CAR_Public/080407.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 68
  
                            Headlines

ACE LTD: Policyholders Appeal Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Suit
ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Pa. Securities Suit
AIR PHILIPPINES: Minors in Plane Crash Settlement to Get Annuity
ALBERTSONS LLC: EEOC Launches 2nd Racial Bias Lawsuit
ARKANSAS: Appeal Panel Says Lawyers' Case Belongs in State Court

BELO: Circulation Overstatement Suit Denied Class-Action Status
BRUSH WELLMAN: June 17 Trial Slated for "Marin" Beryllium Case
BRUSH WELLMAN: Responds to Third-Party Complaint Over Beryllium
CALPINE CORP: Calif., N.Y. Courts Yet to OK ERISA Suit Agreement
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Appeals $404.3M Judgment in W.Va. Lawsuit

CIGARETTE MAKERS: Appeals Court Throws Out Smokers' Lawsuit
CIGNA CORP: Conn. Court Ruling in ERISA Case Favors Both Sides
FERRO CORP: Pa. Court Approves $5.5M Antitrust Suit Settlement
GLOBAL HORIZONS: Judge Clears Yakima Valley Growers in Farm Suit
H&R BLOCK: Pa. Sup. Ct. to Again Hear Appeal Over Refund Program

ILLINOIS UNION: Mass. Litigation Over B Quotes Remains Stayed
INVESCO LTD: Reaches $9.8M Settlement in Consolidated M.D. Case
INVESCO LTD: Faces Suit Over Funds Susceptible to Market Timing
NEW YORK: Court Allows Strip-Search Suit vs. Nassau County
OLD DOMINION: Faces Ga. Suit Over LTL Shipment Fuel Surcharges

WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Settles Currency Conversion Fee Case in N.Y.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Settles N.Y. Suit Over American Express Cards
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Still Faces N.Y. Interchange Fee Litigation
WYETH: Still Faces Suit in W.Va Over PREMPRO, PREMARIN Products


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in Florida
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Shareholder Lawsuit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files NY Shareholder Suit
FORCE PROTECTION: Berger & Montague Files S.C. Securities Suit
HUMANA INC: Strauss & Troy Files Shareholder Suit in Kentucky

MF GLOBAL: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates NY Shareholder Suit
PMI GROUP: Schiffrin Barroway Files California Shareholder Suit



                           *********


ACE LTD: Policyholders Appeal Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Policyholders who brought several federal putative nationwide
class action suits against ACE Ltd., ACE INA Holdings, Inc. ACE
USA, and a number of insurers, are appealing to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit the dismissal of several claims
in the matter, according to ACE Ltd.'s Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
policyholders' cases for coordinated proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey

On Aug. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs in the New Jersey consolidated
proceedings filed two consolidated amended complaints, one
concerning commercial insurance and the other concerning
employee benefit plans.

The employee benefit plans litigation against ACE has been
dismissed subsequently.

In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE,
ACE INA Holdings, ACE USA, ACE American Insurance Co., Illinois
Union Insurance Co., and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North
America.  They allege that certain brokers and insurers,
including certain ACE entities, conspired to increase premiums
and allocate customers through the use of "B" quotes and
contingent commissions.  In addition, the complaints allege that
the broker defendants received additional income by improperly
placing their clients' business with insurers through related
wholesale entities that acted as intermediaries between the
broker and insurer.

The plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the
purchase of primary insurance to the placement of such coverage
with reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants'
reinsurance broker subsidiaries.  

The complaint asserts the following causes of action against
ACE: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, federal
antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting breach
of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

On Nov. 29, 2005, ACE and other property and casualty insurer
defendants filed motions to dismiss the commercial insurance
complaint.

On Feb. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed motions to certify a
class in the commercial insurance case (this motion has been
fully briefed and is pending).

On Oct. 3, 2006, the Court ruled on the defendants' motions and
held that the McCarran Ferguson Act did not apply as a defense
to the allegations, but the Court also held that plaintiffs had
not adequately alleged an antitrust conspiracy or a RICO
enterprise and directed plaintiffs to submit supplemental
pleadings.

The plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings on Oct. 25,
2006.  On Nov. 30, 2006, the defendants filed a renewed motion
to dismiss.

On April 5, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' renewed
motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint without
prejudice for failure to state a claim under either the Sherman
Act or the RICO statutes.  The Court, however, permitted the
plaintiffs one final opportunity to re-plead and an amended
complaint was filed on May 22, 2007.  

The amended complaint purported to add several new ACE
defendants: ACE Group Holdings, Inc., ACE US Holdings, Inc.,
Westchester Fire Insurance Co., INA Corp., INA Financial Corp.,
INA Holdings Corp., ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Co., and
Pacific Employers Insurance Co.  

The plaintiffs also added a new antitrust claim against Marsh
& McLennan Cos. Inc., ACE, and other insurers based on the same
allegations as the other claims but limited to excess casualty
insurance.

At the defendants' request, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
antitrust and RICO claims with prejudice on Aug. 31, 2007, and
Sept. 28, 2007, respectively.  Furthermore, the Court declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state
law claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

On Oct. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the
antitrust and RICO rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.  

The plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals on Feb. 19, 2008.

ACE, Ltd. -- http://www.acelimited.com/AceLimitedRoot/-- is a   
Bermuda-based holding company.  ACE and its direct and indirect
subsidiaries are a global property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance organization, servicing the insurance needs of
commercial and individual customers in more than 140 countries
and jurisdictions.  The company operates through four business
segments: Insurance-North American, Insurance-Overseas General,
Global Reinsurance, and Life Insurance and Reinsurance.


ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Pa. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
fraud class action suit against ACE, Ltd.

ACE was named in four putative securities class actions on
Oct. 14, 2004, following the filing of a civil suit against
Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. by New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer.   Mr. Spitzer charged the insurance brokerage arm of
Marsh & McLennan with price fixing and collusion.   

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
four suits with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  The court appointed as lead plaintiffs Sheet
Metal Workers' National Pension Fund and Alaska Ironworkers
Pension Trust.  The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on Sept. 30, 2005, naming the company, Evan G.
Greenberg, Brian Duperreault, and Philip V. Bancroft as
defendants.  

The plaintiffs assert claims solely under Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Act (control
person liability).  They also allege that the company public
statements and securities filings should have revealed that
insurers, including certain company entities and brokers,
allegedly conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers
through the use of "B" quotes and contingent commissions and
that the company's revenues and earnings were inflated by these
practices.

On Oct. 28, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities actions.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately
alleged any actionable misrepresentations under the securities
laws, and that defendants could not be held liable for any
failures to disclose information.  

The defendants also argued that the individual defendants could
not be held liable for statements they did not make that the
plaintiffs had not adequately pled scienter, and that the
plaintiffs had not adequately pled loss causation.  

The plaintiffs filed a response and the motion to dismiss
remains pending.  

ACE Ltd. reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 28,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re Ace Limited Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-md-01675-TJS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Timothy J. Savage
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tor Gronborg, Esq. (torg@lerachlaw.com)
         Udoka Nwanna, Esq. (udokan@lerachlaw.com)
         Debra J. Wyman, Esq. (debraw@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         401 B Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058


AIR PHILIPPINES: Minors in Plane Crash Settlement to Get Annuity
----------------------------------------------------------------
The minor survivors of passengers who died in an Air Philippine
Flight 541 flight are set receive their benefits when they turn
21 years old, Joseph G. Lariosa writes for the Asian Journal.

David J. Gubbins, Esq., guardian ad litem (legal guardian), told
Mr. Lariosa that the 30 minors, who will benefit from the
$165-million court-supervised settlement, will get the
compensation in annuity.  This means the compensation will be
released to them in lump sum or once a year until they reach the
age of 30 or for the next nine years.  "This is tax-free," he
said.

However, Mr. Gubbins said that if these minors would need the
compensation for emergency, such as for education and medical
expenses, he will petition the court about the need and the
court will make a ruling whether to grant the request or not.

Asian Journal says that the minor beneficiaries are survivors of
those relatives, who were among the 131 passengers and crews,
who died in the crash of Air Philippines Flight 541 off the
hilly Samal Island near Davao City about eight years ago.  A
minor will receive approximately $1.5 million each, less the
attorney's fees of around 30%.  The 21 other survivors, who did
not join the class action suit of the 110, opted to receive
$20,000 to $25,000 offered by Air Philippines to settle court
action shortly after the plane crash, the report notes.


ALBERTSONS LLC: EEOC Launches 2nd Racial Bias Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a
second lawsuit against the Albertsons LLC grocery chain for
racial bias at its Aurora distribution center, according to The
Denver Post.

The suit, filed on March 28, 2008, with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado, claims that Albertsons
intentionally retaliated against employees who opposed
discriminatory practices.  The EEOC asserts that Albertsons
denied workers medical care; rejected promotions and transfers;
and taunted, disciplined and terminated employees who spoke out,
among other practices.

The class action suit names 22 claimants and more could be
added, EEOC trial attorney Andrew Winston, Esq., told Denver
Post.  "We have seen a marked increase in the number of
retaliation complaints," he said.

The report relates that the recent lawsuit follows the EEOC's
first one against Albertsons, filed in 2006, which alleged
racial and ethnic harassment at the Aurora distribution center.
The 2006 suit said that black and Latino workers were given less
desirable jobs than their colleagues and said Albertsons did not
respond to racist drawings and racial slurs around the
distribution center.

Albertsons spokeswoman Christine Wilcox told Denver Post that
the company does not comment on pending legislation.


ARKANSAS: Appeal Panel Says Lawyers' Case Belongs in State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the 8th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
St. Louis has affirmed a special judge's decision to remand to
state court a case in which Little Rock lawyers R. S. McCullough
and Darrell Brown Sr. are challenging their disciplinary
hearings, Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports.

The panel said that U.S. District Judge David S. Doty of
Minnesota was right to send the case back to state court because
the plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that their civil
rights would be denied or unenforceable in state court.

The report recounts taht Judge Doty was appointed to the federal
case after all U.S. district judges in Arkansas recused Mr.
McCullough is awaiting a special master's determination as to
whether he will be disbarred for violating professional rules
such as failing to file timely responses to court documents,
failing to appear for court hearings, failing to pay unused
portions of legal fees and failing to keep $ 100, 000 paid to a
client from Medicare separate from his own property.

Mr. Brown was disbarred on March 8, 2007, after he failed to
challenge allegations of "serious misconduct," including that he
converted or misappropriated funds from clients.  

Mr. McCullough and Mr. Brown, who are both black, claimed in
federal court that racial discrimination permeates the Arkansas
Committee on Professional Conduct, which is behind the
disbarment actions, the report notes.

Before Judge Doty remanded their federal allegations to state
court, Mr. McCullough and Mr. Brown asked that the case be
granted class-action status so they could represent all Arkansas
lawyers who were subject to maltreatment by the committee.  They
alleged that the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which the
committee found that they violated, violate due-process and
equal-protection laws.


BELO: Circulation Overstatement Suit Denied Class-Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sidney Fitzwater has denied class-action certification in
a 2004 shareholder lawsuit against Belo Corp. over a circulation
overstatement at The Dallas Morning News, Brendan Case writes
for the newspaper.

According to the report, Judge Fitzwater's ruling amounts to
good news for the Dallas-based media company.  

"We are gratified by the court's decision," Russ Coleman, Esq.,
Belo's general counsel, said.  "Although we recognize that the
lead plaintiff may appeal or seek to reverse the decision in
further proceedings, we intend to defend against any such
actions vigorously."

The report relates that the plaintiff, a union pension fund
based in Pittsburgh -- Operating Engineers Construction Industry
and Miscellaneous Pension Fund (Local 66) -- could ask the judge
to reconsider his opinion or appeal the ruling to a higher
court.

A law firm representing the lead plaintiff vowed to fight on.

"Because the scheme to intentionally overstate circulation
figures allowed the defendants to fraudulently extract higher
incentive payments from advertisers, as well as defraud
investors by artificially inflating the stock value, we will
continue our vigorous pursuit of justice on behalf of victimized
investors," Dan Newman, a spokesman for the law firm, San Diego-
based Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, said.

The report recounts that on Aug. 5, 2004, Belo said a voluntary
internal investigation had found that its largest newspaper had
been overstating the number of papers it was selling.  
Correcting for the overstatement would cause the newspaper's
circulation to fall by 1.5% during the week and by 5% on the
next Sunday, Belo said at the time.

Circulation would decline further because of two other causes,
the company had said.  One was a change in the methodology The
News used to calculate its statewide circulation, the other was
a lower circulation volume, part of a nationwide trend of lower
readership of newspapers.  All told, the newspaper's circulation
would decline by 5% during the week and 11.5% on Sunday, Belo
said.

The next day, Belo's stock fell 7% in heavy trading volume.

In his recent ruling, Judge Fitzwater determined that the lead
plaintiff had failed to show that its losses were due solely to
Belo's announcement of the circulation overstatement, as opposed
to other causes of The News' circulation declines that Belo also
detailed on Aug. 5, 2004.

Belo owns 20 television stations including WFAA-TV (Channel 8).
The company spun off The News and its other newspapers earlier
this year to A.H. Belo Corporation, which also owns The Press-
Enterprise of Riverside, Calif., The Providence (R.I.) Journal
and the Denton Record-Chronicle.


BRUSH WELLMAN: June 17 Trial Slated for "Marin" Beryllium Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 17, 2008 trial is slated for a purported class action
suit in California over the hazards of beryllium that names
Brush Wellman, Inc., a subsidiary of Brush Engineered Materials,
Inc., as one of the defendants.

The suit is "Marin et al. v. Brushman Wellman Inc., Case No.
BC299055."  It was filed with the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County on July 15, 2003.  

The named plaintiffs in the suit are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin,
Garfield Perry and Susan Perry.  The defendants are:

     -- Brush Wellman,

     -- Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc., and

     -- Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

A first amended complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 2004, naming
five additional plaintiffs.  The five additional named
plaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion,
James Jones and John Kesselring.  

The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to
beryllium while employed at the Boeing Co.  The plaintiffs'
wives claim loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately
250 members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing
or its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other
consisting of their spouses.

They have brought claims for negligence, strict liability --
design defect, strict liability -- failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, breach of implied warranties, and unfair business
practices.

The suit seeks injunctive relief, medical monitoring, medical
and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees and
costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and
punitive damages.

Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and
Kesselring represent current and past employees of Boeing in
California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses.  Defendant
Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. was dismissed on May 5, 2005.

The case is set for trial on June 17, 2008, 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.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--  
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.

    
BRUSH WELLMAN: Responds to Third-Party Complaint Over Beryllium
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman, Inc., a subsidiary of Brush Engineered Materials,
Inc., filed its responses to an amended third-party complaint in
a purported class action with regards to the hazards of
beryllium-containing products.

The matter, "Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. d/b/a
Small Tube Products Corp., Inc., et al., Case No. 000525" is a
purported class action, which Brush Wellman faces in relation to
beryllium.   It was filed with the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on Sept. 7, 2006.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under Case No. 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4,
2006.

The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony.  The defendants are:

      -- Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., d/b/a Small Tube
         Products Corp., Inc.;

      -- Admiral Metals Inc.;

      -- Tube Methods, Inc.; and

      -- Cabot Corp.

The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville,
Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a
period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge.

The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence. He seeks the
establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost of
publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical
screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint
against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006.   
Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing
products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those
products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for
indemnification and contribution.

The company moved to dismiss the Tube Methods complaint on
Dec. 22, 2006.  On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube Methods filed an amended
third-party complaint, which Brush again sought to dismiss.   
The Court denied the dismissal motion on Sept. 28, 2007.

Brush filed its answer to the amended third-party complaint on
Oct. 19, 2007, 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.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--  
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.


CALPINE CORP: Calif., N.Y. Courts Yet to OK ERISA Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York have yet to approve the proposed settlement in the
purported class action "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation,
Master File No. C 03-1685 SBA."

Two nearly identical class action complaints against Calpine
alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act were filed:

       -- "Phelps v. Calpine Corporation, et al.;" and

       -- "Lenette Poor-Herena v. Calpine Corporation et al."

These suits were later consolidated with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the caption, "In
re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. C 03-1685
SBA."

The consolidated complaint, which names as defendants Calpine,
the members of Calpine's Board of Directors, the 401(k) Plan's
Advisory Committee and its members, signatories of the 401(k)
Plan's Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan Forms 5500
for 2001 and 2002, an employee of a consulting firm hired by the
401(k) Plan, and unidentified fiduciary defendants, alleged
claims under ERISA on behalf of the participants in the 401(k)
Plan from Jan. 5, 2001, to the present who invested in the
Calpine unitized stock fund.

The consolidated complaint alleged that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by permitting participants to
buy and hold interests in the Calpine unitized stock fund.

All claims were dismissed with prejudice by the Northern
District Court.  The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the
U.S. Court fo Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  However, as a
result of Calpine's Chapter 11 filings, the appeal was
automatically stayed with respect to the company.

In addition, Calpine filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court to extend the automatic stay to the individual defendants.  

The plaintiff opposed the motion and a hearing was scheduled for
June 5, 2006; however, prior to the hearing, the parties
stipulated to allow the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals to proceed.

If the Northern District Court ruling is reversed, the plaintiff
may then seek leave from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to proceed
with the action.

The plaintiff's opening brief was filed with the Ninth Circuit
on Nov. 6, 2006.  Further briefing on the appeal was then stayed
pending completion of the parties' participation in the Ninth
Circuit's alternative dispute resolution program.

On March 21, 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the claims of the plaintiff and the purported class in
return for a payment of $4 million by Calpine's fiduciary
insurance carrier, the net proceeds of which will ultimately be
deposited into individual plan members' accounts.

The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court and the Northern District Court, according to Calpine
Corp.'s Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File
No. C 03-1685 SBA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. (eciolko@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

          Robert S. Green, Esq. (RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM)
          Green Welling LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-477-6700
          Fax: 415-477-6710

               - and -

          Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq. (jigarjianlaw@gmail.com)
          Jigarjian Law Office
          128 Tunstead Avenue
          San Anselmo, CA 94960
          Phone: 415-341-6660

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert Leonard McKague, Esq.
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          755 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650/813-5600
          Fax: 650-494-0792


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Appeals $404.3M Judgment in W.Va. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., a unit of Chesapeake Energy
Corp., along with several other defendants in the purported
class action captioned "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural
Resources, Inc.," are appealing to the West Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals a $404.3-million judgment handed down by a West
Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County jury in the matter.

In the matter, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," Chesapeake Appalachia, formerly known as Columbia Natural
Resources, LLC, is a defendant.  The class action was filed with
the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia in 2003 by
royalty owners, who allege that Columbia Natural underpaid
royalties by improperly deducting post-production costs, failing
to pay royalty on total volumes of natural gas produced and not
paying a fair value for the natural gas produced from their
leases.

The plaintiff class consists of West Virginia royalty owners
receiving royalties after July 31, 1990, from Columbia Natural.  
Chesapeake acquired Columbia Natural in November 2005, and the
seller acquired Columbia Natural in 2003 from NiSource, Inc.  

NiSource, a co-defendant in the case, has managed the litigation
and indemnified Chesapeake against underpayment claims based on
the use of fixed prices for natural gas production sold under
certain forward sale contracts and other claims with respect to
Columbia Natural's operations prior to September 2003.

On Jan. 27, 2007, the Circuit Court jury returned a verdict
against the defendants of $404 million, consisting of
$134 million in compensatory damages and $270 million in
punitive damages.

Most of the damages awarded by the jury relate to issues not yet
addressed by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,
although in June 2006 that Court ruled against the defendants on
two certified questions regarding the deductibility of post-
production expenses.

The jury found fraudulent conduct by the defendants with respect
to the sales prices used to calculate royalty payments and with
respect to the failure of CNR to disclose post-production
deductions.

On June 28, 2007, the Circuit Court sustained the jury verdict
for punitive damages, and on Sept. 27, 2007, it denied all post-
trial motions, including the defendants' motion for judgment as
a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial.

On Dec. 5, 2007, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to stay the judgment pending appeal
conditioned upon filing an irrevocable letter of credit in the
amount of $50 million.  

The irrevocable letter of credit was filed Jan. 4, 2008.  On
Jan. 24, 2008, the defendants filed a Petition for Appeal with
the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, according to
Chesapeake'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 "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed with the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane
County, Judge Thomas Evans III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:
       
         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St.
         P.O. Box 1791         
         Charleston, West Virginia 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


CIGARETTE MAKERS: Appeals Court Throws Out Smokers' Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan has thrown
out a class action lawsuit on behalf of anyone who ever smoked a
"light" cigarette, the New York Sun reports.

According to NY Sun, the lawsuit had sought $800 billion in
damages on behalf of 50 million smokers.

NY Sun relates that a three-judge appellate panel halted the
lawsuit on April 3 by reversing a district judge's decision to
certify a class of "light" cigarette smokers who could pursue
several tobacco companies collectively.

The Associated Press recounts that the case against the
cigarette makers was first filed in 2004.  The three-judge panel
knocked down U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein's 2006 ruling in
Brooklyn that granted the class-action status.

According to The New York Times, Judge Weinstein's ruling
represented the first time that a so-called lights case received
class-action certification in federal court.  At the time, the
ruling was viewed as potentially opening the door to a major
legal threat against the industry, exposing cigarette companies
to large damages for their marketing of light cigarettes.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs had claimed that cigarette
manufactures -- including the American Tobacco Co., Altria
Group, Philip Morris USA Inc., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Liggett
Group Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. -- deceived them into
believing that "light" cigarettes, which have been advertised as
providing less nicotine and tar, were less unhealthy than other
cigarettes.  The plaintiffs allege that smokers who enjoy
"light" cigarettes unknowingly end up receiving just as much tar
and nicotine because they inhale more frequently or smoke more
cigarettes to compensate.

AP notes that the defendants had preferred trying each case on
its own, saying circumstances for each smoker vary widely.

NY Sun says that the appeals court found it was possible that
smokers of "lights" had chosen them for reasons other than the
alleged health benefits.  The decision, written by Judge John
Walker, noted that some smokers may have "preferred the taste of
Lights, or chose Lights as an expression of personal style."  
The existence of smokers who chose "light" cigarettes for those
other reasons means that there can be no single class action,
the decision stated.

The 2nd Circuit's ruling requires each individual plaintiff to
prove that he or she had picked the product because of the
perceived health benefits.  While that requirement does not end
the prospect of individual lawsuits based on "light" cigarettes,
it does end the possibility of a class action, according to NY
Sun.

If the case had been allowed, it would have become the largest
class action in American history, Theodore M. Grossman, Esq., of
Jones Day, a lawyer for the tobacco companies, said.

Mr. Grossman said that the number of plaintiffs in the proposed
class and the amount of money being sought was "astronomical"
and "unprecedented in American jurisprudence."

The lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, Michael Hausfeld, Esq., told
NY Sun that individual plaintiffs would push forward with their
claims with the district court in Brooklyn, before Judge
Weinstein.  He said there were several class actions on behalf
of "light" cigarette smokers in state courts that were pending.

"It's far from over," Mr. Hausfeld, of the firm Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, said.


CIGNA CORP: Conn. Court Ruling in ERISA Case Favors Both Sides
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a
decision finding in favor of CIGNA Corp. and the CIGNA Pension
Plan on the age discrimination and wear away claims and finding
in favor of the plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure
claims with regards to a purported class action filed against
CIGNA over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Dec. 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed the suit against the
company and the CIGNA Pension Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the CIGNA Pension Plan
who earned certain Plan benefits prior to 1998.  

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that:

      -- the Plan violated ERISA by impermissibly conditioning
         certain post-1997 benefit accruals on the amount of
         pre-1998 benefit accruals that these conditions are not
         adequately disclosed to plan participants; and

      -- the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against
         older employees.  

The plaintiffs were granted class certification on Dec. 20,
2002.  They seek equitable relief.

A non-jury trial began on Sept. 11-15, 2006.  Due to the court's
schedule, the proceedings were adjourned and then the trial was
completed on Jan. 25, 2007.

On Feb. 15, 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor
of CIGNA Corp. and the CIGNA Pension Plan on the age
discrimination and wear away claims and finding in favor of the
plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims.  

The court has ordered the parties to file simultaneous briefs on
March 17, 2008 regarding the relief, if any, to be awarded to
the plaintiffs on the claims on which the plaintiffs prevailed,
and to file responsive briefs on March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Amara v. CIGNA Corp., et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-
02361-MRK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, Judge Mark R. Kravitz presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. (stephen.bruce@prodigy.net)
         805 15th St., NW Suite 210
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-289-1117
         Fax: 202-371-0121

              - and -

         Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq. (tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com)
         Moukawsher & Walsh
         Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209
         Hartford, CT 06106
         Phone: 860-278-7000
         Fax: 860-548-1740

Representing the defendants are:

         Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq. (bbabbitt@rc.com)
         Robinson & Cole
         280 Trumbull St.
         Hartford, CT 06103-3597
         Phone: 860-275-8209
         Fax: 860-275-8299

              - and -

         Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq.
         (jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
         1701 Market St.
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
         Phone: 215-963-5258
         Fax: 215-963-5001


FERRO CORP: Pa. Court Approves $5.5M Antitrust Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
approved a proposed $5,500,000 settlement by Ferro Corp. in the
matter, "In Re Plastic Additives Antitrust Litigation, Master
Docket No. 03-CV2038 and MDL Docket No. 1684."

                        Case Background

The case is a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of
plastics additives (including, but not limited to, impact
modifiers, heat stabilizers, and processing aids) between
Jan. 1, 1990, and Jan. 31, 2003 (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 21, 2007).

Plastics additives are added to plastic resins in order to
enhance the quality of those resins.  Among the principal
plastics additives are heat stabilizers, impact modifiers, and
processing aids.

Heat stabilizers are used to protect resins from thermal
degradation and to enhance the flexibility and stability of the
end product.

Impact modifiers are used to improve the resistance of the
finished plastics products to stress and improve the strength of
plastics.  

Impact modifiers also reduce the weathering, chemical
resistance, tensile strength, and stress rupture of plastic
compounds.

Processing aids are chemicals that enable plastics to be
processed at lower temperatures thereby eliminating heat
degradation and ensuring quality, as well as providing greater
control over the flow of melted plastic.

The plaintiffs allege a nationwide and worldwide conspiracy
among 16 companies to fix prices of plastics additives in order
to raise, maintain, or stabilize prices for plastics additives
above the level where they otherwise would have been in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy began in or around
Jan. 1, 1990, and ended around Jan. 31, 2003, when it was
announced that these companies were being investigated by U.S.,
European, and Japanese law enforcement and antitrust
investigators for participating in an international cartel to
fix the prices of plastics additives.

The suit sought to recover, among other things, treble damages
on behalf of itself and others who purchased plastics additives
from the defendants and others during the class period.

                           Settlement

In 2007, the company entered into a verbal agreement with
regards to the case.  A definitive written settlement agreement
was reached in July 2007 that amounted to $5,500,000.  

The settlement agreement was approved by the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in December 2007,
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.

For more details, contact:

         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
         805 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 1-800-290-1952
                212-687-1980
         Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/

         Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.
         One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-238-1700
         Fax: 215-238-1968
         e-Mail: info@kohnswift.com
         Web site: http://www.kohnswift.com/

         Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP
         Phone: 800-778-1822,
         e-mail: info@gbcslaw.com
         Web site: http://gbcslaw.com

              - and -

         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         150 East 52nd Street, Thirtieth Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 838-7797
         Fax: (212) 838-7745
         Web site: http://www.cmht.com


GLOBAL HORIZONS: Judge Clears Yakima Valley Growers in Farm Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Robert Whaley has cleared two Yakima Valley
growers of liability in a racial discrimination case filed by
local Latino workers who claimed they were displaced by laborers
brought in from Thailand, the Associated Press reports.

However, Judge Whaley upheld a jury's verdict from September
2007 that found labor contractor -- Global Horizons Inc. -- who
brought in the workers, did discriminate against them.

AP recounts that the Latino farm workers contend that Global
Horizons violated the Farm Labor Contractors Act by failing to
provide jobs promised to local workers.  They also said the
company discriminated against local workers based on race by
failing to hire them or by firing them and replacing them with
workers brought from Thailand under the federal H-2A guest-
worker program in 2004.

The program, AP explains, allows growers to import foreign farm
workers based on a showing that the local labor force was
inadequate.

A jury had agreed with the farm workers, awarding $317,000 in
damages for discriminating against workers and violating federal
labor laws.  AP recalls that the case was previously certified
as a class action, qualifying an estimated 600 workers for any
damages.

According to AP, Global Horizons, based in Los Angeles, had
sought a jury trial, while the two Yakima Valley growers --
Green Acre Farms of Harrah and Valley Fruit of Wapato -- had
their case heard directly by Judge Whaley.

Judge Whaley ruled in Green Acre and Valley Fruit's favor on
March 27, 2008, but upheld the jury ruling against Global
Horizons.

Still to be decided are damage amounts for individual
plaintiffs.

In a press release posted on its Web site, Global Horizons
congratulated the two growers, but expressed dissatisfaction
with the judge's decision to uphold the jury verdict.  The
company said it was considering an appeal.


H&R BLOCK: Pa. Sup. Ct. to Again Hear Appeal Over Refund Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will once again hear an appeal in
a class action suit filed in 1993 over the way H&R Block worked
its rapid refund program, Gina Passarella writes for The Legal
Intelligencer.

The court granted allocatur in "Basile v. H&R Block Inc.,"
limiting the grant to two main issues.  The justices will decide
whether the Superior Court misapplied the aggrieved party
doctrine by requiring H&R Block to cross-appeal from an earlier
class certification order despite the fact that summary judgment
was later entered in the company's favor.

The court will also examine whether the Superior Court erred in
rejecting the trial court's ruling that H&R Block's claims could
be tried on a classwide basis.

Legal Intelligencer recounts that in June 2007, an en banc panel
of the Superior Court led by Judge John L. Musmanno recognized
that Rules 501 and 511 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure allow a nonaggrieved party -- in this case H&R Block
-- to file a cross-appeal to ensure certain issues are preserved
in the event the matter is reversed by an appellate court. Judge
Musmanno found, however, that H&R Block did not file its motion
to decertify the class in a timely manner.

The panel was hearing the case on remand from the Supreme Court
with the instructions to look at how Rules 501 and 511, as well
as Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1710(d) and two
footnotes in prior case law, apply to "Basile."

The court went against H&R Block, ruling its motion for class
certification was untimely under all of the points the panel was
told by the Supreme Court to examine.

According to Judge Musmanno's opinion, the trial court granted
in January 1996 an order in Sandra Basile's favor to assume the
existence of an agency relationship in considering whether to
certify the class.  In May 1997, the class was certified.

The different court panels agreed, according to the opinion,
that H&R Block could not have appealed those interlocutory
orders until they became appealable when the court granted
summary judgment in H&R Block's favor in December 1997.

At that time, H&R Block did file a cross-appeal but only of the
January 1996 order and not of the May 1997 order certifying the
class, according to the opinion.

"Accordingly, at that time, [H&R Block] should have also
challenged the May 1997 order granting class certification in
their cross-appeal," Judge Musmanno said.  "To permit otherwise
would allow piecemeal litigation of appellate issues."

A motion to decertify the class was not filed until some time in
late 2003 and was granted in January 2004, Judge Musmanno said.

A prior en banc panel of the Superior Court, in 2006, reversed
the decertification, ruling it was improperly made after the
court ruled on the merits of the case in its summary judgment
order, according to the opinion.

Superior Court Judge Maureen Lally-Green wrote a dissenting
opinion that was joined by Judge Joan Orie Melvin.

She said she recognized an appealable order generally subsumes
any prior interlocutory orders in a case.

"However, this simply means that the losing party may challenge
the final adverse order, as well as any prior nonfinal orders
that were also adverse to the losing party," Judge Lally-Green
said.  "It does not mean that even the winning party must file a
protective cross-appeal, under penalty of waiver, simply because
the trial court may have at one point ruled against the winning
party before later granting a complete victory."

Judge Lally-Green also said she thought the motion to decertify
was timely because the merits of the case hadn't been decided.
There was still another claim existing outside of the summary
judgment order filed in H&R Block's favor, she said.

According to opinions filed in the case, Sandra Basile had
claimed in her 1993 complaint that the "rapid refunds" Block had
promised her when she hired them to prepare her tax returns in
the early 1990s were actually short-term, high-interest loans.

A class was certified as to Basile's breach of fiduciary duty
claim in 1997.  Several months later, however, Philadelphia
Common Pleas Senior Judge Stephen E. Levin ruled in favor of a
Block motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, a 1999 Superior Court panel reversed Judge Levin's
decision as to summary judgment.

But in 2000, the state Supreme Court concluded it had not been
proved that H&R Block had been acting as the plaintiffs' agent
for the purposes of the transactions in question, but sent the
case back down for resolution of other challenges to the
plaintiffs' claims.

On remand, a Superior Court panel found in 2001 that the class
members had presented prima facie evidence of a confidential
relationship between themselves and Block and remanded back down
to Levin for further proceedings on that issue.  It was at this
point in the case that Judge Levin allowed h&R Block to file a
decertification motion, which he granted in January 2004.

In December 2004, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court
affirmed.

In March 2006, an en banc panel of the Superior Court had ruled
6-3 that Judge Levin should not have decertified the class in
Basile since the defense did not challenge the original class
certification order immediately after summary judgment
proceedings in the case caused that order's status to shift from
interlocutory to appealable.

In granting H&R Block's appeal of the March 2006 ruling, the
Supreme Court vacated the order, in essence decertifying the
class.  The Superior Court, in the June 2007 opinion, once again
reversed the trial court's order decertifying the class.

William H. Lamb, Esq., of Lamb McErlane in West Chester, Pa.,
and a former interim justice of the state Supreme Court
represented H&R Block along with the firm's appellate team.  He
said the entire team is delighted the court decided to accept
the appeal once again.

"Our group takes this as a significant step in the right
direction," Mr. Lamb said, adding the issue of cross-appeals and
nonaggrieved parties is a very important one.  He also said this
decision is "the test" and will affect several other cases
across the commonwealth.

Steven E. Angstreich, Esq., of Levy Angstreich Finney Baldante
Rubenstein & Coren of Philadelphia represented Basile.  He was
unavailable for comment by press time.


ILLINOIS UNION: Mass. Litigation Over B Quotes Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The state court class action, "Van Emden Management Corp. v.
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., et al.," which names Illinois Union
Insurance Co., a subsidiary of ACE Ltd., as defendant, remains
stayed, pending resolution of a consolidated proceeding in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The suit is Case No. 05-0066A, filed with the Superior Court of
Massachusetts on Jan. 13, 2005.  The allegations in this case
are similar to the allegations in a consolidated class action
pending against ACE, ACE INA Holdings, Inc., and ACE USA, Inc.,
in the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiffs allege that insurers, including certain ACE
entities, and brokers conspired to increase premiums and
allocate customers through the use of "B" quotes and contingent
commissions.  

In addition, the complaints allege that the broker defendants
received additional income by improperly placing their clients'
business with insurers through related wholesale entities that
act as intermediaries between the broker and insurer.

The plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the
purchase of primary insurance with the placement of such
coverage with reinsurance carriers through the broker
defendants' reinsurance broker subsidiaries.  

In the commercial insurance consolidated complaint, plaintiffs
assert these causes of action against ACE: Federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, federal antitrust law,
state antitrust law, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Van Emden case has been stayed pending resolution of the
consolidated proceedings in the District of New Jersey or until
further order of the court

ACE Ltd. reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 28,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

ACE, Ltd. -- http://www.acelimited.com/AceLimitedRoot/-- is a   
Bermuda-based holding company.  ACE and its direct and indirect
subsidiaries are a global property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance organization, servicing the insurance needs of
commercial and individual customers in more than 140 countries
and jurisdictions.  The company operates through four business
segments: Insurance-North American, Insurance-Overseas General,
Global Reinsurance, and Life Insurance and Reinsurance.


INVESCO LTD: Reaches $9.8M Settlement in Consolidated M.D. Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Invesco Ltd. settled for $9.8 million a putative shareholder
class action complaint and a derivative complaint that were
filed against it in a consolidated lawsuit pending with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, 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.

Following the industry-wide regulatory investigations, multiple
lawsuits based on market timing allegations were filed against
various parties affiliated with Invesco.

These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland, together with market timing lawsuits
brought against affiliates of other mutual fund companies, and
on Sept. 29, 2004, three amended complaints were filed against
company-affiliated parties:

       -- a putative shareholder class action complaint brought
          on behalf of shareholders of AIM funds formerly
          advised by INVESCO Funds Group, Inc.;

       -- a derivative complaint purportedly brought on behalf
          of certain AIM funds and the shareholders of such
          funds; and

       -- an ERISA complaint purportedly brought on behalf of
          participants in the company's 401(k) plan.  

On Sept. 15, 2006, the court dismissed the ERISA lawsuit with
prejudice.  The plaintiff has appealed that dismissal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  Oral argument was
held on Dec. 5, 2007.  

The company and the plaintiffs have reached a settlement in
principle of the shareholder class action and derivative
lawsuits.

The proposed settlement, which is subject to court approval,
calls for a payment by the company of $9.8 million, recorded in
general and administrative costs in the 2007 Consolidated
Statement of Income, in exchange for dismissal with prejudice of
all pending claims.

In addition, under the terms of the proposed settlement the
company may incur certain costs in connection with providing
notice of the proposed settlement to affected shareholders.

Invesco Ltd. -- http://www.invesco.com/-- is an independent  
global investment management company.  The Company's worldwide
investment management capabilities include AIM, Atlantic Trust,
Invesco, Perpetual, PowerShares, Trimark and WL Ross.  Invesco
provides an array of enduring solutions for retail,
institutional and high-net-worth clients around the world.


INVESCO LTD: Faces Suit Over Funds Susceptible to Market Timing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Invesco Ltd., and company-affiliated parties were named as
defendants in an Illinois lawsuit alleging that one or more of
the company's funds inadequately employed fair value pricing,
and thereby made such funds more susceptible to market timing,
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 lawsuit is a purported class action seeking unspecified
monetary damages.  It is now pending in the State court in
Madison County, Illinois after a series of removals to the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois and remands
back to the State Court.

Invesco Ltd. -- http://www.invesco.com/-- is an independent  
global investment management company.  The Company's worldwide
investment management capabilities include AIM, Atlantic Trust,
Invesco, Perpetual, PowerShares, Trimark and WL Ross.  Invesco
provides an array of enduring solutions for retail,
institutional and high-net-worth clients around the world.


NEW YORK: Court Allows Strip-Search Suit vs. Nassau County
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Denis Hurley ruled that a class-action
lawsuit against Nassau County in New York could go forward in
its attempt to gain damages for alleged unfair strip searches
conducted by county authorities, United Press International
reports, citing Newsday.

Robert L. Herbst, Esq., who represents the more than 23,000
plaintiffs in the suit, said that his clients were subjected to
unfair searches between 1996 and 1999.

"All these years have subjected people with misdemeanors to this
disgusting procedure for no reason," Mr. Herbst told UPI.  
"There are now only two possibilities -- we either go on to
trial or we settle the case," he added.

UPI says that Judge Hurley's ruling on the case, which has also
been granted class-action status by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, could prompt additional litigation.  The report
relates that the recent ruling has made it possible for
thousands of people to file lawsuits for being strip-searched in
Nassau County.


OLD DOMINION: Faces Ga. Suit Over LTL Shipment Fuel Surcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., and other less-than-truckload
carriers are facing a consolidated class action suit pending
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, which accuses it and other LTLs of conspiring
throughout four years or more to fix fuel surcharges on LTL
shipments.

On July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. d/b/a  
Water Tech, and C.B.J.T. d/b/a Agricultural Supply, on behalf of   
themselves and other plaintiffs, filed the putative class action  
lawsuit against the Company and other companies engaged in the
LTL trucking business with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5,
2007).  

The other named defendants in the complaint are:

          1. Arkansas Best Corp.,
          2. Averitt Express,   
          3. Con-Way, Inc.,
          4. Fedex Corp.,
          5. Jevic Transportation, Inc.,   
          6. Sun Capital Partners IV, LLC,   
          7. New England Motor Freight, Inc.,   
          8. R+L Carriers, Inc.,   
          9. Saia, Inc.,   
         10. United Parcel Service, Inc.,   
         11. YRC Worldwide Inc.,   
         12. Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc.

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

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

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

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

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

     (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy;

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

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

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

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

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

The plaintiffs pray that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subsequent to this original complaint, similar complaints have
been filed against the defendants and other LTL motor carriers,
each with the same allegation of conspiracy to fix fuel
surcharge rates.

On Dec. 20, 2007, these cases were consolidated with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and are now
in the process of being transferred to that court, 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.

Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. -- http://www.odfl.com/-- is a  
less-than-truckload (LTL) multi-regional motor carrier providing
timely one- to five-day service among five regions in the United
States, and next-day and second-day service within these
regions.  The Company offers its products and services through
four branded product groups: OD-Domestic, OD-Expedited, OD-
Global and OD-Technology.  


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Settles Currency Conversion Fee Case in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual, Inc., along with other defendants, reached a
$336-million settlement in the matter, "In re Currency
Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1409 (S.D.N.Y.)," which
is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In and around February 2001, a number of cardholder class
actions were filed against the MasterCard and Visa associations,
and several member banks alleging, among other things, that they
had conspired, in violation of antitrust laws, to fix the price
of currency conversion services for credit card purchases made
in a foreign currency by U.S. cardholders.  

Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named
as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in
Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant.

Pursuant to orders of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the cases were consolidated or coordinated for
pretrial purposes, under the caption, "In re Currency Conversion
Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1409 (S.D.N.Y.)."

In July 2006, the parties agreed to settle the case for
$336 million.  The Company's share of the settlement, which has
been paid into an escrow account, was covered by existing
reserves.

The Court has set the hearing on the entry of Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal for March 31, 2008.

A Web site -- http://www.ccfsettlement.com-- has been created  
to provide information about the lawsuit and settlement, and to
allow class members to file their claims on-line.  This Web site
contains Court Orders and other important documents concerning
the settled litigation (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2008).

Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer  
and small business banking company with operations in U.S.
markets.  The Company is a savings and loan holding company.  It
owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and
Washington Mutual Bank fsb (WMBfsb), as well as numerous non-
bank subsidiaries.  The Company operates in four segments: the
Retail Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of
2,257 stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York,
Washington, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona,
Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services
Group, which operates a nationwide credit card lending business;
the Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and
commercial real estate lending business in selected markets, and
the Home Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family
residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets
activities.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Settles N.Y. Suit Over American Express Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual, Inc., along with select defendants, reached a
$2.25-billion settlement deal with plaintiffs in the matter,
"American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A. Inc., et al," which is pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, 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.

American Express filed the antitrust class action lawsuit
against the defendants on Nov. 15, 2004, alleging, among other
things, that the defendants jointly and severally implemented
and enforced illegal exclusionary agreements that prevented
member banks from issuing American Express cards.

Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named
as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in
Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant.

On Nov. 7, 2007, American Express issued a press release
announcing that it had reached an agreement with Visa Inc., Visa
USA and Visa International to drop Visa and five of its member
banks, including the company, as defendants in the American
Express Litigation.

The settlement amounts totaling $2.25 billion due to American
Express under the agreement will be paid directly by Visa.  In
November 2007, the company announced that it would recognize a
charge of $38 million for its share of the settlement.

The suit is "American Express Travel Related Services Company,
Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al, Case No. 04-Civ-08967," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Judge Barbara S. Jones presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Edward Allan Baker, Esq. (ebaker@bsfllp.com)
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
          26 South Main Street
          Hanover, NH 03755
          Phone: (603)-643-9090
          Fax: (603)-643-9010

Representing the defendants are:

          Eric John Sinrod, Esq. (ejsinrod@duanemorris.com)
          Duane Morris LLP
          One Market, Spear Tower, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415)-371-2219
          Fax: (415)-371-2201

               - and -

          Amy Lynn Barton, Esq. (abarton@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 373-3285


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Still Faces N.Y. Interchange Fee Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual, Inc., continues to face a purported class
action entitled, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee Litigation,
MDL 1720 (E.D.N.Y.)," 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 June 22, 2005, a group of retail merchants filed the
purported class action against the Associations and several
member banks alleging, among other things, that the defendants
conspired in violation of the antitrust laws to fix the level of
interchange fees.

Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named
as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in
Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant.

Since then, approximately 48 similar complaints have been filed
on behalf of merchants against the card Associations and, in
some cases, against member banks including the Bank.  

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order coordinating the cases for pretrial proceedings,
under th caption, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee
Litigation, MDL 1720 (E.D.N.Y.)," which was pending with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          William Jay Blechman, Esq.
          (wblechman@kennynachwalter.com)
          Kenny Nachwalter, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-373-1000
          Fax: 305-372-1861

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. (wjbruckner@locklaw.com)
          Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South
          Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-339-6900
          Fax: 612-339-0981

          Jason S. Cowart, Esq. (jasoncowart@yahoo.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665

               - and -

          Morissa Robin Falk, Esq. (mfalk@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0833
          Fax: 212-818-0477


WYETH: Still Faces Suit in W.Va Over PREMPRO, PREMARIN Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth successfully defended itself against several purported
class action suit over PREMPRO or PREMARIN, two of the company's
hormone therapy products, but continues to face one such
litigation in West Virginia.

The company has been involved in various other legal proceedings
involving allegations of injuries caused by the company's
pharmaceutical products.  These cases include individual
lawsuits and putative class actions in state and federal courts
in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions involving allegations of
injuries caused by PREMPRO or PREMARIN.

The putative class actions from users of PREMPRO or PREMARIN are
seeking medical monitoring and purchase price refunds, as well
as other damages.  

While most of the putative class actions have been dismissed or
withdrawn, a motion for class certification was recently denied
without prejudice in a California statewide refund class action,
and a hearing in a similar case in West Virginia is set for
later this year, 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.

Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery,  
development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of
products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
(Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer
Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health).
Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products.
Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience
therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products,
gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology
therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments,
immunological products and womenís healthcare products. Consumer
Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy
remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and
personal care items sold over-the-counter. Principal Animal
Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite
control and growth implants.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, has filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock
of ArthroCare Corporation (Nasdaq:ARTC) between August 4, 2006,
and January 23, 2008, inclusive.  The action is pending with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida at docket number 9;08-cv-80343.

The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that ArthroCare and certain
of its officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and financial results during the Class
Period.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that ArthroCare's
reported financial results were materially false, misleading and
overstated as a result of:

     (i) ArthroCare's improper recognition of revenue from
         transactions with DiscoCare, Inc., which were
         contingent in nature; and

    (ii) ArthroCare's improper recognition of revenue from
         transactions with Device Reimbursement Services, an
         undisclosed, related party.

The Complaint further alleges that these material
misrepresentations artificially inflated the price of ArthroCare
stock, causing the price of ArthroCare to trade as high as
$64.84 per share during the Class Period.  As a result of
adverse news stories and partial disclosures concerning the
accuracy of the Company's reported financial results and its
business dealings with DiscoCare and DRS, the price of the
Company's stock fell to approximately $38.11 by January 25,
2008.  The Complaint alleges that Defendants' conduct
constitutes violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Those who purchased ArthroCare common stock during the Class
Period, may, no later than June 3, 2008, request for the Court's
appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more information, contact:

     Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. (nkulesa@snlaw.net)
     Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. (wboulton@snlaw.net)
     Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
     Phone: (800) 797-5499
     e-mail: firm@snilaw.com
     Web site: http://www.snilaw.com/


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Shareholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, has filed a class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, on behalf of all
purchasers of securities of Darden Restaurants, Inc. (NYSE: DRI:
34.41, -0.54, -1.54%) between June 19, 2007, and December 18,
2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Darden and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Darden owns and operates nearly 1,400 Red Lobster, Olive
Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones, Capital Grille, Longhorn
Steakhouse and Seasons 52 restaurants.

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

   (1) that the Company's food costs were rising at a higher
       rate than the Company admitted;

   (2) that same-store sales at the Company's restaurants were
       experiencing negative trends;

   (3) that the Company's restaurants were underperforming;

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

   (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
       statements about its financial well-being and future
       business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
       when made.

On December 18, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that its earnings for the quarter fell below
expectations.  Further, the Company announced that it expected
diluted net earnings per share in 2008 to be 2% to 4%, in stark
contrast to the 10% to 12% projection the Company gave in August
2007.  Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares
declined $7.74 per share, or 21.3%, to close on December 19,
2007, at $28.60 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway
Topaz & Kessler which prosecutes class actions in both state and
federal courts throughout the country.

Members of the class may, not later than May 12, 2008, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff

For more information, contact:

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


DEUTSCHE BANK: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files NY Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC has filed a class action lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of auction rate securities
from Deutsche Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and Deutsche Bank Securities,
Inc., between March 17, 2003, and February 13, 2008.

The lawsuit alleges that Deutsche Bank violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements
about the risks associated with certain of its auction rate
securities and the auction market in general.

Shareholders that purchased auction rate securities from
Deutsche Bank during the Relevant Period with questions
concerning their legal rights are invited to contact:

     Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
     Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC  
     Phone: (888) 508-6832
     Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that
dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of
shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including
shareholder class action and derivative litigation.


FORCE PROTECTION: Berger & Montague Files S.C. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina on behalf of all purchasers of Force
Protection, Inc. (NASDAQ:FRPT) common stock between August 14,
2006, and March 17, 2008.

This represents an extension of the end of the Class Period
asserted in the complaints currently on file from February 29,
2008, to March 17, 2008, the date Force Protection announced
that it would delay for a second time filing its 2007 Form 10-K
due to the "scope of the work" involved in identifying
accounting errors and restating its prior financial statements.
As a result of this new announcement, Force Protection's stock
price dropped an additional 23.5% to $1.37 per share.

Force Protection is a manufacturer of ballistic- and blast-
protected vehicles.  Investors who purchased Force Protection
common stock during the Class Period may move the Court to
appoint them as lead plaintiff, no later than May 9, 2008.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, financial results and prospects.
Specifically, defendants continually boasted that Force
Protectionís dominance in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
market was due to its superior product design and rapid delivery
rates.  However, the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense, in a report dated June 27, 2007, questioned both of
these claims and also criticized the awarding of contracts to
Force Protection on a sole source basis without competitive
bidding.  Then, on February 29, 2008, after the market closed,
Force Protection announced it would delay the filing of its 2007
Form 10-K and restate its financial statements for the three-
and nine-month period ended September 30, 2007.  On this news,
Force Protection's stock collapsed to close at $3.58 per share
on March 3, 2008, a one-day decline of 12.9%.  On March 17,
2008, Force Protection announced that it would delay filing its
2007 Form 10-K a second time, causing an additional 23.5% stock
price drop.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were:

   (a) Force Protection was having persistent problems meeting
       contractual delivery deadlines, which made it likely that
       the U.S. Government would purchase fewer MRAPs from Force
       Protection in the future;

   (b) the Company maintained an inadequate financial system of
       accounting, which also made it likely that the U.S.
       Government would do less business with Force Protection
       in the future;

   (c) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
       controls contrary to the representations in its SEC
       filings;

   (d) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
       accordance with GAAP; and

   (e) defendants had caused the Company to falsely report its
       financial results at least for the three- and nine-months
       ended September 30, 2007.

The case is: "Jeffrey Norman v. Force Protection, Inc., et al.,
No. 2:08-cv-01207-CWH."

For more information, contact:

     Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
     Russell D. Paul, Esq.
     Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
     Berger & Montague, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 215-875-3000
            1-888-891-2289
     e-mail: investorprotect@bm.net  
     Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com/


HUMANA INC: Strauss & Troy Files Shareholder Suit in Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Strauss & Troy have filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status with the United States District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Humana, Inc. (NYSE:
HUM) between February 4, 2008, and March 11, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Humana and certain of its officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose adverse
facts in regard to the operation of the business and the
financial performance of the company.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants issued a series of materially false
and misleading statements concerning the company's operations,
financial viability and performance.  As a result of these
materially false and misleading statements and omissions, the
plaintiffs allege that the price of Humana common stock was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.

On March 12, 2008, Humana announced that it would be revising
its earnings estimates, following this announcement shares of
Humana fell $6.50 per share, or approximately 13.7%.

Strauss & Troy seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
that purchased or otherwise acquired Humana common stock during
the Class Period.

Members of the class may, no later than May 26, 2008, move the
court to serve as a lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party that acts on behalf of the class
members.

For more information, contact:

     Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
     Joseph J. Braun, Esq.
     Matthew R. Chasar, Esq.
     Strauss & Troy
     150 East Fourth Street
     Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
     Phone: 800-669-9341
           (513) 621-2120
     e-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com


MF GLOBAL: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates NY Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all who purchased or
otherwise acquired common stock pursuant or traceable to MF
Global Ltd.'s Initial Public Offering on or about July 19, 2007.

The Complaint charges MF and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  MF is
a broker of exchange-listed futures and options.  It provides
execution and clearing services for exchange-traded and over-
the-counter derivative products as well as for non- derivative
foreign exchange products and securities in the cash market.

The Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's
IPO, defendants failed to disclose or indicate:

   (1) that the Company lacked adequate risk management systems;

   (2) specifically, that the Company's order-entry systems were
       not operating in an efficient manner such that they were
       deemed ineffective; and

   (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

Since the time of its IPO, MF represented to investors and
financial analysts that it had extensive and sufficient risk
management procedures and internal controls.  On February 28,
2008, however, the Company shocked investors when it announced
that it would incur a $141.5-million loss as a result of
unauthorized trades by one of its traders, later identified as
Evan "Brent" Dooley.  The Company admitted that a failure in one
of its retail order entry systems permitted the rogue trader to
establish significant positions in his own account which were
liquidated later that morning.  The following day, it was
reported in The Wall Street Journal that the internal controls
of the Company's systems were sometimes turned off at the
Memphis office and possibly other locations in order to speed
trades.

In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined
$8.09 per share, or 27.63%, to close on February 28, 2008, at
$21.19 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  The
Company's shares continued to fall the following day, declining
an additional $3.64 per share, or 17.18%, to close on Feb. 29,
2008, at $17.55 per share.  This closing price represented a
cumulative loss of $12.45, or over 41%, of the value of the
Company's shares at the time of its IPO just months prior.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members
and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz &
Kessler which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal
courts throughout the country.

For more information, contact:

     Darren J. Check, Esq.
     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
     Phone: 1-888-299-7706
            1-610-667-7706
     e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
     Web site: http://www.sbtklaw.com/


PMI GROUP: Schiffrin Barroway Files California Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a class action
lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of The
PMI Group, Inc. (NYSE: PMI) between November 2, 2006, and
March 3, 2008, inclusive.

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

PMI provides credit, capital, and risk transfer services.
Through its wholly and partially owned subsidiaries, PMI offers
residential mortgage insurance and credit enhancement products,
financial guaranty insurance, and financial guaranty
reinsurance.  One such entity that PMI has an equity stake in is
Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, which is an insurance
holding company whose wholly owned subsidiary, Financial
Guaranty Insurance Corporation, provides credit enhancement on
infrastructure finance and structured finance securities
worldwide.

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

   (1) that FGIC had exposure to defaults on mortgage-backed
       securities and was materially impaired as a result;

   (2) that the Company failed to properly account for its
       investment in FGIC and in doing so overstated its
       financial results;

   (3) that the Company engaged in improper underwriting
       practices in its book of business related to insurance;

   (4) that the Company had far greater exposure to defaults and
       losses in regard to its book of business related to
       insurance than it disclosed;

   (5) that the Company would have to stop writing insurance
       policies to borrowers, which would have a negative result
       on future business;

   (6) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared
       in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
       Principles;

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

   (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
       statements about its financial well-being and future
       business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
       when made.

Beginning in July 2007 and continuing through the end of the
Class Period, the Company began to issue a series of
disclosures, where it acknowledged its exposure to anticipated
losses and defaults related to the housing and credit crisis.
According to PMI, those losses and defaults were caused by the
Company's failure to engage in proper underwriting practices.
Additionally, PMI announced losses that were related to large
increases in defaults and its investment in FGIC.  At the same
time, ratings agencies such as Fitch Ratings downgraded the
Company's stock.

By October 2007, Standard & Poor's announced that it placed PMI
on negative CreditWatch with negative implications.  Throughout
this time, the Company continued to make denials and
misrepresentations about the true nature of its finances and
prospects, even as the artificially inflated price of its stock
began a slow but steady decline.

On March 3, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that its 2007 Annual Report would be filed late, and
that the Company's U.S. Mortgage Insurance Operations had
reported a net loss of $236 million in the fourth quarter.  The
Company's quarterly loss was the result of an increase in
default inventory, higher claim rates and higher average claim
sizes.  Additionally, the Company reported that its Federal
Guarantee segment would report a significant net loss for the
fourth quarter and full year 2007, driven by equity losses of
FGIC, which resulted from unrealized mark-to-market losses and
loss adjustment expenses at FGIC.  The Company further disclosed
that it was still trying to determine whether the value of its
investment in FGIC was impaired as of December 31, 2007.  That
same day, the Company filed a Form 12b-25 with the SEC, wherein
it revealed that it was unable to file its Annual Report for
2007 on time.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway
Topaz & Kessler which prosecutes class actions in both state and
federal courts throughout the country.  Schiffrin Barroway Topaz
& Kessler is a driving force behind corporate governance reform,
and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional
and individual investors from the United States and around the
world.

For more information about Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler or
to sign up to participate in this action online, please visit
http://www.sbtklaw.com/

Members of the class may, not later than May 12, 2008, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.

For more information, contact:

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






                            *********

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  * * *