CAR_Public/080331.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 31, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 63
  
                            Headlines

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Appeals in Underage Drinking Suits Discontinued
BEAR STEARNS: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY ERISA Violations Suit
BP PRUDHOE: Court Dismisses Claims in "Goldman" Litigation
CANADA: Court Expected to Rule on Students' $200-Million Lawsuit
CARRIER CORP: Offers Payment to Settle Gas Furnace Lawsuit

COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settles FCRA Violation Lawsuit for $2,600,000
DIAMOND FOODS: Underpaid Walnut Growers File Suit in California
DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces "Holman" Labor Lawsuit in Calif.
ELI LILLY: Faces Zyprexa Product Liability Lawsuits in Canada
ELI LILLY: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Zyprexa Side Effects, Promotion

ERA CLASS.COM: Faces Lawsuit in Alabama Over Illegal Charges
GENZYME CORP: $64M Settlement of Suits Over Tracking Stocks OK'd
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Suits Over $15.1B Buyout Offer
LIFELOCK INC: Customer Sues Over Fraudulent Business Practices
MBIA INC: Faces Two Securities Violations Lawsuits in New York

MURPHY OIL: Continues to Face Litigation Over 2003 La. Fire
NEW JERSEY: Lawsuit Seeking to Stop Strip Searches Certified
NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Lewisboro Wetlands Lawsuit
NEW YORK ENERGY: Charges Exorbitant Termination Fees, Suit Says
NEW YORK NYCLU: Seeks Emergency Action in Indigent Defense Case

PACIFIC CAPITAL: Faces Calif. Suits Over Bank Product Agreements
RAMBUS INC: Calif. Court Mulls $18M Securities Suit Settlement
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Holzer Files AL Shareholder Derivative Action
SHORETEL INC: Milberg LLP Files Derivative Lawsuit in California
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: No Certification Yet for "Gressette"

STARBUCKS CORP: Nichols Kaster Files Tip-Pooling Suit in Minn.
STARBUCKS CORP: Mischaracterized in Recent Lawsuits Over Tips
STATE STREET: Proposed Amended Complaint Filed in NY ERISA Suit
SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is April 7
VALASSIS COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of Conn. Securities Fraud Suit

XEROX CORP: Settles Accounting Fraud Lawsuits for $670 Million


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CITIGROUP INC: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
HUMANA INC: Dreier Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing in KY
MORGAN STANLEY: Levi & Korsinsky Files Auction Rates Suit in NY
NEUROMETRIX INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
UBS AG: Levi & Korsinsky Files NY Auction Rate Securities Suit



                           *********

    
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Appeals in Underage Drinking Suits Discontinued
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in several purported class actions over underage
drinking voluntarily discontinued all appeals in their
respective cases, which had named Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc. as
one of the defendants, according to Anheuser-Busch'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 Company had been served with complaints in putative class
action lawsuits in California, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia and
Wisconsin.

These suits had named a large number of other brewers and
distillers and sought to blame minors' intentional violations of
state alcohol laws on lawful product advertising, generally
asserting theories of consumer fraud, unjust enrichment and
public nuisance.  

These class actions had been instituted by the parents of
illegal underage drinkers to obtain the sums that underage
people purportedly spent illegally buying alcohol from persons
or entities other than the defendants.

The California case was dismissed in 2005, and in August 2006
the plaintiffs in that case voluntarily discontinued their
appeal, thus ending the suit.

The Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin cases were
dismissed in 2006.  

In July 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
effectively affirmed the dismissal of the Michigan and Ohio
actions for plaintiffs' failure to plead an injury to themselves
and causation.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily discontinued all
appeals, thus ending all illegal underage drinking litigation
pending against the Company.

Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc. -- http://www.anheuser-busch.com/--  
is the holding company parent of Anheuser-Busch, Inc., a beer
brewer.  The company is also the parent corporation to a number
of subsidiaries that conduct various other business operations.  
The company's operations are comprised of four segments:
domestic beer, international beer, packaging and entertainment.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (2) actively concealed the ominous dangers it faced;

     (3) failed to take accurate and timely write-downs for
         losses resulting from the collapse of the subprime
         market; and that the

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

This case is brought on behalf of the Plan and its participants.
Proposed class actions have also been brought against Bear
Stearns regarding violations of the federal securities laws by
the company's public shareholders.

For more information, contact:

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


BP PRUDHOE: Court Dismisses Claims in "Goldman" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska dismissed
several claims in the purported class action, "Michael Goldman
v. BP plc, et al., Case No. 3:06-CV-00260 TMB," which was filed
against BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust, according to the Trust'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 complaint, filed on Nov. 7, 2006, purportedly as a class
action by plaintiff Michael Goldman, on behalf of the public
holders of units in the Trust, against BP plc, the Trust, BP
Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BP Alaska), The Standard Oil Co. and
other defendants.

In April 2007, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Trust as
a defendant in the action.  However, in September 2007, the
district court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims against
BP, BP Alaska and Standard Oil without prejudice.

The suit is "Michael Goldman v. BP plc, et al., Case No. 3:06-
CV-00260 TMB," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Alaska, Judge John W. Sedwick presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Anna C. Dover, Esq. (adover@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 50th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300
          Fax: 212-656-1820

Representing the defendants are:

          Jeffrey M. Feldman, Esq. (feldman@frozenlaw.com)
          Feldman Orlansky & Sanders
          500 L. Street, Suite 400
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Phone: 907-272-3538
          Fax: 907-274-0819

               - and -

          Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq.
          (peppermanr@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-558-4000
          Fax: 212-558-3588 (fax)


CANADA: Court Expected to Rule on Students' $200-Million Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honourable Justice Joan L. Lax of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice is expected to issue her ruling on whether to allow
the court to hear a $200 million class action lawsuit against
the province's 24 community colleges.

This unprecedented case was launched on behalf of Ontario's
college students by two college students, Andy Hassum and Dan
Roffey.  The class action is seeking to recover $200 million in
ancillary fees paid by Ontario's college students, fees that are
prohibited by a Binding Policy Directive issued by the Ontario
Government.

In an effort to prevent the court from proceeding to consider
the underlying merits of the students' case, the defendant
colleges brought a motion seeking to have the case thrown out.
The colleges' position was that the government's "binding policy
directive" is a kind of guideline and not a "law," and therefore
does not entitle any students to sue to recover fees collected
in violation of the directive.  The colleges did not deny the
existence of the Binding Policy Directive or their collection of
the prohibited fees.  However, they claimed that only the
government could enforce the Directive, and not the students
from whom the fees were actually collected.

On January 8, 2008, a hearing was held to consider the
defendant's motion to strike the case.  After two and a half
months of deliberation, Justice Lax is now expected to issue her
ruling.

The representative plaintiffs and their legal counsel, and
representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students, will be
available for comment immediately following the release of the
ruling.

The Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario unites more than
300,000 college and university students across the province from
more than 35 students' unions.


CARRIER CORP: Offers Payment to Settle Gas Furnace Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit over certain gas furnaces made by Carrier
Corp. means that some Canadians may be entitled to payments,
680News reports.

According to 680News, the furnaces in question were 90-plus per
cent high-efficiency, including a secondary heat exchanger.

The report points out that, under the settlement reached by the
parties, former owners of the gas furnaces will receive payments
only if the secondary heat exchanger failed.

The settlement also includes an opt-out offer, plus payments and
offers of an enhanced 20-year warranty on the company's high-
efficiency gas furnaces.

The settlement, 680News notes, is not an admission of wrongdoing
by Carrier Corp.

According to 680News, the deadline for opt outs and objectionsis
on June 9, 2008, while the deadline to submit claims is
September 8.  Hearings for the approval of the settlement will
be held on June 16.

More information, forms and a list of qualifying furnace models
can be obtained at a toll-free number, 1-877-632-0916.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settles FCRA Violation Lawsuit for $2,600,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole, of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, approved on
a final basis the proposed settlement of the class action filed
by Clayton R. Poehl against Home Loan Investment Bank F.S.B. --
formerly known as Ocean Bank F.S.B.

                        Case Background

Mr. Poehl originally filed the suit with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.  The case was subsequently
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, as a result of multidistrict
litigation.

Mr. Poehl, both individually and on behalf of a class of 301,430
fellow Missouri-residents, alleged that Home Loan willfully
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by obtaining "pre-
screened" credit data from a consumer-reporting agency to
identify the class members (for the purpose of sending the
solicitation).  However, Home Loan failed to make a "firm offer
of credit" as required under FCRA.

Home Loan denied that it violated FCRA in any way, and asserted,
among other things, that even if it did violate FCRA, its
violation was not willful.

On April 9, 2007, the Court granted Mr. Poehl's request for
class certification and certified a class consisting of all
persons with addresses in the State of Missouri to whom Home
Loan sent or caused to be sent a solicitation in the same form
as was received by Mr. Poehl between June 14, 2004, and June 14,
2006, and did not receive credit in response.

The parties eventually reached a settlement agreement, which was
approved by the Court on an interim basis on Nov. 28, 2007.
The Court entered its final-approval order on March 24, 2008.

                        Settlement Terms

The settlement provides for an aggregate payment of $2,600,000.

Green Jacobson & Butsch, P.C., has been awarded attorneys' fees
in an amount equal to 30% of the total settlement fund --
$780,000 -- which will be distributed among the attorneys who
contributed to the recovery achieved by the class in such
amounts as it determines to be appropriate in its sole
discretion.  The class counsel will also pay law the firms of
Edelman Combs Lattruner & Goodwin, LLC, and Markun Zusman &
Compton, LLP, the total sum of $55,000.

The class representative, Mr. Poehl, will received $4,000 in
settlement of his individual claim, and as compensation for his
efforts on behalf of the class.  

Class members who timely completed and returned the claim forms
will each be paid a pro rate share of the balance remaining in
the $2,600,000 settlement fund.


DIAMOND FOODS: Underpaid Walnut Growers File Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Walnut Growers of California filed a lawsuit with the San
Joaquin County Superior Court against Diamond Foods Inc.,
claiming that "Diamond grossly underpaid its 1,600 growers," The
Record reports.

The Record relates that the dozens of walnut growers -- who were
under long-term contracts issued shortly after the former
Diamond of California growers cooperative converted to a public
company in July 2005 -- claim they and others were severely
underpaid by Diamond Foods, perhaps by $52 million for their
2005 and 2006 crops.

Under those contracts Diamond would set annual walnut prices "in
good faith," subject to adjustments for quality, variety, grade
and other factors.  Growers argue that they should receive a
fair market price under those terms but that the company
consistently has undercut prices paid by other processors.

In response to the lawsuit, Diamond released a short statement,
pledging to "vigorously defend itself against this litigation."

"We believe this suit reflects the dissatisfaction of a small
minority of our growers and is meritless," the culinary and
snack nut company said.

Based in Stockton, Calif., Diamond Foods, Inc. is a food company
specializing in processing, marketing and distributing culinary,
snack, in-shell and ingredient nuts, and snack products.  The
Company's products are sold in over 60,000 retail locations in
the United States, and in over 100 countries.


DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces "Holman" Labor Lawsuit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Downey Savings and Loan Assoc., F.A., a subsidiary of Downey
Financial Corp., continues to face a purported class action
filed by two former traditional branch employees with the Los
Angeles Superior Court, California.

The suit was filed on Oct. 29, 2004, under the caption, "Margie
Holman and Alice A. Mesec, et al. v. Downey Savings and Loan
Association, Case No. BC323796."

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged unpaid
regular and overtime wages and bonuses, inadequate meal and rest
breaks, and related claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status to represent all
other current and former Downey Savings employees who held the
position of Customer Service Supervisor and Customer Service
Representative at Downey Savings' in-store branches at any time
from Oct. 29, 2000 to date.

Based on a review of the current facts and circumstances with
retained outside counsel:

       -- Downey Savings plans to oppose the claim and assert
          all appropriate defenses, and

       -- management has provided for what is believed to be a
          reasonable estimate of exposure for this matter in the
          event of loss.

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

Downey Financial Corp. -- http://www.downeysavings.com-- is a   
savings and loan holding company.  Downey Savings and Loan
Association (the Bank) is the Company's wholly owned subsidiary.
The Company is also involved in real estate investments.  Its
banking activities focus on attracting funds from the general
public and institutions and obtaining borrowings; originating
and investing in loans, primarily residential real estate
mortgage loans, investment securities and mortgage-backed
securities, and originating and selling loans to investors in
the secondary markets.


ELI LILLY: Faces Zyprexa Product Liability Lawsuits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. is facing several purported product liability
class actions in Canada over the drug, Zyprexa, 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 early 2005, the company was served with four lawsuits seeking
class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took
Zyprexa.

One of these four lawsuits has been certified for residents of
Quebec, and a second has been certified in Ontario and includes
all Canadian residents, except for residents of Quebec and
British Columbia.

In general, the Canadian actions allege a variety of injuries
from the use of Zyprexa, with the majority alleging that the
product caused or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose
levels.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,  
develops, manufactures and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The Company also has an
animal health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes
its products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S.,
Puerto Rico and 25 other countries. Eli Lilly and Company's
products are sold in approximately 135 countries.  The Company
also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in
animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food
production.  


ELI LILLY: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Zyprexa Side Effects, Promotion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. faces several purported federal class actions
in New York over the side effects and improper promotion of the
drug, Zyprexa, 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 2005, two lawsuits were filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide
class actions on behalf of all consumers and third-party payors,
excluding governmental entities, which have made or will make
payments for their members or insured patients being prescribed
Zyprexa.

These actions have now been consolidated into a single lawsuit,
which is brought under certain state consumer protection
statutes, the federal civil RICO statute, and common law
theories, seeking a refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

Two additional lawsuits were filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York in 2006 on similar grounds.

As with the product liability suits, these lawsuits allege that
the company inadequately tested for and warned about side
effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the drug.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,  
develops, manufactures and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The Company also has an
animal health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes
its products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S.,
Puerto Rico and 25 other countries.  Eli Lilly and Company's
products are sold in approximately 135 countries.  The Company
also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in
animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food
production.  


ERA CLASS.COM: Faces Lawsuit in Alabama Over Illegal Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
ERA Class.com, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama claiming that the company charges illegal and unearned
fees during real estate closings, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a class action on behalf of a class of all persons who
qualify under applicable Real Estate Settlement Procedures
regulations and who have paid a "Processing Fee" to ERA
Class.com during the period when ERA has collected and accepted
such fee in connection with a real estate settlement involving a
federally related mortgage loan.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's practice of collecting and
         accepting a Processing Fee is violative of the Federal
         Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, codified at 12
         USC Section 2607;

     (b) whether defendant provided any new or additional
         service to class members in exchange for the $295
         Processing Fee it has collected from each class member;

     (c) whether defendant's charge for $295 for a Processing
         Fee is an unearned fee under RESPA; and

     (d) whether defendant's charge for $295 for a Processing
         Fee is a duplicative fee under RESPA.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- to declare defendant's practice of collecting a
        Processing Fee at closing as part of the settlement
        process violative of the Real Estate Settlement
        Procedures Act;

     -- for an order certifying the suit as a class action,
        under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3);

     -- for an order appointing plaintiffs as representatives of
        the class;

     -- for an order appointing the undersigned counsel as class
        counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

     -- for an order directing that reasonable notice of the
        class action be provided to all members of the class at
        the appropriate time after discovery and dispositive
        motions have been resolved;

     -- for violating RESPA, an order and judgment finding that
        the defendant is liable as a matter of law to each
        member of the class for treble damages;

     -- for declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by
        law or equity, including enjoining defendant from
        continuing the unlawful practices as set forth;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law in an
        amount according to proof at trial;

     -- for pre-and-post judgment interest as provided bya law
        in an amount according to proof at trial;

     -- for an award of costs and expenses incurred in this
        action; and

     -- for such other relief as the court may deem just and
        proper.

The suit is "Estate of Gary Ellison et al v. ERA Class.com Inc.,
Case No. 08-162," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Earl P. Underwood, Jr. (epunderwood@alalaw.com)
          James D. Patterson (jpatterson@alalaw.com)
          Post Office Box 969
          Phone: (251) 990-5558
          Fax: (251) 990-0626

    
GENZYME CORP: $64M Settlement of Suits Over Tracking Stocks OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $64,000,000 settlement that effectively concludes all
litigation against Genzyme Corp. following a consolidation of
it's tracking stock structure in 2003, has been approved,
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.

Through June 30, 2003, the company had three outstanding series
of common stock, referred to as tracking stocks:

        i. Genzyme General Stock (which the company now refers
           to as Genzyme Stock),

       ii. Biosurgery Stock, and

      iii. Molecular Oncology Stock.

In 2003, four lawsuits were filed against the company regarding
the exchange of all of the outstanding shares of Biosurgery
Stock for shares of Genzyme Stock in connection with the
elimination of the company's tracking stocks in July 2003.

Each of the lawsuits was a purported class action on behalf of
holders of Biosurgery Stock.  

Three cases were filed in Massachusetts state court, and one
case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On June 4, 2007, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
reversed an order of the Massachusetts Appeals Court and
affirmed dismissal of the first of the state court actions.

The remaining two state court actions remained stayed while the
action filed in the U.S. District Court progressed.  In that
action, the U.S. District Court had denied the company's motion
to dismiss the successive amended complaints and granted the
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

On August 6, 2007, the company reached an agreement in principle
with counsel for the plaintiff class to settle and dismiss that
case for $64.0 million.  

The U.S. District Court entered an order approving the
settlement on Dec. 30, 2007.  

Because the members of the class in the New York action released
all claims, the settlement and its approval, as a practical
matter, resolved the two remaining actions in Massachusetts
state court.  Those two cases have been dismissed.

Genzyme Corp. -- http://www.genzyme.com-- is a biotechnology  
company that operates in six units.  Renal develops,
manufactures and distributes products that treat patients
suffering from renal diseases, including chronic renal failure.
Therapeutics develops, manufactures and distributes therapeutic
products, with a focus on products to treat patients suffering
from genetic diseases and other chronic debilitating diseases.
Transplant develops, manufactures and distributes therapeutic
products that address pre-transplantation, prevention and
treatment of graft rejection in organ transplantation and other
hematologic and auto-immune disorders.  Biosurgery develops,
manufactures and distributes biotherapeutics and biomaterial
products, with an emphasis on products that meet medical needs
in orthopaedics and broader surgical areas.  Genetics provides
testing services for the oncology, prenatal and reproductive
markets.  Oncology develops, manufactures and distributes
products for the treatment of cancer.


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Suits Over $15.1B Buyout Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., settled purported class action
suits involving the proposed buyout of the gaming company by
private equity investors, according to Harrah'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 plaintiffs in the suits consider the $15.1-billion offer
from the buyout firms, which translates to a per share price of
$83.50, as too low.  They generally allege that the transaction
is an "apparent camouflaged management buyout," (Class Action
Reporter, April 9, 2007).

                        Delaware Lawsuits

On Oct. 5, 2006, Henoch Kaiman and Joseph Weiss filed a
purported class action complaint with the Delaware Court of
Chancery, Civil Action No. 2453-N, against Harrah's, its board
of directors and its sponsors (Apollo Global Management, LLC and
TPG Capital, L.P.), challenging the proposed transaction as
inadequate and unfair to Harrah's public stockholders.

Two similar putative class actions were subsequently filed with
the Delaware Court of Chancery:

       1. "Phillips v. Loveman, et al., Civil Action No. 2456-
          N;" and

       2. "Momentum Partners v. Atwood, et al., Civil Action No.
          2455-N."

On Oct. 19, 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the three Delaware cases under the heading, "In Re Harrah's
Entertainment, Inc. Shareholder Litigation."

On Dec. 22, 2006, the Delaware plaintiffs' counsel filed an
amended and consolidated class action complaint against
Harrah's, its directors, and the Sponsors, and added as
defendants Apollo Management V, L.P., Hamlet Holdings, LLC, and
Merger Sub.

The consolidated complaint alleges that Harrah's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties and that the Sponsors
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in
entering into the merger agreement.

The consolidated complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed
transaction, compensatory and rescissory damages to the class,
and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs.

On Feb. 14, 2007, the defendants began to produce documents in
response to the Delaware plaintiff's initial discovery request.

                     Initial Nevada Lawsuits

On Oct. 3, 2006, Natalie Gordon filed a putative class action
with the state district court in Clark County, Nevada, Case No.
A529183, against Harrah's, its board of directors and the
Sponsors, challenging the proposed transaction as inadequate and
unfair to Harrah's public stockholders.

Eight similar putative class actions were subsequently filed
with the Clark County district court:

        1. "Phillips v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al.,
           Case No. A529184;"

        2. "Murphy v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case
           No. A529246;"

        3. "Shapiro v. Alexander, et al., Case No. A529247;"

        4. "Barnum v. Alexander, et al., Case No. A529277;"

        5. "Iron Workers Tennessee Valley Pension Fund v.
           Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No.
           A529449;"  

        6. "Staehr v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case
           No. A529385;"

        7. "Berliner v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al.,
           Case No. A529508;" and

        8. "Frechter v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al.,
           Case No. A529680."

All of the complaints name Harrah's and its current directors as
defendants.  Four of the complaints also name the Sponsors as
defendants.

One complaint further names two former directors of Harrah's as
defendants: Joe M. Henson and William Barron Hilton.  

On Oct. 6, 2006, the Clark County district court consolidated
these complaints under the heading, "In Re Harrah's Shareholder
Litigation," and appointed liaison counsel for the consolidated
action.  A consolidated class action complaint was subsequently
filed.

The consolidated complaint alleges that Harrah's Entertainment's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties and the
Sponsors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty in connection with the proposed transaction.

The consolidated complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed
transaction, declaratory relief, compensatory and rescissory
damages to the class, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to the plaintiffs.

On Oct. 25, 2006, Harrah's removed the consolidated action to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada as "In Re
Harrah's Shareholder Litigation, Case 2:06-CV-01356," pursuant
to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.

On Nov. 27, 2006, plaintiffs Gordon, Phillips, Murphy, Shapiro,
and Barnum filed a motion for remand.  

Also on that date, plaintiff Iron Workers Tennessee Valley
Pension Fund filed a separate motion for remand.

On Dec. 5, 2006, plaintiff Frechter joined Iron Workers' motion
for remand.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the plaintiff in Iron Workers filed notice of
its intention to voluntarily dismiss its action.  

On that same date, plaintiffs Gordon, Phillips, Murphy, Shapiro
and Barnum filed a notice of withdrawal of their motion for
remand.  

The court approved these notices on Jan. 9, 2007.  

On January 23, 2007, defendants moved to dismiss the remaining
actions pursuant to SLUSA.

On Feb. 5, 2007, plaintiffs Gordon, Phillips, Murphy, Shapiro
and Barnum filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, adding a claim that the December 2006 14A filings by
Harrah's with the SEC in connection with the merger were false
and misleading.

Accordingly, eight consolidated cases currently remain in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  

On Feb. 12, 2007, the court denied the Frechter motion for
remand under the SLUSA.  

On Feb. 23, 2007, the defendants filed a reply brief renewing
their request that the court dismiss the actions in their
entirety.

                  Subsequent Nevada Lawsuits

On Nov. 22, 2006, two putative class actions were filed with the
state district court in Clark County, Nevada against Harrah's
and its board of directors:

       1. "Eisenstein v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al.,
          Case No. A531963;" and

       2. "NECA-IBEW Pension Fund v. Harrah's Entertainment,
          Inc., et al., Case No. A531965."

Both complaints allege that Harrah's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction.

The complaints seek, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief; neither of them seeks damages.

On Jan. 3, 2007, the plaintiffs in both actions filed a Joint
Motion to Designate Litigation as Complex, Consolidate Cases,
and for Appointment of Lead Counsel.  

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion, which had been scheduled
for Jan. 30, 2007, was vacated pursuant to a stipulation between
the parties, dated Jan. 25, 2007.

On Jan. 26, 2007, in accordance with the parties' Jan. 25, 2007
stipulation, the Clark County district court ordered the
consolidation of the Eisenstein and NECA-IBEW Pension Fund
complaints and appointed lead and liaison counsel.

                      Settlement Procedures

On March 8, 2007, Harrah's, its board of directors, and the
other named defendants in the Delaware and Nevada Lawsuits above
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs'
counsel in those lawsuits.  

Under the terms of the memorandum, Harrah's, its board of
directors, the other named defendants, and the plaintiffs have
agreed in principle that the Initial Nevada Lawsuits and the
Delaware Lawsuit will be dismissed without prejudice and,
subject to court approval, the Subsequent Nevada Lawsuits would
be dismissed with prejudice.

The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation of
settlement incorporating the terms of the memorandum of
understanding.

Harrah's, its board of directors, and the other defendants deny
all of the allegations in the lawsuits.  

Nevertheless, the defendants agreed in principle to settle the
purported class action litigations in order to avoid costly
litigation and mitigate the risk that the litigation may have
caused a delay to the closing of the Merger.

Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, Harrah's agreed to
provide certain additional information to stockholders that was
included in its definitive proxy statement dated March 8, 2007.

In addition, Harrah's or its successor has agreed to pay the
legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel, up to a certain
limit and subject to approval by the court, and the costs of
providing notice to the class.

Class members have the right to opt out of the proposed
settlement.  However, the defendants have the right to terminate
the proposed settlement if the holders of more than a designated
amount of shares elect to opt out.

The entry of a final judgment and the grant of a release against
Harrah's, its board of directors and the other named defendants
will not affect the rights of any stockholders who timely and
validly request exclusion from the settlement class pursuant to
applicable law.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the Stipulation was submitted to a district
court in Nevada, where it was approved and an order was entered
for notice and a hearing in this matter.  Per the court's order,
a settlement hearing is to be held on April 21, 2008.

Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.harrahs.com-- is  
gaming company that owns, operates, and manages about 50 casinos
(under such names as Bally's, Caesars, Harrah's, Horseshoe, and
Rio), primarily in the U.S. and the U.K. Operations include
casino hotels, dockside and riverboat casinos, and Native
American gaming establishments.  


LIFELOCK INC: Customer Sues Over Fraudulent Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
A LifeLock Inc. customer filed a class action lawsuit with U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona against the Tempe-
based identity-theft prevention company on March 27, 2008,
accusing it of fraudulent business practices, azcentral.com
reports.

According to the report, Byrl Lane and his attorneys argue in
the civil complaint that LifeLock misleads its customers because
the $1-million service guarantee it advertises "is riddled with
restrictions, waivers and limitations."  Mr. Lane argues that
LifeLock advertisements trick consumers into thinking the
company will pay up to $1 million to recoup any losses resulting
from misuse of their personal information when its service
guarantee presents much narrower scope.

Mr. Lane is seeking unspecified damages for all LifeLock
customers and is asking the company to return all money it
collected from customers, among other steps.

The report explains that LifeLock charges customers $10 per
month to sign them up for fraud alerts with credit bureaus,
obtain their free annual credit reports and add their names to
mailing list opt-outs.  Critics have argued that the company
tricks consumers into believing they have to pay for such
services when they can sign up for them directly with the credit
bureaus for free.  LifeLock says it is providing customers the
convenience of doing those steps for them.

The company's terms and conditions state it "will pay
professionals to assist in restoring any such loss or recover
such expenses . . . provided however that the maximum limit of
our Service Guarantee is $1 million per lifetime for all
incidents."

The actual service guarantee states the company will only pay
for expenses resulting from a defect in its service.

"It's just a bald warranty that offers nothing," Robert Carey,
Esq., one of Mr. Lane's attorneys, told azcentral.com.

The complaint also argues that under its terms and conditions,
LifeLock's service is actually an insurance product and should
be regulated by state insurance departments.

LifeLock Chief Executive Officer Todd Davis told azcentral.com
that he was not aware that the lawsuit had been filed.  Mr.
Davis further said he was limited on what he could say about the
complaint because he had not yet seen it but believed his
company's service is not insurance.

"We mitigate risk on the front end so, unlike an insurance
provider that just aggregates the risk among a pool of people,"
Mr. Davis said.  "We have over 20 letters from state insurance
commissioners that agree with our position that we're a service
with a warranty."

azcentral.com points out that Mr. Lane's lawsuit is the second
civil suit filed against the company in as many months.  In
February 2008, the report recalls, credit bureau Experian sued
LifeLock with the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, accusing the company of deceptive practices.

The Arizona Department of Insurance has reviewed LifeLock's
service and does not believe it is an insurance product,
department spokeswoman Erin Klug told azcentral.

According to the report, the department did send LifeLock a
letter in January asking it to change a Web page for a service
called Life-Lock Insurance that stated it was an affiliate of
LifeLock and directed viewers to the company's official site.  
That site has been changed.


MBIA INC: Faces Two Securities Violations Lawsuits in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
MBIA, Inc. faces two purported class actions filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws, 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.

On Jan. 11, 2008, a putative shareholder class action was filed
against the company and certain of its officers, "Schmalz v.
MBIA, Inc. et al., No. 08-C V-264."  The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased MBIA stock
between Jan. 30, 2007, and Jan. 9, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint also alleges that the defendants issued false and
misleading statements with respect to the Company's exposure to
losses stemming from the Company's insurance of CDOs and RMBS,
including its exposure to so-called "CDO-squared" securities,
which allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at inflated
prices.  

The Defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint has been
extended pending the resolution of lead counsel status and the
possible filing of an amended and consolidated complaint.

The Company has received subpoenas or informal inquiries from a
variety of regulators, including the SEC, the Securities
Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and other states' regulatory authorities, regarding a variety of
subjects, including disclosures made by the Company to
underwriters and issuers of certain bonds, the Warburg Pincus
transaction, the Company's announcement of preliminary loss
reserve estimates on Dec. 10, 2007 related to the Company's
residential mortgage-backed securities exposure, and disclosures
regarding the Company's CDO exposure, the Company's
communications with rating agencies, and the methodologies used
by rating agencies for determining the credit rating of
municipal debt.  

The Company is cooperating fully with each of these regulators
and is in the process of satisfying all such requests.  The
Company may receive additional inquiries from these or other
regulators and expects to provide additional information to such
regulators in response to any inquiries with respect to these or
other matters in the future.

On Feb. 22, 2008, another putative shareholder class action
lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers,
"Teamsters Local 807 Labor Management Pension Fund v. MBIA Inc.
et al., No. 08-CV-1845," was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.

The allegations of the Teamsters complaint are substantially
similar to the allegations of the Schmalz complaint, except that
the class period in the Teamsters complaint runs from Oct. 6,
2006, to Jan. 9, 2008.

MBIA, Inc. -- http://www.mbia.com-- is engaged in providing  
financial guarantee insurance and other forms of credit
protection, as well as investment management services to public
finance and structured finance issuers, investors and capital
market participants on a global basis.  


MURPHY OIL: Continues to Face Litigation Over 2003 La. Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corp. continues to face a consolidated class action
in connection to a June 10, 2003 fire that severely damaged the
Residual Oil Supercritical Extraction unit at the Company's
Meraux, Louisiana refinery.

The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the heavy fuel oil stream
for conversion into gasoline and diesel.  

Subsequent to the fire, numerous class actions have been filed
seeking damages for area residents.  All the lawsuits have been
administratively consolidated into a single legal action in
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, except for one action filed in
federal court.  

On May 5, 2004, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action in
St. Bernard Parish amended their petition to include a direct
action against certain of the Company's liability insurers.  

The St. Bernard Parish action has since been removed to federal
court court where a class certification decision is pending.

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

Murphy Oil Corp. -- http://www.murphyoilcorp.com/-- is a global   
oil and gas exploration, and production company with refining
and marketing operations in North America and the United
Kingdom.  The Company's operations are classified into two
business activities: Exploration and Production, and Refining
and Marketing.  


NEW JERSEY: Lawsuit Seeking to Stop Strip Searches Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney Susan Chana Lask, Esq., announced a major
victory for civil rights and prison policy changes in the State
of New Jersey.

There are 13 Federal Districts in the United States and all but
the District of New Jersey have certified prison strip search
class actions.

Now, New Jersey District Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez in Case
Number 05-3619 granted the first New Jersey class-action status
to Ms. Lask's strip search lawsuit and granted her class action
counsel.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Albert Florence and tens of
thousands of men and women charged with a minor offenses since
2005 who were and are being strip searched by Burlington County
Jail and Essex County Correctional Facility.

The Complaint alleges that Mr. Florence was driving through
Burlington County in 2005 when during a routine traffic stop the
officer found a warrant against him for failure to pay an Essex
County court fine.  Despite his providing proof of a court
document that he satisfied the fine, he was arrested and taken
to Burlington County Jail to wait for Essex County officials to
pick him up.  Once in Burlington's facility, he was taken to a
shower room and ordered to strip naked and turn around naked
while the guard looked over his naked body with his arms
outstretched.  Then he was transported to Essex County's
facility where he was again ordered to strip naked in a group of
3-5 men where many guards and other persons looked over their
naked bodies, had them turn around and squat and cough as a
group.

"I was subject to two strip searches for no reason in front of
many people for a charge that was found to be a mistake.  I was
never so humiliated and never want anyone to go through what I
experienced," Mr. Florence said.

There are two types of charges in New Jersey, "non-indictable"
arrests such as minor offenses of failure to pay child support,
traffic offenses such as driving while suspended or shoplifting,
and "indictable" arrests such as more serious crimes of drug
offenses and murder.

The Supreme Court of the United States and New Jersey Courts
hold that strip searching persons arrested for minor non-
indictable charges is unconstitutional unless the prison
facility can give a reasonable basis why it is strip searching
that person.

The reasonable basis requires a written statement that the
prison facility suspected the person arrested was concealing
drugs, contraband or a weapon.  During discovery in this case,
Class Counsel Susan Chana Lask found that Burlington and Essex
County facilities strip search everyone, no matter what their
charge is and they do not list any reason why they do it.

"That means you can be arrested for failing to pay a traffic
ticket and the next thing you know you're standing stripped
naked next to a felony drug dealer to your right and a murderer
to your left, while guards look you up and down naked and make
you squat and cough.  It's degrading and its unconstitutional,"
said Ms. Lask.

The class action demands an injunction against the Counties'
blanket policies of strip searching, revising the prison
policies of blanket strip searches and seeks damages for every
man and woman charged with a minor offense who was strip
searched since 2005.

To contact Ms. Lask

          Susan Chana Lask, Esq.
          Law Offices of Susan Chana Lask
          244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2369
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (212) 358-5762
          Web site: http://www.appellate-brief.com


NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Lewisboro Wetlands Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
On March 25, 2008, Judge Charles Brieant dismissed all charges
in the three-year-old wetlands lawsuit against Lewisboro, in
Westchester County, New York, The Lewisboro Ledger reports.

According to the Class Action Reporter on March 11, 2008,
Magistrate Judge George Yanthis issued a 29-page report to
presiding Judge Brieant, of the U.S. Southern District of New
York, recommending the dismissal of every charge in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was initiated by a group of town residents
represented by Cross River attorney Alexandra Manbeck, Esq.  The
suit alleges that Lewisboro had illicitly charged the residents
with violations of the town wetlands law, and that parts of the
wetlands law and its procedures were unconstitutional.

Ms. Manbeck first sued the town and its employees in 2005,
challenging both the town Wetlands and Watercourses Law and the
Planning Board's procedure for hearing and ruling over wetlands
violations.  Ms. Manbeck went through the system when her
husband, Peter Manbeck, was charged with three wetlands
violations.  One was dropped when a violating structure was
removed.  The other two still stand: one for a shed and the
other for filling, clearing and grading the property.  Both were
done, without a permit, within the town's 150-foot wetlands
buffer.  Ms. Manbeck was also charged with a building violation
for filling a pool without proper fencing around it.

The plaintiffs objected to a lack of due process in the Planning
Board's procedure, and what they call a perceived conspiracy
among Town Board members and planners.  The suit calls the law
"vague," "arbitrary" and "discriminatory," leaving "absolute
discretion to [wetlands inspector Jay] Fain to decide without
any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not
in each particular case."

The suit was originally filed with Ms. Manbeck as the sole
attorney, although she later added more plaintiffs and named
additional town officials as defendants.  Three years later, the
suit names the town of Lewisboro, the Planning Board, and the
Conservation Advisory Council; among the individuals named are
Jay Fain, former Town Supervisor Jim Nordgren, former Planning
Board Chairman Jackie Dzaluk, and the other Planning Board
members.

There are 10 plaintiffs: Mr. Manbeck; Jay and Carol Durante;
Lynn and David Gutermuth; Geoffrey Shaw; Wendy Gennimi; Mary
Clark; Daniel Pritchard; and David Oltman.  

Judge Brieant denied class action status to the original
lawsuit.

The lawsuit made it past a critical first round of litigation in
November 2005, when the presiding judge ruled that the suit had
enough unanswered questions to declare a more in-depth look at
the charges, and because of that, it was not dismissed in
federal court as requested by the defendants.  Judge Brieant
also did not feel enough information was presented to render a
decision on the case at that time.

The more serious racketeering charges were thrown out, as was
filing it as a class action lawsuit.  However, Judge Brieant
determined that the case should remain in federal court and
enter the discovery stage of the court process that allows for
depositions of those named in the suit.

A second lawsuit was filed in 2005 that was similar to the
original lawsuit but included additional plaintiffs.  That
lawsuit was later enveloped into the original lawsuit.

In his recommendation, Judge Yanthis analyzed each claim
separately.  In some claims, such as those alleging that the
town selectively prosecuted some residents and not others, he
pointed out flaws in the plaintiff's readings of the law.

Specifically, Judge Yanthis recommended the dismissal of:

   -- the plaintiffs' claim that the wetlands law is
      unconstitutionally vague, because almost all the
      plaintiffs admitted they knew wetlands existed on their
      property.  In the case of the one plaintiff who claimed to
      be ignorant of wetlands on her property, the wetlands
      there were identified as state wetlands, and therefore
      were not defined by the town law, the judge stated;

   -- the plaintiffs' claim that the plaintiffs' right to be
      represented by a lawyer was violated, because, according
      to Judge Yanthis, every one of them was notified they had
      the right to counsel;

   -- the plaintiffs' claim that former wetland inspector Jay
      Fain's inspections of property violated the Fourth
      Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search, with
      the judge holding that "the town had a legitimate interest
      in protecting the town's wetlands and by extension its
      water supply," and that all inspections were "either done
      in response to a complaint or as part of a permit
      process."

According to The Ledger, it is not yet known if Ms. Manbeck
intends to file an appeal to the judge's decision.

"I'm glad that it's been tested in court, and that now shows
that the wetlands law is constitutional and important for public
health and safety," Mr. Nordgren, who was town supervisor when
the suit was originally filed and was named as a defendant in
it, told The Ledger.

"After a very long ordeal, I welcome and embrace Judge Brieant's
decision," said Mr. Fain in a statement to The Ledger.  "It is a
complete vindication of the work I did for the town of
Lewisboro, and for all those individuals who support the
concepts of environmental quality and water quality protection.
To those people who supported me throughout the litigation, I
offer my heartfelt thanks.  I am happy that after a very
protracted lawsuit, justice has prevailed."

"Mr. Fain was merely doing his job, which was to protect the
environment, and became the target of a baseless lawsuit by a
very few number of Lewisboro residents," said Dan O'Neill, Mr.
Fain's lawyer.  "It's obvious that the allegations were
defamatory against Jay Fain, whose actions were exemplary while
doing his job for the town of Lewisboro."

Ms. Manbeck did not return repeated phone calls made by The
Ledger.


NEW YORK ENERGY: Charges Exorbitant Termination Fees, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York Energy Savings Corp. is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings
County claiming it charges exorbitant termination fees in
relation to its "Electricity & Natural Gas Price Protection
Proram," CourtHouse News Service reports.

In March 2005, the defendant began aggressively marketing an
"Electricity & Natural Gas Price Protection Program" to
residential and commercial customers in the City of New York and
the New York City metropolitan area as a way to save money on
energy costs.

The plaintiffs claim that the company, under the program,
promises to save customers money, but charges exorbitant
termination fees and other inflated "variable charges" that
actually increases their bills.

The plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of all persons and
businesses, including both residential and non-residential
customers in New York City who have entered into a "Electricity
or Natural Gas Price Protection Program" with the defendant.

The plaintiffs demand the following relief:

     -- certification of the putative class pursuant to Article
        9 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules;

     -- awarding actual damages to members of the putative class
        for the materially deceptive and misleading business
        practices of these defendants;

     -- equitable relief for members of the putative class
        including but not limited to enjoining defendants from
        deceptive and misleading business practices,
        invalidation of the liquidated damages provision of the
        Customer Agreement, contractual reformation, and
        contractual recission; and

     -- an award of reasonable attorney's fees to counsel for
        the class.

The suit is "Advanced Medical and Alternative Care, PC et al. v.
New York Energy Savings Corp., et al," filed with the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Kings County.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Elliot L. Lewis, Esq.
          Law Office of Joseph M. Lichtenstein, PC
          170 Old Country Road, Ste. 301
          Mineola, New York 11501
          Phone: (516) 873-6300


NEW YORK NYCLU: Seeks Emergency Action in Indigent Defense Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Civil Liberties Union, which filed a class action
lawsuit in November 2007 that charged the state with failing to
uphold its constitutional duty to provide effective counsel to
defendants who cannot afford an attorney, is now seeking a
preliminary injunction that would ensure legal representation
for New Yorkers charged with a crime, according to Elizabeth
Benjamin of New York Daily News.

The NYCLU Web site recalls that the law firm of Schulte Roth &
Zabel LLP filed the landmark class action lawsuit over New
York's broken public defense system.

The class action lawsuit charges that a lack of adequate
funding, oversight and statewide standards is denying New
Yorkers accused of crimes their lawful right to competent,
qualified and timely representation at all stages of the justice
process, a violation of the U.S. Constitution, the state
constitution and the laws of New York.  Plaintiffs are
individuals charged with crimes in Onondaga, Ontario, Schuyler,
Suffolk and Washington counties who have encountered these
problems; but the lawsuit seeks statewide reform on behalf of
all defendants who are or will be charged with felonies,
misdemeanors or lesser offenses and who cannot afford a lawyer.

As a result of the deficiencies, many individuals facing
criminal charges are compelled to appear in court without a
lawyer at critical junctures, such as when bail decisions are
made, the NYCLU relates.  This often results in excessive bail
being set and keeps too many people in jail awaiting trial.
Studies link high bail to an increased likelihood of conviction.

NYCLU also points out that many public defense lawyers also fail
to:

   -- meet or consult with clients at critical stages in their
      cases;

   -- investigate the charges against their clients or hire
      necessary forensic experts;

   -- file necessary pre-trial motions; and

   -- provide meaningful consultation before clients accept plea
      bargains, even when this is a viable defense.

"The public defense crisis in New York is unfair both to
defendants and to the lawyers who are charged with representing
them," said lead counsel on the case, NYCLU Staff Attorney Corey
Stoughton.  "Defendants are unfairly given second-rate justice
because they cannot afford to pay private lawyers, and public
defense attorneys are not given the resources, tools and
training they need to do right by their clients."

According to NYCLU, the situation is far too dire and the stakes
too high to wait for relief.  It believes there are steps that
can be taken now to ease the situation in the short term.  Thus,
it filed a request for immediate emergency relief to address the
issue.

"At this moment there are New Yorkers who are being denied
justice simply because they are poor," said Donna Lieberman,
executive director of the NYCLU.  "We look forward to a full
resolution to this urgent problem, but with lives on the line we
can't afford to sit back and wait.  Immediate action is
necessary."

According to NYCLU, the relief must ensure that all criminal
defendants are appointed a competent, knowledgeable attorney
with sufficient time and resources.  It must also:

   * Implement standards and procedures to ensure that attorneys
     appointed to represent indigent criminal defendants have
     sufficient qualifications and training;

   * Establish caseload and workload limits to ensure that
     public defense attorneys have adequate time to devote to
     each client's case;

   * Guarantee that every eligible indigent criminal defendant
     is assigned a public defense attorney within 24 hours of
     arrest who is present at every critical proceeding and has
     the opportunity to consult with each client in advance of
     any critical proceeding;

   * Ensure that investigators and experts are available to
     every public defense attorney for every case in which an
     attorney deems that investigative or expert services would
     be useful to the defense; and

   * Establish uniform written standards and procedures for
     determining eligibility for the assignment of a public
     defense attorney.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Faces Calif. Suits Over Bank Product Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp faces two purported class actions in
California that were filed by tax preparation franchisees of
Jackson Hewitt, Inc., in connection to certain Bank Product
Agreements, 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 suits, both filed on Jan. 14, 2008, are:

        1. "Big Sky Ventures I, LCC, et al v. Pacific Capital
           Bancorp, et al.," was filed with the U.S. District
           Court for the Central District of California.

        2. "Joseph D. Irlanda v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, et
           al.," was filed with the Superior Court of
           California, County of Los Angeles.

In Big Sky Ventures, the plaintiffs purport to represent a class
consisting of all tax preparation franchisees of Jackson Hewitt,
Inc. located outside of California.  

In Irlanda, the plaintiff purports to represent a class
consisting of all tax preparation franchisees of Jackson Hewitt,
Inc. located in California.

The plaintiffs in both actions entered into annual Bank Product
Agreements with the Company which gave them the right, but not
the obligation, to provide to their customers certain Company
financial products such as refund anticipation loans.

They allege that prior to the Agreement with the Company
applicable to the 2006 tax year, they could charge their
customers fees in connection with the Company's financial
products which they provided.

The plaintiffs allege that in the 2006 tax year Agreement, their
fees were limited to $40 per product and that in the Agreements
for the 2007 and 2008 tax years, they were prohibited from
charging their customers any fee for providing them with such
products.

Furthermore, they allege that in their franchise agreements with
Jackson Hewitt, Inc, they are required to provide the Company's
financial products to their customers.

In each action, the plaintiffs make the following claims for
relief:

        -- A judicial declaration that the agreements applicable
           to the 2007 and 2008 tax years are unconscionable,
           void and unenforceable for economic duress, lack of
           consent, undue influence, and lack of consideration.

        -- Injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from
           enforcing the terms of the 2008 Bank Product
           Agreement.

        -- For restitution from the Company for the
           uncompensated services provided by the plaintiffs
           during the 2006, 2007 and 2008 tax years.

        -- For rescission of the 2008 Bank Product Agreement.

        -- For damages from the Company pursuant to California's
           Unfair Competition Law under Business and Professions
           Code Sections 172000, et seq.

Pacific Capital Bancorp -- http://www.pcbancorp.com/-- is a  
bank holding company and has five subsidiaries; Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A., and four wholly owned unconsolidated subsidiaries,
used as business trusts in connection with issuance of trust-
preferred securities.      

    
RAMBUS INC: Calif. Court Mulls $18M Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to approve the proposed $18-million settlement of a
consolidated securities fraud class action suit filed against
Rambus, Inc., 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.

On July 17, 2006, the first of six class action lawsuits was
filed in the Northern District of California against Rambus and
certain of its current and former executives and board members.

On Sept. 26, 2006, these class action suits were consolidated
under the caption, "In re Rambus, Inc. Securities Litigation, C-
06-4346-JF (N.D. Cal.)."  Ronald L. Schwarcz was then appointed
lead plaintiff.  

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14, 2007,
adding PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendant.  

The complaint alleges violations of various federal securities
laws.  It seeks damages in an unspecified amount as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  

Per agreement of the parties, briefing on the motions to dismiss
was suspended, and the motions were taken off calendar.  

However, the parties have agreed in principle to resolve the
dispute, subject to court approval.  

The settlement, which is subject to final documentation as well
as review by the California court, provides for a payment by
Rambus of $18.0 million and would lead to a dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against all defendants in the class
action litigation.

The suit is "In re Rambus Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:06-cv-04346-JF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
          Stull Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard
          Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Douglas John Clark, Esq. (dclark@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          Professional Corporation
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650/493-9300
          Fax: 650 565-5100

          Jeffrey S. Facter, Esq. (jfacter@shearman.com)
          Shearman & Sterling LLP
          525 Market Street
          Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-616-1100
          Fax: 415-616-1199

          Anthony I. Fenwick, Esq. (anthony.fenwick@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk & Wardwell
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-752-2015
          Fax: 650-752-2111


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Holzer Files AL Shareholder Derivative Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder derivative lawsuit has been filed with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
against, among others, Regions Financial Corporation's Board of
Directors.

Regions Financial is named as a nominal defendant.

The shareholder derivative action alleges that the Board, among
others, violated the Securities Exchange Act, breached fiduciary
duties, engaged in insider selling, wasted corporate assets and
were unjustly enriched.

Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Board covered up the Company's subprime exposure, causing
the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated.

The complaint alleges that while the Company's subprime exposure
was hidden, the Board authorized a major stock buyback, causing
the Company to overpay for the stock.  At the same time, the
complaint alleges, several Board members unloaded over $63
million worth of their personally owned stock reaping unfair
profits.

For more information, contact:

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com)
          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA  30338
          Phone: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)


SHORETEL INC: Milberg LLP Files Derivative Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg LLP filed a derivative lawsuit with the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against
certain directors and officers of ShoreTel, Inc. (Nasdaq: SHOR)
and that it is investigating facts regarding ShoreTel.

The plaintiff is suing derivatively on behalf of ShoreTel.  The
Complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to ShoreTel by causing and failing to prevent the
dissemination of false and misleading statements about
ShoreTel's financial condition and earnings forecasts, thereby
subjecting the Company to potential liabilities and penalties
and exposing it to risk of substantial loss of its money and
assets and other potential harm.

The Complaint alleges that the public statements made about
ShoreTel were false and misleading because ShoreTel was in fact
experiencing a decline in new customer sales and attempted to
conceal the decline by, among other things, "stuffing" the
distribution channels with excess inventory.

The Complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' breaches
of fiduciary duties, the Company's reputation and credibility
has been damaged, and at least one class action has been
commenced against ShoreTel alleging fraud and violations of
federal securities laws.  

For more information, contact:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          Elizabeth P. Lin, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, California 90071
          Phone number: (800) 320-5081
          e-mail: contactus@milberg.com/
          Web site: http://www.milberg.com


SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: No Certification Yet for "Gressette"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the certification of a
wider class in a rights-of-way lawsuit filed against South
Carolina Electric & Gas Co. and SCANA Corp., according to South
Carolina Electric'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 May 2004, SCANA, and SCE&G were served with a purported class
action filed by Douglas E. Gressette, individually and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated against the companies.  The
case was filed with South Carolina's Circuit Court of Common
Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

The plaintiff alleges that SCANA and SCE&G made improper use of
certain easements and rights-of-way by allowing fiber optic
communication lines and wireless communication equipment to
transmit communications other than SCANA's and SCE&G's
electricity-related internal communications.

The plaintiff asserted causes of action for unjust enrichment,
trespass, injunction and declaratory judgment.   The plaintiff
did not assert a specific dollar amount for the claims.  

SCANA and SCE&G believe their actions are consistent with
governing law and the applicable documents granting easements
and rights-of-way.  

The Circuit Court granted SCANA's and SCE&G's motion to dismiss
and issued an order dismissing the case in June 2005.

The plaintiff appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.  The
Supreme Court overruled the Circuit Court in October 2006 and
returned the case to the Circuit Court for further
consideration.  

In July 2007, the Circuit Court issued a ruling that limits the
plaintiff's purported class to owners of easements situated in
Charleston County, South Carolina.  

The plaintiff appealed this ruling to the South Carolina Court
of Appeals.  The court has dismissed the appeal, determining
that the Circuit Court ruling is not immediately appealable.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was recently
heard, and correspondence from the Circuit Court indicates the
judge's intention to certify the class.  

There has been no formal order and the class remains limited to
easements in Charleston County.  

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. -- http://www.sceg.com/--   
generates and sells electricity to retail and wholesale
customers, and purchases, sells and transports natural gas to
retail customers.


STARBUCKS CORP: Nichols Kaster Files Tip-Pooling Suit in Minn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2008, Sandra Delsing -- a former employee at the
Cottage Grove Starbucks -- filed a lawsuit against the company  
with the Minnesota State Court in Washington County alleging
that the coffee retailer illegally required its baristas to
share tips with shift managers, South Washington County Bulletin
reports.

According to Nichols Kaster & Anderson, the law firm
representing Ms. Delsing, the lawsuit alleges that Starbucks
violated Minnesota Statute Section 177.24 by establishing an
illegal tip pool that denied employees of the full amount of
gratuities that Starbucks' patrons intended for the employees to
receive.

The statute states that any gratuities received by an employee
are the sole property of the employee.

The plaintiff's attorney, E. Michelle Drake, Esq., explained,
"The lawsuit alleges that Starbucks required employees to share
tips with one another.  Minnesota law forbids employers from
telling employees how to share their tip money and says that any
decisions about sharing tips are up to the employees, not the
company.  One of the reasons the law exists is to prevent
companies like Starbucks from using one employee's tips to
subsidize another employee's wages. We hope to recover the tips
that rightfully belong to the employees."

This case is similar to a case that was recently litigated in
California and resulted in a verdict in excess of $100 million
for the California Plaintiffs.

Ms. Delsing is asking that the lawsuit be made class action,
similar to a recent California case against Starbucks.  The
class would include all non-managerial Starbucks employees who
received tips and were forced to pool and divide them, according
to the Complaint.

A similar lawsuit has also been filed in Massachusetts.

For more information, contact:

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
          Phone: (612) 256-3200
                 (612) 256-3249.


STARBUCKS CORP: Mischaracterized in Recent Lawsuits Over Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Coffee Co. released a statement in reaction to the
recent lawsuits filed against it over customer tips.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mar. 27, 2008, a
former barista at a Starbucks Coffee store in Chestnut Hill
filed a lawsuit class action suit on March 25 against the coffee
chain with the Suffolk Superior Court over customer tips.

The CAR report said 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.

As reported in the CAR 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 cited 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.

In reaction to the suits, Starbucks released the following
statement on March 27:

     "Recent litigation has resulted in misunderstanding among
     some of our customers and partners (employees) about
     tipping in Starbucks stores.  Our tip policy allows hourly
     partners (baristas and shift supervisors) to receive their
     fair share of customer tips.  Shift supervisors are not
     managers and have no managerial authority.  Even the
     California Court recognized this distinction.

     Both baristas and shift supervisors are hourly store
     partners who serve our customers and provide the Starbucks
     Experience in our stores.  We do not believe customers
     differentiate between them, because they provide the same
     customer service.  As a result, they pool their tips when
     customers express their gratitude for superior service.  In
     contrast, store managers and assistant store managers
     perform managerial duties, and therefore do not share in
     the tips given by customers.

     That is why we disagree so strongly with the California
     Superior Court's recent ruling that would not allow shift
     supervisors to receive what is rightfully theirs.  We
     believe the California Court's decision is not only
     contrary to the law, but also fundamentally unfair and
     beyond all common sense and reason.

     Unfortunately, copy-cat lawsuits have been filed.  We
     intend to vigorously fight all such unjust lawsuits.

     To further clarify and contrary to some media reports,
     Starbucks has not taken money from any of its partners, nor
     is there money to be refunded or returned from Starbucks.
     Consistent with what is one of the most widely accepted
     practices in the service industry, this tip money goes
     directly from customers to the partners who provide them
     with superior service.

     For more than 35 years, Starbucks has been committed to
     treating its partners with the highest respect and dignity.
     As part of this commitment, Starbucks provides benefits
     unrivaled by many other companies -- including healthcare
     for eligible full and part-time partners and stock option
     programs.  All eligible store employees are included in
     these programs.

     We pledge to continue to provide a great workplace for our
     more than 170,000 partners around the world."

Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and    
roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh,
rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold
blended beverages, various complementary food items, coffee-
related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium teas
and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-operated
retail stores.


STATE STREET: Proposed Amended Complaint Filed in NY ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of retirement and benefit plans have filed a motion with
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
for leave to file a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
against defendant State Street Bank and Trust Co. alleging that
State Street breached its fiduciary duties under the federal
Employee Retirement Income and Security Act from January 1,
2007, through December 31, 2007, to the plans by causing State
Street's purportedly conservative fixed income bond funds to
make imprudent investments in high-risk and highly leveraged
financial instruments tied to, among other things, volatile
asset-backed and subprime mortgage-backed securities.

The State Street bond funds at issue include the:

     -- Enhanced Intermediate Bond Fund;

     -- Intermediate Bond Fund for Employee Trusts;

     -- Daily Bond Market Fund, the Daily Corporate/Government
        Credit Bond Fund;

     -- SSgA Government Credit Bond Non-Lending Fund;

     -- SSgA Yield Plus Fund;

     -- Total Bond Market Fund;

     -- SSgA Bond Market Fund;

     -- Bond Market Non-Lending Fund;

     -- Limited Duration Bond Fund;

     -- SSgA Intermediate Bond CTF Fund;

     -- SSgA Intermediate Bond NL Fund, and;

     -- the Short Term Bond Fund.

The class action plaintiffs seek a recovery for all ERISA plans
which invested in these funds and suffered losses.  Three class
actions have already been consolidated under the caption "In re
State Street Bank and Trust Co. ERISA Litigation, No. 07 Civ.
8488 (S.D.N.Y.) (RJH)."

The court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the action, consisting of
fiduciaries of the Unisystems, Inc., Employees' Profit Sharing
Plan, the Andover Companies Employees Savings & Profit Sharing
Plan and the Nashua Corporation Retirement Plan, allege that
investors in various State Street bond funds saw the performance
of their investments in the Bond Funds plummet in 2007, with the
performance of some of the Bond Funds lagging their benchmark
indices by as much as 30%.

State Street has publicly acknowledged that it has "received
inquiries from regulatory authorities" regarding its fixed-
income strategies, and that it has set aside approximately
$625 million in reserves for "legal exposure and related costs
in connection with [its] fixed income strategies."

In January 2008, State Street also announced that the President
and CEO of State Street Global Advisor, William W. Hunt, had
resigned, and six senior members of SSgA's "fixed income team"
have reportedly been terminated.

Discovery in the consolidated class action is presently
underway.

ERISA plans, ERISA-governed plan participants or their counsel
who have questions concerning the Bond Funds, the pending class
action law suit against State Street or the proposed
Consolidated Amended Complaint may contact:

          William C. Fredericks, Esq. (wfredericks@blbglaw.com)
          Jerald D. Bien-Willner, Esq.
          (jbien-willner@blbglaw.com)
          Berstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, New York 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq. (dloeser@kellerrohrback.com)
          Karin B. Swope (kswope@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, Washington 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900

          - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. (jblock@bermanesq.com)
          Patrick T. Egan (pegan@bermanesq.com)
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo  
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, Massachusetts 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300


SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is April 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, reminds investors of
Syntax-Brillian Corp. of the April 7, 2008 lead plaintiff
appointment deadline for the class action filed with the United
States District Court for District of Arizona on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Syntax-
Brillian Corp. (NASD: BRLC) pursuant to a public offering of
approximately 25.6 million shares at $5.75 per share.

On May 24, 2007, Zwerling Schachter filed the class action suit
alleging that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
filed with the SEC in connection with the May 24, 2007 public
offering contained materially false and misleading statements,
or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements
made not misleading, concerning Syntax-Brillian's revenue
growth, profitability, and its business in China (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 12, 2008).

On September 12, 2007, Syntax-Brillian announced that the
results for its first quarter 2008, ending on September 30,
2007, would be significantly below expectations.  The Company
projected first quarter 2008 revenues of between
$170-180 million, when analysts were expecting the Company to
report revenues of $254 million, a shortfall of more than 25%.

On November 11, 2007, the Company announced that revenues for
the quarter ended September 30, 2007, was $150.6 million, a
decline of 26.6% from the previous quarter, and that revenue
from China in the quarter was $14.6 million, compared with
$96.8 million in the prior quarter, a decline of approximately
85%.

The Complaint alleges that Syntax-Brillian failed to disclose in
the registration statement and prospectus that while the Company
shipped hundreds of thousands of LCD televisions to its sole
distributor in China during the Class Period, and recorded
hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue in connection with
these shipments, the end-user demand for the Company's LCD
televisions in China was much weaker than what investors were
led to believe.

For more information, contact:

          Kevin McGee, Esq. (kmcgee@zsz.com)
          Willy Gonzalez, Esq. (wgonzalez@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Tel.: 800-721-3900
          Tel.: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969
          Web site: http://www.zsz.com/

    
VALASSIS COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of Conn. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valassis Communications, Inc., is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud litigation filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, 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.

Upon the company's completion of the acquisition of ADVO, it
assumed responsibility for ADVO's pending securities class
actions.

In September 2006, three securities class actions were filed:

       1. "Robert Kelleher v. ADVO, Inc., et al.,"
       2. "Jorge Cornet v. ADVO, Inc., et al.,"
       3. "Richard L. Field v. ADVO, Inc., et al.,"

The suits were filed against ADVO and certain of its officers
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut by
certain ADVO shareholders seeking to certify a class of all
persons who purchased ADVO stock between July 6, 2006, and
Aug. 30, 2006.

These complaints generally allege ADVO violated federal
securities law by making a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning ADVO's business and financial
results in connection with the proposed merger with Valassis
and, as a result, the price of ADVO's stock was allegedly
inflated.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the Kelleher plaintiffs filed a Motion to
Partially Lift Discovery Stay, in response to which defendants
filed opposition on Jan. 16, 2007.  The presiding judge denied
the plaintiff's motion to lift the stay on discovery.

In addition, the court ordered the matters consolidated under a
single action entitled, "Robert Kelleher et al. v. ADVO, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:06CV01422(AVC)."

A revised, consolidated complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on
June 8, 2007.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint.  The plaintiff filed a Brief in
Opposition to the defendants' motion on Oct. 10, 2007, and the
defendants' responsive pleading was filed Nov. 13, 2007.  

The suit is "Robert Kelleher et al. v. ADVO, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:06CV01422(AVC)," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut, Judge Alfred V. Covello presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jennifer L. Gmitro, Esq. (JGmitro@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7243

               - and -

          Ari J. Hoffman, Esq. (ahoffman@cohenandwolf.com)
          Cohen & Wolf, P.C.
          1115 Broad St., Po Box 1821
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Phone: 203-368-0211
          Fax: 203-394-9901

Representing the defendants are:

          Sharleen Joy Davis, Esq. (sharleen.davis@klgates.com)
          Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP
          State Street Financial Center
          One Lincoln Street
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: 617-261-3255
          Fax: 617-261-3175

               - and -

          Shawn M. Harpen, Esq. (sharpen@mwe.com)
          McDermott Will & Emery, LLP
          18191 Von Karman Avenue
          Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: 949-757-6061
          Fax: 949-851-9348 (fax)


XEROX CORP: Settles Accounting Fraud Lawsuits for $670 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corp. disclosed on March 27, 2008, that it has agreed to
pay $670 million to settle several lawsuits that alleged
accounting fraud at the company, DemocratandChronicle.com
reports.

The report recounts that the fraud allegations date way back to
the late 1990s and concern the company's inflating its pre-tax
earnings by about $1.4 billion between 1997 and 2000.  This
matter led to Xerox paying a then-record $10-million fine to the
Securities and Exchange Commission in April 2002.

The following year, Xerox covered $19.4 million of the SEC
penalties levied against six former top company executives,
including former Xerox chairman, Paul Allaire, and former CEO,
G. Richard Thoman.

In its announcement, Xerox said it had received preliminary
court approval to settle the largest of the consolidated class-
action lawsuits brought by shareholders in relation with the
accounting scandal.

DemocratandChronicle.com notes that, according to Xerox, the
settlement will mean a $491-million charge against first-quarter
earnings.  The balance of the $670-million settlement fund
apparently would come from the company's insurance coverage.

CEO Anne Mulcahy said that Xerox is financially strong enough to
absorb the charge and settle because it wanted to cut short the
expense and time of continuing litigation.

Under the settlement, Xerox admitted no wrongdoing.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CITIGROUP INC: 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 Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
and Citigroup Smith Barney between March 27, 2003, and
February 13, 2008, inclusive and who continued to hold such
securities as of February 13, 2008.

The class action is brought against Citigroup Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets and its wholly-owned broker-dealer subsidiary,
Citigroup Smith Barney.

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

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

     (3) Citigroup 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) Citigroup 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 26,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
                 415-981-4800
                 415-981-4800


HUMANA INC: Dreier Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing in KY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP announced that a class action lawsuit was commenced
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky on behalf of investors who purchased Humana, Inc.
during the period from February 4, 2008, through March 11, 2008,
inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that Humana and two of the Company's
senior officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class
Period, the defendants misled investors by making materially
false and misleading statements concerning Humana's anticipated
earnings per share for the first fiscal quarter of 2008 and for
the full year of 2008.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants' statements were misleading because they failed to
disclose that:

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

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

In addition, 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 made without a
reasonable basis.

On March 12, 2008, prior to the opening of the market,
Defendants shocked investors by announcing that the Company
would be revising its earnings guidance, which it had given to
the market less than five weeks earlier.

In response to this revelation, the price of Humana common stock
dropped $6.50 to close at $40.88 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 26, 2008
for lead plaintiff appointment.

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Levi & Korsinsky Files Auction Rates Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all those who purchased Auction Rate
Securities from Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., between March 25,
2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive, and who continued to
hold such securities as of February 13, 2008, to recover damages
caused by Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.'s violation of the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Morgan Stanley violated the
securities laws 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, Morgan Stanley 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, those who now
hold Auction Rate Securities sold by Morgan Stanley cannot
liquidate their positions since the auction market for these
securities has collapsed.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 27,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          39 Broadway, Suite 1601
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          e-mail: info@zlk.com
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com


NEUROMETRIX INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
securities class action with the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all purchasers
of securities of NeuroMetrix Inc. between October 27, 2005, and
March 6, 2007, inclusive.

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

NeuroMetrix designs, develops and markets medical device
products that aid physicians in the diagnosis and treatment of
diseases of the nervous system and neurovascular disorders, as
well as provide regional anesthesia and pain control.  In
particular, The NC-stat System, the Company's neuropathy
diagnostic system, is comprised of disposable single-use
biosensors which are placed on the patient's body to perform
nerve conduction studies.

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

     (1) that health insurers were routinely and increasingly
         denying reimbursement, and raising payment issues, for
         procedures using the NC-stat System;

     (2) that field practitioners had raised serious concerns
         about the NC-stat System's efficacy;

     (3) that the Company had not applied for its own insurance
         billing code, but instead had instructed doctors to use
         billing codes for competing needle procedures;

     (4) that the Company was giving kickbacks to doctors by
         providing free sensors in exchange for referring other
         doctors to the NC-stat System;

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

     (6) that the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 6, 2007, investors were shocked when The Boston Globe
reported that federal prosecutors were investigating NeuroMetrix
regarding possible fraud and for kickbacks the Company gave to
doctors who recommended NeuroMetrix's product.  Additionally,
the article disclosed that the Company had not sought new
billing codes for its NC-stat System, but rather had instructed
doctors to use codes reserved for a different, more invasive
procedure.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.84 per share, or 7.62
percent, to close on March 6, 2007 at $10.18 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.  The Company's shares continued
to decline the following day, falling an additional $0.73, or
7.17 percent, to close on March 7, 2007, at $9.45.

The Boston Globe article was the first in a series of shocking
news articles which had disastrous effects on the Company's
shares.  Also, revelations by the Company had a detrimental
impact on its shares.  For example, on March 28, 2007, the
Company announced that its financial statements for fiscal years
2002 through 2005, as well as the first three quarters of 2006
could no longer be relied upon, as it had failed to collect and
remit sales taxes from customers in a number of states.  As a
result, the Company was forced to record sales tax liability.
Additionally, the Company disclosed that a material weakness
existed in its internal controls over financial reporting.

Then, on February 11, 2008, TheStreet.com reported that a
meeting of the American Medical Association would likely result
in minimal reimbursement to healthcare providers who used the
Company's NC-stat System, and that the system would not be
eligible for reimbursement under Medicare or Medicaid.  The next
day, the Company reported on these events, and reported that its
revenues for the fourth quarter of 2007 were down from the
previous year and previous quarter.  The Company stated that it
expected to continue to face "significant challenges" with
regards to reimbursement of tests performed with the NC-stat
System, and that this would continue to adversely impact their
financial results.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $5.22 per share, or
49.15 percent, to close on February 11, 2008, at $5.40 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  The next day, the
Company's shares fell an additional $1.20 per share, or 22.22
percent, to close on February 12, 2008, at $4.20 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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

For more information, contact:

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


UBS AG: Levi & Korsinsky Files NY Auction Rate Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all those who purchased Auction Rate Securities from UBS AG
between March 21, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive and who
continued to hold such securities as of February 13, 2008 to
recover damages caused by UBS AG's violation of the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that UBS violated the securities laws 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, UBS 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, those who now hold Auction
Rate Securities sold by UBS cannot liquidate their positions
since the auction market for these securities has collapsed.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 20,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          39 Broadway, Suite 1601
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          e-mail: info@zlk.com
          Web site: http://www.zlk.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  * * *