CAR_Public/080403.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 3, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 66
  
                            Headlines

APRIA HEALTHCARE: Multiple Hearings Set for Calif. Labor Lawsuit
ARCH SPECIALTY: Faces Florida Suit Over "Hurricane Deductibles"
CIRCUIT CITY STORES: Sup. Ct. Rejects Appeal in Overtime Suit
HCC INSURANCE: Derivative Suit Settlement Granted Final Approval
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Nixing of Securities Suit

INTELSAT LTD: D.C. Court Approves Settlement for ERISA Lawsuit
JPMORGAN: Sued Over Bias Against Minorities in Mortgage Lending
LEVEL 3: Class Certification Bids for Ill., Idaho Lawsuits Fail
MORGAN KEEGAN: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is April 7
NILES COMPANY: Court Approves Settlement for Unlawful Fees Suit

NVIDIA CORP: Faces Consolidated Suit in Calif. Over GPUs, Cards
NY COMMUNITY: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Suit
OPES PRIME: Investors Sue Collapsed Stock Broking Firm
ORION ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is April 11
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.J. Securities Lawsuit

PARK SQUARE HOMES: Buyers Seek $52 Million in Florida Lawsuit
PENN NATIONAL: Settles Pa. Litigation Over PNG Merger Agreement
PORTNOFF LAW ASSOCIATES: Ordered to Pay $5.2 Million in Damages
PREMIERE GLOBAL: Parties Settle California Junk Fax Litigation
PROGRESS LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures with Fall-Off Tendency

REDDY ICE: Florida Probes into Price Fixing Possibility
SALTON INC: Recalls Electric Toasters Due to Fire Hazard
SOCIETE GENERALE: Shareholders Sue Over Heavy Losses Sustained  
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Canada-Wide Suit Over "Riata Leads"
STRYKER ORTHOPEDICS: Accused of Paying Kickbacks in CA Lawsuit

TICKETMASTER: Parties Reach Settlement in Ill. "Zaveduk" Lawsuit
TICKETMASTER: Settles With One Plaintiff in "Schlessinger" Case
UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues to End Delays Applications Processing
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Sued in NJ Over Defects in Pollen Filter Gaskets
WACHOVIA CORP: Golden West Appraiser Sue for Overtime Payment


* Judge Won't Dismiss Money Laundering Charge vs. Milberg Weiss


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

SCHWAB YIELD: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Continues  to Face TX Securities Fraud Suit
SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit in AZ



                           *********


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Multiple Hearings Set for Calif. Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple hearings were scheduled for a purported class action
lawsuit filed against Apria Healthcare Group, Inc., with the
California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco,
according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit contains blanket claims of liability under various
California employee protection statutes and regulations relating
to:

     -- payment of regular and overtime wages;  

     -- the timeliness of such payments;

     -- the maintenance and provision of access to required  
        payroll records; and  

     -- the provision of meal and rest periods.  

The suit is captioned, "Venegas v. Apria Healthcare, Inc., et
al., Case No. CGC-06-449669," and was filed on Feb. 21, 2006.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount as well as other relief on behalf of a
purported class consisting of certain hourly employees of the
company in the State of California.  

At a case management conference held on Jan. 30, 2008, the Court
established a new trial date of Jan. 26, 2009.  

The court had set March 7, 2008, as the hearing date on the
composition of the putative class and Aug. 27, 2008, as the date
for a hearing on the issue of whether this case may be certified
as a class action.

Apria Healthcare, Inc. -- http://www.apria.com/-- provides a   
range of home   healthcare services through approximately 475
branch locations that serve patients in all 50 states throughout
the U.S.  The company has three service lines: home respiratory
therapy, home infusion therapy and home medical equipment.  


ARCH SPECIALTY: Faces Florida Suit Over "Hurricane Deductibles"
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARCH Specialty Insurance Co. is facing a class-action complaint
filed on March 26, 2008, with the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, accusing
ARCH of cheating policyholders by failing to warn about its
"hurricane deductible," apart from its standard deductible,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a claim for declaratory and monetary relief brought on
behalf of a class whose aggregate damages exceeds $15,000
exclusive of all interest, costs and attorneys fees, as well as
additional individual damages.

Pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.220(b)(2)
and 1.220(b)(3), named plaintiff PHLD Partnership brings the
claims on behalf of insureds who submitted claims for property
damage where the defendant applied a separate hurricane
deductible as opposed to the standard deductible and used a
coinsurance penalty.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's coinsurance provision is
         rendered unenforceable based on defendant's failure to
         adhere to Florida Statutes Section 627.701(1);

     (b) whether the defendant's failure to adhere to Florida
         Statutes Section 627.701(4)(a); and

     (c) whether the defendant's separate hurricane deductible
         is rendered unenforceable based on the defendant's
         failure adhere to Florida Statutes Section
         627.701(4)(a).

The plaintiff requests for the following relief:

     -- an order certifying the class described;

     -- an order declaring that the co-insurance penalty in the
        ARCH Specialty policy is void;

     -- an order declaring that the separate hurricane
        deductible in the ARCH Specialty policy is void;

     -- an order declaring that ARCH Specialty is responsible to
        pay all Attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Florida
        Statutes Section 627.428 or any other applicable
        statute;

     -- trial by jury of all issues so triable; and

     -- any other relief this court deems just and proper.

The suit is "PHLD Partnership et al. v. ARCH Specialty Insurance
Co., Case No. 08013301," filed with the Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          C. Richard Newsome, Esq.
          P. Alexander Gillen, Esq.
          Newsome Law Firm
          20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 800
          Orlando, FL 32801-4641


CIRCUIT CITY STORES: Sup. Ct. Rejects Appeal in Overtime Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, on March 31, 2008, turned down an appeal by
Circuit City Stores Inc. in an overtime-pay lawsuit that pits
California state labor law against federal arbitration rules,
Forbes.com reports.

The report points out that the issue centers on whether state
courts can refuse to enforce a federal arbitration agreement in
disputes involving state employment laws.  The Federal
Arbitration Act says arbitration clauses are 'valid, irrevocable
and enforceable,' unless the contract itself is declared
invalid, Forbes notes.

Forbes recounts that California's Supreme Court refused in
August 2007 to enforce an arbitration agreement between Circuit
City and one of its employees in an overtime-pay dispute.  
Instead, the court sent the case to back to a lower court to
determine if other legal routes, such as a class-action lawsuit,
would more effectively uphold state labor law.

The logic behind the state court's decision could be extended to
other areas of law, the company's lawyers said in court filings,
such as franchising and consumer law.

Business groups generally support arbitration because they
consider it a faster and cheaper way to resolve disputes than
litigation, and they strongly oppose interference by state
courts, Forbes relates.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a
brief urging the justices to rule on the company's appeal.

Under arbitration, the two sides submit evidence to a neutral
third party who then makes a legally binding decision resolving
the dispute.

The case began in 2002 when Robert Gentry, a customer-service
manager, filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Circuit
City seeking four years of overtime pay.  Two California state
courts ruled that the dispute should be arbitrated, under an
employment agreement Gentry accepted in 1995.

However, California's Supreme Court overturned those rulings,
finding that enforcement of the arbitration agreement depended
on whether arbitration would 'pose a serious obstacle to the
enforcement of the state's overtime laws.'

The California court's decision 'sets a dangerous precedent that
threatens to undermine the benefits of arbitration,' the company
had said.

The case is "Circuit City Stores Inc. v. Robert Gentry, 07-998."
The justices' decision means the case will continue in  
California's state courts.


HCC INSURANCE: Derivative Suit Settlement Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas has granted final approval of the settlement of the
shareholder derivative litigation relating to HCC Insurance
Holdings, Inc.'s historic stock option granting practices.

The suit, "Bristol County Retirement System v. HCC Insurance
Holdings Inc et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00801," was filed on
March 8, 2007.  The company was named as a defendant in the
putative class action along with certain current and former
officers and directors.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between
May 3, 2005, and Nov. 17, 2006, inclusive.

The action purports to assert claims arising out of improper
manipulation of option grant dates, alleging violation of
Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, as
well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiff also purports to assert a claim for violation of
Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rules 14a-
1 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiff seeks
recovery of compensatory damages for the putative class and
costs and expenses.  

On Sept. 21, 2007, jointly with the other defendants,  the
company filed a motion to dismiss the suit.

On January 9, 2008, the company announced that it had reached a
settlement in the shareholder derivative litigation regarding
the stock option matter.  With the recent announcement, all
private securities litigation pending against the Company
regarding the stock option matter has been resolved (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 11, 2008).

The terms of the settlement, which includes no admission of
liability or wrongdoing by HCC or any other defendants, provide
for a full and complete release of all claims in the litigation
and payment of $10 million to be paid into a settlement fund,
pending approval by the Court of a plan of distribution.  The
amount will be paid by the Company's directors' and officers'
liability insurers, and will not have a material effect on HCC's
financial results.

The court's recent order also dismisses all claims in the
shareholder derivative litigation with prejudice.

"The judge's approval of this settlement permanently closes one
part of HCC's option issue.  We have also previously announced
the settlement, pending judicial approval, of the class action
litigation arising out of the matter.  That matter is proceeding
to conclusion.  The final matter outstanding is the Securities
and Exchange Commission's determination on the option issue,
which we hope will be forthcoming shortly," HCC Chief Executive
Officer Frank J. Bramanti said.

The suit is "Bristol County Retirement System v. HCC Insurance
Holdings Inc. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00801," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under
Judge Sim Lake.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Damon Joseph Chargois, Esq. (damon@cmhllp.com)
         Chargois & Heron LLP
         2201 Timberloch Place, Ste. 110
         The Woodlands, TX 77380
         Phone: 281-444-0604
         Fax: 281-440-0124

              - and

         Alan I. Ellman, Esq. (aellman@labaton.com)
         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0813
         Fax: 212-818-0477

Representing the defendant is

         Barry F. McNeil, Esq. (barry.mcneil@haynesboone.com)
         Haynes and Boone
         901 Main St., Ste. 3100
         Dallas, TX 75202-3789
         Phone: 214-651-5580
         Fax: 214-200-0535


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Nixing of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion that sought for the dismissal of the
second amended complaint in the matter "In re
IAC/InteractiveCorp Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-
07447-RJH."

Beginning on Sept. 20, 2004, twelve purported shareholder class
actions were commenced with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against IAC and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  

These cases arose out of the company's Aug. 4, 2004 announcement
of its earnings for the second quarter of 2004 and generally
alleged that the value of the company's stock was artificially
inflated by pre-announcement statements about its financial
results and forecasts that were false and misleading due to the
defendants' alleged failure to disclose various problems faced
by the company's travel businesses (which in 2005 were spun off
into a separate public company, Expedia, Inc.).  

On Dec. 20, 2004, the district court consolidated the 12
lawsuits, appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and designated co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel.  The consolidated matter is captioned, "In
re IAC/InterActiveCorp Securities Litigation, No. 04-CV-7447
(S.D.N.Y.)."

On May 20, 2005, the plaintiffs in the federal securities class
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.  

Like its 12 predecessors, the amended complaint generally
alleged that the value of the company's stock was artificially
inflated by pre-announcement statements about the company's
financial results and forecasts that were false and misleading
due to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose various
problems faced by the company's then travel businesses.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased IAC common stock between March 31, 2003, and Aug. 3,
2004.

The defendants were IAC and 14 current or former officers or
directors of the company or its former Expedia travel business.  

The complaint purported to assert claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, and sought damages in an unspecified
amount.

On Sept. 15, 2005, IAC and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss the securities class action, which the plaintiffs
opposed.

On Oct. 12, 2006, the court heard oral argument on the motions.

On March 22, 2007, the court issued an opinion and order
granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the
securities class action, with leave to replead.

On May 15, 2007, the plaintiffs in the securities class action
filed a second amended complaint.  The new pleading continues to
allege that the defendants failed to disclose material
information concerning problems at the company's then-travel
businesses and to assert the same legal claims as its
predecessor.  

On Aug. 15, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, which motion the plaintiffs have
opposed.  

The motion remains pending, according to IAC/InterActiveCorp's
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re IAC/InteractiveCorp Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-cv-07447-RJH," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard J. Holwell
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
         Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz L.L.P.
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4657
         Fax: 212-545-4758

              - and -

         Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq. (jnobel@snlaw.net)
         Schatz & Nobel
         One Corporate Center
         20 Church Street, Suite 1700
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6293

Representing the defendants is
        
         Stephen R. DiPrima, Esq. (srdiprima@wlrk.com)
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 403-1382
         Fax: (212) 403-2000


INTELSAT LTD: D.C. Court Approves Settlement for ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved
the proposed settlement of a purported class action against
Intelsat, Ltd., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

Initially, two putative class action complaints that were filed
against the company and Intelsat Global Service Corp. in 2004
were consolidated into a single case.  Certain named plaintiffs
who are U.S. retirees, spouses of retirees or surviving spouses
of deceased retirees brought the suits.

The consolidated complaint, which was amended several times,
arose out of a resolution adopted by the governing body of the
International Telecommunications Satellite Organization,
referred to as the IGO, prior to privatization regarding medical
benefits for retirees and their dependents.

The plaintiffs allege that Intelsat wrongfully modified health
plan terms to deny coverage to surviving spouses and dependents
of deceased Intelsat retirees, thereby breaching the fiduciary
duty obligations of ERISA, and the "contract" represented by the
IGO resolution.

It is the company's position that the IGO resolution does not
create obligations that are enforceable against Intelsat, Ltd.
or Intelsat Global Service Corp.

On March 13, 2007, the company and counsel for the majority of
the named plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement, which was
filed on that same date under a joint motion to certify class
for settlement purposes only, preliminarily approve the
agreement of settlement of consolidated ERISA class action, and
approve the form and manner of notice.

The settlement agreement nullifies all potential obligations
under the pre-privatization IGO resolution, including, most
significantly, the obligation to establish a trust to fund
lifetime retiree medical benefits at 2001 levels for the
putative class members.

Instead, the company will provide to the retiree class certain
health benefits that are essentially the same as those currently
provided to active employees, the value of which, taken as a
whole, cannot be reduced or eliminated.

The retiree class members will have lifetime affordable health
care coverage, for which they will pay modest increases in
premiums, deductibles and co-pay amounts, such increases to be
capped in accordance with certain cost of living adjustment
provisions.

The settlement extends the obligation to provide the benefits to
transferees, affiliates and successors of Intelsat under certain
circumstances.  The company also will pay an award of attorneys'
fees of up to $200,000.  

At a March 14, 2007 status conference, the court granted counsel
for a small group of objecting named plaintiffs 10 days within
which to file an opposition to the joint motion.  

The court also set a tentative date of July 12, 2007 for a
fairness hearing on the proposed settlement agreement.  No
update is available to date.

On Sept. 26, 2007, the District Court entered a consent decree
and final judgment adopting the settlement agreement reached by
Intelsat and the lead plaintiffs' counsel.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the court entered a further order concerning
the division between the two plaintiffs' counsel of the
$0.3 million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees called for in the
settlement.  

The consent decree became final on Oct. 31, 2007, according to
the company's March 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Morales, et al. v. Intelsat Global Service Corp.,
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01044-JR," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, Judge James Robertson
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Marni E. Byrum, Esq. (mebyrum@aol.com)
         2009 North 14th Street, Suite 600
         Arlington, VA 22201
         Phone: (703) 525-3877
         Fax: (703) 525-2252

              - and -

         Lawrence P. Postol, Esq. (lpostol@seyfarth.com)
         Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
         815 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20006-4004
         Phone: (202) 463-2400

Representing the defendant is:

         Andrew Gendron, Esq. (agendron@venable.com)
         Venable, LLP
         Two Hopkins Plaza, Suite 1800
         Baltimore, MD 21201-2978
         Phone: (410) 244-7439
         Fax: (410) 244-7742


JPMORGAN: Sued Over Bias Against Minorities in Mortgage Lending
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California alleging that JPMorgan discriminates against
minorities in mortgage lending, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is an action for violation of the Fair Housing Act 42 USC
Section 3601 et seq., the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 USC
Section 1691 et seq., and the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC Section
1981 et seq.

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedures 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of
all Minority persons in the United States who obtained a
residential mortgage loan from JPMorgan Chase between Jan. 1,
2001, and the present and were harmed by defendants' racially
discriminatory policies and practices.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants have a policy or practice of
         discriminating against class members by charging them
         higher interest, fees and other costs for home mortgage
         loans than it charges to Caucasians with similar credit
         scores or creditworthiness;

     (b) whether the defendants' policies and practices that
         have had a disparate impact upon Minority borrowers;

     (c) whether the defendants' policies and practices have
         caused damage and injury to plaintiffs and the class
         entitling them to injunctive and declaratory relief,
         and the measure of that relief;

     (d) whether the defendants can articulate a legitimate non-
         discriminatory reason for their practices and
         procedures which are discriminatory;

     (e) whether the defendants have any business justification
         for its practices and procedures that cause a disparate
         impact upon Minorities;

     (f) whether there is a less discriminatory alternative to
         these practices; and

     (g) whether the plaintiffs and the class members have
         sustained damages, and if so, the proper measure of
         those damages.

The plaintiffs request for judgment as follows:

     -- certification of the case as a class action and
        certification of named plaintiffs to be adequate class
        representatives and their counsel to be class counsel;

     -- a judgment, pursuant to 15 USC 1691(e) and 42
        USC Section 3613, declaring the acts and practices of
        defendants, complained of to be in violation of the
        Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and
        the Civil Rights Act;

     -- a permanent or final injunction, pursuant to 15
        USC Section 1691e(c) and 42 USC Section 3613(c),
        enjoining defendants, and defendants' agents, employees,
        affiliates and subsidiaries from continuing to
        discriminate against plaintiffs and the members of the
        class because of their race through further use of any
        discretionary pricing policies or any non-risk-related
        discretionary pricing policy employed by defendants;

     -- an order directing the defendants, pursuant to 15 USC
        Section 1691e(c) and 42 USC Section 3613(c), to monitor
        and audit the racial pattern of their financings to
        ensure the cessation of discriminatory effects in their
        home mortgage transactions;

     -- an order for disgorgement, pursuant to 15 USC Section
        1691e(c), of all disproportionate non-risk charges
        imposed on minorities by defendants' discretionary
        pricing policies; and order the equitable distribution
        of such charges, as restitutionary relief, to all
        appropriate class members;

     -- payment of actual and punitive damages to the plaintiffs
        and the class pursuant to 42 USC Section 3613(c);

     -- award to plaintiffs of the costs of the action,
        including the fees and costs of experts, together with
        reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 15 USC Section
        1691e(d) and 42 USC Section 3613(c); and

     -- the establishment of a constructive trust from
        which plaintiffs and the class may seek restitution.

The suit is "Zinnia Gonzalez et al v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et
al., Case No. CV08-02140 CAS," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher Kim, Esq.
          Lisa J. Yang, Esq.
          Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP
          1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, California 90017


LEVEL 3: Class Certification Bids for Ill., Idaho Lawsuits Fail
---------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., reports that attempts to have
several purported rights-of-way suits in Illinois and Idaho
certified as a class action have failed.

In April 2002, Level 3 Communications and two of its
subsidiaries were named as defendants in "Bauer, et al. v. Level
3 Communications, LLC, et al.," which is a purported class
action covering 22 states, filed with the state court in Madison
County, Illinois.

In July 2001, Level 3 was named as a defendant in "Koyle, et al.
v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al.," a purported two-state
class action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho.  In November of 2005, the court granted class
certification only for the state of Idaho, which decision is on
appeal.

In September 2002, Level 3 Communications, LLC, and Williams
Communications, LLC, were named as defendants in "Smith et al.
v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., et al.," a purported
nationwide class action suit filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  

In April 2005, the Smith plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended
Complaint, which did not include Level 3 or Williams
Communications, as a party, thus ending both companies'
involvement in the Smith case.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Level 3 Communications and Williams
Communications were named as defendants in "McDaniel, et al., v.
Qwest Communications Corp., et al.," a purported class action
suit covering 10 states filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

These actions involve the companies' right to install its fiber
optic cable network in easements and right-of-ways crossing the
plaintiffs' land.

In general, the companies obtained the rights to construct their
networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and have
installed their networks along the rights-of-way so granted.

The plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that they
are the owners of lands over which the companies' fiber optic
cable networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities, and
others who granted the companies the right to construct and
maintain their networks did not have the legal authority to do
so.

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust
enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as
punitive damages.

To date, other than as noted above, all adjudicated attempts to
have class action status granted on complaints filed against the
companies or any of their subsidiaries involving claims and
demands related to rights-of-way issues have been denied,
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.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/--  
through its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the
communications business.  The company is a facilities-based
provider of a range of integrated communications services.


MORGAN KEEGAN: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is April 7
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson, which has already been retained by several
purchasers with significant losses in either the RMK Advantage
Income Fund, RMK Strategic Income Fund, or RMK High Income Fund
during the proposed class period of December 6, 2004, through
February 6, 2008, reminds other purchasers in such securities
with trading losses over $100,000 that the deadline for applying
to serve as lead plaintiff is April 7, 2008.

The pending complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the
W.D. of Tennessee charges the Funds' registrants, the Funds'
administrator, Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., the Funds' adviser,
Morgan Asset Management, Inc., Regions Financial Corp. and
certain of Morgan Keegan's officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

For more information, contact:

          Eben F. Duval, Esq.
          James F. Conway, III, Esq.
          Johnson & Perkinson
          1690 Williston Road
          P.O. Box 2305
          South Burlington, Vermont 05403
          Toll free: 1-888-459-7855
          e-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.jpclasslaw.com


NILES COMPANY: Court Approves Settlement for Unlawful Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Middlesex Superior Court approved in February 2008 a
settlement deal in the class action case "Rev. H. Bowen Woodruff
et al. v. Niles Company, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-
03225," Lawyers and Settlements reports.  

The settlement resolved the unlawful charging of finder's fees
to Cambridge tenants by an unlicensed real estate agent working
for The Niles Company, Inc.

The report recounts that Sandra Lee, an unlicensed real estate
agent between September 27, 2001, and November 7, 2003, was
employed by Niles to show and lease apartments to prospective
tenants in Niles-managed buildings in Cambridge.  Niles and
Ms. Lee, while unlicensed, charged tenants a finder's fee of one
month's rent in order to sign a lease and rent an apartment.

The suit claimed that Ms. Lee's employment violates state law,
M.G.L. c. 112, S87DDD1/2, and the regulations of the
Massachusetts Board of Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons,
which permits only a licensed real estate broker or a
salesperson to charge a finder's fee.  

The Court found the practice unlawful, and Niles and Ms. Lee
have agreed to refrain from committing further such violations
and to refund the unlawful finder's fee to those tenants who
paid it.

According to the report, after the Court certified the class in
May, 2007, Niles and Ms. Lee agreed to a settlement, which:


       1. prohibits the defendants from ever charging a finder's
          fee while unlicensed;

       2. requires Niles to provide a written disclosure in
          compliance with the Real Estate Board Regulations of
          the right to charge such a fee only by a licensed
          agent and of Niles' relationship to the broker or
          salesperson; and

       3. establishes a settlement fund to provide refunds to
          all those tenants who were charged such unlawful
          finder's fees by Niles and Ms. Lee for apartments
          located at One Waterhouse Street, 19 Garden Street, 3
          Concord Avenue, 5 Concord Avenue, 11 Gray Street, and
          9 Dana Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts between
          September 27, 2001, and November 7, 2003, upon
          presentation of a written claim forwarded to the
          plaintiffs' counsel on or before May 15, 2008.

The Court's decision affects approximately 85 tenants who should
receive notice of their right to a refund in the next two weeks,
and are encouraged to return their claim forms within 45 days
for a refund.

For more information, contact the plaintiffs' attorneys:

     Eliza J. Minsch, Esq. (eliza@pnnlaw.com)
     Jeffrey Petrucelly, Esq.
     Petrucelly, Nadler & Norris, P.C.,
     One State Street, Suite 900
     Boston, MA 02109
     Phone (617) 720-1717


NVIDIA CORP: Faces Consolidated Suit in Calif. Over GPUs, Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp. is facing a multi-district litigation that was
consolidated with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California for coordinated proceedings in connection
to the sale of Graphis Processing Units, and cards, according to
the company's March 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 21, 2008.

                         DOJ Litigation

On Nov. 29, 2006, the company received a subpoena from the San
Francisco Office of the Antitrust Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice, in connection with the DOJ's
investigation into potential antitrust violations related to
GPUs and cards.   

No specific allegations have been made against the company,
which is currently cooperating with the DOJ in its
investigation.

                        Civil Litigation

As of March 5, 2008, 55 civil complaints have been filed against
the company.  

The majority of the complaints were filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, several were
filed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, and other cases were filed in several other Federal
district courts.  

                    Coordinated Proceedings

On April 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the actions currently pending outside of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
to the that court for coordination of pretrial proceedings
before the Honorable William H. Alsup.  

By agreement of the parties, Judge Alsup will retain
jurisdiction over the consolidated cases through trial or other
resolution.

In the consolidated proceedings, two groups of plaintiffs (one
representing all direct purchasers of graphic processing units,
or GPUs, and the other representing all indirect purchasers)
filed consolidated, amended class-action complaints.

These complaints purport to assert federal antitrust claims
based on alleged price fixing, market allocation, and other
alleged anti-competitive agreements between the company, and ATI
Technologies, Inc., or ATI, and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., or
AMD, as a result of its acquisition of ATI.  

The indirect purchasers' consolidated amended complaint also
asserts a variety of state law antitrust, unfair competition and
consumer protection claims on the same allegations, as well as a
common law claim for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs filed their first consolidated complaints on
June 14, 2007.  On July 16, 2007, the company moved to dismiss
those complaints.  

The motions to dismiss were heard by Judge Alsup on Sept. 20,
2007.  The Court subsequently granted and denied the motions in
part, and gave the plaintiffs leave to move to amend the
complaints.  

On Nov. 7, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
file amended complaints, ordered defendants to answer the
complaints, lifted a previously entered stay on discovery, and
set a trial date for Jan. 12, 2009.  

Discovery is underway and the plaintiffs are currently required
to file any motion for class certification by April 24, 2008.  

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the  
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company has four product-line operating segments: graphics
processing units, media and communications processors (MCPs),
Handheld GPU Business, and Consumer Electronics Business.  


NY COMMUNITY: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York of the remaining claims of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act violations lawsuit filed against New York
Community Bancorp, Inc. by members of the New York Community
Bank Employee Savings Plan.

Filed on Nov. 9, 2004, the suit was brought on behalf of a
putative class of participants in the Savings Plan.  

On Feb. 6, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss.  The court ruled that one of
the two putative class representatives did not have standing
under ERISA, but found that there were issues of fact concerning
the standing of the other putative class representative.  

After the parties engaged in limited discovery concerning the
plaintiff's standing under ERISA, the defendants renewed their
motion to dismiss.  

On Oct. 25, 2006, the court entered an order dismissing the
remaining claims in this action on the ground that the
plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the claims.

On Nov. 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on
Dec. 20, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
issued its order affirming the district court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims, according to New York Community's Feb. 29,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Caltagirone, v. New York Community Bancorp Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-04872-LDW-JO," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge
Leonard D. Wexler presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-687-7230
          Fax: 212-490-2022
          e-mail: ssbny@aol.com

Representing the company are:

          David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
          (david.kistenbroker@kmzr.com)
          Pamela G. Smith, Esq. (pamela.smith@kmzr.com)
          Jonathan G. Rose, Esq. (jonathan.rose@kmzr.com)
          Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman
          Phone: (312) 902-1061 and 202-625-3500
          Fax: 202-339-8258


OPES PRIME: Investors Sue Collapsed Stock Broking Firm
------------------------------------------------------
Investors  have launched a class action suit against a company
called South Eastern Capital Limited, formally known as Opes
Prime Group Limited, with the Federal Court in Melbourne
(Australia), ABC Online reports.

According to ABC Online, the Melbourne-based company went into
receivership last week amid claims that it had falsely
transferred shares between margin loan scheme accounts to hide
its losses.

Around 1,200 retail clients risk losing their investments, the
report says.

The applicants have yet to set out the grounds for their claim.

                       About Opes Prime

Opes Prime Group Ltd is an Australian unlisted public company
providing a range of financial services and products for high
net worth individuals, stockbrokers and financial advisors,
asset managers, banks and other firms, both for themselves and
their clients.  The Group conducts business via a number of
operating subsidiaries based in Melbourne, Sydney and Singapore.


ORION ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is April 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates announced that purchasers of Orion
Energy Systems, Inc. securities have only until April 11, 2008,
to apply as lead plaintiff.

In February 2008, Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased or acquired the common shares of Orion
Energy in its Initial Public Offering on Dec. 18, 2007, or in
the open market from Dec. 18, 2007, through Feb. 6, 2008 (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2008).

With respect to the IPO, Orion realized over $78 million in
proceeds, while Chief Executive Officer Neal R. Verfuerth
and his family sold 600,000 shares for proceeds of approximately
$7 million.

On Feb. 6, 2008, just weeks after its IPO, Orion revealed news
concerning the company which completely surprised analysts and
investors, and caused the stock to drop approximately 43%, to a
price of $8.51 per share.

Orion is a manufacturer of efficient lighting and energy systems
to businesses.

The Prospectus for its IPO described a company that was quickly
growing revenues from existing product lines, and briefly
described product line extensions.  After the close of trading
on Feb. 6, 2008, Orion disclosed that revenues in its current
fiscal quarter would decline as the company took aggressive
measures to promote a "new business model," a change in focus
that is alleged not to have been adequately disclosed or
described in the IPO Prospectus.  During the February 6
conference call, Orion executives, including Mr. Verfuerth,
appeared unable to explain to the satisfaction of securities
analysts this surprising news about the business model change on
the heels of the IPO, or its impact on revenues.

The complaint charges Orion, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters who sponsored the IPO with
violation of the federal securities laws by issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the IPO
which was materially false or misleading due to omissions.  The
law generally imposes strict liability on defendants responsible
for a materially false Registration Statement and Prospectus,
including for purchases made in the open market after the IPO;
no fraud need be proved to recover.

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490
          Web site: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.J. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., and certain of its executive
officers are seeking the dismissal of a consolidated securities
class action suit filed against them on behalf of purchasers of
common stock of the company between April 29, 2004, and July 5,
2006.

The lawsuit followed the company's July 5, 2006 announcement
that it will restate certain of its financial statements and
alleged that the company and certain members of its management
engaged in violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by issuing false and misleading statements
concerning the company's financial condition and results.

The class actions have been consolidated and are pending with
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
Court has appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

The co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 30, 2006, purporting to represent purchasers of common
stock of the company between July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2006.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on June 29, 2007.

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.

The suit is "Weissmann, et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-03226," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Ronald J.
Hedges presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Benjamin Levine, Esq. (levine@ix.netcom.com)
          111 Dunnell Road
          Maplewood, NJ 07040
          Phone: (973) 378-8850
          Fax: (973) 378-8852

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

               - and -

          Danielle Disporto, Esq. (ddisporto@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper, LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 451-9616

Representing the defendants is:

          Rric S. Aronson (aronsone@gtlaw.com)
          Greenbereg & Traurig, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Phone: (973) 360-7900


PARK SQUARE HOMES: Buyers Seek $52 Million in Florida Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seven homebuyers are seeking an estimated $52 million and class-
action status in a lawsuit filed on February 19, 2008, with the
U.S. Middle District of Florida against Park Square Enterprises
Inc., Anjali Fluker writes for Orlando Business Journal.

The complaint claims that the homebuilding firm, which does
business as Park Square Homes, did not comply with a consumer
protection law when completing contracts for purchases at Park
Square's Newbury Park subdivision in Orange County.

According to Business Journal, the lawsuit is the same as the
one filed on Jan. 7, 2008, at the state level by four of the
buyers in Orange County Business Court.

The federal suit claims that Orlando-based Park Square gave an
"illusory" promise to build the homes within two years as a way
to exempt itself from complying with the interstate land sales
full disclosure act.


PENN NATIONAL: Settles Pa. Litigation Over PNG Merger Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Penn National Gaming, Inc., reached a tentative settlement for a
purported class action filed with a Pennsylvania court over an
announcement that the company had entered into a merger
agreement that would ultimately result in the company's
shareholders receiving $67.00 per share, 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 company made the announcement on June 15, 2007.  The
announcement specifically stated that the company; its parent,
PNG Acquisition Co., Inc.; and its parent's subsidiary, PNG
Merger Sub Inc., had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of June 15, 2007, that provides, among other
things, for Merger Sub to be merged with and into the company,
as a result of which the company will continue as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of PNG Acquisition.  
PNG Acquisition is owned by certain funds managed by the
affiliates of Fortress Investment Group LLC and Centerbridge
Partners, L.P. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 6, 2007).

In reaction to the announcement on August 2007, a complaint was
filed on behalf of a putative class of public shareholders of
the company, and derivatively on behalf of the company, with the
Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania.

The complaint names the company's Board of Directors as
defendants and the company as a nominal defendant.  It alleges,
among other things, that the Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the proposed transaction with
Fortress and Centerbridge for inadequate consideration, that
certain members of the Board of Directors have conflicts with
regard to the Merger, and that the company and its Board of
Directors have failed to disclose certain material information
with regard to the Merger.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a court order:

       -- determining that the action is properly maintained as
          a class action and a derivative action;

       -- enjoining the Company and its Board of Directors from
          consummating the proposed Merger; and

       -- awarding the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The company and the plaintiffs have reached a tentative
settlement in which the company agreed to pay certain attorneys'
fees and to make certain disclosures regarding the events
leading up to the transaction with Fortress and Centerbridge in
the proxy statement sent to shareholders in November 2007.  

Final settlement is contingent upon court approval and
consummation of the transaction with Fortress and Centerbridge.

Penn National Gaming Inc. -- http://www.pngaming.com/-- is a  
diversified, multi-jurisdictional owner and operator of gaming
properties, as well as horse racetracks and associated off-track
wagering facilities.  


PORTNOFF LAW ASSOCIATES: Ordered to Pay $5.2 Million in Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia County Civil Court Judge Mark I. Bernstein found
that Portnoff Law Associates illegally charged millions in
attorney and administrative fees to taxpayers in Allentown and
elsewhere in the state as it sought to collect back property
taxes, according to The Morning Call.

The report says that the law firm has been ordered to pay
$5.2 million in damages in the class action suit filed on behalf
of more than 16,000 state residents charged with the illegal
fees between 2000 and 2002.

In addition, the court ruled that Portnoff had illegally
pocketed the proceeds from sheriffs' sales of homes with
delinquent tax bills and ordered an accounting to determine
whether additional damages are warranted.

Among the 22 municipalities and school districts that contracted
with the Norristown firm for tax collection during the years
covered by the suit are at least six from the Lehigh Valley,
including Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton and Lower Mount Bethel
Township, and Allentown and Northern Lehigh School districts,
Morning Call relates, citing the firm's Web site.

Judge Bernstein stated that by charging fees disallowed in two
previous appellate court cases, Portnoff demonstrated a
"cavalier attitude towards the Rule of Law."


PREMIERE GLOBAL: Parties Settle California Junk Fax Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Premiere Global Services, Inc., as well as the plaintiff in the  
purported class action, "Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al.
v. The Quizno's Corp., et al." have reached a tentative
settlement in the matter, which is pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, 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 May 18, 2007, Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers served an amended
complaint upon Premiere Global Services, Inc., and its
subsidiary, Xpedite Systems, LLC, in relation to the purported
class action.

The underlying complaint alleges that Quizno's sent unsolicited
facsimile advertisements on or about Nov. 1, 2005, in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended, and seeks damages of $1,500 per facsimile for alleged
willful conduct in sending of the faxes.

The court has also granted Quiznos' motion to file a third party
complaint to add Premiere Global and Xpedite as defendants.  

On June 26, 2007, Premiere Global answered the plaintiff's
amended complaint, including asserting cross-claims against the
Quizno's defendants.

On June 29, 2007, the Quizno's defendants filed their answer and
asserted cross-claims against the company and Xpedite.  

On July 31, 2007, the court entered an order in which it granted
certain Quizno's defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the
motion with respect to other Quizno's entities.

On Sept. 7, 2007, the plaintiff proceeded to file another
amended complaint against the Quizno's defendants, Growth
Partners (Quizno's consultant),  Xpedite, and the company.  

On Sept. 21, 2007, the company filed its answer and affirmative   
defenses.  

On Oct. 1, 2007, certain Quizno's defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which was denied by the Court on Dec. 7, 2007.

The case is currently in discovery, and no class has yet been
certified.  

On Feb. 12-13, 2008, the parties engaged in mediation.  The
parties have reached a global settlement in principle that
should resolve all claims have filed a stipulation with the
court informing the court and extending the various deadlines.

The settlement is subject to final documentation by the parties
and approval by the court.

The suit is "Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The
Quizno's Corp., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05849-PSG-PLA," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          C. Darryl Cordero, Esq. (cdc@paynefears.com)
          Payne and Fears
          660 South Figueroa, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-439-9911

Representing the defendants is:

          Nancy M. Barnes, Esq.
          Thompson Hine, LLP
          3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-566-5578


PROGRESS LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures with Fall-Off Tendency
----------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Lighting, of Greenville, S.C., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,000 Progress Lighting Outdoor Ceiling Light Fixtures.

The company said a weld that affixes a mounting bracket to the
ceiling pan can fail, which can cause the fixture to fall and
injure nearby persons.

Progress Lighting has received six reports of fixtures falling.
No property damage or injuries have been reported.

Only Progress Lighting ceiling-mounted outdoor light fixtures
with model numbers P5526-20 and P5526-44 are included in the
recall.  The light fixtures have three flame-shaped lights
inside a beveled glass and solid frame.  The fixtures require
(3) 60-watt light bulbs.  "Made in/Hecho En/Fabrique Aux China"
and the model numbers are written on the packaging of the
product.

These recalled light fixtures were manufactured by Pegtom, of
Hong Ding, China, and were being sold at electrical and lighting
distributors nationwide from January 2007 through November 2007
for about $200.

A picture of the recalled light fixture is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08228.jpg

Consumers should contact Progress Lighting to schedule a free
repair of the lighting fixture.

For more information, contact Progress Lighting toll-free at
(866) 418-5543 between 8:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at:

   http://www.progresslighting.com


REDDY ICE: Florida Probes into Price Fixing Possibility
-------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings Inc said that it had received a civil
investigative demand from the Florida Attorney General's office
in connection with a probe into possible price fixing in the
packaged ice industry, Reuters reports.

Reddy Ice told Reuters that it was cooperating with the
investigation and noted that it appeared to be related to a
previously disclosed antitrust probe of the industry by federal
prosecutors.

Reuters relates that in a filing with securities regulators,
Reddy Ice stated that it was aware of 37 lawsuits seeking class
action status in which it is named as one of the defendants
alleged to have violated federal antitrust laws.


SALTON INC: Recalls Electric Toasters Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
Salton Inc., of Lake Forest, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 12,000
electric toasters.

The company said the toaster can turn on without bread in the
slots and ignite items placed on top of it, posing a fire
hazard.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the chrome two-slice electric toasters sold
under the following brands:

   -- Farberware (model # FCT200 or FCT100),
   -- Hoffritz (model # HZT2 and HZT2M), and
   -- Russell Hobbs (model #RH2MT).

The brand name and model number are printed on a plate located
on the underside of the toaster.

These recalled toasters were manufactured in China and were
being sold by online and retail liquidators nationwide from
January 2000 through December 2007 for between $40 and $50.

Images of the recalled toasters can be found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08227.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the toaster immediately,
unplug it, and cut off the power cord where it enters the body
of the toaster.  Consumers who return the power cord in the
prepaid envelope that will be provided will receive a full
refund.

For more information, contact Salton at (800) 233-9054 between
8:30 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at: http://www.esalton.com


SOCIETE GENERALE: Shareholders Sue Over Heavy Losses Sustained  
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against French bank
Societe Generale by a shareholder in the U.S. as a result of
losses sustained following its exposure to sub-prime loans and
alleged fraudulent dealing by employee Jerome Kerviel, Legal
Week reports.

The report relates that the suit was filed in March 2008 by New
York class action specialist Cohen Milstein Hausfield & Toll.  
Managing partner Steve Toll, Esq., is leading the team for Cohen
Millstein.

The suit alleges that SocGen misled shareholders over its
exposure to the sub-prime mortgage market and failed to act on
information regarding the activities of Mr. Kerviel.  

Legal Week recalls that SocGen, in 2007, revealed losses of
around EUR4.9 billion (GBP3.8 billion) following allegations of
fraudulent dealing by Mr. Kerviel, a junior trader at the bank.

According to Legal Week, SocGen has called in U.S. giant Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom to battle the class action lawsuit.  
Paris co-chief Pierrre Servan-Schreiber is leading the team for
Skadden, alongside New York-based litigation partners Scott
Musoff, Keith Krakaur and Christopher Gunther.

Skadden launched a class action defence unit in the U.K. Last
year, ahead of an anticipated rise in U.S.-style group actions
in Europe.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steve Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
     Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
     1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
     Suite 500, West Tower
     Washington, D.C. 20005
     Phone: 202-408-4600
     Fax: 202-408-4699

SocGen is represented by:

     Pierre Servan-Schreiber
     (pierre.servan-schreiber@skadden.com)
     Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
     68, rue du Faubourg Saint-Honore
     75008 Paris, France
     Phone: 331-55-27-11-00
     Fax: 331-55-27-11-99


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Canada-Wide Suit Over "Riata Leads"
-----------------------------------------------------------
A national class action has been launched against St. Jude
Medical Inc. and St. Jude Medical Canada, Inc./Medicale St. Jude
Canada, Inc., seeking damages on behalf of all affected
Canadians for the manufacture and sale of allegedly defective
leads marketed and sold under the brand name Riata.

The class action was commenced by the Toronto firms Rochon
Genova LLP and Kim Orr P.C.

The Riata Leads are used with implantable cardioverter-
defibrillators.  If a lead becomes dislodged, the ICD may not be
able to restore the patient's heart to a normal cardiac rhythm,
or it may provide unnecessary shocks.  Further, if a lead
dislodges, it can perforate the heart or other surrounding
tissues, which can lead to life-threatening complications.
A study conducted at the Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard
Medical School and published in April 2007 revealed a high
incidence of dislodgment and perforation in patients implanted
with certain models of the Riata Leads between January 1, 2005,
and December 31, 2005.  Similar experiences with the Riata Leads
were reported later in September 2007 at a different hospital in
New York and further reports of dislodgement and perforation
with the Riata Leads have been published both before and since.

The Riata Leads have not been recalled, and continue to be sold
in Canada.

Patricia Pimblott, a 48-year-old resident of Colborne, Ontario
is the proposed representative plaintiff in this Canadian class
action.  Ms. Pimblott was implanted with an ICD using Riata
Leads in March 2007.  Shortly after initial surgery,
Ms. Pimblott experienced extreme chest pain and soon learned
that her Riata Lead had dislodged and perforated her heart.  She
subsequently underwent several further corrective surgeries and
was ultimately required to have the Riata Lead removed and
replaced with a lead from a different manufacturer.

Ms. Pimblott is very concerned over her experience and the fact
that St. Jude has refused to acknowledge that the leads are
defective and that they have not been recalled.

She stated, "I don't think that it's right that I had to go
through all this pain and suffering when the company has known
for years that these leads are dangerous.  It just shouldn't be
allowed to happen again -- these leads should be removed from
the market."

For more information, contact:

          Rochon Genova, LLP
          121 Richmond St. W.
          Suite 900
          Toronto, Ontario M5H 2K1
          Phone:(416) 363-1867
          Toll Free: 1 (866) 881-2292
          Fax:(416) 363-0263

               - and -

          Kim Orr P.C.
          200 Front Street West
          23rd Floor, P.O. Box 45
          Toronto, Ont. M5V 3K2
          Phone: 416-362-1989
          Fax: 416-598-0601


STRYKER ORTHOPEDICS: Accused of Paying Kickbacks in CA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stryker Orthopedics is facing a class-action complaint filed on
March 25, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California accusing Stryker of using phony
consulting agreements with orthopedic surgeons to hide kickbacks
it paid to sell knee and hip implants, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This action arises out of a pervasive kickback scheme
orchestrated by one of the largest manufacturers of artificial
hip and knee replacement devices, which uses phony consulting
agreements with orthopedic surgeons to cleverly mask disguised
kickbacks paid to doctors and hospitals in return for choosing
which manufacturer's devise to use during a patient's surgery.
Rather than promote safety and effectiveness, the choice of
medical devise is thereby governed by the financial gain for
doctors or hospitals, and the prospect of increased market share
for the defendant and their co-conspirators.

According to the complaint, since 2002, Stryker allegedly
conspired with four other companies that monopolize the market,
and began cooperating with federal investigators in 2005 to
avoid prosecution.

Stryker and its co-conspirators allegedly restrained competition
and fixed prices on the 700,000 hip and knee implants performed
each year in the United States.

The five companies control 95% of the knee and hip implant
market, and Stryker controls 20% of them, the complaint states.

Implants of the two joints WAS A $5.1 billion industry in 2005,
it states.

Named plaintiff Claire C. Haggarty brings this action pursuant
to rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all individuals who are, or at the
relevant time were, residents of California who either ere
uninsured or had a private health care insurance policy pursuant
to which they paid a percentage of the total costs of surgical
procedures, and who had hip or knee implant surgery during the
class period that involved the use of Stryker products.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants, or any of them, engaged in an
         ongoing business practice during the class period of
         providing payments or other consideration of monetary
         value to hip and knee surgeons through which Stryker
         sought to induce such surgeons to choose its products
         in hip or knee implant surgery;

     (b) whether Stryker sought to conceal such payments or
         consideration provided to hip and knee implant
         surgeons, or to disguise the actual basis of such
         payments or other consideration provided to such
         surgeons, and if so, over what time period Stryker
         continued to engage in such practices;

     (c) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them had the effect of inflating
         the price f Stryker products used in hip and knee
         implant surgery, and, if so, by how much;

     (d) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them violated California's
         Cartwright ACt (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 16700 et
         seq.);

     (e) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them violated section 650 of the
         California Business and Professions Code 9anti-kickback
         statute);

     (f) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them violated section 654.2 of the
         California Business and Professions Code;

     (g) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them violated section 14107 of the
         California Welfare and Institutions Code;

     (h) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them violated section 139.3 of the
         California Labor Code;

     (i) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them violated section 12651 of the
         California False Claims Act (Cal. Gov't Code Section
         12651);

     (j) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them violated the Sherman Antitrust
         Act (15 USC Section 1);

     (k) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them violated federal Anti-Kickback
         Act (41 USC Section 51 et seq.);

     (l) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them violated the Medicare fraud
         statute (42 USC Section 1320a-7b);

     (m) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them violated 42 USC Section 1395m;

     (n) whether such agreements and the co-conspirators'
         conduct pursuant to them violated the federal False
         Claims Act (31 USC Section 3720 et seq);

     (o) whether the plaintiff and members of the class incurred
         increased health care costs as a result of the conduct
         of defendants, and each of them; and

     (p) the appropriate measure of the overall damages
         sustained by plaintiff and the class.

The plaintiff requests:

     -- that the court, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
        of Civil Procedure, certify the case as a class action
        on behalf of the proposed class, designate the plaintiff
        as class representative, and designate the plaintiff's
        counsel of record as class counsel;

     -- that the court adjudge and decree that the acts of the
        defendants are unlawful and in violation of California's
        Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition
        law;

     -- that the court enter judgment against defendants jointly
        and severally, and in favor of the plaintiff and the
        class for restitution and for damages as allowed by law
        as determined to have been sustained by them;

     -- that the court permanently enjoin and restrain each of
        the defendants and their successors, assigns, parents,
        subsidiaries, affiliates, and transferees, and their
        respective officers, directors, agents and employees,
        and all other persons acting or claiming to act on
        behalf of defendants or in concert with them, in any
        manner, directly or indirectly, from continuing,
        maintaining, or renewing the combinations, conspiracy,
        agreement, understanding, or concert of action as
        alleged;

     -- that the court award the plaintiff and the class
        attorneys' fees and costs, along with pre-judgment and
        post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and

     -- that the court award the plaintiff and the class such
        other and further relief as may be necessary and
        appropriate.

The suit is "Claire C. Haggarty et al. v. Stryker Orthopaedics,
Case No. CV 08 1609 JCS," filed with the Northern District of
California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Frank M. Pitre, Esq.
          Laura Schlichtmann, Esq.
          Ara Jabagchourian, Esq.
          Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Phone: (650) 697-6000
          Fax: (650) 692-0577


TICKETMASTER: Parties Reach Settlement in Ill. "Zaveduk" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter "Mitchell B. Zaveduk, et al. v.
Ticketmaster, et al., Case No. 02 CH 21148," which was filed
with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois have reached a
settlement.

The suit challenged Ticketmaster's charges to customers for UPS
ticket delivery.  Ticketmaster is an operating business of
IAC/InterActiveCorp.

The lawsuit alleged in essence that it is unlawful for the
company not to disclose that the fee it charges to customers to
have their tickets delivered by UPS contains a profit component.

It asserted claims for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act and for unjust enrichment
and sought restitution to the purported class of the difference
between what the company charged for UPS delivery and what it
paid UPS for that service.

On May 20, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the common-law claim for unjust enrichment but declined
to dismiss the claim under the Illinois statute.

On July 7, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding claims for breach of contract and for violation of the
California Consumers' Legal Remedies Act and Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code.

On Aug. 13, 2004, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the claim under the California Consumers' Legal Remedies
Act.  The court also subsequently granted the company's motion
to dismiss the claim for breach of contract, but declined again
to dismiss the claim under the Illinois statute.

On June 16, 2005, the court denied Ticketmaster's motions for
summary judgment on the Illinois statutory claim.

On Nov. 9, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which was denied by the court.

On May 8, 2007, the court certified its order for interlocutory
appeal.  The plaintiff, however, did not pursue appellate review
of the order.

On Jan. 10, 2008, Ticketmaster and the individual plaintiff
agreed to settle the case for an immaterial sum, and this
litigation has now concluded, according to IAC/InterActiveCorp's
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

IAC/InterActiveCorp -- http://www.iac.com/-- provides products  
and services through a diversified portfolio of specialized and
global brands.  The Company operates in four sectors: Retailing;
Transactions, which includes the Ticketmaster, LendingTree, Real
Estate and ServiceMagic segments; Media & Advertising, and
Membership & Subscriptions, which includes the Interval, Match
and Entertainment reporting segments.  

    
TICKETMASTER: Settles With One Plaintiff in "Schlessinger" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster, an operating business of IAC/InterActiveCorp,
reached a settlement with one of three plaintiffs in the
purported class action, "Curt Schlessinger et al. v.
Ticketmaster, No. BC304565," which was filed with the Superior
Court in Los Angeles County.

Originally, the case was filed on Oct. 21, 2003, as a purported
representative action, challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for UPS ticket delivery.

The lawsuit alleges in essence that it is unlawful for
Ticketmaster not to disclose on its Web site that the fee it
charges to online customers to have their tickets delivered by
UPS contains a profit component.  

The complaint asserted a claim for violation of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code.  It sought
restitution or disgorgement of the difference between the total
UPS-delivery fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales and the amount it paid to UPS for that
service.

On Jan. 9, 2004, the court denied Ticketmaster's motion to stay
the litigation in favor of an earlier-filed and similar Illinois
case.  

On Dec. 31, 2004, the court denied Ticketmaster's motion for
summary judgment.  On April 1, 2005, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to include
UPS-delivery fees charged in connection with ticket orders
placed by telephone.

Citing Proposition 64, a recently approved California ballot
initiative that outlawed so-called "representative" actions
brought on behalf of the general public, the court ruled that
since the named plaintiffs did not order their tickets by  
telephone, they lacked standing to assert a claim based on
telephone ticket sales.  

However, the plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended
complaint that would survive application of Proposition 64.  

On Aug. 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
and representative-action complaint alleging:

      -- as before that Ticketmaster's website disclosures in
         respect of its charges for UPS ticket delivery violate
         Section 17200 of the California Business and
         Professions Code; and

      -- for the first time, that Ticketmaster's Web site
         disclosures in respect of its ticket order-processing
         fees constitute false advertising in violation of
         Section 17500 of the California Business and
         Professions Code.

On the latter claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or
disgorgement of the entire amount of order-processing fees
charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable statute-of-
limitations period.

On Sept. 1, 2005, in light of the newly pleaded claim based upon
order-processing fees, Ticketmaster removed the case to federal
court pursuant to the recently enacted federal Class Action
Fairness Act.

The case now fell under the caption, "Curt Schlessinger et al.
v. Ticketmaster, No. 05-CV-6515," which was pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On Oct. 3, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court, which Ticketmaster opposed.  On March 23,
2006, the federal district court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court.

On April 4, 2006, Ticketmaster filed a petition for leave to
appeal the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit, which the plaintiffs opposed.  

On May 25, 2006, the federal court of appeals issued an
orderdenying Ticketmaster's petition; as a result, the case was  
remanded to state court.

On Aug. 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which Ticketmaster opposed.  On Sept. 25, 2006,
Ticketmaster filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which
the plaintiffs opposed.

On Nov. 21, 2006, Ticketmaster requested that the court stay the
case pending the California Supreme Court's decisions in two
cases:

     -- "In re Tobacco II Cases, 142 Cal. App. 4th 891," and

     -- "Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court (Galfano), 141 Cal. App.
        4th 290)"

that present issues concerning the interpretation of Proposition
64 that are directly pertinent to both of the pending motions.

The plaintiffs opposed Ticketmaster's request.  On Nov. 29,
2006, the court ordered that the case be stayed.

On July 11, 2007, the court lifted its stay for the limited
purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to go forward with their
motion for class certification, whereupon the parties submitted
supplemental briefing in support of their respective positions.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the court heard oral argument on the motion.
The court subsequently issued an order:

       -- denying the plaintiffs' motion for class
          certification, without prejudice to reconsideration
          after the California Supreme Court issues its decision
          in In re Tobacco II Cases, and

       -- staying the case for 180 days or until the California
          Supreme Court issues its decision, whichever occurs
          earlier.

On Jan. 14, 2008, the court dismissed one of the three named
plaintiffs from the case pursuant to a settlement with
Ticketmaster on an individual basis for an immaterial amount,
according to IAC/InterActiveCorp's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

IAC/InterActiveCorp -- http://www.iac.com/-- provides products  
and services through a diversified portfolio of specialized and
global brands.  The Company operates in four sectors: Retailing;
Transactions, which includes the Ticketmaster, LendingTree, Real
Estate and ServiceMagic segments; Media & Advertising, and
Membership & Subscriptions, which includes the Interval, Match
and Entertainment reporting segments.  


UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues to End Delays Applications Processing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Many immigrants who have satisfied the requirements to become
U.S. citizens have been illegally left in limbo for years due to
the slow processing of FBI "name checks," charged a lawsuit
filed in federal district court in Philadelphia against
government officials responsible for the prolonged, system-wide
delays.

As a result of the lag in "name checks," hundreds or thousands
of citizenship applications have been held up well past the 180-
day window established by Congress for processing the
applications.

"There is no reason why anyone should have to wait so long for
citizenship after meeting all the requirements," said John
Grogan, an attorney with Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C. and lead
counsel for the plaintiffs.  "These are people who want to
pledge their allegiance to the United States and participate
fully in our society as U.S. citizens."

The class action lawsuit, Ignatyev v. Chertoff, was filed by
Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C., HIAS & Council Migration Services
of Philadelphia, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of
Pennsylvania, and Nationalities Services Center, Inc. on behalf
of Mikhail Ignatyev and Nataliya Petrovna Demidchik - both from
the former Soviet republic of Ukraine.

The groups seek a halt to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services' practice of holding citizenship applications in limbo
for months or even years because of the FBI's failure to
complete a name check of the applicants.

The lawsuit was filed against Secretary of Homeland Security
Michael Chertoff, USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez,
Philadelphia Acting District Director Evangelia Klapakis, U.S.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and FBI Director Robert S.
Mueller.

The FBI has always conducted background checks of people
applying for U.S. citizenship, but after 9/11 the USCIS began
requiring an expanded FBI name check, which compares applicants'
names to names held in a broad array of FBI files, including the
names of innocent people like witnesses or crime victims.  When
an applicant's name is similar to a name in the FBI database,
the FBI often will let the name check process stall for months
or years, because further investigation requires a manual review
of paper files that may be scattered across the country.  
Neither the USCIS nor the FBI imposes any deadlines on the FBI
name check process.

Mr. Ignatyev and his wife were admitted to the United States in
April 1999 as humanitarian immigrants from the former Soviet
Republic of Ukraine under a law to help former Soviet citizens
who had faced long-standing persecution because of their
religion.  His application for citizenship has been pending for
over two years, although he has provided all the information
requested by immigration officials.

Ms. Demidchik came to the U.S. in 2000 to join her daughter who
is a U.S. citizen.  She is 83 years old and disabled but remains
active through programs at a local senior center and through
volunteer work.  Her citizenship application has been pending
for over two-and-a-half years.  In December 2005, she was
scheduled for an examination -- the final step in the process to
naturalization; however, USCIS canceled the examination in
January 2006. She has heard nothing since about her application.
Ms. Demidchik desperately wants to become a U.S. citizen before
she dies.

"Longtime residents who have paid their dues and are
contributing to our country deserve a timely decision as
required by law," said Cecillia Wang, senior attorney for the
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.  "Our clients are among the
hundreds or thousands of longtime residents around the country
who have been waiting patiently for years.  The time for fixing
the system is long overdue."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Sued in NJ Over Defects in Pollen Filter Gaskets
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. announced that, in a
proposed nation-wide consumer class action entitled "Dewey, et
al. v. Volkswagen AG, et al., No. 07-2249" (D.N.J. April 1,
2008), wherein it was alleged that there were design defects in
the pollen filter gasket areas, plenum drains, cowling and
sunroof drains in Volkswagens of model years 1998-2006 and Audis
of model years 1997-2006 which caused water to drain into the
interior of the vehicles, causing damage to, among other things,
the car's interior, electrical systems and transmission, Judge
Faith S. Hochberg of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey has issued a decision in which she denied
Volkswagen of America's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim
for:

     -- breach of implied warranty of merchantability;
     -- unjust enrichment;
     -- negligent misrepresentation; and
     -- breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing

and partially denied VWOA's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
state and common law fraud claims.

The Court further denied the motion to quash service on
Volkswagen AG.

The plaintiffs at this time are engaged in extensive discovery,
including document and interrogatory discovery.

For more information, contact:

          Jay P. Saltzman, Esq.
          Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, New York 10038
          Tel: (212) 964-0046
          Fax: (212) 267-8137
          Toll Free: (866) 348-7700
          Web site: http://www.spornlaw.com


WACHOVIA CORP: Golden West Appraiser Sue for Overtime Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was filed with the federal court in Florida against
Wachovia Corp., asserting that the company mistreated its
appraisers, East Bay Business Times.

East Bay notes that when Wachovia purchased Oakland's Golden
West Financial Corp. in 2006, executives spoke highly of the
California mortgage lender's in-house real estate appraisers.

According to the report, the company's 1,000 appraisers,
characterized as well-trained and thorough, are viewed as a
critical ingredient in Golden West's historically low loan
losses prior to the current nationwide housing decline.

However, the lawsuit says, since the merger closed in late 2006,
Wachovia has mistreated those appraisers, allowing or requiring
them to work overtime without getting paid.

The suit was filed by Annette Peyovich, an appraiser for
Wachovia in Orlando, who is seeking class-action status for her
claims.  Ms. Peyovich began working for World Savings, Golden
West's bank subsidiary, in 2005 as a staff appraiser.  After the
Wachovia (NYSE: WB) acquisition, she was classified as a non-
exempt employee, making her eligible for overtime pay.

Ever since World Savings' appraisers were brought into the
Charlotte bank, however, Wachovia has "routinely suffered and
permitted" Ms. Peyovich and others like her to work more than 40
hours per week without compensating them for the extra work as
required by law, the suit claims.

Ms. Peyovich contends that the company has violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act and that her supervisors, also named in the
suit, retaliated against her when she brought it to their
attention.

As an hourly employee, Ms. Peyovich was required to complete a
weekly timecard after the merger closed.  To avoid overtime pay,
Ms. Wachovia would take steps such as altering the hours
reported by employees and making one-hour deductions for lunch
periods, even when employee lunches were interrupted by work or
not taken at all, the suit claims.

In late 2007, when Ms. Peyovich reported her hours worked,
including numerous overtime hours, she was "chastised, called
inefficient and admonished for reporting her actual hours" by
her supervisor, she alleges.

Ms. Peyovich seeks class-action status on behalf of any
appraisers at the company who have been denied overtime pay.


* Judge Won't Dismiss Money Laundering Charge vs. Milberg Weiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John Walter has refused to dismiss a money
laundering conspiracy charge against law firm Milberg Weiss,
which is accused in taking part in a lucrative kickback scheme,
the Associated Press reports.

According to the AP, Judge Walter found that the law firm was
correctly charged.

Prosecutors say that payments were made to people to act as
plaintiffs in class-action lawsuits targeting some of the
largest corporations in the nation, AP says.

Elizabeth Taylor, Esq., an attorney for the firm, which is now
known as Milberg, argued that the money laundering conspiracy
charge was a separate offense from the alleged kickback scheme.

Meanwhile, four current and former partners of the firm
previously admitted criminal conduct.

A trial on the case is scheduled for Aug. 12, 2008.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

SCHWAB YIELD: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP filed a proposed class-action lawsuit with  
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased Schwab YieldPlus
Fund Select Shares between March 17, 2005, and March 17, 2008,
for claims asserted under Secs. 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Federal Securities Act of 1933.

In the Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Charles Schwab, the
fund's underwriter, and others, misled investors about the
underlying risk in the fund, including its exposure to the sub-
prime mortgage market.  The fund was not well diversified and
instead was concentrated in the mortgage industry.

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

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, Colorado 80203
          Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
          Fax: (303) 395-0393


SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Continues  to Face TX Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson announced the filing of a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas naming Superior Offshore International, Inc.,
several officers of the Company, and underwriters for the IPO.

The complaint charges the defendants with making a series of
materially false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 28,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Eben F. Duval, Esq.
          James F. Conway, III, Esq.
          Johnson & Perkinson
          1690 Williston Road
          P.O. Box 2305
          South Burlington, Vermont 05403
          Toll free: 1-888-459-7855
          e-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.jpclasslaw.com


SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit in AZ
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed with the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Syntax-Brillian Corporation (Nasdaq: BRLC)
pursuant to a May 24, 2007 public offering of approximately
25.6 million shares of its common stock at $5.75 per share.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Syntax-Brillian's business and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Syntax-
Brillian stock.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 7,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215)638-4847
          Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.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  * * *