CAR_Public/080409.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 9, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 70
  
                            Headlines

AARON BROTHERS: Calif. Court Mulls Approving Framer's Suit Deal
ACTIVISION: Wii Guitar Hero Class Action Lawsuit Settled
ALL AMERICAN FOOTBALL: Athletes Sue Over Canceled Season
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Jury Favors Skycaps in $2-Per-Bag Fee Lawsuit
APOLLO GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz.

APOLLO GROUP: No Hearing Date Set for Ariz. Securities Lawsuit
AUDIBLE INC: N.J. Court Denies Appeal Over Lawsuit's Dismissal
AUDIBLE INC: Faces N.J. Suit Over Amazon.com Merger Agreement
CAMDEN COUNTY: Settlement Reached in N.J. Strip-Search Lawsuit
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Trial Opens for EUR80-Million Shareholder Suit

DICK'S SPORTING: Working to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y.
FIDELITY ASSURANCE: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Fraud & Elder Abuse
FORCE PROTECTION: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is May 9
HOME SOLUTIONS: Securities Fraud Suit in Texas Upheld by Court
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.

IONATRON INC: Court Upholds Investor Claims in Securities Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Reaches $2.2BB Settlement in "Newby" Litigation
KRATOS DEFENSE: Settles California Labor Code Violations Lawsuit
LOUISIANA: Lawsuit Accuses State of Intimidating Katrina Victims
LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.

MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Md. Court OKs $6Mln Deal in Securities Suit
MEDIACOM LLC: November 2008 Trial Set in Mo. Landowners' Lawsuit
MICHAELS STORES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Texas Investor Suit
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Consolidated Texas Securities Fraud Suit
MICHAELS STORES: No Hearing Date Yet for Calif. Managers' Case

MICHAELS STORES: Still Faces Ex-Manager's Litigation in Calif.
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Suit Over Customer's Personal Information
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Workers' UCL Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
OIL COS: Kabateck Brown Kellner Files Ethanol-Related Lawsuit
PAYPAL: Canadian Naturists Consider Suit Over Service Cut-Off

SEMTECH CORP: MPERS Seeks Consolidation of N.Y. Securities Suits
SMITHKLINEBEECHAM: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Diabetes Drug
WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Securities Suit
WILD EDIBLES: Customers Show Support for Mistreated Employees
WISCONSIN: DPI Settles Special Education Lawsuit

ZIX CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit in TX Settled for $5.6Mln


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHOCARE CORP: Sarraf Gentile Files Fl. Securities Fraud Suit
HUMANA INC: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in Kentucky
MONEYGRAM INTL: Berman DeValerio Files MN Securities Fraud Suit
PMI GROUP: Holzer Commences Securities Fraud Suit Filing in CA


              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


AARON BROTHERS: Calif. Court Mulls Approving Framer's Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of San Diego has yet to
approve a tentative settlement of a purported class action suit
filed on Jan. 26, 2007, by a former "lead framer" for Aaron
Brothers, Inc., a subsidiary of Michaels Stores, Inc.

Katherine Torgerson filed the suit with the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, against Aaron Brothers on
behalf of herself and all current and former California-based
leads or keyholders.  

The Torgerson suit alleges that Aaron Brothers failed to provide
its leads and keyholders with adequate meal and rest breaks (or
compensation in lieu thereof) and accurate wage statements.  It
additionally alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of
California's unfair competition law.   

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
meal and rest break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 10, 2007, the parties participated in a voluntary
mediation and have reached a tentative settlement agreement
which is contingent on court approval.

Subject to final court approval, the parties have agreed to a
claims made process, according to Michaels Stores' April 3, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts  
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


ACTIVISION: Wii Guitar Hero Class Action Lawsuit Settled
--------------------------------------------------------
The California judge presiding over a class action lawsuit
brought against Activision by San Diego resident Samuel
Livingston has dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the parties
had reached an agreement of their own accord, Earnest Cavalli
write for Wired Blog Network.

The suit, brought by Mr. Livingston in December 2007, sought
unnamed damages from the publisher as compensation for the
exclusively monophonic sound found in the Wii version of Guitar
Hero III.

Court documents reveal that both parties opted to settle the
matter to avoid a "potentially protracted and complex
litigation."

Mr. Cavalli says that details regarding the settlement terms are
scarce, but one can presume Mr. Livingston is now a more wealthy
gamer.

Activision's other actions to correct the issue, including the
disc replacement program in place for Wii Guitar Hero fans, will
continue through Aug. 31, 2008.


ALL AMERICAN FOOTBALL: Athletes Sue Over Canceled Season
--------------------------------------------------------
The All American Football League is facing a lawsuit over the
canceled 2008 football season, according to Daily Report Online.

The report says that the AALF planned to capitalize on college
football enthusiasm by fielding six "minor league" teams of
former college and National Football League players who would
play in university or municipal stadiums.  But last month, it
canceled its season days before some 252 players were to suit up
for spring practice, according to six former NFL players who say
the new league owes them at least $50,000 each, plus moving and
other expenses.

The athletes have filed a class action against the AAFL and its
founder and CEO, college loan mogul Marcus Katz.

According to Daily Report, Mr. Katz announced the league's
launch in mid-2006, and subsequently lined up a roster of
notable athletes -- both professional and former collegiate
stars -- to get the effort off the ground.  He named former
National Collegiate Athletic Association President Cedric
Dempsey as chairman and, according to press accounts, pledged as
much as $75 million of his own money to bankroll the effort.

By late 2007, the league had struck deals with several colleges
and municipal stadiums and had begun recruiting trainers and
players for six proposed teams -- Team Alabama, Team Arkansas,
Team Florida, Team Michigan, Team Tennessee, and Team Texas.

The teams held a draft in January and announced player rosters
for the first season's games, set to commence on April 12.

However, in March, the league sent out an e-mail message
announcing its need for new financing, explaining that the
league's funding relies largely on securities backed by
federally guaranteed student loans, which have fallen victim to
the subprime mortgage crisis.

Daily Report cites the league Web site as indicating that
Mr. Katz made his fortune as founder of Educational Loan
Administration Group, which later merged with insurer UICI.  His
family, it says, currently owns two of the nation's largest
providers of federal student loans.

On March 13, the AAFL announced the postponement of the 2008
season until next year.

On March 25, Steven J. Estep, Esq., of Atlanta's Cohen Cooper
Estep & Whiteman filed a class action suit with the Fulton
County Superior Court on behalf of former NFL players Jeffrey
Symons, who played with the Houston Texans and Chicago Bears and
with the Arena Football League's Tampa Bay Storm; Travis Harris,
formerly with the Miami Dolphins and Tennessee Titans; Willie
Amos, formerly with the Bears; O.J. Small, also formerly with
the Titans; Byron Hardmon, formerly with the Tampa Bay
Buccaneers; and Kent Smith, formerly with the Oakland Raiders
and Titans.

"The whole concept was that you'd have, like, a Texas team
featuring University of Texas graduates or players from other
local teams, to have sort of a collegiate conference league, and
would also have NFL players from the region," Mr. Estep told
Daily Report.  Some plaintiffs who left jobs, traveled to
tryouts and otherwise invested their time and money in the
league, said Mr. Estep, have been left "high and dry."

Mr. Estep was asked to join the suit as local counsel by Brian
R. Redden, Esq., of Beckman Weil Shepardson, and William A.
Mudd, Esq., of Whitaker Mudd Simms Luke & Wells.

Mr. Redden said that the AAFL had generated considerable buzz
among hopefuls and former pros.  "Talking to and representing
players like I do, there's been a great deal of excitement among
players regarding the AAFL, and a great deal of disappointment
when it didn't come through," he said.  "A lot of people saw
this as a stepping-stone into the NFL, or -- for the ones who'd
already been there—maybe a way back in."

The promised AAFL salaries of $5,000 per game for the 10-game
season are a far cry from those in the NFL, said the lawyers,
but were acceptable compensation for players in the new minor
league.

The players' suit charges Mr. Katz and the AAFL with fraudulent
and negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and other
torts, and seeks the $50,000 contractually owed to each AAFL
player, compensatory damages for wages and other expenses, and
punitive damages.

The AAFL's Web site says the league has thus far been funded by
"private investors," and envisions future cash infusions from
"corporate sponsorships, broadcasting, and royalties from the
sale of merchandise, ticket and membership proceeds."

However, the players' complaint says that, as far as they know,
"the sole source of funds for the daily operations of Defendant
AAFL was from Defendant Katz's personal assets and no other
meaningful source . . ."

Thus, while the League is a named defendant, the complaint says
that the AAFL is "the alter ego of Defendant Katz" and has "no
true factual or legal separation from" him.

Asked by Daily Report whether any players had been contacted by
AAFL officials regarding their contracts or plans for the
canceled season, Mr. Redden said he was not aware that anyone
had been contacted.

The case is "Symons v. AAFL Enterprises, No. 2008CV148400."


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Jury Favors Skycaps in $2-Per-Bag Fee Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury, on April 7, 2008, awarded more than $325,000 to
nine Logan International Airport skycaps for American Airlines
who claimed they lost tips when the airline instituted a $2 fee
for checking a bag at curbside, according to the Associated
Press.

AP relates that American Airlines explained that its decision to
impose the baggage fee in 2005 was an attempt to bolster its
finances after it lost $821 million in 2004.  The fee is split
between the airline and the contractor it hires to operate its
curbside check-in service.

In the suit, skycaps complained that many passengers were
confused and thought the $2 was going to them as a tip, while
others saw the new fee as a forced tip and therefore were not
willing to give them a gratuity on top of that.

An analyst said the jury's verdict could potentially have a
ripple effect through the industry because many major airlines
began imposing baggage fees following a steep decline in airline
travel after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, AP says.  
United, US Airways and Northwest are among the airlines that
also charge a baggage fee.

"This is monumental," Terry Trippler, owner of
tripplertravel.com in Minneapolis, told AP.  "There's got to be
a lot of attorneys looking at this and saying, 'OK, let's call
up Northwest, let's call up United, let's see where they are,
what do they pay their skycaps?'" Ms. Trippler said.  "I think
this is just the beginning.  This jury opened up a real can of
worms."

Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq., who represented the skycaps, told AP
that she plans to ask a judge to grant class-action status for a
lawsuit that could cover hundreds of American Airlines skycaps
who have lost tips since the baggage fee was imposed.

"American decided to redirect cash from the pockets of the
skycaps to the coffers of American," Ms. Liss-Riordan said after
the jury announced its verdict.

The $325,000 is to be split among the nine Boston skycaps in
varying amounts, depending on how many bags they checked from
2005 -- when the fee was imposed -- up to the present.  The
interest the jury awarded has not yet been calculated, Ms. Liss-
Riordan said.

Don DiFiore, a skycap from Malden who has worked for American
Airlines for 25 years, said his tips plummeted drastically after
the baggage fee went into effect.  He said many passengers are
confused when he asks them for the $2 fee.

A spokesman for American Airlines said the airline is
considering an appeal.  "American Airlines is disappointed by
the verdict and the amount awarded," said spokesman Tim Wagner.
"We are evaluating our options at this time."

According to AP, American Airlines said in court papers that it
was facing tough fiscal times in 2005, when it began testing the
fee-based curbside check-in program at Logan and other selected
airports around the country.  American said it posted signs at
several locations on the curb informing passengers that they now
had to pay $2 per bag not including gratuities.


APOLLO GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a securities
fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona under the caption, "Teamsters Local 617
Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-02674-RCB."

On Nov. 2, 2006, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
the Company's stock between Nov. 28, 2001, and Oct. 28, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly failing to
disclose alleged deficiencies in the Company's stock option
granting policies and practices.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages and other relief.  

On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate
attorneys, filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff
and approval of their designated counsel as lead counsel to
pursue the action.  

On Sept. 11, 2007, the court appointed The Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and approved the lead
plaintiff's selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.

On Nov. 23, 2007, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that the defendants made misrepresentations concerning
the Company's stock option granting policies and practices,
traded while in possession of material non-public information,
violated duties of care, candor and loyalty, and engaged in
self-dealing.

The Lead Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a)
and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and
civil conspiracy to commit fraud, and seeks unstated
compensatory and punitive damages and other relief on behalf of
the purported class.

The defendants are the Company, John G. Sperling, Todd S.
Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales, Daniel E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Hedy
F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Dino J. DeConcini, Peter V.
Sperling, and Laura Palmer Noone.

All defendants filed motions to dismiss the case on Jan. 22,
2008, which are now pending before the Court, according to
Apollo's March 27, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 29, 2008.

The suit is "Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v.
Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge
Robert C. Broomfield presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

              - and -

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. (pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         1 N La Salle St., Ste. 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-377-1181
         Fax: 312-377-1184

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael J. Farrell, Esq. (mfarrell@jsslaw.com)
         Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC
         Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington, Ste. 1100
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2385
         Phone: 602-262-5900
         Fax: 602-495-2618

              - and -

         Joseph E. Floren, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         101 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10178-0060
         Phone: (212) 309-6000


APOLLO GROUP: No Hearing Date Set for Ariz. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
No hearing date was set with regards to a consolidated matter
against Apollo Group, Inc., captioned, "In re Apollo Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT."

In October 2004, three class action complaints were filed with
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  The Court
consolidated the three pending class action complaints under the
caption, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT," and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed on May 16, 2005, by the lead plaintiff.

The consolidated complaint named the company, Todd S. Nelson,
Kenda B. Gonzales, and Daniel E. Bachus, as defendants.  

On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel
E. Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from the case.  

The Lead Plaintiff represents a class of the company's
shareholders who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004,
and Sept. 14, 2004.  

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Act by the company for defendants' allegedly material
false and misleading statements in connection with its failure
to publicly disclose the contents of a preliminary U.S.
Department of Education program review report.

The case proceeded to trial on Nov. 14, 2007.  On Jan. 16, 2008,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs awarding
damages of up to $5.55 for each share of common stock in the
class suit, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  

The judgment was entered on Jan. 30, 2008, subject to an
automatic stay until Feb. 13, 2008.  

On Feb. 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to stay
execution of the judgment pending resolution of the company's
motions for post-trial relief, which were also filed on Feb. 13,
2008, provided that we post a bond in the amount of $95 million
by Feb. 19, 2008.  

On Feb. 19, 2008, the company posted the $95 million bond with
the Court.  

Oral arguments have been requested; a hearing date has not been
set, according to Apollo's March 27, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 29, 2008.

The consolidated action is "In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-02147," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Judge James A. Teilborg
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert D. Mitchell, Esq.
         (robertmitchell@mitchelllaw.com)
         Mitchell & Forest
         2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 618
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Phone: 602-468-1411
         Fax: 602-468-1311

              - and –

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the company is:

          Wayne W. Smith, Esq.
          Orange County Office
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: (949) 451-4108
          Fax: (949) 475-4709


AUDIBLE INC: N.J. Court Denies Appeal Over Lawsuit's Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied an
appeal with regard to the dismissal of an amended complaint in
the consolidated securities fraud litigation against Audible,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc.

Starting on or about Feb. 22, 2005, several class actions were
filed against Audible and two of the company's executives with
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons who purchased the company's securities between Nov. 2,
2004, and Feb. 15, 2005.  They allege that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 there under by failing to make complete and
accurate disclosures concerning the company's future plans and
prospects.  

The individual defendants are also alleged to be liable under
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.  All of the defendants
allegedly sold stock at inflated prices during the class period.

In December 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey consolidated the class action, appointed a group of
lead plaintiffs and appointed lead plaintiff's counsel.

By prior agreement, the plaintiff's consolidated amended
complaint was filed on Feb. 14, 2006.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and their reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

The defendants moved to dismiss the pleading.  In March 2007,
the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint.  

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration.  In December
2007, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration, according
to Audible's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Carter v. Audible, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
01027-JAG-MCA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq. (procco@lawssb.com)
         Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
         163 Madison Avenue, P.O. BOX 1277
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
         Phone: (973) 775-8997

         William J. Pinilis, Esq.
         (wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com)
         Pinilis Halpern, LLP
         237 South Street
         Morristown, NJ 07960
         Phone: (973) 401-1111

              - and -

         Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. (dsommers@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
         Suite 500 West, 1100 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 408-4600

Representing the defendants are:

         Robert A. Assuncao, Esq.
         (robert.assuncao@piperrudnick.com)
         DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP
         379 Thornall Street, Eighth Floor
         Edison, NJ 08837-2226
         Phone: 732-590-1850


AUDIBLE INC: Faces N.J. Suit Over Amazon.com Merger Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Audible, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc.,
faces a purported class action in New Jersey over a merger
agreement wherein it will be acquired by Amazon.com, according
to Audible's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2008, two individuals who allege they are
stockholders of Audible commenced an action with the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Equity Division, Essex County against the
Company, six of Audible's seven directors, Amazon.com, and an
affiliate of Amazon.com.  The case is captioned, "Leah Solomon,
et al. v. Donald R. Katz, et al."

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all of
Audible's stockholders other than the defendants.  They allege
that $11.50 per share was an inadequate price for Audible and
that Audible's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell Audible to Amazon at that price and by pursuing
a defective sales process.  

They assert that the merger agreement contained provisions which
inappropriately limited the possibility that another potential
buyer would make a superior bid.  Moreover, the plaintiffs claim
that Amazon and its affiliate aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary by Audible’s directors.  

Finally, the plaintiffs allege that the disclosures concerning
the proposed transaction that were made by Audible in the
Schedule 14D-9 were incomplete or inaccurate.

They sought to enjoin consummation of the proposed transaction
or if consummated, to rescind it or to obtain an award of
damages equivalent to rescission.  

On Feb. 29, 2008, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs pursuant to which Audible made
the additional disclosures in their filings with the SEC related
to the acquisition and the parties will ask the court to approve
a settlement binding on the entire class pursuant to which the
plaintiffs' claims will be dismissed with prejudice, the
defendants will receive a general release, and the plaintiffs'
counsel will be awarded attorneys' fees.

Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com-- operates retail Web  
sites, which enables its consumer customers to find and discover
anything they might want to buy online.  The Company's retail
Web sites include http://www.amazon.de http://www.amazon.fr  
http://www.amazon.co.jp http://www.amazon.co.uk and the Joyo  
Amazon Web sites at http://www.joyo.cnand http://www.amazon.cn  
Amazon.com has organized its operations into two principal
segments: North America and International.  The North America
segment includes Web sites such as http://www.amazon.com  
http://www.amazon.ca http://www.shopbop.comand  
http://www.endless.com The International segment includes  
http://www.amazon.co.uk http://www.amazon.de  
http://www.amazon.co.jpand http://www.amazon.fr In March 2008,  
the Company announced the completion of its acquisition of
Audible, Inc.


CAMDEN COUNTY: Settlement Reached in N.J. Strip-Search Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Camden County in New Jersey was named as a defendant in a
purported class action suit filed in 2005 with the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey over conditions at the
county jail.
  
In an update, Courier Post Online relates that a settlement of
the lawsuit has been reached.

According to Courier Post, people who believe they were
illegally strip searched at the Camden County Jail have until
June 2, 2008, to submit a claim form to receive part of the
$7.5-million class action suit settlement.

The settlement specifically applies to people who were strip
searched at the county jail between April 8, 2003, and April 27,
2005, after arrests for non-indictable, or lesser, offenses such
as traffic violations, disorderly conduct, child support
warrants and driving while intoxicated.  People could be
eligible to receive between $750 and $1,250.

Based on county records, the legal team that filed the class
action lawsuit against Camden County estimates 24,000 people
were treated unlawfully at the jail during the two-year period.

For more information about the class action settlement, call
(800) 741-8907 or visit http://www.camdencountystripsearch.com/

The case is "Hicks v. County of Camden, No. 05-CV-1857 (JHR)."


DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Trial Opens for EUR80-Million Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit against German telecoms giant Deutsche
Telekom opened on April 7 wherein thousands of disgruntled
shareholders seek up to EUR80 million (US$126 million), the
Associated Press reports.

According to AP, some 16,000 shareholders are seeking
compensation in the case for what they claim were falsehoods
regarding Deutsche Telekom's third initial public offering
tranche in June 2000.

One of the complaints states that at the time of the offering,
the Bonn-based Deutsche Telekom, which is considered to be
Europe's biggest telecom operator, had already started
negotiations with U.S. mobile phone company Voicestream, now T-
Mobile USA.  Telekom bought Voicestream in 2001 for about
EUR34 billion in a move highly criticized at the time, explains.
The unit has since become a key driver of growth.

Another complaint states that the value of some of Deutsche
Telekom's real estate assets had been inflated in pamphlets sent
to shareholders before the offering.

AP points out that the case covers new ground in Germany, where
legislation was only written in 2005 to allow for such class-
action suits to go before a court.

According to the report, several high-profile witnesses are
being called in the case, including former Deutsche Telekom
Chief Executive Officer Ron Sommer, who is expected to testify
on April 14, 2008.


DICK'S SPORTING: Working to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. continues to seek for the settlement
of two purported class actions that accuse it of failing to pay
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the company's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Feb. 2, 2008.

The cases were filed in May and November 2005 with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.  They are
captioned:

       -- "Tamara Barrus v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. and
          Galyan’s Trading Company, Inc.," and

       -- "Daniel Parks v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc."

Because until September 2006 none of these cases were certified
as class actions, the company deemed them to be claims that were
incidental to its business.  

In September and October 2006, respectively, a magistrate judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
conditionally certified classes for notice purposes under the
FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases, which the court upheld.

In the Barrus case, the parties and the Court agreed to stay the
litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims through
mediation.

Mediation sessions were held in April and August 2007.

The parties to the Barrus case have continued to work through
the mediator's office in an effort to determine whether the
matter can be resolved through settlement.  

In the Parks case, the parties and the Court have also agreed to
stay the litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims
through mediation.

A mediation session was held in March 2008 and the parties have
agreed to continue discussions to determine whether this matter
can be resolved through settlement.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting  
goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store
environment.


FIDELITY ASSURANCE: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Fraud & Elder Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Assurance Associates is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the Superior Court of the State of California
alleging that Fidelity Assurance, through the use of "doctor's
reports" on life expectancy that are not in fact prepared by
doctors, takes advantage of old folks in convincing them to sell
their life insurance policies for cash, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The defendants named in the lawsuit are:

     -- Fidelity Assurance Associates LLC;
     -- Fidelity of Georgetown Inc.;
     -- Financial Services Consultants Inc.;
     -- Mills, Potoczak & Company;
     -- Dulude & Carmouche Inc.;
     -- Richard Guilford;
     -- Brad Thompson;
     -- Brenda Tluczek;
     -- William Carmouche;
     -- Estuko Dulude;
     -- F. Neil Thompson; and
     -- Anthony Feuer.

They are accused, among other things, of obtaining fraudulent
"doctor's reports" on life expectancy from people who are not
doctors.

According to the report, Fidelity and others commit elder abuse
and securities fraud by misrepresenting sales of viatical
policies and selling them without a license.

The plaintiffs request certification for the following classes:

     -- all persons within the State of California who were sold
        Viatical Settlements by or through defendants that were
        not exempt under Corp. Code Section 25102; and

     -- all persons within the State of California who were sold
        Viatical Settlements by or through defendants that were
        properly exempt under Corp. Code Section 25102.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Fidelity and the other defendants owed
         fiduciary and statutory duties and duties of care to
         the purchasers;

     (b) whether Fidelity and the other defendants made
         misrepresentations to the purchasers in a negligent
         manner;

     (c) whether Fidelity and the other defendants'
         misrepresentations were material;

     (d) whether the purchasers relied upon Fidelity and the
         other defendants' misrepresentations and whether such
         reliance was reasonable and justifiable;

     (e) whether Fidelity and the other defendants violated the
         Insurance Code of California when selling Viatical
         Settlements to the purchasers;

     (f) whether Fidelity and the other defendants violated the
         Business and Professional Code Section 17200 by the
         wrongful conduct identified;

     (g) whether Fidelity and the other defendants violated
         the Civ. Code Section 1750 by the wrongful conduct
         identified;

     (h) whether Fidelity and the other defendants violated the
         Elder Financial Abuse Statutes, WIC Section 15610.30 by
         the wrongful conduct identified;

     (i) whether Fidelity and the other defendants were unjustly
         enriched by the commissions they received as a result
         of selling Viatical Settlements to the purchasers;

     (j) whether Fidelity and the other defendants mislabled and
         misrepresented the investment product as a "Viatical"
         when they are "Life Settlements" as a matter of law;

     (k) whether Fidelity and the other defendants sold Viatical
         Settlements without a license that was required by Cal.
         Code Ins. Section 10113.2;

     (l) whether Fidelity and the other defendants fraudulently
         concealed the risk of Viatical Settlements;

     (m) whether Fidelity and the other defendants obtained
         fraudulent "Doctor's" reports on the life expectancy of
         the Viators, from persons who are not doctors;

     (n) whether Fidelity and the other defendants failed to
         disclose adverse tax consequences and Possible
         alternatives to Viatical settlements, as required Cal.
         Code Ins. Section 10113.2;

     (o) whether Fidelity and the other defendants engaged in
         any false or misleading advertising, solicitation, or
         practice as prohibited by Cal. Code Ins. Section
         10113.2 Corp. Code Section 25500 et seq. or 24500 et
         seq.; and

     (p) whether Fidelity and the other defendants, sold
         securities that are not qualified, nor exempt, under
         the Corp. Code Sections 25110, 25503, including
         violating the exemption requirements of Corp. Code
         Section 25102 by accepting investments with valuations
         of more than 10% investment of net worth of the
         investor.

The plaintiffs request for judgment as follows:

     -- for a court order requiring that defendants immediately
        cease acts that constitute unlawful, unfair, or
        fraudulent business practices as alleged, and to enjoin
        defendants from continuing to engage in any such acts or
        practices in the future;

     -- for general damages according to law and proof;

     -- for special damages according to law and proof,
        including damages based on Civil Code Section 3281,
        3333, 3343;

     -- for costs of suit;

     -- for attorneys' fees;

     -- for treble damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 3345;

     -- damages pursuant to Corp. Code Sections 25501, 25501.5,
        25503, 25504.1, 25504.2;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- treble damages under California Code of Civil Procedure
        section 1029.8;

     -- restitution;

     -- rescission of the contracts;

     -- for pre-judgment interest according to law; and

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

The suit is "Marion E. Coit et al v. Fidelity Assurance
Associates et al., Case No. RG08379968," filed with the Superior
Court of the State of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Morgan C. Smith, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          The Arns Law Firm
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 495-7800
          Fax: (415) 495-7888


FORCE PROTECTION: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is May 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed with the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of common
stock purchasers of Force Protection, Inc., between August 14,
2006, and February 29, 2008, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint charges Force Protection and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Federal Securities
Laws, specifically alleging that, throughout the Class period,
defendants failed to disclose the following:

     (1) FRPT was having persistent problems meeting delivery
         deadlines, which was impacting the Company's ability to
         compete in the U.S. military's Mine Resistant Ambush
         Protect market;

     (2) FRPT's ability to compete for government contracts was
         impaired, due to the Company's inadequate financial
         system of accounting, as evidenced by a critical report
         from the Defense contract Audit Agency;

     (3) FRPT's financial statements were not prepared in
         accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles;

     (4) FRPT lacked adequate internal and financial controls;
         and

     (5) FRPT's financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

On February 29, 2008, and March 3, 2008, the company shocked
investors when it announced that it would delay filing of its
2007 Annual Report and that it would restate its financial
statements for the three and nine month periods ended Sept. 30,
2007.  Upon release of this news, the Company's shares declined
$0.53 per share, or 12.9 percent, to close on March 3, 2008, at
$3.58 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased the common stock of Force Protection (Nasdaq:FRPT]
between August 14, 2006, and February 29, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Susan R. Gross, Esq. (susang@bernardmgross.com)
          Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)         
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          Telephone:  866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600
          Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com


HOME SOLUTIONS: Securities Fraud Suit in Texas Upheld by Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, on March 24, 2008, refused to
dismiss a shareholder class-action lawsuit against Texas-based
Home Solutions of America Inc. (Pink Sheets:HSOA).

The investor lawsuit, filed by national class action law firm
Scott+Scott LLP, claims that Home Solutions knowingly
misrepresented and exaggerated the company's financial
performance and prospects, the value of corporate acquisitions,
supposed new contract awards and expanded business relationships
to artificially inflate Home Solutions' stock price for the
purposes of funding new acquisitions.

The lawsuit further claims that these misrepresentations enabled
company insiders to reap enormous personal gains on the sale of
their Home Solutions stock.

The Court's analysis centered on Home Solutions' May 23, 2007
press release in which the company, according to plaintiffs,
gave investors "the false impression that Home Solutions was
awarded business by an independent and established company with
business of its own."

The lawsuit alleges that the "independent and established
company" referred to by Home Solutions actually had no business
of its own, had no working phone number, had been incorporated
five days before the press release, and was provided with nearly
all of its capital by Home Solutions.  Over defendants'
objections, the Court upheld the plaintiffs' claim that the
press release was misleading.

The suit seeks class-action status for those investors who
bought Home Solutions stock at artificially inflated prices.
Home Solutions filed its motion to dismiss the case on June 6,
2007.

The suit is "Margaret Hansen, et al. v. Home Solutions of
America, Inc., et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court of
the Northern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs is:
  
          Scott & Scott, LLC
          P.O. Box 192
          108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: 860.537.5537
          Fax: 860.537.4432
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. or IBG, Inc. is facing a
purported securities fraud class action that was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Jan. 14, 2008, the Company was named as a defendant in a
purported shareholder class action lawsuit alleging that the
Company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
by issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection
with its initial public offering that contained false and
misleading statements or omitted material facts concerning
losses suffered by the Company in connection with trading in
options of Altana AG on the German stock market.  

A lead plaintiff was appointed on March 14, 2008, and an amended
complaint was served on or about March 24, 2008.  

The amended complaint adds the Company's founder and chief
executive officer, Thomas Peterffy, as a defendant.  It asserts
claims against the Company under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act, and against Mr. Peterffy under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act, based on the allegations that the
Registration Statement failed to disclose $25 million in trading
losses in the first quarter of 2007 that resulted from unusually
high volume in advance of certain corporate announcements as
well as the alleged failure to disclose the losses in trading
options of Altana AG.  

The suit is "Lin v. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc., Case No.
1:08-cv-00242-CM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Colleen McMahon presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Andrew J. Levander, Esq. (andrew.levander@dechert.com)
          Dechert, LLP (NYC)
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Phone: (212) 698-3500
          Fax: (212) 698-3500


IONATRON INC: Court Upholds Investor Claims in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona has denied a bid by securities-fraud
defendant Ionatron Inc. (now Applied Energetics Inc.) to have a
class action lawsuit against the company and certain other
insider defendants dismissed.

On May 10, 2006, Ionatron shocked investors when it announced
that the U.S. Government, after testing the then-current vehicle
platform, concluded that the vehicle was unfit for field use.
The company also disclosed that it had selected the platforms
for the vehicles due solely to their off-the-shelf availability.

On this news, the price of Ionatron shares plunged more than
39.5% over the four subsequent trading days, falling from $12.83
per share on May 10, 2006, to close at $7.76 per share on
May 16, 2006, for a combined loss of $5.07 per share, on
combined volume of 9.4 million shares.

In July 2006, George Wood and Raymond Veedon filed two purported
class action complaints.  Each of the class actions allege,
among other things, violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the
company issued false and misleading statements concerning the
development of its counter improvised explosive device product
(Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2007).

The lawsuit alleges that the Company concealed material setbacks
in the development of the counter-improvised explosive device
vehicle while doing little more than improvising "off-the-shelf"
vehicle platforms and components to hastily "develop" a
"deployment-ready" prototype vehicle.

The suit seeks class-action status for those investors who
bought Ionatron stock between June 27, 2005, and through May 10,
2006.

The court has consolidated these cases, and a consolidated
amended complaint has been served.  

On Feb. 16, 2007 the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state of cause of
action.

On March 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed papers in opposition to
the company's motion to dismiss.

The parties presented oral argument on December 10, 2007.

Earlier, Judge Jorgenson denied a bid by Ionatron to have the
class action lawsuit against the company and certain other
insider defendants dismissed.

The first identified complaint is "George Wood, et al. v.
Ionatron, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00354," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

For more information, contact:

          Scott & Scott, LLC
          P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: 860.537.5537
          Fax: 860.537.4432
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Reaches $2.2BB Settlement in "Newby" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. reached a $2.2-billion settlement in the
matter, "Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp., Case No. No. 01-cv-
3624," according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is a consolidated class action filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against 69
defendants purportedly on behalf of the purchasers of Enron
Corp.'s publicly traded equity and debt securities from Oct. 19,
1998 to Nov. 27, 2001 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2006).  

Approval of the Newby settlement and the order of final judgment
and dismissal as to the JPMorgan Chase defendants is now final.

The last step in the settlement process is approval of a plan of
allocation of the settlement proceeds to the settlement class,
and the court is scheduled to hear plaintiffs motion to approve
such a plan of allocation on Feb. 29, 2008.

The case is "Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp., Case No. No. 01-cv-
3624," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel W. Krasner, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein et al.
          270 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600

               - and -

          Jack Edward McGehee, Esq.
          McGehee & Pianelli
          1225 N. Loop W, Ste. 810
          Houston, TX 77008
          Phone: 713-864-4000
          Fax: 713-868-9393

Representing Enron Corp. is:

          Scott David Lassetter (sdl@lassetterfirm.com)
          Atty. at Law
          3700 Montrose Blvd.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: 713-523-0325
          Fax: 713-523-0132


KRATOS DEFENSE: Settles California Labor Code Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. settled a purported
class action field with the Superior Court of the State of
California, Alameda County, alleging violations of the
California Labor Code, according to the company's March 27, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On March 28, 2007, three plaintiffs, on behalf of a purported
class of similarly situated employees and contractors, filed a
lawsuit against the Company.

The suit alleges various violations of the California Labor Code
and seeks payments for allegedly unpaid straight time and
overtime, meal period pay and associated penalties.

The company and the plaintiffs have agreed to venue for the suit
in San Diego County.  

Although the Company believes that the allegations lack merit,
it has agreed in principle with the plaintiffs to settle their
claims for an aggregate amount in the range of $0.3 million to
$0.5 million, to include individual and incentive awards,
attorneys' fees and administrative costs, subject to court
approval.

The actual amount paid by the Company will depend upon the
number of responses received from members of the purported class
of plaintiffs.

San Diego, California-based Kratos Defense & Security Solutions,
Inc. -- http://www.kratosdefense.com/index.htm-- formerly  
Wireless Facilities, Inc. is engaged in providing mission
critical engineering, information technology (IT) services and
war fighter solutions.  The Company operates in federal and non-
federal business operations.  The services provided by the
Company includes weapons systems life cycle sustainment
services, engineering services, range and technical services,
security systems integration and IT services.  The Company's
customers include the U.S. Department of Defense, federal, state
and local government agencies.  


LOUISIANA: Lawsuit Accuses State of Intimidating Katrina Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana accuses officials -- who run
the State of Louisiana's "Road Home" program, created to assist
victims of Hurricane Katrina -- of lying to and intimidating
applicants to prevent them from getting grants from the poorly
run, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The Louisiana Road Home program is funded through Community
Development Block Grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.

CourtHouse News contends that about 104,000 grants have been
closed from 155,000 applications, though not all grantees have
received money, and the state allegedly failed to disclose the
bases on which it awards grants, falsely told applicants the
grants are not subject to judicial review, and threatened to
hold applicants liable if they did sue, in good faith, to
contest a grant.

According to the report, state Commissioner of Administration
Angele Davis and Office of Community Development Executive
Director Suzie Elkins – named as individual defendants --
allegedly committed these infractions, among others:

     -- losing applicants' supplied documents proving residency,
        ownership, insurance and FEMA payments;

     -- refusing to accept applicants' papers, including
        applicant-supplied certified appraisals, [and] other
        proof of damages ...

     -- failing to disclose the basis of awards and details and
        status concerning dispute resolution and determinations,
        in writing, as required by LRA [LRA is not defined]
        policy;

     -- failing to provide complete applicant files when
        requested by applicants as required by LRA policy;

     -- deleting documents and information in some applicant
        files;

     -- calculations with obvious and gross mathematical errors
   
     -- concealing from applicants changes that lower the amount
        of awards until closing, contrary to LRA policy;

     -- intimidating applicants to close for lesser amounts than
        originally told or be placed 'at the back of the line'
        or in an 'inactive' category ...

     -- these and other documented problems with the Road Home
        Program have only worsened since its inception, in part
        because Defendants claim immunity from state judicial
        oversight.

This action under 42 USC Section 1983 seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief for violation of plaintiffs' civil rights, and
the rights of those similarly situated, protected by the
Constitutions of the United States and Louisiana.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons having
completed or pending Road Home applications, as well as all
persons for whom a final agency decision on a road home grant
has been made.

The plaintiffs make no claim for monetary damages as a result of
defendants' abridgment of their rights under the Untied States
that regard and a permanent injunction prohibiting future
similar conduct in utilizing and enforcing challenged language
in the Louisiana Road Home Program's "Grant Agreement" and
elsewhere infringing upon plaintiffs' right to judicial review
and access to the courts.

The suit is "Jacob Groby, III et al v. Angele Davis et al., Case
No. 08-1524," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John Paul Massicot, Esq.
          Frank A. Silvestri, Esq.
          M. Damien Savoie, Esq.
          Anthony L. Marinaro, Esq.
          Silvestri and Massicot
          3914 Canal St.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Phone: 504-482-3400
          Fax: 504-488-6082


LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc., continues to face a
consolidated class action suit filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Initially, six purported class actions were filed between
Aug. 8, 2007, and Sept. 12, 2007, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

The suits were filed against against Luminent Mortgage Capital,
Inc., the sponsor of the Luminent Mortgage Trust 2007-1Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1, and against certain of
its current and former directors and officers.

They are seeking certification of classes composed of
stockholders who purchased the Company's securities during
certain periods, starting as early as Oct. 10, 2006, and
concluding as late as Aug. 6, 2007.  

The legal proceedings related to these complaints have been
consolidated into a single action.  A consolidated complaint has
been filed, on behalf of a purported class of investors who
purchased the company's securities between June 25, 2007, and
Aug. 6, 2007.

The lawsuits allege generally, that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations to
the market concerning the Company's operations and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common
stock.  It seeks unspecified damages.

Luminent Mortgage Trust 2007-1 reported no development in the
matter in its March 27, 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 Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:07-cv-04073-PJH," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard Bemporad, Esq. (rbemporad@lowey.com)
          Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.
          One North Broadway
          Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601-2310
          Phone: 914-997-0500
          Fax: 914-997-0035

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. (nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue
          10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6531
          Phone: 212-983-9330
          Fax: 212-983-9331

               - and -

          Mark Irving Labaton, Esq. (mlabaton@kreindler.com)
          Kreindler & Kreindler LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-622-6469
          Fax: 213-622-6019

Representing the defendants are:

          Joshua Hill, Esq. (Joshua.Hill@Hellerehrman.com)
          Heller Ehrman LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2878
          Phone: 415-772-6000
          Fax: 415-772-6268


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Md. Court OKs $6Mln Deal in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
has entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal approving
the $6,000,000 settlement in the class action "In Re Martek
Biosciences Corp. (Ticker: MATK) Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. MJG 05-1224," filed on behalf of individuals who
purchased or acquired Martek common stock during the period from
Dec. 9, 2004, to April 28, 2005.

As previously noted in the Company's press release on Dec. 10,
2007, the settlement of the class action calls for a cash
payment of $6 million into a settlement fund, all of which has
been paid by the Company's insurer.

Under the terms of the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal,
that settlement fund will be distributed to class members and
all claims against the Company and its past and present officers
and directors named as defendants have now been dismissed.

According to a report in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 12,
2007, the settlement will result in the dismissal of the claims
against Martek and all other defendants, subject to final court
approval (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 11, 2008).

                       Case Background

On Nov. 18, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
during the period beginning Dec. 9, 2004, and ending April 28,
2005.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and violations
of Section 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the company
and certain individual defendants made false or misleading
public statements and failed to disclose material facts
regarding its business and prospects in public statements the
company made or failed to make during the period and, in the
case of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 claims, in the company's
January 2005 prospectus.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, which the court dismissed on June 14, 2006.  The
court then entered a scheduling order for further proceedings in
the case.  

Subsequently, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the
claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933, leaving only
the alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the action.

On Sept. 20, 2006, the court approved the dismissal of the 1933
Act claims.  Additionally, on Sept. 21, 2006, the court approved
the parties' stipulation certifying a class to prosecute claims
under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Subject to certain exceptions, the stipulated class generally
consists of all persons who either purchased Martek common stock
during the class period of Dec. 9, 2004, through April 28, 2005,
inclusive or otherwise acquired, without purchasing, Martek
common stock during the class period from a person or entity who
purchased those particular shares of Martek stock during the
class period.

The suit is "In re Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Marvin
J. Garbis.   

The plaintiffs' co-lead counsel are:

          Katharine M. Ryan, Esq. (kryan@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087

               - and -

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq. (jpollack@milbergweiss.com)
          Todd S. Kussin, Esq. (tkussin@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY  10119

The defendant is represented by:

          Steven F. Barley, Esq. (sfbarley@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan and Hartson, LLP
          111 S. Calvert St., Ste. 1600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 14106592700
          Fax: 14105396981


MEDIACOM LLC: November 2008 Trial Set in Mo. Landowners' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative November 2008 trial is scheduled for a purported
class action lawsuit filed in Missouri against Mediacom, LLC
over alleged trespassing at private lands.

The company is named as a defendant in the putative class
action, "Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom, LLC," pending in
the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, by which the
plaintiffs are seeking class-wide damages for alleged trespasses
on land owned by private parties.  

The lawsuit was originally filed on April 24, 2001.  Pursuant to
various agreements with the relevant state, county or other
local authorities and with utility companies, the company placed
interconnect fiber optic cable within state and county highway
rights-of-way and on utility poles in areas of Missouri not
presently encompassed by a cable franchise.  

It alleges that the company was required, but failed to obtain
permission from the landowners to place the cable.  The lawsuit
has not made a claim for specified damages.   

An order declaring that this action is appropriate for class
relief was entered on April 14, 2006.  The company's petition
for an interlocutory appeal or in the alternative a writ of
mandamus was denied by order of the Supreme Court of Missouri
dated Oct. 31, 2006.  

A trial date of November 2008 has been set for the claim by the
class representative, according to the company's March 27, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Mediacom Communications Corp. -- http://www.mediacomllc.com/--  
is engaged in the acquisition and development of cable systems
serving smaller cities and towns in the U.S.  Through these
cable systems, MCC provides entertainment, information and
telecommunications services to its subscribers.


MICHAELS STORES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Texas Investor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The 192nd District Court for Dallas County, Texas granted a
motion that sought for the dismissal of a consolidated action
against Michaels Stores, Inc., with regard to a merger wherein
the company was acquired by affiliates of two private investment
firms -- Bain Capital Partners, LLC and The Blackstone Group.  

Purported former shareholders Julie Fathergill, Feivel Gottlieb,
and Roberta Schuman filed the suit and sought to represent a
class of other former shareholders.  The action is a
consolidation of three previously filed lawsuits.  

The plaintiffs' claims arise out of the merger and, in addition
to Michaels Stores, the plaintiffs named as defendants certain
of the company's former and then-current officers and directors
and certain other entities involved in or affiliated with the
merger.  

The plaintiffs allege that the merger was procedurally and
financially unfair to Michaels Stores' then-shareholders and
assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the
individual defendants and claims for aiding and abetting such
breaches against the entities.  

Among other things, the plaintiffs seek:

      -- a declaration that the merger is void and ordering it
         rescinded;

      -- an accounting for, disgorgement of, and the imposition
         of a constructive trust on, property and profits
         received by the defendants; and

      -- unspecified damages, including rescissory damages.

On July 12, 2007, Ms. Gottlieb and Ms. Schuman voluntarily
dismissed their claims.  Ms. Fathergill opted to continue as the
remaining named plaintiff and proposed class representative.

In December 2007, the parties reached a settlement of Ms.
Fathergill's claims.  The terms of the parties' agreement are
confidential but had no material effect on our financial
condition.  

The court granted Ms. Fathergill's motion to dismiss on Dec. 28,
2007, according to the company's April 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts  
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Consolidated Texas Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud
class action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, according to the company's April 3,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

Initially, on Sept. 6, 2006, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity
Fund filed a putative class action on behalf of itself and
former holders of Michaels Common Stock.  The lawsuit named
Michaels Stores and all of its then-current directors as
defendants.  

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants misrepresented and
omitted material facts in Michaels Stores' annual proxy
statements for 2004, 2005 and 2006, including, among other
things:

     -- that Michaels' reported financial results inflated its
        reported earnings by not properly recording stock-based
        compensation expense relating to the granting of stock
        options;

     -- that problems with Michaels' internal controls prevented
        it from issuing accurate financial reports and
        projections; and

     -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in
        the granting of backdated stock options.  

The plaintiff asserted claims against all of the defendants of
violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and violations of
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The plaintiff sought, among other relief, an indeterminate
amount of damages from the defendants and equitable or
injunctive relief, including the rescission of stock option
grants.  

       Lead Plaintiff Named, Consolidated Complaint Filed

By an order dated Dec. 8, 2006, MLAF was named the lead
plaintiff in this action.

On Nov. 27, 2006, Albert Hulliung and James and Christine
Ziolkowski (who had previously filed two separate stockholder
derivative actions, which were consolidated on Nov. 7, 2006)
filed a consolidated class action complaint against Michaels and
certain of its former officers and directors on behalf of a
class of other former shareholders.  

The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants
misrepresented and omitted material facts in Michaels' annual
proxy statements for 1993 through 2006, including, among other
things, failing to disclose Michaels' and the defendants'
alleged option backdating practices and the fact that Michaels
and the defendants had reported false financial statements as a
result of those practices.  

The consolidated complaint also alleged that the proxy
statements failed to disclose:

      -- that Michaels had problems with its internal controls
         that prevented it from issuing accurate financial
         reports and projections;

      -- that because of improperly recorded stock-based
         compensation expenses, Michaels' reported financial
         results violated GAAP;

      -- that Michaels' public disclosures presented an inflated
         view of Michaels' earnings by understating Michaels'
         past compensation expenses;

      -- that Michaels faced substantial liability for its past
         and ongoing backdating practices; and

      -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in
         the granting of backdated stock options.  

The plaintiffs asserted claims against all defendants for
violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and sought, among
other relief, an indeterminate amount of damages from the
defendants, as well as an award of attorneys fees and costs.

                   Consolidation of Lawsuits

By an order dated Feb. 1, 2007, the MLAF action was consolidated
with the Hulliung/Ziolkowski action.

In that action, on May 21, 2007, the MLAF filed a motion for
leave to file a first amended consolidated class action
complaint.  

As proposed, the Amended Complaint names Michaels and certain of
its current and former officers and directors as defendants.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented
and omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements
for 2004, 2005, and 2006, including, among others, failing to
disclose:

      -- Michaels' and the defendants' alleged option backdating   
         practices

      -- information regarding transactions and holdings of
         Michaels Common Stock by certain trusts owned by or for
         the benefit of two of Michaels' former officers and
         directors and their family members; and

      -- that Michaels and the defendants had reported false
         financial statements as a result of those practices.

Further, the Amended Complaint makes allegations regarding the
Company's financial restatement of periods prior to 2006, as
well as the recently completed merger with entities affiliated
with Bain Capital Partners LLC, and The Blackstone Group.  

In the Amended Complaint, the lead plaintiff asserts claims
against all defendants for violations of Section 14(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  

The plaintiff seeks, among other relief:

      -- an indeterminate amount of damages,

      -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,

      -- an award of attorneys fees and costs, and

      -- equitable or injunctive relief, including the
         rescission of stock option grants.

On July 3, 2007, the court granted the motion of the lead
plaintiff, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, for leave to
file the proposed amended complaint.  

On July 5, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint, which names Michaels and
certain of its current and former officers and directors as
defendants.

The suit is "Hulliung v. Bolen et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01083,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Judge David C. Godbey presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405/235-1560
          Fax: 405/239-2112

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Provost Umphrey Law Firm
          3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: 214/744-3000
          Fax: 214/744-3015
          e-mail: Provost_Dallas@yahoo.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Patricia J. Villareal, Esq. (pjvillareal@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          PO Box 660623, 2727 N Harwood St.
          Dallas, TX 75266-0623
          Phone: 214/969-2973
          Fax: 214/969-5100

               - and -

          Michael L. Smith, Esq. (mls@bickelbrewer.com)
          Bickel & Brewer
          1717 Main St., Suite 4800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214/653-4034
          Fax: 214/653-1015

    
MICHAELS STORES: No Hearing Date Yet for Calif. Managers' Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has yet to schedule a
hearing related to the certification of a class action suit
filed against Michaels of Canada and Michaels Stores, Inc.,
according to Michaels Stores' April 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

On Dec. 20, 2002, James Cotton, a former store manager of
Michaels of Canada, ULC, the company's wholly owned subsidiary,
and Suzette Kennedy, a former assistant manager of Michaels of
Canada, commenced the proposed class proceeding on behalf of
themselves and current and former employees employed in Canada.

The Cotton claim was filed with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice and alleges that the defendants violated employment
standards legislation in Ontario and other provinces and
territories of Canada by failing to pay overtime compensation as
required by that legislation.

The Cotton claim also alleges that the defendants' conduct was
in breach of the contracts of employment of those individuals.  
It seeks a declaration that the defendants have acted in breach
of applicable legislation, payment to current and former
employees for overtime, damages for breach of contract,
punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest, and costs.

In May 2005, the plaintiffs delivered material in support of
their request that this action be certified as a class
proceeding.  

The company filed and served its responding materials opposing
class certification on Jan. 31, 2006.  A date has not yet been
set for the hearing with respect to certification.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts    
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


MICHAELS STORES: Still Faces Ex-Manager's Litigation in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., continues to face a purported class
action suit filed on Dec. 29, 2006, by John DeJoseph, a former
Michaels store manager in Valencia, California, according to the
company's April 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Feb. 2, 2008.

Mr. DeJoseph commenced the purported class action proceeding
against Michaels Stores on behalf of himself and current and
former salaried store employees employed in California from
May 10, 2002, to the present.

The DeJoseph suit was filed with the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  It alleges that Michaels
failed to pay overtime wages, provide meal periods, accurately
record hours worked, provide itemized employee wage statements,
and that Michaels unlawfully made deductions from employees'
earnings.  

Additionally, the suit alleges that the foregoing conduct was in
breach of California's unfair competition law.  

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages for unpaid wages,
penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In January 2008, the plaintiff submitted a brief in support of
class certification.  The company contested class certification
by filing responding materials on March 14, 2008.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts    
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Suit Over Customer's Personal Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit
for unlawfully requesting and recording personally identifiable
information as part of a credit card transaction.  

On Aug. 30, 2007, Rebecca Palmer, a consumer, filed the
purported class action proceeding with the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego.  

Ms. Palmer filed the action against Michaels Stores on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated California consumers.  The
Palmer suit alleges that Michaels unlawfully requested and
recorded personally identifiable information (i.e., her zip
code) as part of a credit card transaction.  

The plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees, according to the company's April 3, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts    
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Workers' UCL Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit
filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Orange
over alleged violations of the state's unfair competition law,
according to the company's April 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Feb. 2, 2008.

Antonio Hernandez and five other floor care contractor employees
filed the purported class action proceeding with the Superior
Court of California, County of Orange, on April 12, 2007.  

Aside from Michaels Stores, the plaintiffs filed the action
against Marshalls and TJ Maxx on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals in California.  

The Hernandez suit alleges that they were joint employees with
Michaels, Marshalls, TJ Maxx, and Creative Building Maintenance.

The suit also alleges that Michaels' conduct violates
California's unfair competition law.  It seeks injunctive
relief, damages for unpaid overtime, itemized wage statement
penalties, meal and rest break penalties, interest, and
attorneys’ fees.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts    
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


OIL COS: Kabateck Brown Kellner Files Ethanol-Related Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Major oil companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, Valero,
and ConocoPhillips are manufacturing and selling ethanol blended
gasoline that damages marine fuel tanks, engines and other
components, according to a federal class action lawsuit filed by
Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP.

PetroDiamond, Tower Energy and Big West are also named in the
suit.

"The price of gas is bad enough, but selling gasoline that
dissolves gas tanks is a new low even for the oil companies,"
said Brian Kabateck, Managing Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner
and the lead attorney on the case.  "The oil companies know this
fuel is corrosive, but they're keeping consumers in the dark to
pump up their profits.  The cost to the consumer is thousands of
dollars in repairs."

ExxonMobil last year recorded the largest profits recorded in
U.S. history with $40.6 billion.  Chevron posted profits of
$18.7 billion in 2007.

Oil companies have long mixed additives into their gasoline as a
way to boost octane.  Methyl tert-butyl ether, commonly known as
MTBE, was widely used as an octane booster until 2004, when it
was banned in many states because of environmental concerns.  In
response, ExxonMobil, Chevron and other oil companies selected
ethanol as a replacement.

Consumers were never informed about the differences between MTBE
and ethanol-mixed gasoline, nor were they informed about the
disastrous effects ethanol has on fiberglass marine fuel tanks.

Fiberglass is widely used in the construction of boat fuel
tanks.  Fiberglass is a combination of individual glass
"threads" bound together by a resin. Ethanol dissolves this
resin, destroying the tank.  Moreover, the dissolved resin
enters the fuel system, causing damage to the engine and other
components.

Ethanol blended gasoline is particularly harmful in the marine
environment because of "phase separation."  Ethanol attracts
water.  When enough water is absorbed by the ethanol blended
gasoline, the ethanol and water solution separates from the
gasoline (phase separation), with the gasoline floating to the
top.  This results in a layer of water with a high-concentration
of ethanol at the bottom of the fuel tank.

"The environment pays the price for Exxon and Chevron's
deception each time a damaged fuel tank leaks gasoline into the
water," Mr. Kabateck added.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of
California in Los Angeles. McNicholas & McNicholas, The Ball Law
Firm and Jacobson, Russell, Saltz & Fingerman, LLP are also
participating in the suit.

The suit seeks to represent a class comprising all owners of
boats with fiberglass fuel tanks who filled their tanks with
ethanol blended gasoline from a California retailer.

The suit also seeks to represent all persons in California who
own boats with a fiberglass fuel tank that had to be replaced
because of damage caused by ethanol blended gasoline bought from
a California retailer.

For more information, contact:

          Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Tel: 213.217.5000
          Fax: 213.217.5010


PAYPAL: Canadian Naturists Consider Suit Over Service Cut-Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Federation of Canadian Naturists -- an organization for
Canadian nudists – is considering a class action lawsuit against
PayPal, according to Switched.com.

The report says that the FCN claims PayPal suddenly cut off its
services to them, refusing to process their magazine
subscription payments after four years of business.

Switched.com points out that the FCN is not the first business
to get denied services for supposedly breaking the acceptable
use policy.  Since 2003, PayPal has excluded so called "sexually
oriented Web sites" from using their services for the purchase
of digital goods like membership or subscription fees.

However, the report notes, any Web site is allowed to use PayPal
for the sale of sexually oriented physical goods, like DVDs or
magazines that are then delivered by hand to the customer.  
PayPal claims this is due to the immense administrative cost of
doing business with an industry riddled with criminal schemes
and frequent "charge backs" (when a customer disputes a charge
to their paypal account).  In addition to this discrepancy
between physical and digital goods, PayPal further reserves the
right to deny Web sites that are distributing sexually oriented
material involving minors or for Web sites that "facilitate
meetings for sexually oriented activities."  These two lines
from the Mature Audiences section of their Acceptable Use Policy
are what PayPal claims the FCN has violated.

While the nudists object to being considered sexually oriented
in the first place, the government affairs director for the
federation, Judy Williams, tells Switched.com "PayPal's decision
about Going Natural and its claims about the FCN are unfounded
embellishments born of ignorance."

Switched.com explains that, according to history, naturists base
their practice on a 19th-century reform movement that believed
the cure for the ailments of industrial society "was exposure to
the natural healing elements or fresh air, sunlight, and water
-- preferably with loose or absent clothing."  In addition,
naturists don't believe that the naked body is inherently
erotic.

The last line of the PayPal's Mature audiences policy says that
"PayPal will not include sexual preferences or viewpoints as a
factor in determining what goods or services are prohibited
under the Mature Audiences Policy."

    
SEMTECH CORP: MPERS Seeks Consolidation of N.Y. Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System is seeking
consolidation of two purported securities fraud class action
suits against Semtech Corp., according to Semtech's March 27,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 27, 2008.

Initially, the company was named as a defendant in two purported
securities fraud class actions that were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In August 2007, a purported class action was filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers on behalf of
persons who purchased or acquired Semtech securities from
September 11, 2002, until July 19, 2006.

The case, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges violations of federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's past stock option
practices.

The Plaintiffs demand a jury trial but make no specific monetary
demand.

A very similar lawsuit was filed in October 2007 by another
plaintiff, which suit has not been served to the company.

In February 2008, MPERS filed a motion with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California for consolidation
of the cases, appointment of MPERS as lead plaintiff, and
approval of selection of counsel.

The suit is "Middlesex County Retirement System, et al. v.
Semtech Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-CV-07183," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Denny Chin.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY, 10017
          Phone: 212.907.0700
          Fax: 212.818.0477
          e-mail: info@labaton.com
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com/


SMITHKLINEBEECHAM: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Diabetes Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
SmithKlineBeecham Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, alleging the company knew, but failed to warn that
its diabetes drug Rosiglitazone, aka Avandia, Amaryl and
Avandaryl, could cause heart attacks, strokes and death,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is an action to recover for damages sustained by plaintiffs
and all other persons in the State of California who were
prescribed and purchased on or after may 25, 1999, through
Nov. 17, 2007, the diabetes drug, which was designed, developed,
labeled, advertised, marketed, promoted, and sold by defendants.

This action is brought pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 382, California Civil Code Section 1781 et
seq., and the procedural provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs request for relief as follows:

     -- an order certifying the case a class action and
        appointing plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the
        class;

     -- individual restitution to plaintiffs and each member of
        the class;

     -- economic damages caused to plaintiffs and each member of
        the class by defendants;

     -- an order requiring defendants to immediately cease its
        wrongful conduct as alleged;

     -- an order requiring defendants to disgorge all profits
        obtained as a result of their unfair competition;

     -- prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate;

     -- costs of the proceedings;

     -- reasonable attorneys fees and costs;

     -- punitive damages; and

     -- all such other and further relief as the court deems
        just and proper.

The suit is "George Louie et al v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp. et
al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          George E. Rosemond, Esq.
          Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas LLP
          8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 600
          Houston, Texas 77017
          Phone: (713) 230-2200

    
WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia  
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of the amended
complaint in the matter, "In Re Wells Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP"
filed against Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., now
known as Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder filed a purported class action
and derivative complaint, "Washtenaw County Employees Retirement
System v. Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al.,"
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III and
Wells Capital, our General Partners; Wells Management, the
company's property manager; certain affiliates of WREF; the
directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly
served as officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf
of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT’s strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
         fees.

On April 9, 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an
order enjoining the Internalization transaction.  On April 17,
the court granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
and the case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on
April 24.  In June 2007, the court granted a motion to designate
the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, which contains
the same counts as the original complaint, with amended factual
allegations based primarily on events occurring subsequent to
the original complaint and the addition of a Wells REIT officer
as an individual defendant.

On July 9, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
expedited discovery related to an anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 13, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed
and is currently pending before the Court, according to the
company's March 27, 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 Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com)
         Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue
         One Haverford Centre
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq. (mcates@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600


WILD EDIBLES: Customers Show Support for Mistreated Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seafood wholesaler and retailer Wild Edibles Inc. is seeing its
customer base rapidly erode with Sushi Samba, one of the
nation's hottest sushi restaurants, cutting off purchases from
the company until an employment dispute with workers is fairly
resolved, Infoshop News reports.  

Sushi Samba Park and Sushi Samba 7 join leading New York
restaurants like Pastis, Union Square Cafe, La Goulue, and
Mermaid Inn that have previously pulled out of Wild Edibles over
concern for the treatment of employees there.

"We are very pleased that Sushi Samba has chosen to support the
legal rights of workers at Wild Edibles," Daniel Gross, the
founding director of Brandworkers International, a non-profit
workers' rights organization providing legal and advocacy
assistance to the employees, told Infoshop.  "Wild Edibles'
remaining customers would do well to consider playing a
similarly positive role."

Wild Edibles workers have joined with concerned community
members to make positive change on the job.  

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 19, 2007,
sixteen Wild Edibles employees sued the seafood company,
alleging they were not paid overtime wages.  The group also
alleged that Wild Edibles owner Richard Martin fired four
workers who joined Industrial Workers of the World union and
tried to convince their colleagues to do the same, thus
interfering with workers' rights.

According to CAR, the suit was organized by Brandworkers
International.  Mr. Gross had said that Wild Edibles employees
work 10- and 12-hour shifts without receiving overtime
wages.  He also indicated that most of the Wild Edibles
employees are immigrants.

Infoshop notes that Wild Edibles warehouse employees come mainly
from Latin America and most have financial obligations to
families in the country and abroad.  They start their work day
at 2:00 a.m. and work through the night until 11:00 a.m. or
later.  The report says that the federal class action lawsuit
potentially covers hundreds of workers.

Infoshop writes that, working in a facility that is often
painfully cold, Wild Edibles employees must contend with cuts
and strains from preparing and hauling the seafood on a tight-
schedule.  Though they work hard and service many of New York's
most expensive fine-dining restaurants, the workers were
systematically denied overtime pay and many haven't seen a raise
in years.  Many of the workers take home around just $400 a week
for as many as 55 hours of work.  They receive neither company
health insurance nor retirement benefits.

A federal judge, Infoshop relates, subsequently issued an
injunction against Wild Edibles and Mr. Martin against further
retaliation.  


WISCONSIN: DPI Settles Special Education Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
The state Department of Public Instruction and Disability Rights
Wisconsin have reached an agreement in a class action lawsuit
over how Milwaukee Public Schools identifies and works with its
special education students, Dani McClain writes for Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel.

DPI and the advocacy group filed a joint motion with the federal
court on April 7, 2008, seeking approval of the settlement,
according to a statement from the state education agency.

According to that statement, the settlement includes the
appointment of an outside authority, paid by DPI, to monitor
MPS's compliance with state and federal special education law
and establish standards for MPS.

The agreement will also create a parent trainer position that
will be based at Wisconsin Family Assistance Center for
Education, Training & Support.  This person will support MPS
parents and DPI will pay his or her salary.

MPS did not enter into the agreement, and issued a statement
today calling DPI's decision "a disappointment" because of the
tax increase district officials say will result for local
taxpayers.

According to the district's statement, the MPS School Board sent
a letter to the state Attorney General in March asking that
negotiations continue.

"To this date, there has been no response from the Attorney
General's office or from DRW to our request to keep talking,"
Jeff Spence, chair of the board's special education committee
said, according to the statement.  "This is not about MPS'
desire to properly identify students with special needs and help
them -- we have always been committed to that.  This is about
the state, which was deemed responsible for lack of oversight of
an important program, suddenly finding a way to place the
financial burden on Milwaukee taxpayers."


ZIX CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit in TX Settled for $5.6Mln
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $5,600,000 settlement for a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas against Zix Corp., and certain of its current
and former officers and directors has been proposed.

Beginning in early September 2004, several purported shareholder
class actions were filed against the company in Texas federal
court.

The purported class actions seek unspecified monetary damages
on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between
Oct. 30, 2003 and May 4, 2004.

The suits alleged that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act during this time
period.   The class actions were later consolidated into one
case.

The defendants are Zix Corp., Dennis F. Heathcote, Daniel S.
Nutkis, John A. Ryan, Ronald A. Woessner, and Steve M. York.

The Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuits
pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act was denied in September 2006 by the Court.

Also, the shareholder representatives of the purported plaintiff
shareholder class have filed a motion with the Court to certify
a class of plaintiffs consisting of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock in the open market from Oct. 30, 2003,
and May 4, 2004, inclusive and who were damaged by the allegedly
materially false and misleading statements or omissions.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' initial motion to certify the
class, but afforded the plaintiffs another opportunity to re-
file their class certification motion with the Court.

The parties to the suit were in the process of re-briefing the
class certification issue, and was scheduled to be completed by
late February 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2008).

Earlier the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas certified the lawsuit as a class action for certain
purposes and that a settlement $5,600,000 has been proposed.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Ed Kinkeade in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, at 10:00 a.m., on June 16, 2008.

Deadline to file exclusions is on May 18, 2008.  Deadline to
file claims is on July 27, 2008.

The suit is "Brody, et al. v. Zix Corporation, et al., Case No.
04-CV-01931," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Claxton & Hill
         3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103
         Dallas, TX, 75204-2471
         Phone: 214.969.9099

         Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
         275 Madison Ave 34th Flr
         New York, NY, 10016
         Phone: 212.682.1818
         Fax: 212.682.1892
         E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com

              -- and --

         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         3 Bala Plaza E
         Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
         Phone: 610.667.7706
         Fax: 610.667.7056
         E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHOCARE CORP: Sarraf Gentile Files Fl. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP filed a class action lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of ArthroCare Corporation between August 4, 2006, and
January 23, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges 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 and misleading
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.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 3, 2008
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile LLP
          11 Hanover Square
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212.868.3610
          Fax: 212.918.7967
          Web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com


HUMANA INC: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. commenced a
class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Humana, Inc. from February 4, 2008, through
March 11, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges Humana and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Company provides various health and supplemental
benefit plans for employer groups, government benefit programs,
and individuals in the United States.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's anticipated earnings per share for the first quarter
of 2008 and full year 2008.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially
false misleading because defendants failed to disclose:

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
          Phone: 215-496-0300  
          Fax: 215-496-6611
          Web site: http://www.srk-law.co


MONEYGRAM INTL: Berman DeValerio Files MN Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An investor has sued MoneyGram International, Inc., with the
federal court, accusing the company of securities law
violations, Berman DeValerio announced.

Berman DeValerio filed the class action complaint on April 4,
2008, with the U.S. District of Minnesota on behalf of all
investors who acquired MoneyGram securities from March 1, 2007,
through and including February 29, 2008.  The complaint seeks
damages for violations of federal securities laws and remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


With executive offices in Minneapolis, MoneyGram is a leading
global payment services company.  The Company's major products
and services include global money transfers, money orders and
payment processing solutions for financial institutions and
retail customers.

The lawsuit claims that MoneyGram and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

According to the complaint, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about MoneyGram's financial results
during the Class Period, some contained in SEC filings.  In
particular, the complaint alleges that the defendants:

     (a) failed to sufficiently inform the investing public
         about MoneyGram's risk exposure in its asset-backed
         securities investments;

     (b) failed to disclose that the Company's asset-backed
         securities investments were in fact permanently
         impaired when the credit market deteriorated;

     (c) misrepresented the amount of the Company's losses from
         the risky securities; and

     (d) misled investors regarding the Company's overall
         financial results and internal controls, among other
         things.

As a result, investors purchased MoneyGram securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and
suffered damages.

The SEC has recently commenced an informal inquiry into
MoneyGram's financial statements, reporting and disclosures.

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

For more information, contact:

          Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
          Lesley Hale, Esq.
          425 California Street, Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 433-3200
          e-mail: sflaw@bermanesq.com


PMI GROUP: Holzer Commences Securities Fraud Suit Filing in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed with the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against The PMI Group, Inc. on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between November 2, 2006, and
March 3, 2008.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges The PMI Group,
Inc. violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 when it issued
false and misleading statements to the public concerning its
future earnings potential and business model generally.

For more information, contact:

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


            Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
April 9-12, 2008
  MEALEY'S 15th Annual Insurance Insolvency & Reinsurance
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 10-11, 2008
  Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
    Mass Torts Made Perfect
      Wynn, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-320-2227

April 14-15, 2008
  MEALEY'S CONFERENCE: FOOD & PRODUCT RECALL BUSINESS STRATEGIES
    Mealeys Seminars
      The MGM Grand, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 15, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING OUTSIDE COUNSEL COSTS
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT &
    MOLD LITIGATION UPDATE
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Gleacher Center, Chicago
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 30 - May 1, 2008
  ACI LAW FIRM GENERAL COUNSEL SUMMIT
    American Conference Institute
      New York
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

April 30 - May 1, 2008
  WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Miami
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

May 1-2, 2008
  SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES
    ALI-ABA
      Boston, MA
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 5-6, 2008
  MEALEY'S ASBESTOS TRIAL STRATEGIES CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 7, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 8, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: BENZENE LITIGATION
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 8, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (ATLANTA)
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Atlantic Station Building, Atlanta, GA
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 13-14, 2008
  D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
    American Conference Institute
      New York
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

May 15, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION TELECONFERENCE
    SERIES: ASSUMING A LEADERSHIP POSITION
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 19-20, 2008
  MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUMMIT: CAPITAL MARKETS CONVERGENCE AND
    STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FACING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Westin Grand, Washington, DC
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 20-21, 2008
  MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 29-30, 2008
  MASS LITIGATION
    ALI-ABA
      Charleston, SC
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 23-24, 2008
  MEALEY'S WRAP INSURANCE CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Signatures at the MGM Grand, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 25, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (NEW YORK)
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Harvard Club, New York
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 10-11, 2008
  CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2008: PROSECUTION AND
    DEFENSE STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

July 30, 2008
  MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW
    DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        Chicago
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

October 23-24, 2008
  Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
    Mass Torts Made Perfect
      Bellagio, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-320-2227

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
December 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
       e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
  
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS  
  (2004)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
       Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2005)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
  YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
  WRITTEN DISCOVERY
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
  LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
  LawCommerce.Com
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
  SALES AND ADVERSTISING
    American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-285-2221
        e-mail: abacle@abanet.org





                            *********

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  * * *