CAR_Public/080410.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 10, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 71
  
                            Headlines

ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Suits in Washington
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Fla. Court Considers Certification in "Garcia"
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Pa. Suit Over Back Wages, Overtime
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Service Mark-Ups
ARCTIC GLACIER: Accused by Grocer of Freezing Out Competition

ATA AIRLINES: Nichols Kaster & Anderson Brings WARN Act Lawsuit
BEAR STEARNS: Hagens Berman Files 3rd Suit Citing ERISA Breach
EQUITY INNS: Lawsuit in Tenn. Over Company's Sale Moves Forward
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Suit Over Mismanagement of Trust Assets Nixed
FORD MOTOR: 1991-2001 Explorer Lawsuit Settlement Challenged

IGE: Warcraft Gamer Sues Over Online Real-Money Trading
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Considers Appeal of Stockholders' Lawsuit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in N.Y. ERISA Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Expert Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Litigation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in New York

JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Nixes Claims in Interchange Fees Suit
MCDONALD'S ISRAEL: Sued for ILS100MM Over Sodium Content in Food
MR. LUBIE STORES: Sued for Selling Low-Grade Motor Oil
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Avondale Mills Suit Over Train Wreck
NORTH DAKOTA: Faces Another Suit Over Traffic Fines

OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Certified in Penna. District Court
PALM INC: May 2 Hearing Set for Treo Suit Settlement in Calif.
PETROLEUM DEV'T: Court Grants 90-Day Stay in Royalties Lawsuit
PLASTECH ENGINEERED: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Racial Harassment
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit in Tenn. Over ERISA Violations

SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Texas
SERVICE CORP: SCI Funeral Still Faces "Valls" Litigation in Fla.
SERVICE CORP: "Hijar" Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims
SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Baudino" Litigation
SERVICE CORP: Faces Arizona Lawsuit Over Alleged FLSA Violations

SERVICE CORP: Reaches Settlement in Texas Casket Antitrust Suits
STATE FARM: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over RICO Violations


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Dreier LLP Files Securities Lawsuit in Florida
HUMANA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in KY
MERCK & CO: Holzer Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing in PA
RAYMOND JAMES: Girard Gibbs Announces NY Securities Suit Filing
SUNTRUST BANKS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Suits in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., is facing
two purported consumer fraud class actions over ChoiceDek
composite decking, which suits are both pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, according
to the company's April 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

                       Pelletz Litigation

On Feb. 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit seeking to recover on behalf of the purchasers of
ChoiceDek composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold
and mildew.

The suit is captioned, "Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser Company,
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. and Lowe's
Companies, Inc.," which was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.

The plaintiffs, who filed suit on behalf of the purported class,
named as defendants AERT, Weyerhaeuser Co., and Lowe's Cos.,
Inc., asserting causes of action for violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, unfair competition or unfair and
deceptive trade practices in various states, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, and
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

By agreement, the deadline for AERT to answer or otherwise
respond to plaintiffs' complaint is April 18, 2008.  

                       Jamruk Litigation

On March 10, 2008, additional plaintiffs filed a purported class
action seeking to recover on behalf of the purchasers of
ChoiceDek composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold
and mildew.

The suit is captioned, "Joseph Jamruk et al vs. Advanced
Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. and Weyerhaeuser
Company," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

The plaintiffs named as defendants AERT and Weyerhaeuser
Company, asserting causes of action for misrepresentation,
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust
enrichment, and breach of express warranty.

By agreement, the deadline for AERT to answer or otherwise
respond to plaintiffs’ complaint is April 18, 2008.

Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. (AERT) --
http://www.aertinc.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets  
composite building materials that are used in place of
traditional wood or plastic products for exterior applications
in building and remodeling homes and for certain other
industrial or commercial building purposes.  The Company's
products are sold by national companies, such as the
Weyerhaeuser Co., Lowe's Cos., Inc., and Therma-Tru Corp.  Its
composite building materials are marketed as a substitute for
wood and plastic filler materials for standard door components,
windowsills, brick mould, fascia board, decking and heavy
industrial flooring under the trade names LifeCycle,
MoistureShield, MoistureShield CornerLoc, Weyerhaeuser ChoiceDek
Premium, ChoiceDek Premium Colors, MoistureShield outdoor
decking and Basics outdoor decking.  AERT has manufacturing
facilities in Springdale, Lowell, and Tontitown, Arkansas;
Junction, Texas and Alexandria, Louisiana.


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Fla. Court Considers Certification in "Garcia"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida has yet to certify a class in the case against
Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was acquired by Service Corp.
International on Nov. 28, 2006.

The suit (Case No.: 04-25646 CA 32) was filed by Reyvis Garcia
and Alicia Garcia against:

     -- Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
     -- Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation,

        * d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park South,
        * f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc.

The Plaintiffs in the case, which was filed in December 2004,
are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was
buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986, when the
cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc.   

Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of
the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia, who
essentially claimed that due to poor record keeping, spacing
issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford
to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the
decedent could not be located.  

In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to
certify a class of all persons buried at the cemetery whose
burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this is due to
poor record keeping, maps and surveys at the cemetery.  They are
also seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable
and injunctive relief.  

No class has been certified in this matter.

SCI reported no development in the matter in its March 3, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a  
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral homes and cemeteries.


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Pa. Suit Over Back Wages, Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was acquired by Service Corp.
International on Nov. 28, 2006, continues to face purported
federal class action over its alleged failure to pay back wages
and overtime to thousands of employees, including workers at
funeral homes that it owns, according to SCI's March 3, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 8, 2006.  The Lead plaintiffs
were identified as Deborah Prise of Shadyside and Heather Rady
of Greensburg, two former Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc.
employees (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2006).

The suit purports to have been brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of all Alderwoods and SCI affiliated
employees who performed work for which they were not fully
compensated, including work for which overtime pay was owed.  
The court has conditionally certified a class of claims as to
certain job positions for Alderwoods employees.

The Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violations of the
FLSA, failure to maintain proper records, breach of contract,
violations of state wage and hour laws, unjust enrichment, fraud
and deceit, quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, and
negligence.

They seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages, liquidated,
compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys’
fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On three occasions, the court has denied without prejudice
plaintiffs' request for certification of claims against SCI, and
has dismissed such claims without prejudice.

The suit is "Prise, et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-01641-JFC," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Joy Flowers
Conti presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Charles H. Saul, Esq. (csaul@margolisedelstein.com)
          Margolis Edelstein
          310 Grant St., Suite 1500, Grant Bldg.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-4256,

Representing the defendants is:

          Amy E. Dias, Esq. (aedias@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          One Mellon Center, 31st Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 391-3939


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Service Mark-Ups
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was acquired by Service Corp.
International on Nov. 28, 2006, continues to face a purported
class action over its alleged non-disclosure of markups on
funeral service contracts.  The suit is pending with the
Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los
Angeles, Central District.  

The suit, "Richard Sanchez et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et
al., Case No. BC328962," was filed in February 2005.  It seeks
to certify a nationwide class on behalf of all consumers who
purchased funeral goods and services from the company.

The plaintiffs allege in essence that the Federal Trade
Commission's Funeral Rule requires the company to disclose its
markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection
with funeral service contracts.  They further allege that the
company has failed to make such disclosures.   

The suit is seeking to recover an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, attorney's fees, costs and unspecified injunctive and
declaratory relief.

SCI reported no development in the matter in its March 3, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a  
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral homes and cemeteries.


ARCTIC GLACIER: Accused by Grocer of Freezing Out Competition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Milwaukee grocer V. Richards is suing Arctic Glacier
Wisconsin over a market lock on the packaged ice business, the
Associated Press reports.

V. Richards says Arctic Glacier has conspired to freeze out
competition.

V. Richards' attorney John Cabaniss, Esq., told AP that he
intends to ask the court to certify the case as a class action
so other sellers of Arctic Glacier products can join the
lawsuit.

According to AP, the lawsuit was filed in Milwaukee County
following a federal lawsuit filed in Minnesota in March by Ridge
Plaza of Milwaukee, alleging federal antitrust violations by
Arctic Glacier and two other ice companies.

A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman told AP that agents are
investigating possible anticompetitive conduct in the packaged
ice business.


ATA AIRLINES: Nichols Kaster & Anderson Brings WARN Act Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 8, 2008, a former employee of ATA Airlines, Inc. filed
a putative class action lawsuit against ATA Airlines, Inc. and
Global Aero Logistics, Inc. for violations of the Worker's
Retraining and Notification Act.

The lawsuit alleges that ATA and Global Aero Logistics violated
the WARN Act when they laid off 1,000 or more employees on or
about April 3, 2008 without 60 days notice as required by the
WARN Act.

ATA is based in Indianapolis, Indiana and filed for bankruptcy
in the Southern District of Indiana on April 2, 2008.

The Plaintiff, who worked for ATA in Indianapolis, Indiana,
brought the lawsuit on behalf of himself and others who worked
at ATA's qualifying work sites across the country.

Plaintiffs' attorney Matthew Helland explained, "We believe that
ATA and Global Aero Logistics did not provide employees with the
proper notice before ending their employment.  It is our
understanding that some employees learned in the middle of the
night that they were not to report to work the next day.  As a
result, there are now hundreds, if not over a thousand, former
employees of ATA out of work and trying to find jobs.  This is
the very sort of thing the WARN Act is meant to prevent."

The suit is "Batman, et al v. ATA Airlines, Inc., et al, Adv.
Pro. No. 08-50208," Bankr. S.D. Ind. ATA's bankruptcy proceeding
is Case No. 08-03675-BHL-11, Bankr. S.D. Ind.


BEAR STEARNS: Hagens Berman Files 3rd Suit Citing ERISA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a third complaint against Bear
Stearns (NYSE: BSC) on behalf of current and former employees,
claiming the company violated ERISA laws concerning the
management of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court in New York by
plan participant Rita Rusin, seeks to represent all employees
that invested in the ESOP from December 14, 2006, until the
present.

The lawsuit claims the company's failure to adequately manage
the plan and its investments resulted in the depletion of
hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement savings and
anticipated retirement income for plan participants.

"We've received calls from employees looking for help," said
Hagens Berman managing partner and lead attorney Steve Berman.
"They are upset that Bear Stearns didn't warn them that the
company stock might be in trouble."

Mr. Berman also noted that the firm has received calls from
current Bear Stearns employees, afraid the company could
retaliate against them if they participate in the legal action.
"I urge any employee who wants to speak up to do so without
fear," Mr. Berman noted.  "There are very strong laws that
protect employees when they come forward on cases such as this."

Hagens Berman filed its first suit against Bear Stearns on
March 24, 2008, after the company announced JPMorgan Chase & Co.
was purchasing Bear Stearns for $2 per share, 90 percent less
than the company's market value the week prior.

Trouble for plan participants began in 2007 when the company's
profits fell 90 percent, including a loss of $859 million in the
fourth quarter alone.  Beginning in early 2008 reports surfaced
of inquiries into Bear Stearns' hedge funds collapse.  Once
investors learned of the company's extremely risky pool of
mortgage-backed securities the investigation turned to the
company itself.

The complaint states that Bear Stearns heavily invested in the
sub-prime mortgage market, including CDOs and other mortgage-
backed securities, and by some accounts was the biggest packager
of residential U.S. mortgage-backed securities from 2004 until
2007.  These investments created not only an unacceptable and
imprudent risk for anyone invested in company stock, but also an
incredibly unstable amount of debt, which couldn't be sold.

In mid-March 2008, Bear Stearns approached JPMorgan and the
Federal Reserve to bail the company out and on March 15, 2008
the company was sold to JPMorgan for $2 per share -- a total of
$236 million. The offer later rose to $10 a share, but that did
little to recoup the massive losses suffered by plan
participants.

During the class period the company stock experienced a
tremendous decline -- starting at $157.89 per share on Dec. 14,
2006, and closing with a 98% drop on March 17, 2008, at only
$3.17 before moving up to $10.40 yesterday.

The filed complaint lists five counts against Bear Stearns
including breach of fiduciary duties, failure to provide plan
participants with accurate information on the stock's true
risks, and failure to properly monitor all fiduciaries and
remove those whose performance was inadequate.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman, Esq. (Steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292

               - and -

          Mark Firmani, Esq. (Mark@firmani.com)
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: (206) 443-9357


EQUITY INNS: Lawsuit in Tenn. Over Company's Sale Moves Forward
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit, filed against hotel real estate investment trust
Equity Inns Inc. and one-time company directors, will move
forward, The Commercial Appeal reports.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the Individual Retirement Accounts of Donald
J. Roberts, Dr. James M. Byers, Patrick Svoboda and Svoboda
Realty Inc. filed the suit, asking for unspecified damages more
than three months after Memphis-based Equity Inns directors
agreed to sell the company to an affiliate of Wall Street giant
Goldman Sachs.

Equity Inns was a real estate investment trust that owned 133
hotels.

Whitehall Street Global Real Estate Limited Partnership 2007
paid $23 for each share of common stock in Equity Inns.

Recently, Shelby County Circuit Court Judge Jerry Stokes denied
the directors' move to have the case dismissed.

From the time the deal was announced until the lawsuit was
filed, the preferred shares dropped about 30 percent in value.

Preferred stock is sort of a cross between common shares and
bonds dividends on shares are set as a percentage of the
original price (in this case, $25) like interest on a bond.

"We'll be moving shortly for certification as a class action,"
said Alan Crone, Esq., of Crone & Mason in Memphis, who
represents the plaintiffs.

Mr. Crone believes the investors face "significant hurdles" in
getting the suit approved as a class action and winning on the
merits of the case.

However, the lawyers agreed it will take several months before
the class-action status is determined.

Equity Inns, Inc. [NYSE: ENN], based in Memphis, Tennessee, USA,
is a self-advised real estate investment trust and the
largest US REIT focused on the upscale extended stay, all-suite
and mid-scale limited-service segments of the hotel industry.
Equity Inns became publicly traded in 1994 and is now the oldest
public hotel REIT in the USA with 132 hotels in 35 states.  At
March 31, 2007, Equity Inns' total assets were $1.2 billion.


FIFTH THIRD BANK: Suit Over Mismanagement of Trust Assets Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati District Court Chief Judge Sandra Beckwith has
dismissed without trial a lawsuit filed by a disgruntled trust
beneficiary against Fifth Third Bank, according to the Business
Courier of Cincinnati.

Judge Beckwith ruled that the lawsuit, filed in May 2007, is
precluded by a federal law that governs class-action complaints
for securities fraud.  The individual claims by plaintiff Daniel
Segal of Montgomery were also dismissed because, the judge
explained, federal courts lack jurisdiction to try claims based
on state law where both parties reside or do business in the
state.

As previously reported by the Business Courier, Mr. Segal had
alleged that the Cincinnati-based Fifth Third (NASDAQ: FITB)
improperly managed assets in a trust account in order to reduce
its expenses and boost fees earned by its affiliated Fifth Third
mutual funds.

Mr. Segal contended that Fifth Third sold a family trust's
interest in a Clifton Heights investment property so that it
could invest the cash proceeds in Fifth Third mutual funds.  Mr.
Segal was a beneficiary of the trust, which was managed by Fifth
Third.  

The previous Business Courier report, published on Sept. 7,
2007, stated that Mr. Segal's attorney, Richard Greenfield,
Esq., of Easton, Maryland, sought to have the Segal lawsuit
certified as a class action on behalf of thousands of other
beneficiaries of Fifth Third-managed accounts whose money was
invested in Fifth Third mutual funds at any time since March
2001.  Since the Segal lawsuit was filed, dozens of other
beneficiaries have contacted Mr. Greenfield, the report
indicated.

Fifth Third had asked the court to dismiss the class-action
complaint on the grounds that is was pre-empted by federal law
and that Mr. Segal's complaint did not allege any actions not
permitted under Ohio law.  The bank also said the property cited
by Mr. Segal was sold for more than its estimated market value
based on either of two appraisals it had done.


FORD MOTOR: 1991-2001 Explorer Lawsuit Settlement Challenged
------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Auto Safety, a Ralph Nader-founded group based in
Washington, D.C. filed a legal challenge with the Sacramento
Superior Court (Calif.) to the settlement of the massive Ford
Explorer lawsuit, the Sacramento Bee reports.

The class action was brought on behalf of all people and
entities residing in California who bought, owned or leased, a
new or used 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorer in California
between 1990 and August 9, 2000, and who either still own their
Explorer or who sold, ended their lease, or otherwise disposed
of it after August 9, 2000.

Filed in 2003, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that
defendant, Ford Motor Co., violated California's statutory
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiffs say that Ford knew about a dangerous design flaw
that made the Explorer unsafe and too likely to roll over, yet
concealed it, and instead marketed and sold the Explorer as a
safe vehicle.

The plaintiffs want class members to get compensation from Ford
for the excess money they say they paid for their Explorers, as
well as money from the profits Ford earned on California
Explorer sales, and other legal costs.

                         The Settlement

The Associated Press learned from a New Jersey attorney and co-
counsel for the SUV owners who brought the lawsuit that the
settlement applies to about one million people in California,
Connecticut, Illinois and Texas.

It will allow vehicle owners to apply for $500 vouchers to buy
new Explorers or $300 vouchers to buy other Ford or Lincoln
Mercury products, Kevin P. Rodd said.  The settlements apply to
Explorers from model years 1991 through 2001, he said.

The settlement is still subject to the approval of the
Sacramento judge, scheduled April 15 (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 29, 2007).

Clarence M. Ditlow, the center's executive director, criticized
the agreement and challenges to block the deal.

Filed less than two weeks before the scheduled hearing, the
consumer group claims the deal approved in December rewards
lawyers in the case with $25 million in fees but provides
Explorer owners with "no real benefits."

Mr. Ditlow said in court papers that the deal offered consumers
is "virtually worthless."

According to the report, the claim stems from a class action
suit filed on behalf of more than 414,000 Californians who
bought Explorers and later claimed they had lost resale and
trade-in value because of reports about rollover accidents and a
nationwide recall of Explorer Firestone tires in 2000.

Ford contended the vehicles were safe, but eventually agreed to
a settlement that would pay attorneys in the case $25 million
and offer most of the affected customers vouchers giving them
$300 to $500 off the purchase of new Ford, Lincoln or Mercury
products.  A new ford Explorer lists for about $25,000 to
$30,000.

See Ford Explorer Cases on the net:

   http://www.explorercasuit.com/  

The case is "Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4226 and 4270."

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Henry Rossbacher, Esq. (hhr@rossbacher.xhost.com)
          The Rossbacher Firm
          611 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 895-6500
          Fax: (213) 895-6161
          Web site: http://www.rossbacherlaw.com


IGE: Warcraft Gamer Sues Over Online Real-Money Trading
-------------------------------------------------------
A local World of Warcraft player is suing gold trading firm IGE
for damaging the game's economy and ruining the game experience,
Eurogamer reports, citing a report in the South Florida Sun-
Sentinel.

Antonio Hernandez, a former assistant manager at a game shop in
Orlando, is seeking certification of his suit as a federal class
action.  Eurogamer relates that Mr. Hernandez's case is thought
to be the first brought by a player seeking to ban real-money
trading in an online world, and if certified, it would be the
first class-action lawsuit involving MMO gaming.

As such, the case could establish precedent in the fledging
field of online property rights, the report says.

"The real significance of this case is, 'What are the rights of
the [virtual world] community members when they go online?'" C.
Richard Newsome, Esq., who represents Mr. Hernandez, said in the
lawsuit.

According to Eurogamer, Blizzard has expressed support for Mr.
Hernandez in the case.  Chief operating officer Paul Sams said,
"We believe that shutting down gold farming and real-money
transfer is in the interest of all World of Warcraft players,
and that a victory in this case would have a positive long-term
effect on the online gaming industry as a whole."

Meanwhile, IGE's lawyers contended that Mr. Hernandez has no
ownership or property rights within the game, and cannot show
actual damages.

To this, Mr. Newsome countered that IGE is breaking the game's
terms and conditions.

IGE's attorney, James M. Miller, Esq., told the Sun-Sentinel
that IGE is no longer involved in the virtual gold business.  

Eurogamer says that the Florida Attorney General's Office is
opening a consumer protection investigation into IGE, but the
company is fighting off its subpoena.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Considers Appeal of Stockholders' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal of the dismissal with prejudice issued by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in a matter
involving JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Initially, a consolidated class action suit by JPMorgan Chase
stockholders was filed against the firm, alleging that it issued
false and misleading press releases and other public documents
relating to Enron Corp. in violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, without prejudice, in
March 2005.  

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in May 2005.  The firm
moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court then
granted with prejudice on March 28, 2007.  

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, which is fully briefed
and pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, according to the firm's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company.  JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with branches in 17 states, and
Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is
the Company's credit card issuing bank.  JPMorgan Chase's
principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,
its United States investment banking firm.  The bank and non-
bank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well
as through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative
offices and subsidiary foreign banks.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in N.Y. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal regarding the dismissal by the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York of a purported class
action suit against JPMorgan Chase & Co. that alleges violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The putative class action was filed on behalf of JPMorgan Chase
employees who participated in the firm's 401(k) plan.  It
alleges claims under the ERISA for alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and negligence by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and
certain officers.

In August 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and dismissed some of their claims.

In September 2005, the firm moved for summary judgment, seeking
dismissal of the ERISA lawsuit in its entirety.  In September
2006, the court granted summary judgment in part, and ordered
the plaintiffs to show cause as to why the remaining claims
should not be dismissed.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the court dismissed the litigation with
prejudice.  

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, which is now fully
briefed and pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, according to the firm's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company.  JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with branches in 17 states, and
Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is
the Company's credit card issuing bank.  JPMorgan Chase's
principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,
its United States investment banking firm.  The bank and non-
bank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well
as through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative
offices and subsidiary foreign banks.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Expert Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, "In
re JPMorgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, Case No. 06-732,"
which was filed with the District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The putative consolidated class action names the JPMorgan Chase
Retirement Plan (together with the predecessor plans of the
JPMorgan Chase & Co. predecessor companies) and the JPMorgan
Chase & Co.'s Director of Human Resources as defendants.  

Current and former participants in the Plans filed the suit,
alleging various claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The plaintiffs' claims are based on alleged violations of ERISA
arising from the conversion to and use of a cash balance formula  
under the Plans to calculate the participants' pension benefits.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that:

      -- the conversion to and use of a cash balance formula
         under the Plans violated ERISA's proscription against
         age discrimination (age discrimination claim);

      -- the conversion to a cash balance formula violated
         ERISA's proscriptions against the backloading of
         pension benefits and created an impermissible
         forfeiture of accrued benefits; and

      -- defendants failed to adequately communicate to Plan
         participants the conversion to a cash balance formula
         and in general the nature of the Plan.

In October 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the firm's motion to dismiss the age
discrimination and notice claims, but granted the firm's motion
to dismiss the backloading and forfeiture claims.

On May 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York certified a class in this action.

The class includes current participants in the JPMorgan Chase  
Retirement Plan with claims relating to inadequate notice of
plan changes for the current period back to Jan. 1, 2002, and
age discrimination claims going back as far as Jan. 1, 1989.

The class excludes former participants who have elected to
receive a lump sum cash payment of their retirement benefits.

The Court reserved the right to revisit class certification
pending resolution of a similar case that is now before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  

On July 31, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for
reconsideration and certification of the May 30, 2007 Order.

Fact discovery, which was limited to the period Jan. 1, 2002,
and thereafter, is now complete, and expert discovery is
ongoing, 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 "In re JPMorgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, Case
No. 06-732," filed with the District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Harold Baer presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter S. Linden, Esq. (plinden@kmslaw.com)
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          830 Third Avenue
          10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 371-6600
          Fax: (212) 751-2540

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq. (dloeser@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 224-7562
          Fax: (206) 623-3384

               - and -

          Edgar Pauk, Esq. (pauk@tiac.net)
          144 East 44th Street, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 983-4000
          Fax: 212 808-9808

Representing the defendants is:

          Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. (jyoungwood@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 455-2000
          Fax: (212) 455-2502


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan and JPMorgan Chase Director of
Human Resources are facing a purported class action filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
that is generally alleging violations of the the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, according to the company's
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Aug. 17, 2007, a separate class-action complaint, entitled
"Bilello v. JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan, JPMorgan Chase
Director of Human Resources," was filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit is asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of
participants in the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan and certain
predecessor retirement plans (The Cash Plan for Retirement of
Chemical Bank and Certain Affiliates, The Retirement Plan of
Chemical Bank and Certain Affiliated Companies, and The
Retirement and Family Benefits Plan of the Chase Manhattan Bank,
N.A.; collectively the JPMC Plan), including notice claims that
were excluded from the class in "In re JPMorgan Chase Cash
Balance Litigation, Case No. 06-732."

On Nov. 16, 2007, the firm filed a motion to dismiss.  In lieu
of responding to this motion, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on Dec. 21, 2007, reasserting the claims raised in the
initial complaint and adding seven additional claims.

Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that:

       -- the JPMC Plan is impermissibly backloaded on other
          grounds;

       -- defendants violated ERISA by failing to comply with a
          provision of the Internal Revenue Service Code;

       -- the calculation of the accrued benefit of certain
          participants results in an impermissible forfeiture;
          and
       
       -- defendants failed to provide requested plan-related
          documents, in violation of ERISA.

In accordance with the Courts scheduling order, defendants will
file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint by Feb. 25, 2008.

The suit is "Bilello v. JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-07379-RJS," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard J. Sullivan
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter S. Linden, Esq. (plinden@kmslaw.com)
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          830 Third Avenue
          10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 371-6600
          Fax: (212) 751-2540

               - and -

          Edgar Pauk, Esq. (pauk@tiac.net)
          144 East 44th Street, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 983-4000
          Fax: (212) 808-9808

Representing the defendants is:

          Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. (jyoungwood@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 455-2000
          Fax: (212) 455-2502


JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Nixes Claims in Interchange Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted
a motion seeking the dismissal of certain claims in a
consolidated antitrust class action suit over "interchange fees"
that names JPMorgan Chase & Co. as one of the defendants.

On June 22, 2005, a group of merchants filed a putative class
action complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that VISA, MasterCard, Chase Bank USA,
N.A. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., as well as certain other banks,
and their respective bank holding companies, conspired to set
the price of interchange in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  It further alleges tying/bundling and exclusive
dealing.

Since the filing of the Connecticut complaint, other complaints
have been filed in different U.S. District Courts challenging
the setting of interchange, as well the associations' respective
rules.

All cases have been consolidated in the Eastern District of New
York for pretrial proceedings.  An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on April 24, 2006.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims that predate
Jan. 1, 2004.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the Court granted the motion to dismiss these
claims, according to JPMorgan's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company.  JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with branches in 17 states, and
Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is
the Company's credit card issuing bank.  JPMorgan Chase's
principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,
its United States investment banking firm.  The bank and non-
bank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well
as through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative
offices and subsidiary foreign banks.


MCDONALD'S ISRAEL: Sued for ILS100MM Over Sodium Content in Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald Israel franchisers, Alonyal, face a class action
lawsuit for ILS100 million alleging an attempt to mislead
customers about sodium content in their food, Haaretz.com
reports.

The salty food poses a health hazard, elevating the risk of
heart attacks, plaintiff Yoram Peri stated in his suit.  The
plaintiff said that McDonald's is presenting its offerings as
"health products," even though they are "very far from the
reality."

McDonald's stopped reporting the sodium content of its food in
2005, and in any case, the sodium levels marked on the packaging
were often misleading and incorrect, the suit stated.
Nutritional labeling that did appear was not presented in
customary nutritional terms, in order to persuade the public to
buy products while purposefully hiding their true nutritional
value.

As an example, Mr. Peri cited the chain's ketchup packets, which
contain no information about sodium content.  Other nutrition
information required by law, such as the calorie count, protein
and fat, are based on 10 grams of the product, instead of 100
grams, as is required by law.

Mr. Peri is seeking damages of ILS3,000 per customer.  The suit
estimates 244,000 customers were affected.

McDonald's responded that as a pioneer in nutritional labeling,
the chain has published brochures listing information collected
in independent laboratory analyses, even though it is not
required to do so.  "Unfortunately, the sodium results were
incorrect," it said.

"It should be kept in mind that this (corrected) information is
less than 15% of the daily recommended amount, and that there is
no health risk involved in the correctly labeled amount of
sodium. In fact, this is a reasonable and desirable amount," the
fast food giant said.

The company added that it has already corrected its labeling,
nutritional brochures and Web site in response to Mr. Peri's
legal action, and called the current claim a bid to obtain money
in an out-of-court settlement.

"It should also be noted that any customer who is sensitive to
sodium can ask for fries or salad without salt or sauce.  The
company has no vested interest in manipulating or hiding any
information from its customers," the chain said.


MR. LUBIE STORES: Sued for Selling Low-Grade Motor Oil
------------------------------------------------------
An Indiana resident is suing Seymour-based Mr. Lubie after a
Call 6 for Help investigation found that it was selling lower-
grade motor oil to people who believed they were buying a
higher-grade product, INDYchannel.com reports.

INDYchannel.com recounts that Call 6's Rafael Sanchez reported
in 2007 that three Mr. Lubie stores in Columbus were charging
$34.99 for oil that was purported to be Valvoline, a higher-
grade product than oil being used in the stores' standard oil
changes, which cost $15.99.  A nationally certified laboratory
hired by Call 6 determined the oil that the stores sold as
Valvoline for the higher price was actually the cheaper oil that
is sold in the cheaper service.

The substitutions would violate Indiana consumer protection
statutes and breach implied and expressed warranties regarding
the brand, quality or grade of motor oil, according to the
lawsuit filed on behalf of customer Steve Lokey of Vallonia.

"It's very early on in the process," said Pete Palmer, Esq., of  
New Albany, who is representing Mr. Lokey.  "He's a really nice
fellow who strongly feels that he has been deceived.  We think
this is a very serious matter."

According to the report, Mr. Lubie operates 16 stores in eight
counties in Indiana's southern half.  The company's owner, Bud
Hukill, did not deny the substitutions when Mr. Sanchez talked
to him last year.  Mr. Hukill said he would be pulling tanks
labeled Valvoline and that he was phasing out the product.

Mr. Hukill also said last year that he would refund customers
who could produce receipts.  Since then, he has refused to make
refunds, 6News reported.  Two former Mr. Lubie employees told
Call 6 in 2007 that they were threatened with termination if
they told anyone about the substitutions.

Mr. Palmer said he has asked the judge to make Mr. Lokey's
claims into a class-action lawsuit, encompassing other customers
who believe they got the low-grade oil.  

Attorney General Steve Carter's office has also received six
complaints about Mr. Lubie since 2007, the report notes.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Avondale Mills Suit Over Train Wreck
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. has settled a lawsuit filed by a textile
company that closed after a 2005 train wreck and toxic chemical
spill in Graniteville, S.C.

Terms of the agreement between Avondale Mills and the railroad
are confidential. The deal was reached nearly a month after the
case went to trial in South Carolina.  Avondale Mills had sought
$420 million in damages from Norfolk Southern.

Railroad attorneys had offered to pay Avondale Mills $110
million for damages, a little more than a quarter of what the
failed company was seeking, said Terry Richardson Jr., an
Avondale Mills attorney.

Norfolk Southern said its insurance will not pay for all of the
settlement, so the cost will lower its first-quarter profit. The
railroad said it expects earnings for the quarter that ended
March 31 to fall by 2 cents per share as a result of the
Avondale Mills case and other unspecified litigation.  Expenses
from those cases will increase first-quarter operating costs by
$13 million over the first quarter of last year, the railroad
said.

The railroad is scheduled to release its first-quarter earnings
on April 22.  Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial before
Monday's news projected the railroad will post a profit of 77
cents per share.

The incident occurred Jan. 6, 2005, when a Norfolk Southern
train slammed into a parked train because of an improperly set
track switch.  The collision ruptured a tank car, releasing
deadly chlorine gas.

The toxic plume wafted over the area and killed nine people,
including the train engineer, injured hundreds and caused more
than 5,000 people to be evacuated.

During the trial, Avondale Mills' attorneys said equipment in
its Graniteville facilities was coated by chlorine, which is
corrosive to metal and other materials.  The company closed in
May 2006, after determining it would cost more to clean the
buildings and replace machinery than the business was worth.

Lawyers for Avondale Mills argued that Norfolk Southern should
be held accountable for the damage because the railroad knew
members of the crew operating the Graniteville tracks the night
before the crash had worked long hours in violation of company
rules.

Norfolk Southern's lawyers contended that Stephen Felker Jr.,
Avondale Mills' chief executive, had already seen the writing on
the wall in the failing U.S. textile business when the crash --
and the economic opportunity it could provide in the form of
damages and insurance money -- fell into his lap.

Norfolk Southern faced a barrage of lawsuits following the
crash.

In June, a federal judge approved a class action lawsuit to
compensate those badly injured in the accident.  According to a
court filing last month, attorneys for the plaintiffs and
Norfolk Southern estimate it will cost $16.2 million to pay
those claims.

Another class action suit, covering property damage, lost wages,
minor injuries and other expenses, was resolved in August 2005.

The railroad has paid at least $6.1 million to cover those
claims, according to a July 2006 court filing.

Lawsuits filed by the families of the nine people killed have
all been settled confidentially.  At least 15 injury cases are
still pending against Norfolk Southern, Richardson said.

Other issues from the accident remain.  In February, the
railroad advised that the Justice Department may seek "civil
penalties as well as injunctive relief" if federal environmental
laws were violated in the wreck and chemical release.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com-- through its  
subsidiaries, engages in the rail transportation of raw
materials, intermediate products, and finished goods primarily
in the United States and parts of Canada.


NORTH DAKOTA: Faces Another Suit Over Traffic Fines
---------------------------------------------------
A second federal lawsuit has been filed in North Dakota over
traffic fines in the wake of a state Supreme Court ruling
against the city of Fargo, Dave Kolpack writes for the
Associated Press.

According to AP, Bruce Mills of Northwood is suing the city of
Grand Forks, saying a $166 fine he got for careless driving
should not have exceeded the state limit of $30.  He wants the
lawsuit to be declared a class action, which means it would
affect others with similar fines.

The Grand Forks fee collection system is "arbitrary,
unreasonable and irrational," Mr. Mills, who earlier lost two
appeals of his fines -- to Northeast Central District Judge
Lawrence Jahnke and the state Supreme Court -- said in his
lawsuit.

AP recounts that the Supreme Court recently ruled that Fargo may
not charge traffic fines that exceed penalties in state law.  
The opinion was part of a federal lawsuit filed against the city
by Stephanie Sauby of West Fargo.

"Certainly there are other cases out there," said Ms. Sauby's
attorney, Tim Purdon, Esq.  Whether they wind up in court
"depends if there are other drivers who have been similarly
ticketed who have the same courage as Stephanie Sauby," he said.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Webb is deciding whether to grant Ms.
Sauby's case class action status.  In the meantime, a number of
North Dakota cities have taken steps to reduce their traffic
fines.

"The city of Grand Forks, just as was done in Fargo . . .
continues to establish fees for non-criminal traffic violations
in excess of the fees allowed under state law," the second
complaint said.

Randall Bakke, Esq., a Bismarck attorney representing the city
of Grand Forks, and Grand Forks City Attorney Howard Swanson,
Esq., did not return phone messages to AP on Tuesday.


OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Certified in Penna. District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania has certified a class action lawsuit on behalf of
consumer end-users of Oriented Strand Board who indirectly
purchased new OSB manufactured and sold by one or more of the
following manufacturers in the United States from June 1, 2002
through February 24, 2006:

     -- Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,

     -- Weyerhaeuser Co.,

     -- Georgia-Pacific LLC f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corp.
        (Georgia-Pacific),

     -- Potlatch Corp.,

     -- Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. (Ainsworth),

     -- Norbord Industries, Inc.,

     -- Tolko Industries, Inc., and

     -- J.M. Huber Corp. and Huber Engineered Woods LLC

The complaint was brought on behalf of direct purchasers of OSB
during the period from June 1, 2002, through the present, and
alleges violations of the antitrust laws by defendants' actions
in reducing the available supply of OSB and fixing the price at
which it was sold.

The cases are consolidated and a consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed on March 31, 2006.  Discovery of
millions of pages of documents and nearly 100 depositions is
complete.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and denied the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint and
for judgment on the pleadings in August 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 24, 2007).

Meanwhile, Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. has entered into an
$8.6-million agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs,
settling on a class-wide basis all claims asserted against it
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2007).

In addition, Georgia-Pacific and Huber have settled the case and
have agreed to cooperate in the continuing lawsuit against the
remaining Defendant Manufacturers.

Georgia-Pacific, Ainsworth and Huber deny any wrongdoing in the
case.

The suit is "Sawbell Lumber Co. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul
S. Diamond.   

Representing the defendants are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

              - and

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com)
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300

Representing the company are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com)
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com)
         James H. Schink, Esq. (kschink@kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144 and 312-861-2350

              - and -   

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com)
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475


PALM INC: May 2 Hearing Set for Treo Suit Settlement in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on May 2, 2008, for the proposed
settlement in the matter "In re Palm Treo 600 and 650
Litigation, Master Case No. C-05-03774-RMW."

In September and October 2005, five purported consumer class
actions were filed against Palm on behalf of all purchasers of
Palm Treo 600 and Treo 650 products.

These lawsuits are:

      1. "Moya v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03926-RMW," filed with
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      2. "Berliner v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03854-RMW," filed
         with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

      3. "Loew v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03980-RMW," filed with
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      4. "Geisen v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-04120-RMW," filed
         with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California; and

      5. "Palza v. Palm," filed with the Superior Court of
         California for Santa Clara County.

The complaints allege in substance that Palm made false or
misleading statements regarding the reliability of its Treo 600
and 650 products in violation of various California laws, that
the products have certain alleged defects, and that Palm
breached its warranty of these products.

They seek unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of
profits and injunctive relief.  

In September 2005, a purported consumer class action, entitled,
"Gans v. Palm," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Palm.  That suit was
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Treo 650 product.

The complaint alleges that, in violation of various California
laws, Palm made false or misleading statements regarding
automatic email delivery to the Treo 650 product.  It seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and
injunctive relief.  

Palm removed the Palza case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  

Subsequently, all six cases were consolidated before a single
judge in that Court and the plaintiffs provided a consolidated,
amended complaint.  

The parties have agreed to a tentative settlement.  On Jan. 7,
2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of a settlement of
this action.  Palm is proceeding with notice to the settlement
class members.  

A hearing to determine final settlement approval is scheduled
for May 2008, according to the company's April 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008.

The suit is "In re Palm Treo 600 and 650 Litigation, Master Case
No. C-05-03774-RMW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy & Binkow LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

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

               - and -

          Scott K. Johnson, Esq. (skjohnson@sheller.com)
          Sheller Ludwig & Badey, P.C.
          1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 790-7300
          Fax: (215) 546-0942

Representing the defendants are:

          Roger E. Collanton, Esq. (rcollanton@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 450
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: 925-295-3345

    
PETROLEUM DEV'T: Court Grants 90-Day Stay in Royalties Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted a
90-day stay on proceedings in the case, "Droegemueller v.
Petroleum Development Corporation, Case No. 1:2007cv01362,"
while parties pursue mediation of the matter.

The case is a consolidated class action, which alleges that the
company underpaid royalties on natural gas produced from wells
it operated in the State of Colorado

                        State Court Case

Initially, a class action was filed with the District Court Weld
County, Colorado, on May 29, 2007, by Glen Droegemueller,
individually and as representative plaintiff on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against Petroleum Development,
alleging that the company underpaid royalties on natural gas
produced from wells it operated in the State of Colorado.  

The plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and to recover an
unspecified amount of compensation for underpayment of royalties
paid by Petroleum Development pursuant to leases.  

Petroleum Development had the case removed to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado on June 28, 2007, and later
filed its responses and affirmative defenses.  

                       Federal Litigation

A second similar Colorado class action was filed against
Petroleum Development with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on Dec. 3, 2007, by Ted Amsbaugh, Donald L.
Kretsch and Barbara H. Kretsch, as co-trustees of the Kretsch
Living Trust; and Buddy Baker, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated.  

The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and to recover an
unspecified amount of compensation for alleged royalty
underpayments made by Petroleum Development for the wells in
which it has a working interest in Colorado.   

                       Consolidated Case

Subsequently, on Jan. 28, 2008, at the plaintiffs' request, the
Court entered an order consolidating the second Colorado action
with the Droegemueller Lawsuit.  

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court granted a 90-day stay in the
proceedings while parties pursue mediation of the matter,
according to Rockies Region 2006 Private Limited Partnership's
April 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.  
Petroleum Development is the designated Managing General Partner
of Rockies Region.

The suit is "Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development Corporation,
Case No. 1:2007cv01362," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado, Judge John L. Kane presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          George A. Barton, Esq. (bartonlaw3@birch.net)
          George A. Barton, The Law Offices of
          800 West 47th Street #700
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-300-6250
          Fax: 816-300-6259

          Patrick M. Groom, Esq. (pgroom@wobjlaw.com)
          Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry & Johnson, LLP
          822 7th Street #760
          Greeley, CO 80631
          Phone: 970-352-3161

               - and -

          Larry D. Moffett, Esq. (lmoffett@danielcoker.com)
          Daniel Coker Horton & Bell, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1396
          265 North Lamar Boulevard #R
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Phone: 662-232-8979
          Fax: 662-232-8940

Representing the defendants is:

          Gale Timothy Miller, Esq. (gale.miller@dgslaw.com)
          Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP
          1550 17th Street #500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-892-9400
          Fax: 303-893-1379


PLASTECH ENGINEERED: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Racial Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plastech Engineered Products is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama claiming it harassed, demeaned, insulted and racially
discriminated against black workers and fired them if they
complained, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is brought by 42 African-Americans, who are current
and former employees of Plastech on behalf of similarly situated
persons of their race and color to redress defendant's
continuing systemic racial discrimination in employment
opportunities through use of discriminatory selection
procedures, racially hostile reputation and working conditions,
and unequal terms and conditions of employment.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that defendant has
engaged in a systemic pattern and practice of racial
discrimination in employment opportunities and that such conduct
is unlawful under two statutes:

     (i) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended
         in 1972 and 1991, 42 USC Section 2000e, et seq.; and

    (ii) Section One of the Civil Righst Act of 1866, as amended
         in 1991, 42 USC Section 1981.

Such systemic racial discrimination and racial harassment
includes the defendant's:

     (1) failure to promulgate, maintain and enforce effective
         racial harassment, racial intimidation and/or non-
         discriminatory employment policies and practices;

     (2) unequal terms and conditions of employment;

     (3) promulgation of practices and policies that have a
         disparate impact on African-American employees that is
         not related to such employees' skills or qualifications
         ans is not job-related in accordance with business
         necessity; and

     (4) discriminatory selection policies.

The plaintiffs seek the following relief:

     -- a declaratory judgment that the defendant has engaged in
        systemic racial discrimination in limiting the
        employment opportunities of African-Americans to lower
        classifications;

     -- restructuring of the defendant's selection procedures so
        that African-Americans are able to learn about and
        fairly compete in the future for better classifications,
        compensation levels, and terms and conditions of
        employment traditionally enjoyed by white employees;

     -- restructuring of the defendant's workforce so that
        African-Americans are assigned to the classifications,
        locations and compensation levels they would have now
        hold in the absence of the defendant's past racial
        discrimination;

     -- refusing to provide a working environment free of racial
        harassment and retaliation and failure to promulgate,
        maintain, and enforce effective racial harassment,
        racial intimidation and non-discriminatory employment
        policies and practices;

     -- a permanent injunction against such continuing
        discrimination/harassment; and

     -- damages, back pay and other equitable remedies necessary
        to make the African-American named plaintiffs/class
        representatives and the class they seek to represent
        whole from defendant's past discrimination.

The suit is "Kerry Lewis et al. v. Plastech Engineered Products,
Case No. CV-08-RRA-0608-S," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.
          Rocco Calamusa, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin W. Jent
          Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, Alabama 35203
          Phone: (205) 214-0500


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit in Tenn. Over ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne LLC, based in
Pittsburgh and Birmingham, Ala.-based Wiggins, Childs, Quinn &
Pantazis LLC, brought a class-action complaint on March 31,
2008, in West Tennessee on behalf of Regions employees who
participate in the company's 401(k) Plan, The Memphis Daily News
reports.

The list of defendants named in the suit includes:

     -- Morgan Asset Management Inc.,
     -- Regions Bank,
     -- Regions Financial Corp. and
     -- various members of Regions' board of directors.

The complaint names Terry Hamby, a resident of Pinson, Ala., who
was employed by Regions through Dec. 3, as one of the
plaintiffs, according to The Daily News Online.  Other
plaintiffs will be determined as the class action unfolds.

Potential members of the class include participants and
beneficiaries of the company plan between Nov. 4, 2006, and "the
date that Regions discloses the full impact of its financial
problems," according to the complaint.

The complaint was brought to "recover millions of dollars in
losses to the plan which . . . (was) caused by the defendants'
fiduciary breaches."

Part of the logic in filing the suit in Memphis is that Regions'
Memphis-based subsidiary Morgan Asset Management is a fiduciary
of the bank's pension plan.  And the new complaint is related in
several respects to the earlier suits involving Morgan Keegan.
For one thing, the same mutual fund holdings that hurt investors
on an individual basis also impacted thousands of Regions'
employee pension plans.

The plans were inappropriately loaded with company stock, the
suit claims, at a time when Regions' share price was taking a
beating because of a variety of housing-related woes.

The company also has spent millions to stop the bleeding in its
RMK funds.


SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corp. International continues to face a consolidated
securities class action, captioned "Conley Investment Counsel v.
Service Corp. International, et al., Civil Action 04-MD-1609,"
which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.  

The suit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits:
      
     1. "Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corp. International,
        et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL," in the U.S.
        District Court for the District of Nevada;

     2. "Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corp. International,
        et. al., Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL," in the U.S.
        District for the District of Nevada; and

     3.- "Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corp. International,
        et al., Cause No. 04-CV-20114," in the U.S.
        District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The lawsuit names as defendants Service Corp. and several of its
current and former executive officers or directors.  It is a
purported class action alleging that the defendants failed to
disclose the unlawful treatment of human remains and gravesites
at two cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach,
Florida.

SCI reported no development in the matter in its March 3, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corp.
International et al., Case No. 4:04-md-01609," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Lynn N. Hughes.  

Representing the lead plaintiff are:

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

              - and -

         Christopher L. Nelson, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         Three Bala Plz., E. Ste. 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 212-545-4600

Representing the defendants are:

         Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
         J. Clifford Gunter III, Esq.
         Bracewell and Giuliani LLP
         711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-221-1371
         Fax: 713-221-2144

              - and -

         Roger B. Greenberg, Esq.
         (rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com)
         Schwartz Junell et al.
         909 Fannin, Ste. 2000
         Houston, TX 77010
         Phone: 713-752-0017
         Fax: 713-752-0327


SERVICE CORP: SCI Funeral Still Faces "Valls" Litigation in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Service Corp. International continues to face a
suit filed with the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit
in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, alleging that the Service
Corp. unit improperly handled remains, did not keep adequate
records of interments, and engaged in various other
improprieties in connection with the operation of the cemetery.

The suit was filed on Dec. 5, 2005, by Maria Valls, Pedro Valls
and Roberto Valls, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated against SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc.
d/b/a Memorial Plan a/k/a Flagler Memorial Park, John Does and
Jane Does (Case No. 23693CA08).

An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2006.  The plaintiffs
have requested that the court certify this matter as a class
action.

The plaintiffs seek to certify as a class all family members of
persons buried at the cemetery.  They are seeking monetary
damages and have reserved the right to seek leave from the Court
to claim punitive damages.  In addition, the plaintiffs are also
seeking injunctive relief.

SCI reported no development in the matter in its March 3, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a  
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral homes and cemeteries.


SERVICE CORP: "Hijar" Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "David Hijar v. SCI Texas Funeral
Services, Inc., SCI Funeral Services, Inc., and Service Corp.
International, Cause Number 2002-740," voluntarily dismissed,
with prejudice, all of their claims against the company, thus
ending the case.

The Hijar Lawsuit -- originally filed in filed in the County
Court of El Paso, County, Texas, County Court at Law Number
Three -- involved a statewide class action brought on behalf of
all persons, entities and organizations that purchased funeral
services from the company or its subsidiaries in Texas at any
time since March 18, 1998.  

The plaintiffs alleged that federal and Texas funeral related
regulations and statutes required the company to disclose its
markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection
with funeral service contracts and that the failure to make
certain disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract
and other legal claims.  

The plaintiffs sought to recover an unspecified amount of
monetary damages.  They also sought attorneys' fees, costs of
court, pre- and post-judgment interest, and unspecified
"injunctive and declaratory relief."  

The company denied that:

   -- the plaintiffs have standing to sue for violations of the
      Texas Occupations Code or the Rules;

   -- the plaintiffs have standing to sue for violations under
      the relevant regulations and statutes;

   -- any breaches of contractual terms occurred; and

   -- on other grounds, liability on all of the plaintiffs'
      claims.   

Finally, the company denied that the Hijar Lawsuit satisfies the
requirements for class certification.  

During the course of the Hijar Lawsuit, the parties have
disputed the proper scope and substance of discovery.  

Following briefing by both parties and evidentiary hearings, the
trial court entered three orders against the company that are
subjected to appellate review:  

      -- a January 2005 discovery sanctions order;  

      -- an April 2005 discovery sanctions order; and  

      -- an April 2005 certification order, certifying a class  
         and two subclasses.  

After a long series of appeals and rehearings, on Feb. 21, 2008,
the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, all of
their claims against the company, ending the case, according to
the company's March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a  
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral homes and cemeteries.   


SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Baudino" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs are appealing the summary judgment ruling in the
matter, "Mary Louise Baudino, et al. v. Service Corp.
International, et al. (Case No. BC324007)," which is pending
with the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The case was filed in 2004 by the plaintiffs' counsel in the
lawsuit filed by David Hijar against SCI Texas Funeral Services,
Inc., SCI Funeral Services, Inc., and Service Corp.
International, (Cause Number 2002-740).

The Baudino Lawsuit asserts claims similar to those made in the
Hijar lawsuit.  However, the Baudino Lawsuit seeks a nation-wide
class of plaintiffs.  

The Hijar Lawsuit, pending with the County Court of El Paso,
County, Texas, County Court at Law Number Three, involves a
statewide class action brought on behalf of all persons,
entities and organizations that purchased funeral services from
the company or its subsidiaries in Texas at any time since
March 18, 1998.

The plaintiffs allege that federal and Texas funeral related
regulations and statutes required the company to disclose its
markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection
with funeral service contracts and that the failure to make
certain disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract
and other legal claims.

The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of monetary
damages.  They also seek attorneys' fees, costs of court, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and unspecified "injunctive and
declaratory relief."

On Sept. 15, 2006, the trial court granted the company's motion
for summary judgment on the merits of plaintiffs claims.  The
plaintiffs are appealing the summary judgment ruling.

SCI reported no development in the matter in its March 3, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a  
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral homes and cemeteries.


SERVICE CORP: Faces Arizona Lawsuit Over Alleged FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corp. International is facing a purported class action
suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, according to the company's March 3, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is entitled, "Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation
International, et al. Case No. 08-CV-83."  It was filed on
Jan. 17, 2008, against SCI and various related entities and
individuals asserting FLSA and other ancillary claims based on
the alleged failure to pay for overtime.

The plaintiffs seek the same class notice to SCI and related
entities that were rejected by the Court in the matter, "Prise,
et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
01641-JFC," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania

The suit is "Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation
International, et al. Case No. 08-CV-83," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge Mary H.
Murguia.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Tod F. Schleier, Esq. (tod@schleierlaw.com)
          Schleier Law Offices PC
          3101 N Central Ave.
          Ste 1090
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-277-0157
          Fax: 602-230-9250

               - and -

          Justin M. Cordello, Esq.
          (jcordello@theemploymentattorneys.com)
          Dolin Thomas & Solomon LLP
          693 East Ave.
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Phone: 585-272-0540
          Fax: 585-272-0574

Representing the defendants are:

          Amy E. Dias, Esq. (aedias@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          500 Grant St.
          Ste. 3100
          1 Mellon Ctr.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-391-3939
          Fax: 412-394-7959

               - and -

          David M. Daniels, Esq. (david@gurneelaw.com)
          Gurnee & Daniels LLP
          2240 Douglas Blvd.
          Ste. 150
          Roseville, CA 95648
          Phone: 916-797-3100
          Fax: 916-797-3131


SERVICE CORP: Reaches Settlement in Texas Casket Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corp. International settled two related antitrust class
actions that were both filed back in 2005, according to the
company's March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The first case is entitled, "Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v.
Service Corporation International, et al., Cause No 4:05-CV-
03394," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

This is a purported class action on behalf of casket consumers
throughout the U.S. alleging that we and several other companies
involved in the funeral industry violated federal antitrust laws
and state consumer laws by engaging in various anti-competitive
conduct associated with the sale of caskets.

The second case is "Pioneer Valley Casket, et al. v. Service
Corporation International, et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV-03399,"
which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

The second lawsuit makes the same allegations as the Funeral
Consumers Case above and is also brought against several other
companies involved in the funeral industry.

Unlike the Funeral Consumers Case, the Pioneer Case is a
purported class action on behalf of all independent casket
distributors that are in the business or were in the business
any time between July 18, 2001, to the present.

The Funeral Consumers Case and the Pioneer Valley Case seek
injunctions, monetary damages, and treble damages.  

The plaintiffs in the Funeral Consumers Case filed an expert
report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants
range from approximately $950 million to $1.5 billion, before
trebling.

Additionally, the plaintiffs in the Pioneer Valley Case filed an
expert report indicating that the damages sought from all
defendants would be approximately $99 million, before trebling.

Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a  
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral homes and cemeteries.


STATE FARM: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over RICO Violations
------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is facing a
class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York claiming it illegally denied
insurance claims to clients it referred for evaluations to
Preferred Consulting Services and Hooper Evaluations, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

This is a class action brought on behalf of all individuals and
entities that were eligible injured persons under State Farm
policy form 9332P.6 and New York Private passenger Auto
Insurance Policy Endorsement on or after April 3, 2004, and that
had their economic loss benefits terminated after undergoing a
Physical examination that was demanded by State Farm and
received notice of the scheduled Physical examination from
either Preferred Consulting Services, Inc. or Hooper
Evaluations, Inc. a/k/a D&D-Hooper Evaluations.

According to the complaint, State Farm directed both Preferred
Consulting and Hooper to procure healthcare providers and
schedule physical examinations of State Farm's eligible injured
persons.  The procured healthcare providers conducted physical
exams and created reports.  But State Farm failed to provide
plaintiffs with the insurance coverage that was required per the
State Farm policy Form 9332P.6 and New York law, whereby denying
plaintiffs of their basic economic loss benefits.

The plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a),(b)(1),(b)(2) and (b)(3)
on behalf of all individuals that were eligible injured persons
under State Farm Policy Form 9332P.6 on or after April 3, 2004,
and received a scheduling letter for a Physical Examination by
either Preferred Consulting or Hooper and were examined by a
healthcare provider who created a report that was utilized by
State Farm to deny basic economic loss benefits.

The plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

     -- certification of this action under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- demand judgment of and from the defendants jointly and
        severally for actual, compensatory and consequential
        damages;

     -- for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, court costs;
        and

     -- plus pre and post-judgment interest as the legally
        allowable limit, in an amount within or exceeding the
        court's jurisdictional limits.

The suit is "Gregory Sundahl et al. v. State Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company et al., Case No 08 1342," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Bruce S. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Rosenberg Law, P.C.
          2631 Merrick Road, Suite 301
          Bellmore, NY 11710
          Phone: (516) 221-1108


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Dreier LLP Files Securities Lawsuit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP commenced a class action lawsuit with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
investors who purchased ArthroCare Corp. common stock during the
period from August 4, 2006, through January 23, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that ArthroCare and certain of the
Company's officers and directors violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

ArthroCare designs, develops, manufactures, and markets medical
devices for use in soft-tissue surgery.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, during the Class
Period, Defendants misled investors by making materially false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and
financial results.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
ArthroCare's reported financial results were materially
overstated due to the improper recognition of revenue from
transactions involving an ArthroCare "sales agent," as well as
transactions with a related party.

In addition, the Complaint alleges that defendants violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Practices by, among other things:

     (a) recognizing revenue where payment for the shipment of
         ArthroCare's products was contingent upon the decision
         of third-party payers to pay for the product or the
         successful resolution of personal injury lawsuits; and

     (b) recognizing revenue from bill-and-hold transactions
         between the Company and its "sales agent" involving
         certain products that were to be paid for pursuant to
         the contingent payment arrangement.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants' material
misrepresentations artificially inflated the price of ArthroCare
stock, causing it to trade as high as $64.84 per share during
the Class Period.  As a result of adverse news stories and
partial disclosures concerning the accuracy of the Company's
reported financial results and its business dealings with the
"sales agent" and related party, the price of ArthroCare stock
fell to approximately $38.11 by January 25, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Dreier LLP
          Phone: 800-952-8897
          e-mail: classlaw@dreierllp.com


HUMANA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in KY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville, on behalf of all
purchasers of securities of Humana Inc. between February 4,
2008, and March 11, 2008, inclusive.

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

Humana is a health and supplemental benefits company, with
approximately 11.5 million medical members.  Humana is a full-
service benefits solutions company, offering health and
supplementary benefit plans for employer groups, government
programs and individuals.

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

     (1) that the Company's prescription drug plan costs had
         increased significantly;

     (2) that the Company was unable to accurately calculate the
         prescription drug costs of new members; and

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

On March 12, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it was revising the earnings guidance that it had
issued a month earlier.  The Company stated that its first
quarter 2008 diluted earnings per common share was now expected
to be $0.44 to $0.46, as compared to the previous guidance of
$0.80 to $0.85 per share.  Moreover, the Company stated that it
expected EPS for full year 2008 to be $4.00 to $4.25 per share,
as compared to the previous guidance of $5.35 to $5.55 per
share.  The Company attributed these revisions to an analysis of
pharmacy claims through February 2008, stating that there were
higher than expected volumes for stand-alone Prescription Drug
Plans.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined
$6.50 per share, or 13.72 percent, to close on March 12, 2008,
at $40.88 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


MERCK & CO: Holzer Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, announced that a shareholder class
action has been filed with the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Merck & Co., Inc.
and Richard T. Clark on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock who purchased stock between October 22, 2007, and
March 28, 2008.

The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 when it withheld information concerning the results
of clinical trails of VYTORIN, which were not positive for the
Company.

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
          Phone: (888) 508-6832


RAYMOND JAMES: Girard Gibbs Announces NY Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP announced that it has filed a
class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who
purchased Auction Rate Securities from Raymond James Financial
Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and Raymond James
Financial Services, Inc., between April 8, 2003, and Feb. 13,
2008, inclusive.

The class action is brought against Raymond James Financial Inc.
and its wholly-owned broker-dealer subsidiaries, Raymond James &
Associates, Inc., and Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that Raymond James violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving
investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate
securities and the auction market in which these securities
traded.

Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt
securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set
at periodic "auctions."  Auction rate securities generally have
long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials
and top-down management directives, Raymond James offered and
sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid
cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money
market mutual funds.  According to the Complaint, holders of
auction rate securities sold by Raymond James and other broker-
dealers have been unable to liquidate their positions in these
securities following the decision on February 13, 2008, of all
major broker-dealers to "withdraw their support" for the
periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction
rates securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that Raymond James failed to disclose the
following material facts about the auction rate securities it
sold to the class:

     (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives,
         like money market funds, but were instead, complex,
         long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity
         dates, or longer;

     (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the
         time of sale because broker-dealers were artificially
         supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to
         maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability;

     (3) broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for
         their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold
         auctions and failed auctions; and

     (4) Raymond James continued to market auction rate
         securities as liquid investments after it had
         determined that broker dealers were likely to withdraw
         their support for the periodic auctions and that a
         "freeze" of the market for auction rate securities
         would result.

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

For more information, contact:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq. (dcg@girardgibbs.com)
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone number: (866) 981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com


SUNTRUST BANKS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all those who purchased Auction Rate Securities from SunTrust
Banks, Inc. (NYSE:STI) between April 1, 2003, and February 13,
2008, inclusive, to recover damages caused by SunTrust Banks,
Inc.'s and SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.'s violation of the
federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that SunTrust violated the securities laws
by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of
Auction Rate Securities and the auction market in which these
securities traded.  Auction Rate Securities are either municipal
or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay
interest at rates set at periodic "auctions."  Auction Rate
Securities generally have long-term maturities or no maturity
dates.

The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials
and top-down management directives, SunTrust offered and sold
Auction Rate Securities to the public as highly liquid cash-
management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market
mutual funds.  According to the Complaint, those who now hold
Auction Rate Securities sold by SunTrust cannot liquidate their
positions since the auction market for these securities has
collapsed.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 2,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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




                            *********

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

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

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel Senorin, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and
Peter Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *