government.  The North Sea Divers Alliance has
contacted relatives of seven of the 11 dead Britons, but are
still seeking the remaining four.

Although the Norwegian Government has admitted political and
moral responsibility for the "pioneer divers" who worked in the
North Sea from 1965 to 1990, it has denied legal responsibility,
allowing it to rebuff large-scale compensation suits, Times
Online writes.  In 2004 the Norwegian parliament authorized a
payment of NOK2.5 million for each of about 200 divers, but the
NSDA says that this does not go far enough and has excluded most
relatives of foreign divers until now.


OKLAHOMA: Court Grants Nursing Home Suit Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit claiming that Oklahoma nursing home owners are owed
millions of dollars because of inadequate Medicaid reimbursement
rates has been granted class action status by the Oklahoma Court
of Civil Appeals, the Associated Press reports.

According to Tulsa World, the lawsuit is on behalf of an
estimated 370 Oklahoma nursing homes that provide care to
Medicaid patients.

The government mandates and regulates the level of care that
Medicaid patients must receive, so the law requires the
government to provide sufficient funding to cover the cost of
providing those services, Marjorie Galt, Esq., one of the
attorneys representing the nursing homes, told AP.

About 70 Oklahoma nursing homes have gone out of business in the
past few years because the reimbursement rates have not covered
operating costs, Ms. Galt said.

Ms. Galt added that low reimbursement rates also are linked to
recent reports that dozens of nursing homes have stopped
carrying medical liability insurance.

Becky Moore, executive director of the Oklahoma Association of
Healthcare Providers, told AP that low reimbursement rates have
forced nursing home operators to choose between providing
coverage and taking care of residents.

According to Howard Pallotta, Esq., general counsel for the
Oklahoma Health Care Authority, which administers the Medicaid
program for Oklahoma, the state denies that nursing homes have
not been adequately reimbursed.  He added that nursing homes
closing and going bankrupt doesn't necessarily mean rates are
inadequate, as there are a lot of other reasons, like bad
management.

Daily reimbursement rates have increased steadily from $66.75 in
January 2000 to $103.97 in January 2006, state attorneys
specified in court documents.

The state will likely request a rehearing or appeal of the March
12 class action decision to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Mr.
Pallotta told AP.

AP points out that the Court of Civil Appeals' decision to grant
class action status to Oklahoma nursing homes reverses an
earlier order by Oklahoma County District Judge Dan Owens
denying class action status to the lawsuit.

    
PPL CORP: Ill. Court Nixes Suit Over 2006 Power Supply Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois State Court in Cook County dismissed two purported
class actions against PPL EnergyPlus, LLC -- a subsidiary of PPL
Corp. -- and several other entities, which is alleging market
manipulation in the auction for contract to supply power in
Illinois.

As a result of the Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate
Relief Law of 1997, the Illinois General Assembly provided the
opportunity for power suppliers to compete to supply power to
Illinois electric utilities to meet the full requirements of all
non-shopping Illinois electricity customers (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 15, 2007).  

The Illinois Commerce Commission conducted an auction for supply
of up to 25,474 MW of peak load and hired an independent Auction
Monitor for this purpose.  

PPL EnergyPlus submitted bids in this Illinois auction process
and, as a result, in September 2006 entered into three
agreements with Commonwealth Edison Company to supply a portion
of its full requirements service.  These agreements commenced in
January 2007 and expire after 17, 29, and 41 months.  

During peak hours, PPL EnergyPlus' obligation to supply
Commonwealth Edison may reach 700 MW.  At the conclusion of the
auction process, the Auction Monitor and the ICC Staff both
concluded that the auction process was competitive.

In March 2007, the Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission against all of the
successful bidders in this auction process, including PPL
EnergyPlus and 15 other suppliers, alleging market manipulation
and requesting that the FERC investigate such allegations,
requesting refunds for sales at prices above just and reasonable
rates and seeking revocation of the FERC market-based rate
authority for certain of the suppliers.  

PPL EnergyPlus is not identified in the complaint as a supplier
which allegedly engaged in market manipulation or which should
have its market-based rate authority revoked.

In June 2007, PPL EnergyPlus filed an answer requesting
dismissal of the complaint.  In July 2007, the Illinois Attorney
General asked the FERC to hold this proceeding in abeyance
pending a possible settlement among the Illinois parties,
stating that such a settlement, if finalized, would result in
dismissal of its FERC complaint.

Subsequent to the Illinois Attorney General's complaint, two
class actions were filed with Illinois State Court in Cook
County against all successful bidders in the Illinois auction,
including PPL EnergyPlus, alleging violations of unfair trade
practices laws.

The factual allegations appear similar to those in the Attorney
General's complaint.  

In December 2007, the judge issued an order dismissing the class
actions without prejudice to its right to seek relief from
either the FERC or the Illinois Commerce Commission, according
to PPL Corp.'s Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

PPL Corp. -- http://www.pplweb.com/-- is an energy and utility  
holding company, which through its subsidiaries, generates
electricity from power plants in the northeastern and western
U.S.; markets wholesale or retail energy primarily in the
northeastern and western portions of the U.S., and delivers
electricity to approximately four million customers in
Pennsylvania and the U.K.  


PUBLIX SUPER: Empanadas Recalled Over Undeclared Milk Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall on all codes
of prepackaged 2- and 4-pack Apple, Pineapple and Pumpkin
Empanadas sold in retail bakeries due to the undeclared milk
ingredient.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.  The recall affects the following 10
counties:

     -- Clayton, Ga.
     -- Cobb, Ga.
     -- Collier, Fla.
     -- DeKalb, Ga.
     -- Davidson, Tn.
     -- Fulton, Ga.
     -- Gwinett, Ga.
     -- Hall, Ga.
     -- Houston, Ga.
     -- Lee, Fla.

The product was sold in a variety of different containers.

"The packaging error was detected during a routine label
review," said Maria Brous, Publix media and community relations
director.  "As part of our commitment to food safety, we
routinely inspect our product labeling for accuracy and for
product quality."

There have been no reported cases of illness.  Customers who
have purchased the product may return it to the store for a full
refund or replacement.

Consumers with questions may contact Publix at 1-800-242-1227.


ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Subsidiary Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Rockwood Holdings, Inc., is facing several
purported product liability class actions in Louisiana, Florida
and Arkansas, according to Rockwoods's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The sale of the company's products involves the risk of product
liability claims.  For example, some of the chemicals or
substances that are used in its businesses, such as arsenic
pentoxide, have been alleged to represent potentially
significant health and safety concerns.

Class actions had been filed in Louisiana, Florida and Arkansas,
for example, naming one of the company's subsidiaries and a
number of competitors of its Timber Treatment Chemicals business
line in the company's Performance Additives segment, as well as
treaters and retailers, as defendants.

Rockwood Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.rockwoodspecialties.com/
-- is a global developer, manufacturer and marketer of value-
added specialty chemicals and advanced materials used for
industrial and commercial purposes.  The Company’s products
consist primarily of inorganic chemicals and solutions, and
engineered materials.  Rockwood operates globally, manufacturing
its products in 91 facilities in 25 countries, and selling its
products and providing its services to more than 60,000
customers.  It operates its business through five business
segments: Specialty Chemicals, Performance Additives, Titanium
Dioxide Pigments, Advanced Ceramics and Specialty Compounds.


SLADE GORTON: Recalls Langostinos for Possible Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Slade Gorton & Co is recalling its "ICYBAY" cooked, ready-to-
eat, frozen Langostinos because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as fever, headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria monocytogenes infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The product retails in one pound, clear plastic package marked
with UPC 0-73129-61672-8 on the top and with an expiration date
of June 2009 and is distributed under the brand name of
"ICYBAY."

The product also was distributed to wholesale accounts, also
under the "ICYBAY" brand, in five pound clear plastic packages
containing either 70-90 count, 90-125 count or 120-150 count.
This recall involves production dates of July 18, 2007, through
August 13, 2007, and Julian dates of 199 through 232.

The recalled "ICYBAY" cooked langostinos were distributed to
retailers in Massachusetts and Maryland, over the course of the
past several weeks.  The majority of the retail distribution was
removed from shelves immediately upon notice of the potential of
contamination.  The recalled "ICYBAY" cooked langostinos were
distributed to wholesalers in Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The potential for contamination was noted after a Canadian
government laboratory, CFIA, found that one sample was believed
to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
product.

President Kim Gorton said her company, one of the largest
private seafood distributors in the United States, strictly
follows HACCP procedures and FDA guidelines for testing its
seafood products to ensure their wholesomeness and safety.

She said that "while the report from Canada only involves a
small sample of the langostinos, we are issuing this voluntary
recall, as a precautionary measure, out of concern for the
health and safety of the consuming public."

Distribution of the product has been suspended while FDA and the
company continue to confirm testing and investigate the source
of any potential problem.  Slade Gorton & Co. will use an
independent testing service to determine the accuracy of the
Canadian findings.

Consumers who have purchased one pound packages of "ICYBAY"
cooked langostinos are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-225-
1573.


SPECTRA ENERGY: To Share Liabilities with Duke in ERISA Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Spectra Energy Corp. agreed to share with Duke Energy Corp. any
liabilities or damages associated to a purported class action
filed against Duke Energy over alleged discrimination and
violation of pension laws.

Initially, a class action was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District Court of South Carolina against Duke Energy and
the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.

Various causes of action are alleged, including violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.  These allegations arise out
of the conversion of the Duke Power Company Employees Retirement
Plan into the Duke Power Company Retirement Cash Balance Plan.

The plaintiffs seek to represent present and former participants
in the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  This group is
estimated to include approximately 36,000 persons.

Duke Energy filed its answer to the complaint in March 2006.  A
motion to certify a class action was filed by the plaintiffs and
Duke Energy filed its response in opposition to this motion.

A hearing on the class certification motion as well as other
dispositive motions was held in December 2007, and the Court
took the matters under advisement.  

A second class action lawsuit was filed with the federal court
in South Carolina, alleging similar claims and seeking to
represent the same class of defendants.  The second case has
been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice.

In connection with the spin-off from Duke Energy in January
2007, Spectra Energy has agreed to share with Duke Energy any
liabilities or damages associated with this matter that relate
to Spectra Energy employees that may be members of the plaintiff
class, 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.

The suit is "George et al. v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00373-HFF," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge
Henry F. Floyd presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James Robinson Gilreath, Esq. (jim@gilreathlaw.com)
         Gilreath Law Firm
         P.O. Box 2147
         Greenville, SC 29602
         Phone: 864-242-4727
         Fax: 864-232-4395

         Cheryl F. Perkins, Esq. (cperkins@attorneyssc.com)
         Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young, LLC
         P.O. Box 8086
         Columbia, SC 29202
         Phone: 803-799-9400
         Fax: 803-799-2017

              - and -

         Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. (mwallace@wallacegraham.com)
         Wallace and Graham
         525 North Main Street
         Salisbury, NC 28144
         Phone: 704-633-5244
         Fax: 704-633-9434

Representing the defendants is:

         Robert Oliver King, Esq. (robert.king@odnss.com)
         Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart
         P.O. Box 2757
         Greenville, SC 29602
         Phone: 864-271-1300
         Fax: 864-235-8806


STARBUCKS: Chestnut Hill Barista Files Another Suit Over Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
A former barista at a Starbucks Coffee store in Chestnut Hill
filed a class action suit on March 25, 2008, against the coffee
chain with the Suffolk Superior Court over customer tips, Boston
Globe reports.  

The report says that Hernan Matamoros accuses Starbucks of
shortchanging him on tips for serving customers.  He says that
the coffee giant routinely violated Massachusetts law by
requiring baristas to share money left in tip jars with shift
supervisors, who perform similar duties but have managerial
responsibilities.

"Every customer who walks in the door isn't necessarily thinking
about who's getting the tips, but one would assume it's going to
the workers and not the managers," said Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Esq., who is one of Mr. Matamoros' attorneys.

Mr. Matamoros, who is an 18-year-old Somerville resident, worked
briefly at a Starbucks on Boylston Street and is now employed by
another coffee shop.  Boston Globe notes that he refused to be
interviewed.

Boston Globe relates that Mr. Matamoros' lawsuit came five days
after a California judge entered a ruling in a nearly identical
class-action suit and ordered Starbucks Coffee Co. to pay
baristas in that state more than $100 million in back tips, plus
interest, that the company handed over to shift supervisors.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 25, 2008, San
Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett issued an injunction
preventing Starbucks' shift supervisors from sharing in future
tips.  The ruling is in connection with a lawsuit filed on
Oct. 8, 2004, by a former hourly employee of the company, who
alleges that it violated the California Labor Code by allowing
shift supervisors to receive tips.

Some of the more than 120,000 current and former baristas
affected by the California suit could each receive more than
$10,000, Boston Globe cites Terry Chapko, Esq., a lawyer from
suburban San Diego who represented the plaintiff, as saying.
Starbucks had labeled the ruling as "an extreme example of an
abuse of the class-action procedures in California courts" and
said it would appeal.

Starbucks is also facing a second class-action suit at the
company's headquarters in Seattle, Boston Globe says.


SUNOPTA INC: Faces $110 Million CN Suit Over "Berry Operations"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Siskinds LLP has filed a $110-million class
action against SunOpta Inc., a company listed on the TSX and the
NASDAQ.  Also named as defendants are certain of SunOpta's
senior officers.

The class action arises out of SunOpta's January 24, 2008 press
release disclosing, among other things, that SunOpta would be
required to take certain write-downs in connection with its
berry operations.

The class action is brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of SunOpta in the period May 8, 2007, to
Jan. 24, 2008.

Dimitri Lascaris, a partner in the class actions department of
Siskinds LLP, said, "Investors are entitled to demand that the
financial statements of public companies fairly and accurately
reflect the financial condition and performance of the companies
in which they invest their savings.  That expectation is
critical to the proper functioning of our capital markets, and
when that expectation is frustrated, meaningful action must be
taken to protect the rights of investors."

The SunOpta class action is believed to be the sixth class
action filed under Ontario's new investor protection
legislation-Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act.

Siskinds LLP is sole counsel or co-counsel to the plaintiffs in
each of those class actions.

For more information, contact:

          Nicole Young
          Siskinds LLP
          Phone: (800) 461-6166 (Ext. 2380)


SUPERVALU: Truckers' Lumping Suit Granted Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John Tunheim has granted class action status
to the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association's lawsuit
against SuperValu, Inc. alleging lumping coercion,
Today'sTrucking.com reports.

According to OOIDA's Land Line Web site, Judge Tunheim granted
OOIDA's request to include thousands of truckers in the class-
action claim that SuperValu's proof of insurance coverage
requirements in 2005 attempted to coerce drivers to use and pay
for lumping services at its docks.

The class for the case includes owners and operators of motor
vehicles hauling interstate commerce who, between March 28,
2005, and Dec. 22, 2005, delivered "carrier loads" to SuperValu
and did not at the time of delivery have in effect the insurance
then required by SuperValu as a condition to unloading their own
trucks, and so paid for lumpers.

OOIDA says SuperValu required excessive insurance coverage as a
way to coerce drivers to pay for unloading services.

"A victory in this case will benefit not only the truckers who
were actually charged the unloading fees, but all truckers
because of the clear signal it will send throughout the industry
that these types of abuses will no longer be tolerated," the
report quotes OOIDA's president, Jim Johnston, as saying.

There is also potential for the case to benefit some motor
carriers because the class includes not only the truckers who
were behind the wheel, but also the entities with the operating
authority for those trucks.

Today'sTrucking notes that a trial in the case is scheduled for
September 2008 in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis.


TYSON FOODS: Workers Want Payment for Preparatory Work
------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods Inc. employees have filed a lawsuit in Des Moines
federal court seeking payment for time spent on preparatory work
needed to do their jobs, CattleNetwork.com reports, citing the
Des Moines Register.

According to CattleNetwork, the lawsuit alleges that Tyson
failed to pay the workers for "time spent preparing, donning,
doffing, obtaining and sanitizing sanitary and safety equipment,
obtaining tools, equipment and supplies necessary for the
performance of their work, 'working steels' and all other
activities in connection with these job functions, and walking
between work sites."

The suit was filed by eight employees on March 20, 2008, on
behalf of all workers at Tyson's Perry and Waterloo plants.  It
estimates as many as 3,500 current and former Tyson production
and support employees that could be included in a class action,
if it gets classified as such.

The lawsuit asks for back wages from March 2006 to the present.

"We're still reviewing the the suit, but can tell you we fully
plan to defend our position," Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson
told Meatingplace.com.  

Cattlenetwork recounts that in 2006, a federal jury ruled that
Tyson didn't have to pay workers for time spent putting on or
taking off clothing before and after work and breaks.

Cattlenetwork notes that the suit is the latest in as series of
similar suits against Tyson and other processors, including
Pilgrim's Pride, Smithfield Foods, Greater Omaha Packing Co. and
Nebraska Beef Ltd.  Mr. Mickelson noted that these suits reflect
a nationwide legal debate over what types of activities are
compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under certain
state laws.


WALGREEN CO: $20M Settlement in IL Discrimination Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois granted final approval to the
$20-million settlement in the suit "Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 3:07-cv-00172-MJR-CJP," AP
WorldStream reports.

The report relates that the lawsuit stemmed from complaints that
originated in St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, and Tampa,
Florida.  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission officials
in St. Louis said they found evidence of the same trend around
the country.

In March 2007, the EEOC filed the class action claiming that the
Deerfield, Ill.-based national drugstore chain assigns managers,
management trainees and pharmacists to low-performing stores and
to stores in African-American communities because of their race
(Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2007).

Additionally, the EEOC alleges that Walgreen denies these
managers and professionals promotional opportunities based on
race -- all in violation of federal law.

In July 2007, Walgreen Co. agreed to pay $20 million to settle
allegations of racial bias against thousands of African-American
workers in the suit (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2007).

Morris Balle, Esq., an attorney with Goldstein, Demchak, Baller,
Borgen & Dardarian in Oakland, Calif., said that the $20 million
will be split among lawyers who handled the case and the class
of between 7,500 and 8,000 of Walgreen employees who were
affected by the company's policies.

Attorneys involved in the case will share about $4.5 million in
fees separate from the settlement amount.

Walgreen, which still says it did nothing wrong, began putting
the decree's requirements in place last July when Murphy gave
the settlement deal tentative approval, Walgreen spokeswoman
Tiffani Bruce said.

"We do not tolerate discrimination in any aspect of employment,"
Ms. Bruce said, insisting "we're the drug store industry leader
when it comes to the employment and promotion of African-
American managers and pharmacists."

The EEOC and a California-based law firm will monitor Walgreen's
compliance with the decree, with Murphy keeping jurisdiction
over the matter for five years, the EEOC said in a statement.

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walgreen
Co., Case No. 3:07-cv-00172-MJR-CJP," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge
Michael J. Reagan, with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Andrea G. Baran (andrea.baran@eeoc.gov)
          Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Kansas City
          400 State Avenue, Suite 905
          Kansas City, KS 66101
          Phone: 913-551-5848

          Robert G. Johnson (robert.johnson@eeoc.gov)
          Barbara A. Seely
          Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - St. Louis MO           
          1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100
          St. Louis, MO 63103
          Phone: 314-539-7915 or 314-539-7800

               - and -

          Jean P. Kamp
          Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cook County
          500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Phone: 312-353-7525


WARNER CHILCOTT: June 27 Hearing Set for $9M OvCon-35 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 27, 2008 hearing is scheduled for a tentative settlement
to conclude the one remaining antitrust lawsuit involving one of
Warner Chilcott, Ltd.'s combined hormonal contraceptives, OvCon
35, according to Warner Chilcott'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 Nov. 8, 2007, the Company reached the tentative settlement of
the one continuing antitrust class action lawsuit brought by  
the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

Under the proposed settlement, all claims will be dismissed and
the class action, which was brought by direct purchaser
plaintiffs, will be terminated in exchange for a cash payment of
$9.0 million (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007).

On Jan. 2, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  

The settlement remains subject to final court approval.  The
Court has scheduled briefing on the motion for final approval
and a fairness hearing for June 27, 2008.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Warner Chilcott Ltd. --
http://www.warnerchilcott.com/-- is the holding company for a   
host of pharmaceutical makers.  Women's health care products,
including hormone therapies (femhrt and Estrace Cream) and
contraceptives (Estrostep, Loestrin, and OvCon), are the
company's largest segment.  Other products include dermatology
treatments for acne (Doryx) and psoriasis (Dovonex and
Taclonex).  US subsidiary Warner Chilcott, Inc. makes
prescription drugs for dermatology and women's health; other
subsidiaries provide services in data management systems,
pharmaceutical development, manufacturing, and chemical
development.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Suits by Third-Party Payors, Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott, Ltd., reached tentative settlements to conclude
a third-party payor class action and one other purported class
action by two personal use consumer class action plaintiffs,
against certain of the company's subsidiaries over agreements
regarding the drug, OvCon, 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.

                Third-Party-Payor Litigation

The third-party-payor class action was brought against the
Company and Barr in the Court alleging violations of Section 1
of the Sherman Act and the antitrust and consumer protection
laws and unjust enrichment laws of various states and the
District of Columbia.

                    Consumer Litigation

Two personal use consumer plaintiffs brought a class action
lawsuit against the Company, alleging violations of Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act and the antitrust and consumer
protection laws and unjust enrichment laws of various states.

On April 9, 2007, the Company agreed to settlements in principle
in the actions brought by the third-party-payor plaintiffs and
the consumer plaintiffs.

Under the terms of the settlements, all claims in these actions
will be dismissed and the litigations will be terminated in
exchange for cash payments and donations of product samples with
an aggregate value of approximately $2,000 (or approximately
$6,500 in the aggregate, if the product samples are valued at
the fair market value of commercial trade product).  

The Court approved the settlement of the third-party-payor and
consumer actions on Nov. 15, 2007.  The third-party-payor
settlement is now final.  

On December 10, 2007, one objecting consumer, filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, challenging the Court's approval of the consumer
action settlement.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia has not yet scheduled briefing on this appeal.

The remaining consumer plaintiffs party to the class action
filed a motion for summary affirmance of the class settlement on
Feb. 13, 2008, and the Company joined the motion by separate
filing on Feb. 14, 2008.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Warner Chilcott Ltd. --
http://www.warnerchilcott.com/-- is the holding company for a   
host of pharmaceutical makers.  Women's health care products,
including hormone therapies (femhrt and Estrace Cream) and
contraceptives (Estrostep, Loestrin, and OvCon), are the
company's largest segment.  Other products include dermatology
treatments for acne (Doryx) and psoriasis (Dovonex and
Taclonex).  US subsidiary Warner Chilcott, Inc. makes
prescription drugs for dermatology and women's health; other
subsidiaries provide services in data management systems,
pharmaceutical development, manufacturing, and chemical
development.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Fuel Surcharges in LTL Shipments
---------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide, Inc., along with other less-than-truckload  
carriers, faces a consolidated class action in Georgia that
accuses them of conspiring throughout four years or more to fix
fuel surcharges on LTL shipments, according to YRC'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 July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. d/b/a
Water Tech, and C.B.J.T. d/b/a Agricultural Supply, on behalf of
themselves and other plaintiffs, filed a putative class action
against the Company and 10 other companies engaged in the LTL
trucking business in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (Class Action Reporter Nov. 30, 2007).  

The named defendants in that complaint are:

          -- Arkansas Best Corp.,
          -- Averitt Express,   
          -- Con-Way, Inc.,
          -- Fedex Corp.,
          -- Jevic Transportation, Inc.,   
          -- Sun Capital Partners IV, LLC,   
          -- New England Motor Freight, Inc.,   
          -- R+L Carriers, Inc.,   
          -- SAIA, Inc.,   
          -- United Parcel Service, Inc.,   
          -- YRC Worldwide Inc.,   
          -- Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc.

Farm Water, doing business as Water Tech, and its subsidiary
CBJT, doing business as Agricultural Supply contend that the
practice dates back to 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29,
2007).

They charge that the carriers agreed to impose identical or
nearly identical surcharges by linking them to diesel fuel
prices published by the U.S. Department of Energy and by listing
surcharges on their websites to communicate pricing.

The plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchase LTL service directly to defendants or
their unnamed co-conspirators from July 30, 2003 through the
conclusion of the trial in this matter (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 2, 2007).

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed
         for LTL services sold in the United States;

     (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this
         complaint and the nature and character of the acts
         performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in
         furtherance of the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the
         Sherman Act;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused
         injury to the business and property plaintiffs and
         other members of the classes;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         LTL services sold in the United States during the class
         period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and other members of the damages class.

The plaintiffs pray that:

     -- the court determines that this action may be maintained
        as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure;

     -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts
        done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co-
        conspirators, b adjudged to have been in violation of
        Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of the
        damages class against defendants for three times the
        amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the
        damages class as allowed by law, together with the costs
        of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- defendants and their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to ac on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner:

        (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract,
            combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging
            in any other contract, combination or conspiracy
            having a similar purpose or effect, and from
            adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
            device having a similar purpose or effect; and

       (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the manufacture,
            distribution or sale of any product except to the
            extent necessary in connection with a bona fide
            sales transaction between the parties to such
            communications; and

     -- plaintiffs and members of the class have such other,
        further and different relief as the case may require and
        the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

Since that time, other plaintiffs have filed similar cases in
various courts across the nation.  

In December 2007, the courts consolidated these cases in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The suit is "Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. et al. v.
Arkansas Best Corporation et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00660-WSD,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Judge William S. Duffey, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

Representing the defendants are:

          Jacqueline Bos, Esq. (jbos@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: (415) 268-6240

          W. Perry Brandt, Esq. (perry.brandt@bryancave.com)
          Bryan Cave, LLP
          Suite 3500
          One Kansas City Place
          1200 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-374-3206
          Fax: 816-374-3300

          Thomas F. Cullen, Jr., Esq. (tfcullen@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001-2113
          Phone: 202-879-3939

               - and -

          Joel S. Sanders, Esq. (jsanders@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
          One Montgomery Street
          31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-393-8268


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BEAR STEARNS: Federman & Sherwood Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 25, 2008, Federman & Sherwood filed a securities class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against The Bear Stearns
Companies, Inc., and certain officers and directors.

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

The class period is from March 12, 2008, through March 14, 2008.
This is a different class period than other lawsuits against
Bear Stearns.

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

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wbf@federmanlaw.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Web site: htpp://www.federmanlaw.com


FORCE PROTECTION: Pomerantz Firm Files SC Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court, District of South
Carolina, Charleston Division, against Force Protection, Inc.  
and certain officers of the Company.  The class action was filed
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Company during
the period from August 14, 2006, to February 29, 2008,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
there under.

Force Protection and its subsidiaries engage in the manufacture
of ballistic and blast protected vehicles.  The Company is based
in South Carolina.

The complaint alleges that prior to and during the Class Period,
defendants continually boasted that Force Protection's dominance
in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles market was due
to its superior product design and rapid delivery rates.  In
June 2007, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense
questioned both of these claims and criticized the awarding of
contracts to Force Protection on a sole source basis and without
competitive bidding.  The report noted that there were other
U.S. companies that could have competed with Force Protections
on both product capability and faster delivery schedules.

The complaint further alleges the following true facts, which
were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing
public during the class period:

     (1) as a result of the Company's ongoing problems in
         meeting contractual delivery deadlines, the Company
         would have trouble competing in the MRAP market;

     (2) in audit reports, the Defense Contract Audit Agency had
         been critical of the Company's finances and financial
         accounting system, which threatened the Company's
         eligibility to compete for government contracts;

     (3) the Company's accounting department suffered from
         material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the
         necessary staff and resources to perform its required
         functions;

     (4) contrary to the representations contained in the
         Company's SEC filings, the Company's internal controls
         were inadequate and easily manipulated, and, as a
         result, multiple areas of the Company's internal
         controls suffered serious deficiencies, including:

           (i) the financial closing process;
   
          (ii) accounting for inventory and the associated
               accounts payable expenses;

         (iii) stock-based compensation; and

          (iv) deferred tax balances;

     (5) the Company lacked effective internal controls in its
         financial reporting process, required to enable it to
         properly analyze and estimate Force Protection's
         future financial and operational performance;

     (6) the defendants had caused the Company to falsely report
         at least its third quarter 2007 financial results.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Force
Protection's stock price traded at inflated levels during the
Class Period and defendants were able to sell $87.4 million in
Force Protection Stock.  However, after the above revelations
were revealed, the Company's shares were hammered by massive
sales, sending them down 88% from their Class Period high.

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

For more information, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476-6529 or (888) 4-POMLAW


HUMANA INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in KY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky on behalf of
purchasers of Humana, Inc. common stock during the period
between February 4, 2008, and March 11, 2008.

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

The Company provides various health and supplemental benefit
plans for employer groups, government benefit programs, and
individuals in the United States.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's anticipated earnings per share for the first quarter
of 2008 and full year 2008.  As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false misleading because defendants
failed to disclose:

     (i) that the Company was unable to properly calculate the
         prescription drug costs of its newly acquired members;

    (ii) that the Company's costs associated with its
         prescription drug plans had dramatically increased; and

   (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
         statements concerning the Company's anticipated EPS for
         the first quarter of 2008 and full year 2008 were
         lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times and
         were therefore materially false and misleading.

On March 12, 2008, the Company announced that it would be
revising its earnings estimates because of, among other things,
increased costs that it was experiencing with the Company's
prescription drug plans.  Following this announcement, shares of
Humana stock fell $6.50 per share, or approximately 13.7%, to
close at $40.88 per share.

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

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. (shr@csgrr.com)
          David Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900


MERILL LYNCH: 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 Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. between March 25, 2003, and Feb. 13,
2008, inclusive, and who continued to hold such securities as of
February 13, 2008.

The class action is brought against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
and its wholly-owned broker-dealer subsidiary, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.

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

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

     (3) Merrill Lynch 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) Merrill Lynch 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 25,
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/




                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                         

                            *********

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  * * *